Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

NKT controversies

Once this article included also some of the NKT controversies. That NKT is involved in controversies is clear from the website of their secretary: http://www.newkadampatruth.org/ It would be good to add these contoversies again. The reader should have an unbiased article. A version of Wikipedia which included the controversies is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Kadampa_Tradition&direction=prev&oldid=205087153 Since then much effort has been made to eleminate the controversies. What a fun.

Hi Tenzin. Why are you editing 'anonymously' as some random IP address? Strange... As far as including all of this into the article, it seems to me that all of this stuff is more than 10 years old. We have all grown and matured individually in the last 12 years. In a similar way, the NKT has also grown and matured over this same period of time. All of this stuff is yesterday's news (or I should say, views).

I think we need to be careful to not grasp at the past as being permanent, and continue to fight yesterday's battles. Everything is different now, and there are plenty of contemporary things one can discuss of the NKT, so I see no need for this article to enter into some time warp just because some of its editors cannot escape their own. I understand you have been out of the NKT for a while now. Perhaps you do not realize that the NKT that appears to your mind from the image you have of a decade ago no longer has any relationship with the present. I know you think that you are 'protecting people' by warning them against the 'evils' of the NKT. But why do you pretend to be 'neutral' and 'objective', hiding behind academics and articles you know are not neutral and objective (even if the periodical in which they appear is generally good)? Why do you spend so much of your time criticising other Mahayana traditions? Don't you have other, more useful things to do with your time than break your bodhisattva vows?

You know as well as we do that the Dharma that Geshe Kelsang teaches is perfectly correct, even if there is some disagreement about the DS issue. Yes, we all agree that the NKT had some growing pains in its early years, but it has also shown a remarkable learning curve for improving and leaving behind some of the excesses that come from some teachers' enthusiasm getting ahead of their wisdom and skilful means. But don't we all go through this? I know in your mind you think your intention is good, but at some point do you not have to ask yourself "when is it time to let go and move on?"

It's kindof like many couples who are too averse to be together, but too attached to break up. So they stay in this intermediate hell for a long long time. If the NKT wasn't for you, fine. Move on (completely) to something else. Perhaps you can ask yourself, "what really is the difference between what I am doing and the person who never stops criticising their ex-girlfriend for the rest of their life?" It seems like you feel the need to divisively tell every future boyfriend what a devil your ex-girlfriend is to justify your own decision to leave. This is really not necessary, when you think about it.

Different people have different karma, and different things work for them. Yes, the NKT doesn't work for some people, and like any relationship, there is sometimes some painful break-ups (the Survivors Group)). But what is particularly unique about this that justifies an endless 'crusade'? A great Buddhist master once said, "there is not a single Dharma mind that feels 'justified'. All Dharma minds are open and spacious. So if you feel like you are 'justified' in what you are doing, you are necessarily not following a Dharma mind." This has really helped me. Perhaps there is some wisdom in this that you appreciate.

One final word, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as an ideological battleground. We have plenty of other platforms for such things, so I see no need to sully the noble intentions of Wikipedia by trying to abuse it to advance one's own agenda.

Just to clarify, please do not misinterpret anything in my comments here as a personal attack. I really do not mean it as such. I respect you very much and understand you have had a difficult history with the NKT. I am merely trying to help you find some perspective on the whole thing to enable you to move on. It must be mentally quite painful to keep reliving the past as if it were still the present (even if you do not admit it to yourself). Please feel free to ignore my comments and I apologize if I have caused any offense. It has not been my intention. Your friend, --Dspak08 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dspak08. Friendship is usually a mutual relationship, not what is imposed on others. I wonder why for NKT editors or NKT observers like you, and some other NKT WP editors who worked hard to remove the controversy section from the NKT Wikipedia article while working diligently to include a preciously not existent Controversy section in the WP Dalai Lama article, it so so hard to accept that there exist different views on NKT. If you are engaged and can bear to criticise the Dalai Lama via self-published sources, I think you should be able to bear different views on NKT as expressed in 3rd party sources. --Kt66 (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section which has been eleminated includes these facts:

Interestingly, most of these "facts" are gleaned from kt66/Tenzin Peljor's own websites/opinion pages or from David Kay, who quoted by kt66 almost ad infinitum, was the dubious but dominant opinion offered on the NKT article before other editors decided enough was enough and got involved with other reliable sources.

If you read the about page of the The New Kadampa Truth site you refer to above, it is quite clear that it was *not* made as a result of controversies (every organization has controversies) but as a response to misinformation and false smears that have appeared on the Internet over the past several years since some NKT members spoke out in defence of their spiritual tradition and brought down upon themselves the ire of the Dalai Lama's followers. And ironically, these smears and false allegations appear very largely due to the untiring work of the NKT's principal detractor, kt66, whose work is even mentioned on the site. Do check out the site for more information on this. (Truthbody (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

Truthbody this is just incorrect. The quotes derive from 3rd party sources WP:RS, and these sources are accepted among academics (but not NKT because they can only accept their sources or of 3rd party sources express NKT'S pov.) I wonder how Bluck, Kay, Lopez etc. express dubious opinion. I think, the problem lies in NKT members' active rejection of non-NKT povs.

The problem can be portrayed as this: while NKT see itself as a "pure old tradition", David V. Barrett e.g. - this is a WP:RS ! - portrays NKT in his book The New Believers as "the most controversial Buddhist movement". The three views of Bluck - this is a WP:RS ! - I added offer three different povs, these in turn offer to the reader an understanding why there exist so much different views on NKT. But also this harmonizing academic perspective has been deleted by the NKT editors. It follows NKT editors active here favour only the NKT pov. Therefore I set now the NPOV template and I think this is just very correct. I am happy to learn that the editors are willing to allow that also other povs - especially from 3rd party academic sources - can be included in this article. At the moment it is rather a advertisement article on NKT as another (rather neutral) editor already mentioned. Best Wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Criticism of the NKT

David Barett has characterised the NKT-IKBU as "deriving from Tibetan Buddhism" and as "one of the newest and most controversial buddhist movements". Bunting stated that "The NKT is an entirely self-referential system. The total dependence on a single charismatic figure is unorthodox in Tibetan Buddhism." Some Buddhists who are critical of the NKT and some non-Buddhists see the NKT as a cult. A former member of the NKT-IKBU has created a Yahoo! group, called New Kadampa Survivors which aims to offer help for those involved as well as for their families and relatives. Members of the group are lay persons as well as nuns and monks.

The NKT attracted international media attention and a lot of criticism for its public demonstrations "for religious freedom" in America, England, Switzerland and Germany (1996-1998) against the Dalai Lama who had advised publicly against the Shugden practice. In a 1998 report, Donald S. Lopez, Jr. remarked on the media attention, the press criticism, and the cult allegation levied at the NKT:

Demonstration in Berlin, Germany, June 1998

“ In the summer of 1996, the disciples of Kelsang Gyatso denounced the Dalai Lama for impinging on their religious freedom, and picketed against him during his visit to Britain, accusing him of intolerance. The demonstrations made front-page news in the British press, which collectively rose to the Dalai Lama's defense and in various reports depicted the New Kadampa Tradition as a fanatic, empire-building, demon-worshipping cult. The demonstrations were a public relations disaster for the NKT, not only because of its treatment by the press, but also because the media provided no historical context for the controversy and portrayed Shugden as a remnant of Tibet’s primitive pre-Buddhist past. ”

In 1998, the NKT became a member of the British Network of Buddhist Organizations (NBO). Waterhouse notes that when the NKT joined the British Network of Buddhist Organizations, about thirty percent of the other Buddhist groups identifying themselves with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition left the NBO.

The Deutsche Buddhistische Union (DBU) refused membership for the NKT main center in Germany and its 15 branch centers in 2000. The Österreichische Buddhistische Religionsgesellschaft (ÖBR) gave a signal to the NKT that they will have no chance of becoming a member.

On August 22, 1996 the monks of Sera Je monastery, issued a formal "Declaration of Expulsion", expelling Geshe Kelsang from his monastery.

The NKT's continued emphasis on the Shugden practise is another source of criticism. There are many respected Tibetan lamas who have taught the Dorje Shugden practice including Song Rinpoche, Gonsar Rinpoche and Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche. The reincarnation of Trijang Rinpoche, called Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, still continues to practice Shugden and was even recognised by the oracle. On the other hand, there are high-levels Lamas who have warned of its dangers. According to the The Dolgyal Research Committee (Tibetan Government in Exile), prominent opponents include the 5th, 13th and current Dalai Lamas, the 5th and 8th Panchen Lamas, Dzongsar Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, the 14th and 16th Karmapas among others. Also Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, a Dzogchen master, "has been insisting on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults".

Since 1998, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT have disassociated themselves from their dispute with the Dalai Lama. Geshe Kelsang still continues to grant Dorje Shugden empowerments.

Bunting reported on different troubles that some former NKT members had with the organization. She claimed that the NKT excluded a family for questioning "the total dependence on Kelsang", expelled one member for praising the Dalai Lama and threatened another with legal action if he published his concerns about the movement. She concluded that the movement's response to criticism is "to exonerate the organisation and throw the blame back on the dissenting individual". However, according to Bluck, "Again interviewees strenuously rejected such claims, which they saw as coming from disgruntled ex-disciples whose evidence is biased." Bluck comments: "This is certainly sometimes the case, but there is also a continued unwillingness to acknowledge that the movement itself may have made mistakes."

Geshe Kelsang's replies and views of the controversies

In 1998 Geshe Kelsang Gyatso expressed his views in an interview with Donald S. Lopez, Jr. as follows:

His reason for founding the New Kadampa Tradition:

"I wanted to encourage people to practice purely. Just having a lot of dharma knowledge, studying a lot intellectually but not practicing, is a serious problem. This was my experience in Tibet. Intellectual knowledge alone does not give peace."

His view on Dorje Shugden and his view towards HH the 14th Dalai Lama:

"We believe that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha who is also a dharmapala. Problems have arisen because of someone's view [the Dalai Lama's view]. So although we say the 'Dorje Shugden problem', in reality this is a human problem, not a Dorje Shugden problem. This is not a fault of Buddhadharma, not a fault of Tibetan Buddhism, or even a fault of Tibetan people in general. This is a particular person's wrong view [the Dalai Lama's wrong view]. He can keep this view, of course, but forcing other people to follow this is not right."

Geshe Kelsang replied to Lopez' question: "In your opinion, the Dalai Lama is not a Gelugpa, and therefore has no right to tell Gelugpas which dharmapala they can worship?" with "That's right." Geshe Kelsang clarified further: "It looks as if he humiliates the Gelugpas, as if he destroys the dharma of the Gelugpas. It's not only about Dorje Shugden. If Dorje Shugden is bad, then all those Gelugpa lamas who engaged in the practice of Dorje Shugden are impure. Then, without doubt the Gelugpa dharma is impure. He publicly destroys the Gelugpa dharma, so how can he say he is a Gelugpa lama?"

Further Geshe Kelsang denied that he can see the Dalai Lama as Avalokiteshvara, as many Tibetan masters and the Tibetans do, because the Dalai Lama is "causing the spiritual life of so many people to be destroyed." Asked for the role of the Dalai Lama, Geshe Kelsang replied that from his point of view, the Dalai Lama "is not the spiritual leader of Gelugpas" but rather that "He is the political leader of the Tibetans."

Geshe Kelsang's view of the present Ganden Tripa, the head of the Gelugpas, who has also denounced the worship of Dorje Shugden:

"He has to follow the Dalai Lama's view, otherwise there is danger. He has no choice, no power. Even my uncle, who is the medium for the dharmapala Dorje Shugden, has to follow the Dalai Lama, otherwise there is danger. They cannot remain within Tibetan society."

About the demonstrations Geshe Kelsang said:

"Demonstrating was telling him [the Dalai Lama] that he made a mistake. Demonstrating should have been a teacher for him. Demonstrating was loving him, not disrespecting him, not harming him. But he never changed."

About the negative press NKT was confronted with, he said:

"The New Kadampa Tradition suffered, our reputation was destroyed, and we lost many things. Yes, of course we are suffering, because people believe what the Dalai Lama says. Also many other groups and centers who practice worship of Dorje Shugden including those in Europe and America are also experiencing suffering. Many people are saying Dorje Shugden practitioners are bad, they are a cult or sectarian – they are using bad names because of what His Holiness the Dalai Lama says. In reality, we haven't done anything wrong."

Asked about the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, Geshe Kelsang replied:

"We believe that every Nyingma and Kagyupa have their complete path. Not only Gelugpa. I believe that Nyingmapas have a complete path. Of course, Kagyupas are very special. We very much appreciate the example of Marpa and Milarepa [in the Kagyu lineage]. Milarepa showed the best example of guru devotion. Of course the Kagyupas as well as the Nyingmapas and the Sakyupas, have a complete path to enlightenment. Many Nyingmapas and Kagyupas practice very sincerely and are not just studying intellectually. I think that some Gelugpa practitioners need to follow their practical example. But we don’t need to mix our traditions. Each tradition has its own uncommon good qualities, and it is important not to lose these. We should concentrate on our own tradition and maintain the good qualities of our tradition, but we should always keep good relations with each other and never argue or criticize each other. What I would like to request is that we should improve our traditions while maintaining good relations with each other."

Different views on NKT

Bluck offered a number of different angles from which the NKT may be viewed:

• The NKT could be viewed from outside as a movement aiming at what Titmus (1999: 91) called 'conversion and empire-building', with a dogmatic and superior viewpoint, 'narrow-minded claims to historical significance', intolerance of other traditions and 'strong identification with the leader or a book'.
• A more scholarly external view might emphasize instead the enthusiasm, firm beliefs, urgent message and 'charismatic leadership' which Barker (1999: 20) saw as characteristic of many NRMs.
• An alternative picture from inside the movement would include a wish to bring inner peace to more people, based on a pure lineage of teaching and practice, with faith and confidence in an authentic spiritual guide.

About the possible ways how to picture the NKT, Bluck said: "Our choice of interpretation may depend on how we engage with the other viewpoint, as well as the evidence itself, and until recently the NKT's supporters and critics have largely ignored each other."

Mutually agreeable principles for external links section

Hello everyone,

It seems to me that many of the problems we have had with this article is managing the external links. If you look through the links that are listed, except for maybe a few of them (like the BBC and perhaps the general links to kadampa.org and Tharpa.org), all of them can be considered 'propaganda sites' (depending on what side of the issue you happen to be on). I propose we scale back the links section to make it consistent with Wikipedia's mission and principles. So I propose both sides remove the links to what could be considered 'propaganda' sites. When one side wants to put up their propaganda sites, then the other side wants to do the same. So either everybody should be able to (which makes for an ugly and angry links section), or nobody should be able to. Since many of these sites are arguably extremely biased (on both sides), they have no place in a Wikipedia article. So I propose a mutual removal of such links.

We could perhaps agree to some general principles for the external links. As a starting point, I would like to propose the following principles: 1. No propaganda sites 2. Limit of the number of links 3. No blogs

Perhaps you have other principles which you think should be added. If so, please add them.

Please tell me what you think of this proposal? --Dspak08 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the link added yesterday to newkampa.com simply because the list is getting too long and I'm trying to keep a balance in the number of links pro and con. Maybe we can discuss which links are most representative of both views.Eyesofcompassion (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the view on ordination by Atisha: According to Atisha, the founder of the Kadam tradition, “The training of the Monk is such that of two hundred and fifty-three [rules].” 79.171.63.246 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user 77.99.189.64., please heed the links policy stated above -- we are keeping critical and supportive links balance. If you add links, then other supportive links have to be added, and one ends up in a link edit war. Plus your bias is very clear when you say that these links are the most authoritative, as most of the material on that old website has been discredited. Some of it is libellous. (Truthbody (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

NPOV and others POV

I made the article more NPOV and included pov from WP:RS because the article relied strongly on WP:SPS and NKT editors removed almost every criticism NKT was or is faced with. I added also at least one link to a website critical of NKT. The reason why I did this is:

• WP is strongly relying on WP:RS and prefers 3rd party sources (like Bluck, Kay, Bunting) than WP:SPS.
• Although NKT may perceive themselves as the continuation of the old Kadam school, this is a contented claim and not according to the facts because the founder is a Gelugpa and was trained as a Gelugpa.
• NKT has many controversies, like benefit fraud, not only Shugden, and also regarding the latter NKT was active already 1996.
• I restrained from including the different controversies again but felt to include a quote from Barrett (WP:RS) and Bunting + a link to one of critics' websites should be sufficient.
• NKT is famous for rewriting their history, I think this is also true for this WP article. I included at least some accounts from independent academic research.
• I also precised the ordination section and added a quote from one of the disputants. I made the passages in that section more neutral by making clear what Geshe Kelsang's views are. The ordination section is too long but at least accurate. It would be good to shorten it.

--79.171.58.252 (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert by Truthsayer62

Please check what there is wrong before you revert. The article relied mainly on WP:SPS and were in some passages (e.g. history) just misleading. All what I added belongs to WP:RS and was already in the article but has been deleted by the NKT truth team. Let's look what is factual wrong or not NPOV. Best wishes, --79.171.58.252 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tenzin Peljor, up to your old tricks again, eh? You have included many misunderstandings in the ordination section for example. The understanding of ordination that is included there is according to Geshe Kelsang's explanations but you have chosen to compare it once again to the Tibetan system which is not the system of ordination used in the New Kadampa Tradition. Why do you insist in changing factual information in favour of inaccuracies? This is just one reason why I reverted your edits. Your edits also have not been agreed with the other editors and you are making substantial changes to the article. Please be considerate of the other editors and Wikipedia policies --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry what are tricks and what has Tenzin Peljor to say? The point is that some passages of the article were misleading and also the ordination section. WP is a neutral Encyclopaedia and states not only what Geshe Kelsang has to say but also what others have to say. Wikiepdia is also no propagnda machine for an organisation where only the PR of the organisation has to been included. Further what is changed by me follows WP:NPOV and WP:RS all these principles were violated by the passages I corrected. So please tell me what exactly is wrong and why the correction should be removed. As there is only ordination by the Buddha it is appropriate to put the NKT ordination into context with the original ordination and to quote what other monastics say about this, much more as this changes is seen as controversial. So I revert again and please argue according to WP guidelines. I was quite generous to not remove the "ordination handbook" because this is not published and is no WP:RS. If we follow truly WP principles nothing from it can be quoted and the section makes a lot use of this unpublished WP:SPS. It will be easy to delete all of it completely but I tried just to balance the section. So don't accuse me of being inaccurate. Best wishes. --79.171.58.252 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are deliberately reintroducing material to show the NKT in a bad light -- this is not the same as WP:NPOV. This article has managed to be WP:NPOV so far, using WP:RS and removing a lot of the WP:SPS originally contributed by kt66, who owned this article for many years, using it as an anti-NKT site until other editors finally stepped in. It is not the case that the article as it presently stands is NKT "propaganda" -- it does a good job of just presenting the NKT in a straightforward manner, while also mentioning its controversies without undue exaggeration or demonization. Are you making these changes and accusing people of propaganda just so you can reinclude kt66's own propaganda and WS:SPS? If you want to bring in controversial POVs, why not use the controversy section on the article -- this is what most articles on religion in Wiki do, as this then keeps the rest of the article factual and clear. As for saying there is only one ordination by Buddha, it is also the case that the shape this ordination takes has shifted over the centuries and throughout different cultures, as Buddha himself intended in his words to Ananda about the lesser and minor rules. NKT ordination aims to work for the NKT and does not claim to be the same as Tibetan ordination -- only you seem to be insisting that it must be exactly the same. You don't need all these polemics and judgements about all sorts of other ordinations in a general encyclopedic article about the NKT -- these judgments would be better in a general article about ordination itself. You were not "quite generous" not to remove the Ordination Handbook -- partly as you don't own Wikipedia, and also seeing as this is the document that mainly explains NKT ordination so it would be very odd indeed not to have it within an encyclopedic article on the NKT!! Please do see www.newkadampatruth.org blogspot for details of the history, intention and authenticity of the NKT ordination if you have not done so. That material could all end up in this article, but everything starts getting very long in that case. (Truthbody (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Truthbody, the controversy section has been removed there is nothing mentioned straightforwardly. Also the academic povs have been removed to favour a narrow minded NKT version on NKT. If you assume I would "deliberately reintroducing material to show the NKT in a bad light" it shows that you probably "deliberately deleting material to show the NKT in a good bad light". I think it is far more better to bring light into the darkness than letting the darkness by actively ignoring it develop more power. If something dark comes to light, it can be cleared; if light comes to light, just joy. From a NPOV there are just different views on NKT as I tried to offer by quoting Bluck, a well-informed WP:RS. Sadly even his views which are rather harmonizing all the different povs have been removed. That you claim wrongly the article is NPOV may be dur to having overseen the POV passages. -Kt66 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user (from Italy) - you're Kt66, up to your old tricks, right? Stop this senseless vandalism. WP editors are supposed to be civil to one another, but your behaviour is simply inexcusable.

Lucy (maybe you are not Lucy but name calling seems to be a proper attitude here), not that bad that idea ;-) However, I think the basics of the changes the NKT truth team made have to been accepted but not: 1. inaccuracy 2. violation of NPOV principles 3. favouring NKT pov while excluding other pov, and 4. excluding neutral academic pov and 3rd party sources to favour a narrow minded version on NKT according to the pov of the NKT truth office. --Kt66 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kt66, why didn't you just revert the article back to April 12, 2008[1] (which is the only version you can accept anyway). Emptymountains (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for this as I respect the work which have been done so far. But I do not accept that the NKT editors favour a one-sided NKT pov, deleted the controversy section (while being very active to include a previously non-existent controversy section in the WP Dalai Lama article), and that they exclude and even repress actively pov the NKT does not share but which are clearly expressed in academic 3rd party sources. --Kt66 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is accurate and does not violate WP:NPOV principles -- it is just factual and, where points of view are mentioned, they are introduced as such. It does not favor NKT WP:POV over others as it is simply stating the facts of the NKT as it currently functions. There is a section for controversy, as with most articles on religion and also politics. It does not exclude neutral academic POV though it does limit the overuse of David Kay, who revealed an anti-NKT spin in his university thesis and was very much over-represented by kt66 in his previous articles (kt66 was practically the only editor on the Wiki NKT article for several years.) Also, all this talk of changes by the so-called "NKT truth team" is nonsensical and misleading. The editors on here are individuals doing their own thing, there is no team. There are tens of thousands of people who know about the NKT and who have a right to edit the Wikipedia article on the NKT. You are trying to slur other Wiki editors who do not share your POV by accusing them of working as a team -- to me, this just looks like another example of how you spin things to try and make the NKT look bad. (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

This is is a claim of you. I don't agree with it. I gave reasons below. --Kt66 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that it feels like KT66 has some strong attachment to his favorite version of this article - April 12, 2008[2]. I thought that most or all of these points have been discussed extensively before, and I don't think there's any question that the article as it stands does not violate WP:NPOV principles. I'll try to add some comments about the various sections to address your specific suggestions, but I don't think that doing a time-warp back to your favorite version of the article is going to get us to a higher-quality article. (What do you think, gang, can we make this an A-class article? =o)

I see. Maybe the NKT editors and you have "some strong attachment to this favorite version"? I think it is better to stick to the facts. --Kt66 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the NPOV and factual accuracy template

• The article excludes different point of views on NKT, especially those which mention controversial aspects of the organization, but not only this it also excludes scholarly papers on NKT which exist, and relies instead mainly on WP:SPS made by NKT.
• the history section of NKT has been deleted completely and it looks now like NKT never had a history. This is much more remarkable because the independent and reviewed research by Kay – which is well accepted among academic scholars - offers detailed insight into it and his paper made also clear that NKT is repressing history to favor an own narrow-minded version of it. As NKT was able to delete the connection to FPMT in their own official brochures (see Kay’s research), they were now also able to remove it completely from the Wikipedia article. However, this connection and the split from FPMT are of historic significance and there are enough 3rd party sources which approve this and portray the split.
• Wikipedia relies mainly on 3rd party WP:RS sources and not WP:SPS since April 2008 almost all 3rd party sources have been removed up to the point that even the classification by academics of NKT as a NRM has repeatedly been deleted (it was always me who re-included it anonymously when I stumbled upon the article ). The main source of the article are now NKT sources, which belomg to WP:SPS, including quotes from NKT blog sites. This is not according to WP guidelines.
• regarding the section on NKT ordination. The section is heavily based on NKT WP:SPS and explains the views of Geshe Kelsang as facts and not according to WP:NPOV principles, it also excludes the point of views of other monastics, e.g. the ASA statement.
• the article includes also factual inaccuracies which blur the reader about historical facts, e.g.

“where he was engaged in a 16-year retreat[7], to teach at Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre (then Manjushri Institute) in England.[8] Geshe Kelsang taught the General Program at Manjushri KMC from 1976 to 1987. “

This is just wrong and misleading in many ways. Geshe Kelsang was not invited to the Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre but the Manjushri Institute which was no Kadampa Meditation Centre but a center belonging to FPMT called Manjushri Institute, and Geshe Kelsang as well as the centre were parts of FPMT’s education program before finally Geshe Kelsang and the priory group split from this organization to found NKT.

Although NKT claimed at the New Kadampa Truth site that since NKT editors work on Wikipedia “many new views were introduced and the article is more balanced” the complete opposite can be recognized: All views opposing NKT views were deleted (almost without any discussion) and mainly NKT views via NKT websites were included. Also the NKT claim Kay’s research would be “heavily biased” at their New Kadampa Truth site is plain wrong but may explain why NKT editors deleted the results of his research from the History section to offer a non-history. Kay’s researches are accepted among academic scholars and CESNUR also advised his earlier paper in 1998. The same is true also for Bunting#s Guardian article: Although NKT claims it would be refuted, there is no refutation of her article (which was based on an additional research by Ruth Cohen) but instead it is used in different scholarly papers, like Lopes, David, Bluck too. Because of all these reasons I added the warning templates. Everyone can improve the article until they are not needed anymore. My improvements were made and commented but reverted using weak reasons. The changes I will list below again for discussion, and I am happy to hear what is wrong with them. Thanks and best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, the NKT article as it stands now is accurate and does not violate WP:NPOV principles -- where points of view are mentioned, they are introduced as such. It does not favor NKT WP:POV over others as it is simply stating the facts of the NKT as it currently functions. There is a section for controversy, as with most articles on religion and also politics. It does not exclude neutral academic POV though it does limit the overuse of David Kay, who revealed an anti-NKT spin in his university thesis and was very much over-represented by kt66 in his previous articles (kt66 was practically the only editor on the Wiki NKT article for several years.)

Likewise, Bunting's article in the Guardian was discredited even at the time as unresearched and full of an incredible number of inaccuracies, and that was 12 years ago! Since then, almost everything has changed in the NKT in any case, and the current article far more accurately reflects the NKT that exists today than does this one over-used piece of gossipy journalism. Fine to mention it as it exists, but not to pay it undue emphasis, and it needs to be pointed out that it is full of inaccuracies.

Again, your generic use of the term "NKT Editors" is odd -- are you trying to make people think that all NKT people are clones and follow the same agenda and cannot think for themselves etc? There are tens of thousands of individuals who know enough about the NKT to edit this article, with varying degrees of involvement (or not) with the NKT, and any one of them could be editing this article. Is there a "Dalai Lama" team working on his article or a "Barack Obama" team working on his article? (Truthbody (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody. Your opinion is your opinion. From your perspective the NKT article may appear "very accurate". I don't agree with this and I gave reasons and I think they are reasonable. So lets focus on the facts. I am open to learn from you how you would issue a controversy section (which has been removed) and how the other points can be improved, e.g. the section which are not NPOV and were other views (like on NKT ordination) exist. What you state about Bunting is a NKT rumour. Show me were she has been "discredited" as you wrongly claim here, and please explain to me why her article is used in academic researches by Lopez, Kay and Bluck if it is that " unresearched and full of an incredible number of inaccuracies" as you again wrongly claim. If you have a 3rd party WP:RS on NKT which show different perspectives on what Bunting stated, I am happy to learn about it. Just blocking the criticism and putting down the 3rd party sources based on rumours and biased opinions is a strategy but not sufficient to have a "accurate and does not violate WP:NPOV principles" as you wish. When I refer here to NKT editors then I do this to make clear that the editors are members of the organisation and may have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI). You can posit that I have also a COI but I am no member of any organisation and left NKT many years ago. Moreover I rely on 3rd party sources, while NKT relies on their own WP:SPS. The NKT editors have violated WP policies different times here for instance by "name calling" of an editor (Tenzin Peljor), in Wikipedia such an offensive behaviour belongs to harassment.

The rules state:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia.

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information as this would give the person posting the information – and anyone else who saw the page – feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently to correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and the users blocked for outing should have it made clear that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. see Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information

"Lucy (maybe you are not Lucy but name calling seems to be a proper attitude here), not that bad that idea)" kt66, this is hypocritical. Did you or did you not write those words? There is no one by that name on this article. No one even has that name in their profile. It seems that you are trying to out someone WP:outing and this should be brought to the attention of the administrators as well. (Truthbody (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

You are very right. Thanks Truthbody. It is a fault. You can report it. However, I think your assertion that I am hypocritical is a bit too quick. As you can see I used only a first name, no second name and I used it rather to defend myself after WP:outing seemed to become the standard on this talk page against me. While the user Kt66 has been repeatedly called by a full name (first and second name) and not to defence an inappropriate behaviour but to attack him this is what is classified as harassment. A person is usually only fully identifiable when both names are stated. There is a reason why I din't use a second name. However, it is still a fault and I excuse for it and I am happy if you report it as well. Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

also sock puppets have been used to remove non-wished 3rd party sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wisdombuddha; agreement among of NKT members outside of WP were made to change the articles (see history of Shugden talk page and Admin board notice; and also NKT editors use the same IP address while supporting each other at the talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyesofcompassion&oldid=225884855 and history of this article. All these actions don't give the impression of having an interest on working out a accurate and proper article on NKT but to control the information by rejecting any information not wished to the organisation and its leadership.

The editors can show that they are willing to cooperate. An good example of cooperation I recognized with user:emptymountains at the Fundamentalism article. Best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't repeat false allegations -- there have been no sock puppets. (Truthbody (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

I see, what was the outcome of the investigation? Different user use the same computer? Thank you for your clarification. --Kt66 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Kt66 - don't be silly. As you well know, the various editors were all attending a conference, hence they were all posting from the same IP address, not the same computer! This was explained to, and accepted by, the admins.Atisha's cook (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

KT66's Suggestions for the different sections of this article

This section was originally entitled: "Changes for the sake to create a proper and well informed WP article based on WP:RS and WP:NPOV". Because the discussion on this page is extremely long and difficult to follow, I'm going to re-name this section and make sure that the formatting is clear, just in the hopes of helping people follow the thread of the conversation. I hope that this is OK with the original author, KT66. Peaceful5 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is much better. --Kt66 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

@user:emptymlountains:

Dear em, I don't think that your present changes at the NKT article really improve it. What you do with Clarkes classification is Theory finding. Also in other academic books NKT is classified as a NRM and the reasons you state are your assumptions or taken over form the fundamentalism reason by Kay. But Kay and Prohl are not Clarke and they may have other reasons, you can not confuse this. I will leave you with these changes but if you wish to have a fair article which includes factual and non-biased the different povs I think there have to be some discussions what povs exist and how they should be added. For the time being it is just sufficient for me to have marked the article with the three templates, and to have given the reasons for a further discussion. Hope to cooperate with you and others and to learn more. I will leave this message also at your talk page. Best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66. Thank you for writing. As you can tell from my recent edits on the Fundamentalism article, I check all the sources myself to see if what Wikipedia quotes them as saying is correct. I did the same with Clarke's book by looking it up on Amazon and using the "Search Inside" feature to read page 92, which is what is cited in the reference. Clarke says that his classification of the NKT as an NRM is "for reasons of a doctrinal kind rather than a moral kind." He then talks about the differences between GKG and Lama Yeshe, specifically that "The latter, who died in 1984, was less of an intellectual and more eclectic" than GKG. He then states the second reason for the NRM classification (i.e., "Another bone of contention...") as being GKG's dispute of the Dalai Lama's view of Dorje Shugden. He then summarizes things by saying that establishing the NKT(-IKBU) "represents the replacement of the inclusive approach" of Lama Yeshe's FPMT with the exclusive approach of GKG. I think all this was pretty well included in my edit, with any "theory finding" or getting info from Kay or Prohl as you claim I did. Emptymountains (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains fine that you work with 3rd party sources. This will help. You can also see that also for Clarke Kay is very acceptable. Which will become important for other sections, because until now Kay has not only be removed but continuously been accused of being biased etc. To quote from Clarke and other 3rd party sources is most excellent. Thank you a lot. However, I think, the introduction section is still confusing and using WP:SPS as I have criticised it. I suggest to find a way to improve it. Other section are from my pov still misleading and the controversy section has been omitted completely which is rather awkward. Therefore I do not remove the NPOV and factual accuracy template until these problems could be improved. -Kt66 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Article’s Introduction section

• Deletion of a passage in the introduction section:

I deleted previously (but it was reverted):

’’The New Kadampa Tradition is "new" insofar as it is a new presentation of Buddhadharma, not in terms of the content of its teachings. It follows an established Buddhist tradition that dates back 2500 years to the time of Buddha Shakyamuni, and more recently to the time of Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419 AD). The NKT also does not characterize itself as Tibetan Buddhism as it has separated itself from Tibetan culture and politics and emphasizes integrating Buddha's teachings into the modern-day world.’’

Reason: the aim of the introduction is to give a short and precise overview on the subject of the article. This has been done already by the passage beforehand (5 precise sentences). The deleted passage is based on WP:SPS and rather disputable and can be used when it comes to discussion of the origin of the organization’s name. In the introduction such a passage is misplaced because it draws the reader already in the NKT pov, without balancing it, and it is disputed if “It follows an established Buddhist tradition that dates back 2500 years to the time of Buddha Shakyamuni, and more recently to the time of Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419 AD).” as the NKT WP:SPS source claims. The second sentence lacks any source. I think, the former five sentences are sufficient for getting an overview on what the organization is all about, without confusing the reader, aren’t they? The last two sentences are also disputable, the last because it lacks a source, the one before because it is not clear to the reader why it is so important to state that “The organization of the New Kadampa Tradition follows The Internal Rules of the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union. Mainly these are a lot of terms only insiders may understand and the reason why NKT states this here is of course as a reaction on the controversies, but these are not mentioned, so the sentence lacks the context, and should be deleted as well or shifted to an appropriate section. Also the last unsourced one should be removed, because it is not sourced and there is no real reason for including it in the introduction section. (I left both of them there for the sake of acceptance of my changes.) --Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

After emptymountains edits The present introduction section states:

The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) is a global Buddhist tradition founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in England in 1991. In 2003 the words "International Kadampa Buddhist Union" (IKBU) were added to the name, making its official full name the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU). The NKT-IKBU is an international non-profit organization registered in England as a charitable company.

The NKT-IKBU describes itself as Kadampa Buddhism and as a 'time-honored' tradition, stating that "Kadampa Buddhism is a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the great Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054)." and more recently to the time of Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419 AD). The NKT also does not characterize itself as Tibetan Buddhism as it has separated itself from Tibetan culture and politics and emphasizes integrating Buddha's teachings into any of the diverse cultures existing in the modern-day world. For these reasons and the doctrinal reason that the NKT relies on the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden), Peter Clarke of Oxford University has characterised the NKT as a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist New Religious Movement (NRM)".

The organization of the New Kadampa Tradition follows The Internal Rules of the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union. These rules contain numerous checks and balances on the behavior, election and dismissal of the administrators, teachers, and spiritual directors and are legally binding.My

My corrections are:

• NKT is a global Buddhist organisation not "a global Buddhist tradition". FPMT is also an organisation no tradition. This follows also from the legal laws. So there is the first inaccuracy which should be corrected. We can add the NKT views itself as a tradition not an organisation.
• if you use BBC to portray NKT then the content you verify with BBC I could not fiund on the BBC site. Please give a proper reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/kadampa.shtml and quote. There is just no entry on BBC which states: "The New Kadampa Tradition is "new" insofar as it is a new presentation of Buddhadharma, not in terms of the content of its teachings. It follows an established Buddhist tradition that dates back 2500 years to the time of Buddha Shakyamuni..."
• The sentence from the NKT website "The NKT also does not characterize itself as..." seems to be fine at the first glance but at the second glance I recognized its spin, it implies already the NKT skills of interpreting reality without that this is clear to the reader. NKT has separated from the Gelug school! If NKT has separated from "Tibetan culture and politics" as the passage claims, it follows the Gelug school is for NKT "Tibetan culture and politics" which is ok as a view but no fact. That the Gelug school and "Tibetan culture and politics" are the same for NKT is stated in no source until now. Is this what NKT thinks? Therefore I reject this sentence and suggest the inclusion of a correct statement by one of the academic research. I think this NKT's WP:SPS is misleading. Because it denies the fact that NKT derieves from Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelug school to favour a version that it separated from "Tibetan culture and politics". We can of course quote this NKT pov but then it has to been balanced with the pov of others, that NKT is stemming from Tibetan Buddhism and Gelug school and derived from a split of them. For 3rd party sources, you can get a list of research on NKT here: Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy & New Kadampa Tradition see second section. All academic research and the development of NKT and GKG's own education make clear that NKT derives from the Gelug school, and this fact is blurred here. So the NKT derives from Tibetan Buddhism, the Gelug school. This is the correct information. If there are different opinions they have to be stated in NPOV manner.
• The claim "For these reasons and the doctrinal reason that the NKT relies on the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden), Peter Clarke of Oxford University has characterised the NKT as a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist New Religious Movement (NRM)"." is rather misleading. Although Clarke states that NKT is "another controversial Buddhist NRM, this time rather for a doctrinal rather than a moral kind" - as you put the information and mix the sources in the introduction together is not what he or BBC are saying. You also omit or hide the fact that Clarke states different other reasons for this classification. e.g. as the first reason of the classification the "long running dispute" at Manjushri Institute and that Shugden is just "another serious bone". Clarke clearly states that the doctrinal reason includes GKG's "rigid, exclusive" approach:

The purpose of the launching in 1991 of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) was to unite those centres that opted to be under the spiritual tutelage of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rimpoche for the purpose of teaching to the West 'pure' Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism as taught by the Tibetan scholar Je Tsongkapha. The New Kadampa tradition, thus, represents the replacement of the inclusive approach, followed by Lama Yeshe and his supporters, with a rigid, exclusive one. By following this course, Geshe Kelsang Gyaso Rimpoche believes he has reintroduced Kadampa Buddhism to the West in its pristine, authentic form, which he describes, paradoxically, as an autono-mous, modern, Western tradition (Kay, 1997: 286). [3]

So I think the introduction section is still inaccurate and excludes different povs or mixes information together in a way that what the passage says is rather misleading or favours a NKT pov of the facts. Maybe you can improve it. I can also make some suggestions. ---Kt66 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

3rd party WP:RS on what NKT is

All of what follows is from respected academic scholars, specialists in the field of religion or New Religious Movements or at least specialists on NKT.

• Waterhouse and Kay (and recently INFORM) are the only one who have researched NKT themselves.
• Waterhouse's research “Buddhism in Bath: Adaptation and Authority”, Leeds: The Community Religions Project, University of Leeds has been reviewed by David Kay http://www.buddhistethics.org/5/kay.htm.
• The most extensive and thorough research is that of Kay. This research has been reviewed by Prof. Dr Inken Prohl (University of Heidelberg) see: http://www.globalbuddhism.org/7/prohl06.htm. Another review on Kay’s research was made by Feuerstein (PhD) http://www.traditionalyogastudies.com/reviews_buddhism_britain.html.
• The research of INFORM has not been published until today and all other research have no review.

I hope what follows helps to clarify the need of the templates I added. Please don’t remove them until this problem has been solved.

Waterhouse 2005, in ‘’encyclopedia of new religious movements’’, ed. by Clarke, p 407/8, Routledge

“The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) is a western form of Tibetan Buddhism related to the Tibetan Gelugpa. It was founded in England, in 1991, but has since expanded to thirty-six countries, mainly in Europe and North America but also to among other countries Hong Kong, India and Brazil.”

George D. Chryssides, ‘’Exploring New Religions’’, Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999

The New Kadampa Tradition is Gelugpa in character. Like other NRMs that I have discussed, NKT might well question its inclusion in this volume, particular since followers claim to adopt an ancient form of Buddhism that goes back at least to the time of the Tibetan saint-scholar Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) and to be purifying his form of Buddhism of non-Buddhist elements that have no place in pure practice. Indeed some see the NKT as practising a form of Buddhism that is purer than that of the Dalai Lama himself. The organization came prominently into puhlic attention in 1996 on account ot the Dorje Shugden controversy: after veneration of this deity had been banned by the Dalai Lama, not only did NKT members pay no regard to his ruling, but publicly demonstrated outside a public meeting that the Dalai Lima was addressing. While Buddhists have occasionally engaged in active protests about actions and policies which they regarded as serious contraventions of Buddhist teaching (such as the Vietnam war in the 1960s), a demonstration against fellow Buddhists, and particularly against such a respected leader as the Dalai Lama was surprising, to say the least.

NKT aims "to preserve and promote the essence of Buddha's teachings in a form that is suited to the Western mind and way of life. It is a new organisation making an ancient tradition accessible to all” (New Kadampa Tradition, 1998a). Simultaneously with endeavouring to preserve the purity of the ancient Gelugpa tradition, NKT is concerned with westernization, and has grown rapidly since its inception.

Kay, 2004, Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain, London: Routledge

In addition to an appreciation of the broader Tibetan Buddhist context of the NKT and the historical and cross-cultural forces that have shaped its development in the West, it is also important to situate this organisation within the context of another contemporary Western Gelug movement: the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT). This chapter outlines the origins of the FPMT in the 1970s and examines the schism that gave rise to a separate network of Buddhist centres headed by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the mid-1980s.

The NKT's historical and institutional roots in Britain go back much further than 1991, the year when its Tibetan founder, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (b. 1931), announced its official creation. The emergence of the NKT must, in particular, be considered against the context of another contemporary Western Gelug movement called the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT)- Geshe Kelsang (see Figure 2.1) was originally brought to Britain to teach at an FPMT centre called the Manjushri Institute, but he split away from this organisation to develop a parallel network of his own that he later unified and gave a distinct identity as the NKT As well as providing the immediate historical backdrop necessary for understanding the development of the NKT, the FPMT represents an alternative way of articulating and marketing Tibetan Buddhism for Western consumption. Though similar in many ways, these international Buddhist networks are also very different, and a comparative analysis will help illuminate the nature of Tibetan, and particularly Gelug, Buddhism both in Britain and in the West generally.

Bluck 2006:

Formed in 1991, the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) is the newest of the seven organizations under consideration, though it has an important background in Tibetan Buddhism, both in Tibet itself and in Britain. The movement describes itself as 'an entirely independent Buddhist tradition' inspired and guided by 'the ancient Kadampa Buddhist Masters and their teachings, as presented by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso' (Kelsang, 2001: 398). The NKT has expanded more rapidly than any other Buddhist tradition in Britain. Like SGI-UK, it has sometimes been portrayed as a controversial organization, described by Bunting (1996a: 1) as a rich and expansionist 'sect' which aims to become the largest Western Buddhist movement and by a former follower as 'a fundamentalist movement' which removes members' personal choice (Kay, 2004: 110). Again a balanced approach is needed here: the practitioner's confident belief may appear as dogmatism to an unsympathetic observer.

The NKT was formally created in 1991 in what Kay (2004: 88) described as 'a schismatic event’ separating Geshe Kelsang's centres from mainstream Gelug Buddhism.

There is still disagreement about how to interpret NKT history. The New Kadampa Tradition is said to have been established by Tsongkhapa in fifteenth-century Tibet and 'introduced into the West in 1977' by Geshe Kelsang (Kelsang, 1992: 139; www.manjushri.org.uk), but is also described as being 'established as a distinct tradition in 1991' (Belither, 1997: 1). There seems to be some difficulty in reconciling an ancient lineage with a recent schism.

Kay (2004: 83-4) felt the movement's own account has shifted considerably, playing down conflict in 'an overarching narrative of continuity' which may need to be challenged. He found FPMT students who view Geshe Kelsang as a 'rogue geshe', seizing control of Manjushri Institute, manipulating students and developing a personality cult around himself, and new disciples were often unaware of the NKT's background, due to the policy of 'consciously forgetting its FPMT roots'. An alternative view is that FPMT teachers became increasingly remote with Geshe Kelsang's single-minded approach and personal example inspiring many students. The FPMT background is not emphasized in current NKT literature, though Belither's Modern Day Kadampas (1997: 6) acknowledges Lama Yeshe's role in setting up Manjushri Institute and establishing Geshe Kelsang as its teacher.

To put things into perspective, I have already quoted many times the harmonizing three views Bluck offers on how NKT can be viewed. These views leave it to the reader which approach he prefers to look on NKT. Therefore I strongly suggest to re-include these three povs Bluck offers again.

Lopez, 1998, page 194, Prisoners of Shangri-la portrays NKT as “the biggest Buddhist organisation in the UK” and makes also clear that the members of the Shugden Supporter Community (SCC) belonged to NKT.

Inken Prohls review on Kay’s research states:

The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), which has its roots in the Tibetan Gelug Tradition,… The founder of the NKT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (b. 1931), was originally brought to Britain to teach at an FPMT center, but in 1991 he split from this organization in order to found the NKT. This schism, as well as the controversial debate on the guardian deity Dorje Shugden, NKT’s critical attitude concerning the Dalai Lama, and its growing insularity, are examined in the context of traditional Gelug exclusivism. By situating the development and the self-perception of the NKT within its appropriate context, the volume demonstrates the extent to which broader Asian contexts continue to exert a normative influence on Buddhist development in the West.

Drawing on Robert Lifton’s definition of the “fundamentalist self,” Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organizational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism” (p. 110). Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later “fundamentalist” identity. These sections provide an exiting account of recent European religious history and, at the same time, challenge the stereotypical image of unity and harmony within the Western Tibetan Buddhist community.

Other 3rd party WP:RS sources may include Clarke’s short summery in Clarke, Peter Bernard. New Religions in Global Perspective, page 92, ISBN 0-415-25748-4, Routledge 2006 and David V. Barrett’s The New Believers’s article on NKT. As I said already, the latter portrays NKT as "deriving from Tibetan Buddhism" and as "one of the newest and most controversial buddhist movements"; which may not be included in the introduction section but could be used for a section on Controversies. (There is not one 3rd party source which does not include controversies in the NKT context.)

I can give detailed source information (pages) or links if needed and also more 3rd party WP:RS sources. The problem I see is: as NKT is the result of a schism and this is not acknowledged by the organisation the organisation had the need to establish a history of NKT which offers a smoother and Buddhist version. Unwelcomed memories of history, as Kay outlined, are repressed and events the organisation does not see fit into their version of history are omitted from the version of history NKT is offering. The tension and contradiction lay in these facts: While for the organisation the foundation of NKT is a “wonderful event in the history of Buddhadharma” and represents a “pure form of Buddhism” neutral 3rd party sources as well as outsiders of the organisation and critics see the organisation as deriving from a split from FPMT or Gelug school and in the context of cross-cultural adoption processes strongly related to Tibetan history (like the “purity” and “Shugden” issues) which in turn is denied by the organisation by establishing themselves as “completely independence from Tibetan Buddhism” and without the context of “Tibetan Culture and politics”. As long as the article relies strongly on NKT WP:SPS and refutes 3rd party sources the article is just very one-sidedly supporting the narrow minded version and understanding on NKT the NKT leadership offers. Therefore to include more 3rd party sources and other povs by neutral observers with understanding is the need if a proper WP article on NKT is wished, a WP article which is not a narrow minded version of the NKT office about themselves – to say it frankly an article which is not a propaganda entry by the organisation. --Kt66 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know you do see the NKT as resulting from a schism, but that is such an extreme view, and one can use "third-party sources" selectively to back up almost any point of view if one is so minded. The NKT arose from the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa as passed through the lineage Gurus, up to Trijang Rinpoche. That great master himself gave Geshe Kelsang Gyatso permission to present Dharma in a way that was suitable for Westerners, which is exactly what he has done, and in doing so he has benefited tens of thousands of Western Buddhists. There has been no schism between the Gelugpa school and the NKT: the NKT is a continuation of the Gelugpa school. There may be other continuations of the Gelugpa school within and without of Tibetan Buddhism, but that is of no concern in this article -- different traditions can write their own articles about themselves as Dharma and its presentation does not belong to anyone and its presentation can (and has frequently) changed. The only separation is that the NKT-IKBU has separated itself out of Tibetan politics and culture; and that is no more a schism than when Tibetan Buddhists orginially adapted Indian Buddhism as their own. You are the only person who keeps going on about "purity" -- you cannot find one mention of that view in any of Geshe Kelsang's books or teachings! NKT teachers are always praising other traditions and requesting that we all live and let live. And, honestly, you are the one who is so keen on making the NKT appear as something so completely different to what it is -- everyone else seems to think this presentation is fair enough as it is. It is not wildly exciting, just informative, with mention to other points of view, and a mention of the Dorje Shugden controversy. It fits Wiki well. It is not overly long. I know you will never agree with this, but there are many other editors who will never agree with your extreme (and incorrect and insulting) point of view about the NKT being a "result of a schism"!! (Truthbody (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

In case you are still confused about this, the NKT was NEVER part of the FPMT!!! Or the Tibetan Gelugpa organization, as it has always been a Western tradition (though of course its historical antecedents are Tibetan and Indian, just as an American can say they are American but that their grandparents came from Russia). It arose as an independent Buddhist tradition in 1991. There are no historical memories being suppressed. Why do you keep repeating such things when you have no proof and no matter how much time people take to try and explain this to you? Here is the account again:

The NKT is not an off-shoot of the FPMT. Geshe Kelsang was not asked by Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa but by his (and Lama Yeshe’s) Teacher, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, to become resident teacher of Manjushri Institute in 1977.

This has been said in public by both Geshe Kelsang and Lama Zopa. The latter said that he and Lama Yeshe both wanted Geshe Kelsang to be the Teacher but Lama Yeshe felt that a request would be successful only if it came from Trijang Rinpoche. Geshe Kelsang later said that at the time he never even knew of the existence of FPMT and was responding to a request from his Teacher.

The original root of both the FPMT and the NKT is the teachings of Trijang Rinpoche because he was the main Teacher of both Lama Yeshe, the founder of the FPMT, and Geshe Kelsang. This is where the similarity ends. If you compare the presentation of the teachings of both traditions, and the internal organization and politics, they are quite different. The NKT is not an off-shoot of anything but a continuation of the mainstream Gelugpa tradition.

Geshe Kelsang’s words, Santa Barbara USA, February 2nd 1996

“When I was in India I received an invitation from Manjushri Institute in England through Lama Yeshe, who was my very close friend in Tibet. He and I were from the same monastery in Tibet and we had the same Teacher. He wrote to me and requested me please to go to England and give Dharma teachings. I received this invitation but I didn’t answer for two months. At that time it was difficult for me to say yes due to certain commitments to local Tibetan people, and also I thought how could I teach as I could not speak English? I had no confidence. Lama Yeshe was very clever; he went to visit my root Guru Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, and requested him to ask me to go to England to teach Dharma. He knew if my root Guru asked me, then I would agree to go.

I received a letter from Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang saying that I should accept this invitation to go to England to teach at least three subjects -- Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhishattva's Way of Life, Chandrakirti’s Guide to the Middle Way, and Lamrim teachings -- and then I could return to India. I went to see him and asked him precisely whether I would be able to benefit people and would there be any good results? He gave me a lot of encouragement and gave many predictions that there would be great results. So I was very happy and accepted. In 1977 I arrived at Manjushri Institute in England. It was a very big old house with maybe 10 to 15 residents. It was very dusty and dirty, and very cold. For me it was very unusual.

Soon after I arrived I started to teach Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life, which took almost one year. Then I gave extensive Lamrim teachings, and after that I taught Guide to the Middle Way. So altogether it took almost three years to complete my commitment and I was very happy to return to India. My root Guru Trijang Rinpoche was there and he was very old; my mother and my many spiritual friends were there. Lama Yeshe also accepted my returning to India, so I nearly returned to India. But then the Manjushri Institute community people strongly requested me to stay. They made many promises, saying they would practice purely, undertake responsibility for whatever I wanted, and respect my wishes. Everyone signed a letter requesting me to stay, and some cried. Lama Yeshe’s invitation had finished but there was a new invitation from the community, now much larger with maybe 40 to 50 students. Everyone signed this invitation with many promises. So I accepted. Then gradually I became a subject of the English Queen. I hope later to become her Minister so can I help Tibetan people have their freedom! I’m joking. This is my story.”

(Truthbody (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

You may be confused how WP is functioning, there are at least three reliable 3rd party sources by three accepted academic researchers (and I can found more than these who confirm this schism) who state that NKT splitted from FPMT or is a schism. It is clear that NKT has a onwn version of history but Wikipedia is no propaganda arm of the organisation but states what WP:RS have to state. There is agreement in 3rd party researh that NKT's foundation is based on a schism. It is possible to balance thepov of these neutral observers with the pov from within the organisation. But to exclude it becuase it doesn't suit to the history version of the organisation is not possible. Don't spin that this is my view. The third partty sources states this. --Kt66 (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to the New Kadampa Tradition

I corrected a non-WP:NPOV passage and made in NPOV:

The New Kadampa Tradition describes itself in the booklet "Modern Day Kadampas" as a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054). ‘’’NKT states’’’ "Ka" refers to Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings, and "dam" to Atisha's instructions known as "the stages of the path to enlightenment". ‘’’According to NKT’’’ by integrating their knowledge of all Buddha's teachings into their practice of the stages of the path to enlightenment (Tib. Lamrim), and by integrating this into their everyday lives, Kadampa Buddhists ‘’’(NKT members)’’’ are encouraged to use Buddha's teachings as practical methods for transforming their daily activities into the path to…

Reason: What is stated is NKT pov and the term “Kadampa Buddhists” is a new creation by NKT. The term hasn’t been explained yet and links wrongly to the Kadam article. When NKT uses the term “Kadampa Buddhists” they are actual speaking of NKT members, the reader does not know this at that time of reading the article, because the use of the term is explained later. So I added that information in brackets. I removed the wrong and unsourced claim:

’’The Kadampa tradition was later promoted widely in Tibet by Je Tsongkhapa and his followers, who were known as the "New Kadampas".’’ because the Kadampa tradition was not promoted widely in Tibet but absorbed into the four existing Tibetan lineages. Je Tsongkhapa promoted his own lineage which is a mix of different lineages and masters.

--Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the New Kadampa Tradition

I tagged this passage no with the primarysources-template.

During my previous changes I removed the wrong statements based on a NKT blog which even confuses the statement with Kay’s research:

’’ In 1976 Lama Thubten Yeshe invited Geshe Kelsang from India, where he was engaged in a 16-year retreat, to teach at Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre (then Manjushri Institute) in England. Geshe Kelsang taught the General Program at Manjushri KMC from 1976 to 1987.’’

As the passage claims to state something about the history of NKT but state nothing but spins I added a short version based on academic researches which explains NKT history according to the facts. I added:

In 1976 the students of Lama Thubten Yeshe founded the Manjushri Institute, a registered charitable company with Lama Yeshe as the Spiritual Director and purchased the assets of Conishead Priory, a sadly neglected Victorian mansion in Ulverston (Cumbria), England for the price of £70,000. In the same year Lama Thubten Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche visited Geshe Kelsang in India and invited him over to teach at the Manjushri Institute, which was a part of their FPMT network.

Geshe Kelsang was requested by Lama Yeshe to lead the "General Program" of Buddhist study. In 1979 Lama Yeshe installed another Geshe at Manjushri Institute, Geshe Jampa Tekchok, to teach a parallel twelve-year Geshe Studies Programme, which was recognized and validated by the Dalai Lama and which was modeled on the traditional Geshe degree. From 1982 to 1990 this program was led by Geshe Konchog Tsewang. According to a disciple of Lama Yeshe from this time, Lama Yeshe intended the institute "to become the central monastery of the FPMT... one of the early jewels of the FPMT crown" and "the pioneer among the western centers".

Geshe Kelsang taught the General Program at Manjushri Institute from 1976 to 1987. In 1987, Geshe Kelsang entered a 3-year retreat at Tharpaland in Dumfries, Scotland. During Geshe Kelsang's retreat he wrote five books and established the foundations of the NKT. (as what NKT states here is congruent with neutral scholarly papers I kept the NKT source as a sufficient source.)

Then the spins of the facts start based on NKT WP:SPS, I deleted them and added again WP:RS in WP:NPOV:

According to Kay, "in 1991, through the successful exploitation of a legal loophole, the assets of Manjushri Institut finally fell under the sole control of the Priory Group"(the close disciples of Geshe Kelsang). In the Spring of that same year, Geshe Kelsang announced the creation of the 'New Kadampa Tradition', an event which was celebrated in the NKT-Magazine Full Moon as "a wonderful development in the history of the Buddhadharma." In 1992, the Manjushri Institute developed a new constitution, which constituted the formal foundation of the NKT. The Manjushri Institute was renamed the Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Center, and later the Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Center. Since then, it has remained Geshe Kelsang's home and the NKT's flagship center.

The NKT views itself as "an entirely independent Buddhist tradition" and remarks that the "NKT-IKBU has no political affiliations. It is an international association of study and meditation centers that follow the pure tradition of Mahayana Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa and introduced into the West by the Buddhist Teacher Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso". NKT aims to "principally follow the teachings and example of Je Tsongkhapa". (This NKT source is used again because it perfectly explains NKT’s pov.)

Neutral academic comment was added to help the reader to get an idea what the meaning of the words are by quoting:

David N. Kay comments:

“ In defining the movement in this way, the organisation is not simply maintaining that it represents Buddhism adapted for westerners; it is also striving to underline its separation from the Tibetan Gelug sect and emphasise the point that the West - via the NKT - is now the guardian and custodian of the pure tradition of Tsongkhapa in the modern world. From an NKT viewpoint, Geshe Kelsang has played a unique role in the transmission of Tsongkhapa's pure teachings, and the organisation and study structures he has created in the West are now believed to protect and preserve a tradition that is all but lost in its indigenous Eastern context. ”

Is there anything wrong with this correction? This issue is rather highly sensitive to NKT because according to Kay NKT leadership represses the history and eradicates unwelcome memories of the past up to a point that is striking. As Kay presents a independent research on NKT history (the only which exist until now) which is accepted among academic scholars, which is reviewed and perfectly fits into WP:RS, Kay is the best choice to offer a proper section on NKT history. I left the section short to avoid too much discussion and to give a very short overview on information which have been deleted (probably by NKT editors). --Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked, so I'll reply -- yes, there is something wrong with this correction, which is that the NKT does not strive to underline its separation from the Tibetan Gelug sect. Maybe from the Tibetan political establishment, for sure, but the NKT entirely follows the teachings of the Gelugpa founder, Je Tsongkhapa. But the next bit, "From an NKT viewpoint... Eastern context", though overstating the case and not to be found in any of the teachings or writings, is at least not as wildly misleading. Kay's comment about the NKT leadership repressing history is strange and it is hard to see where he gets it from -- what NKT leadership is repressing what history? The NKT is not hiding anything, including any growing pains in the West (witness the new New Kadampa Truth site, which is very honest about all these growing pains), and the NKT in fact is probably very happy with the vast majority of its history, dating as it does back in an unbroken lineage to the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and Je Tsongkhapa. As for "unwelcome memories", what on earth is Kay talking about? This is one example of why it is best not to overuse his university thesis as a legitimate source. "Accepted among academic scholars" is meaningless unless those (unnamed) academic scholars have done their own research into the NKT, but there are no neutral studies to back up Kay's. He is a lone wolf. (Truthbody (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

The FPMT have not found fault with this account of Manjushri Institute given on the New Kadampa Truth website . In reality, the FPMT were not exactly blameless at that time, and the NKT have been discreet in not publicizing some of their untoward activities back in the late seventies -- letting sleeping dogs lie. The "legal loophole" was only possible due to some illegal activities by then FPMT students. You (and Kay) were not around at the time so perhaps you don't know all of what went on. (Truthbody (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody thank you. When NKT separates from its root the Gelug school and no living master of the own school is acceptable to them or they are just ignored, then this is clearly "a separation from the Tibetan Gelug sect". Although NKT tries to hide this fact by claiming it has only separated from "Tibetan Culture and politics", NKT stems from the Gelug school and no text from the Gelug school and no master from Gelug school is accepted. Are these all "Tibetan Culture and politics"? That NKT separated from the Gelug school is also stated in 3rd party academic sources. The problem is rather that NKT has an own version on this issue and tries to establish a reason line which wishes to make believe that they did not separate from the Gelug school and are yet different and "completely independent" while having at the same time no affiliation at all to their roots and still wish to be pure, authentic and an "old tradition". Researcher Bluck pointed out these contradictions when he stated "that there remains an apparent contradiction between claiming a pure Tibetan lineage and separating completely from contemporary Tibetan tradition. While the NKT strongly emphasizes its unbroken 'lineage', it has no Tibetan followers and claims to stand outside current Tibetan Buddhism." and

Apart from Geshe Kelsang, there are no ethnic Tibetans in the NKT, and no remaining links with the rest of Tibetan Buddhism. With no remaining Tibetan links, central control of teaching, little contact with other schools, an expanding programme of residential centres, widespread if selective publicity and overt proselytizing, the NKT as an organization is far removed from the mainstream of traditional Tibetan Buddhism.

So Kay is correct in his interpretation and even if he would be incorrect: Wikipedia is not "truth searching" Wikipedia states what WP:RS have to state on a certain subject matter. (I add this latter point because there is often confusion among editors just due to this latter fact.)

What Kay states about NKT's leadership is repressing history and repressing unwelcome memories (split from FPMT) is correct and it is also shown in his research by pointing out how much the FPMT affiliation and the split from FPMT has been removed from the official NKT history version. Maybe you start to read it if you wish to contribute. It is clear that most new NKT members have almost no understanding about NKT's history, this is also stated by Kay. So if you wish to work on the article please read 3rd party sources. The NKT truth site is no 3rd party source nor a WP:RS. You seem to have not so much idea about the verifiability of sources, if a researcher is often quoted and used by other researchers this researcher is "Accepted among academic scholars", and this in turn gives more credits to the quoted researcher and his work.

kt66, here is an account of people who were right there at that time:

Geshe Kelsang was the first Resident Teacher at Manjushri Institute. He later accepted Lama Yeshe’s request for him to step down and had made plans to return to India and then to live at Madhyamaka Centre (which Geshe Kelsang founded independent of the FPMT) in York. However, the community at Manjushri all petitioned him to stay.

The community of Manjushri Institute wished to save their building, Conishead Priory, from being sold to make funds available for suspect business dealings in Hong Kong. This meant they needed to separate from the FPMT. On the other hand, they wished Lama Yeshe to stay as their Spiritual Director. After continual discussions on how to solve the problem, also involving two representatives from the Dalai Lama, the Institute’s managers – then called the ‘Priory Group’ – decided to take steps to separate Manjushri Institute from FPMT.

There were three main reasons for doing this:

1) FPMT managers had committed serious illegal actions, which was public knowledge among many people at Dharma centres; 2) FPMT managers wanted to sell Manjushri Institute’s building; and 3) Although, according to its constitution, legally everything at the centre belonged only to four people, in reality all the work of developing the centre was being done by the community, and not these four.

Eventually, a legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives. One part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre.

The whole detailed history of Manjushri Institute over these years has been chronicled by three reliable witnesses who were part of the proceedings. (check out http://www.newkadampatruth.org/geshekelsanggyatso.php#7 for the rest of the details.)

These are not spins, these are facts. All this is archived. (Truthbody (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody as I stated above it would be good to study or read the 3rd party sources on NKT and WP guidelines for articles. WP collects information from WP:RS and different pov are stated in [[WP:NPOV]. It will be impossible for you to prove that my suggestion is incorrect according to WP rules and 3rd party sources. The correction I suggest is very different to what is now in that section and it is following in general WP policies and standards. If you don't believe me, I can ask the opinion of a third independent person or you can do this yourself: Request for comment. Please be so kind to accept my NPOV template and don't remove it again. Thank you both a lot. --Kt66 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

kt66, I don't mind using 3rd-party sources when they back up something that is factual, not when they are used as spin to back up your own inaccurate opinions. For example, it actually makes no sense whatsoever to say, as you do above, that "no text from the Gelug school and no master from Gelug school is accepted." What are you talking about?! All the teachings in the NKT are derived from great Gelugpa Masters from Trijang Rinpoche right back to the time of Je Tsongkhapa. Geshe Kelsang himself is a great master from the Gelugpa tradition who has written 22 highly acclaimed commentaries to Je Tsongkhapa's teachings. Nothing other than Je Tsongkhapa's view and teachings are taught in the NKT, nothing at all. "That NKT separated from the Gelug school is also stated in 3rd party academic sources" -- yes, as explained maybe twenty times (but you don't listen), the NKT is not part of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment, including other Tibetan groups that practice the Gelugpa tradition. However, it is Tibetan Gelugpa in its antecedents -- and you can have Tibetan antecedents without being Tibetan, just as the child of Russian emigrants in America can call themselves American and not Russian, and follow American customs, culture and language and not Russian ones. "The problem is rather that NKT has an own version on this issue and tries to establish a reason line which wishes to make believe that they did not separate from the Gelug school and are yet different and "completely independent" while having at the same time no affiliation at all to their roots and still wish to be pure, authentic and an "old tradition"." Yes, that sounds about right, except for one bit -- we are affiliated very much to our roots and make prayers to our Indian and Tibetan lineage Gurus all the time and value our tradition and lineage dating back to Je Tsongkhapa very highly. In fact, it is precisely that "old tradition", up until now unbroken, that we are trying to preserve by opposing the Dalai Lama's illegal ban of that tradition's Protector. What is wrong with that? (Truthbody (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Ordination

At the first glance I took on the article this was the worst section. It neither fulfilled WP:NPOV, is too specialized for a reader who has no idea about the subtleties of Buddhism, Vinaya and ordination and it heavily relied on Geshe Kelsang’s pov (using WP:SPS even from an unpublished booklet which is not fulfilling at all WP:RS criteria). The section did also not make known whose views these are and offered no other povs, although they are available. My first improvement was the following, however it should be improved further and shortened. After my changes were reverted I tagged this section with the unbalanced-template. The reasons are given. --Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

kt66, Before you make everyone read through all this again, please explain why you have not addressed this in the very extensive ordination section above, where it was discussed in great detail by many editors? Why do you have to fill a whole big section of the talk page with your own repeated views (again)? Can you not see that this approach is not a skilful way to work with the other editors on the page as it shows you are not listening or discussing but just repeating the same things over and over again? (Truthbody (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

The ordination tradition in the NKT differs from that as described by the Buddha in the Vinaya and Pratimoksha. This has brought NKT the criticism that "NKT members to represent themselves to the public as authentic Buddhist monks and nuns is wrong and misleading".

When a NKT follower gets ordained they receive a Rabjung ordination with 10 vows designed by Geshe Kelsang. The 10 vows of the NKT ordination are to "abandon killing, stealing, sexual conduct, lying and taking intoxicants" and also to "practise contentment, reduce my desire for worldly pleasures, abandon engaging in meaningless activities, maintain the commitments of refuge, and practise the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration and wisdom." The first five vows can be found in the Vinaya, the latter five can't be found there.

According to NKT, the NKT ordination "is based on the Mahayana Perfection of Wisdom Sutras" instead of the Hinayana Vinaya Sutras. According to Geshe Kelsang, "The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras are our Vinaya and Lamrim is its commentary." He argues the NKT ordination and its modifications are based on Buddha advising his disciple Ananda, "If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules."

However, the Buddha allowed only to change minor rules and only if the majority of the Sangha accepts.

Geshe Kelsang / NKT argues in the The Ordination Handbook:

Buddha established both lay and ordained Pratimoksha vows, and established several levels of ordination vows. According to the Hinayana schools such as the Vaibhashika school, ordained vows are a subtle physical form, whereas according to the Mahayana they are in the nature of a determination, which is part of mind. Traditionally, the different levels of ordination were distinguished by the specific vows taken, and by the ceremony in which they were received.

According to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso when NKT followers' renunciation improves and deepens their ordination this 10 vow ordination "transforms into a Getsul (sramanera) ordination; and when their renunciation becomes spontaneous their ordination transforms into a Gelong (bhikkhu) ordination." NKT refers to this ordination as "Kadampa ordination".

Geshe Kelsang states:

The verbal explanation of the Kadampa ordination is brief — there are just ten commitments — but their practice is very extensive. These ten commitments that you promise to keep are a condensation of the entire Lamrim teachings. Although we can finish a verbal explanation of these vows in a few hours, their practice is all embracing. You should do this—few words but always practice, practice extensively.

As stated, according to Geshe Kelsang the 10 NKT vows were taken from the Mahayana Perfection of Wisdom Sutra- Moreover, he views Atisha’s Lamrim text Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment as a commentary to it.. He argues that Atisha's text includes references to Arya Asanga’s The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt. Bodhisattvabhumi) listing the six ‘branches’ or necessary conditions for attaining tranquil abiding, including:

1. little desire
2. contentment
3. no distracting activities
4. pure moral discipline
5. no distracting conceptions

By this explanation NKT wishes to proof the NKT ordination as being in accordance to Buddhism.

According to the Australia Sangha Association, the definition by Geshe Kelsang "has nothing in common with the traditionally accepted understanding of ordination and confuses the notion of a Bhikhu or Bhikhuni in the spiritual and conventional sense. From earliest times a 'true Bhikhu' has been one who realised the Dharma. However all Buddhist traditions, while fully understanding this, have always insisted on the necessity for the conventional Sangha to hold Vinaya vows properly received in accordance with the prescribed rituals."

The founder of the old Kadampa school, Atisha, stated about Buddhist monks vows “The training of the Monk is [..] of two hundred and fifty-three [rules].”, and all ordained Tibetan Buddhist masters, including Geshe Kelsang, hold the full ordination with its complete set of more than 200 vows.

Geshe Kelsang encourages his followers to focus their effort on improving their renunciation and ordained way of life, and that it is not necessary to receive Getsul or full ordination vows in a separate ceremony. He describes these vows as being easier to integrate into today's society.

Ordained people in the NKT abandon the physical signs of a lay person by shaving their head and wearing maroon and yellow robes of the Mula-sarvatastavadin school (Tibetan Buddhism). They are given a new name which starts with "Kelsang," since it is traditional for ordinees to receive part of the ordaining master's name (Kelsang Gyatso).

They also engage in a Sojong-like ceremony twice a month to purify and restore their vows. A monk or nun who breaks their ordination vows must leave their Centre for at least a year. After that year, "with some conditions" they can return but cannot teach.

Within the NKT community there are over 700 monks and nuns. NKT ordination ceremonies are usually held twice a year in the main NKT Temple at Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Center in Cumbria (UK), Ulverston. --Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

why has this all been just repeated? Please see my comment above. For an answer to the Australian Sangha Association, please see http://www.newkadampatruth.org/newkadampatradition.php#4 (Truthbody (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody, you can summerize the NKT pov and state it in NPOV manner and you can summerize the ASA pov and state it in NPOV manner. Both povs should be stated, at the moment the section favours NKT pov is not NPOV and ASA pov is excluded which makes the section not worthy for WP. I mainly wished not to delete too much from the NKT pova although I feel it is far too long. Thanks, best wishes --Kt66 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" and "Kadampa Buddhism", "Kadampa Buddhist"

This passage was corrected because it included too much spins and was not clear about its subject, the origin of the name. The changes state the things accurate according to chronological development :

The old Kadampa Tradition was founded by Atisha in the 11th century. Je Tsongkhapa collected the teachings of this particular school and combined it with the teachings of other Tibetan schools, like Sakya. Later his followers became known as the "New Kadampas" or Gelugpas.

In the beginning the NKT tried to clarify they are "pure Gelugpas":

In 1998 Geshe Kelsang stated in an interview:

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

Later NKT tried to clarify what distinguish them from the Gelugpas:

According to an NKT brochure, written by James Belither while secretary of the NKT:

“ Geshe Kelsang first introduced the title 'New Kadampa Tradition' to give the centres under his spiritual direction a distinct identity within the wider Buddhist world. Although the Gelugpas were sometimes referred to as new Kadampas, the name New Kadampa Tradition had never been used previously in a formal sense. Nevertheless, by using this title Geshe Kelsang is making it clear that practitioners of this tradition are principally following the teachings and example of Je Tsongkhapa. The word 'New' is used not to imply that it is newly created, but is a fresh presentation of Buddhadharma in a form and manner that is appropriate to the needs and conditions of the modern world. Furthermore, by using the title 'Kadampa', Geshe Kelsang encourages his disciples to follow the perfect example of simplicity and purity of practice shown by the Kadampa Geshes." ”

Nowadays the New Kadampa Tradition describes Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's presentation of Buddhism to the West as Kadampa Buddhism with the following statement:

"Kadampa Buddhism is a time-honored tradition that for centuries has made Buddha's teachings and meditation practices available to people throughout the world."

"It is an association of Buddhist Centers and practitioners that derive their inspiration and guidance from the example of the ancient Kadampa Buddhist Masters and their teachings as presented by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) is an international non-profit organization registered in England as a charitable company..., and was founded by Geshe Kelsang to provide a vehicle for promoting Kadampa Buddhism throughout the world."

Moreover, the NKT presents itself as being the continuation of the old Kadampa tradition by naming its school Kadampa Buddhism and equating this Kadampa Buddhism with the historical Kadampa School of Atisha:

“ Kadampa Buddhism is a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the great Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054)... The great Kadampa Teachers are famous not only for being great scholars but also for being spiritual practitioners of immense purity and sincerity. The lineage of these teachings, both their oral transmission and blessings, was then passed from Teacher to disciple, spreading throughout much of Asia, and now to many countries throughout the Western world... Kadampa Buddhism was first introduced into the West in 1977 by the renowned Buddhist Master, Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Since that time, he has worked tirelessly to spread Kadampa Buddhism throughout the world by giving extensive teachings, writing many profound texts on Kadampa Buddhism, and founding the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union. ”

The NKT claims further that "Kadampa Buddhism was first introduced into the West in 1977 by the renowned Buddhist Master, Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso."

Consequently followers of the NKT refer presently to themselves as Kadampa Buddhists, the Temples of the New Kadampa Tradition are referred to as Kadampa Buddhist Temples, and more recently NKT teachers are named Kadampa Teachers. Additionally, the Dharma centers of the New Kadampa Tradition are called Kadampa Buddhist Centers and the hotels Hotel Kadampas.

James Belither, the former secretary of the NKT, described the NKT as "a Mahayana Buddhist tradition with historical connections with Tibet", rather than a Tibetan tradition, and explained that Geshe Kelsang wishes his followers always "to present Dharma in a way appropriate to their own culture and society without the need to adopt Tibetan culture and customs".

Of course this section is overloaded and can be condensed but it is at least precise and shows also what Kay stated, that NKT has undergone considerable change since its inception. The use of terms and the struggle for self-identity is a sign of this. Originally this section was under the headline ‘’’The Self-Idendity of NKT’’’ and I think it is better to revive this headline again. This was just a quick solution to remove spins. To make it short here my reasons for the other changes and the changes itself. My reasons for the changes are: NKT is heavily involved in the Shugden controversy and received in the past a lot of criticism (all over the world), and all these information have been deleted, especially the reference to the past protests (1996-98) although there are many press articles and academic sources on it. Further as NKT is discussed controversially and not accepted in some Buddhist Unions (Germany and Austria, and only with low key authority in Swiss) and academics offer some different point of views (which all have been deleted as well), I added at least a summary of them by inserting the following sections/passages from WP:RS in WP:NPOV manner or I corrected slightly wrong statements which were unsourced. --Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Origins of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" and "Kadampa Buddhism", "Kadampa Buddhist"

I have to disagree with the above presentation, which is why I had edited it. Where you see an identity crisis with the NKT's use of different terms to describe itself, I see only terms that are synonymous and interchangeable, as specified in the NKT's glossary of terms[4] and other sources:

Kadampa Buddhism = Old & New Kadampa Traditions

Kadampa Buddhism – A Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the great Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054). See also Kadampa and Kadampa Tradition.

Kadampa Tradition – The pure tradition of Buddhism established by Atisha. Followers of this tradition up to the time of Je Tsongkhapa are known as ‘Old Kadampas’, and those after the time of Je Tsongkhapa are known as ‘New Kadampas’. See also Kadampa and Kadampa Buddhism.

New Kadampa Tradition = Je Tsongkhapa’s Tradition

I make requests to you, Gurus of the Old Kadam lineage, the second Buddha Atisha, Dromtonpa, Geshe Potowa, and all the other precious Teachers who have revealed the union of vast and profound paths. I make requests to you, Gurus of the New Kadam lineage, Venerable Tsongkhapa, Jampel Gyatso, Khedrubje, and all the other precious Teachers who have revealed the union of Sutra and Tantra. (Essence of Good Fortune sadhana, Requests to the Field for Accumulating Merit and the Lamrim lineage Gurus, p. 12)

Je Tsongkhapa’s Tradition = Gelug Tradition (“Virtuous Tradition”)

Gelug - The tradition established by Je Tsongkhapa. The name ‘Gelug’ means ‘Virtuous Tradition’. A Gelugpa is a practitioner who follows this tradition. The Gelugpas are sometimes referred to as the ‘new Kadampas’.

(See also 'Prayers for the Virtuous Tradition' in the closing prayers of every NKT sadhana.)

A Gelugpa = A New Kadampa

We are pure Gelugpas. The name Gelugpa doesn’t matter, but we believe we are following the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. We are studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings and taking as our example what the ancient Kadampa lamas and Geshes did. All the books that I have written are commentaries on Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings. We try our best to follow the example of the ancient Kadampa Tradition, and use the name Kadampa to remind people to practice purely. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tricycle: the Buddhist Review, No. 27, Spring 1998, p. 74)

You'd have to give me sources that show the NKT stopped using one term and replaced it with another. Just within the last year, Gen-la Dekyong visited my Center where she said, quite emphatically I might add, "I am a pure Gelugpa." I don't see Geshe-la's books being frantically revised to wipe out some terms and substitute them with others.

However, two acronyms which should be clarified better are NKT-IKBU (the organization established in 1991) and NKT (the centuries-old tradition). Oftentimes, the latter is used as short-hand for the former, but I feel this causes some unnecessary confusion. The NKT-IKBU is an organization (just like the FPMT). Both organizations represent the Gelug/New-Kadampa Tradition. Emptymountains (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains, I think you mix apples with bananas, since what 2 = 4 = 6 = 8? It should be discriminated what is what. Best Wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is how the terms are understood in the NKT-IKBU, as evidenced by the sources cited above. I just don't see the identity crisis you claim exists; what you originally wrote sounds like "theory finding" to me! Emptymountains (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would render it more like "2 = 1a + 1b" and "1b = 1b = 1b." According to you, however, the New Kadam lineage is not Je Tsongkhapa's tradition (because you said this is like saying "4 = 6"). You also imply that Je Tsongkhapa's tradition is not the Gelug tradition (because you said this is like saying "6 = 8"). That does sound overly discriminatory on your part! <L> Emptymountains (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

The NKT attracted international media attention and a lot of criticism for its public demonstrations "for religious freedom" in America, England, Switzerland and Germany (1996-1998) against the Dalai Lama who had advised publicly against the Shugden practice. In a 1998 report, Donald S. Lopez, Jr. remarked on the media attention, the press criticism, and the cult allegation levied at the NKT:

Demonstration in Berlin, Germany, June 1998

“ In the summer of 1996, the disciples of Kelsang Gyatso denounced the Dalai Lama for impinging on their religious freedom, and picketed against him during his visit to Britain, accusing him of intolerance. The demonstrations made front-page news in the British press, which collectively rose to the Dalai Lama's defense and in various reports depicted the New Kadampa Tradition as a fanatic, empire-building, demon-worshipping cult. The demonstrations were a public relations disaster for the NKT, not only because of its treatment by the press, but also because the media provided no historical context for the controversy and portrayed Shugden as a remnant of Tibet’s primitive pre-Buddhist past. ”

The NKT and its General Spiritual Director Geshe Kelsang engage in the practice of Dorje Shugden, which the current Dalai Lama has consistently spoken out against and which practice is banned from Gelug monasteries since 2008.

Many individual practitioners from the NKT support the Western Shugden Society. For more on this topic, see Dorje Shugden Controversy.

--Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Different views on NKT

According to David V. Barrett the NKT-IKBU as "deriving from Tibetan Buddhism" and is "one of the newest and most controversial buddhist movements". Bunting stated that "The NKT is an entirely self-referential system. The total dependence on a single charismatic figure is unorthodox in Tibetan Buddhism." Researcher Bluck remarked that there remains an apparent contradiction between claiming a pure Tibetan lineage and separating completely from contemporary Tibetan tradition. While the NKT strongly emphasizes its unbroken 'lineage', it has no Tibetan followers and claims to stand outside current Tibetan Buddhism.

Researcher Kay stated about the idendity of NKT:

"Multiple 'histories' exist on an individual and public group level both inside and outside the movement. As the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism the social organisation of memory and forgetfulness especially the group's leadership is particularly striking. Accounts of current and former members either reinforce or contradict and compete with each other. They diverge widely over points of historical detail and often interpret the same events and processes in very different ways, reflecting a wide range of personal experience, depth of involvement, bias, opinion and loyalty. At the level of public discourse, the history and identity of the NKT has also, during the course of its development, undergone considerable realignment. Of course, such revision and reconfiguration of the past is commonplace within religious movements that are more concerned with issues of identity and ideology than with notions of historical veracity."

Bluck offered a number of different angles from which the NKT may be viewed:

*The NKT could be viewed from outside as a movement aiming at what Titmus (1999: 91) called 'conversion and empire-building', with a dogmatic and superior viewpoint, 'narrow-minded claims to historical significance', intolerance of other traditions and 'strong identification with the leader or a book'.

*A more scholarly external view might emphasize instead the enthusiasm, firm beliefs, urgent message and 'charismatic leadership' which Barker (1999: 20) saw as characteristic of many NRMs.

*An alternative picture from inside the movement would include a wish to bring inner peace to more people, based on a pure lineage of teaching and practice, with faith and confidence in an authentic spiritual guide.

About the possible ways how to picture the NKT, Bluck said: "Our choice of interpretation may depend on how we engage with the other viewpoint, as well as the evidence itself, and until recently the NKT's supporters and critics have largely ignored each other."

--Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And I added one link to a former NKT members’ website, because I think the site is quite fair and as long as NKT’s truths are linked why not linking former NKT members’ truths? Also the WP section claims to offer weblinks to NKT critics. Former members are the main critics of NKT, aren’t they? So one link to them seems fair to me. Happy to hear what the reasons are why these changes should be removed and the former version is more according to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. For the time being I added the warning templates and gave the reasons for these measures above. Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kt66 - wrong: sockpuppet thing cleared up ages ago, to everyone (but your) satisfaction. What's wrong with you? Why are you on such a vendetta? Your one-man internet campaign is - what? What for exactly? Just give it up. It's not healthy, your obsession. Please give this up, and be at peace. Your brother, Atisha's cook (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Atisha's cook, i've been lurking, had to jump in too. I can see that tenzin or kt66 (kelsang tashi) has been trying everyone's patience by repeating the same things over and over again and not listening to anything anyone says, and also i've seen him do this elsewhere on the internet over the last months stretching into years, but i still think it might be best to stay off the personal stuff, even though you're trying to help. just a suggestion. (82.27.245.230 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

You are right, and i've therefore removed the personally indentifying info. re. Kt66 from my post above. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Outing Kt66?

Please Atisha's cook, Emptymountains, truthbody etc, and User:82.27.245.230 see WP:outing: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, .... Name calling is seen as harassment. I have asked already someone else to put a note about this continued violation of rule by a quite large group of editors to the Admin board. Thank you for your considerations. --Kt66 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Atisha's cook making that one remark, what "outing" are you referring to? Did you not also call someone "lucy" at some stage? I don't know who you are talking about, but this sounded no different to people calling you Tenzin, except that do you not even call yourself Tenzin on your own profile pages? However I agree that if you don't like it, everyone should stop calling you it. That is easily done, i should think. (ARKJ (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

ARKJ you seem to oversee that WP:outing became a strategy against me and while I used the "Lucy statement" above to defend me (read the passage again) - yet still a fault - I didn't use a second name while since Oct. 2005 repeatedly WP:outing took place with a full name and this constitutes harassment and violates the policy as it is stated in WP:outing. It's amazing to see that this behaviour is still accepted and defended. --Kt66 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On Kt66's user page he lists his private website as http://info-buddhism.com/ and in the Impressum[5] linked to at the bottom of every page on that website, he says his name is "Tenzin Peljor" and even lists his personal email and mailing addresses. He himself make this connection public, so I don't think this can be an instance of outing him since this "editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves" as per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. Anyways, I never used his name until after he posted a link from his userpage to his personal information on his website. I would suggest that he change this if he no longer want people to know it. And, I wasn't trying to silence him, just seeing through the IP address he was using, which he admitted this week enabled him to make anonymous edits since he "retired." I wonder if intentionally not using one's Wikipedia username when making edits and instead doing so under the guise of an IP address amounts to sockpuppetting? Emptymountains (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Emptymountains, the first WP:outing was made in October 2006 as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_6#Kind_request_for_kt66_to_stop_editing_this_article The addition of a link similar as you mention was made on 23:05, 3 May 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kt66&oldid=209994593 not before this date. It follows WP:outing happened before the link addition and was continued since then by many other editors, including you. Nowhere the user kt66 stated his name, did he? The addition to the external link was made after he retired from Wikipedia. As the user has never made a statement about his name neither on his personal page, his talk page nor on the talk pages of articles he worked on, for me this is clearly a violation of WP:outing, much more as the tone of many editors are rather aggressive and WP:outing appears to me to just be a mean to silence the editor (me). I will wait what a neutral editor I contacted states and what or if he will report it to the Admin board or if I report it there if he doesn't. Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains, WP:outing was practised also by you and others regarding the 79.171.58.252 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Chatral_Rinpoche and the talk page on the NKT website (see responses to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#NPOV_and_others_POV). There is no statement of a personal name by 79.171.58.252 nor is there a link from which you could have derived a name. You have derived the name from personal investigation and this website: http://newkadampatradition.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/tenzin-peljor-editor-and-chief/ where you also commented your investigation don't you? By the way the 79.171.58.252 I use sometimes but at the place where I live about 70 or more people use the same IP, there are edits on computer games I have no idea at all. --Kt66 (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, when you "retire" again and an anonymous IP user edits mainly the NKT-IKBU, Dorje Shugden, and WSS articles using phrases like "neutral academic researcher Kay also states...," then I'll ask them if they are "Kt66" rather than "you-know-who" Emptymountains (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to keep up with Kt66's self-outing, please see this discussion at the admin's page where he reported it. Emptymountains (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Katie - sorry, i had no idea you wanted to remain in the closet. Posting without using your sername intentionally (i've done it myself carelessly) smacks of intellectual dishonesty, but if you use Kt66, i'll try to call you Kt66 from now on. also, i'll remove those "outings" i've posted previously. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As so many NKT editors defend their WP:outing approach, I add a comment by another Admin made on the Admin notice board and I hope such attacks will stop from now on.

Although it should be noted that unless a user is currently publicly and overtly claiming their identity (such as using their own name as a user name, or repeatedly using their own real name in discussions) it is bad form to dig through such reports in order to "Out" a user. Yes, you could probably dig up my real name and address if you are dedicated enough, but that doesn't mean that because you could find it, posting such information would not be a violation of WP:OUTING. It is bad etiquette of the worst kind to publish another user's real information without there consent, regardless of how easy it was for you to find it on your own. If people don't want to be known by their real name at Wikipedia, we must respect that at all costs... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kt66, as always you are very selective in what you choose to post. Here's another admin's perspective from that same Admin notice board: "...By linking a website you run to a userpage, you have automatically provided some tools for someone to track you - this may even include your personal address." Emptymountains (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See my answer and our discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Third-Party_Sources

The first quick reply by an Admin was:

Can I just say this: there are a lot of links on that version of the userpage, so I'm not 100% sure which one you are involved in. However, a WHOIS database is open to anyone. A WHOIS database lists the "owner" of any domain name. These are a matter of public record. By linking a website you run to a userpage, you have automatically provided some tools for someone to track you - this may even include your personal address. ►BMW◄ 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also for him it seems to be hard to recognize what link links to a personal page. Then he is giving an answer on the WHOIS which was not the point here, and states what he states. However, all this looks not like a careful investigation if WP:outing is fulfilled or not, so I skipped this reply, as something which clarifies the issue. For the archive see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Repeated_Violation_of__WP:outing_and_reverts_of_my_edits.2C_although_based_on_WP:RS_and_NPOV_policies

It is factual wrong of you to claim a "self-outing", this spins the facts. However, as corrected by you, I was wrong with respect to the IP outing, this was not you, so I excuse honestly, with respect to this wrong claim. -- Kt66 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kt66

It looks like we're getting into lots of edit wars here. It seems to me that the article's getting unwieldy and overlong; if every statement about NKT-IKBU must be preceded by "NKT-IKBU says in its own literature..." or "NKT-IKBU characterises itself as..." it gets very unreadable very quickly. Is this really necessary? You wouldn't qualify every single assertion on an article about Christianity with "Some Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim scholars disagree, but Christians say that they follow the principals of Jesus' teaching, who (they believe) is the Son of God (but other traditions dispute this." It would be ridiculous. Surely, it's clear that the statements regarding NKT-IKBU's nature etc. are derived from their own statements on this, and mentioning this briefly is sensible ("According to the NKT-IKBU Internal Rules..." etc.) - but *every* time?

With all due respect to him, it is abundantly clear that Kt66 has a specific pov and anti-NKT-IKBU bias. Whilst it's correct to prevent the article becoming a propaganda piece promoting NKT-IKBU beliefs, and all care should be taken by NKT practitioners editing this article to keep statements factual and NPOV, Kt66's motivation here appears to be simply destructive, and the majority of his recent edits contribute little to the clarity or usability of the article. He may accuse some editors of bias, but it seems to me clear that he is by no means without bias himself.

I appeal to him - please stop using this WP article to promote your anti-NKT-IKBU views. Some mention of controversy and criticism is warranted, and can be found in the article already - there's enough to make the article balanced and factual. There is no benefit to the general, non-biased reader in your continuous addition of more negative pov material.

Atisha's cook (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Atisha's cook you neither seem to see clearly the developments of the article, because you removed also the edits of emptymountains nor seem you to know how WP functions based on NPOV and WP:RS 3rd party source, much more the principle that sources have to been quoted correctly. WP is not favouring a certain opinion but gathers factual material of 3rd party WP:RS and states them in WP:NPOV manner. All my edits follow these principles and the reasons and sources I have added extensively above. You did in no way contribute on an factual or knowledge level, personal preferences of dislikes or likes are no issue for WP nor should it be too much for the editors. The problem is that how NKT defines and portrays themselves and how neutral 3rd party sources portray them are as different as day and night, therefore the "according" phrase is the best solution to provide WP:NPOV besides NKT's WP:SPS are congruent with 3rd party academic WP:RS. In general no editors from an organisation should contribute, see WP:COI, your reverts are strongly based on WP:COI rather than of knowledge about WP guidelines and 3rd party sources and how to use them. Therefore I revert again your edits. It is plain wrong to claim my edits "promote your anti-NKT-IKBU views" the are based on neutral 3rd party WP:RS and follow WP guidelines, your judgement just shows that you have a WP:COI. best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the WP:NPOV ethos and sgree with it, but I really don't think you can reasonably claim not to have a strong POV on this yourself, nor that your edits are free from this bias, can you? I edited text first added by emptymountains in the interests of improving the article, not promoting my own views; in this, emptymountains and I clearly can and should co-operate. The fact that he shares some of my views (and surely disagrees with me on many other points!) needn't prevent this: as you say, the essence of WP is not in the promotion of our viewpoints, but in presenting clear and succinct, factual and encyclopaedic information.

This is where I feel you're unqualified to edit this article. Your aim appears to be not to inform but to influence, whilst hiding behind the WP guidelines. For example, you use here a BBC article as a WP:RS; this is the same article that you yourself succeeded in having changed by contacting it's authors and directing them to this Wiki, which at the time was written almost exclusively by you! Now, the BBC has posted your views, taken from this Wiki in its previously unchallenged and uncorrected state, and you have linked back to the BBC article as a WP:RS! That takes a lot of forethought, dedication and hard work. Are you seriously claiming to be capable of dispassioned and reasonable editing on this topic? If we keep this up, maybe an Admin will look into it, and I'd welcome that.

Atisha's cook (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think I am unqualified you can let check Admins or other neutral users my edits, and ask them if they are appropriate. I wonder how you can accept NKT editors, who run their own NKT or Shugden blogs as editors, but not an editor who disagrees with their inclusions of WP:SPS and balanced the section by using 3rd party WP:RS. For me it is clear that you have a WP:COI as I already stated. If you have factual information or knowledge based on WP:RS or I violated the WP guidelines or quoted sources wrongly please feel free to add and correct. Regarding BBC you are not well informed. The only thing which is true is, that I complaint to BBC and that they finally changed the article. Mainly I asked them to consult Buddhist specialists. Do you believe really they change an article just because an email complaints about an article without verifying it by consulting qualified 3rd party sources? As far as I can see also NKT complaint to BBC and due to this they've probably removed the word 'cult' from the main article, which they had included before. --Kt66 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may, the issue of outing of kt66 and his conduct are related. I will respond here, because it seems more relevant under this heading. Normally of course I agree there should not be any 'outing' of Wikipedia users, however in this case it is not an issue of privacy but of demonstrating a lack of good faith on the part of an editor. kt66 (he who shall not be named) spends countless hours under his real name on blogs, websites, discussion forums, basically anywhere and everywhere doing everything he can to deter people from and to smear the NKT. He has a long history of doing this, as long as his history with the NKT. Therefore, it is clear from his non-Wiki work that his intention in coming on Wikipedia is not to be a good faith NPOV editor, but rather to advance his own anti-NKT agenda. Any neutral observer investigating his other activities would clearly realize and understand this. Therefore, when he comes to NKT related Wiki articles, he is not sincerely acting in good faith, rather he does what he can to manipulate the Wikipedia guidelines to mask his true intentions. If kt66 was honest with himself about this, he would be forced to agree. For him to claim that he is trying to be a neutral editor of the articles is either disengenuous or self-deception. Either way, it has no place on Wikipedia.

If you check all of my contributions to any of the Wikipedia articles you will see that they have all been aimed at providing balance and expressing the issues in a neutral way. I cannot speak for other editors, but my intention is to make the articles factual and enclylopedic. The problem is this: as the history of these pages show, when editors come to these pages with an agenda, then it forces the other side to respond in kind, and then either we wind up with edit wars or the articles become unwieldly as each side adds its refutations and counter-refutations (see the Dorje Shugden controversy article for a case and point). Such a process is endless. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but an encylopedia. If certain editors (on either side) have nothing better to do with their time and their minds than to wage cyber-warfare against one another, there are other forums for doing so, but please don't debase Wikipedia in this way. If an article on George Bush can remain neutral, balanced and avoid self-defeating edit wars, then certainly we should be able to so with these articles.

Please, people. These articles are finally starting to look like regular wikipedia articles. Lets not once again go down the ugly road that has been visited so many times in the past. The last week or so has been shameful. Certainly we all have better things to do with our time than waste it hitting the revert button back and forth. --Dspak08 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dspak08, thank you for your comments ... I agree wholeheartedly. I can't say that I've checked all of your contributions, but from my recollection you have definitely done a really helpful job on this article presenting the material in a fair and balanced way - including the criticisms of the NKT. I definitely think this article is looking worlds better than it did just a year ago ... I think it is a nice, concise, clear summary about the NKT. There are probably some sections that could be shortened, but I think the general tone is clear and factual, exactly what people are looking for when they come to Wikipedia. Please keep up the good work, and let's none of us get involved in ridiculous debates about insignificant points, but focus on keeping this article high-quality and straightforward. Peaceful5 (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dspak08 - fair enough comment. I shouldn't rise to the bait, and I recognise that my own need to correct this defamation comes as much from my own attachment to my own pov, as my desire to maintain a balanced article. However, if the article were truly succinct and factual, I'd be prepared to leave it alone. In fact, I would be prepared to stop editing on this and related articles altogether and leave it to more dispassionate editors, if Kt66 makes a similar promise. Atisha's cook (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dspak, kt66, Atisha's cook, Thank you for all your good points. I agree with kt66 and everyone else that it is good to have different POVs etc on the article, and I feel we have all together done a reasonable job on that. I also think it is fair and necessary to counter kt66 (and anyone else) when they make an inaccurate statement, and I appreciate Atisha's cook patience in doing this above. For example, about the BBC, it is quite significant that they include the word "cult" on one place on their website. But there is a reason for this -- kt66 did say himself in another anti-NKT chat forum that he had personally managed to get the BBC to include the name "cult" by writing to them over and over again (they would not accept at first) and sending them every anti-NKT article he could find; so it is disingenuous for him to say that the BBC just added it out of the blue. However, I also agree with Dspak's points. (Truthbody (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

reply

I wonder why there is a section on my person here? Maybe I make a section about all the present editors, and ask if all these NKT editors may have a WP:COI and if they are members of the 'NKT truth team', running bizarre websites? I think the sources I use are very acceptable and unlike NKT I do not label 3rd party sources like Kay's as "heavily biased "academic" book by David Kay (who had his own disgruntled history with the NKT when he briefly attended meditation classes in Lancaster)" or as being "emotionally unstable". --Kt66 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

O-Kaaaay...

In the "Historical Development of the NKT-IKBU" section, a Wikipedia:Verifiability template has been added saying that the section needs third-party sources. Of the 6 references given in that section, half are from David Kay.

I also noticed in the write-up by Peter Clark (i.e., the NKT-IKBU is a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM"), he cites only three references, and they're all from Kay! Wasn't there some discussion by admins a couple of years back that this article shouldn't be "David Kay's opinion on the NKT"?

P.S. Can't we archive some of this talk page? I know that the same things keep coming up again and again, so it's good for people to read what's been discussed before. But, that makes it hard to search the page for keywords in the most recent discussions. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the idea to archive this stuff, certainly.

wrt Kay - I agree also that he is overused. While he may be "academic"(though this has been questioned...), "neutral" and 3rd-party, the paucity of reliable 3rd=party scholarship on this topic shouldn't mean that we give undue weight to one person's view. This does *not* equate to giving undue weight to Geshe Kelsang's view - after all, his teachings are what NKT-IKBU is based on! What I'm saying is that in terms of "3rd-party, neutral, academic" research, I agree that Kay is vastly overrepresented here. Atisha's cook (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The section gives a reference to Kay but Kay does not state what the section claims he would state, therefore I removed the wrong reference now. Besides the reference about the charity trust number the section relies on NKT blogs or NKT pages and diligently excludes Kay who is besides Waterhouse the only one who researched NKT history. All this has already been stated above (see Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#History_of_the_New_Kadampa_Tradition, and I made also a suggestion on how a summery of NKT history can be presented according to WP:RS (3rd party) sources. WP:SPS and especially blog pages are not suited in this context, except maybe the are balanced by 3rd party sources. --Kt66 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

New Archive

Hello all, I'm creating a new archive page, as suggested by Emptymountains above. The stuff I'm moving is all old and has not generated any discussion since the end of September. I'm keeping all of the sections that had active discussion. If you don't like this idea, let's discuss. The archive page is here: Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 8

repeated deletion of 3rd party sources

As long as editors delete 3rd party WP:RS like in the Intro-Section and base the article heavily on WP:SPS made by the organisation the article violates WP guidelines. I tried to find a compromise with the NKT editors by using NKT's WP:SPS and balancing them by 3rd party WP:RS. The latter is exactly what WP demands. As this has been repeatedly deleted I added now the 3rd party template also in this section. My suggestion for the Intro is this:

Introduction to the NKT-IKBU

The NKT-IKBU describes itself in the booklet "Modern Day Kadampas" as a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054). The NKT-IKBU states "Ka" refers to Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings, and "dam" to Atisha's instructions known as "the stages of the path to enlightenment". According to the NKT-IKBU, by integrating their knowledge of all Buddha's teachings into their practice of the stages of the path to enlightenment (Tib. Lamrim), and by integrating this into their everyday lives, NKT-IKBU members (who call themselves "Kadampa Buddhists") are encouraged to use Buddha's teachings as practical methods for transforming their daily activities into the path to enlightenment, improving their love, compassion and wisdom.

According to the NKT-IKBU, it is an association of over 1100 Buddhist Centers and groups that derive their inspiration and guidance from the example of the ancient Kadampa Buddhist Masters and their teachings, as presented to the modern world by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The NKT-IKBU is an independent religious organization aiming to "principally follow the teachings and example of Je Tsongkhapa".

Bluck states that there is still disagreement about how to interpret NKT history. He sees an "an apparent contradiction between claiming a pure Tibetan lineage and separating completely from contemporary Tibetan tradition."

BBC states that "Critics have described the New Kadampa Tradition as a breakaway movement and argue that the New Kadampa Tradition, as it is known today, is not part of the ancient Kadampa Tradition but a split from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism."

If there is no agreement my suggestion is to consult WP editors not involved in NKT discussion for their opinion. --Kt66 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Those bottom two paragraphs are in a different place in the article, namely in the Controversy - Separation from Tibetan Buddhism section. Emptymountains (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't matter to me. They can be removed there if redundant. The section claims to offer a Introduction to the NKT-IKBU but stated only WP:SPS of the organisation. This is both inappropriate for WP as well as misleading the reader, because what is stated there is the belief only within the organisation and it excludes the view held from people outside of the organisation. At least it should present both (contradicting) aspects or only 3r party sources. This is how encyclopaedic articles should be written in WP. --Kt66 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is the use of WP:SPS from the organisation in the very first section which mixes views in the intro held by the organisation but seen not that way by 3rd party sources. At least I made this WP:NPOV. It is just crazy if some editors think they can continue like this: removing 3rd party WP:RS, basing the article on NKT's WP:SPS and stating the claims from them not in WP:NPOV at it is required for WP. --12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kt66 said in an edit summary, "these are all WP:SPS and should'nt be used at all," which sounds too 'black-or-white' to me. According to WP:SPS, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" as long as 7 criteria are met. (Please see Using SPS as sources on themselves.) I think it would be helpful when removing SPS to specify which of those 7 criteria is being violated and why. Emptymountains (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is black-and-white I agree, compromises can be made. But as the inner view of NKT and outer view differ so much, and there are enough 3rd party WP:RS the exclusive reliance on NKT's WP:SPS is very questionable. If we don't come to agreement we can ask for mediation or 3rd party opinion by other editors. --Kt66 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of redundancy, I think the whole "Introduction to the NKT-IKBU" section just repeats information (albeit in different words) that is found elsewhere in the article. Why not just do away with it? Emptymountains (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who improved my poor English in the very first section. --Kt66 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kt66 - the para.s that you are replicating from the Controversy - Separation from Tibetan Buddhism section belong there, not in the Introduction. they are not introductory: they cover one small aspect of the organisation only - its separation from Tibetan Buddhism. the Controversy - Separation from Tibetan Buddhism section is the appropriate place for them, and they would be redundant if added to the Introduction.

Atisha's cook (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at the FPMT article on Wikipedia, I see a great deal of self-referential material and far less reliance on neutral third-party sources. And there is no mention of their controversies, for example their staggering discrimination toward practitioners of the tradition of their own Founder Lama Yeshe. I can't help but find this interesting -- kt66 wishes to hold the NKT to far higher standards than his own FPMT. And this is more ironic considering the FPMT have a odd and highly dubious policy of discrimination against Shugden practitioners -- who cannot get ordained, teach, or even attend teachings! (One of their senior monks and close disciples of the Founder Lama Yeshe calls the FPMT treatment of Buddhist Centers who rely upon Dorje Shugden a "witch hunt". There are hundreds of testimonials of NKT students being ostracized and criticized by FPMT students and Centers).

I see that until now NKT students have not gone into the FPMT article and tried to change the whole article based on this controversial and bad behaviour on the part of the FPMT -- perhaps this is so as not to create more bad feeling and in order to accept the defeat according to the Lojong teachings. But kt66 has absolutely no such compunction, as an FPMT student, coming onto the NKT article and trying to rewrite it with as much controversy and criticism as he can find "third-party" quotes for.

This whole thing is a reflection of what happens in the "real world". If you attend an NKT Center, you don't hear a bad word about the FPMT, despite the fact that they have been trying to undermine the NKT for years (check out just a few of the stories on http://www.newkadampatruth.org). But if you attend an FPMT Center, your feet are barely inside the door before you hear that the NKT are a demon-worshipping Dalai Lama bashing cult. This FPMT on-going attack on the NKT tradition and NKT students (on Wiki led by kt66), and the NKT refraining from attacking the FPMT (and generally not criticizing other religious traditions) are both reflected on Wikipedia. (Truthbody (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

I solved that problem with the pre-history by using 3rd party WP:RS and made a subpage on NKT's pre-history. See Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition. --Kt66 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very sneaky! But this has not solved any problem at all, it has just created a new one. This new article is redundant -- all the material is covered in the NKT article and Manjushri article. The only need for such an article, written by you, seems to be so that you don't have to cooperate with other editors and can just write your own version of NKT history (at least until the other editors join you there). There is no reason for there to be another article on the NKT, this is just silly. You are not playing fair. (Truthbody (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

The last version as it came out by user:emptymountains is 100% acceptable for me and seems to be quite fair. To avoid redundance with Clarke I added Barrett in the controversy section.

the passage reads now:

The New Kadampa Tradition ~ International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU) is a global Buddhist organization founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in England in 1991. In 2003 the words "International Kadampa Buddhist Union" (IKBU) were added to the original name "New Kadampa Tradition". The NKT-IKBU is an international non-profit organization registered in England as a charitable company.

The NKT-IKBU is a Mahayana form of Buddhism, which has been developed from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. The NKT-IKBU states that it follows the tradition of Kadampa Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha (AD 982-1054), and Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419 AD), as taught by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.

Oxford professor Peter Clarke has characterised the NKT-IKBU as a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM," a characterization which the NKT-IKBU contests.

So what else should be wrong with this? If we can't find agreement we should ask opinion of other editors. Best wishes --Kt66 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FPMT controversies

To save time this sub-section. Dear NKT editors, there are no FPMT controversies nor is there any 3rd party source - as far as I know - which reports about a FPMT controversy. Unlike NKT neither Rick Ross, CIC nor INFORM received complaints about FPMT, nor is there any statement that they are "controversial" by a 3rd party source. So please don't mix the issues. FPMT is not very keen even to improve the rather poor article at WP. I removed in the past claims which were added (probably by NKT followers) without sources and were rather awkward. I am also no member of FPMT or student of Lama Zopa. So please don't claim I would be partial to them. best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense kt66, there are plenty of FPMT controversies. The article on the FPMT reads like their own website, and any attempt at introducing anything less glowing has been removed by you. There have been disrobings. There have been dubious business dealings. The history is controversial as it has broken away from the lineage of the Guru of the Founder Lama Yeshe, something far more unprecedented in Buddhist history than the NKT continuing with the tradition of its lineage Gurus. The FPMT have an actual policy of discrimination pretty much unheard of in other Buddhist organizations that are akin to the Jim Crow laws -- no Shugden practitioner can even attend FPMT teachings now!! Non-Buddhists can, but certainly not Buddhist Shugden practitioners, who are accused as being demon-worshippers!! This is even though the Founder of the FPMT and two-thirds of its lineage Gurus were Shugden practitioners. Lama Osel has a diminishing and difficult role in the organization he created in his past life. One could mention the profound sadness of old devoted disciples of Lama Yeshe, such as Sangye Yeshe; and the fact that many of them over the years have had to go underground with their spiritual practices. One could talk about how the FPMT promotes the cult of the Dalai Lama and doesn't blink an eyelid in doing so, and how it seems perfectly acceptable and normal to talk about him as the father and mother, the saviour, the unsurpassed, the equal to Buddha, the only hope, the only light in this dark world, the sun and the moon and everything in between etc etc -- whereas the NKT cannot say the slightest good thing about Geshe Kelsang without being pounced upon as cult members. One could give details on how the FPMT never seem to cease criticizing the NKT and have been known to tear up publicity, get locations cancelled, shout at NKT members in public, try and destroy the faith of many NKT students, and cause the NKT to be banned from local Buddhist organizations. None of these things have been mentioned so far on that sanitized FPMT article! You cannot seem to see it, kt66, but this situation is hypocritical. Should sauce for the goose not also be sauce for the gander? Although I do not agree with everything the FPMT does, I still have no desire to start analyzing and criticizing them on their article, finding all the third-party neutral sources to back this criticism up. But when will FPMT members like you stop criticizing the NKT? (Truthbody (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

So, you study on the Geshe program of the FPMT but have no allegiance to them?! (Truthbody (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

And, as you know, it is disingenuous to mention Rick Ross -- you are the one who has written the most about the NKT on that forum, where anyone can write anything about anyone!! I could easily go on there and start a thread explaining the hundreds of times the FPMT have slandered the NKT -- just because I choose not to doesn't mean the FPMT is not cult-like in its behaviour, it just means that I and other in the NKT are not grinding our axes about it, unlike you. And you have received many good replies from NKT practitioners on there. Also, INFORM told the NKT that they do not consider them a cult. Plus, this is so disingenuous -- youu are the one who wrote to INFORM and encouraged a letter-writing campaign to them on the NKT survivors site (the fact that you are so prolific on that site shows clearly that you have wp:coi. (Truthbody (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody, I think you are just ill-informed and you mix different issues. People can disrobe, this is allowed by the Buddha, and there is nothing wrong with this, what is wrong is what the successors of GKG did: being outwardly monk but... you know it yourself. NKT's aversion against disrobing, a feature allowed by the Buddha, is again unique only to NKT. To disrobe constitutes no controversy, but to have sexual relationships as a monk with students does. I never read such a non-sense that FPMT would have broken away from its founder, this is ridiculous, it neither is true with the facts nor would you find a quote in a 3rd party source approving such a distorted version of history. I save my time to go into more details which seem to be taken from the NKT truth site and are just baseless. If you wish to contribute maybe you use 3rd party reliable sources. With respect to the claim that I am a FPMT follower. This is plain wrong. I am mainly affiliated (for more than 5 years) with Kagyue and had the chance to study classical Buddhist texts either in India (Kagyue) or Europe (Italy) (Gelug), I decided for the latter. Although the place is run by FPMT, I am no member, nor affiliated with them in any other way, like IMI. I am very independent, in many ways. In my study breaks I go back to my Kagyue center to support them by giving courses on Buddhism, I do not support or work for FPMT. They are just very generous to allow monks not affiliated with the organisation to make use of their structure and generosity. They do not expect to become a member or supporter of them. You can see I contributed on almost all Buddhist controversial topics, including FWBO, Soka Gakkai International, Michael Roach, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan), Karmapa controversy, Ole Nydahl. When the editors of the FWBO article quoted from anonymous websites (FWBO-files) I added a "neutrality disputed" template and suggested as I did here 3rd party academic sources and gave also a list, see possibly scholarly sources for FWBO. With respect to Rick Ross, CIC or Inform. As far as I know these three organisations received for more than 12 years continuously complaints about NKT from family members, former members and others. This has nothing to do with me. I appeared only at RR forum recently when NKT members spread wrong information there and someone sent me an email to let me know. It is everybody's right to correct wrong claims. So please don't spin the facts. Use WP:RS. Best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is also wrong to claim that I would have "encouraged a letter-writing campaign to them on the NKT survivors site". NKT members seem not to know the facts and believe to much the "NKT 'truth' site". --Kt66 (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We will simply have to agree to disagree, it'll save us both lots of time! (Truthbody (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Moving controversial subjects to controversy section

As we now have a larger controversy section, I suggest we put the controversial material in there, so that it can let the reader have different points of view (which is what a controversy is). I have moved Peter Clarke's controversial statement about the NKT being a NRM. It is not an NRM according to the NKT-IKBU and many others -- plus Clarke's view is certainly not the most common view of the NKT and therefore does not belong in the introduction. So, Clarke's POV is still there, but in the right place. What do other editors think? (Truthbody (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Okay, kt66 and Emptymountains, I am happy with the compromise Emptymountains came up with between me thinking Clarke's controversial comment was not correctly placed in the intro and kt66 thinking it was the best place for it. So, it is in there, but also disputed, in simple (non-long-winded!) language. (Truthbody (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

So, why does kt66 not allow there to be a controversy section for the FPMT? This is relevant to the suitability or not of kt66 as an editor on the NKT articles. I am interested in knowing this and why he does not add more and more third-party sources and different (i.e. non-FPMT POVs) on that article, as he insists that we do on here? To me, this reflects his bias and wp:coi very clearly. I notice that some editors did add some of the FPMT controversy to the FPMT article some time ago, but that kt66 removed it, giving the reason that both Lama Zopa and Lama Yeshe voluntarily gave up the practice of Dorje Shugden (untrue, of course, Lama Yeshe practiced til his death) and that the history of Manjushri is controversial for the NKT but not for the FPMT! (That makes no sense. If anything it is the other way round.) I still have no wish to dive into the FPMT article and would rather let the FPMT and kt66 do what they want with that article (as long as they do not overtly criticize the NKT, in which case I feel the need to defend the NKT). However, for the record, this is another example of an FPMT student criticizing the NKT and not accepting any criticism back in turn. (Truthbody (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

The point with Clarke is that that the intro should give a proper definition what NKT is. It is not sufficient to use only NKT's own sources for this. Much more as the 3rd party sources see NKT very different from how NKT views itself. The categorization and statement by Clarke is just a proxy for the differences. For the controversy section David V. Barrett's quote can be used. Which had been already mentioned. I added now also Waterhouse as another WP:RS 3rd party source to the article. To balance the Intro. --Kt66 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"To balance the Intro"? How is that? Now, 3 of the 4 paragraphs are all about the NKT-IKBU's separation from Tibetan Buddhism. Does this make for an accurate overview of what the article is about? Emptymountains (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, everyone: the Clark "NRM" para. is controversial, and pertains only to the controversy aspect of the article's subject, which is hardly defining: the article is about NKT, not the "NKT controversy" (there is no controversy, worthy of more than the short mention itreceives here). this isn't reasonably debatable! so the Contoversy section is the place for it. if anyone disagrees, maybe we can take a vote? Atisha's cook (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a classic example of kt66 not working with other editors. Emptymountains worked hard with him to have an introduction that was acceptable to kt66 by including the comment by one person, Peter Clarke, and simply saying that the NKT rejects the claim. But kt66, satisfied at first, soon pushed to have the NKT counterpoint removed by saying there was no citation for it. But what does he think -- that the NKT agrees that it is an NRM? Of course it does not, no direct reply to Peter Clarke is actually required as it is so obvious. Why it does not was explained in detail in the controversy. So kt66 wanted in the introduction just Peter Clarke's controversial statement and no opposing POV about that statement, so the only way around it was for the NKT to put the whole argument back in again. And, now that we have done that, it makes no sense for it to stay in the introduction and it belongs in the actual controversy section. Any hope of a moratorium on this article is quite impossible for as long as kt66 keeps pushing and pushing his agenda. (Truthbody (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

kt66 conflict of interest?

kt66 has been busy today, creating a redundant new article on NKT prehistory with material that already appears in the main NKT article and Manjushri article so that he can write it all himself; and undoing all the edits made by other editors on the NKT article without good reason and ignoring their reasons. Whenever someone reverts any of his changes or disagrees with his biased edits, kt66 finds an excuse to report them to admin (as if we are in a playground). As many discussions have revealed, he uses third-party quotations (Kay, Bruck) selectively to back up only his own point of view.

It is clear from many discussions (archived) that kt66 has a very anti-NKT agenda and devotes hours to criticizing the NKT all over the Internet. His blogs and websites and numerous posts can be found all over the world wide web. Therefore his claims of neutrality are misleading. I think he clearly has a conflict of interest wp:coi when it comes to editing this article. I think this should be stated for the record. (Truthbody (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

For the sake of transparency, please also see my comment above about user:kt66 contributions to the FPMT article, which seem to back up my claim that kt66 has wp:coi. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

There is absolutely no way Kt66 can claim to be NPOV on this issue. For him to do so is nothing less than delusional. I freely declare myself an NKT practitioner, but I understand clearly that WP is not a forum for proselytising and my agenda is not promotion of my own viewpoint. I'd just like to see a balanced and factual article about a topic I'm very interested in, including whatever unflattering information may be pertinent. While Kt66 may make the same claim, I think that his other anti-NKT www activity clearly demonstrates that such a claim would be disingenuous in the extreme.

Atisha's cook (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem if some posit a WP:COI with respect to me, but to be fair this can be posited as well to any other editor of that article. There is also some difference. I am no member of any organisation (unlike the NKT editors) and I use 3rd party WP:RS and do not rely on NKT's WP:SPS. --Kt66 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. You find no NKT sympathetic editors trying to attack the FPMT article (where you study). You have an avowed intention to warn the world about the NKT -- that is what makes it WP:COI. (I'd include some of your many quotes about that here if you weren't so sensitive about being outed, but people can find them easily enough on the WWW.) (Truthbody (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

You are studying on the FPMT Geshe program, so that makes you a member of that organization. This is not outing you, you have said this in your bios, i don't think you keep that a secret. There may be NKT members editing this article, of course, but I for one share Atisha's cook's view above i.e. I want to see a balanced and factual article written with a wp:npov, not something written by someone with an avowed intent to undermine the NKT. With that aim in mind, I am perfectly happy and willing to use wp:RS and you are incorrect to say otherwise. Moreover, I have seen you make edits on the FPMT article, so are you suggesting all FPMT members stop editing that article? How far do you take that?! Is no one in any organization allowed to talk about that organization on Wiki? Come on now, it is clear you have a wp:coi that is not shared by other editors. (Truthbody (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

See the fiasco over the introduction for an example of how kt66 will push his agenda again and again until he gets what he wants. This is why there will never be able to be a moratorium on this article (see proposal below) because kt66 will not rest until he has his version. Looking over the recent discussions over the last few weeks, they all are based around kt66 and his agenda. (Truthbody (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Answer (copy and paste from above):

With respect to the claim that I am a FPMT follower. This is plain wrong. I am mainly affiliated (for more than 5 years) with Kagyue and had the chance to study classical Buddhist texts either in India (Kagyue) or Europe (Italy) (Gelug), I decided for the latter. Although the place is run by FPMT, I am no member, nor affiliated with them in any other way, like IMI. I am very independent, in many ways. In my study breaks I go back to my Kagyue center to support them by giving courses on Buddhism, I do not support or work for FPMT. They are just very generous to allow monks not affiliated with the organisation to make use of their structure and generosity. They do not expect to become a member or supporter of them. You can see I contributed on almost all Buddhist controversial topics, including FWBO, Soka Gakkai International, Michael Roach, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan), Karmapa controversy, Ole Nydahl. When the editors of the FWBO article quoted from anonymous websites (FWBO-files) I added a "neutrality disputed" template and suggested as I did here 3rd party academic sources and gave also a list, see possibly scholarly sources for FWBO. With respect to Rick Ross, CIC or Inform. As far as I know these three organisations received for more than 12 years continuously complaints about NKT from family members, former members and others. This has nothing to do with me. I appeared only at RR forum recently when NKT members spread wrong information there and someone sent me an email to let me know. So please don't spin the facts. Use WP:RS. Best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

--Kt66 (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we can agree to disagree to save us both time, as I can see this will never end otherwise. You are hell-bent on saving everyone from the NKT and the NKT from themselves, and it seems from what you say here that you also like pushing the argument along on other "controversial" Buddhist subjects as well, so I'll leave you to your caped crusader mentality, good luck with that. (Truthbody (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Disagreeing or broadening the perspective by learning from all sides? I just found this piece at the FWBO article talk page. Still I follow that policy expressed here:

As far as I know FWBO changed into a healthy group. Friends of the Theravada order in England told it to me. Scientific sources may reflect that and the article should be balanced in all ways. So when there is a FWBO site which reflects the past critisism and the actions FWBO has taken from it, it can also be added. I added a lot of scientific sources above and they will contain balanced material for the article. It would be very nice to have a proper and fair article. --Kt66 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you label me as 'Anti' I think you block your own perspectives. You can see that I refused also the inclusion of newkadampa.com see What is the truth? because it does from my pov not fulfil WP standards. --Kt66 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for future of NKT related articles

I would like to make a proposal concerning all of the NKT related articles. I am doing it here as it seems the most appropriate place.

If I may, it seems to me like almost all of the editors involved in these articles are using Wikipedia as a battleground instead of trying to write a factual, neutral encyclopedia article. Both sides are doing whatever they can to try manipulate the wikipedia rules to make it look like they are being neutral and good faith Wiki editors, when in reality they are just trying to get their own version of the situation in. One side makes a statement, then the other side needs to refute it, then the first side needs to refute the refutation and on and on it goes. With the end result being the articles become ridiculously long and unreadable. The best example of this is the Dorje shugden controversy article, which is downright ridiculous! These articles have been subject to constant back and forth for many years, sometimes favoring one side, sometimes the other. As long as both sides are not embracing the real purpose of Wikipedia, this will go on forever as neither side will ever back down.

I have three different suggestions:

1. Ban the extremist editors (from both sides) from participating in the writing of the articles. Then, only those committed to the Wiki project and who are making a good faith attempt to provide a balanced, neutral and above all SHORT article will remain, enabling something to stabilize.

2. Adopt a 'nothing remains unless all agree' rule. If everyone agrees to this rule, then if anybody says anything another editor disagrees with, it can be deleted. What will remain will be only factual statments that everyone can agree with. The articles will necessarily become short, factual, neutral and encylopedic. Instead of trying to hash it out, which has proven fruitless after many many years, just agree we all have veto and whittle the article down to a bare bone, non-controversial minimum.

3. Delete all of the articles and put a 5 year moratorium on them coming back. When deletion requests first came up, I was opposed to the idea thinking that common ground might be found and the articles talk about relevant and topical issues. But I have changed my mind. This is endless and serving no purpose other than waste everyone's time. I am sure if you asked kt66 he would say he would stop if the pro-NKT people would stop. If you asked the pro-NKT people they would say they would stop if kt66 would stop. It seems to me that this is one area where we all agree. So lets all stop and delete the articles. If the two sides want to wage cyber warfare against one another about these issues, they can do so on their respective blogs. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a battleground. Since despite numerous attempts it seems there is no way Wikipedia would not degenerate into a battleground on these issues. So delete the articles and preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and free us all of the time burden of 'needing to respond to the last thing said by X editor'.

Please let me know what you all think of these proposals. --Dspak08 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I like the idea of a 5-year moratorium, when this was suggested in the past the admins basically said, "Grow up!"

However, how about a self-imposed moratorium? Kt66 seems to think that the current version is acceptable and should be protected, so let's all just leave it alone. Emptymountains (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If only! He did accept a mutually acceptable version for a few minutes, but then decided to push his luck further in the introduction by first adding a whole new paragraph by Waterhouse and then trying to remove the NKT counterpoint to Peter Clarke's statement, making the whole introduction about controversy and not about the NKT in accordance with his anti-NKT agenda. So, the moment editors take their eye off this article, kt66 will change it back to his old biased version. See discussion on wp:coi above. (Truthbody (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

We can not continue like this. If I look on the previous outcome of the intro-section, this looks quite good:

The New Kadampa Tradition ~ International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU) is a global Buddhist organization founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in England in 1991. In 2003 the words "International Kadampa Buddhist Union" (IKBU) were added to the original name "New Kadampa Tradition". The NKT-IKBU is an international non-profit organization registered in England as a charitable company.

The NKT-IKBU is a Mahayana form of Buddhism, which has been developed from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. The NKT-IKBU states that it follows the tradition of Kadampa Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha (AD 982-1054), and Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419 AD), as taught by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.

Oxford professor Peter Clarke has characterised the NKT-IKBU as a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM," a characterization which the NKT-IKBU contests.

I think this is pretty fair and based on all different povs there are and it is also NPOV. If the editors are not able to work together, this includes me and everyone, and don't accept the WP guidelines and rules for articles, all this is again 'a fruitless case'. Many non-NKT editors have already given up, almost no Admin or uninvolved WP editor likes to contribute, to give his opinion or to suggest something. Presently it looks like there are only NKT editors, supplemented and challenged by my recent re-appearance, and edits. Of course some have very opposing views. However, I felt with user:emptymountains there is someone who is sensitive to the subject matter and doesn't reject 3rd party WP:RS as being biased and the like. In general I would prefer not to do anything at all here. But as I use Wikipedia and stumbled from time to time over the articles I felt, in that way as they were presented due to the changes by NKT editors, this is just not acceptable. This view has been expressed also during my retirement by User:20040302, who stated

Two things. First of all, kt66 is retired. Secondly, I worked alongside kt66 on WP for a couple of years, and although he was sometimes furious at himself for having spent so much of his life promoting NKT, when he came here, he learned to balance his opinions carefully with fact. It was mainly due to his efforts that the NKT, DS, KG articles remained reasonably balanced. Of course, now that GKG has told his students to stay away from discussion groups, it is unlikely that his faithful followers would continue to edit and discuss on WP - but it appears this isn't the case. Once more, the said articles are blatantly biased in NKT's favour - so much so that they garner attention as being not much more than promo. material. If you wish to present the NKT, DS, GKG etc in a manner that meets the criteria of an encyclopedia, it is essential that you reflect the facts of these things in an impartial manner. Unfortunately, it appears that there are no students of GKG, of the DSS, or any other supporter who is yet able to do that.

Sadly this rare non-NKT editor and non-former-NKT member has been quit his work as well at this and the related articles. He tried to ask for deletion.

The first request for deletion can be read here. User:Amerique was asked by User:Excellentone to nominate the article for deletion. User:Excellentone appeared to me in all her arguments as being also a NKT editor. So there are only very rare exceptions of non-NKT editors. Another editor not affiliated with NKT was User:ClockworkSoul, although he criticised my edits strongly at one point, later he seem have to changed his mind, because he voted against the first deletion and stated instead "Speedy keep - Having a repairable POV is no basis for deletion.

These are my points at this time. I wish to add that also the proposal was added by an active NKT member. So it looks like: 5-6 NKT editors and one counterpart (me) are working on the NKT article. Very interesting and maybe contraproductive.

With respect to the proposal and the email I received from Dspak08, I will read it in detail and look what I can do or say. I will make a pause and would be happy if at least the last version of the intro-section can be accepted. If there is uncertainty I suggest to apply one of these three methods:

• Request for comment - The editor who suggested this to me said: "In the past, I have found this to be lacking, especially in cases where expert knowledge is required."
• Mediation - To sort out our differences without imposing a solution.
• Arbitration - To impose a solution upon the editors of the article. This can determine what kind of content or sources are acceptable.

Best Wishes and thanks to all. --Kt66 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This was an Admins opinion:

Please follow the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you all can't reach agreement on the Talk page. I don't see any reason why admins should intervene, at this point. Avoid WP:Edit warring. Use an WP:RFC if there is an intractable dispute. Since I'm not planning to take any action, it would be better to continue this discussion on the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

--Kt66 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

thoroughly edits by some editors

Thank you, I didn't check who it was, I guess user:emptymountains. I just glanced through it and it is a great improvement. I put the word 'banning' in paranthesis, because it can not be stated that there is a general "ban". There were only advice in the beginning (see Mills), then there were institutional bans, and only recently since 2008 and only in the Gelug monasteries the practice was banned. Before the practice was allowed in the monasteries. Moreover there is no ban for NKT or any individual person. Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University states: "since its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries – while its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community instead of opportunistically attacking the Dalai Lama in order to provoke misinformed publicity for their sect.” see: TibetanReview.net If you insist to use the word "ban" please make it NPOV by making clear who refers to this as "ban". The term "Ban" is quite a misleading simplification for what happened over the last decades. --Kt66 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC) --Kt66 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Totalidiot's additions

With respect, Totalidiot - all this stuff has been debated ad nauseam; we have finally arrived at a workable article. Your recent edits contibute nothing new and serve only to reignite old arguments; they amount to little more than petulant antgonism. Please refrain from this behaviour - it's completely pointless.Atisha's cook (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)