Talk:Ole Nydahl

Dispute with German Buddhist Union

I'm wondering if this section should be on the Diamond Way Buddhism page? The decision to leave DBU was made by the 2 umbrella organizations Diamond Way and Bodhipath. Badabara (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi JimRenge, I noticed you reverted the recent revision. Source looked good. What's your reason? Badabara (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me re-state my question... your reason for revert is "friendly source and not neutral POV"... The source is good, and it simply says "the 2 organizations left DBU". I'm wondering what's your reasoning that it's not neutral, and what's the significance to revert? Badabara (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Badabara, I reverted this edit because the edit summary did not mention or justify the removal of reliably sourced content. Specifically this description of the dispute by the Deutschlandfunk, a reliable, independent, secondary source: "In 2019 there were discussions and an application to exclude the Diamond Way from the German Buddhist Union (DBU), based on Nydahl's statements about Islam. DBU members were worried about possible damage to reputation and the German section of Diamond Way decided to leave the DBU." If this is not clear enough, the Deutschlandfunk article says "Members of the umbrella organization “German Buddhist Union” wanted to expel the Danish Buddhist master and his organization at a general meeting in September this year. Now the Diamond Way came before a probable expulsion and declared itself to leave." (original:"Mitglieder des Dachverbands „Deutsche Buddhistische Union“ wollten den dänischen buddhistischen Meister und seine Organisation letztendlich auf einer Mitgliederversammlung im kommenden September ausschließen. Nun kam der Diamantweg einem wahrscheinlichen Rauswurf zuvor und erklärte selbst seinen Austritt.") JimRenge (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi JimRenge, the reference you are mentioning was not actually removed in my edit, I just reordered the information. The old reference was still there at the end. ( if you look again you will see that the end of the sentence reads "while DBU continued to voice concerns with the political views of Nydahl.") The Buddhismus Heute article provides the point of view of those who left in contrast to the Deutschlandfunk article. This is important information to add balance to this article. I think this use of the article is in line with the WP:PRIMARY policy - if you have a suggestion on how to reword please provide. Actually I have to say that Badabara makes a good point, the issue with the DBU actually relates to the Buddhist organization moreso than it does to ON, so it would probably fit better on the DWB page. Could be moved. Mekinna1 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the section about the dispute with German Buddhist Union should not be moved to the Diamond Way article. The long term dispute with the German Buddhist Union is based on Ole Nydahls behaviour and his public statements against Islam (see translation of Deutschlandfunk source [1]). JimRenge (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi JimRenge. Reading the talk page I can see this is a very heated page. Really heated as in - wow! I worked on the Karmapa controversy page a while back and thought that was heated, but managed to work towards neutrality - meaning showed opposing points of view with neutrality. Looking through the Ole Nydahl page it looks to me some sources are sketchy while others are over-used. Prof Scherer is named in the article 10 times then listed in the notes 12 times and then his texts are used 22 times as a reference. I'm not sure there's an other page on wikipedia that is mostly dominated by a single source, and holding a certain point of view. I don't know how this came to be, and not pointing fingers, but if we're going to actually get to neutrality, this page needs a once over. JimRenge do you have interest in working on this with me?

Back to the specific topic at hand. Re: DBU - seems to me that there are 2 points of view: (1) DBU forced out DW because of Lama Ole's statements on Islam, and an opposing view that (2) Diamond Way, as well as Bodhipath left DBU "citing concerns with the DBU's increased focus on political rather than religious issues". Since both points of view are simply that - points of view - I propose you and Mekinna1 work to show both points of view, in order to achieve neutrality. Badabara (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Badabara: claiming that this page lacks neutrality because one author (who happens to be an expert) is often used, is misplaced and short-sighted. This article has already seen a lot of work to maintain neutrality, against continuous attempts to hagiographise Nydahl. See the latest edit, which was, correctly, removed by JimRenge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan It's important that a controversial figure is represented as controversial, so the goal shouldn't be to make Ole Nydhal appear saintly. I'm guessing you've put a lot of work into this page. I also don't like to see pages I've worked on get disrupted, so I'd like to work with you. I'd like to (1) split the section "Influence and Controversy" into 2 sections: "Influence" and "Controversy", and then (2) move "Lama and lay siddhi-yogi" to the "controversy" section. (3) Then I'd like to shorten the "Karmapa Controversy" section, making clear Nydahl's influence and involvement, then point the reader to the Karmapa controversy.

As for the Mekinna1 edit and JimRenge revert. It's worth digging a bit deeper. Facts being, Ole Nydahl makes controversial statements about Islam, and behaved in ways DBU classified as not-Buddhist behavior... but what isn't clear and what I want to know is did Diamond Way leave DBU or was Diamond Way kicked out? I think that will require digging a bit deeper than the current source. One source with one point of view isn't enough to call neutral. I think we can get to neutral without getting entrenched. Badabara (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the observations that the article is now almost entirely based on the point of view of one source in particular, as stated by Joshua Jonathan above, that is a valid observation, and I don't think this is following the policy on biased or opinionated sources, WP:BIASED - "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The idea is supposed to be provide different viewpoints on a subject. If the only viewpoint that an editor is willing to consider is Scherer's, to the point where that editor is asserting his opinions as fact WP:ASSERT, then it's an issue, wouldn't you agree? Further, if JimRenge can't even finish reading one of my edits to see that the information you're accusing me of deleting is actually still there before you automatically revert it, and then you just don't bother responding at all, then something is wrong here. On the point of DBU - this is a situation to do with the ORGANIZATION getting expelled or leaving, not with ON getting expelled or leaving. Whether his opinions were instrumental or not, the fact is that this is something that happened to the organization. Consequently it would make sense to have a couple of sentences on this page and then a redirect to the Diamond Way Buddhism page for the detailed story. In any case, the story being told should present both the DBU's point of view on what occurred as well as DWB's in order to maintain NPOV. Mekinna1 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Another attempt to let primary sources pass as WP:RS? We have discussed your pov-pushing, based on primary sources, over and over again. See, for e xample, Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 2#Proposal to delete Section 4 on "Academic Reception"; or Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 2#Letters, where I wrote [I] mistook you for Mekkina1 - who added all those letters as sources, and keeps suggesting that Scherer is not reliable. See also WP:DONTGETIT. Scherer is WP:RS; that's why he's being referenced often. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Buddhismus Heute source needs to be used necessarily in this instance, at no point have I said that. What I am saying is that basing this entire article about ON on one biased source is not a good practice. Sure, Scherer can be WP:RS, but he's also totally biased, had a prior personal relationship and falling out with ON, and so his pov needs to be counter-balanced with other points of view and should not be presented as fact rather than opinion. This seems fairly obvious. If this was another article and it wasn't me suggesting this I can't see how you could disagree with a statement this obvious. This is the equivalent of having an article about a living person that is based entirely on the jilted ex-wife's biography of the guy. It's unlikely to be fair and reasoned! Regarding the earlier discussion on the use of Scherer as a source, now that I am more familiar with the Wikipedia policies regarding biased sources I see less of an issue with citing him (although maybe he is more of an expert in gender studies than anything else these days...), but it still cannot be the only point of view on this page and it should be made clear to the reader that Scherer has a bias. I think the policies are flawed but that's a separate discussion. On the DBU issue, I agree with Badabara that some further investigation is warranted into what actually happened. The description of events doesn't have to be limited to the one source that has been located, which, for the record, is also fairly biased. Finally, yes I do think that some judicious use of primary sources is sometimes helpful and necessary, such as in this case where the primary source is giving the DWB's perspective on leaving the organization. I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia policies anything saying that primary sources are always forbidden. Maybe a quote from their statement would have been better than citing it the way I did, I would be fine with that. The Deutschlandfunk article did not appear to make any attempt to contact DWB and get a statement, all the quotes in the article are from an interview with a DBU representative, except for one written quote that seems to be from a DWB written statement or letter. Also they make some inflammatory claims that DWB 'sees itself as a victim' - which is an opinion statement, and shows the bias of the writer. Again, this source may be reliable, but it is biased so it should be balanced with other points of view.Mekinna1 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mekinna1 and JimRenge seems you have a history...

Digging a bit into DBU and DW, there are a few perspectives worth voicing: (1) DW was the largest representative (approx 1/3 of the members) at DBU - having the most members, paying the highest dues, while having the smallest share of delegates, exponentially... Smallest number of members required for DBU membership is 10, which grants 1 delegate at the members assembly. Up to 600 is 2 delegates, and anything over 600 is ONLY 3. With DW having in 2017, estimated 5,500 members (probably closer to 7K ion 2019) with only 3 delegates, there's an exponential discrepancy in representation. A Buddhist group with only 10 members, had 10% represention while DW had 0.05% representation. This is what was meant by "un-democratic structure".

(2)DW representative made a statement about DBU democratic structure as well as *freie Meinungsäußerung* (freedom of expression) in April, which was before the DBU vote to start an expulsion proceeding.

I think additional 1-2 sentences to round it out is appropriate. Please let me see if I can put something together. Badabara (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comparing Scherer's work with a 'tell-all book of a former wife' is a ridiculous comparison. Scherer being biased is your personal opinion, not shared by other editors, nor sustainable in light of Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like this type of side conversation, somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand. Scherer's research should be taken for what it is. He's a former student of Ole Nydhal who had a falling out with his teacher. Badabara (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The info that Scherer had a falling out with his teacher is new. What is your source? JimRenge (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I assumed that Scherer and Nydahl had a falling out. Perhaps they are friends. Quick review of the relationship between Ole Nydhal and Scherer:

(1)Scherer conducted research on DW and Ole Nydhal from 2007 to 2015. Scherer was a student of Nydhal from 2005 to 2011. Source: https://info-buddhismus.de/Lama_Ole_Nydahl-Diamantweg-Buddhismus_Bee-Scherer.html

(2)Scherer was invited to teach by Nydhal, at Nydahl’s center's around the world until 2015. Source: http://www.globalbuddhism.org/jgb/index.php/jgb/article/view/102/116 PDF Download link: www.globalbuddhism.org/jgb/index.php/jgb/article/download/102/116

(3)Neither Nydhal or Scherer made public statements about the ending of the teacher/student relationship in 2015, and there's no press. (Or I just can't find any). Badabara (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The information on Scherer and Nydahl parting ways is not new information. I commented on it in a post on this talk page on November 13 2019. Scherer himself alludes to it in the article entitled "Neo-orthodox Tradition and Transition: Lama Ole Nydahl and the Diamond Way" that is referenced several times in this article. At the beginning of the paper, he states, "Previously (Scherer 2014b: 107–108), I have transparently reflected on my own positionality as a scholar-cum-practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and my own previous connection with Ole Nydahl and his organisation. This connection ceased in 2012." Some other quotes from that article indicate the hostile tone of the parting of ways, "As for the Diamond Way, Ole Nydahl is a clear example for a highly charismatic introductory Tibetan Buddhist teacher and he appears to fit the introductory needs of some converts who are happy with (or: are happy to ignore) his politics and personal habitus." Mekinna1 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but "parting ways" and "falling out" are different. I can't find anything online that suggests "falling out", though I do see a change in language and increase in criticism in Scherer's content as time moves forward. Badabara (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Badabara that is true there is a difference between parting ways and having a falling out. However, this is not like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie splitting up - i.e. not that many people care and there weren't stories in the newspaper about it. The fact that he didn't say that the relationship ended on good terms, and as you say the increase in criticism and negativity in Scherer's tone after 2012, is probably fairly telling. So, for the moment, Scherer could be treated with caution as a source. If a reliable source is found that documents a falling out, then this discussion could be revisited. Does that sound reasonable? Mekinna1 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mekinna1 Makes sense. The ending of the teacher/student relationship between Scherer and Nydhal is worth investigating further. If there was a "falling out", and not a "friendly parting of ways", that changes Scherer's credibitlity as the single most used scholarly source to define Ole Nydhal. For now, it's an open ended question, and I still find it odd Scherer is used so often considering they had a personal relationship. Balance of other sources would be helpful to achieve NPOV. Badabara (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Karmapa Controversy

I used content from the section to create a short intro to the subject and then deleted content that goes into the controversy, but isn't specific to Ole Nydhal. Karmapa Controversy page has a lot of information for readers who want to go deep into the subject. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to state: "For in depth information see: Karmapa controversy". Please review. Badabara (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary Source - newsletter

Hi Joshua Jonathan. I deleted an edit based on the source being a news letter from Lama Ole himself. Isn't that the same as a personal blog? Original research/primary source? I thought we'd be on the same side on this one. All best, Badabara (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A newsletter is fine for personal info like a marriage; it's non-controversial. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Got it Badabara (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

An open secret

The German Wikipedia page has included this info. Opinions? https://www.tilogaard.dk/english/html/Ole_Nydahl_suffer_from_severe_alzheimer.html 86.101.200.55 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sexual relations with students

Ole Nydahl has admitted having sexual relationships with his students, stating in an interview when asked:

There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that. They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo Dusepo (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Why is this added to the "controversy" section and not the "personal life" section? There was not any controversy around Lama Ole having sexual relations with his students. He is not a monk. Badabara (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually looking through the history of the Nydahl wikipedia page, the same statement and quote was added by an editor no longer on wikipedia and reverted by Billlion, February 11, 2020. I'm going to go ahead and delete/revert the edit by Jo Dusepo. Badabara (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If this is not in dispute, why remove it?

Perhaps put it in the personal life section if you think that fits better. I put it in the controversy section because it's often (or usually) considered controversial for religious leaders to have sex with their followers. Maybe his 'Diamond Way' group is different, but in many organisations this would be considered an abuse of power. Jo Dusepo (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason it was reverted Feb 11 2020 is no longer on the talk page (was archived). Billlion can you chime in?Badabara (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually no need to reach out to Billlion. Makes sense to me. Here is his statement from the talk page archives (feb 11, 2020):

"I deleted the section that was added along your lines. My problem with it is that it is a whole section (on a possibly controversial area) but it consists of one sentence a short quote and a lot of references, so this seems unbalanced. Perhaps the sources cited discus the issue at length in which case it might deserve a section. Be careful though to abide by WP:BLP."

Badabara (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say sexual relations with students is controversial even for teachers who are not celibate. However I do not have any reliable sources to cite at the moment and so would argue until/if something is found we leave it as it is. Billlion (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Billlion, please see the sources linked above in this thread. :::::: (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The "sources" you're citing are actually one source (original and pdf archive of the original). The source is an opinion piece from a local paper from a small town in Wisconsin. All we have is a quote from Ole Nydhal and an opinion about that quote. Your single source does not discuss the issue at length or reveal any new information.Badabara (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No explanation? Jo Dusepo reverted my edit. Just want to see what happens? I don't get it. This topic was closed. Billlion care to chime in? Thanks Badabara (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Abide by WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceis411 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, this article is clearly being brigaded by followers of Ole Nydahl who won't allow anything critical about him (including newly created sockpuppet accounts). I've got better things to do so I'll leave you all to it. Jo Dusepo (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)