Talk:Western Shugden Society/Archive 1

Archive 1

Both sides

Okay, I think it is better now. We have kept both sides of the story in, so it is now more balanced and has sources. Thank you. (121.15.200.147 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

It is important that the article does not start out completely biased, as it did. It needs to state the aims of the WSS and how the WSS is described officially on press releases and on the website. Then there can be a controversy section about whether or not the WSS is the NKT -- the arguments for and against. But it cannot start with a slur and end with a slur. It has to be NPOV. Thank you. (121.15.200.147 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Article nominated for deletion

The discussion whether to remove this and related articles is was first being carried out at [1]. Emptymountains (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the number of 100 Tibetans protesting in New York can be supported. Is this verifiable? If there is evidence I welcome it but for example on the WSS website they mention 500 protestors and people that attended the Dalai Lama's teachings said there were only 200. This fact is key because if the numbers are inflated it is false information. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropagandaAntipropaganda1 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is that the chart with the number of protestors for each demonstration be completely removed, unless the numbers can be confirmed by a neutral newspaper article, for example. Listing of such numbers without evidence by those supportive of the WSS is hardly neutral point of view. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropagandaAntipropaganda1 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes made to the article

Last night I made quite a few changes to this article. I was gong to explain some of it at the time, but did not get the time. I will therefore explain as much as possible. Firstly, the Lead Section was incorrectly formatted - the first mention of the society in the lead should be in bold and the lead did not contain enough information for the general reader to understand what the topic is about. Having said that I still think the Lead Section should be slightly expanded. The article also contained very few articles, and of those it had, some were simply redirects (such as [14th Dalai Lama]]). I expanded all the sources using the relevant templates. In doing so I checked each source, partly for information for myself, but also to ensure that the sources actually backed up what is in the article. However, some of the sources did not do so and I therefore removed them. They were simply links to sites that did not even mention the WSS, Dorje Shugden etc. I also changed some of the wording, especially the use of the word "many"! I removed unsusbstantiated claims such as how "many Tibetans" were at demonstrations. I viewed most of the videos available (on the WSS site) from the demos, and there was no evidence that there were "many Tibetans" demonstrating. The vast majority are Westerners.

The table of demos I also removed. It serves no purpose and it also contained what were again unsubstantiated claims for the number of people present at the demos. There are other changes I have made of course too. In the section "Response to the protests by third-parties" there was mention of a Human Rights Lawyer who had commented on the demo in Nottingham, England. However, the only source for this was a message at the end of a video on the WSS site. A quick check on google for the name of the Human Rights Lawyer brought no results. So considering that section is meant to show "third party" views, I have removed it, as the WSS site is not a third party source. There was also mention of a "Special Agent Brockman" but again, nothing to substantiate anything so that was also removed. I have for now left that section. However, as it is, it still might need either removing or correctly sourced content added from third parties (and not from the WSS website nor any website connected with the Dalai Lama). The only content in that section now is simply about having the freedom of speech in the United States to demonstrate. However, that is not a "Response to the protests by third-parties". I will try to source some third party responses from the media.

When I first looked at the article yesterday, and I should stress that I did so without any strong views either for or against the campaign, it came across more as promotional material for the WSS, advertising what they are doing with additional comments added from those criticising it. Hopefully it at least now goes some way to being a more balanced article. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to my message above, I see that some of the sourced content I added has been removed, some wording has been changed from what was said in the source to totally different wording, and other content restored which I had removed becuase it has no reliable source. Firstly I should point out that the Western Shugden Society website is a Primary source and whilst it can and should be used in some instances, I would urge those editors who keep using that website (and others connected with it such as newkadampa truth) as a main source, to read this - WP:PRIMARY which clearly states, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." We need to be very carefeul therefore when using the WSS website and the associated sites as sources, and I would urge those editors involved to take this on board and remember it when editing the article.

Again I have removed the content about a Human Rights Lawyer and a Special Agent from the US Dep't of State, because there are no third party secondary reliable sources being provided, simply text on a WSS video which is with respect not a valid source. And the edit adding the US Dep't of State verified nothing as it made no mention whatsoever of the WSS. Sources need to verify content. The wording on this article needs to be neutral, as it is not here as a vehicle to promote the WSS and so needs to reflect that. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tangerines, You have made some excellent progress in bringing this article up to Wiki standards. I would like to draw your attention to something: One of the references (which has a lot of poor grammar, by the way) says, "As they came out, they were confronted by the demonstrators," hence the wording in the article which says, "As thousands of people left Radio City Hall they were confronted by the WSS demonstrators." At most, the Dalai Lama's supporters were "confronted by the demonstrators' chants" from across the street, not confronted by them in any physical sense, a distinction which I think we should make clearer in the article. Emptymountains (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times article is based on other very similar articles which appeared in various newspapers, three of them used as sources including the Capital Times (where they actually call the WSS protestors "angry"). The Capital Times also call the protestors, "members of a Buddhist sect". The New York Times source also uses the wording "Buddhist sect". There are clearly strong views on both sides on the entire topic, and also of course on events of that day. There were other reports which also used the wording "confronted by protestors". It could then be changed to "were confronted by angry protestors, all members of a Buddhist sect"!! (Which of course it shouldn't be changed to, but you hopefully get my point.) There was clearly a confrontation and both sides will think they are in the right which is quite evident from the video on the WSS site. We have to though use secondary, neutral, third party sources, and even ones with poor grammar!! :) I have though amended it and taken that part out completely. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tangerines, Thanks for your edits to the article and for applying your WP experience to editing on this topic. I appreciate your wish to edit this topic in a neutral way. Thank you in particular for reminding us of the rules regarding primary sources, and I appreciate your patience in working with the other editors here. Thanks, Peaceful5 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kundeling Rinpoche

There's been some back and forth on the inclusion of a statement by Kundeling Rinpoche from the France24 video. My main contention is that his statement "praising China for what they are doing in Tibet" should not be included because it does not make clear which of their activities he supports and which activities he does not support. Because the views of this one person are used to substantiate Samdhong Rinpoche's claim that all Shugden worshippers "are financed by the Chinese", his words are inflammatory and I think will only increase confusion about this issue. Peaceful5 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The section that you keep removing sourced content from is quite clearly entitled "Other groups protesting the ban on Dorje Shugden". The article does not need to make clear what activities he supports for it to be included and it is not a valid reason to remove sourced content as you keep doing. There is also no mention of Samdhong Rinpoche in the article, it will not confuse anything, and it is relevant to that section. The section is quite clearly about other groups not connected to WSS. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have a section in an article on WSS about other groups that have nothing to do with WSS? Kundeling Rinpoche has no connection with WSS and WSS do not endorse his views, which I personally think are a bit maverick and damaging, so why include quotes from him in this article? Surely he needs his own article, or it could be included in Dorje Shugden Controversy, but not here. What does anyone else think? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

I think it is important to continue Kelsang Pema's quote about what having or not having the identification means: "Without it you can’t buy food in shops, you can’t get visas for traveling, you can’t get medicines in hospitals, people are having their homes burned, thousands upon thousands of monks are homeless." This isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, although it is an important issue in the protests. Emptymountains (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have added it in now.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tangerines and I had some debate about applying the term Godwin's Law to K. Pema's comment about the similarity between the Shugden situation in India and the Jews being forced to wear a yellow star in Nazi Germany. While there are some points of similarity between the two situations, there are obviously many differences. The history of Jews in Germany prior to the Nazi's time is vastly different from the history of Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan community prior to the Dalai Lama's time. Also it is almost impossible to imagine the Dalai Lama orchestrating oppression and violence against Shugden practitioners comparable to what the Nazis eventually orchestrated against the Jews. Nevertheless, there are substantial similarities between the treatment of Jews during the first several years of the Nazi regime (which was far milder than the later treatment), and the treatment of Shugden practitioners under the Dalai Lama's rule. I think that it is these similarities (some of which she lists explicitly) that Pema is referring to in her comment. The similarity to Nazi Germany is only partial. Because of this, I removed the reference to Godwin's law. Here's an extract from the article: "Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.... However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons. Tangerines has re-inserted the statement, but I wanted to appeal to other editors for their opinion. Thoughts? Peaceful5 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is inappropriate to apply Godwin's Law in the context because there are certainly similaries between what Shugden practitioners in India (and generally) are experiencing and the experiences of Jews under the Nazi regime, for example being identified and demonized by the their lack of ID cards and not having the same freedoms as the rest of the Tibetan population because of it. Just as Hitler unjustifiably used the Jews as scapegoats for Germany's problems, the Dalai Lama has unjustifiably blamed Dorje Shugden and Shugden practitioners for certain problems in Tibetan society. I would also like to make the point that it is an editor's opinion that Godwin's Law is applicable in this case, not something that has been said in newspaper or magazine articles or books. Is it appropriate to include material in an encyclopedia article that depends upon an editor's opinion? I think the mention of Godwin's Law could be seen to trivialize the human rights issues involved here and for these reasons I would move for the reference to Godwin's Law to be deleted. What do others think? What does Tangerines think? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tangerines, I think it is an example of Godwin's law if it explicitly mentions Hitler or the Nazis, but Kelsang Pema did neither -- she was making a specific comparison to one element of the discrimination against Jews in the 1930s, the yellow star they were forced to wear, and this does seem directly comparable to the identity cards. I too think it is not a good idea to trivialize the issue of these identity cards -- without which people have no freedom to move around, buy things, travel out of their community, etc. They are scarred by not having one in a similar way to how the German Jews were scarred by their yellow star. Hopefully, the struggle would never escalate to the terrible proportions of Germany under Hitler in the 1940s, but it is still justifiable to use this analogy in this context without exaggerating it. (Truthbody (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Regardless of what NKT and WSS supporters might think, from an outsider looking in, it most definitely is an example of Godwin's Law. Watching the video makes it even more obvious. However, it is a point that in all honesty I don't really care to push as any general reader can make up their own mind if they view the video and read what Kelsang Pema has said. I have no intention of discussing the comparisons with 1930s Germany as this talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article. However, this comment I really do have to reply to - "Hopefully, the struggle would never escalate to the terrible proportions of Germany under Hitler in the 1940s" Sorry but "hopefully", are you being serious? Millions of people, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, basically anyone the Nazis considered undesirable were killed by the Nazis (and as an aside it is a mute point to make about Godwin's Law applying when the word Nazi is used as Kelsang Pema was clearly talking about the Nazi party treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. She was wrong in what she said, but as I said, I have no intention of discussing this further, and should anyone disagree I would ask you to simply leave it as I will not be replying about it again). The Nazi Party were openly racist and are hardly comparable to the Tibetan Government in Exile, and Adolf Hitler as leader of the Nazi party is hardly comparable to the Dalai Lama. To even say "hopefully the "struggle" (a very POV word by the way) would not escalate to similar levels in Germany (it also happened in a number of other European countries - Poland being a prime example) is in my opinion way, way out of order. Somehow I doubt the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile will be implementing a "Final Solution" and building gas chambers to murder Dorje Shugden practitioners. Whilst I can see that the issue is clearly one that is hurting a lot of people, it in no way is comparable to the way the Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies etc in not only the 1930s but also the early to mid 1940s.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tangerines, sorry for offending you. I know you don't want a reply but I must respond to your accusation. You have read far more than I intended into one word, "hopefully". Maybe I misspoke, in which case I apologise, but I was not trying to imply the things you accuse me of here. (Truthbody (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

No worries - I said I wouldn't reply about the topic again, which I won't be doing. I wasn't accusing you though of anything, just pointing something out. I have undone quite a lot of the recent edits, however, I have also added quite a bit of content in the background section and the aims of the WSS section, as the article didn't in my opinion give enough information about why the WSS are protesting which (ahem) hopefully (good word that) it does now. I would ask again though for patience from other editors. I will removed the in use tag later!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have expanded the EL section. I also recall though a North American WSS support website, but don't recall the URL. If anyone knows it please add it. I don't want the section to get full of all sorts of external links, as that is not the point, but feel that there should be more than just the WSS website itself with both supporting websites, critics and other groups. If there are any others then please add them, but just not too many!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced content

In the section about other Buddhist groups perceptions about the protests, there are two unsourced claims - Vajramala, the Head Chairwoman of the German Buddhist Union said of the protests "such battles are not what the Buddha taught." The monastic head of the German Vinaya sangha, Vietnamese monk Thich Thien Sonh said he hoped the protestors would "absorb Buddha's loving-kindness." These currently have fact tags. I have tried to find sources for both of these and whilst I can find something referring to Vajramala and Shugden, nothing that directly verifies what she is quoted as having said. Are there sources to verify either or both of these comments?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, I have found and added a source for one of the above but not for the Vajramala quote other than a video with some text on it, which is not a valid source. If anyone knows of a correct reliable source then please add it. Eventually if nothing can be found then it should be removed.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

balanced article

I think this is a really balanced article now, showing both sides of the argument, the claims and counter claims. Thanks everyone for working so hard on it, especially Tangerines for their neutral view and enthusiastic contributions. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it will continue to be balanced. I have tried to ensure a balance is kept as have others and between us the article should remain so.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ordination

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) 15:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenzin - please. this article has been worked on by a number of people who have discussed, and agreed on, the current revisiuon as a balanced and thorough article that is neutral, promoting neither side's view in this debate. This required a great deal of collaboration, compromise and mutual respect. This was greatly aided by the work of an avowedly neutral editor, Tangerines[[User:Tangerines|. This section on NKT ordination has no relevance here: the article pertains to WSS and the protests, and this section pertains to the perception of these protests by others within the Buddhist community. Their views on NKT are not relevant here. I have once again removed this section - may we please leave it out until there can be some neutral editor to arbitrate on its inclusion. I'll notify Tangerines for his/her view.

Lastly - please have the basic decency to sign your posts: it smacks of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty not to do so, at least with a pen name, as most editors use. Thank you.Atisha's cook (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Atisha's cook. The above content added by the IP user is definitely relevant to the NKT article. However, this article is specifically about the WSS, and there is already more than enough content in the "perception" section giving different views. I do though think that the ASA statement which was previously in the article and has been removed today needs restoring as that had already been agreed upon.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm restoring the removed section, as it existed yesterday. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Buddhist groups perceptions

I added a couple of quotations from other Buddhists, quoted in Time Magazine, to show that not all Buddhists share the view that the protests are uncalled for -- the quotations do not explicitly mention the protests but were gathered by Time Magazine in response to the protests. There are also many Buddhists in India who support the protests, but we need third-party sources before we can include their comments. Otherwise the article gives the impression that all Buddhists are against the WSS, which is not true.

I think it is worth pointing out for fairness that the Buddhists quoted in this WSS article (other than the ASA) were all approached by Tenzin Peljor asking them for their opinions. He may or may not have steered them in a particular direction, his survey questions were not monitored by a third-party so we don't know. The results of his private survey were then quoted on his website. We don't know how many Buddhist groups he approached and how many declined to give him an answer, or even gave him an answer favorable to the demonstrations. If another survey was conducted amongst other Buddhist groups, a different result could easily have been forthcoming. (Truthbody (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Opening section was not neutral

I changed the opening section, the statement "the ban by Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama on the worship of the Dharmapala, or 'Dharma Protector', Dorje Shugden" is the pov of WSS and not necessarily shared by others. Therefore it should stated as the view of WSS. I added also the view of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama "he had not advocated a ban, but he had stopped the worship of the spirit because it was not Buddhist in nature.".

The complete opening section is now:

The Western Shugden Society (or WSS) is a campaigning group established in 2008 to campaign through media events and public protests against what they portray as "the ban by Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama on the worship of the Dharmapala, or 'Dharma Protector', Dorje Shugden". According to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama "he had not advocated a ban, but he had stopped the worship of the spirit because it was not Buddhist in nature." Dorje Shugden is historically associated with the Gelug and Sakya schools of Tibetan Buddhism. The WSS state that they are an organized community of Dorje Shugden practitioners from around the world, with no leader and no registered office. These activities have stirred controversy within the Buddhist community.

It misses a precise quote by WSS. --79.171.58.252 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I added also a critical article by by Barbara O’Brien, a well known Zen teacher: The Dorje Shugden Controversy - Destroying Tibetan Buddhism in Order to Save It? http://buddhism.about.com/od/vajrayanabuddhism/a/shugden.htm 79.171.58.252 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbara O'Brien is not a reliable source and is under investigation by about.com for breaking forum rules and undermining their professionalism for telling Dorje Shugden supporters to "STFU" and then removing their polite, reasoned and respectful posts. She brooks no disagreement and about.com have received many complaints. If her article is to be included, we will have to also include other supportive blogs to balance it out. However, i suggest we don't start the sources war up again but accept that we had it more balanced before you added Barbara o'Brien. (Truthbody (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

3rd party sources

I added:

Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University opposes how he was quoted by Time magazine’s correspondent David van Biema. He states that he made very cleat to him that “ID cards are not given out by the exile administration, but by the Indian authorities".

According to Barnett

“ “I also made it clear that the Western Shugden group's allegations are problematic: they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics. The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility, 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.” ”

It's redundant. I said, "redundant"!

Honestly, why do you do that? Can't I just look at your edit summaries and compare the two versions of the article to see exactly what you added? Why do you have to "archive" all your edits on the talk pages? Emptymountains (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

there is no "ban" of Shugden worship. This is a propaganda term

The Dalai Lama first issued restrictions which were, that people who practice Shugden cannot attend empowerment by him. Later the Gelug monasteries, based on the monks’ majority vote and the vote of the abbots, decided freely not to allow that practice at their places due to repeatedly experienced problems with Shugden practitioners. Then Gelug monasteries’ charter was changed (based on their and not the Dalai Lama’s decision) that Shugden practice is not allowed at their places and Shugden practitioners are not allowed at those monastic places. However, Shugden practitioners have their own monasteries where they can practice Shugden, and they are allowed to enter the exile community and to use the exile community’s facilities like schools etc. I added two sources to the article (Bob Thurman & the Dalai Lama himself) to make this clear. The Shugden people misdirected the public and the press by using the term "ban". The Dalai Lama uses a Tibetan word translatable as ‘disapprove’, or even stronger, ‘condemnation’, in the sense of to ‘consider it unworthy of doing’. Kt66 (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

this article has multiple issues and needs a serious clean up

The article heavily relies on an anonymous organisation and its websites and blogs. These are all self-published sources that should be treated with greatest care (see WP:RS. However, the article heavily relies on unverified and unproved claims of a highly controversial group whose claims are not at all accepted by academic experts but were repeatedly stated by the press as if what the organisation claims were facts or in any way true. As a result the article is neither neutral nor informative but mainly repeats the claims of this organisation and what they spread in the media. All of this needs a serious clean up and rewriting to meet the Wikipedia standards for writing good articles: Wikipedia:Good articles The article is mainly a propaganda mess in all aspects. 87.185.188.155 (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I added some templates. The article is neither neutral nor factual accurate, it relies heavily on self-published sources or sources that repeat what the self-published sources claim. It uses the propaganda language of the protesters of "religious discrimination", "persecution" etc as if these were facts etc. All in all it is a fan article that is tried to be balanced here and there but that is neither neutral, factual accurate nor balanced. It needs a thorough clean up. Kt66 (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to balance the article here and there but it is still a mess and doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards due to heavily relying on self-published sources and sources that rely on such self published sources and because of mainly repeating the claims of an anoymous group and their propaganda network, giving it so much space that all correct information by scientists and scholars is almost not visible anymore. In that way the article is a further propaganda article of the campaigners. I won’t engage more. The article might have to be completely rewritten. Also the re-branding of the Western Shugden Society as International Shugden Community is not mentioned etc … Kt66 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

References from the DBO (German Buddhist Monastic Association) are self-published sources

References from the German Buddhist Monastic Association (DBO) are Self-published sources with respect to this article and can't be included, because of the involvement of one of this page's WP editors with that organization. Sorry to be vague, I'm trying to avoid WP:Outing. --Peaceful5 (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the most ironic comment I have read on Wikipedia. You have replaced academic material with massive amounts of self-published Shugden blogs and websites. Heicth (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

I have found the following sources, which might be useful for this article.

First, OCLC/First Search lists the following extant books, all of which would be, at least potentially, useful to some degree.

• A great deception: the ruling Lama's policies, Western Shugden Society, 2010
• The Dalai Lama and the King Demon: Tracking a Triple Murder Mysrtery, by Raimondo Bultrini, Hay House, 2013
• The Tibetan situation today: surprising hidden news, Western Shugden Society, 2010.

And, yes, while I agree that the two sources published by the Western Shugden Society would be of at best dubious use for some material, they would be, at least potentially, useful for non-controversial material. For those who may not have direct access to them, it might well be possible that filing a request at WP:RX might be beneficial.

JSTOR has an article "Politics of Religion: The Worship of Shugden Among the Tibetans," by R. P. Mitra, in Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 32, No. 1/2, Jan-Dec 2002, pp. 47-58.

NewsBank has a rather large selection of articles relating to the WSS at various locations. I have e-mailed myself most of those articles. When it seemed clear that it includes multiple articles more or less based on the same wire service story, though, I only included the longest such article. Anyone who wants copies of them can send me an e-mail by going to my user page and using the "e-mail this user" link. When I have received the e-mail from you, I can then forward the articles to you.

I acknowledge that there are almost certainly additional sources available, probably including several on the net or on other data banks. But they can serve as at least a starting point. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Thurman quotes

I propose that we remove the Robert Thurman quote that starts "Thurman explains that members of the cult want..." The tone of this quote is really negative and the use of the word "cult" is inappropriate. Despite being a well known professor, Robert Thurman is not a suitable person to quote in this article because of his closeness to the Dalai Lama who also believes that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit. Any other views on this? There must be other non-Thurman sources out there that are more reliable. Are the other editors out there happy for me to remove this quote? Kjangdom (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove Dodin's opinion points

Hi, I am proposing to remove Dodin's quote here. This is just his random opinion on a matter that he clearly can't support logically. Name calling "cult" repeatedly based on one's opinion just serves to hurt the reputation of the WSS but isn't based on clear points or logic. I will get moving it as soon as possible if someone can't establish this as based in truth or making him reliable. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

NKT WSS Relationship

I'm surprised that there is nothing regarding the real or alleged relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Western Shugden Society in this article - or has such information been deleted? If so on what grounds? And what relationship is there between the Western Shugden Society and the International Shugden Community? Chris Fynn (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides the deletion of RS and original research, we have the falsification of the following references:

1. A self-published book "Buddha's Not Smiling" written by a random guy

2. Misrepresenting reference - Martin Mills says "suppression of the Shugden sectarian movement". Not practice.

3. Misrespresenting reference - Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying "However, everyone is completely free to say....we have religious freedom....we will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal". pg. 194.

4. A 1996 newspaper article that is referenced by Helen Waterhouse in 2001.

5. Shugdenist made translations of the Dalai Lama's Tibetan speech.

6. etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be about the WSS, not Shugden?

Since this is an article about an organization it should tell the reader something about why, when, where and by whom it was founded, what its stated aims and objectives are, who the officers are, and what kind of membership it has, etc. Right now, after a single sentence that doesn't say much, it straight away launches into three paragraphs about Shugden, Pabongkha and the Dalai Lama - all of which is covered elsewhere. I don't think an article on a controversial organisation should be edited by proponents or opponents - or look like a promotional or advocacy piece. But shouldn't the article at least start out by giving the reader a fair summary of the organisation and whatever aims, objectives and claims they may have? I'll add an infobox where some of this information can be added. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I removed that part. I am not aware of much reliable sourcing on the WSS though.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcewatch has some guides which may be a place to start. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: But the article now lacks any balance. Until a decent article can be written it doesn't need to say much (e.g. Baltimore Urban Debate League counts as a good article on an organisation). Maybe look at some of the other slightly longer good articles on WikiProject Organizations to see how an article on an organisation should be written. There are several there on controversial groups.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As it is now, it's a crusade against the WSS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay I reverted back to Audrey37's version with all the falsified references, original research and synthesis.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:I'm afraid I agree with Joshua Jonathan on this. IMO it would've been better to reduce the article to a stub than to leave it as you had it - but anyway now you've reverted it to Audrey37's version.

(PS Some recent edits seem a little reactive, over hasty and unconsidered. Please don't get obsessed with all this - it is really not that important. Taking a break from Shugden related topics for a little while might be good for ones health and sanity.) metta Chris Fynn (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn:There isn't much reliable sourcing specifically on the WSS. It should be merged elsewhere.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed very little on WSS. I've been searhing too; the only book I found was definitely anti-NKT/WSS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:There may be more in the Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) which seems to be more or less the predecessor WSS. Maybe there should be a single article about the SSC, WSS and ISC - as they largely appear to involve the same group of people, mostly connected to the NKT - though I suspect that legally they will be separate entities. There are also other, non NKT, western pro Shugden groups organized by students of Gangchen and Kundeling Rinpoches - both of whom appear to have clear connections to PRC authorities. I wouldn't think these belong in the same article.

There are other pro Shudgen organisations like the "North America Geluk Buddhist Association" and the "Gelugpa Buddhist Association Singapore" - but others with similar names like the "Nepal Buddhist Gelugpa Association" which are anti Shugden / pro Dali Lama.

The main English language web sites on the anti Shugden side seem to be those apparently independently set up by ex-NKT members now determined to "out" the NKT / GKG / WSS etc. and those affiliated with the Office of the Dalai Lama / CTA / Tibet House.

Chris Fynn (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: Please stub this article like Baltimore Urban Debate League. The entire article is made of falsified references, OR and synthesis.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: If you think this article would be better as a simple stub - then go ahead and do this yourself. Right now I'm very busy with a lot of other work and will take a break from editing Shugden / NKT related articles for a while as it seems largely a waste of effort that could be more productivly employed . Maybe all the Shugden / NKT related articles should be made into stubs with a few short sentences just giving bare bones outlines of what the topics of those articles are about. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the "stubbing" of the article, as I don't see consensus or even much discussion for such a big change. I don't have a gigantic problem with it, but I am confused why it just happened out of the blue today. VG you seem to be the one primarily concerned with this. Do you happen to have some reasons why a stub is more appropriate than the current version? I see Cfynn said if you think you should do it, go ahead and do it, but I don't take that as "this is 100% a good idea and needs to be done". More of a "do what you want". Prasangika37 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

CFynn brought up modeling the article on this particular revision of the Baltimore Debate League. This is a stub. CFynn mentioned stubbing atleast 3 times from what I can see. The entire article is made of falsified references, OR and synthesis.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How would you say this is a stub? What is an argument for that case? It seems to be a pretty important article and is mentioned in different ways in varying scholarly texts Prasangika37 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the references in the article talk about the WSS. Kjangdom just wrote whatever he want, and threw in a bunch of "references".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon: Can you give some input again? It seems the user VictoriaGrayson is doing what he did on the Dalai Lama page and is deleting massive amounts of content without consensus. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The WSS page is not in my watchlist. But for your notification, I would have been unaware of the warring that is currently taking place.

I don't think the page should be stubbed as recommended by Cfynn and implemented by VictoriaGrayson, all it needs is some refocussing on the WSS, its whereabouts, officers, aims, its views on, and reply to, the ban, and that's it. The final section "Other views of the WSS" tells us nothing about the WSS and so can be dispensed with.

Although I don't have much time to spare, I will keep an eye on the page from now on. --Elnon (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Montanabw:. For starters, I challenge Prasangika37 to explain how the first 4 references even remotely describe what is claimed. Moreover "Buddha Is Not Smiling" is a self-published book written by a nobody. Lastly, this article was falsified by Kjangdom/Audrey37/Peaceful5 and now we have a Norway IP address involved.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, the MOS is clear: WP:SELFPUB works do not meet WP:RS other than for extremely limited purposes, which DO include the organization explaining what it says about itself. It is also important to be clear that the Gelug/Geluk (or however it's spelled) tradition is not synonymous with Shugden worship, Shugden is a controversy within the Gelug tradition (I think about a comparison to debates over whether Eucharist in the Catholic tradition is truly transubstantiation of not. My take is let the group explain itself, but then use NPOV to present the criticism as well. I call it "teaching the controversy." More work, but a better article at the end. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I agree. We can use the WSS website to supply their positions. Then we can provide a couple of academic references which discuss the WSS. I am not aware of academic sourcing on the WSS other than Barnett and Dodin, which are both usually deleted from this article by Kjangdom/Audrey37.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: @MontanaBW: The Dodin quote is about the NKT, not the WSS? //Also, should we include things that are about the SSC? there are extensive citations on the SSC and it says "predecessors: SSC" on the side bar. Granted it is a different organization, but it is related to the WSS in regards to engaging in similar activity. If we include things on the NKT we should probably include things on the SSC. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dodin is talking about the demonstrators. That's why he says "The demonstrators are...". Do you feel this is not applicable to this article?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, if demonstrators = WSS, then it works. I am wondering what you think about the SSC quotes that exist in various texts. Would they help, would they be inaccurate to include, or would they hinder? Prasangika37 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be inaccurate to include SSC info.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dodin Quote is not about the "Western Shugden Society"

The Dodin quote is about members of the NKT--not the Western Shugden Society. There is nothing directly about the WSS in that quote, and therefore it shouldn't be included here.

Even more so, his interview was also done in May this year, in response to demonstrations going on by the "International Shugden Community", not by the Western Shugden Society. The Western Shugden Society does not exist anymore from what I can tell. If we include things about the NKT here, by implying that there are members of the NKT in the WSS, then we should include things about the SSC and ISC, by implying that there are members of those groups in the WSS. We don't even have anything verifiable that say there are members of the NKT in the WSS, so WP:VNT would apply. All we have is Dodin's quote saying that the NKT have held spectacular demonstrations, but nothing about establishes what demonstrations, where, with what organizations, and that NKT=WSS, or anything along those lines. I don't know the exact name of the rule on wikipedia, but its basically trying to establish correlation between things or connect a quote to something it doesn't directly apply to. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you said Dodin was applicable since Dodin talks about the "demonstrators". Do you feel this is not applicable? Also WSS and ISC are the same organization. SSC is not. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong about that saying these are synonymous. Sorry about that confusion. Dodin talks about demonstrators in the present and he is talking about the NKT, not about the WSS. He doesn't say anything about the WSS, so I don't know how we can say it relates directly. Also, we can't say ISC = WSS unless we have some RS to establish this, no? All I know is they have two different websites and different names, so I am not sure how we can say they're the same. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The old WSS website "agreatdeception.com" goes to ISC now. So they do share a website. Also Dodin says "The demonstrators are almost exclusively ....". So the the topic is the demonstrators. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying demonstrators = Western Shugden Society ? The article is about the Western Shugden Society, not about arbitrary demonstrators that aren't specified. In addition, as I said, hes giving this May this year. If it is present tense demonstrators, then its the ISC. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Academic views" and double standards

With the latest editing, the WSS page has turned into a regular indictment of the WWS or, more exactly the NKT. A section entitled "Academic Views", has been added (or re-added), with tibetologist Thierry Dodin accusing the NKT with "extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drives", and tibetologist Robert Barnett having a dig at the same outfit for its "severe lack of credibility" and its "misinformed publicity". However, if one takes a closer look at the sources of these anti-shugden/NKT claims, one finds that 1/ TD's views were aired in an interview published in a pro-Dalai Lama website that calls itself disingenuously "Tibetan Buddhism in the West", 2/ RB's views are taken from an article published in The Tibetan Review, a pro-independence monthly magazine published by Exiled Tibetans in New Delhi. So, how can both these viewpoints be called "academic views" since their sources are not peer-reviewed scholarly journals or university theses or published books ?

Curiously, while TD's and RB's views have been given prominence, the claim academic Donald Lopez makes in his classic Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West – "the DL's renunciation of Shugden caused great discord within the Geluk community" – has simply been spirited away. --Elnon (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See reliable sources noticeboard discussion on the Dodin reference here. The same reasoning would also apply to Barnett. Prisoners of Shangri La was written about a decade before the WSS, and has nothing to do with the WSS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon: Thanks for the very reasonable input. This is what I have been dealing with for a while with this user, but have not gotten much support in voicing the same concerns as you are saying now. Regarding the points of Lopez, Ardley, and Chryssides, etc., it has a lot to do with the WSS. The WSS are protesting a perceived ban on Dorje Shugden and discrimination, and have many of the same constituents as the previous protesting groups. If you see on the side bar, it explicitly says that those previous sources are >>affiliated<<. So, especially with the minimal amount of information dealing with the WSS explicitly, it would make a lot of sense to talk about the affiliated organizations and the continuity of a similar movement. In addition, the article currently has criticisms of NKT protestors, and at least one quote I included had to do with NKT protestors. This again signifies the same constituents. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

See here1 and here2 and here3.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

{od}}Prasangika37, Elnon, and others. Please be aware that I have noticed a number of accounts that seem to be primarily single-purpose accounts that may be a violation of WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPET and most certainly appear to be a WP:TAGTEAM. These accounts also appear prone to add self-published material that comes mostly out of in-house NKT and WSS sources, and also tend to "whitewash" material linked to criticisms. I will report people accordingly if I see further evidence of single-purpose accounts showing up here with virtually identical viewpoints. Material must be sourced to third-party sources, not in house propaganda mills. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I have been a French wikipedia contributor since June 2006, logging 61669 edits thus far, and also, though to a lesser extent, an English Wikipedia contributor since July 2007, logging 1842 edits. Accusing me with being a sockpuppet and being in cahoots with Shugden contributors is something I find extravagant and outrageous. My user page doesn't boast a "This user supports the Western Shugden Society" userbox (or "a free Tibet" one) and I believe one should abstain from editing and discussing on a topic on which one has a conflict of interest. --Elnon (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I don't want to be associated with anyone who is editing in either an aggressive way, not using wikipedia policy, or not using RS (e.g. 'in house sources'). I don't know their motives and so on or what they're thinking, and have no control over what other people edit. In addition, regarding the SPA mention, I am regular contributor on wikipedia in RFC's and have taken a keen interest in them, but these issues in relationship to Tibetan Buddhism are ones that I know the most about at this time. I also have a limited amount of time in total so its very challenging to be all-encompassing all over wikipedia as you probably know to some degree.. just trying to edit 1 page takes a lot of time for me. I'll continue to spread my self out to other parts, though, but its a bit frustrating to be repeatedly accused of being a sockpuppet or whatever. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Elnon, would you admit atleast that you are a proChina / antiTibet editor?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, asking for such admissions isn't helpful. Prasangika37, you would be wise not to add "in-house" sources yourself. You also have a username very close to Audrey37, who clearly is closely affiliated with NKT (what's with the pro-Shungden people all having numbers after their names, anyway? Elnon, all I'm doing is looking at your contribs on en.wiki, most of which have been strongly pro-Shugden and anti-Dalai Lama and anti-Amnesty International as far as human rights stuff goes (yes, I am an AI member), so if I have overstated your views, it was understandable based on your contribution history. Also, like the very new user HighWindows, you are saying things like "I am new to wikipedia, but..." which is language so similar that it raised a red flag. Note I haven't filed nything so far other than requests for page protection, but I am letting you know that I'm keeping an eye on things. Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: What 'in house' sources on my part? I don't think I have referred to any non-RS source in the last couple months. I did maybe once or twice perhaps in June or July, realized my error, and haven't again. So I am not sure where that criticism is coming from. And the argument of having close usernames.. If I was going to have a sock brigade to push some point of view, I can tell you I would definitely not coordinate having the exact same number after my names. I can't speak for other users though. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Until September 19, when I was notified about my name being mentioned in the WSS talk page, there wasn't a single Shugden-related page in my watchlist. What's more, I merely gave my opinion about what this page should contain and how it should be organized and also how inaccurate the title of the "Academic Views" section is. So how can you claim that most of my contributions have been strongly pro-Shugden ? In the seven years I have been a contributor, I have never edited a Shugden page (except for correcting a spelling error in the Dorje Shugden controbersy page on August 26, 2008, and cancelling Victoria Grayson's suppression of Ursula Bernis on August 2nd, 2014, and other edits on September 15 and 23).

Also, where did I say "I am new to Wikipedia..." and how could I possibly have said such nonsense in this my seventh year in the Encyclopedia ?

What entitles a contributor who claims to be a supporter of free Tibet and Amnesty International and may have a conflict of interest as a result, to make such accusations against other contributors ? --Elnon (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I am still anxious to see your first Wikipedia article. Don't you agree that being a Wikipedia contributor implies a lot more than just systematically rejecting or deleting unfavorable comments and sources from articles dealing wholly or partly with a political and spiritual leader and conversely adding unfavorable comments and sources to pages dealing with his critics and opponents? --Elnon (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)