Jump to content

Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RfC: Should the Lead Include these elements?

As with the previous RfC, there is not enough support for the proposal. May I add that a four-point RfC is rarely likely to lead to a clear conclusion. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead include these elements? All these elements are well supported by the body:

  • That Shugden is supported and even imposed by the Chinese government.
  • The murders linked to the Shugen faction.
  • The fact that scholars reject the claims of the protesters.
  • Scholars say protests are about "publicity for their sect".VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support - As nominator.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Perhaps some aspect of these could be included, but not all in the form you are suggesting as it would enhance the already issue of WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps write up a suggested lead and we can talk about it. Remember we want to teach the controversy here. :) The 'murders' are discounted by Matthews in the lead too. Also we have Lopez, Ardley, Chryssides, and Barnett all explaining there is a prohibition of some sort. That has to be added to the lead in some capacity. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentatively oppose But only on the grounds I'd rather see the proposed revised lede in talk so I could review both what is being said, the reliability of associated sources and how it handles WP:DUE within the context of reliable sources. I am amenable to changing my mind if persuaded. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mild support but pointy: I think that an RfC on the lead at all is a bad idea; the CONTENT of the article needs to be brought up to par and THEN the lead can be worked on. I think all of these topics (save maybe the last one, but even it too, depending on wording) are appropriate for the article; as was the concept in the previous RfC that the protests would be mentioned - in the article body. Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (I wrote this !vote several weeks ago, forgot to sign)
  • Oppose For readers who are not involved it's only distracting. The lead should be an intro, which gives an overview of basic facts. Inclusion of these points may indeed be pointy, and fuel the perpetuation of the disputes. Keep it neutral; the points can be made in the text (though not necessarily). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I guess whether I'd support those would depend on the nature and breadth of the sources. If the references were, for instance, coming just from the China Daily, or alternately from a publication with a well-known anti-PRC bias like Epoch Times, I'd be averse to inclusion in the lede. With regard to the murders bit, I'd suggest substantial caution is the best course. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So far, from what I've seen, the evidence of Chinese interference seems to be an American's textual interpretation of a Chinese photograph of the Panchen Lama sitting on a Dorje Shugden representation. That seems rather slight. And I put very little faith in the reliability of an opinion piece of a Tibet activist in the Huffington Post as a source for information on Chinese government policy regarding the Tibetan government in exile. If I'm missing a more reliable source, please point it out.
As for the murder, the alleged link to the Shugden group is certainly widely noted, however they're also pretty ambivalent about whether the connection plays out - most mentioning that the Dorje Shugden leaders in the Tibetan community in exile who were questioned by Indian police were later exonerated. As such, I'd suggest that any reference of the murder in the lede would have to make it clear that it's a suspicion rather than a fact.
On the other hand, I'm seeing NO reliable sources pointing toward any sort of persecution of Dorje Shugden adherents beyond the Dalai Lama's well documented request that they not attend his advanced workshops since they fundamentally disagree with his teachings. Notwithstanding the China thing this makes a fair bit of sense since Dorje Shugden is a very conservative sect, while the Dalai Lama, especially in the last decade, has been a highly modern voice of Buddhism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding RS on persecution: George Dreyfus-Origins of a Controversy-The Shuk-den affair: "The Dalai Lama also began to apply pressure against the practice of Shuk-den, laying several restrictions on the practice. The three great monasteries of Dre-bung, Ga-den and Se-ra, which traditionally, though not unambiguously, have supported the Tibetan government and the two tantric colleges were ordered not to propitiate Shuk-den in public ceremonies. Moreover, several statues of Shuk-den were removed from the chapels of the three monasteries. Finally, the Dalai Lama ordered the monks of Se-ra in Bylakuppe not to use a building originally intended for the monthly ritual of Shuk-den." Robert Bluck. British Buddhism: Teachings, Practice, and Development. (131)“In the early 1980s the Dalai Lama restricted reliance on Dorje Shugden to private rather than public practice. The tension this caused within the Gelug and wider Tibetan community may refelct some opposition to his ecumenical approach, according to Kay." Donald Lopez. Prisoners of Shangri-la. 191 “On July 15, 1996, the Tibetan government-in-exile issued a statement that read in part: The Tibetan Administration’s basic policy on the issue of Dholgyal propitiation was spelled out in the unanimous resolution passed on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies. The resolution stated that the government deparments and their subsidiaries, as well as monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control of the Central Tibetan Administration, should be strictly forbidden from propitiating this spirit. Individual Tibetans, it said, must be informed the demerits of propitiating this spirit, but be given freedom “to decide as they like.” The resolution, however, requested the propitiators of this spirit not to receive Vajrayana teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.” Lopez again: 192- "Monks of the six major Geluk monasteries in the refugee community were asked to sign a statement supporting a ban on “dubious deities” The Tibetan government-in-exile requested that the abbot of Sera monastery, a traditional center of Shugden devotion, report the names of those monks who continued to worship Shugden.” George Chryssides. Exploring New Religions. Page 239- "The Tibetan government in exile is said to have conducted house searches, demanding that people sign a declaration st ating htat they have abandoned Dorje Shugden practice"

I list a variety of others above and they aren't even all of them. The Lopez point above about the government charter is still found within it, banning participation by people of a certain faith. Remember this also applies to government owned operations, like hospitals and schools.

I pointed out Prasangika37's misrepresention of his own sources, on his talk page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This (and the other RfC) is pointy: The article body text itself needs to have these issues discussed and fleshed out, once that is fixed, the lead follows WP:LEDE. We have a probable NKT cult member here constantly trying to push a POV on Wikipedia in violation of NPOV, and s/he occasionally succeeds in baiting the other editor who is doing the most work here. This needs to end before both of them get sanctioned. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I can't stand situations where religious zeal butts heads with editorial zeal, having been in that position many times in the past, never to my benefit. I'd suggest pointing out that Wikipedia does not exist to validate any individual's faith. Many small religions use the spectre of oppression to facilitate cohesion. Dorje Shugden is a faith I honestly don't know that much about. However I have spent a bit of time perusing scholarly sources, and I'd say that there is not, at this time, WP:RS support for the sect being oppressed by the Tibetan government in exile. There also does not appear to be strong support for the idea that the sect was involved in the murders in any sort of official way. There is very weak support for the suggestion that the sect has ties to China, which does make a habit of interfering with religions within its sphere of influence - however even that needs better sources. And I agree with Montanabw(talk) that the RfC seems rather pointed and would reiterate their call for caution from invested editors. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I think there's 2 issues which we are discussing here, and maybe we could just focus on 1 at the moment. The 2 issues seems to be whether to include the aims/requests/demands of the demonstrators in the lead of the article and whether to include the suggestions of discrimination from the Dalai Lama and the CTA (Tibetan in Exile Government based in India) in the lead. Maybe we could just focus on the 1st point as that seems more straightforward. From what I can tell 1 editor wants the aims in the lead, 2 editors don't, it was asked of neutral editors who haven't been involved whether to include it in the intro and 2 people said yes while nobody said no, but it had to be in the main body of the article as well and be completely neutral. I had a look at the Occupy Wikipedia page as they are a famous group who are demonstrating - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Occupy_movement . On this page near the top it has a section called 'goals' which attempts to give the aims of this protest group. So it seems fair enough to me have a section in this article on the goals of the demonstrators and then an attempt to briefly summarise, if possible, in the lead. I had a quick look on the internet for possible goals of the demonstrators and found this - 

    The Dalai Lama should reverse the persecution by following the following four points:

       To allow anyone who wishes to practice Dorje Shugden the freedom to do so
       To stop completely the discrimination against Shugden practitioners
       To allow all Shugden monks and nuns who have been expelled to return to their monasteries and nunneries, and to receive the same material and spiritual rights as non-Shugden practitioners
       To write to Tibetan communities throughout the world telling them that they should apply practically the above three points


(from - http://internationalshugdencommunity.com/simple-solution/) . Do the editors think these are the aims of the demonstrators? Thanks, March22nd (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New investigative article by Reuters who sought the expertise of academics such as Robert Barnett, Elliot Sperling and Thierry Dodin

Those WP editors engaged in this article might find it useful to read and make use of a new investigative report by Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-dalailama/ Kt66 (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a new paper by Joona Repo (University of Helsinki), " Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo: His Collected Works and the Guru-Deity-Protector Triad" http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_33_01.pdf Kt66 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Stopping of the protests

There is a new article by Tibetologist Thierry Dodin that puts the Reuters article as well as the claimed cessation of the protests into perspective. I don’t know but maybe some editors want to make use of it? (I lack time to engage.)

Shugden followers are not giving up protests against the Dalai Lama

-- Kt66 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dorje Shugden controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_9&oldid=1136675818"