Talk:Karmapa: Difference between revisions
A coment on structure. |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:It seems to swing from one camp to the other, as the only people interested in editing it are from one or other of the rival camps. However the swings in bias are getting less it seems (look at the history). Also the controversy spreads to other articles (eg [[Sharmapa]]), and I think it would be better on one page, including links to the various news reports, details of the court case etc. I am sure if wikipedia can have a NPOV article on [[Palestine]] we can manage it for [[Karmapa]]! 13:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
:It seems to swing from one camp to the other, as the only people interested in editing it are from one or other of the rival camps. However the swings in bias are getting less it seems (look at the history). Also the controversy spreads to other articles (eg [[Sharmapa]]), and I think it would be better on one page, including links to the various news reports, details of the court case etc. I am sure if wikipedia can have a NPOV article on [[Palestine]] we can manage it for [[Karmapa]]! 13:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
||
:Done that now. Also added list of Karmapas 1-16. [[Karmapa controversy]] needs work ! [[User:Billlion|Billlion]] 18:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
:Done that now. Also added list of Karmapas 1-16. [[Karmapa controversy]] needs work ! [[User:Billlion|Billlion]] 18:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
||
== A coment on structure. == |
|||
This is all very confusing! I do think that at this time this page should reflect the official standpoint about the current Karmapa. Dalai Lama is in this world seen and most often recognized as somewhat of a head of the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. I know not all are willing to see it this way but nevertheless he is and it is ok to argue against this, but I prefer the structure of an article to mirror the current generally accepted view on a subject. |
|||
And the Dalai Lama have recognized the Urgyen Thrinley Dorje as the tulku of the six tent Karmapa. He is not alone to do so but the major traditions of Tibetan Buddhism have done the same. Then again the was majority of Kagyu Lamas have done so to along with the senior Lamas of this tradition like Thrangu Rinpoche who was the main tutor of all the four Tulkus of The Kagyu, among them Shamarpa who have presented the rivaling candidate. |
|||
Keep the section on the controversy and link it as now to the controversy page and on that page link to the opposing candidate. On the main page of the Karmapa links should lead to pages connected to the official Karmapa and on the controversy page link to those pages on the net connected to Shamarpas candidate. So that the two issues are kept separate. |
|||
The official view on one page and the rival on the other. Don't mix. People get confused, I certainly do! I am new to this so I don't have much of an experience of editing on Wikipedia but I have been a Buddhist for a long time and know my subject, I have lived among the Tibetans and know how political any issues like this can become. |
|||
Al kind thoughts to all of you and thanks for a wonderful job. |
|||
--[[User:Mitrapa|Mitrapa]] 22:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:39, 10 December 2004
This Karmapa controversy is a volatile area. Both sides insist they are right. It is casuing discomfort throughout the Karma Kagyu lineage. A lot of followers on both sides do not understand why high lamas who have done a lot of training seem to be squabbling amongst themselves and not exhibiting the clarity, wisdom and compassion that is expected of them. Interestingly, the Urgyen Trinley Dorje group do not have web sites attacking the other faction but the followers of Thaye Dorje do.
Karmapa Conflict
Can I suggest that we have a section one the historical karmapas, and then a section on the controversy, perhaps starting with the back ground and then both side's point of view? Billlion 18:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is a very good suggestion, especially since current article is moderately biased – it is written from the point of view of Urgyen Trinley Dorje follower. A more objective re-edition of the text would be a good idea. --AndyBrandt 10:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to swing from one camp to the other, as the only people interested in editing it are from one or other of the rival camps. However the swings in bias are getting less it seems (look at the history). Also the controversy spreads to other articles (eg Sharmapa), and I think it would be better on one page, including links to the various news reports, details of the court case etc. I am sure if wikipedia can have a NPOV article on Palestine we can manage it for Karmapa! 13:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Done that now. Also added list of Karmapas 1-16. Karmapa controversy needs work ! Billlion 18:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A coment on structure.
This is all very confusing! I do think that at this time this page should reflect the official standpoint about the current Karmapa. Dalai Lama is in this world seen and most often recognized as somewhat of a head of the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. I know not all are willing to see it this way but nevertheless he is and it is ok to argue against this, but I prefer the structure of an article to mirror the current generally accepted view on a subject. And the Dalai Lama have recognized the Urgyen Thrinley Dorje as the tulku of the six tent Karmapa. He is not alone to do so but the major traditions of Tibetan Buddhism have done the same. Then again the was majority of Kagyu Lamas have done so to along with the senior Lamas of this tradition like Thrangu Rinpoche who was the main tutor of all the four Tulkus of The Kagyu, among them Shamarpa who have presented the rivaling candidate. Keep the section on the controversy and link it as now to the controversy page and on that page link to the opposing candidate. On the main page of the Karmapa links should lead to pages connected to the official Karmapa and on the controversy page link to those pages on the net connected to Shamarpas candidate. So that the two issues are kept separate. The official view on one page and the rival on the other. Don't mix. People get confused, I certainly do! I am new to this so I don't have much of an experience of editing on Wikipedia but I have been a Buddhist for a long time and know my subject, I have lived among the Tibetans and know how political any issues like this can become. Al kind thoughts to all of you and thanks for a wonderful job. --Mitrapa 22:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)