User talk:JigmeTobden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:22, 25 April 2008

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!! JigmeTobden (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
-== I have read the COI ==
-Dear Sir/Mdm,
-I have read the COI and note the "Conflict of Interests" - but we need to know who is Sylvain1972 to represent the Drukpa Lineage to put the historical facts on the Wikipedia. Is he a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism? We will get Mr. Gene Smith, Mr. Lobsang Thargay, the relevent personnels in charge of religious affairs departments in Bhutan, Ladakh and India to write to Sylvain1972, if this helps to resolve the conflict of interest.
-As far as we are concerned, history of the Drukpa Lineage cannot be just from English books that are available in the bookstores, because some of them were biased information. We have in our hands translated information, provided by scholars in Ladakh, Tibet and Bhutan, which can be verified by Mr. Gene Smith. But since these materials have yet been published in English, are you saying that these are not valid facts?
-Tibetan Buddhist facts should be provided by authorised people who belong to the lineage that can provide a open, unbiaised and fair picture of the Drukpa Lineage.
-There are the facts that are quoted wrongly by Sylvain1972 and we know they are wrong and that should not be misleading the public.
-(1) We are known as Dongyu Palden Drukpa
-(2) The Fourth Gyalwang Drukpa Kunkhyen Pema Karpo left a prediction letter in Tibetan that says that he would have two reincarnations that returned to this world
-(3) Ling Repa is not a disciple of Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje. He is the ROOT GURU of Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje, and Ling Repa's guru is Phagmo Drupa.
-(4) Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Projects are not representative of the Drukpa Lineage
-(5) Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche's poem on the 4 greater and 8 lesser schools are not representing the full picture.
-(6) The Drukpa Lineage belongs one of the the Sarma schools of Tibetan Buddhism, which is not wrong. The Nyingma is known as the old school and all others are under the new school which is called Sarma
-(7) Great lineages of the three Victorious Ones (Gyalwa Namsum) and the Three Divine Madmen are not mentioned. We have all these already translated into English.
-We just want to know in this case, who is conflicting the interest of the Drukpa Lineage.
-Thank you.
-Yours,
-Jigme Tobden
-[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden#top|talk]]) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Generally speaking, the English language wikipedia does require verifiable English language sources when possible. You may review the policy here: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. The point is, even in the absence of English language sources, I have no objection to the inclusion of your perspective in the article. But you are not at liberty to delete anything that you disagree with. For instance,  it is widely accepted that the Drukpa School is a Kagyu School. The formulation of "four great and eight lesser lineages" is traditional, and is mentioned in the "Aspiration Prayer for Mahamudra, the Definitive Meaning" by Karmapa Rangjung Dorje, among many many other sources. I made mention of Drukpa objections to the formulation. The Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Project does claim to represent the Drukpa lineage. If you have reason to believe they do not, you are welcome to open a discussion about it. [[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-: OK. First of all, would you mind keeping this conversation restricted to your talk page? It doesn’t need to be repeated on 3 separate pages, it gets confusing. Second, you don’t need to address your posts like formal letters… Dear Sir/Mdm and signing sincerely so and so are totally unnecessary, and they inflate discussions. As for the content issues of the [[Drukpa]] page, they should be discussed on the talk page there, not on these various user talk pages. If you are going to add or remove info from that page, you MUST HAVE SOURCES ''prior'' to doing so. It’s not a matter of you being an expert or knowing more than others. To remove sourced info when you yourself are not sourcing is highly inappropriate. In addition, 3rd party, independent sources are always superior to primary sources. Read [[WP:SOURCE]] for further clarifications. To sum up, if you want to make changes to [[Drukpa]] find reliable, 3rd party sources for your info before doing so. There is no need to get into any content arguments if you can’t first do this. [[User:Gwynand|Gwynand]] | [[User_talk:Gwynand|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gwynand|Contribs]] 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-Thank you for your enlightening remarks. We will put in the 3rd party Tibetan sources and work with the relevant governing bodies in Ladakh and Bhutan. You will see us developing the Drukpa Lineage with thirty-party fair and unbiased facts.
-[[User:JigmeTobden|JigmeTobden]] ([[User talk:JigmeTobden#top|talk]]) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 ==Your recent edits==