Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:28, 16 July 2008

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close and relist separately without prejudice as to the final outcome. I do not see any value to be gained in leaving this blanket discussion open any longer, given that there is reasonably broad consensus already that the articles have different levels of notability and sources and should be considered separately. Thatcher 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje Shugden

The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. The stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here) ^[1]

The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.

In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD Dorje Shugden/ Dorje Shugden Controversy and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the Path

Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child

so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful.

If we don't do this, what other options are left? What is needed is a completely unbiased admin with years of experience, tolerance of a saint, and weeks of time on her hands to assist and guide in the training of editors and balancing of articles. The current contributors and editors are far too involved in the issues at hand. The article list is long. Time is precious. Here is the article list that I know of: Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy Trode Khangsar Western Shugden Society.

The WP community cannot expect the current group of interested individuals to deliver short, sharp, purely-factual articles with individuals proposing article mergers and coming to the noticeboards as often as required. Why NOT? because it has already happened repeatedly for more than four years. Nothing changed. Sometimes the pro-NKT got their way, sometimes the anti-NKT got their way. The process needs outsiders to sit on the articles for quite some time. Or they need deletion with moratorium.

I suggest this with real, legitimate misgivings. The NKT has completely excised the existence of individuals like Thubten Gyatso (NKT) from their records and publications - even though he contributed a huge amount to their movement over many years, and gave initiations to many students. Likewise, they have worked particularly hard to hide some of the less palatable aspects of their movement, and their activities towards the Tibetan Community have been divisive; they have then projected their own faults onto the Dalai Lama. The facts (as seen by the outside world) are not in accordance with the interests of the NKT. But they are intelligent, dedicated, computer-literate and have plenty of time on their hands. Deleting these articles actually helps to reduce the opportunity to air the issues that are well-known and published about the NKT and Dorje Shugden. A possible weakness of WP is that it gives too much opportunity to the minor communities to self-justify their position, and often the sole opponents are jaded, or destroyed ex-members (see eg User:kt66. I consider the NKT-related articles are like a brother to the Scientology-related articles, though they have received less attention from on high. (20040302 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. If the articles are indeed being used as a battle ground a Wikipedia:Requests for comment should be filed, if that fails a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If the articles can't be well sourced they should be reduced to what can be well sourced and protected. The nomination has shown no attempt to follow the the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process nor where discussion has taken place external of the articles in question. We don't bow to pressure from warring factions, and to carve out two entire subjects because it of it is absurd. BJ^Talk 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to nominator-- that's the longest nomination speech I've seen since Bill Clinton got booed off the stage in 1988 for his Dukakis introduction. You're very self-absorbed, and I don't think anyone has the time to figure out this monologue. If anyone cares to explain the reason for the nomination, let me know. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BJ. To Mandsford: the nominator is in despair that this and related articles will ever be neutral. There was an exchange of views on my talk page and his. To nominator: Mandsford has a good point; the nomination was much too long and confusing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly Noted. Apologies for the length of the nomination. I have not exercised this process before. (20040302 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - not sure nominator is meant to express an opinion here, or if it is apparent via the submission. I do not believe that as per BJ, the editors are willing or interested in contributing to Wikipedia or using the standard processes that are in place. NKT has already been nominated for deletion before - and nothing changed there, which resulted in a primary editor retiring. As I write, one of the 'warriors' is just removing the AfD template from the articles above. (20040302 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- This isn't the process for that, which is why it did nothing last time. BJ^Talk 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BJ, thanks.. So what is the process for that? I sure get lost trying to find the right processes for the job - even though i've been around a while! The nominated articles need a strong and heavy hand, IMO.. But who has the time? (20040302 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    - The first step would be to file a WP:RFC to get an outside viewpoint from the wider community. If that fails to solve the problem WP:RfAR is the next step. ArbCom can levy article restrictions and bans that admins alone can not. BJ^Talk 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD template restored and user warned. BJ^Talk 15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect toward Jimbo Wales, he's wrong here. I have never read about this topic before, but now that I have it is 100% clear to me that this involves a widespread and extremely notable belief system, which therefore requires an article on wikipedia. A general guideline for AfD is "POV issues are not grounds for deletion, those should be dealt with in the article and on the article's talk page". This article needs work (most specifically it needs an introduction that is more helpful to those unfamiliar with the subject such as myself), but "needs work" does not mean "get rid of it". Keep, keep, keep. -Markeer 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentionaed above, just because an article is POV and perhaps unbalanced does not make the subject irrelevant by sweeping it under the carpet - which is deletion. Rather the opposite as we see with this specific page... Still, how do we take the 'war' out of this edit-war when quite a number of the serious editors have run out of steam?rudy (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, especially per Markeer. I suggest re-writing the articles in a neutral way, and have the involved editors agree to the final version and agree to work together to maintain neutrality. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These topics are just too polarizing. Users such as User:Thegone will never let the edit war die. Please see the edits he just made, with no regard for the talk page. In fact, he just added the same copy-and-pasted material again to the beginning of all the articles up for deletion. Emptymountains (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we continue to have these articles vandalised by users like User:Thegone It's just too much hard work to maintain. I don't believe that a neutral position will ever be achieved because views are too polarised. I apologise for deleting the templates denoting the articles for deletion, I didn't understand the due process involved and thought that a decision had been made --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dorje Shugden protected for a week. BJ^Talk 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider protecting the other related pages up for deletion. Emptymountains (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is true the subject is controversial, to delete it would be to deny people the opportunity to consider the merits of both sides and come to their own conclusions on the subject. If polarized views were the grounds for deletion, then articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would also need to be deleted (as an example). I think the fact that WP requires consensus forces the different factions in this controversy to 'work together' and to 'try find common ground'. Not only is that good for a Wikipedia article, this is good for the overall resolution of the dispute. So I think not only is it is it a legitimate article on a topical subject, the keeping of these pages also accomplishes an important social function of helping reason and dialoge prevail. This is much needed! If users like User:thegone (who himself is posting under different identities, as is evidenced by his recent contributions) engage in abusive behavior then it is the abusive user who should be banned, not the articles themselves. Eliminate the extremists and allow cooler heads to discuss the issue. I was unable to figure out the process of filing a complaint for abusive behavior of a user, but 'thegone' engaged in downright hostile abuse. He repeatedly called me a neo-nazi, Chinese collaborating, devil-worshipping, dishonest, blood-thirsty, murdering cult fanatical liar. Gee, that doesn't seem to me to be Civil. This can be seen in the talk pages of the Rime Movement article. Can one of the WP authorities here please look at these pages and see what kinds of things he is saying. Therefore, I say keep the articles, crack down on abusive behavior and ban the extremists.--Dspak08 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keepclear notability (which to me is what should govern whether we have an article)- controversy surrounds many articles, but if we let that stop us we might as well give up on the whole idea of wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is established. I might add that the nominator's comments are exceedingly wordy and lengthy, and as a result, I did not read all of it. I did take a look at the articles, however. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This poorly considered mass nomination is putting people off. If some of these such as Western Shugden Society were considered in isolation they could be quickly deleted as no sources can easily be found. The nominator is also the only editor of one or more of them so he could delete ones on which he's the only editor per author's request. Some of the WP:BLP ones are not that notable and could go. Some of these could be considered individually in AfDs. But NKT and Dorje Shugden themselves are a clear speedy keep. Sticky Parkin 01:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment i sagreed. While I wish I to assusming wp:agf, i hate it when people group dozens of articles for deleiton even though they have different levels of WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V. it seems dishonest to me winsce we inevitably have to send an admin through to dlete the articles that really should be speedied and instate separate AFDs for whatever is left. It is quite afgaravating. Smith Jones (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keeep --- i think that the fact that this article ha been set upon by POV warmonkers is quite disappointing but that isn and of itself is not a justoifacation to perpetuate the deletionist mentalitiy perpetrated by the original polemicist on an article that is clearly notable (Thought Conntroversial). Smith Jones (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of Keeps - It's disgusting that the reason to delete would be POV issues. Wikipedia is better than this. Grow up. Beam 01:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The phenomena in question clearly exist as part of a religious teaching. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Beamathan; I'd _almost_ say this was a bad-faith nom. The notability (and notoriety) of the subject is indisputable. To suggest deleting the article outright in the face of controversy is pretty distressing. Zero sharp (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate the AFDs - Kelsang Lodrö is an obvious delete as there are no external references of notability. Dorje Shugden is an obviously notable religious tradition. The other articles are somewhere in between. I have posted on ANI at least twice about this article. There are a lot of SPAs working on it. Some of them are trying to turn it into a promo piece and others want it to be an attack piece. But regardless of that, it's an obviously notable religion. --B (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- yeah i have o agree again. while somet of these articles and not in themselfs notable, some of them are and one AFD wil not do justuce to all of them. if anyone can separate these AFDs for each article it would make this tteasier for every of us. Smith Jones (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information is notable, and admins get some balls and indef block some editors. There is a notable lack of consistancy of administrator action across Wikipedia at the moment and you cry about edit wars, well block the edit warriors and see what happens. Shot info (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable subjects. (edit: OK, Dorje Shugden is, the others might or might not be, but that would need separate AfDs to determine.) Disruption, if any, requires dispute resolution, protection or blocks, not deletion. Sandstein 07:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge For a start I don't think we need individual articles on Kelsang Lodrö, Kelsang Khyenrab, Samden Gyatso, Thubten Gyatso (NKT), Manjushri Institute etc. IMO These could all be merged with the main New Kadmpa Tradition article - otherwise Wikipedia could eventually end up with hundreds of articles about individual NKT teachers and centers. Similarly the artices on Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, Western Shugden Society &etc. could all be merged (possibly simply called "Shugden" or "Gyalpo Shugden" since the "Dorje" part of the name is loaded. The Dali Lama and his followers call this entity "Dolgyal Shugden" while the NKT and other adherents use "Dorje Shugden"). If the number of articles surrounding the NKT and Shugden issues were reduced they might be somewhat easier to monitor for balance and neutrality. I don't think anyone would suffer from having the number of these articles reduced.

Once merged we could perhaps then ask contributors to try and develop the articles to fairly reflect all sides of the story. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dorje Shugden" is the most commonly used name for DS though, as opposed to the alternative words, and that's what we name articles after. Some other buddhists might not call it that (though I've heard them do so) but that's what outsiders will've heard it called, if they've heard of it [1] [2] [3]. DS is the name of the movement. I don't know if NKT is -just- about DS? They do a lot of 'introduction to buddhism' courses in the UK and stuff too. But if they are 'really' the same thing maybe the articles should be combined. None of this is suitable for AfD though, what we're basically having here is a Request for Comments on this articles.:) Some of the ones on non-notable people could be speedied as having a risk of BLP issues IMHO, as well as being non-notable. Sticky Parkin 12:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Dorje Shugden with Dorje Shugden Controversy again as we had it in the past. As far as I know the separation of both articles was a result of an organized Wikiepdia-campaign of NKT leadership. But strongly Keep New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso and Dorje Shugden Controversy. If these articles are deleted all the discussions and the trancparency of their development get lost (all discussion pages are deleted as well!). I see no use in this. Moreover the New Kadampa Tradition article was already nominated for deletion on October 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. Of course the articles need balance again and are a battlegound for different views. Researcher Bluck and Mills pointed these out in their researches already. Prof. Bluck shows in his research how to find a balance. In general if the present academical researches are used there is no conflict. Sadly the researches are strongly rejected as WP:reliable source from NKT or Shugden followers and they were step by step removed from the articles. My suggestion to remind them and insert these researches again, and to follow the WP:Guidelines for articles. The NKT article also was nominated as B-class on the quality scale. I suggest to revert it to the date when the NKT article received that quality vote. Then block the article from edition and moderate edition step by step via discussion on the talk page. (Similar as compromises were worked out on Scientology.) Good Luck! --Kt66 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and separate per B above. Some of these are obvious keeps and grouping these together was a bad idea from the start. One AfD should not determine the fate of all of these articles. I have no other opinion until these are separated. Synergy 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or lock until & after compromise I would vote to delete to save everyone a lot of time, but since it looks like that won't happen, I suggest each side, because there seem to be two 'sides' elect a representative, someone who has tried to follow the rules and has not attacked individuals, only positions. These two can work up an entry that fairly presents both positions and then the sites can be locked. The critical ones are New Kadampa Tradition, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and Dorje Shugden. The rest should be eliminated as minor or left out of the controversy. If there is 'controversy' listed on the first two, they should equally be listed on Gelug and Dalai Lama sites, which are the counterparts. Then any mention of this controversy should be disallowed on any other sites so the battle doesn't just resume elsewhere.Eyesofcompassion (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock other articles Thank you for locking the Dorje Shugden page. Could these other articles please be locked until after a compromise is reached (which might take longer than July 21)? Thanks. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition

[1]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 *'''Delete or lock until & after compromise''' I would vote to delete to save everyone a lot of time, but since it looks like that won't happen, I suggest each side, because there seem to be two 'sides' elect a representative, someone who has tried to follow the rules and has not attacked individuals, only positions. These two can work up an entry that fairly presents both positions and then the sites can be locked. The critical ones are New Kadampa Tradition, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and Dorje Shugden. The rest should be eliminated as minor or left out of the controversy. If there is 'controversy' listed on the first two, they should equally be listed on Gelug and Dalai Lama sites, which are the counterparts. Then any mention of this controversy should be disallowed on any other sites so the battle doesn't just resume elsewhere.[[User:Eyesofcompassion|Eyesofcompassion]] ([[User talk:Eyesofcompassion|talk]]) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Please lock other articles'''  Thank you for locking the Dorje Shugden page.  Could these other articles please be locked until after a compromise is reached (which might take longer than July 21)?  Thanks.  --[[User:Iheartmanjushri|Iheartmanjushri]] ([[User talk:Iheartmanjushri|talk]]) 12:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>