Talk:Dorje Shugden

Archives
Shugden Talk - Archive 1 (to: 2006,07,18) Shugden Talk - Archive 2 (to: 2006,12,30) Shugden Talk - Archive 3 (from: 2006,12,30 to 2008,05,03) Shugden Talk - Archive 4 (to: 2008,10,29) Shugden Talk - Archive 5 (from: 2008,11,12 to: 2009,05,25)

Archive

As this talk page had once again grown very long (over 260 kilobytes), I have once again moved the discussion which has taken place since November 2008 to 25 May 2009 to another archive subpage.

Please add any new sections from top to bottom! Chris Fynn (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the RfC open in the hope of attracting a little more input from outside the page, so I've moved that section from the archive back into the main space. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Did not intend to close down any of the discussion by archiving it ~ indeed, if only to avoid repetition, I hope people will continue to refer to what has been written there. It is just that this discussion page was getting long and unwieldy and difficult to edit, particularly for those on a slow connection. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nature and Views on Dorje Shugden

How should Dorje Shugden be identified in the intro? Should conflicting views on Shugden's nature be presented in the article? If so, where should they be placed? 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

1)Tibetan Buddhists currently disagree on what type of being Dorje Shugden is; the Dalai Lama and various organizations associated with him are of one view, and worshipers of Dorje Shugden are of another. Given this disagreement, how should we identify Shugden in the intro? Solutions floated previously have included:

• A deity in Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelug sect
• A deity in certain sections of Tibetan Buddhism and the Geluk sect
• A supernatural being in Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelug sect
• regarded by some Tibetan Buddhists as a deity, and others as an evil spirit
• Saying nothing about what Shugden is, but indicating that a controversy exists over his nature.

2) There is currently a Dorje Shugden Controversy article that covers some of the material relating to the dispute over Shugden's status. Should all information about the views of those who do not regard Shugden as a deity be kept in the Controversy article, or should some of it be incorporated into the main text in some form?

3) If material relating to the controversy is to be included, where should it be placed in the article? Three views:

• The information should be early in the article, just after the intro, as it relates to the nature of what Shugden is, and who believes it, and thus informs the reading of the rest of the article.
• At the end of the article, as it relates to criticisms of Shugden by those who do not worship him, and thus should not be given undue weight.
• At the end of a section on the history of Shugden and his practice, since the controversy did not emerge in its modern form until the second half of the 20th Century.

My views and the views of several editors who have been involved in this article for some time are in the Talk sections above. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Uninvolved Editors

• I know (knew) nothing about this until I responded to a complaint about edit warring on WP:AN3. Here's what I believe Wikipedia policy and guidelines have to say on the matter. First, as to the use of two separate articles (point 2). Per WP:SUMMARY, the split article (Dorje Shugden Controversy) is appropriate so as not to overbalance the main article (this one) with material about this one aspect of the subject. However, WP:SUMMARY is quite clear that the split material should still be summarized at the main page. So the existence of the controversy article emphatically does not indicate that we should remove all mention of the dispute here. So the controversy should be summarized in a paragraph in this article, with a link to the controversy article as the main page for this aspect of Dorje Shugden.

  On the other points: (3): It's better to have the paragraph summarizing the controversy integrated into the history section; that way, we avoid a "controversy" section which is always a bit uncomfortable. Further, the controversy is so essentially important that it needs to be discussed briefly in the intro. Given that, (1): I think it's best to give an initial description based on what adherents believe, and then later in the intro, the opposing point of view should be briefly described while describing the controversy. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mangojuice. Thank you for your neutral input. I fully agree with what you said. I tried to implement the point (3), but these 3-4 users continually revert it. Clay tried also (he has a great deal of patience), he proposed a very balanced compromise, and they reverted all his changes also. It's been going for years. What can we do? In the current form the article is almost ridiculous. And especially the intro is very misleading. Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mangojuice, I think it is fine to mention something in the introduction, but it needs to be fair, neutral and non-inflammatory or the article is straightaway off to a bad start and will attract an endless edit sparring; so for this reason I've kept what Asasjdgavjhg has said but reworded it. I think your other points are valid also, thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Hello again Mangojuice, I have tried to implement your suggestions, please advise whether this works better now. (Truthbody (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, Asasjdgavjhg just keeps adding more stuff to the introduction to skew it in favor of the Dalai Lama's brigade, which means that has to be balanced out, and it is all getting unwieldy again. Can we go back to the simplest version of this from earlier today? (Truthbody (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Truthbody, let's not forget that, amongst Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists, the view of "the Dalai Lama's brigade" is held by many more than the view of the "Shugden adherents" who believe that he is an "Enlightened Buddha". There are also many Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists who have no particular view, or consider Shugden to be just another one of the numerous (un-enlightened) protector spirits and local deities found in Tibetan Buddhism. I have personally met quite a number of Tibetans who propitiate Shugden as a worldly dharma protector. Many DS adherents editing this article seem to consider the views of anyone who does not fully subscribe to thier beleif that DS is an Enlightend Buddha to be part of "the Dalai Lama's brigade". Chris Fynn (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting the Protector?

The zeal and dedication of some contributors to this article is noteworthy. Although the topic of whether Dorje Shugden is an "Enlightended Buddha", a worldly protector, an angry spirit, or simply a figment of the Tibetan imagination that has taken on a life of its own may only be a matter of academic interest or curiosity for most readers; for commited members of the NKT, and other Dorje Shugden devotees, this "debate" ~ in part carried on by editing this and related articles ~ is understandably a matter of upholding the reputation and the validity of their school, their teachers and the teaching and practice lineages which they follow and "take refuge" in. — Lodru (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

I have added a POV template to the article since the article lacks prevalence of a perspective in found in high-quality reliable sources and I think instead largely reflects the POV and opinions of NKT practioioners and other adherents or devotees of the entity which is the subject of the article. Though there is a wealth of high quality sources including scholarly articles and critical studies on the subject available, the majority of sources used in the article are non-academic publications by organisations whose members are devoted to this entity. Consequently the article gives undue weight to such sources and there are huge hunks of text refelecting only the minority opinion of Shugden devotees including whole paragraphs from paens in praise of Shugden. The article certainly does not reflect the consensus of critical scholary opinion on the history and practice of Dorje Shugden which can found in numerous published scholarly articles and studies of the subject and on the controversy surrounding it. I'm not sure what to do about this - previous attempts by others to balance the article have resulted in edit wars as Shugden devotees invitably seemed to feel that such sources are biased against them, and relentlessly re-edited the article to suit their perspective. At least that is not going on just now - but that hardly makes the article balanced. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for adding this template have been clearly stated above but Truthsayer62 is repeatedly removing the template without any discussion before this is resolved. Reasons for POV template are in addition to those cited on previous occasions by others. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the article does not require another POV template as the neutrality issue has already been flagged by other users. Chris Fynn's reasons are part of the overall neutrality issue and this has already been flagged. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris - if you read through some of the archive of this discussion, you'll see reasons given clearly for the prevalence of sources representing the practitioners' view of this entity here, namely:

this is an article about an object of religious faith, a deity (bear with me, please). in keeping with WP articles on other deities/objects of religious faith such as Hindu gods, Christian saints etc., it is entirely appropriate that the article presents, mainly, the view of the adherents of this deity.

of course, controversy exists over the nature of this entity and this is properly covered in a separate article, which is clearly indicated and linked to within this article - that is the place for the references you cannot find here to be added, if they are not in fact already there. thus the reader who wants to understand the *deity* and the beliefs and practices of its adherents can find the information they seek here, and the reader looking for information on the *controversy* is directed to that article. this is quite clear from the existing text, adequate and appropriate and there is nothing underhanded or disingenuous about it; i rather feel that your rekindling of this POV argument is somewhat pointless. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Atisha's cook:- A well-known problem with the what you call the "Practitioners View" and others might call an insiders view is that this all to oftem means there is a conflict of interest. As has been pointed out elsewhere if you are affiliated with the people, things you have write about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. - Wouldn't projects and products include practices strongly promoted by a religious organisation you are affiliated with, particularly when there is some controversy associated with that practice? The NKT and similar organisations are clearly involved in actively promoting this practice. A COI may also arise if NKT members or Dorje Shugden Devotees participate in "participate in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors" or where you link the Wikipedia article to the website(s) of your organization.

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The prevelence of perspective should be that in found in what are normally considered high-quality reliable sources. Although views contained in publications by organisations involved in promoting this practice affiliates should clearly be reported in the article, such publications do not normally count as high-quality reliable sources

Citing the fact that other WP articles about deities/objects of religious faith such as Hindu gods, Christian saints etc. have been written from a similar POV frankly cuts no ice. Many of those articles need cleaning up too.
- Chris Fynn (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems to boil down to a debate about whether or not this controversy is the single most important defining characteristic of this deity. i would argue that it isn't. controversy exists - and has become quite intense since the Dalai Lama banned the practice in '96 - but controversy exists about *all* objects of faith. it needs to be recorded - therefore there's a separate article about *the controversy* - but if every article on every deity included descriptions of every controversy surrounding it then they would fast become unwieldy and pretty useless. keep the article short and to the point, and point the interested reader to further information on the controversy. why is this not sensible? Atisha's cook (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the POV template because the issue of neutrality is already flagged and does not require another template. This is not to diminish the issues that Chris Fynn has raised, and if he feels strongly about them he should make edits accordingly. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

with respect, for all the reasons i gave above, i disagree that this is the appropriate place for such edits: they properly belong in the Dorje Shugden controversy article. however, i agree that the addition of a POV template is redundant, though i fear that there'll always be those who try to manufacture a dispute precisely by adding templates and then edit-warring over them! Atisha's cook (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are different sources for the different ways in which Dorje Shugden has been approached/practiced (e.g., as a worldly protector or as an enlightened being), these should all be reflected in this article. The Dorje Shugden Controversy from the 1970s on, of course, has its own article. I would say that the practice has not been "controversial" from the start, however. "Debated" might be a better term; maybe that can be covered in this article as well, without delving into the current controversy too much, except as to summarize and then redirect the reader to that relevant article. Emptymountains (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the consensus of scholarly opinion actually seems to be that there has been one controversy, "debate" or another about DS since the 17th century — and indeed throughout the history of this "protector" since then — the facts and details of this historical debate belong right here in the main article. I agree that most of the details about the contemporary manifestation of the controversy (related to the Dalai Lama's "ban" etc.) or if you will the current controversy belong in the Dorje Shugden controversy article since otherwise they would probably overwhelm eveything else here - but I would stongly oppose attempts to sanitize this article by moving material about the historical controversy or debate there too. - Chris Fynn (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris - quite right that anyone with a potential COI should, at least, exercise great caution in editing and this is what i always try to do. you also will need to do this here: you're hardly a disinterested observer on this topic! now, it's clear that the advice you've quoted above, which i'm quite familiar with, is intended to prevent bias in the articles; it would be extreme, however, to say, for example, that no Christian (and also no Muslim, no Jew, etc.) should edit articles on objects of Christian faith, practice or debate, wouldn't it?

wrt sources, to lay my cards out on the table, in my opinion the Dalai Lama has succeeded in pushing his view (you don't really question the nature of his "ban"?, do you?) on this deity so that it has now become widespread. i believe that some of your proposed sources, such as Thurman, are in fact compromised as scholarship by their authors' hero-worship of the Dalai Lama, eg. "Why the Dalai Lama matters". there is therefore, to my mind, a serious question about some of these sources: can they truly, impartially, be considered high-quality reliable sources? that's not to say that impartial material doesn't exist.

i think the best way forward is for you to submit here your intended edits and their sources so that we can discuss them. i for one will not simply oppose them because they don't accord with my view, but i may argue against them for any of the reasons i've given, and others: we can discuss this, however. any edits that improve the article will be welcome. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@Atisha's cook:- Actually I don't take Thurman all that seriously - an entertaing speaker but a bit of a clown. With regard to my own position - I have been studying Tibetan Buddhism since before 1970 and living with Tibetans and Bhutanese from then till now. I have received extensive personal teachings from lamas of all tratitons including from Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, Sakya Trizin, Kalu Rinpoche, the 16th Karmapa, Dilgo Kyentse, Penor Rinpoche and Kunnu Lama but I have never been a member of any Buddhist organisation or Tibetan cultural or political organisation. I have good freinds who are practitioners of all traditions ~ including some who regard Dorje Shugden as their protector. Generally wrt matters Tibetan an Tibetan Buddhist I regard myself as well informed but not partisan. I regard literal interpretations of texts praising lamas or protectors skepticaly ~ or largely metaphorical ~ after all there have been many very wordly lamas calle emanations of Buddhas or Enlightend Bodhisattvas in prayers even though their deeds often speak otherwise, Similarly almost every local deity has been called an enlightend Bodhisattva or Buddha in one prayer or another. Therefore if some high lama has praised a protector as Manjusri, Lokeshvara or Buddha I need some serious evidence that this is not just poetics or metaphor. I enjoy argument and debate - but am not necessarily against every pov I argue with. Although you may disagree with me, I thin I do try to be up front and fair - Unlike most people posting here I use my own name so every body knows exactly who I am.

Yes I'm seriously thinking about editing or re-writing this article based on what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" but see little point in spending the time to do this if all my edits will be deleted by people who think I oppose them. Come on - this is an encyclopedia which aims to provide something like a condensed view of what the majority of critical western scholars in the field say about a subject - don't expect it to be more. From a "practioners viewpoint" an article may seem all wrong - but Wikipedia should only be reporting what that viewpoint is - no endorsing it in anyway. No one should even be attempting to make Wikipedia articles conform to a "Practitioners viewpoint". Anyway I'm not even going to attempt to edit this article until the end of October or November at the earliest. For a start I will be away from any computer from the begining of October till then. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should only be reporting what that viewpoint is - no endorsing it in anyway." i quite agree, and as far as i can see, the article doesn't currently "endorse" any view. my point is not that articles on deities etc. ought to promote or endorse the view of their adherents, but simply that, as an encyclopaedic entry, it is most relevant and appropriate to describe how a deity is perceived by its adherents (with suitable qualifiers: "Christians believe that Jesus...", etc.). the main article should not be given over to discussion of opposing views ("Jews believe that Jesus...") except briefly; where there is sufficient controversy to warrant it, then, as we have in this case, to keep the articles clear and concise this can be separated into its own article, clearly linked to from the "main" article.

that's my view - i'm not trying to promote only my own beliefs concerning this entity. Atisha's cook (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of high-quality and well-reasoned discussion on this article's positioning and function respective to the Dorje Shugden controversy article and other qualified Wikipedia articles of the same genre, all of which can be found in the archives. Life is short, so rather than repeating exactly the same discussions again, as seems to be happening here, can Chris Fynn and others please look at the discussions in the archives and see if their points are already dealt with? I think most of what Chris says above has been discussed in detail already. As just one example, I contributed something that seems relevant here as well, and although I wish we didn't all have to keep repeating ourselves, I feel the need to add it here in answer to some of Chris's latest points.

"I agree with Yourfriend that we should keep the controversial elements, which after all were started by the Dalai Lama not by the Deity or even his practitioners, in the controversy article and let this one be about the Deity Dorje Shugden. The article has a suitable and adequate reference to the other views of his nature and the reader is directed clearly to the controversy article if he/she wants to know about this controversy. Even when the politics die down, the Dalai Lama's influence is less pervasive, the Phoenix-like Dorje Shugden temples and monasteries get larger and larger in the east and the west, and the reputations of the great Gelugpa Buddhist Masters (who also practiced Shugden) such as Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are restored, Dorje Shugden will still be relied upon as a holy being; and this article shows the nature of the Deity, the practice and reliance. In the future, it is likely that this Protector will be relied upon once more by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Tibet, China, India and the West. (Truthbody (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC))" (Truthbody (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Sources

The majority of the references currently cited in this article seem to be from works by noted Tibetan Shugden adherents such as Pabongkha, Trijang Rinpoche, and especially books by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso ~ I don't think any of these qualify as what Wikipedia:Sources calls "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and to counterbalance these there is only a single reference to a source by a Tibetan with a differing view - the Dalai Lama - although such views are apprently the majority in that community. Other well known and respected Tibetan sources supporting the view that Shugden has usually been considered a mere worldly protector or a harmful entity are not cited. The article contains several references taken from rsther dated sources such as a 1926 book by the missionaries Paul Sherap & G. A. Combe, a 1935 National Geographic article by the famous botanist Joseph Rock, and reprint edition of René Nebesky-Wojkowitz's 1956 book Oracles and Demons of Tibet. There is also a second hand account of a story which one of the Dalai Lama's former chamberlains apparently recounted to Helmut Gassner whom the article claims was "the Dalai Lama's translator for 17 years". However if we actually read the cited source (transcript of a talk by Gassner) it is apparent that he only acted as an ocassional interpreter for the Dalai Lama on visits to Germany - and much of that seems to have been English to German - so to call Gassner "the Dalai Lama's translator for 17 years" is imo a rather misleading exageration. The quote of the chamberlain's story is seemingly included only to try and prove that the Dali Lama once relied on Shugden.

The current version of the article does have a single passing reference to D. N. Kay's Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain (Routlege 2004) and another to C. H. Partridge's New Religions: a Guide (OUP, 2004) - unoubtedly both good quality sources - but where are the references to and quotes from directly relevant academic material on the subject written by noted Tibetologists and Buddhist scholars such as Robert Barnett, Michael von Brück, Georges Dreyfus, Matthew T. Kapstein, Donald Lopez, Robert Thurman, Paul Williams and so on? For some reason references to such writings that get included seem to quickly disappear. Shouldn't books and articles by writers like these, published by university presses and in peer-reviewed academic journals be considered Grade A sources for a Wikipedia article? Doesn't repeated deletion of material referencing such sources amount to vandalism?

There have also been academic thesis related to Shugden written such as Lindsay G. McCune's Tales of Intrigue From Tibet’s Holy City: the historical underpinnings of a modern Buddhist crisis [Florida State University, Dept. of Religion 2007] and papers such as Christopher Bell's recent Dorjé Shukden: The Conflicting Narratives and Constructed Histories of a Tibetan Protector Deity given at this year's annual meeting of the AAR but these are also not cited or quoted in the article.
Chris Fynn (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I am attempting to add in some material from the references you suggest. I only wish that some of them had actually described the practice of Dorje Shugden more than they do the controversy surrounding its ban. I also note that Bell's paper has not been made available, as the AAR meeting hasn't happened yet.

P.S. Dreyfus and Kay, and also Mills and Ardley, all say that the controversy started in the 1970s. For example, Kay (in agreement with Dreyfus, as quoted on the Controversy page) explicitly says on page 49 that before the 1970s, "there was no open conflict or controversy" regarding the Dorje Shugden practice. Emptymountains (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Prominent reference to the Dorje Shugden controversy in the lead --> removed WP:POV tag

I agree on the concept that has been discussed and largely agreed upon in previuos discussions, namely that this article should focus on the deity from a practitioners/adherents POV and that the controversy should be left to the seperate article.

This concept can be legitimised only though, when there is a prominent reference to the controversy that cannot be overlooked by the casual reader. The controversy is of the highest significance to the perception of the deity among the general public, be they Buddhist or non-Buddhist, and most definitely among the adherents of Tibetan Buddhism. In fact, most people only ever hear about this deity precisely because of the controversy surrounding it.

I have added such a reference and at the same time removed the WP:POV tag, because i believe it is ok for this article to focus on the adherents POV under said condition - plus, of course, appropriate WP:NPOV language like: "Adherents think..." (already very good in the article). I appeal especially to the NKT-affiliated editors dominating this article to agree on this compromise and not to remove the reference from the lead. Anything less than an explicit mentioning and link to the controversy in the lead (!!) would imho inescapably delegitimise the strict seperation of practitioners/others views in the present two-article concept. Andi 3ö (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Andi - i still disagree with your elevation of the controversy to the most important or relevant point concerning this deity, which is what placing it in the lead does. it simply isn't the case. some interested parties, particularly those interested in modern Tibetan politics and academic study of Tibetan religion, see Dorje Shugden as nothing more than a point of controversy, and there's a relatively large amount of literature on this controversy as a result. but this is to confuse the deity with the controversy: in my view these things are separate. just because there is a controversy, does not make that controversy the most important feature or aspect of the deity. i feel that you've now given that feature undue weight in this article. however, i appreciate your attempt to resolve the endless bickering over POV...

there seems to be two camps: those interested mainly in the deity and those interested mainly in the controversy - which illustrates perfectly the need for two articles! that article is all about the controversy; this article should be all about the deity and its practice. it seems that you (and Chris, etc.) feel that the deity is defined by the controversy; it is not. these topics are separate.

interested to hear others' views. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I actually think that Andi's changes make sense, and I tend to agree with his reasoning. There are also lots of other pages and organizations, like the link to Western Shugden Society that reflect the significance of the controversy. The controversy and ban are a big deal ... but they definitely shouldn't overshadow or drown out the actual spiritual practice. Since the Tibetan government openly states that the ban is just political, it remains important to separate the ban and the ensuing controversy from the actual practice. Peaceful5 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)