Jump to content

Talk:New Kadampa Tradition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kt66 (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 19 August 2019 (→David N. Kay appears and is cited witout introduction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merger Proposal: bios of NKT teachers

I propose that the bios of NKT teachers: Kelsang Khyenrab, Thubten Gyatso and Samden Gyatso be merged into the NKT teachers section of this article. Those articles all lack important biographical information and it is hard to see how they meet the notability criterea. All seem to have little notability or significance outside the context of the NKT. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the second two would be that helpful in the article itself or necessary, but I wouldn't see a problem with deleting them. I don't see a huge issue with them existing separately currently either, though. Regarding Kelsang Khyenrab I would not see a problem with integrating it into the New Kadampa Tradition page, as long as it didn't make it too unwieldy/awkward and fit in well. I sort-of think it would, but if you saw some nice way to make it fit then maybe its not a big deal. I think having all three would just be a bit clunky there, as generally it seems excessive to include bios of specific individuals unless they're the founding member. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merger done. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits

In accordance with CFynn's tag at the top of the page, I made edits. Please review @Joshua Jonathan, CFynn, Montanabw, and Cullen328:.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, though maybe a little bit more could be said about the Dorje Shugden controversy. Maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to the old version. You removed massive amounts of information. I also am a bit saddened I didn't get invited to review it myself!! Tisk tisk.. What specific things do you want in and what do you want out? Happy to compromise as I find the current article sprawling, but you practically decapitated it! :) Prasangika37 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at this page, I really thought that this tag was misplaced. Later I saw that some work has been done. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: Please obtain consensus before making these changes. There has not been anything close to a consensus yet. I am going to revert now and please do not edit war in return. Perhaps offer 1 change and then we can start working. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already have consensus. And thus you are the one edit warring.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Lets see... The only person I can see supporting your massive purge of material is Joshua Johsnon. I did not agree. That is 2 and 1..hardly close to consensus. Thanks. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about asking @Elnon and Ogress: ? Couldn't have even included little ol me?Prasangika37 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFynn advised you not edit NKT / Shugden related articles due to your possible COI's.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say you had no COI? Prasangika37 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no COI. I am not a part of any Buddhist organization whatsoever. In the name of Kelsang Gyatso, what is your position within the NKT?VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MY humble opinion on this one is that VG's edits, where they cleaned up previous wording, are good; she can write well. Her edits adding criticism are not undue, BUT I think the explanatory material that was in there should have been rewritten to be better, but not removed. So. I suggest that using this diff as a base, reincorporate the deleted material, but rewrite it so it sounds less like someone's promotional web site -- you don't need every festival in the year, for example, and the notation that full ordination is not available is relevant - I would not remove anything VG has added, I'd just restore what was removed but in a better-written way. Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily okay with the edit and have made a few slight adjustments, but can't give the full time it needs to dissect the changes until a few days time. Then, we can call in an RFC if we need to if there is further pushing or problems. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See new discussion on NPOV noticeboard HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no consensus for the use of 'cult' especially in the lead, so I will be reverting the edit in a day. You can see pretty clearly there are strong feelings against it on the discussion board and at the very least, definitely not any consensus supporting it. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tag at the top of this talk page says you are a connected contributor with a possible COI.VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were no relevant conclusions over at the noticeboard. I am going to continue to edit in a reasonable way, as I have been. Shii, John_Carter, and Elnon both agreed that there seemed to be either no problem on my editing or even more problems coming from other editors (e.g. yourself). The only people that agreed with this complaint were, unsurprisingly, the people involved in editing the articles (cfynn, joshua, yourself, montanabw). On the other hand, there were relevant conclusions on the NPOV noticeboard that cult was hardly appropriate. At the very least, no consensus that its reasonable to use. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces, Adjwilley, HiLo48, and Montanabw: are any of you willing to make a move regarding the discussion we had on the use of 'cult' on the NPOV noticeboard?Prasangika37 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in nor desire to be sucked into this topic. I know that religious topics are dangerous, because they involve beliefs, rather than facts. I will simply repeat my point that the word "cult" is primarily used as a pejorative term by followers of larger, older religions when describing newer, smaller ones. It's never a helpful word. Wikipedia shouldn't use it, anywhere. (Unless we are quoting someone else's precise words.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are quoting someone else's precise words.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the lead... its used as an individual word there and not in a quote. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like HiLo48, I believe the derogative world “cult” should not be used in an intro where it is bound to raise constant bickering among editors. I would fain see the full quotation from Thierry Dodin’s interview relegated to a more apposite section within the article where it could be properly attributed to Dodin (who by the way doesn’t strike me as being an unbiased observer). --Elnon (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology is called a cult in the lead, I see no reason not to do so here. Montanabw(talk) 06:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not remotely comparable if you consult 1) the news 2) actual examples of scandal 3) scholarly sources on the matter. In additon, having one single quote to quote from it is far different than Scientology, where there are an absolute abundance on the issue. Even from a consensus point of view, TFD, Elnon, HiLo, and Adjwilley all denied the idea. This makes it pretty clear.. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 says its fine if its a direct quote. VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I viewed the comments as basically stating that any such claims need to be well-sourced. I see no issues using the word here. Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like quote a gross exageration of the results we had at NPOV. I documented them here:

"@Ian.thomson:-"My gut feeling is that if an academic and non-sectarian source uses the word, and it's due weight, it's fine" Academic and non-sectarian and due weight?" None of these have been established. Dodin hasn't been proven to be an academic once and the interview is on a random website.
@The Four Deuces:-"The source is an interview with a Tibeologist (not a cult expert) who says, I do not think that source has sufficient weight for inclusion. You need to show that books about cults routinely classify it as a cult. " " For example if a scholarly book on cults says that they are generally described as a cult, we can say that. We can accept that the author is familiar with all the literature, while we are not, and can make a judgment about the use of the term to describe the group. While the Tibetologist is for what he said, the issue is what weight to assign it. I would suggest very little, because he is an expert on Tibetology" Again, doesn't happen to support the inclusion and backs up ian.thomson's point regarding not enough weight.

@Djcheburashka:... --"Perhaps the lede can say that some people consider it to be a cult, with a citation to one such source?"

@HiLo48: "Yes, my earlier post described that phenomenon - "Cult" is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really. We shouldn't be using it. " And here he implied the whole quote should be used.. but that doesn't mean in the lead. I took that clearly to be in the article..
@Adjwilley: "Seriously though...here are my rules for using the word cult: 1. You can use it to describe a group without qualification IFF a large majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the group as such. The result of this is that the word cult will pretty much only be used to describe destructive cults on Wikipedia. 2. If there is controversy over whether a group is a cult or not with some primary sources calling it a cult and others saying it's not, and this controversy is consistently reported in secondary sources (i.e. not WP:RECENTISM) then you can use the word cult but it must be attributed. For example, "so and so has described X as a cult". 3. In a majority of cases, groups referring to one another as cults is just mudslinging and it doesn't merit being repeated in a serious encyclopedia. I think the example provided by the OP falls under #2 or #3"
@Mandruss:-no direct support, just slight criticizng of TFD's point but not supporting one way or the other.
@Elnon: -outright direct opposition.
And then there are Montana, myself, and Victoriagrayson weighing in, who pretty much negate one another because our points of view on the issue are clear. So when we tally it up.. TFD, Elnon Adjwilley = Saying it doesnt work in this case. | ian.thomson=Saying it only works if there is due weight, which TFD refuted quite clearly. | HiLo = saying the word is useless and the whole quote is needed if its used (most likely in the article? I assume not in the lead especially how small the lead is.) dje.. =saying perhaps we can use it. || What about those stats induce the understanding that it should be included??? At the very least we cannot call it consensus. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw and VictoriaGrayson: Any rebuttal? Looks like you're both drastically outnuumbered on this one. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misstating the position of the people on the NPOV board, and I will note that where you aren't misstating them, they are actually saying things like"there needs to be a source." which there is. I read the outcome as supporting a properly sourced statement that NKT has been characterized as a cult. Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new NPOV discussion HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Civil way to move forward..

Hi @Montanabw and VictoriaGrayson: especially, and anyone else. John Carter had a helpful suggestion that we 1. find the proper question to ask 2. and then pool points of view via an RFC, as opposed to submitting the poor NPOV noticeboard to our tomfoolery :). My thoughts are we could 1) Express the specific thing that is being debated 2) Give one sentence pro the item and con towards the item in the question. I was wondering if in this thread we could collectively draft the right question and agree on the pro and con items, so it can be as successful as possible? Do either of you want to suggest what the proper question is and a pro and con towards the suggestion? If you don't want to, then I am happy to think about it. And maybe by Sunday we can come to a conclusion and have an official RFC to come to some conclusion. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice personally, what I might do is have the individuals involved in the dispute agree on where, if anywhere, in the lede contentious material on this topic is to be included, and then have the disputants draft what they would consider the preferable phrasing for that section, and then have an RfC regarding which of the alternatives is more appropriate. The point of contention might include either a whole paragraph or sentence of whatever. Remembering that it is considered reasonable to allow a lede to be up to four paragraphs long, maybe the best way to start would be to have some discussion on the length of the lede. I would suggest four paragraphs myself, but I'm a verbose bastard with diarrhea of the keyboard and I know a lot of people disagree with me. If it were four, I might suggest the first paragraph be the bare-bone summary of the topic, the second paragraph describe the reasons for the schism that created the group and its foundation, the third paragraph as history or significant developments or actions of the group since its inception, and the fourth paragraph describing in some way "current status" of the group. In such a setup, I tend to think that the fourth paragraph might be the best place to describe outside views on the group, including those of other Buddhist groups and the academic world. But that is, clearly, just one opinion. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you, there are about five articles with disputes, a host of assorted drama board visits, and at this point, I honestly don't even know what the f--- the problem on this particular article even is. My recommendation: Archive this entire talk page and start "clean". The underlying issue here is we have an editor who is closely affiliated with NKT (and may have an undisclosed COI, but I am not sure of that) versus a mainstream Buddhist editor. Then there are 2-3 other people who pop by from time to time and weigh in, including myself, who began this originally as a neutral party. I've become rather exasperated with the situation, as it is just the same issues over and over and over again. This is typical of a situation where there is a cult member and a non-cult member wrangling over an article. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: I find that to be a reasonable method. Offer two leads and go from there in an RFC. I don't have the stamina to craft four paragraphs for now, but at least can offer two alternatives. Montana, your colors have been shown enough times at this point..Regardless if you came in as neutral or not, accusing me (repeatedly) of being a cult member and your general inconsistencies in editing in the nature of favoring the edits of victoriagrayson and almost exclusively reverting anything I offer, implies there is some serious POV issues on your part. Your insistence in discrediting at all chances as opposed to actually talking and moving forward in a logical manner is saddening to me and makes it very challenging to accept you as a remotely reasonable editor in this case. Regardless, I think we need more constructive ways forward instead of merely slinging mud and I invite you to grow a little and make efforts to do this. If you don't I'll start collecting diffs and we can see where we need to go from there.Prasangika37 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prasangika37:: I started out looking for a middle way also, but it is clear from your behavior and approach that you clearly identify with the NKT, behave precisely like a member of a cult and seek to whitewash this reality. (I've dealt with cult members, having many a debate/discussion/beat my head against the wall with Moonies, members of The Way, and Scientologists at various times. Your behavior is very similar to theirs) The NKT is a WP:FRINGE organization and has an exclusivist view and other traits that fits pretty must everything on the checklist of the "is this group a cult" checklist. I am sorry you are unhappy about being called on this and think it is "slinging mud," but to be honest, this is a problem. Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: What you seem to be confused about is that there are many people who have expressed the same POV as me regarding this variety of articles. Are they all evil cult members too? I haven't even seen one decent point regarding the organization being a cult in the first place!! Anyway, this is where it is truly bizarre. You have a point of view that is >very< specific and seemingly hateful towards this organization and are largely disagreed with by many others. It would be one thing if I was conveying a point of view either 1) in a trolling, hateful, or rude manner or 2) that wasn't held by other neutral wikipedia editors, but Elnon, John Carter, Ogress, TFD, HiLo48, and Highwindows have all variously disagreed with the POV that you seem to push in different ways. Chris Fynn largely agrees but he has been a self-proclaimed part of the debate for around 20 years now and Joshua Jonathan seems to, but he sems to be a long held wikipedia buddy of VictoriaGrayson. And then you focus primarily on criticizing me as a person and not on reasonably discussing the article at hand.. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, It seems that the two leads currently being offered are:

The New Kadampa Tradition – International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT—IKBU) is a global Buddhist organization founded by Kelsang Gyatso in England in 1991. In 2003 the words "International Kadampa Buddhist Union" (IKBU) were added to the original name "New Kadampa Tradition". The NKT-IKBU is an international organization registered in England as a charitable, or non-profit, company.[1][2] It currently lists more than 200 centres and around 900 branch classes/study groups in forty countries.[3]

The NKT-IKBU describes itself as ‘an entirely independent Buddhist tradition’ inspired and guided by ‘the ancient Kadampa Buddhist Masters and their teachings, as presented by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’.[4]

The NKT-IKBU has expanded more rapidly than any other Buddhist tradition in Britain and it has been portrayed or described as a "controversial organization",[4] a "breakaway order of the Gelukpa,"[5] a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM,"[6] or "a cult on the basis of its organisational form".[7]

The other is

The New Kadampa Tradition – International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT—IKBU) is a global Buddhist organization founded by Kelsang Gyatso in England in 1991. In 2003 the words "International Kadampa Buddhist Union" (IKBU) were added to the original name "New Kadampa Tradition". The NKT-IKBU is an international organization registered in England as a charitable, or non-profit, company.[1][2] It currently lists more than 200 centres and around 900 branch classes/study groups in forty countries.[3]

The NKT-IKBU describes itself as ‘an entirely independent Buddhist tradition’ inspired and guided by ‘the ancient Kadampa Buddhist Masters and their teachings, as presented by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’.[4]

The NKT-IKBU has expanded more rapidly than any other Buddhist tradition in Britain. The growth has been attributed to "a wish to share the Dharma rather than ‘conversion and empire-building’". (Bluck) Criticisms towards the NKT describe it as a "breakaway order of the Gelukpa"[5] and a "controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM."[6]

The main logic for the second is two-fold--> The reversions added in the current lead that have been added relatively lately imply that a summary of how the New Kadampa Tradition is portrayed is as those few quotes, ignoring any of the positive portrayals that exist in scholarly work. Also, controversial organization and controversial nrm are redundant. The cult allegation is a redundant with NRM (NRM is considered the best word for what 'cult' attempts to establish) and has a variety of problems, including the author of the quote (former director of the Tibetan Information Network and no true evidence in regards to training..) and minimal weight in regards to it. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word "cult" in the current context of a sourced direct quote from a respected mainstream Buddhist is appropriate to stay. Stating that the position of the NKT is otherwise is also appropriate per NPOV, preferably via another direct quote from a respected source within the movement. The operative concept for me is "teach the controversy." Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent logic of the use of the word "cult" is not to my eyes the word itself, but the entirety of the quotation provided, "a cult on the basis of its organisational form". The full quotation indicates not just that it is a "cult" but also the specific reasons why it is considered a cult. The quote taken as a whole includes much more potentially significant information than just the word "cult" on its own. The argument against the inclusion of the shortened quote is that I don't see anything in the body of the article which indicates exactly how the NKT, in its organizational form, is a cult, and the lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article, not contain material not discussed more thoroughly in the article. Right now, that quote does the latter, not the former. The full quote, "The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder," or a paraphrase of it, might be more useful, if there were clear content in the article beyond the lede going into further detail. But, as is, the quote does not, so far as I can superficially see, meet the requirements of the lede because it does not summarize something gone into greater detail in the body of the article, but presents something that is apparently not clearly discussed anywhere else in the article. If material is added to the article to provide further information beyond that currently included in the lede, possibly prominently in a separate section dealing with that material, that would be best. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pretty far short of the GA standard in many ways, and having some material in the lede, cited, that is not in the body of the article is not prohibited, though it's not ideal. I think that the best solution is to add a bit of an expansion into the body text, and I have done so. Montanabw(talk) 07:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'cult information center' stuff

No consensus for this inclusion still, so I have deleted it. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete. Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to include it originally. If you would like to discuss it I would be happy to.Prasangika37 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Montanabw.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: What makes this different from our mutual friend VictoriaGrayson's exasperation that there isn't consensus over at Dorje Shugden Controversy? In addition, part that you changed, 'cult based on its organizational form' was an agreed upon aspect of the intro a month ago and was the only immediate reason we included it at all. Without those extra words I will be promptly removing it altogether..or you can choose to include with the extra words. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not tracking that page's drama as closely as this one. My concern is that you are also deleting other evidence that NKT is a cult. IF VG and everyone wants to debate the words "organizational structure," that is fine, we can debate. But don't claim consensus where there is none. Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am deleting something that wasn't included or verified beforehand. It was just snuck in.. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed Consensus on Intro

Ever since the intro has been changed there has been -->no<-- consensus. See my earlier post about this. When we had two NPOV noticeboard discussions about even including 'cult', we had about half and half with different opinions. If you think it should be changed, instead of just reverting it, please explain why that is the case. Especially when the various intros I have offered in order to compromise (even going as far to including the word 'cult' but with proper attribution as requested by others) have been automatically reverted without discussion, we can see there is a sort of blindness present. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasangika, your view on the matter was a minority view. We don't need references in the intro so long as the material is sourced later in the article body text, which it is. Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately thats just not true. There was no consensus to include cult in the first place. I am attempting to make some compromise, but I think I will revoke that attempt and continue to make an effort to remove it based on the original NPOV noticeboard discussions and the business above. Also, its a bad example of undue weight by listing 5 different criticisms that are sometimes repetitive. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing relevant to debate this point. Especially the line 'It has been described' and then listing five various criticisms is disingenuous and not in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. These are clearly criticisms and WP:FRINGE. To list all of them is not appropriate--I have narrowed it to two and listed they are specifically criticisms. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the WP:STICK, you are not going to win this one, no more than the scientologists did. Montanabw(talk) 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nasty speech is a bit old. I find it disturbing that you are misrepresenting consensus, and essentially lying or at least being disingenuous, especially as such a dedicated editor here on WP. Should I just report you? I am not sure how to go forward other than that as of right now. Below I include the point I raised earlier in November or so, which has been constantly disregarded. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like quote a gross exageration of the results we had at NPOV. I documented them here:
@Ian.thomson::-"My gut feeling is that if an academic and non-sectarian source uses the word, and it's due weight, it's fine" Academic and non-sectarian and due weight?" None of these have been established. Dodin hasn't been proven to be an academic once and the interview is on a random website.
@The Four Deuces::-"The source is an interview with a Tibeologist (not a cult expert) who says, I do not think that source has sufficient weight for inclusion. You need to show that books about cults routinely classify it as a cult. " " For example if a scholarly book on cults says that they are generally described as a cult, we can say that. We can accept that the author is familiar with all the literature, while we are not, and can make a judgment about the use of the term to describe the group. While the Tibetologist is for what he said, the issue is what weight to assign it. I would suggest very little, because he is an expert on Tibetology" Again, doesn't happen to support the inclusion and backs up ian.thomson's point regarding not enough weight.
@Djcheburashka::... --"Perhaps the lede can say that some people consider it to be a cult, with a citation to one such source?"
@HiLo48:: "Yes, my earlier post described that phenomenon - "Cult" is a word used by adherents of larger, older religions to describe smaller, newer religious groups in a derogatory manner. For a serious encyclopaedia, it's a pretty useless word really. We shouldn't be using it. " And here he implied the whole quote should be used.. but that doesn't mean in the lead. I took that clearly to be in the article..
Adjwilley: "Seriously though...here are my rules for using the word cult: 1. You can use it to describe a group without qualification IFF a large majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the group as such. The result of this is that the word cult will pretty much only be used to describe destructive cults on Wikipedia. 2. If there is controversy over whether a group is a cult or not with some primary sources calling it a cult and others saying it's not, and this controversy is consistently reported in secondary sources (i.e. not WP:RECENTISM) then you can use the word cult but it must be attributed. For example, "so and so has described X as a cult". 3. In a majority of cases, groups referring to one another as cults is just mudslinging and it doesn't merit being repeated in a serious encyclopedia. I think the example provided by the OP falls under #2 or #3"
@Mandruss::-no direct support, just slight criticizng of TFD's point but not supporting one way or the other.
@Elnon:: -outright direct opposition.("Like HiLo48, I believe the derogative world “cult” should not be used in an intro where it is bound to raise constant bickering among editors. I would fain see the full quotation from Thierry Dodin’s interview relegated to a more apposite section within the article where it could be properly attributed to Dodin (who by the way doesn’t strike me as being an unbiased observer)".)
And then there are Montana, myself, and Victoriagrayson weighing in, who pretty much negate one another because our points of view on the issue are clear. So when we tally it up.. TFD, Elnon Adjwilley = Saying it doesnt work in this case. | ian.thomson=Saying it only works if there is due weight, which TFD refuted quite clearly. | HiLo = saying the word is useless and the whole quote is needed if its used (most likely in the article? I assume not in the lead especially how small the lead is.) dje.. =saying perhaps we can use it. || What about those stats induce the understanding that it should be included??? At the very least we cannot call it consensus. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)" Prasangika37 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this talk page after giving it a wide berth for a while, I am amazed that the same repetitive, disparaging sentence "It has been described as a "controversial organization"and a "controversial" New Religious Movement, a cult, or a breakaway Buddhist sect" should still be in the intro without any qualifying or reduction in length. Why has "controversial" to be mentioned twice in a row? Why does "by some critics" have to be suppressed after "it has been described"? Why does it take so long for a non-committal sentence to be agreed upon by all parties? --Elnon (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking into what Martin A. Mills says. Nowhere in his book is the quotation "a breakaway Buddhist sect" to be found, he just calls the NKT "a breakaway order of the Gelukpa." --Elnon (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Elnon:. I am feeling a bit overwhelmed as there is some outnumbering going on and a general refusal of compromise or dialogue.. to me that part of the intro wouldn't fly on any well-vetted Wikipedia page. My inexperience prevents me from knowing really how to fix it. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Mediation Committee involvement?

It seems to me that this topic, particularly given the perhaps less adequate than would be liked academic sourcing available, might well benefit from input of the WP:MEDCOM to resolve matters one way or another. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the current stand-off, I suppose this might help solve the dispute. --Elnon (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would deeply appreciate that and would be more than happy to be involved.@John Carter: could you help about how to go further? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFM shows how to file for formal mediation as per the committee. The one thing I might suggest first though is to try to get together, possibly on a subpage of this talk page, a list of the reliable sources which are available and an indicator of what they say. Obviously, academic journal articles and college-level textbooks and similar academic sources would be best, but in the absence of them whatever can be found can be useful. Maybe it might first be good to start a page at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Sources and, maybe, contact as many editors as are still active and have contributed to the discussion over time as possible to see if they would be interested in taking part in the mediation. Also, I guess, FWIW, it might not be bad to find what reviews of some of the sources are available, and maybe try to start separate articles on them if the reviews are substantial enough. Having as much information as is possible available before the start of mediation would probably be among the easiest ways to get the mediation resolved comparatively quickly. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the need unless we want the NKT articles to become the dramafest the Scientology ones are. I think that this situation is that a flexible number of editors are up against a small contingent of people who appear to have a COI and close affiliation with NKT that never give up. The majority consensus is clearly in one direction, but the vocal dissonance of the minority keeps the issue from ever being settled. Usually mediation is just the same drama all over again - I say this as someone who originally came to these articles thinking that as a non-Buddhist I could be a neutral voice but as soon as my assessment went against the minority view, I became the enemy too. The issue is, and continues to be in large part a sourcing and weight question, so I do think John Carter's suggestion to get source material together is well taken, whatever else is said or done. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral? From the beginning you screamed things like 'cult' and calling a Buddhist tradition scientology and being essentially unwilling to make compromises. Never an enemy, but obviously someone with a bone to pick..And again, its not a minority vs majority situation here. Look at the results listed above. Its a clear misrepresentation of the results from NPOV. Are you willing to make comcompromises and be reasonable? If not, we can simply do mediation and try to get some clarification.Prasangika37 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I began as a neutral; your behavior became obvious quite quickly, Prasangika, particularly when you had that sockpuppet user tag-teaming with you. Don't go crying "unfair" when this whole situation began due to you ganging up on the mainstream Buddhism editors and running several of them off. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history of discussion--I have repeatedly compromised, been civil, and admitted mistakes when I have made them. I don't know of any sockpuppet business, other than the fact that the claim has been repeatedly slung and hasn't been verified once. Is there no interest in assuming good faith? Prasangika37 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of mediation is it tends to be binding in the short term at least upon completion. Granted, that might not be that much of an advantage, because it might simply mean until the next really good reference work on Buddhism comes out, but it does tend to be a fairly conclusive settlement of the issues raised in the mediation until such time as the content in the best reliable sources on the subject change significantly. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The disadvantage is that the same people say the same things over and over and over. Prasangika37 has shown his/herself to have a COI problem and is closely affiliated with the NKT, his/her edits are consistent, they attempt to present a fringe view as mainstream. This editor's idea of "compromise" is "do it my way or I'll try asking yet another parent at yet another drama board. Mediation, at best is another way to get more neutral eyes, but I have to say that nothing is going to change until this editor finds a different note than the whitewashing of a group that clearly meets most of the criteria for a cult. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw's response has furthered the obvious need for mediation. I will be arranging it shortly.@John Carter: thanks for the advice :) . Prasangika37 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Sources has now been at least started. It is based basically on what I could find on WorldCat right now, but I expect to add any articles I can find on subscription databanks shortly. This may well include, unfortunately, a significant number of basically "newsy" articles from those databanks. I think it is worth noting that Kay's book seems to meet NOTABILITY requirements for a separate article, if anyone wants to do that. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag..

Obviously is still appropriate.. NPOV is being discussed still and won't be decided until post mediation. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one last try at an RFC in a hope to help things be mediated before having to go through an ordeal. If it doesn't work out then we can move on :( Prasangika37 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Intro in the Third Paragraph be fixed??

Is the third paragraph NPOV? Perhaps this paragraph should just say "there have been various criticisms of the New Kadampa Tradition" and these should be explained in the article ? Specifically, is the use of 'cult' appropriate along with the repetitive list of criticisms and use of 'describe' as opposed to 'criticized'? Prasangika37 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ending the RFC, discussion is futile for now here. Moving on to mediation. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly); it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation;" This is what I have done. The RFC is over, so mediation can happen. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Observation

Legobot asked me (randomly) to comment on this talk page in response to the RFC. In looking over the recent history of this discussion, it appears that an RFC was posted by User:Prasangika37 on about 20 March 2015. It then appears that User:Prasangika37 deleted the RFC notation and the RFC tag on about 5 April because the issue that would have been covered by the RFC will instead be covered by mediation. Am I correct that the originator of the RFC pulled the RFC while it was running, in order to pursue a different dispute resolution mechanism? If so, that is appropriate; the policies do say that an RFC can be stopped, although usually only by its author (as in this case) (so as to prevent disruptive changes to the RFC). If that is correct, then maybe there is a minor bug to report to the author and maintainer of a normally very reliable bot. I won't comment on the non-RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon:! Thanks for the input and question. I did pull the RFC as mediation seemed far more appropriate. I waited for two weeks on the RFC and got no answers other than the same people who there is an issue with already. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for mediation was rejected without prejudice because it was filed while the RFC was still in progress. You might try requesting mediation again now that the RFC has been cancelled. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see yes.. Thanks for the help. I re-filed again on the 5th but apparently it wasn't done correctly :) So I just tried again. It would be great to have your input if you're willing on this page, as its quite aggressive here often and a new point of view would be much appreciated. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added an link to the online version of Carol McQuire’s paper published by INFORM (www.inform.ac) via Ashgate publishing in 2013. Details about the publication here: Spiritual and Visionary Communities – Out to Save the World Edited by Timothy Miller, University of Kansas, USA.

Title and link to the paper is here: Realising the Guru’s Intention: Hungry Humans and Awkward Animals in a New Kadampa Tradition community by Carol McQuire -Kt66 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is RS. Please prove it is. Who is Carol McQuire and what are her qualifications? Prasangika37 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
INFORM is certainly a reliable source.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carol McGuire is not a scholar, and there is a name in Wikipedia for her autobiographical reminiscences: primary source. Using such an external link is highly questionable. --Elnon (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was published by the British government. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's autobiographical stuff published by the British government. --Elnon (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Government sources are, generally, reliable for their content. Weight and bias are topics for dicsussion, not inclusion. And we are fighting over EL? Really... Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought INFORM was part of the British government. But maybe it is part of the London School of Economics.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
University-sponsored programs usually have similar indicia of reliability; doesn't mean unbiased, but does mean lots of eyes on a project, not just a single boss or charismatic guru. Montanabw(talk) 05:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are just hosting the article. It doesn't mean its published by a reliable source or anything. Who is Carol McGuire? Can someone show she is a phd or a reliable source? Also info-buddhism.com is a site devoted to criticizing the New Kadampa Tradition. It is hosted by an ex-member who seems to be a bit nutty based on reading about. These links should be removed across the board. Also extremism from Inform? How does that relate? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is an argument to be made for removing ALL external links and parking them here. The only stuff that really needs to be there are things that are copyrighted in a manner that they can't be made into sources or material too extensive to go into the article. (text of a law, for example, or an official website). Montanabw(talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction" is by Professor Eileen Barker, so I see no reason why it should not be retained. On the other hand, Carol McGuire's contribution can be disposed of for obvious reasons (already stated above). --Elnon (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both are suitable or neither. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please establish RS of the paper, particularly on Carol McGuire's status as a scholar or being reliable in any way. She apparently is an ex-nun of the New Kadampa Tradition... Seems just like an angry person ? I find it strange that this info-buddhism.com site keeps being used when its basically a hate website, and that kt66 the editor above is the editor of the site no less... Which was proven years ago on wikipedia if you google search it.Prasangika37 (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The piece is originally from a book edited by Dr. Timothy Miller of the University of Kansas.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the piece itself is not by a university professor, it is just a personal testimony, an autobiographical account by a non-scholar. I doubt that it has ever been, or will ever be, reviewed in a scholarly journal. --Elnon (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News and research does not have to be published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, particularly things like an exposé of a cult. There is a significant difference between a "hate" site and an informational site (after all, the NKT is opposed to the Dalai Lama, it was started by a disgruntled ex-Mahayana geshe, so does that make everything the NKT does a "hate" site?) Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a strange comparison. From my understanding the NKT was started before there were any overt issues with the Dalai Lama.. The info-buddhism site is a recent creation by a man who spends hours strictly criticizing the NKT with no positive spin in the least. Its not about information or being an 'expose', just strictly criticism. http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/tenzin_peljor.html has a nice explanation of his activities that have been going on for 10 years on this topic.. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the site you just linked can be critiqued in the same way, as an attack site ... what a domain name! Montanabw(talk) 04:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both sites are best avoided as sources and external links in an Encyclopedia.
To return to Carol McGuire's autobiographical account, it cannot be described properly as an "exposé of a cult" and it does not belong with "news" or "research" contrary to what is being claimed here. Insisting on retaining a paper by a non-academic author in the external links section defies comprehension. --Elnon (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Kadampa Tradition Ordination is regarded as controversial – this must be mentioned to meet WP:NPOV

This section has no citation and it is not neutral. The NKT ordination is seen as controversial and the explanation given by the NKT is not accepted by non-NKT. The stance of the critics is not mentioned, therefore, the section is not neutral. With respect to the controversies going along with the NKT ordiantion see for instance, the statements by the Australian Sangha Association or the German Buddhist Monastic Association:

http://info-buddhism.com/ASA-statement.html
http://buddhistische-ordensgemeinschaft.de/dbo_statement-shugden-protests-Dalai-Lama.htm

See also Geshe Tashi Tsering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhckkxSgQ8g&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZK6DAzKto&feature=youtu.be

Kt66 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Kadampa Tradition. 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) 13:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Kadampa Tradition. 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) 04:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David N. Kay appears and is cited witout introduction

It seems to me that "According to David N. Kay" appears assuming a previous familiarity with that person and his work. This closely follows https://info-buddhism.com/new_kadampa_tradition.html#Historical_background_of_the_formation_of_NKT
I suggest that this be accompanied by at least some reference.
--BenTrem (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Articles

I included an academic paper by David N. Kay from 1997:

Since his 2004 book is also available, I’ll add this too: Kay, David N. (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation - The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC), London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6 http://elibrary.ibc.ac.th/files/private/Tibetan%20and%20Zen%20Buddhism%20in%20Britain%20Transplantation,%20Development%20and%20Adaptation.pdf Kt66 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition&oldid=911459972"