Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Dorje Shugden Controversy

An editor Heicth has just removed this section from the controversies section, but it has existed in the article for a long time and we can see with the recent demonstrations against the Dalai Lama over this issue in the USA that it is controversial and very much live. What do the other editors think about its inclusion? It's a current issue.Truthsayer62 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. Heicth (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The information in that section satisfies all those criteria - neutral, verifiable, a statement of facts. More contributions please. Truthsayer62 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP indicates that biographies of living people are special articles with special rules. Heicth (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from needing some slight grammatical improvements, the removed section looked fairly OK to me, and it is notable and worthy of inclusion. I don't see anything to warrant its outright removal. Heicth, if there's anything in there that you believe is not verifiable, is presented in a non-neutral manner or constitutes original research, then by all means improve it. Fuzzypeg★ 04:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

According to that special Wikipedia policy on biographies, this material should definitely NOT be included. For example, its says "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShenrabandNamdak (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Thank you for taking the time to read WP:BLP Heicth (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The views of tiny minority is not really the point. There have been major news stories on this recently. When the Dalai Lama is shown on TV, so are the demonstrators so as far as the media are concerned, it's a major issue. I think that ostracising a major part of the Buddhist community is quite a big deal so it warrants inclusion in the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Barack Obama article does not mention Birtherism because of WP:BLP. Its the same situation here. Heicth (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The section on the ostracization of Dorje Shugden followers should stay in the article as their plight has been and still is a major issue. --Elnon (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Shugden claims are baseless. See Dr. Thurman's article or the Indian High Court's decision. And please focus on WP:BLP. In my opinion, Shugden stuff should not brought up in this article. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The section merits inclusion. This is a significant controversy in the Tibetan Buddhist world, not something that only involves the fringe views of a "tiny minority." The significance is reflected by the fact that it has received significant media coverage from various respectable sources, and it has also received serious attention from academics. The deleted section handled the whole thing in a neutral way and was brief.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dalai Lama, who have urged Tibetan Buddhists to abjure the propitiation of Dorje Shugden as the Dalai Lama now considers this protector to be a harmful spirit which has become a symbol of sectarianism.ism has received much more serious academic attention and media coverage, and yet is omitted from the featured Barack Obama article due to WP:BLP. Everyone has heard of Birtherism. No common person, or even most Buddhists, know about Shugden. And Shugdenpas are a spinoff of only 1 out of the 6 schools of Tibetan Buddhism. They are a tiny minority. Robert Thurman states: "The cult of Dolgyal Shugden is that of a minor angel or demon, and never has been mainstream" and "The members of the cult do not come from numerous Tibetan sects". WP:BLP states: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The deleted section made reference to the Western Shugden Society. Columbia professor Robert Barnett says "the Western Shugden group's allegations are problematic...The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility". When academic sources on Birtherism appear in a Controversy section in the Barack Obama article, then we can insert this Shugden stuff into this article. Otherwise you are adhering to double standards. Heicth (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears ShenrabandNamdak has 6 edits in all while being already quite familiar with Wikipedia's policy on biographies ; VictoriaGrayson started editing on 9 January and has a total of 111 edits] and is also an expert on biographies although so far he/she has written none. I think it's high time this discussion ended and the unduly removed subsection were replaced where Truthsayer62, Fuzzypeg, Sylvain1972 and myself think it belongs. --Elnon (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Heicth (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, including this material in this BLP violates WP:UNDUE and coverage of this belongs properly at the relevant articles, Dorje Shugden controversy and Dorje Shugden. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is not really a need for this section. The Controversy is pushed up by three Western front groups that were founded by the New Kadampa Tradition that misinform the public. Western media mainly had no idea and repeated their allegations. Then those New Kadampa Tradition editors, like Truthsayer62, and other NKT editors have incorporated the distorted material they gave to the media into the Wikipedia articles. Academic research (which is the accepted WP:RS for Wikipedia) hold a different stance than ill informed media that have been used by Truthsayer62 and the like. So I would be careful with this topic, either not including it or only including academic third party WP:RS. The removal of the section for the time being is a good idea. Even Dorje Shugden controversy and Dorje Shugden are biased, one-sided and often distorted, there is no need to add more confusion in the bio of a living person. This is my stance on this. Kt66 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I do think there is a need for this section as it is a current issue within the Tibetan Buddhist community. The Dalai Lama's action in banning this practice is extremely controversial and is causing a lot of unrest in the Tibetan community so it should be noted in the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean extremely manufactured by the NKT? I agree with Kt66, Cullen328 etc. Heicth (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Truthsayer62.

Speaking of bias and distortion, didn't renowned tibetologist Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Professor at the University of Michigan, claim that the work of above-mentioned Thurman, "like so much of the work produced by American students of Tibetan Buddhism," shows "a bias that is both scholastic and Geluk." (Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. University Of Chicago Press: 1998. pg 266)? --Elnon (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The CTA has just issued a proclamation denouncing Shugden practitioners as criminals. Surely such sectarian behaviour is controversial and therefore worthy of inclusion? It's now a very big issue since their proclamation is against the UN Bill of Human Rights. http://tibet.net/2014/03/19/tibetan-parliament-passes-resolution-concerning-dolgyal/ Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Shugden practitioners are criminals though. They murdered 3 lamas. Heicth (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a lie. There is no evidence, just accusations. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that each practitioner individually, as some sort of initiation ceremony or something, or all of them en masse, gathered together for the purpose? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This matter may deserve a brief mention as it has attracted wide attention and the Dalai Lama himself has made quite a number of speeches on the issue. There could perhaps be a single paragraph like:

The Dalai Lama has been criticised by some worshippers the controversial Tibetan spirit Dholgyal Shugden for discouraging and abjuring this practice which he regards as a harmful. He has said that, out of ignorance, he was once a follower of this "spirit", a practice he was introduced to by one of his tutors, but by the 1970's he ceased the practice after examining and researching it for himself. He has also said that it is his responsibility as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism to advise his followers about this practice. "How they choose to act on the basis of that knowledge is up to them". Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshipping the spirit claim they are now ostracised by the rest of the Tibetan community and complain they suffer as a consequence.
see: http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=34640&article=Tibetan+Language+no+tool+for+%22seperatism%22+but+a+lifeline+for+Tibetan+identity%3A+Dalai+Lama

However there is absolutely no need for any more than something like that, as the whole thing is dealt with extensively in the main Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden controversy articles.

Chris Fynn (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a regular Wikipedia article. WP:BLP must be followed. Birtherism has received infinitely more intention, has universal public awareness and is frequently mentioned by Obama himself. And yet Birtherism is omitted from his BLP because of Wikipedia policy. Heicth (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama has written and spoken more about Dholgyal Shugden than he has on homosexuality, yet editors appear to believe his views on sexuality warrant several paragraphs in the present article.

My concern is that if there is no mention at all of Shugden in this article certain groups are bound to see this as "censorship" or white-washing - and may try to use the omission here as a precedent to remove facts they don't like from other articles. I know this is a BLP, not a regular Wikipedia article - and must follow strict guidelines, but the subject has been widely reported in the press over the last 20 years and the Dalai Lama himself has spoken and written about Dholgyal Shugden on numerous occasions. There is also plenty about this on the official website of the Office of the Dalai Lama. I think whatever little might be said on this subject in this article could be based solely on such sources and summarize the Dalai Lamas own views, leaving the detail and the minority opposing views for the main articles on Shugden.

Chris Fynn (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it, the article is overrun by dalai lama propagandists. 81.151.237.246 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As Cullen328 explains, including this material in this BLP violates WP:UNDUE. As Kt66 explains, the Shugden stuff is manufactured by the New Kadampa Tradition cult. Robert Thurman, Barnett and other professors have clearly explained that Shugden claims have no merit. Dr. Thurman states "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute." Columbia professor Robert Barnett says "the Western Shugden group's allegations are problematic...The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility". There have been judicial rulings to this effect. Therefore including such false claims would violate the libel warning at the top of this page. Birtherism regularly appears on the front page of news websites, has received much more media coverage, is well known by the public, forced Obama to hand out his birth certificate and yet is omitted from the featured Barack Obama article because its an extreme minority position (WP:BLP). WP:BLP states: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Robert Thurman describes the tiny Shugden cult and its orchestration by the Chinese government:

• "The cult of Dolgyal Shugden is that of a minor angel or demon, and never has been mainstream"
• "The members of the cult do not come from numerous Tibetan sects"
• "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute."
• "substantial funding from, the United Front department of the People's Republic of China"
• "operatives of the "United Front Work Department" of the People's Republic of China, the agency in charge of dealing with China's "minority nationalities," sees the cult as a potential wedge they hope to drive between the Dalai Lama and his people and between him and world opinion."

Inserting Shugden material would be a double standard (compared to the Barack Obama article), and would fuel the coordinated NKT activity on Wikipedia. Heicth (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a mountain of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the current Dalai Lama. Only an infinitesimal fraction of this coverage concerns the Dorje Shugden controversy, so covering it in this biography most certainly would give it undue weight. The comparison to the Obama birtherism controversy is apt. We have a separate article for that, and we don't promote it by discussing a sideshow in the main biography. The only people advocating adding it, as far as I know, are the man's declared factional opponents. That is a clear sign of POV pushing as opposed to WP:NPOV editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328.Heicth (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328, Heicth. IMO, The comparison to the "Birther" fantasy about Barrack Obama is disingenuous - those claims are of course entirely fictitious - and I doubt whether Barrack Obama even deigns to comment on them since they are so so obviously politically motivated and patently untrue. On the other hand the Shugden debate has been going on for at least 100 years, and very public since the 1970's when the 14th Dalai Lama first gave several extensive talks strongly discouraging the practice. Since then he has repeatedly urged Tibetan Buddhists to abjure the propitiation of Shugden which he considers to be a harmful and inimical spirit which has become a symbol of sectarianism - and has gradually taken a stronger and stronger line against it. He has also urged several noted scholars of Tibetan Buddhism to conduct historical research on the matter. So the Dalai Lama himself gives every appearance of thinking the subject is significant and his own talks often pay far more than "infinitesimal" attention to the matter. In view of these facts, I think a short paragraph briefly outlining his own views on the subject - and (without going into detail) mention of the fact that some groups strongly disagree with him - is justified. The opponents views are obviously best confined to the relevant articles on Shugden where there is perhaps some room to elaborate them. I am not at all advocating the inclusion of these "minority views" in the present article. Whether or not Shugden is a good protector or a harmful demon, whether or not the pro Shugden groups claims are baseless, and whether or not their activities are funded or encouraged by the PRC are all clearly matters beyond the scope of the present article - no argument there. However entirely omitting a public issue which the Dalai Lama has so regularly and passionately talked about could look censorious. As I mentioned earlier the Dalai Lama has spoken far more on the subject of Dholgyal Shugden than he ever has on sexuality - yet for some strange reason his views on that subject currently seem to occupy several paragraphs in this article while people are deeming this matter as of no relevance. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of the press conference where Obama handed out his long form birth certificate in response to birtherism? The Dalai Lama talks more about sexual issues than Shugden. For example recently on Larry King, he came out in favor of gay marriage. This was major news on the front page of news websites. Sexuality is a much more pressing issue than Shugden. For example in America there is constant debate over gay marriage. You have completely lost perspective on these issues. Heicth (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of this. Perhaps because I live somewhere where "birtherism" and gay marriage are not issues - we don't even get Larry King, in fact almost no one has even heard of him here. Of course your perspective will vary depending on what part of the world you live in. Gay marriage may be a big issue in the US but I think Wikipedia endeavours to take an international perspective and not be too US centric. Shugden is an issue for Tibetans living in India and the Dalai Lama has talked a lot about it there - far more frequently than on gay marriage. There have been many reports on this issue in the Indian press and media - far more than on the Dali Lama's views on gay marriage and sexuality. The pro-Shugden anti-Dalai Lama demos have also been quite prominent in the press in Britain where most of these demos have occurred - because the NKT is based there.

If you look at the website of the Office of the Dalai Lama, and other websites closely associated with him, you will find far more on this issue than on gay marriage and sexuality. I'm not sure why you seem so strongly opposed to even a brief mention of the Shudgen issue which the Dalai Lama himself has focused a lot of attention on - although of course most of his speeches and writings on this are in Tibetan not English. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama has explained his position on this issue yet again (TibetanReview.net, May 12, 2014) - clearly and concisely. (So now he has been talking about this over about 34 years.) A short summary of the Dalai Lama's own views could be included in this article, with a summary of other views on the subject left to the Dorje Shugden / Dorje Shugden controversy articles. Heich seems to fear inclusion of even the Dali Lama's own views here would fuel "coordinated NKT activity" - but, to me, that sounds like this apprehension may be imposing self-censorship.
Chris Fynn (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden people are not just a tiny minority, they are a large group of people. Should be included. 81.151.237.246 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is absurd that the Dorje Shugden issue is not mentioned at all on this page. What is there to hide? As another editor mentioned, other websites associated with the Dalai Lama talk more about this issue than gay marriage. The Dalai Lama himself even talked openly about Dorje Shugden as recently as 9 May 2014 in Oslo and on 14 May 2014 in Frankfurt to thousands of people. It is clear that the Dorje Shugden issue is a defining aspect of the Dalai Lama's career, since it has such far reaching implications (guru-student relationship; the importance of lineage; religious freedom; and his own character - stating in public (to Tibetan audiences) that this is a ban "There will be no change in my stand. I will never revoke the ban. You are right. It will be like the Cultural Revolution...", and to Western audiences that there isn't - all of this easily documented). So a mention of this issue is essential. The question is, what is the best way to describe it in a neutral and balanced way. Kjangdom (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. This is no minor issue and should definitely be mentioned. --Elnon (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this material to this biography, and I continue to oppose it as undue weight. We already have several articles about Dorje Shugden and related groups, and those articles are the proper place to discuss the controversy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 and the others who oppose this material being included. It seems as though some of the people who want this material, including the now blocked sockpuppeter Truthsayer62, make POV pushing type of edits. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Truthsayer62, Elnon, CFynn, Cullen328, and VictoriaGrayson:A short and neutral section I added about the Dorje Shugden controversy - using the suggestion of another editor (Cfynn, see above) as a starting point - was removed because "There is no consensus to add this material to this biography," However, was any consensus actually reached to remove this section in the first place (see Truthsayer62's comment at the start of this section)? Not that I could see. So I was merely adding a section that had been incorrectly removed.

But anyway, let's discuss... To start with, I completely disagree that the section on Dorje Shugden contravenes the undue weight policy. This can be understood by reading the section on undue weight, which mentions "depth of detail, quantity of text" as relevant factors. I agree that a lengthy section about the Dorje Shugden controversy would be inappropriate here, but the section I added constitutes a mere 3% (approx) of the total article (excluding references), in terms of number of words. There are volumes one could write on this issue and I wrote just a few sentences.

It is simply wrong to keep Wikipedia's readers in the dark about this important issue and I strongly question this form of censorship. In reality, this issue is key to understanding who the Dalai Lama really is and is could be much more illuminating than other sections such as the ones movies, awards etc. The fact that this issue is discussed on the Dorje Shugden controversy page does not mean that a short inclusion here is unnecessary. Quite the opposite, a brief mention and a link from the popular page on the Dalai Lama to the less popular page on the Dorje Shugden controversy would definitely benefit interested readers. If anyone is serious about understanding and discussing why it is important that this issue is mentioned on this page, please watch this short, factual and informative video.

Next, in the undue weight policy, it says "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Very few people still maintain the view that the Earth is flat and this can easily be refuted by modern science. However, the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden effects millions of people, and cannot be refuted, because the Dalai Lama has been filmed saying that there is a ban see the link above, or here. And although an exact figure is difficult to determine, yes, this ban does affect millions of Shugden Buddhists. At least half the Tibetan population of 6 million are Gelugpas and approx 75% percent of Gelugpas were Dorje Shugden practitioners in the twentieth century before the Dalai Lama banned this practice. Then what about all the practitioners in Mongolia Sikim, Nepal, India and the West? Whatever the exact figure, we can see this ban affects millions of people. And this is an issue that profoundly affects people. No-one can deny the suffering experienced by Shugden practitioners because of the ban, because this is clearly documented. Shugden practitioners are banned from entering shops, hospitals and are ostracized in their own communities. In spite of these glaring facts I tried to maintain neutral language with phrases such as "alleged ban" and presenting both sides of the argument in the section I added to the article.

Furthermore, people who consider that the Earth is flat are generally not taken seriously, whereas practitioners of Dorje Shugden include the Dalai Lama (at least until he was in his forties), his junior tutor (Trijang Rinpoche), and many of the most eminent and highly respected Buddhist Masters of the modern day including Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Lama Yeshe, Song Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche and Geshe Rabten. Again, this demonstrates that the inclusion of the Dorje Shugden issue in this article does not contravene the undue weight policy.Kjangdom (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not place for POV pushing. And Truthsayer62 is a blocked editor. I wouldn't be so keen to keep mentioning his name. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:Hi Victoria, would you mind explaining a little more how the section I proposed violates the POV policy? Thank you. Kjangdom (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I continue to oppose inclusion of this material for reasons I've previously stated. VictoriaGrayson can speak for herself. As for the issue of POV pushing, the section I removed stated in Wikipedia's voice that the Dalai Lama had "banned" the practice though he has repeatedly said there is no ban. That puts Wikipedia in the position of endorsing a key point claimed by the Dalai Lama's harshest Buddhist critics, which is unacceptable. The section uses a blocked YouTube video (an unreliable source) as a reference. News coverage of the demonstrations is formatted in a way that does not show the headlines, one of which shows the demonstrators in a poor light. The link to a list of 20 demonstrators is presented with no claim of connection to the Dalai Lama, which is pointless and not acceptable in a BLP. So far, Dorje Dhugden practioners seem incapable of writing about the Dalai Lama from the neutral point of view, which is required here on Wikipedia. I am neutral, at lleast in part, because I have no involvement with any form of Buddhism and never have. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

I doubt the Shugden issue affects "millions of people", anyway as far as I am able to determine there are no reliable figures published anywhere for the number of adherents - just unsubstantiated claims. Still, given the amount of attention the Dalai Lama himself has paid to it, the issue is relevant and should be included. However to avoid bias the section should probably be written by a knowledgeable editor with no axe to grind - not anyone who is pro or anti Shugden (or who has present or past involvement with any group which is). As this is a BLP, and the issue is highly contentious, I think editors would also need to be very careful if stating anything beyond what is contained in well documented statements of the Dalai Lama himself reported in solid sources - and those statements should not be "cherry picked" to misrepresent the Dalai Lamas's views. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom - Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Lama Yeshe, Song Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche and Geshe Rabten, may have been masters respected by many Geluk adherents, and they were also of course well known by some as adherents and propagators of Shugden (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso still is). While their views on this matter, as reported in reliable third party sources, may be relevant in the articles on Dorje Shugden they are certainly not directly relevant in this article on the 14th Dalai Lama.

As for your claim about "millions of Shugden Buddhists" - can you reliably substantiate this? Whatever the percentage of Tibetan Buddhists were Geluk, the majority of Tibetans were illiterate and most probably did little formal religious practice of any deity or protector besides reciting "OM MANI PADME HUM" or similar popular mantras, reciting memorised prayers to Tara etc., making offerings, prostrations, turning prayer wheels, attending religious festivals, and do on. In my 40 years of experience living with them, most Tibetans when visiting their temples can only identify the Buddha and only a few of the most popular deities depicted in statues and murals there and most are totally at a loss to identify the majority of figures - particularly those of protectors. Most Tibetans will of course faithfully (and indiscriminately) make offerings to any and all deities depicted in a Buddhist temple - but that hardly makes them adherents of the particular practices of all the deities concerned. Most lay Tibetans (unlike some foreign followers of Tibetan Buddhism) are also noticeably very non-sectarian and will show devotion to and pay respect to lamas and temples of all traditions without discrimination. I also particularly doubt whether there were ever many Tibetans who identified themselves as "Shugden Buddhists". If you have any real evidence to the contrary for any of this I'd be most interested to see it - though again it is not particularly relevant here. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon, CFynn, Cullen328, and VictoriaGrayson:Hi All! Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the inclusion of a short section about the Dorje Shugden controversy.

Even the Dalai Lama's own website clearly shows how important this issue is: "His Holiness the Dalai Lama has evaluated the advisability of worshipping Dholgyal for many years and has addressed the issue repeatedly since 1978", note "repeatedly". Do scientists "repeatedly" try to refute the claim that the world is flat? How many other issues that are included in this article been addressed repeatedly by the Dalai Lama?

If this was not a significant issue, why are hundreds of Buddhists protesting against the Dalai Lama wherever he travels? Are other groups he has offended / persecuted taking similar action? Please see the following links from reputable media outlets that reported on the recent (i.e. 2014) demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in San Francisco, Berkeley, Washington DC, Oslo, Rotterdam and Frankfurt.Is there really such a strong grassroots movements to stop the persecution of people who believe the world is flat?

Next, in terms of placement the controversy section itself does not appear until about half way down the article, so this is hardly a particularly "prominent placement". But in my opinion it is correct that the section on Dorje Shugden is placed at the top of the controversies section. Currently the Karmapa issue has the top spot in this section. Can anyone honestly say that the Karmapa issue (included in the article) is more important than the Dorje Shugden issue (excluded from the article)? The Karmapa issue is important and is correctly included in this article as it shows the divisions the Dalai Lama is creating by meddling in the affairs of other schools (has any Dalai Lama ever involved themselves in in choosing the reincarnation of the Karmapa?) This section on the Karmapa controversy also correctly sites the main Karmapa controversy page for further reading, as should be the case with the Dorje Shugden controversy.

However, even though the Karmapa controversy is relevant to this article, it is even more important that the Dorje Shugden controversy is included in this article. First of all, it is more current - as mentioned above, hundreds of demonstrators are continuously demonstrating outside wherever the Dalai Lama holds public events. Next, the Karmapa controversy principally concerns the Kagyu school (whereas the Dalai Lama is from the Gelug school). The Dorje Shugden issue on the other hand lies at the heart of the Dalai Lama's leadership of the Gelug school, since Dorje Shugden was the principal protector of the Gelug tradition up until the ban. Moreover, his ban of this heart practice he received from his guru shows raises all sorts of other important questions. Is this interview, he is asked "All the great masters who have worshipped this deity for the past 300 years, were they all wrong?" and he replies "Wrong. Yes, wrong.". This clearly shows that he has broken his relationship with his guru and brings into question the validity of the entire Gelug lineage if his lineage gurus were actually wrong.

Finally this issue also raises the question of religious freedom. Banning a religious practice, clearly constitutes surpression of religious freedom and is an important and defining aspect of the Dalai Lama's character. At Trijang Labrang in Ganden Shartse Monastery in 1999 he said "There will be no change in my stand. I will never revoke the ban. You are right. It will be like the Cultural Revolution. If those who do not accept the ban do not listen to my words, the situation will grow worse for them. You sit and watch. It will grow only worse for them". Kjangdom (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Amnesty International, who should know about these things, after looking into it did not consider it suppression of religious freedom - so it certainly does not clearly constitute the same. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon, CFynn, Cullen328, and VictoriaGrayson: @Cullen328 I am a little confused by your reply. You state that you oppose the inclusion of a section about the Dorje Shugden controversy. But then you also describe some weaknesses with the section I included, which indicates to me that you are not totatlly opposed to the inclusion of a well-written, neutral section and well-sourced to be included. Is this correct? I would be happy with the inclusion of such a section, and judging by CFynn's comment above, he would be as well. Regarding your point "Dorje Dhugden practioners seem incapable of writing about the Dalai Lama from the neutral point of view," I am still new to Wikipedia, and would be more than happy to learn to write in a more neutral manner, using reliable sources. Kjangdom (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I never said I opposed inclusion. In fact I suggested some wording. What I do say is that this should be strictly limited to a very brief outline of the DL's own views on the subject. Anything more belongs in the Dorje Shugden or Dorje Shugden controversy article. If included, this section should not become another place to rehash both sides the whole issue. The place to outline the issue in any detail is in the relevant articles, not here. The pro-Shugden POV certainly does not belong in this article. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Kjangdom, I am entitled to oppose inclusion in general, and also to critique specific shortcomings of the section added. The first step you should take, in my view, is to cease arguing the pro-Dorje Shugden POV anywhere on Wikipedia, including this talk page. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, and it is not a place to right great wrongs, as you see them. It must be nothing more than a scrupulously neutral encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes,(Cullen328) , you are entitled to do that, and I am entitled to seek clarification as well if I think it is necessary. The reason for my apparent advocacy is merely to explain the importance of including this topic - was this not the point all along? To discuss and try and and arrive at consensus? Not discussing on the talk page is frowned upon, and now my attempts at discussion are dismissed as "advocacy"! Kjangdom (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing the pro-Dorje Shugden case, as opposed to discussing how to improve our neutral coverage of the 14th Dalai Lama. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the reason I am arguing the pro-Shugden case in this context is in order for this section to be included so as to maintain the overall neutrality of the article (which is your wish as well as mine). In my opinion it is simply not a neutral article when such an important issue is deliberately withheld. As I have previously said, there is no reason to deliberately keep wikipedia readers in the dark about this important issue, especially when compared to much less important issues that are included in the article. This makes no sense! When you get the chance, please address the points I made below ('outstanding issues'). I am more than happy for this section to be short and qualified and be the work of a number of editors. That would be the best approach. Thank you :) Kjangdom (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP article about the Dalai Lama not about Shugden. To "maintain neutrality" and avoid repetition and bloat all we need to do is link to the main Dorje Shugden controversy article. It is not necessary to detail the whole thing when it is detailed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Dalai Lama himself has spoken on the subject on several occasions, why not just start by reporting what his stand is on the issue? --Elnon (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The same reason the Obama article doesn't mention Birtherism.Heicth (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are still a number of important outstanding issues on this matter:

1) Was any consensus actually arrived at when the Dorje Shugden controversy was removed from this article? If not, it would not appear to be such a big deal to add it in again.

2) Can we agree that this is an important issue? In my opinion this issue raises many important questions, such as freedom of religion, human rights abuses - yes, it is a basic human right to have freedom of religion, and the importance of maintaining a pure lineage - essential to Buddhism.

3) Can we agree that this important issue is current? Please note the recent demonstrations with hundreds of Western and Tibetan protesters in the US and Europe - well documented in the media. And now the Dalai Lama's Central Tibetan Administration has published the names and photos of the Tibetan protesters on their government website. It is not necessary to describe these intimidation tactics in any detail, but it is definitely worth mentioning what they have done.

4) Can anyone honestly say that this issue is less relevant than every other issue mentioned in this article? - see my point above comparing this issue with the Karmapa Controversy. I.e. The Dorje Shugden controversy affects the Dalai Lama much, much more than the Karmapa Controversy. Forgive me for being blunt, but there is really no rational basis for including the Karmapa controversy whilst excluding the Dorje Shugden controversy! This type of censorship is most bizarre!

5) Are other editors happy with Elnon's suggestion of using the Dalai Lama's own words on this issue? The Dalai Lama has talked extensively on this issue, so there would be lots to choose from.

Thank you :) Kjangdom (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality: "Dirty!"

I saw the Dalai Lama being asked on Irish or British television during the 1980s or early 1990s what was his view of either "homosexuals" or "homosexuality" and I was startled by his vivid and memorable reply: "Oh, dirty, dirty, dirty!" He was walking somewhere, as if going to or coming from a meeting, perhaps, and was accosted in a rather guerilla-journalist manner by some non-mainstream media people, as I recall. My memory of the circumstances has almost vanished. I cannot find any reference to this online and wonder if anyone else remembers seeing this broadcast. — O'Dea (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

He is absolutely right; it is dirty. But people can choose to be dirty if they want to. 81.151.237.33 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the 1980s, the Dali Lama's views on the subject have also seem to have evolved quite a lot. Chris Fynn (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, given gays provided him with quite a bit of cash funding. 81.151.237.246 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was the material about homosexuality deleted from the article? The Dimanche magazine is a reliable source for the interview cited. Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: There are abundant sources that describes his view on homosexuality:

• An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues [1]

• Tragedy in Crimson: How the Dalai Lama Conquered the World But Lost the Battle with China [2]

• Buddhist Ethics: A Very Short Introduction [3]

Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Still no consensus

I am disappointed that there has been edit warring about adding a section without consensus. I think that there needs to be much more discussion about the wording. To start, I think the word "abjured" used twice is obscure and should be replaced with a word that better conveys the meaning with clarity. Then there is the issue of the words "Dholgyal" versus "Dorje". I understand that the first word has a more negative connotation than the second, but this is the biography of a man who uses the first word. I want to see an independent academic source say that the word is somehow inappropriate for us to use. Concerns about redirects and the table of contents are trivialities that can be easily solved. The section should begin by briefly explaining the Dalai Lama's expressed reasons for his stance, as this is a biography of him. The views of his opponents should follow. Most of the sources should be truly independent. The notion that the word "spirit" is insulting is not clear to most English speakers as that word has varied meanings, most with positive connotations. Christian Trinitarians call one of God's aspects the "Holy Spirit", after all. The final sentence about the hurt feelings suffers from excessive citations, none of which are available online or quoted. That's overkill and unconvincing. I want to read an actual paragraph or two from any such source. Consensus will emerge when most interested editors who come to this issue from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints agree on the wording. Progress is possible, but not by trying to add a section that hasn't achieved consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that consensus was never achieved. Thank you for pulling the section. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! First of all, please accept my sincere apologies if my editing was not appreciated. I look forward to improving my style of editing and discussing more on the talk pages from now.

Now, I think we need to recognize the context in which the word 'spirit' is being used here - and the context is Buddhism, not Christianity. The practice of spirit worship simply does not exist in Buddhism. It is not a Buddhist practice. Any attempt at calling Buddhist practitioners spirt worshippers is necessarily a slur. It's as simple as that. 'Deity' on the other hand is much more neutral than 'spirit'. There are both worldly protector deities - (as cited here Martin A Mills (2009) Charting the Shugden Interdiction in the Western Himalaya) and of course deities that are considered enlightened beings. Therefore by using the word 'deity' we are neither affirming that it is a worldly being, nor that it is an enlightened being. Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, please note that I am not suggesting we use 'enlightened deity', merely 'deity'. To maintain neutrality, 'spirit' should only be used when it is a direct quote by the Dalai Lama.

Furthermore, 'deity' is the term most commonly used by academics to describe Dorje Shugden:

Here are some examples:

The following academics use the phrase 'Protector deity':

• Robert Bluck (2006) 'British Buddhism, Teachings, practice and development'
• David Kay (2004) Tibetan and Zen Buddhism is Britain
• Martin A Mills (2009) Charting the Shugden Interdiction in the Western Himalaya

And 'Dharma Protector' is used in the following article:

• Glenn Mullin (2009) The fourteen Dalai Lamas

And 'Tibetan deity' is used in the following article:

• Martin Mills (2003). This Turbulent Priest: Contesting religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden controversy

However, if we follow the logic that the opinion / language of the person the article is about should determine the language of the article, (not least would this lead to a number ridiculous pages about various celebrities etc), but what about when the person in question changes their mind!

E.g. In 2014 Wikipedia states that "The Dalai Lama has been criticised by some worshippers the controversial Tibetan spirit Dholgyal Shugden". Then in 2020 for example, the Dalai Lama changes his mind and decides that Dorje Shugden is actually an enlightened deity, a Buddha, after all! Then simply at the whim of the Dalai Lama, history is re-written since Wikipedia is then obliged to write "The Dalai Lama has been criticized by some worshippers of the controversial Tibetan enlightened deity Dorje Shugden...". Does the Dalai Lama have the right to decide on behalf of the world's entire population of Shugden practitioners that they are first worshipping an enlightened deity, then a spirit, then an enlightened deity again?! And this analogy is not far fetched. The Dalai Lama has already changed his mind once about the nature of Dorje Shugden, so why not a second time? And as you may know, the 5th Dalai Lama who was against the practice of Dorje Shugden (and who the 14th Dalai Lama frequently mentions) eventually took refuge in, worshipped, and wrote praises to Dorje Shugden at the end of his life. Who is to say the 14th Dalai Lama won't do the same?

Next, regarding 'Dholgyal' vs. 'Dorje' - simply because the Dalai Lama uses the derogatory expression 'Dholgyal' is completely irrelevant as I have already explained. A quote from the Dalai Lama should be in speech marks. Otherwise the most neutral language should be used. All nine references I mentioned in an earlier post about 'Dholgyal' vs. 'Dorje' (Bluck, Kay, Mills etc) were simply the first sources I found that mentioned 'Shugden'. Of these nine sources, every single one of them them used 'Dorje Shugden'. I.e. Not one of them uses 'Dholgyal Shugden' (and I gave up looking after 9 references, since it was completely unanimous on this point). This in itself clearly demonstrates what Wikipedia should use, without needing to dig around for a paper that shows that the word is inappropriate. Dholgyal is a derogatory term. It may be less familar than other derogatory terms (used in a racist context for example), but the fact remains that this word is derogatory and offensive to Dorje Shugden practitioners. This is why all neutral parties still refer to Dorje Shugden, and Wikpedia should do the same! Look forward to reading your replies :) Kjangdom (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom The 5th Dalai Lama's "praises to Shugden" and stories about him becoming a "worshipper of Shugden" are most likely apocrypha as they are found nowhere in any edition of his collected works nor mentioned in his extensive biography. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

At this time, I don't think we should insert a Dorje Shugden Controversy section.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be consensus that a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy should only be inserted when more of a consensus is reached on its contents. Then without doubt, it should be included! This article should no way be a hagiographical biography. The Dalai Lama has various roles, one of them being a politician. Kjangdom (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom:::I don't think we should insert a Dorje Shugden Controversy section at all.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom, when you say that a word is a "slur" or that a word is "derogatory", you can't just expect other editors to take your word for it. It would be vastly more convincing if you quoted an independent, reliable source. We are discussing a controversy. Dorje Shugden supporters may be offended by what the Dalai Lama says. His supporters may be offended by pro-Shugden picketers hollering that he is a dictator. We don't go out of our way to offend people , but we also don't bend over backwards to avoid offending people. As for the possibility that the Dalai Lama might change his mind, then we will simply edit the article to reflect his changed opinion. We are writing about what is verifiable about now and the past. We are not gazing into a crystal ball. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way instead - can anyone present a valid reason why should Wikipedia use 'Dholgyal' & 'spirit' when all other reliable, neutral sources (at least that I've seen, as mentioned above) use 'Dorje' and 'deity'? Please check the sources I mentioned above for yourself. This should help arrive at some clarity on these two points. As mentioned before, the Dalai Lama's own language is irrelant when writing in the voice of Wikipedia. Kjangdom (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328I really do not follow your argument at the moment. This point of this article is not to present the Dalai Lama's views in the voice of Wikipedia. Which other articles on Wikipedia present the views of the subject in the voice of Wikipedia? Forgive me for stating the obvious, but this article has to be neutral. Presenting the Dalai Lama's views in the voice of Wikipedia - which is what you are suggesting (unless I misunderstand you) - is simply unacceptable. It was the Dalai Lama's view that Dorje Shugden practitioners were worshipping an enlightened deity. Now it is the Dalai Lama's view that Dorje Shugden practitioners worship a spirit (this statement has more to do with the worshippers themselves than the Dalai Lama). According to your logic, Wikipedia is in the position to publicly state this as a fact (a fact that changes, or at least has changed at the whim of one man). This is absurd. Please reconsider your argument. Kjangdom (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstood me, Kjangdom, and you are criticizing an argument I have not made. Of course, we should not endorse the Dalai Lama's theological points in Wikipedia's voice. Instead, we use formulations like "The Dalai Lama teaches that . . . ", when describing his views. Or, we can use brief direct quotes from him, in quotation marks, cited to the source. Any quotes should be from an authoritative statement on the matter, not some off-the-cuff comment. To answer your question about the use of "Dholgyal" and "sprit", we should use those words when describing the 14th Dalai Lama's views, not as an endorsement of them, but because he uses them when expressing his views on the matter, and this is a biography of him. It is a fact worth mentioning that he teaches that way, but Wikipedia should avoid stating or implying that any religious view is true. That applies as well to every Dorje Shugden related article, and every single Wikipedia article about religious doctrines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, I still oppose the section. Secondly, Pabongka, the ultimate Shugden authority, referred to Shugden as Dolgyal:

• "The wooden implements (i.e., crate) having been thrown in the water, the pond of Dol became whitish. After abiding there, he became known for a while as (Dol-gyel) [sic]." (from Dreyfus' Shugden Affair Part 1)

So Kjangdom is saying Pabongka is wrong. Heicth (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Heicth, I am not saying Je Pabongka is wrong. The only person I know of who publicly denounces their lineage gurus as being "wrong, yes wrong" is the 14th Dalai Lama - see for yourself

I would like to check the article you mention (could you email it to me?), but if I understood correctly, this was a direct quote by Je Pabongkha? Even so, there is no contradiction between Je Pabongkha intending one meaning with the word Dholgyal and this meaning changing over time. When did Pabongkha die? 1941 I believe. Sources / quotes over 70 years old can easily be irrelvant now. Do you have a neutral source which is a little more recent on this matter?

The reason Dholgyal is a derogatory term is because it means "Spirit King from Dhol". Dhol is an actual place in Tibet and Gyal(po) refers to spirit kings . As already explained, spirit worship is not a Buddhist practice. This is why this is a derogatory term and used only to offend Shugden practitioners.

If anyone is still in doubt about this point, a brief google of dolgyal + derogatory should help. Kjangdom (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You are very clearly saying Pabongkha is wrong. Dreyfus quotes Pabongkha in his article here.Heicth (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom:The Dalai Lama never simply says "Phabongkha was wrong" or "wrong. yes wrong" without qualification - what he does suggest is that he thinks Phabongkha was mistaken about the particular issue of Shugden - e.g.:

" Now of all of Phabongkha Rinpoche’s disciples, Trijang Rinpoche can really be seen as the main one and his real spiritual heir. There are those who suggest that because these two obviously pushed the worship of Dolgyal that its importance is unquestionable and that therefore it is fitting that others should also get involved in it – that the worship is validated by those two figures’ association with it. To listen to these people you would get the impression that their worship of Dolgyal was the most important thing that these two did in their lives; their main contribution. That is ridiculous; it was not like that at all. One just has to look at the works that they composed, like the Stages of the Path by Phabongkha or that of Trijang Rinpoche. They were really both masters of and heirs to that tradition. I took many Stages of the Path teachings from Trijang Rinpoche. It was quite evident that there was something quite distinct in his way of explaining, something very special about it. In terms of Tantra, as well, he was a master, particularly of Heruka Chakrasamvara, and that he was a great yogi is a generally accepted fact. Therefore, the real contribution and achievement of both of these two figures was in terms of their mastery of the Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Heruka practise. Dolgyal was only ever a secondary thing."

Chris Fynn (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)