Talk:Gyalwang Drukpa

List of Gyalwang Drukpa

It would be nice if some devotee would fill out the table of the 12 Gyalwang Drukpa incarnations. I'll put the table outline on the page & someone who knows the details can fill it in. -- technopilgrim 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Do quotations from the Gyalwang Drukpa's home page or those of Drukpa organizations effectively under his control, or run by devoted disciples, amount to self-published sources? - I wonder about this since we are told "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons".

The same thing of course applies of course to many articles about other living lamas on Wikipedia many of which seem to be largely cut-and-paste jobs from the organizations or Dharma centers associated with particular lamas. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason of the "cut-and-paste" look is because many organizations quote directly from Wikipedia.

Well, if they do that, they are supposed to credit Wikipedia, Chris Fynn (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

---

I come to Wikipedia for biography, not hagiography. Much of this article is a re-presentation of what's labelled an "autobiography" on the subject's own website (http://www.drukpa.org/about-me) and the "projects" page of his organization (http://www.livetolove.org/projects). So it's no surprise that this article is filled with puffery, e.g.:

• "He applies ancient Buddhist philosophy to resolve today’s problems and has millions of followers worldwide."
• "a rare and perhaps first recognition"
• "attends high-level meetings concerning world conflicts"
• "Live to Love also plants literally tens of thousands of trees in the region"--the adverb is a give-away of badly-written PR
• "The people of Ladakh, India, preserve a unique Buddhist lifestyle."
• "At the instruction of the Gyalwang Drukpa, Live to Love seeks to preserve this unique art. "

The article closes with tendentious statements about an apparent controversy, e.g. "Witness statements have been posted on social media and documentations provided by the local Buddhist association have proven that the monasteries were Drukpa until 2006." Proven?

The suggestion that organization is quoting directly from Wikipedia is clearly wrong--the evaluative and biased language of the article indicates the opposite. Further, much of the content of this page is replicated at [[1]]. That also suggests that the organization is colonizing Wikipedia, not the opposite.

Everything after the intro on this page should be deleted. If I had time for an edit war, I'd do it myself. --Jeangoodwin (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Restored deleted photo

A photo of mine of H.H. Gyalwang Drukpa in alice Springs, Australia was removed by User:175.139.73.208. This seems to be the only edit this person has made on Wikipedia. As no reason for the deletion were given I have reversed the deletion. If you think there is a good and sufficient reason to delete it please leave a message here explaining why you wish to remove it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Negative photographs

Is there any particular reason for half the photos in the article being negatives? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This article may need dividing

This article seems to be dominated by material about the present Gyalwang Drukpa, not about the whole Gyalwang Drukchen, or Gyalwang Drukpa incarnation lineage and institution (which is what the article title implies). Most of the material about the current Gyalwang Drukpa would really be more appropriate moved to a separate article. According to Wikipedia conventions, that article should normally be placed under the present Gyalwang Drukpa's name rather than his title. - but the WP article for the current Dali Lama is under 14th Dalai Lama while the article for the whole lineage / institution of Dalai Lama's is under Dalai Lama - so I suppose there is a clear precedent for doing something similar here. Tge present article should mostly be an overview of the institution and whole history of the Gyalwang Drukpa lineage. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Forced conversion of Drukpa monasteries in Mount Kailash by Karma Kagyu section

This section of the article, apparently added by @ErikaMannings:, may be disputed by others - "Forced conversion" seems to be a pretty strong and contentious claim and, where such claims are made in a WP article, there really needs to be a reliable and neutral (independent) source cited. Posts on Facebook, or on websites affiliated with the subject, are not reliable or independent sources. If it is not better sourced, then this section should be deleted.

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gyalwang Drukpa. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140607202546/http://capitolwords.org/date/2010/09/16/E1669_honoring-his-holiness-the-gyalwang-drukpa-on-his-v/ to http://capitolwords.org/date/2010/09/16/E1669_honoring-his-holiness-the-gyalwang-drukpa-on-his-v/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714201758/http://www.darjeelingtimes.com/archive/main-news/general/1891-green-guru-to-hh-gyalwang-drukpa.html to http://www.darjeelingtimes.com/archive/main-news/general/1891-green-guru-to-hh-gyalwang-drukpa.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unencylopedic

Is it really appropriate to uncritically identify somebody as being a reincarnation? To state that the individual is believed to be the reincarnation might be fine, but to state it uncritically is to give credence to the idea that defies the scientific objectivity expected of an encyclopedia. Philologick (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)