Talk:New Kadampa Tradition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Merger done. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposal: bios of NKT teachers 

message: No consensus for this inclusion still, so I have deleted it. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus to delete.  Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Montanabw.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am deleting something that wasn't included or verified beforehand. It was just snuck in.. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'cult information center' stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: Considering the current stand-off, I suppose this might help solve the dispute. --Elnon (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would deeply appreciate that and would be more than happy to be involved. could you help about how to go further? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Montanabw's response has furthered the obvious need for mediation. I will be arranging it shortly. thanks for the advice :) . Prasangika37 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Mediation Committee involvement? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ending the RFC, discussion is futile for now here. Moving on to mediation. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

text: "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)

text: Hi ! 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should the Intro in the Third Paragraph be fixed??

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi ! 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Odd Observation

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617020425/http://www.meditateinireland.com/html_pages/Modern%2BDay%2BKadampas.htm to http://www.meditateinireland.com/html_pages/Modern%20Day%20Kadampas.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=8&p=18_1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=8&p=18_1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211123509/http://www.meditationincolorado.org/history_new_kadampa_tradition.htm to http://www.meditationincolorado.org/history_new_kadampa_tradition.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218031449/http://www.meditateinbirmingham.org/venerable-geshe-kelsang-gyatso.htm to http://www.meditateinbirmingham.org/venerable-geshe-kelsang-gyatso.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  David N. Kay appears and is cited witout introduction 

message: I included an academic paper by David N. Kay from 1997:
* The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition – David N. Kay, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1997; pp. 277-293.
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)
thread_title:  Academic Articles