Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have added the COI (Conflict of Interest) template to this page as several of the main contributors including User:Emptymountains, User:Truthbody, User:Truthsayer62 and User:Atisha's cook appear to have very close connections to the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the COI page, "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia."

Emptymountains' edits on this page in 2010: [1], [2]

Truthbody's edits on this page in 2010: [3], [4], [5], [6]

Atisha's Cook's edit on this page in 2010: [7]

Chris, would you mind pointing out which of these edits you do not agree are in the best interest of Wikipedia? Emptymountains (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly it is not just in 2010 - the issues I'm concerned about go right back to the beginnings of the article, so it is almost impossible to disentangle them now. IMO much of the text of the article (and likewise that of other closely related articles such as

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

, etc.) almost reads like promotional material and certainly does not read like a good encyclopedia article. Bluntly put, if anything which might seem negative to dedicated followers of the New Kadampa Tradition gets added to one of these articles then, almost immediatly, it either gets deleted, modified so it no longer offends the perceptions of dedicated disciples, or paragraphs and paragraphs of counteracting "views" get added. Sometimes it is more subtle a few words are it added, changed or re-ordered with what seems to be the deliberate goal of putting a particualar "spin" or POV on things. Any single editor or even a few editors who try to improve the article cannot keep up with the dedicated disciples who monitor these articles and will almost immediatly jump in when anything is changed. Most have given up trying.

If you are a member of the NKT I'm afraid saying you are "neutral" regarding the subject is almost like saying you can be neutral about your husband, wife or children. I'd say the same thing to members of many other dedicated religous organisations or of similarly dedicated political movements when they get involved in meddling with articles whose subject is those groups that they are likwise involved in.

I don't doubt the sincerity or intentions of yourself and some other contributors. One presuades oneself of ones own neutrality and thinking that because of ones personal involvement and insider knowlege that you are particularly knowlegeable about the subject, it is hard not meddle when something is written that doesn't agree with your own POV.

I'm aware that there are also some other contributors to these articles who may be dissaffected former members of the NKT, or who for some other reason have an axe to grind regarding the NKT, Geshe Kelsang, DS, etc. and IMO they should likewise stay clear of editing these articles for pretty much the same reasons.

IMO at this point all these articles actually need a complete re-write from the ground uprather than any more tinkering - it might even be best if someone with some experience of academic researchwriting but had no prior knowlege of the subject could be persuaded to read the available academic articles and books on the subject and write a new article soley based on that information.

Meanwhile, rather than attempting more tinkering with, or even re-writing these articles - for which I have neither the time nor the energy - I've put a COI notice on this article just to flag to ordinary users that much of the content as it stands has been added or changed by contributors who have direct involvement or a "close connection" with the subject of the article which, no matter how you spin it, appears to be a conflict of interest. This notice is also to put there to flag the article to encourage other uninvolved editors to improve or rewrite the article.

BTW Saying that a person has a conflict of interest does not mean that they have necessarily done anything impartial. Ministers for instance are often required to divest themselves of any commercial or financial interests they have related to their portfolio; judges are expected to exclude themselves from cases where they personally know one of the parties involved; and doctors are not allowed to practice medicine on their own family members - all this is due to conflict of interest.

Chris Fynn (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, welcome back. Looking at those sections you quote above, I find it hard to see how they are in any way [WP:COI] and I propose we remove the flag as there seems to be no justification for it. As I always endeavour to be neutral and back up what I say with sources and so on, you cannot accuse me of WP:COI any more than you can accuse practically anyone on Wikipedia (who writes about what they know and are interested in) of the same thing, including your good self. Accuracy and neutrality depends on what you do, not who you are -- it is discriminatory to simply say that anyone who might be in the NKT organization has a conflict of interest. I always do my best to maintain wiki principles, the five pillars. Point out any instances where you feel I actually fail in maintaining the five pillars and I can address them individually. However, if you are making a blanket generalization, this is a mistake. Your history of openly criticizing the NKT on other forums would similarly make you a suspect editor on this article about the NKT. In other words, you are not neutral toward the NKT. However, if the editing you do manages to be neutral, and you put your personal feelings aside, it doesn't matter. We all try to be professional on Wikipedia.(Truthbody (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

The COI page says: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia." I can see no examples where the editors you mention above, including myself, promote our own interests or the interests of the NKT. Almost every sentence is backed up with verifiable and third-party sources. Indeed, this article is very watertight and has been scrutinized so often that its standards are very high. The COI page also says: "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. You may either submit proposed edits on the talkpage of the article, or, if deciding to directly edit, ensure you closely adhere to relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography; and that you declare your interest on the talkpage." Again, the editors you mention do declare their interest and they do adhere to the relevant policies and guidelines, especially (WP:NPOV), verifiability and autobiography. Therefore, there is no justification for your adding of the flag as you cite no instances that warrant your accusation. (Truthbody (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Emptymountains and Truthbody have clearly a COI not only because both are fully NKT supoorters. Emptymountains e.g. has removed in the past quotes from academic research and websites contrary to NKT's point of views but turned a blind eye when his NKT fellows violated WP rules. --82.89.211.157 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI. Wikipedia has banned Scientology editors to edit the Scientology article and I think this approach should be applied to NKT editors too. One has to check every sentence if it turns the facts upside down. I just glanced through the introduction and saw how Barrett has been misrepresented ...--91.22.188.204 (talk

) 12:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

as

WP:COI, among other pro NKT-blogs he runs for instance http://www.understandingthemind.org, http://www.treasuryofwisdom.org, http://dharmaprotector.wordpress.com/ or http://www.dharmaprotector.org/ which he linked here too. Emptymountains "is a student in the Teacher Training Program and teaches General Program classes in Hampton Roads." see: http://www.meditation-dc.org/branch-teachers --91.22.188.204 (talk

) 13:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It s incorrect to write: "David V. Barrett has characterized the NKT-IKBU as "one of the newest and most controversial Buddhist movements", mainly due to the Dorje Shugden controversy in the Tibetan community.[7] because Barrett does not say the second part of the sentence and the statement suggests wrongly to the reader this would be his opinion whereas he does neither explicitly nor implicitly say that the controversy would be mainly due to the Dorje Shugden controversy in the Tibetan community.[7]. That's why I corrected that sentence to make it according to what he says.91.22.188.204 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please dont be so surprised. This has been going on for years. I edited the page myself for a while but invariably, the editors you list above, all of whom are NKT followers and all o f whom have been the subject of sanctions for misconduct such as sock puppetry etc previously, simply eradicate or twist the critical content. The whole article is riddled with bias as a result. User Fynn has been on this for years too but he has more patience than I. One of the main problems is the NKT dedicated editors have made it theri business to study Wiki law so that they can repeatedly hide behind it and appear to any neutral observers as squeaky clean. Hopefully the addition of the rating survey at the foot of the Wiki page will discourage their activities. But I wouldnt hold my breath. These are religious zealots, hell bent on establishing their religious orthodoxy, whereas in reality this is what many define as a cult. In fact, the organization has a long history of manipulating media and supressing critical information-They are well known for threatening critics with legal action for example https://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/new-kadampa-tradition-threatened-to-sue-nbo-too/ 46.64.92.141 (talk)

I haven't examined the situation in detail and I am prepared to believe that this article doesn't appropriately explain the relation between New Kadampa and the mainstream. However, to prevent problems in the future I feel compelled to point out that the technical definition of COI is rather restrictive. Just being a member of an organisation does not create a COI for this organisation, except perhaps when it is really tiny. Working for an organisation is where the guideline draws the line. Of course

the best would be it gets re-written from the root by an academic expert. If you check the history of the article it is exactly as Chris Fynn has it pointed out above. The main editors of this and related articles were keen either to remove critical but reliable 3rd party sources or they have put a spin on the facts by slightly changing the phrasing or presentation of these sources' content. As an example just see the corrected passage with respect to what Barrett says and doesn't say, its a symptomatic example of an attempt by those editors to remove or bend all unwished statements which stretches all over the history of the article. Except Fynn all other non-NKT editors gave up. Just check the history and the

WP:COI of those editors becomes evident. Recently they couldn't even accept the COI template which Fynn added, they just removed it, and this happened also with other templates which were added by concerned editors. A collective and successful attempt by NKT followers to change those article by removing reliable 3rd party sources into favour of the organisation had been noticed years ago on the admin board. Since them the NKT editors seem to dominate the article exactly as it has been said above by Fynn. 91.22.188.204 (talk

) 15:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your change regarding Barrett, although, to be fair, even though he uses the word 'controversial' he doesn't say why. It is implied that NKT is controversial because it has a dispute with the Dalai Lama and doesn't believe in mixing traditions! I have removed the COI template as there is no evidence to support it. Just because the contributors have a close connection with the organization that is the subject of an article shouldn't prevent them from making contributions as they are the best placed to contribute their knowledge. Academic researchers may be more neutral but they are not as knowledgeable. There is also no evidence to say that present academic studies of NKT (for example, Kay, which was not that accurate in the first place and is now out of date) are accurate and representative. Truthsayer62 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that someone accused of COI editing is the best person to remove the COI tag. Regarding the article content, everything in the article should be a summary of reliable sources. While insiders sometimes can help put things in perspective, we should only rely on published sources. Scholarly publications are considered the best. If some editors think they are inaccurate then they should provide other, equally reliable sources which contain what they believe have more accurate information.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT-exactly what people are talking about: as soon as anything vaguely critical appears or something that might cause the credulous to question the authenticity of the article appear, it is eradicated by the same NKT editors who have repeatedly done this for years

I agree with the above where it states that membership of an organization does not necessarily meant a conflict of interest but take a look at the reasons for the Scientology ban: the same extremist editors repeatedly eradicating all critical content and turning the page into something resembling an advert for the group. Sound familiar? Most NKT followers are innocents, who know nothing of the politics rife within the upper echelons of the groups hierarchy. But these are not new members-these are internet stormtroopers, a dedicated of long serving NKT foot soldiers whose sole task is to paint a positive picture of the group and to hide any conflict as much as is humanly possible.

Maybe someone with time could check back how many banners have been removed by the same editors for years by the same editors. I can think of dozens of instances of this; they are relentless. And these are banners that a re there to protect the public from bias-they are not THAT critical.

Wikipedia needs to sit up on this one. Certainly, among Buddhists, the credibility of the whole institution has been significantly diminished as a result of the unbridled manipulation that has taken place within this and related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.92.141 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@

WP:COI template but you deleted the template again which they inserted shows that you might be the wrong person in working on this article because you remove what you don't like, and you ignore the opinions and reasons of others. If you delete this template again, I will send a notice to the Admin board and I will ask them to give you a warning or to temporarily block you from editing. --91.22.177.236 (talk

) 10:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@User:Will Beback: I utter agree with you, there is nothing to add. It speaks for itself too if persons who are seen as having a COI remove the warning templates of others. This happened different times here also in the past, nice to have a witness of the present event. The same editors, who are seen by some to have a COI, also have also removed content taken from Scholarly publications or put a spin on the facts by misrepresenting the content of such publications. In the past they denounced even a researcher at the talk pages trying to portray him as "emotionally unstable". Presently Truthsayer62 just tried to put down one accepted Scholarly paper, claiming that Kay would be "not that accurate in the first place and is now out of date) are accurate and representative." However, his two papers are peer-reviewed, recommended and his second paper was published by Routledge Curzon. --91.22.177.236 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is how it has worked all along; any academic statement, if it can be construed as 'critical' is eradicated. here Kay was removed because it was 'inaccurate (read 'critical' and 'out of date'. And yet as you say, it is a valid reference from a wiki perspective. Moreover, if you check back, you can see that Kay is condemned as inaccurate by NKT editors because he is a 'disgruntled FORMER MEMBER'. So, he is not reliable because of his former membership of the group. And yet NKT editors remove conflict of interest banners, claiming their edits are valid DESPITE their membership of the group. TALK ABOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS!!! And this is how it has been for years with this page: anything critical is edited out, even if academically justifiable, and all that is left is the stuff that can be constured in their favour (as with the Barrett statement-actually, if you read Barrett, it identifies the NKT as an NRM which, in most peoples parlance is a CULT! (But lets not go there...) Well done Wiki eds for FINALLY waking up to this abuse of Wikipedia, an abuse which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole medium and indeed has already in academic circles-Even I, a lowly academic and Buddhist, now teach my students to BEWARE OF WIKIPEDIA because I have seen the extent of this immoral and seemingly incurable abuse by these fanatical religious zealots. PEACE!46.64.92.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

I think you all need to re-read the statements you have posted on this page. You are obviously hostile to the NKT (accusing it of double standards, being like Scientology, a cult,and the editors of this page as 'fanatical religious zealots' etc) and are therefore not likely to write anything that is NPOV. I can recognise at least one of you are being Tenzin Peljor, a well known critic of the NKT and previous editor of this page. You're all making lots of emotional and unfair claims about the organization because YOU are biased. There is nothing wrong with wanting one's tradition not to be misrepresented by people who are not neutral and who have something to gain through negative propaganda, which is exactly what will happen if you are allowed to edit this page. I suggest that if you have any proposed edits to this article that they be posted here first for discussion and that they be based on valid sources. If you attempt to insert anti-NKT propaganda that is not properly sourced I WILL move to have this article locked on the grounds of vandalism. Thanks for your consideration. Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Need more be said? As soon as others begin to question the 'offical NKT version' they are condemned as non-neutral, open to bias, propagandists and are threatened with page locking (which BTW would mean the thoroughly sanitized version remains online, just as the NKT would wish.) Note also, that the majority of criticisms are not based on any factual analysis whatsoever but rather are overwhelmingly ad hominem attacks against individual editors(I believe it was stated above that one critic was deemed 'mentally unstable'- a well known Scientologist tactic BtW [see 'Attack the attacker' and 'fair game) indeed, in one case we have an 'outing' thoroughly unacceptable by Wiki standards) And the solution? threaten critics with Wiki principles (page locking), in other words censorship via silencing, a 'solution' which certainly has an ominous ring to it.

Sadly, this is exactly how someone who considers only their own viewpoint to be valid would react.Such inability to consider the viewpoint of ohters id not THAT unusual in the world, but it certainly IS more tangible amongst fundamntalists, extremists and cult members, which is what some might consider to be what is going on here

The question is, is Wikipedia here to propound only the viewpoint of insiders or is it intended to be an academically neutral source? Certainly, any piece of supposed academia that demonstrates bias is considered flawed in academic circles. Should that not be true of Wikipedia too? Or is it merely an advertising medium for those who shout loudest?46.64.92.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

In short, editors from outside the NKT are ‘Hostile, biased. emotional and unfair and are not likely to write anything that is NPOV’. They are, ‘misrepresentative people who are not neutral and who have something to gain through negative propaganda’ Something to gain? How so? These suund to me just like the writings of someone who is ‘Hostile, biased. emotional and unfair statements from someone not likely to write anything that is NPOV’. Such editors are, ‘misrepresentative people who are not neutral and who have something to gain through self supportive propaganda’46.64.92.141 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If one is in need of conclusive evidence of this particular editors bias, one need only take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truthsayer62 to see how many times the editor in question has removed tags and CoI banners, what the persons involvement is with the organization in question,how many times the editor has been blocked for misconduct etc-the evidence speaks for itself. Similar examinations of regular NKT editors bear similar fruits19:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.92.141 (talk)

Just for reference purposes, what normally happens when we reach this point is radio silence. Then, when someone does introduce a change to the page that might be construed by NKT editors as critical. its reverted. And so it goes on. You will also note that the CoI banner has been removed-is there an explanation for this? Well cynics such as myself might consider it draconian censorship. But I guess that maes me 'biased'46.64.92.141 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Ad-hominem arguments don't help either side here, so please disengage from them. Instead, please bring sources to the table. These can then be discussed here on the talk page. It seems there are several experienced editors watching this page, so I am sure progress can be made. --JN466 14:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there now seem to be several editors watching. Problem is, this is closing the gate after the bull has bolted. NKT editors have repeatedly bullied people off this page for years to the point that everyone has given up!(Thats not ad hominem BTW Its a fact!) Check the history and comments and youll see how long this has been going on and youll see why its pretty much too late-the deed is done, they frightened all interested parites off, or should I say, everybody just gave up because its totally useless-Try editing a page yourself for six months or so, only to find that EVERY TIME you edit, it gets reverted OR every time you raise an issue, Wiki law is bent and twisted to prevent your speaking out. Thats how it is here and thats how its been for years-Instant censorship by dedicated teams of NKT editors versed in the manipualtion of Wiki law46.64.92.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Worse problems have been solved. :) If there are sources you feel are underrepresented, or misrepresented, please start a section below, and then we can look at it. --JN466 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! After all those years some fresh air... I fear I have no time to go through the article in detail again. I tried in the past but gave up due to the strong persistence and effective collaboration of NKT editors like truthsayer, truthbody or emptymountains. I hope there will be reasonable editors who can do the work. Actual

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso etc. --91.22.186.70 (talk

) 12:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to make an objective case that NKT is a cult. However, NKT is indeed controversial and readers have a right to be aware of that controversy, particularly since it distinguishes NKT from other sects of Buddhism. I think the best thing that Wikipedia can do is to offer a neutral portrait of the controversy by stating the political and religious underpinnings that are creating the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.91.81 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is not "an internecine conflict between different sects of Tibetan Buddhists and their adherents" ~ if you read up on it, you'll find that this 'conflict' is almost entirely between two groups both claiming to be adherents of the Gelukpa sect. Other Tibetan Buddhist sects have little to sat on the matter. Shugden worship seems to fit the first definition of the word 'cult' given at www.oxforddictionaries.com: "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object" Since Shugden worshippers, including the NKT, have broken away from the main Gelukpa hierarchy who regard this practice as harmful they also seem to fit the first definition of the word 'cult' given at www.merriam-webster.com: "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous". Of course NKT members themselves do not believe they are following an "Unorthodox or false religion" - quite the opposite, they believe they are the ones following the 'true' orthodox Geluk tradition of Tsongkhapa as defined by figures like

Phabongkha(1878–1941), Trijang Rinpoche(1901–1981) and some of their followers - including the NKT's guru, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Chris Fynn (talk

) 12:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

kT66 and Yonteng both seemed very knowledgeable about 'the other side of the story' but both retired as editors after persistent cyber bullying malpractice.Chris Fynn is stilll active but obviously busy, so the fact is the rebuilding of this article is a daunting, intimidating task which has already lost many reliable editors. It will therefore take years to rebuild it to something resembling an unbiased piece of academia that presents insider and outsider views equally (and once you get there, if former practice is anything to go by, it will be reverted). SO good luck but dont hold your breath. Finally, where did the CoI banner go? Is it back up?If not,w ho removed it and for what reason?46.64.92.141 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

as a starting point one could revert back to the point when NKT editors took over the article in a collaborative manner and when all the other editors gave up editing the article. This was something about 2008 and it can be recognized by seeing how 3rd party academic sources were deleted en masse, a lot of new editors popped up, and information unfavourable from the point of view of the organisation was deleted. --91.22.153.89 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please indcate the exact point you wish to return to. We can then revert the article and allow edit warring to ensue (Joke) No, seriously, this sounds like a fair idea. I agree with it and would welcome other opinions. The important point is that this page is now under observation and unfair tactics from either side of the debate would not go unnoticed. Of course, NKT editors may well argue that this is returning the article to a stage when it was biased against the group but, they would have the freedom to edit, and more importantly justify their edits in front of a responsible, knoweldgeable audience, rather than repeatedly and covertly inserting minor changes over a long period of time unnoticed until the aricle reads like NKT propaganda, as would appear to have happened in the past.46.64.92.141 (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I particularly agree that the lack of historical background is a problem, especially in the light of

I had a look at the early 2008 version of the page, which had what looks like a nice, well referenced background history of the formation of NKT. I've no idea why this was ever removed, but I suggest replacing it (it can go after the mission statement). Thank you for seeing that! It was mainly my work to include this well referenced academic and partially peer reviewed material, and Kay is the only researcher with in-depth field research about the formation and history of NKT. His paper has been published in two different versions at Routledge Curzon, and is widely accepted, quoted and recommended in the academic world (e.g. by

front group called Western Shugden Society. The Wikipedia New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden, and Kelsang Gyatso articles included views which were in contradiction to the message of their media campaign or could have undermined their effort of the message they wished to spread with respect to this campaign. Even neutral WP observers at the Admin Board

were not happy about the removal of the sources and their content, see e.g.:

… these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea…

Some of the editors were also proofed of Socket puppetry, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wisdombuddha Due to a lack of informed editors and the NKT editors' concerted diligence to remove unwelcome material they were finally successful to remove all unwelcomed third party material which were in opposition to views they hold. At that time I decided to drop my engagement at WP … However, I fully agree to use the well-referenced article or history section from 2008 as a starting point to improve the article. A full list of academic material with respect to NKT can be found here: http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/ -- Kt66 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have inserted the history section from Jan 2008 at the beginning. There will be some work involved in getting this page back up to scratch but hopefully this is the beginning. --Sdp80 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a new Wikepidia user, I have signed up with an account because of my concern about the NKT. My girlfriend and her mother were expelled from the organisation years ago an what I know of it, it sounds like the controversies are very succesfully covered up. I am not in a position to edit the article having little personal knowledge of Buddhism myself, but I it seem clear to me that the source isn't a clear one. In particular why has the link to 'controversies' been dissabled? It seem like someone has taken a whole area of the article out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian concern (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia's

I assume that most of the article is misleading because already a quick check into he intro section proved to be unreliable. There it said:

The NKT-IKBU is a Mahayana form of Buddhism, which has been developed from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism.[4] The NKT-IKBU follows the tradition of Kadampa Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha (AD 982–1054) and Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419 AD), as taught by Kelsang Gyatso.[5] The New Kadampa Tradition "offers standard Gelugpa teachings based on Kelsang Gyatso's books, which present a systematic path to enlightenment."[6] However, others view the NKT as a breakaway sect or cult and argue it is not part of the ancient Kadampa Tradition but a split from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism."

But the reference Bluck on page 129 which is claimed to be quoted doesn’t say at all "The NKT-IKBU follows the tradition of Kadampa Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha (AD 982–1054) and Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419 AD), as taught by Kelsang Gyatso." Also the use of a travel book that took over claims by NKT without checking them is unsuitable for a reliable intro section. That’s why I removed the last unverified sentence and included quotes from

The NKT-IKBU is a Mahayana form of Buddhism, which has been developed from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism.[4] The NKT-IKBU has expanded more rapidly than any other Buddhist tradition in Britain and "it has sometimes been portrayed as a controversial organization",[5] a “breakaway order of the Gelukpa”[6] or a “controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM”.[7]

Academic research is available:

• Kay 2004: http://elibrary.ibc.ac.th/files/private/Tibetan%20and%20Zen%20Buddhism%20in%20Britain%20Transplantation,%20Development%20and%20Adaptation.pdf
• Bluck 2006: http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/British%20Buddhism.pdf
• a full list of academic papers: http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/

--87.185.128.69 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored the sentence (with a minor edit) "The NKT-IKBU describes itself as following the tradition of Kadampa Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha (AD 982–1054) and Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419 AD), as taught by Kelsang Gyatso," which was based on Bluck (p. 129): "The movement 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’." Bluck is a secondary source, quoting a primary source (GKG), which I had (faithfully) put into my own words; however, I do see it appropriate to add the words 'describes itself' to better capture the spirit of Bluck's writing. Emptymountains (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I corrected your correction a bit by including what Bluck really says. He doesn’t say anything about Atisha or Tsongkhapa on page 129. By using the quote we avoid misrepresentations of academic papers which have become widespread in the Wikipedia articles about NKT and Shugden etc. I agree with 'describes itself'. Kt66 (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So, what does Bluck "really say"? You linked to the

Kadampa article instead, in which the first name mentioned is Atisha. Je Tsongkhapa (see Bluck, p. 130), founder of the new Kadampas, has a sub-section ('Later developments') in that article as well. What exactly is the misrepresentation here? Emptymountains (talk

) 15:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Extremism on University Campuses by INFORM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.128.69 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)