Talk:Karmapa controversy

The Situation with this page 10/26/05

A lot of people of all persuasions have been making an effort to keep this article informative and NPOV, and I think that is commendable. I recommend that, going forward, all controversial edits should be acompanied by an explanation on talk (as was earlier suggested by Billion), and any that aren't should be automatically reverted. Otherwise, the editing process is destructive, repetitive and endless. If there is some explanation at least there is some possibility of agreement & consensus.

One open issues at hand:

1) Whether or not to allow the claim that "most lamas," "most Kagyupas," "most Tibetans," support UTD. I don't think there is any way to substantiate this claim unless we commission a poll. However, I see no problem with each side listing the respective lamas on their side. Deleting this is just suppression of information, plain and simple. Agree or disagree?

2) I've changed the format somewhat regarding links and references, so that it is clear what is coming from where. I propose that, because POV is clearly identified, each side should have the liberty to do as they wish with their respective lists. Agree or disagree?GZ -10/27/05

moved from Karmapa

This discusion, moved from Karmapa, is a bit of a dog's dinner having been edited by people with an interest in one side or other of the dispute, and a few people trying to bring it back to NPOV. It now completely lacks structure. I'm not sure how to approach a controversial topic like this. Billlion 19:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great idea to move it out of the way from the original Karmapa entry. I have added in some structure and edited the two-sentence general info at the beginning. I will put in some work to describe the Thaye Dorje side from NPOV, since this is the side I know more about. I think it would best if someone who knows more about the other side could expand his bio and point of view of his supporters. AndyBrandt 19:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good start I had the same sort of structure in mind. I know someone people involved in Urgyen Trinley Dorje's side of Kagyu and will see if one of them will contribute. Billlion 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some historical prospective. I propose to follow with an account of quarrel around 17th Karmapa based on facts both sides can agree. Claims and accusations should be put in their respective sections. When claimants bios would be expanded enough moving them to separate pages should be considered. I would continue to expand the story adding information about the controversy itself, hopefully maintaining the NPOV. AndyBrandt 22:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some more story-telling but I’m unable to do more. My source about the whole story is mainly Tomek’s book mentioned on the page. I think someone who knows more about the subject should continue the story. Also, some sort of a short timeline would be a good idea. AndyBrandt 21:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Billion, whoever you are. When I have made changes, than to come to the historical facts. NPOV does not mean in this case, that we are discussion the question of having a pope and a anti-pope. In our case there is a truth, and this is known. This should be the result of NPOV! Fernando

Needs attention?

Shall we remove the needs attention tag yet? Of course we are still waiting for someone to add the claims of supporters of Urgyen Trinley Dorje, but the whole thing looks a lot better after recent efforts especially by Andy. Have suggested to several people I know who are associated with Samye Ling that they might have a go, so I expect that will be forthcoming soon. Billlion 17:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added some kind of account of the UTD side's point of view. Also I have just been passed an advance copy of a book on UTD by Gaby Naher, and so added a section of references to which I a have moved, and ISBN'd, the reference to the other book. I have not had a chance to read Naher's book yet, so I really know nothing about this beyond what I can read on the web. So please, anyone who knows better get editing the section on the claims of his supporters.

Summary

Would someone be so kind as to date the statement that the two current claimants have not yet met? I.e., "the two have not yet met, as of such and such a date." Thanks! --- Eiríkr Útlendi 06:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Billlion! --- Eiríkr Útlendi 00:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Overly long and overly detailed

Hi Skyerise the recent edits you made are very good. Any chance you could do a quick once over on other sections? I know that's a lot to ask, but if you're motivated and have time, there are sections that could use a trim. Badabara (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise Thanks for your edits!Badabara (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)