Talk:Drukpa Kagyu

"Drukpa" vs. "Drukpa Kagyu"
Dear Wendy L. (IP User:76.89.241.64)

On my talk page you wrote:
 * To Christopher Fynn,


 * I am writing from DPPL, official publishing arm of the Drukpa lineage. While we appreciate your detailed contributions to the Drukpa wiki page, our lineage holders consider the lineage to be "Drukpa," rather than "Drukpa Kagyu." We politely request that you refrain from changing the entry back to include "Kagyu." Thank you very much for your understanding.


 * Wendy L. DPPL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.241.64 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, in many traditional Tibetan sources and in most modern academic sources this tradition is generally referred to as the "Drukpa Kagyu" ~ and, though it has some unique and special trachings, this lineage has always been considered as an independent branch of the Kagyu tradition established in Tibet by Marpa, Milarepa and Gampopa. The contemporary Bhutanese branch of the Drukpa Kagyu also seems happy to be known as Kagyu, as it frequently identifies itself as such. Since in traditional Tibetan sources, modern academic sources, and elsewhere the tradition is referred to as "Drukpa Kagyu" - this seems most appropriate name to be used in an encyclopedia. It also avoids confusion since today Drukpa also frequently means "Bhutanese"). If for some reason the modern Drukpa (Kagyu) institution or organisation headed by H.H. Drukchen Rinpoche, the respected heirarch of the main Tibetan branch of the Drukpa Kagyu tradition, has chosen to re-brand itself as simply "Drukpa" or "Drukpa Lineage" that is another matter. I presume this is being done in order to give the contemporary Drukpa school an identity clearly distinct from that of e.g. the Karma Kagyu, the Drikung Kagyu, and so on. However, understanstandable as this is, it does not mean that the widely used and accepted term for the historic religious tradition should be changed or altered in an encyclopedia article to align with this contemporay excercise in re-branding. Furthermore, removing from the Drukpa article quotes and references to published sources in which the name "Drukpa Kagyu" is used, apparently simply because you don't like the name, as you appear to have done - is IMO close to sheer vandalism. As you say you are from the "official publishing arm of the Drukpa lineage", do you represent a NPOV in this matter?

Chris Fynn (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Wendy, there is no point discussing with Chris Fynn, we had a huge discussion with everyone in th globe (Chris Fynn and Sylvain72 are very popular among many of us, including Rinpoches and Tulkus) and found out more about Chris and his background. There are many "scholars" like that. Look, he is still saying "Drukchen Rinpoche" and that's why when some histories were manipulated hundreds of years ago, before we were born, this is the end-result. Let's spend our time building our Wiki. Forget about this!+118.100.72.169 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it just as objectionable for Wendy L to remove nearly all references to "Drukpa Kargyu" or "Drukpa Kagyu" in an encyclopedia article simply to comply with DPPL preferences? Drukpa Kagyu is after all the way this school of Buddhism is usually referred to in both academic publications and popular books on Buddhism. While her reasoning is clearly outlined in the sub-section "Name" that has been incorporated into the the article itself, this does not alter the fact that many other reputable sources, including many followers, still refer to the school as the Drukpa Kagyu. Lodu (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. This page is not NPOV at all.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Google Book Search currently gives only 14 hits for publications with the phrase "Drukpa Lineage" but 542 for those with "Drukpa Kagyu" ~ something like 1:38. "Drukpa school" has 137 hits, but together at 151 that is still only about a third of those using "Drukpa Kagyu". There are a number of publications using both terms. "Drukpa Kargyu" (with an "r") also has 54 hits, "Drukpa Kagyupa" 166, and "Drukpa Kargyupa" 46.  Naming conventions lists "Prevalence in reliable sources" as an important criteria. Lodu (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wendy, Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

NPOV problems
The following (and possibly other portions of the article) have some problems with preserving a neutral point of view: Drukpa lineage continues to thrive and flourish and benefit all sentient beings. It is supported by the state and given unconditional effort by all involved, from the lowest rung to the highest level.

Nonetheless, the 4th Gyalwang Drukpa Pema Karpo left a prediction that he would return with two reincarnations. His other reincarnation, Pagsam Wangpo continued the lineage in Tibet.

The first sentence states a religious belief (that the lineage "benefit[s] all sentient beings"), which cannot be the viewpoint of a neutral source such as Wikipedia; "thrive and flourish" are also probable peacock terms. The second claim of "unconditional effort" is dubious at best, and seems likely also a peacock term. The fourth is no problem, except for needing referencing. The fifth assumes the reality of reincarnation, which is also a religious belief, not the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia. (I say these things out of no dislike for Buddhism - my wife is a Buddhist - but out of trying to improve Wikipedia.) Allens (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio removed
I just had to revdel about eight years worth of edits because of plagiarism from this article. It was inserted at this edit in 2008. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Drukpa Lineage. 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/20080602014604/http://www.dailynews.lk:80/2007/07/25/fea11.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/07/25/fea11.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

How to add cite for Dampa Sumpa?
Sorry but it's been years since I did any work here.

see http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rechung_Dorje_Drak

--BenTrem (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)