Talk:Ogyen Trinley Dorje

Article is a mess
Needs a complete rewrite. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee, I agree. The article seems to be written by religious fanatics. Is it possible to work in partnership? What sort of re-write do you have in mind? I could delete irrelevant sections and trim relevant sections for clarity.Badabara (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Badabara, the problem is I know next to nothing about Buddhism and really only ended up here because of a problematic editor whose edits I was checking. I could do things like go through and remove what seems like puffery, but I don't have a whole lot of interest in educating myself about Buddhism. :D —valereee (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee. I know the editor you're talking about and I pretty much know which edits were made because they have that nutty fervor vibe. So how about this - I'll make trims and edit a bit of the structure. If the edits are too much, undo. Other editors are welcome to contribute of course. For the most part I want to shorten the page down to what's relevant.Badabara (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee, please take a look at the edits I made. I believe I trimmed it down to mostly whet's relevant. Still needs a once over for basic edits (not Buddhist related). Let me know what you think. Thanks Badabara (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee please take a look at users LikeAnIllusion and Drakoool999. Both editors have only made edits to the Ogyen Trinley wikipedia page, and no other pages on wikipdia. Most recent edits were done within a few minutes of each other. One of the reasons I didn't look forward to putting time into this page is there are people that set up accounts only to edit this page, and the edits they make are fanatical in nature. How to best keep the article clean and unbiased? Thanks Badabara (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Badabara, I saw that. Do you feel it's happening often enough that the article needs to be semi'd? I probably can't, but we could put in a request at Requests for page protection. Have you done that before? If not, it's important to mention this is a BLP. If you'd rather I make the request, I'm happy to, just ping me. —valereee (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valereee I haven't done a request for semi-protection before. I think it's a good idea to reduce the amount of time having to watch this page. Can you please make the request? One thing to point out, is the majority of vandalism isn't from IP users or users with less than 10 edits. Most vandalism comes from users (or sock puppets) that have made more than 10 edits, but all their edits are only the Ogyen Trinley page. CityOfGandharvas, LikeAnIllusion, and Drakoool999 would still be able to make edits with semi-protection. Any way to also block these accounts? They appear to be accounts created for the sole purpose of editing this page. Best Badabara (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've left them NPOV welcomes on their talks. Let's see if we can get them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thank you! Badabara (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

reverts
Hey,, , , let's discuss these edits before you revert other editors again. You seem to be trying to affect the neutrality of the article. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi,. Thanks for reaching out, I appreciate that. I'm not sure about the other two users, but it's true that I only have interest in editing this page; mostly because I don't feel I have anything better to add to the various Wikipedia pages other than what is already being added by other editors. The issue here is that this is a BLP (a person with hundreds of thousands of Buddhist disciples worldwide) and there have been several attacks on this page, by users such as Toto11zi, Drill it, and others; who have, for around two years, been attempting to post libel with "citations" to tabloid sources. If this is about NPV, I would request that if I'm going to be warned with a NPV that you perhaps also consider observing Toto11zi. Also, does this mean that editors are not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia if they only contribute to one page (i.e. a topic that they are knowledgeable about)? Am I no longer permitted to contribute to this page? Thanks for your consideration.--CityOfGandharvas (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi CityOfGandharvas. I'm a relatively new wikipedia editor myself. We assume in good faith that you are doing the best you can. The problem is, it's a controversial page, and the edits you made displayed bias. I can't see any edits by Drill it from the past few hundred edits. I do see Toto11zi has made quite a few edits, and they are related to sexual allegations, and some of the sources were pretty week. You'll notice some edits and sources Toto11zi used over a period of time are no longer in the article. So wikipedia does have a way of weeding out weak sources, as well as weeding out editors that aren't interested in learning best practices. As for the question, "editors are not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia if they only contribute to one page?" I don't know if there's a rule or it's just a clue an editor is inexperienced and/or biased... @Valereee any rule on that? (Please don't forget to sign your name on talk pages). Best Badabara (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Badabara. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Indeed I'm a new and inexperienced editor, so I do appreciate some guidance and explanation of best practices and I'm happy to learn what these are. At this point, I guess my questions is whether it's ok for me to continue contributing to this page, so long as what I contribute is not biased? For the record, could you please tell me what I did was biased? Based on that, I can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. But I do have a clarifying question: For example, the last addition made by Toto11zi, about the "Lawsuit filed by Vikki Hui Xin Han," as it is currently written, how is this not biased? I did make an edit to this paragraph on June 29 taking out details of the allegation specifics and rewriting it to just state bare facts about the state of the lawsuit, and added a citation to the BC Supreme Court Hearing Ruling. I consider that to be NPV, but is it not? Because although it's a true fact that there is a legal case in process, the court ruling document clearly states that these are allegations and none of them have been proven in court. Toto11zi's latest addition adds bias (for the claimant), and does not provide appropriate context that these are allegations. If information to favour the claimant is allowed to remain, should there not be information added/allowed to balance this paragraph to include Ogyen Trinley Dorje's response to these allegations? This is a BLP after all, and if the goal is to make this entire page informative and neutral to every audience then the "Lawsuit filed by Vikki Hui Xin Han" piece is undoubtedly skewed as it stands. So, from the point of view of best editor practices, what's the appropriate way to work with this situation? Thanks for your advice. --CityOfGandharvas (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi CityOfGandharvas. Ok. I see now. I'm looking closer now. Your edits were relatively straightforward. Looks like you just simplified the text on the court case edits. My sincere apologies! The court case section was later reduced to just dates by Drakoool999 and then the entire section was deleted by LikeAnIllusion. I apologize for clumping you in with those other 2 editors. I also see that you had added the information about Ogyen Trinely supporting the nun community in previous edits. Yes, your edits are just fine.


 * I added Tricycle magazine article as a ref, and deleted the obscure Chinese Canadian newspaper ref. I also took out the words "judgement passed" because that can be misleading... since it was just a judgment passed to add an additional allegation. So now it reads as only "allegations", "alleges", "accused". Innocent until proven guilty. All best, Badabara (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi CityOfGandharvas. You can't delete a source like Tricycle magazine on a Buddhist wikipedia page. I think the problem is you're trying to edit a controversial page on your first go. It becomes unnecessarily time consuming for other editors. Perhaps you should first practice making edits on wikipedia pages that aren't surrounded in controversy? Best Badabara (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I reverted your other edit because you quoted directly from sources. Edits must be in your own words. I really do recommend you practice on other pages. If this page is important to you, then you need to first learn the basics, and then come back. Badabara (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Badabara. Oh, I see. I didn't realize we cannot quote directly from sources. Actually, I did not remove the reference to the Tricycle magazine article, I had just moved it to a different paragraph. In any case, thank you for taking a look at it. Clearly I have a lot to learn and I will do as you recommend. Thanks for your time. Cheers.--CityOfGandharvas (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi CityOfGandharvas when I say I'm relatively new to wikipedia, I mean I am approaching 1000 edits. There is a lot to learn, and it's best to not learn on a controversial page. You will find encouragement to continue, since it's all volunteer work and we need the help. I suggest you first visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for advice on how to edit. Then consider becoming a member of WP:Buddhism. There you will find lists of articles on Buddhism that need to be expanded on. Best Badabara (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed by Huang
Hi Toto11zi. The section you created "Lawsuite filed by Huang" uses blogs and Chinese sources that are difficult to verify as reliable. See WP:RS. Also the suit appears to be between Huang and a student of Ogyen Trinley Dorje. I deleted it. Badabara (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
@Bodhisato and @CodeTalker, please discuss here. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * People who know nothing about the 17th Karmpapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje interfere with the page and put in false information. This is wrong. He has millions of followers who are subjected to pain because of these malicious attacks against his person. It is mean and unnecessary. Bodhisato (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These smooth talking dudes are vandalizing the page by claiming the page has multiple issues. Then they state the issue is "too much detail"! Lol When did too much info become an offense to deserve that scarlet letter label. Anyway the smooth talking vandals are doing the theft and the good Samaritans are getting the kick in the hiney. Brave new world of new smooth talking robbers. Once again SMFH. By they way CodeTalder dude, we didn't come to pee on your tree. Why are you coming onto our page to pee on ours? It is not intellectually honest what you have been doing. Not manly. Not ethical. Weasley is the word that comes to my mind. Bodhisato (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bodhisato, this is not "your" page. No one owns a Wikipedia page; see WP:OWN. It was not only I who reverted your edits, five editors in total have reverted the changes you have been attempting to make, and you have not made any argument for removing the Controversy section except for unsupported claims that it is false. Although I have not studied the issue in detail, there seems to be very adequate reliable sources cited which support this information. Edits on Wikipedia must be in accordance with Wikipedia policies, the most relevant one of which here is Verifiability.You will need to provide good reasons, supported by published sources, which explain why all of the existing sources are erroneous or misinterpreted. Furthermore, if indeed the article subject is your teacher, as you claimed here, then you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Instead you should make edit requests on this talk page and allow a neutral editor to make the changes you suggest.Finally, please refrain from commenting on the character or motivations of other editors. We are all volunteers here, and ideally all have the same goal to improve this encyclopedia. Unsupported (and clearly false) claims that other editors are vandalizing or editing in bad faith are not going to help your case at all. CodeTalker (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

info box "reincarnation"
Both Karmapa candidates state: "Reincarnation Karmapa Co-claimant along with (other candidate)"

This is NPOV and needs to stay that way. Every few months an aditor attempts to take out the other claimant with the comment "minor edit", or "cleaning up". It's not a minor edit. See Karmapa controversy for more information. Badabara (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)