Talk:Western tulku/Archive 1

Neutrality
Western tulkus are being taken out of context here. The context at Tulku shows that criticism of tulkus is not limited to Westerners. Further discussion at Talk:Tulku. Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This page discusses Western tulku, not tulku more generally. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't split pages by ethnicity. We don't have pages for Western guru, Western shaman, Western swami or Western yogi. There is a reason for that. This is an attack page focused on the deficiencies of ethnically Western people who happen to have been formally recognized by Tibetan lamas in the context of a Tibetan system of a Tibetan religion. It is completely inappropriate to separate the article by ethnicity. Honestly I should speedy it as an attack page. Skyerise (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy it then. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But first I'll bring it up at Skyerise (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do both. Call up Jimmy Wales and complain to him, too. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? The last time you told me to "bring it on", you immediately started whining about it when I did and haven't stopped since. I doubt your sincerity due to that. Skyerise (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do it or not? Speedy it or bring it up at BLP or write Jimmy Wales an angry letter about how are being  on his website. I'm still going to defend the page and will gladly do it in a WP:SPEEDY discussion. I tell you to "bring it on" because I'm not afraid of Wikipedia talk page threats about how you'll  MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your hurry? I'll get around to it when I get around to it. Skyerise (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not all tulkus are lamas
Not all tulkus are lamas. They are independent categories. The title of tulku is bestowed on reincarnations. Most are recognized as children. The title of lama is bestowed on completion of training including a three-year retreat. Unless a recognized tulku completes this training including the three-year retreat, they are not also lamas. Most, but not all, Tibetan tulkus complete this training. Of the "Western tulkus", Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo has completed training as a lama. Tenzin Ösel Hita completed some of the training, but ultimately opted out. He has not been made a lama. As for Steven Seagal, I don't believe he has undergone training to be a lama either. Tulkus are not automatically lamas, and I've changed the lead sentence to remove this erroneous assumption. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of and  templates
The article does not appear to be under extensive expansion or major restructuring. The sources have been exhausted, and the editor who created the article has been adding material which is not specific to Western tulkus, but rather belongs in Tulku. The template has been repeatedly abused to prevent editing while the creator was sleeping, not changing it to  as is proper. I request that another editor remove this template, as it is being abused. Skyerise (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Current sources have not been exhausted and I still have sources to add -- hence why I have declined to alphabetize them (it will be easier to run them all together through a script when I am finished adding sources rather than doing it in situ one-by-one.) Also, assume good faith: falling asleep after (or during!) editing while a bot or other users remove a stale WIP template is not using it to prevent edits -- especially when a doesn't seem to care about those templates, anyway, and will disrupt what they see as a racist article by any means possible. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Requests to assume good faith fall flat when the poster is not assuming good faith. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't assume good faith when you've consistently made it obvious you have a personal issue with the page -- i.e. you think the page is racist. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have clearly stated that my issue is that tulkus are tulkus and that the division is ethnically motivated. I have no problem with criticism of Western tulkus, a position which you have repeatedly misrepresented. You have gone so far at to accuse me of "white Buddhist rage" - even though you have no knowledge of my race or my gender (I am a woman, by the way, you have misgendered me repeatedly). Stop putting words in my mouth and making up motivations for me. I don't believe the topic should be divided by ethinicity: you refuse to address that and continue to mischaracterize my motivation as objecting to valid criticism of Western tulkus. You haven't shown good faith since the very beginning, instead choosing to mischaracterize my actual objection with your own strawman. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You have outright called the page racist, accused it of singling out white people, and censored information about race, racism, and cultural appropriation. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, dividing a topic by race is racist (see racial segregation and apartheid). Tibetan lamas freely give their teachings and recognitions. Cultural appropriation is not being done by Westerners here. The term only applies when cultures are appropriated without permission. It does not apply to this situation at all. No Westerner discussed here has claimed a title; they were given it. Skyerise (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe you just compared this to apartheid and segregation. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to divide a topic by race. Both your accusation of "white Buddhist rage" against me as well as statements which you added to the article which equate "fully Western" with "white" expose your racist intent. You replaced it with a link to white people - and yet "Western" is a cultural term. I'm sure fully-Western African Americans and Latin Americans would object to your characterization. "Western" includes all people brought up in Western cultures, not just "white people". The fact that you could write material that assumes otherwise exposes your racial motivations. Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that I am a "fully Western" Latin-American: no, Western culture is inextricably linked to settler-colonialism, and we (and Black Americans) are consistently marginalized in histories of Western culture as racialized colonial subjects. The sources specifically call white people "fully Western" because they are not racialized or Otherized in the context of the settler-colony.
 * This is all a perfect example of white Buddhist rage, going as far as to compare critical analysis of the globalization of Tibetan Buddhism (or rather, coverage of this analysis on Wikipedia) as literal segregation or apartheid. It betrays a gross misunderstanding of what those institutions actually represented and how race, imperialism, globalization, and settler-colonialism actually work in the Western world. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 16:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You also use the term "Caucasian" to refer to Dylan Henderson. That's an obsolete and extremely loaded racist term akin to Aryan. Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's specifically what the source used. Caucasian is still common in the English-speaking world, especially in the United States. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 16:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, and the fact that the source uses it means it is a racially-biased source. Skyerise (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly common in the United States (where iirc Dylan Henderson was born) and the hat note on Caucasian race,, specifically mentions this. Whether he is called Caucasian or white is totally meaningless to me, it is important to note he is not Tibetan or Mongolic or even Asian. I'm sorry if pointing this out offends you and stokes up more rage against reverse racism which you think is akin to white genocide or anti-white apartheid or segregation or whatever. Actually, I'm not sorry, and I think you should talk to heritage Buddhists about why this page offends you so much. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 16:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am close friends with many Tibetans. They are great people and do not share your racist views. They do not criticize Western lamas or tulkus; if anything they criticize the lama who made the Western tulku, not the tulku themselves, who are in no way at fault. Unexpected or "non-Buddhist" behavior is not confined to Western tulkus, starting with the 6th Dalai Lama who chose to live the life of a playboy poet. Something you have tried to remove from Tulku so you can pretend only Western tulkus have been criticized. Skyerise (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All of this is so very ironic. I'm sure you are very not racist and have so many non-white friends. So many, because normal and non-racist people use their Tibetan friends as pawns to back up their arguments about how not racist they are. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you are casting aspersions, which the Arbitration Committee has ruled is a personal attack. All my arguments have been based on the content you have written. This is an unacceptible personal attack. By all means move your whining to WP:AN/I. This ought to go over well there. Skyerise (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is only casting aspersions if get called racist, calling other people racist (or accusing them of having racial motiviations) is okay. The Western tulku article is truly a form of anti-white apartheid. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not called you "racist". I have suggested that text you have written has a racial bias. There is a difference. Skyerise (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You also accused me of having racial motivations (right here, not even an hour ago) and of making an attack page to single out white people since the page was a paragraph long. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 16:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe your writing exhibits a racial bias. This could be because you are not careful with your writing or because you are confusing Western with "white". I am pointing to direct evidence. You are on the other hand, clearly casting unwarranted aspersions. I have Tibetan friends because I have been a Tibetan Buddhist for more than three decades, not because I want to use them to prove I am not racist. I will however say that you seem to be a jerk. Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So much for being against personal attacks. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Funny. You're the one Venue Shopping using mischaracterizations of both my motivations and actions. I'd call those "lies", but perhaps you have a different definition? Skyerise (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Skillful means. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LoL! Your means are hardly skillful! But if that's what you're doing, then so am I! Skyerise (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll be here all weekend. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do be sure to revert something one more time, then. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Accusations of misconduct
Editors should please be aware that accusations of misconduct are nothing but allegations unless charges or lawsuits have been filed which subsequently upheld the allegations. Wikipedia does not take such allegations as truth, and our WP:BLP policy dictates that we must not present them as true unless proven. As in any other factual reporting, we should use the word "alleged" for unproven assertions of misconduct. Depending on the quality of the source and whether there are supporting citations in the source, some such allegations may need to be removed to comply with our biographies of living persons policy. Such sources are merely gossip loops and should not be used. Skyerise (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Are there any allegations here that were not attributed to outside commentators? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Attribution is not sufficient. The article did not mention that these were alleged, not proven. Skyerise (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Where I added "alleged". And perhaps other places which I haven't noticed yet. Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"possible to be the face of a Russian arms firm and a tulku."
I guess that most readers don't know that in Tibetan feudal times, monasteries had their own armories or that the Gelug at one time engaged in violence in an attempt to terminate the Nyingma school. The answer to her question is "yes": there are many examples of Tibetan Buddhists who advocated violence against the Chinese during their invasion of Tibet as well. Skyerise (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions as to how to include this information in the article, since it has been brought up in the article. Skyerise (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The source quoted above in the heading is clearly an opinion piece in The Guardian. Opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources for negative views of living persons. Skyerise (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors, which is exactly how it is used in the article. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCES: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have stronger policies which apply to living persons. You are also continuing to edit-war with your revert count now 6 or 7. Skyerise (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And what policy specifically barrs as sources for...attributed  of their authors? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires sources about living people to be both factual (i.e. news articles) and fact-checked: Op-eds are neither. Skyerise (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a source about a living person. It's a source about someone's opinion of a living person. This is WP:CENSORship. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know the WP:BLP policy pretty well. You're wrong. Opinion pieces are not considered WP:RS when the opinion expressed is about a living person. You may use news articles, but not op-eds in such a case. I've brought this up at BLPN as well. Skyerise (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Link the relevant policy. You are not someone to trust here given your bias against the article and your past disruptive behavior. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LoL. I've linked it a dozen times. I can't be blamed if you don't read it. Skyerise (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of op-eds or opinion pieces on what you've linked. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It clearly says the sources should be strong factual ones. Read between the lines. I've been involved in many BLPN discussions which concluded that op-eds were not strong factual sources. Skyerise (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)a
 * Then link them. You're claiming a policy or a consensus that doesn't seem to exist. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Do your own research. I am not your research assistant. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My research seems to show that you're abusing the policy at WP:BLP to censor criticism of Steven Seagal. If you're going to claim policy is on your side, then link (and preferably quote) the relevant policy, don't just claim it supports your censorship. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed any critical material from the article, I am merely questioning the quality of sources. On the other hand, you have repeatedly removed my talk page comments and validly placed citation tags. I suggest that it is you who are trying to WP:CENSOR me. Questioning source quality rather than removing things outright is the correct process here, which I am trying to follow, but repeatedly reverting a talk page post is a clear violation of WP:TALK, especially when you do it four times to someone you have reported on ANI and are clearly in dispute with. That really makes your claims of censorship fall flat, don't you think? Skyerise (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)