| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It looks like the article on Trijang Rinpoche has been undeleted. It was deleted in error. I am glad it is back as this famous Lama's life is a matter of public interest. (Truthbody (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
This article currently reads a little too much like a hagiography written by devotees, not like an encyclopedia article. The article also currently relies mainly on sources published by religious organisations connected with the subject of the article. Because of this, I have added the template "{{Unencyclopedic tone}}". Please help improve the article by using a more neutral tone which neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, keeping things brief, and using reliable , independent third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - rather than primary or self-published sources or those with a devotional relationship to the subject. See: Third Trijang, Lobzang Yeshe Tendzin Gyatso for a better written account.
Chris Fynn (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be OK to add a little more balance with a quotation from an interview with Trijang Chocktrul in which he makes it clear that he wants to avoid both sides of the disagreement? Beeflin (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of Jan 2016 it looks encyclopedic, maybe thanks to the (WP useful) edit wars ;). Zezen (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusquedandelion: Stop edit warring.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: You stop edit warring. The version of the article you keep reverting it to expresses a blatant mistruth contradicted by the very source being cited. Read the source, otherwise, stop accusing people of edit warring when they're correcting a self evident mistake. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The version of this page before I edited contained a blatant mistruth- that the Rinpoche thought Shugden was merely a worldly protector. The source document on question ("Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors") stipulates repeatedly and directly that Shugden is no other than Manjushri, a full enlightened Buddha, who shows the aspect of a worldly protector. The page should not be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusquedandelion (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors" cannot be considered a "self-published source" because the section in question is stating the Rinpoche's own views and therefore in fact the most reliable possible source on this topic would be something the Rinpoche himself wrote. The prohibition on SPSs would only be relevant if the article were stating "objective" facts about Dorje Shugden, i.e. that he IS an enlightened being. Rather, the article is stating that the Rinpoche believed Dorje Shugden was an enlightened being. As the point of this section is to establish the Rinpoche's "Views on Dorje Shugden," there can be no better source than something he himself wrote.
Further, the Dreyfus book cited in the same section itself cites "Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors." Thus, if it is unacceptable to cite "Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors," it is unacceptable to cite Dreyfus.
--Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
