Contents

Talk:Tulku

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tulku article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tibet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

With all due respect to those who's faith supports such claims, Wikipedia shouldn't be asserting reincarnation as fact. I've not edited the lede directly, as I'm not sure how best to word it, but this clearly needs revising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the lede has been extensively revised, making the above comment moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason not to separate Western tulkus from the tulku page is that Western tulkus are an integral part of the tulku system. They are part of the continuation of Tibetan tulku lineage into which they were recognized. The tulku article will be providing a summary of the history of each tulku lineage. These Westerners will be covered at part of their respective tulku lineages. To split the article is to take the Western tulkus out of the context of their lineages.

The second reason not to split the article is that Western tulkus are not like Plastic shamans. Western tulkus are made by high Tibetan lamas. While there is criticism about these Western tulkus, the Westerners are not at fault. The fault is in the system itself and the criticism, at least from the Tibetan side, is not about the shortcomings of the Western tulkus, but rather accrues to the high lamas who made them. Splitting the article seems to be an attempt to isolate these lamas from any criticism of their actions by making the article solely about the perceived faults of the Westerners themselves, out of context of the system and individual decisions of lamas to recognize them.

Western lamas and their faults simply reflect the faults of the system and the lamas who made them. This is best presented in a unified article. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What here is actually relevant to a merge discussion? WP:RSs reflect a distinction between Western tulku and Tibetan tulku and the former article is long enough on its own. It doesn't matter how you feel about Western tulku or whether they or their masters are at fault. We aren't in the business of reflecting how Western tulku are innocent, we're in the business of building an encyclopedia.

Also, you can unilaterally close a merge discussion if a significant amount of time has passed and there has been no discussion, i.e. if the nominator (i.e. you) has abandoned the merge proposal and instead nominated the article for deletion. That might be different now since you've finally opened the discussion, but throwing a bunch of tags on a page you don't like (and then failing to defend them) is just disruptive editing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 16:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant amount of time is generally taken as 30 days, like any RfC. Skyerise (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy specifically states it is usually seven days, not 30 days. In any case clearly abandoning the merge proposal to pursue an AfD proposal instead is good reason to unilaterally close the former. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 18:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large swathes of the page are being unilaterally merged (without consensus or discussion, with opposition to beat a dead horse) from Western tulku. In particular the Tulku#Criticism and analysis section is being duplicated with irrelevant information on criticism levied against individual Tibetan tulku, not criticism levied against the entire tulku system. This is, quite obviously, intended to give false balance as the author in question has made quite a stink about how Western lamas and their faults simply reflect the faults of [...] the lamas who made them which one can see on the above comment and the AfD proposal on Western tulku.

This should either be replaced by criticism of the tulku system in general, or placed in (a) different section(s)...although the particular personal controversy surrounding individual tulku lineage holders is not really relevant to the tulku system as a whole. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The validity of individual tulku recognitions have been questioned since at least the 4th Dalai Lama. These questionings have always been the result of unexpected behavior, regardless as to whether the tulku was of Tibetan or other descent. These objections to individual tulkus have always included or led to criticism as to whether the system actually works. The lamas who recognized the tulkus are also criticized for these situations. Perhaps read more widely? Skyerise (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't the prose reflect that? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the sources? Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant to how they're being displayed and used on the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't notice that I explicitly pointed to where they are used as examples in a lengthy discussion of problems with the tulku system at Open Buddhism?Skyerise (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a single sentence followed by several unrelated claims. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article is specifically about failures of the tulku system and gives several well-known examples. These examples are no different than the criticism of Seagal's behavior. They are not "unrelated", the relation that these acts were committed by recognized tulkus is the very theme of the article. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't that reflected in the article? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is explicitly mentioned. Perhaps you should read it again, more slowly? Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tulku system has been criticized since its inception. Criticism has also been directed against individual tulkus, including both Tibetan and Western tulkus says nothing about how individual criticism reflects the failure of the tulku system, just that individual tulkus (even the Tibetan ones, guys!) have been criticized. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're only reading the first paragraph. Stop wasting my time. Skyerise (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add the Zhabdrung Rinpoches, as they are mentioned in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]