Talk:Western tulku

Merges and forks

The prose (which I originally wrote for Western tulku) is important to the page because it highlights things essential to understanding the phenomenon at hand. That is, the basis in Buddhist philosophy, the root in Tibetan kingship, and the markedly political function of the tulku system.

Perhaps more importantly, the prose written by Skyerise (talk · contribs) is not an improvement. In particular, this passage

While the recognition of tulkus began within Tibetan cultural regions, it eventually extended to include foreign tulkus, contributing to diplomatic relationships, as exemplified by the recognition of the 4th Dalai Lama from the Mongol Altan Khan's lineage.

is pure WP:EDITORIALIZING (complete with "while.") What originally described the primary political function of Altan Khan's recognition that allowed Tibet to build a closer relationship with the Mongol Yuan Dynasty now serves to imply the universality and culturally inert nature of the tulku system -- something not in the original sources.

There are indeed massive portions of prose shared between Western tulku and Tulku, but this is due to an attempted unilateral merge against consensus. If any revision is needed, the WP:UNDUE weight given to Western tulkus on the latter page should be excised. Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a main article, Tulku. Any presentation of material not specific to Western tulku should be a summary of that article, not a duplication of it. Summary style is what we use in a subarticle for material presented in the main article. The tulku article is about the lineages, not the current lineage holder. There are two significant historical lineages that just happen to have Westerners as their current lineage holders. They should not be excised or separated from the coverage of the lineages which they hold. Only Segal is different: the lineage he holds is not significant in the Tibetan scheme of things. The two others are significant lineages, and I told you they should be represented in the main article before you started this misguided fork.

If you don't like my summary, write your own: but what I wrote was about the right length. You should refrain from edit warring. If you continue to revert rather than compromise, I will start an RfC on the question. Skyerise (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You can start an RfC on the question if you so please. Most of this comment is irrelevant -- there is no duplication of the Tulku article except what you merged without consensus. Tryin to make a change :-/ 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to have a consensus to duplicate material in a more relevant article. You gave permission for that when you contributed it. Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged the section for other editors to address. Maintenance tags may not be removed unless the issue is resolved or there is a consensus to remove the tag. You may not arbitrarily remove it until one of these two conditions is fulfilled. Skyerise (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Question reliabilty of source

If Reginald Ray really mispells Shakyamuni, then I'd suggest he is not a source we should be quoting. Skyerise (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

He's using a different romanization. Reginald Ray was a founding member of Naropa University. He's reliable. Tryin to make a change :-/ 22:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

But he's a Westerner and an insider. Skyerise (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section on background summarized

There is a main article at Tulku. Shouldn't the general material at Western tulku § Background be reduced to a summary? Skyerise (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is this still going on? Oh right, it's Wikipedia, of course it is.  Note: This dispute is between two editors, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (who for some reason has a completely different displayed username) and Skyerise. The dispute started when this article was split from Tulku in October last year; Skyerise nominated it for deletion on POV grounds, but the article was kept at an AfD which I participated in. Since then, the dispute appears to have sizzled, and erupted today with this ANI thread started by MCRIRE and this RfC started by Skyerise. In both cases, the involved users appear to have jumped straight to the highest form of input, neglecting WP:3O, WP:DRN, or any other form of resolution.
• This particular dispute appears to be not the general vagueness of the uninformative and non-neutral RfC statement, but instead a simple question: "Which diff do you prefer: [1] or [2]?" The answer to that, for me, is the former, which is more concise and non-technical. Or as these two will take it in their totally not-battle: one point to Skyerise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  (The 'different username' is a reference to an old meme about SMS signatures -- kept getting complaints about my unwildly signature and decided that I might as well make it worse.) Tryin to make a change :-/ 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Summary. I agree with AirshipJungleman29, the shorter version[3] is better for purposes of providing background, with a link to the Tulku article. That's not to say it's perfect as written; @Wound theology I would suggest more specific edits if there are errors or an editorial tone, e.g. the sentence you mention above could be replaced with this sentence from your preferred version: "Foreign tulkus have been identified since at least the sixteenth century, when the grandson of the Mongol Altan Khan was recognized as the 4th Dalai Lama." The point is to keep the background to the minimum necessary to support the topic of this page.

Carleas (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Numbering has gotten a little confused here, but I vote for the shorter one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)