The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa Tradition[edit]

The NKT article may violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the views and opinions of one author, David Kay, who is extremely critical of the subject. The piece also seems lacking in coherence and may present Kay's opinion as fact. Amerique ^dialectics 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First To be critical does not mean that the information are wrong. He is the only person who studied the 'NKT in great extend. Second, I counted the footnotes about the sources:
  • Kay Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation: 25
  • Official NKT sources: Full moon Magazines, Advertisement, NKT Websites, Centers , Interviews with NKT etc.:22
  • Magazines and Newspapers (Guardian, Mirror, Washington Times, Tricycle usw etc.):7
  • Daniel Cozort The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World :6
  • Waterhouse: 4
  • Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development.:2
  • von Brück, Michael (1999). Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus:1
  • Other sources: 6
• --BoboLuna 09:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For an article with as many sources as New Kadampa Tradition#References, neutrality is a matter of cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. The venue to address neutrality and cleanup is the article's talk page. Keep. Uncle G 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BoboLuna and Uncle G. Ratherhaveaheart 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs cleaning up, not deleting. There are a lot of references to verifiable, credible sources. Kay may dominate, but he's the only one who has written extensively on the NKT. Magic Pickle 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No case whatsoever for deletion and never should have been listed.. Take the issues to the talk page. Many editors have strived to keep NPOV on this controversial topic. Keeping POV in quotations and citing sources is a good way forward, and to keep talking on the Talk pages. I wonder if Amerique thought it might just get deleted while no-one was looking! Billlion 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Having a repairable POV is no basis for deletion. In fact, it is specifically listed as being a counter-criteria. – ClockworkSoul 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems that most of the editors agree that the NPOV is violated in the current article on the NKT. I assume that’s why editors write things like “neutrality is a matter of cleanup”, “the article needs cleaning up”, and “having a repairable POV”. One editor also describes the article as “very hard to read”. So we all agree that the article can not remain as it is. I understand and agree that this is not a valid reason for deleting the article. At least as long as NPOV can be achieved. The reason for deletion is that NPOV cannot be achieved. I think there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the current editors of the article are biased in the way that they have a rather negative view of the NKT. This is particularly obvious in the case of the user kt66 who is very open about his attitude towards and emotional involvement in the NKT on his user page, on his home page, on various internet forums, and in interviews. Even if I assume good faith I firmly believe that it is impossible for these editors not to introduce their biased opinions into the article. I can’t even blame them for it. Let’s take a drastic example. If you ask a group of Jews and a group of Nazis to each write an article about Adolf Hitler you would get two very very different articles even if they used the same sources. It is absolutely impossible to avoid that. None of the two articles would qualify for NPOV. Solution? Let them write the article together. Over the past 16 months various pro-NKT editors tried to improve the NPOV by working together with the anti-NKT editors. Together they have produced about 800 different versions of the article and about 200 A4/letter pages of discussion. And? Here we are, 16 months later. No NPOV yet. The pro-NKT editors came and they left. Only the anti-NKT editors are still hanging in and are in control of the article, frantically trying to improve it. Even if pro-NKT editors started working on the article again, NPOV could not be achieved. The last discussions about the NKT article on the German WP lead to an edit war in which user Kt66 was also involved. The article got blocked from editing. After it was unblocked again Kt66 immediately changed the article around the way he wanted it to be. He even changed things back everyone previously agreed on. All this of course without having discussed his changes on the talk page beforehand. On one hand he invites people to contribute on the other hand he rejects all information coming from the NKT editors as wrong, distorted, decieving, and so forth. At one point the German administrator Peter Jacobi sought advice from Jimmy Wales.

Peter Jacobi wrote: > There are even topics so obscure (New Kadampa Tradition comes > to my mind), that only vocal opponents and vocal proponents > contribute. Should they already be considered "interested > parties"? Shall we hope, that they will battle it out so that the > result is NPOV?

Jimmy Wales wrote: “The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work.

I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me.

What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.”

Unfortunately, there are only opponents and proponents of the NKT who contribute to this article. I think the administrators would be wise to follow Jimmy Wales wisdom and experience and delete this article.

Secondly, it’s impossible to achieve NPOV because there are not sufficient sources available and the few sources that are available are rather negative about the NKT and full of opinions and mistakes. I guess it’s just more fun and a bad habit to look at the faults and not at the good qualities. It also sells better. Many of the sources are quite out of date and hence cannot provide an up do date picture of the NKT. The work of Kay is full of opinions presented as facts. He presents opinions of individuals which are not necessarily the opinion of the majority of NKT members or the NKT itself. The Full Moon Journal was discontinued about 10 years ago, is out of print and circulation. Many of the views expressed in it are not considered official NKT views which was probably the reason why it was discontinued. Some of the British news paper articles were completely over the top. I’ve heard that one of the newspapers later apologized for that. Also user KT66 started producing his own secondary sources by giving interviews and supplying other authors with material (see reference 76). Maybe the NKT should get some of their students to write a thesis about the NKT which can then be used as a veryfiable reputable source on WP. :-) Unfortunately, that wouldn’t help the NPOV either. I think even some completely neutral editors would find it difficult if not impossible to write a neutral article on the NKT using the sources which are available today. The article also contains wrong information and is very difficult to read. These kind of articles are already destroying the reputation of WP. Last month Larry Sanger, also founder of WP, launched an altenative projekt, the Citizendium Project, with the aim to avoid these kind of problems we experience in this article. I wouldn’t expect to find such an article in a “proper” encyclopedia. So, in conclusion I firmly believe that it is impossible to achieve a NPOV. Any adminstrator who wants to keep this article has to prove me wrong by spending the rest of his live working on this article turning around every single sentence, phrase and word. :-) I will check the article again in about 10 years time. :-) For these reason the article should be deleted. Thank you. Marpa 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to add some thoughts which will hopefully make my points clearer. I would love to contribute to this article (which I haven't done yet) but there is a lack of secondary sources that describe the views and opinions of the NKT on many of the subjects mentioned in the article. I can only say "This statement is wrong. It should be like this or that." or "This is not the view of Geshe Kelsang or the NKT. His view is ..." but I only have primary sources for this because secondary sources have not been published yet. The available secondary sources are mainly critical. Some of these sources were a direct response to the demonstrations the NKT followers performed in 1998. I understand that some people were upset by this. I think the reason why all of the pro-NKT editors stopped editing is that they could not support their contributions with secondary sources. What is left is a group of anti-NKT editors who are focussing mainly on one critical thesis and the negative information that was published after the demonstrations. They are searching all the sources for information which they can use to criticise the NKT, which means that even the so called "official NKT sources" (the Full Moon Magazine and many interviews with individuals are not official NKT sources) are not used to balance the article but rather to increase its negative bias. This article is far away from NPOV and more importantly, NPOV cannot be achieved due to the bias of the editors and the lack of secondary sources. Please delete. Marpa 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Marpa - pro NKT have lots of secondary sources - the published works of the NKT themselves! Look at the quote from GKG about respecting others and concentrating on the good qualities - that's in the article currently and reflects very well on NKT and GKG. The fact that most secondary sources are hostile is unfortunate (why is that anyway?) but shouldn't be a bar on using them. 'The New Believers ' is one source which tries hard to be fair to NRMs like the NKT, can we not use more of sources like this?. In my opinion the article is certainly not overly POV ridden, not enough to warrant deletion. Jimmy Wales may not want a battleground of interested parties, but the open nature of WP allows this, until he decides to change it - that's the way it is.

How about this - what if we put a restriction on the size of the article, so that it is not overly full of complicated criticisms or theology? Put it this way, even if this article is deleted, what's to stop me or anyone else starting another? Should we also have no Scientology article? No SGI article? No Roman Catholic article? Surely we know the answer to that. I also would add that the criticism that the article's 'consuming time and energy' is not any sort of argument - editors can choose to contribute or not as the case may be. Magic Pickle 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is consuming the time and energy of many Wikipedia editors and administrator. Since the article has been nominated for deletion it has undergone another (undiscussed) dozens of changes from the main editor. It does not make sense to work for an agreement in the discussion section, knowing that some editors will change the article anyway according to their views when guest editors left the article. Why are there still so many changes each week? Why is the main editor changing his own statements so many times? Because the article is of good quality? Surely not! The fact that there are many sources for this article does not prove that the article is fair and unbiased. If you have a particular presupposition it's not that difficult to find supporting sources: take a look at Talk:Evolution for an excellent example. --Real Friends 13:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I feel that there is a clear conflict of interest here which underpins the NPOV problem - this is easy to establish from a mere cursory reading of kt66's user page (the main editor of this article) in which he sets out quite clearly his agenda and close emotional and personal involvement with the subject matter. I regard the editorial input from kt66 as propaganda and a clear infringement of the What Wikipedia is not guidelines. Many editors have given up on this article in the face of the incessant barrage of negativity focussed on it by kt66 - perhaps blighted by its poisonous effects. What I consider the undue weight given to the views of David Kay, which is part of what I would argue constitutes a breach of NPOV, is I feel evidence of the partisan approach taken by the main editor of this article. I don't think there is any hope of achieving NPOV if a month of waiting produces no constructive discussion regarding the problems on the talk page and kt66 adds more and more, taking the article further and further away from neutral point of view. This article is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia as it is clearly being used as a soapbox for the main editors views, and the sources used are outdated and obscure. I would also stress the fact that this article has been a battleground for far too long, taking up the valuable time of editors that could (in my humble opinion) be far better spent. Last resort it maybe - necessary I believe it is. Excellentone 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes you or other NKT editors free of "a clear conflict of interest here which underpins the NPOV problem"? Nobody knows who you are, maybe you are James Belither...How can I recognize that you not "set out quite clearly your agenda and close emotional and personal involvement with the subject matter"? User:Billion recognized a constructive environment at the talk page and encouraged us to go on with discussion, but no NKT editor used that or picked up his or my suggestions how to go on. I agreed to a mediation although I have no conflict with you whereas you rejected mediation without even to try at the talk page to find a solution. All my trials to invite you to contribute you didn't pick up at all. So what can be done if you block? I can only interprete your way of solution as that you feel hopeless, but this is no reason for deletion - maybe it shows an emotional involvement? - I am half joking. I do not agree to your and user:Marpa's constant trials to assume I would have an emotional involvement, rather I would say I have some knowledge and this can be used. Although I have a clear opinion on the subject matter, I feel able to balance it and I feel able to look from different angles on the subject matter. If I fail in this you are most welcome to correct me. Maybe we start fair communication? Many Regards --Kt66 08:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a layperson, I must say this article is extremely difficult to understand. The text seems to assume significant prior understanding of Buddhism, and the distinctions this article makes between various customs and practices within this tradition vs. others are beyond my understanding to call. While deletion may be an extreme approach to take regarding the NPOV concerns, a sort of "nuclear option," I feel at least the substance of this article may benefit from being broken up into more coherently organized mini-articles, as opposed to one article that tries to address a plethora of interesting particular items that however, to me, don't add up to a clear picture of what NKT is. As far as the POV concern goes, I feel that Marpa and others have presented a compelling case, but the structure of Wikipedia is organized as to favor constant revision through constant discussion, and POV issues within referenced material are normally countered by providing context through other referenced material. David Kay may be biased, but I think the article has begun to do an adequate job of isolating "his comments" as "his comments," as opposed to a presenting him as a non-partisan source. Deletion would give editors the opportunity to begin this article again, but I don't see how you could keep Kay out as a reference or prevent editors with attitudes hostile to NKT from editing any associated articles. There are avowed white supremacists and religious fundamentalists as well as cynics of all sorts with self-identifying userboxes editing articles on WP, NPOV is something we can strive for but obviously not something that can be easily achieved.

That being said, why not try the nuclear option as an experiment to see how this article reconstructs itself? Perhaps deleting contentious articles every now and then instead of keeping the same old ones would freshen things up. There certainly are a lot as deserving of the treatment.--Amerique ^dialectics 02:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! per BoboLuna, Uncle G, Ratherhaveaheart, Magic Pickle, ClockworkSoul and Billlion. If the problem is a possibly undue weight to the views and opinions of one author, David Kay, it can be balanced. As said above Kay is the only one who did extended research on NKT, so he can not be neglected either. Until now nobody picked up the suggestion to use Bluck as a source to balance it or suggested any other source. It seems to me NKT members just prefer to have no article at all and are blocking a solution, but this is no reason to delete it. If you look at the talk page less efforts from the article critics were made to suggest or pick up a constructive solution to improve the article, but this is also no reason to delete it. The suggestions of user:Excellentone, user:Billion at the talk page were put into practice by myself, so nobody can say I blocked the development of the article but can ask oneself why he/she has not contributed. However I prefer a solution by mediation to go on in improving the article instead of deleting it. Maybe we can win Amerique for this enterprise? --Kt66 08:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.