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.
Given the significant expansion of the article since the above, I am now less certain that merging is appropriate. I would however suggest that POV issues remain, and also that any article on Western tulku's needs to make clear that this is not the sole cause of controversy regarding tulku lineages. It might possibly be better to have a subtopic article on tulku lineage controversies generally, though that isn't without its POV problems too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the process of creating the page. Whether or not it should be merged cannot be surmised as I am currently, actively creating the page.
It is not a POV fork as the entire page is (as it stands) original, and there was no debate on the tulku page which I forked this off from.
As I explained already to User:Skyerise once, I am a Shingon Buddhist and have no problem with Western tulkus. I am working from reliable sources which can, and clearly do, contain criticism from some Western academics (which I do not necessarily agree with.)
This AfD request is the result of a threat by the nominator, after he "suggested" I merged the (unfinished, work-in-progess) page into Tulku, he said that if I did not merge it, he would tag it as an AfD. He has taken it in his own hands and has now created a copy of the (unfinished!) page there.
What guidelines does it violate? How is it misguided? You don't even know what the page will look like. I'm literally in the process of creating the page and filling out sections. Holy shit. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it really seems like something in the page has struck a chord and you're trying to censor it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever)11:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think you would do better to work on improving the section in the main Tulku article. It provides all the broader context that a separate article lacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section did not previously exist (it was created when the nominator decided to boldly merge the unfinished page) and based on the sources I have, it may double the size of the page (or dwarf the rest of the page) and I do not want the more general tulku page to be dominated by discussions of non-Tibetan tulkus. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever)12:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are estimated to be as many as 500 Tibetan tulku lineages. Only 1 of these is detailed in the history section. If the history were properly written, there is no way the 3 Western tulkus you've identified would dominate the article. The fact that that history is missing is no reason to fork the article. Skyerise (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why should I care? I'm not editing the tulku page. I'm not forking anything because what I'm writing is entirely original. I'm not interested in re-writing the tulku page (yet). Merging the pages would immediately dominate the tulku page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever)04:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about listing here a few of the major sources you intend to cite, to give an indication that this subtopic merits the depth of coverage you propose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the Bibliography section on the page, you'll find some of my sources -- I usually add them before I start working so I don't forget them and I have them "on hand" instead of having to go and add new sources in between editing stints. Again, none of those were on the original Tulku page, they are only there because of someone's unilateral decision to merge the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever)12:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that Skyerise has been merging the pages as I work on Western tulku; and incorporating the prose I write on the more general tulku page. Normally this would be fine as there should be a section on Western tulku, but since Skyerise has been calling for a merge or deletion and claiming the Western tulku page is a POV fork and an attack page, I thought I should point this out: there was no section or coverage on Western tulku when I began writing the page. It is incredibly deceptive as someone who isn't diligent in looking at page histories won't be aware that I didn't fork the page and that the prose is original to Western tulku.
Notably, there is no mention of social analysis or criticism of Western tulku holders, which is prominent in the sources listed on both pages. This seems to be in line with Skyereise's version of neutrality: a NPOV is when you include positive material about Western tulkus along with listing Western tulkus who have NOT been criticized, as they told me to do on my talk page.
In fact, this entire debacle was prompted by Skyerise considering an embryonic version of the page to be offensive because of its inclusion of critical analysis of the Western tulku phenomena (despite this analysis being well-sourced and properly attributed.) That the unilaterally-merged version of the page at Tulku#Western tulku contains no mention of the social or political ramifications of Westerners being recognized as tulku should be telling.
There is some of this now; but the tulku page is fast being drowned out by discussion of Western tulku, which is exactly what I did not want to do and hence why I intended it as a separate page. Anyway, I stand by the claim that the clandestine merge is willfully deceptive. The claim is that I forked Western tulku out of Tulku as an attack page, and to substantiate this, Skyerise has been merging the pages without following WP:MERGEPROP (which is contradictory to the AfD proposal since clearly he thinks the page has useful content.) The AfD, anyway, is the result of a threat that if I did not merge the page as per his suggestion, he would mark it for deletion. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but this has been incredibly frustrating to try and create a page in good faith and be disrupted by redundant drive-by tagging, clandestine merges, AfD threats, among other things.
Comment: 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 historical 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]
They aren't an integral part of the tulku system. They're a marginal part of it and there are only a handful of Western tulku while there are literally hundreds of Tibetan tulku. Western tulku, on the other hand, have generated a disproportionate amount of (English-language) literature regarding the globalization of Tibet Buddhism, which threatens to overtake the original tulku article as the Western tulku article is now over half the length of the older one...although it's now hard to gage since someone has been copying prose and references. That is why I created a separate article instead of adding to the older one.
Anyway, none of your other points are relevant, especially not to a deletion discussion. At best your argument is for merging, which you've already attempted (and your clandestine merge I still find to be incredibly deceptive.) You abandoned the merge proposal when you opened this AfD, following through on a threat after I declined to merge the article I was working on because you were offended. You keep referring to splitting the article and how this has something to do with "criticizing Western tulku", as if I've forked an article out to dunk on them -- which I haven't -- everything is entirely original and reflects the sources I have on hand. I'm sorry the sources offend you but that's what they say. A significant amount of the literature published is critical and I've done my best to attribute those opinions to their respective authors. If you don't like that, go publish your own research responding to them. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever)16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, and has received its own coverage independent of the main tulku tradition. If it were merged most of it would probably be WP:UNDUE there. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not independent. All coverage describes the tulku system and also involves the Tibetan lamas who created the Western tulkus. The Western tulkus themselves are the current lineage holders of the Tibetan traditions which they hold. They are not distinguished as inferior within Tibetan Buddhism itself. They are not only Tibetan Buddhists, they are recognized functionaries of the religion, members of specific schools, and typically have been students and practitioners within the system for decades before being recognized (unless recognized shortly after birth). Article singles out and attacks "white people". Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage is independent; indeed rather more so than most coverage of Tibetan religious subjects in English, which tends to be "in universe". The rest of your points don't bear on this Afd. This article has obviously got under your skin, for reasons I don't really understand. Your behaviour around this article has been disgraceful, and I'd strongly advise you to show some restraint. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have struck some of my earlier comments here and I am going to refrain from discussing this outside of this page (since it has flowered out into numerous other pages) but I would like to make a sort of master-comment. I no longer want this page draftified because I fear that when I do finish the page, most of what I have written will have been merged into the older Tulku page. First, in regards to particular arguments:
"We should not split articles by ethnicity." There is no policy on this and indeed for certain topics splitting by "ethnicity" is necessary for a topic such as this one...where a religious, feudal concept is transposed on to the modern west.
"This is a non-notable topic." This is not original research and there are a number of studies dealing with this phenomena, in particular:
Trzebuniak, Jacek (2014). "Analysis of Development of the Tibetan Tulku System in Western Culture". Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture. 2 (10): 115–130.
Usarski, Frank (2005-12-31). "(Re)Making Tradition in an International Tibetan Buddhist Movement: A Lesson from Lama Gangchen and Lama Michel". Historicizing "Tradition" in the Study of Religion. DE GRUYTER. pp. 345–356. doi:10.1515/9783110901405.345. ISBN978-3-11-018875-2.
Bhushan, Nalini; Garfield, Jay L.; Zablocki, Abraham (2009). TransBuddhism. Amherst: Collaborations (Paperback). ISBN978-1-55849-708-5.
In other words, there is plenty of reason to treat Western tulku separately. Further, per @Johnbod: merging the pages would give WP:UNDUE weight to Western tulku.
"This is a POV fork." Every criticism of Western tulku given here is properly attributed in accordance with WP:BLP. There is no evidence that the page is non-neutral past irrelevant musing on the relationship between Western tulku and their masters.
Next, I want to point out that this entire AfD proposal is in bad faith. Since the beginning, User:Skyerise has engaged in disruptive editing, including:
Purposefully creating edit conflicts, as they did not want to "let [me] finish" a completely misguided page per their own words;[4]
Censorship, removing mentions of race where it is present in the original source; and [5]
Merging against policy (i.e., without consensus), which is especially deceptive since they have been falsely claiming it is a fork which was split off the older Tulku page.[6]
I think that it is important to note that according to their user page, Skyerise is a western Tibetan Buddhist. This isn't exactly a conflict of interest but it seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of attempted censorship and POV-pushing based on Skyerise's personal offense taken at the criticism academics have levied against certain Western tulku or the concept of "tulku envy".
^As per WP:HARASS, threats to disrupt one's editing are against policy. As per WP:ATD, merges are alternatives to deletion, threatening to propose a page for deletion for not following one's suggestion to merge the pages is incredibly disruptive. On my talk page: I suggest you merge this material to Tulku. If not, I will Afd the article as not a notable subtopic, a POV fork, and an attack page. On the talk page for Western tulku: Honestly I should speedy it as an attack page.
^On my talk page, I asked them to [p]lease assume good faith. For what it is worth, I am a Shingon Buddhist and I do not have anything against Western tulkus. They have continually claimed that I am singling out white people, including here, well after this.
^Skyerise contacted User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Scyrme asking that they participate in the deletion discussion. In Skyerise's defense, they justified this as getting more eyes on the dispute. They did, immediately after contacting these users, warned me that I would be getting feedback about [splitting pages by ethnicity] from other editors soon enoughhere, which is ominous, to say the least.
^Skyerise understands and respects the ((WIP)) template when they are using it (see their comment here), but ignore it on pages they apparently don't like, here and here and here and here and other places too.
^They removed the word "white" from a sentence where it was necessary to disambiguate white Western tulkus from Western tulkus of Asian (e.g. Tibetan, Mongol) heritage. Here, they removed the word "Caucasian" because it sounded racist to them, which rendered something factually incorrect and contrary to the source in question: the first Western tulku were of Tibetan or partial Tibetan descent. They also removed a link to cultural appropriationhere, their rationale was that tibetans encourage, not discourage, adoption of their beliefs; western tulkus do not make themselves: they are made by Tibetans which is irrelevant (even if it is true) given that the academic sources mention cultural appropration by name.
^For example, here and here. They've literally been watching me develop the Western tulku page and merging whatever they can.
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.