Talk:Rimé movement

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

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Central Asia

	Asia portal Rimé movement is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Moving Forward

I paired back the Dorje Shugden controversy to a mere mention, since it only vaguely relates to Rime in my opinion and is covered in significant depth on other articles as we all know so well by now. I'd also like to archive all of the discussion on this page into an archive subpage soon so I don't have to keep looking at the personal attacks. But if someone thinks that the discussion is still going we should wait and archive later. What say you? - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have provided many unbiased sources to show that the Rime approach is eclectic. I was waiting for Thegone to provide citations to show otherwise. He agreed to my compromise before, which I will hold him to, unless other users have opinions. To summarize, I don't believe that the Rime movement itself is eclectic (and in that sense I agree with Thegone that Rime is not an eclectic school); but from the sources I quoted above, I understand that the Rime movement promotes an eclectic approach in the student, in terms of study and practice. Emptymountains (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Thegone has been banned indefinitely, so I recommend going ahead and archiving this talk page. I'm going to implement the compromise that he agreed to, which I mentioned just above, but I am willing to discuss it further if others disagree. Is the rest of the article okay with everybody? Do we want to revert it back to an earlier date? 205.145.17.20 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, and I want to thank Owlmonkey in particular for trying to find a middle way. --Dspak08 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Discussion archived. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some personal povs or one-sided claims in the article I remove now. The intro is in contradiction to later passages and the explanation of RT. --Kt66 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Dorje Shugden controversy on Rimé page

If we check the the activities on this page over the last month or so, it is clear that it is better to keep the referencing of the Dorje Shugden controversy to a minimum. Otherwise, this page becomes simply a reproduction of an already existing article, as both sides seek to put in their POV. So for balance, we just mention that these are related issues and we send people over to the DS controversy article. This was an agreement reached by the editors of this page after some very ugly back and forth. Therefore, I kindly request those seeking to put their views on the DS controversy into this page to consult the archive of the talk pages. This is already an explosive issue, but to rediscuss it on every page where there is something even remotely related can quickly make things quite messy. So my understanding of the agreement is in this space we agree not to go into it other than refer people to the main article on the controversy. Do we all agree? --Dspak08 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep it just to a mention. My reasoning is primarily that it's not really a rimé issue. It's worth a mention because it purportedly concerns orthodoxy, but as the Dorje Shugden controversy article shows, it's much more complex than just an argument about sectarianism. Further, the rimé movement itself is not entirely idealistic in its origin, so to even paint it as an idealistic anti-sectarian view is not entirely right either. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information provided from David N. Kay is not reliable, is most likely fabricated. Losangvirupa (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link and removed a passage from this talk page

I added a link to the Rime article to Ringu Tulk’s main centre. Then I deleted a section here that was inserted anonymously and is part of a campaign of New Kadampa Tradition people to denounce me and my work. There was nothing substantial in it and it was posted without being signed or contributing to the discussion. Kt66 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rimé movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]