Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

fled in 1959

"although he has rejected the subsequent Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, he did in fact work with the Chinese government until 1959. The Dalai Lama fled to Dharamsala, India, on March 17 of that year, entering India on March 31 during the Tibetan uprising."

Feel confused here. Could anyone give more details about why he suddenly changed his mind and fled to India. This should be the most important turning point of his life. --Took 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tibet is not like Kuwait...

Removed the following from the last quote on the list: "Nice try. HHTDL never, ever said that. Find me a source. Lying is suffering. Misquoting like this is a sign of poignant politicalism, and immaturity. Never trust wikipedia." If there is a problem with that quote bring it up here. --Black Butterfly 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

We appear to have several redrafts concerning this, clearly a viable compromise would be welcome. Essentially, this is in a section called "criticism", so I consider it appropriate to indicate the view that slavery existed is held by critics of the Dali Lama. 80.189.241.208 21:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

IT Problem

My recent edits appear to have caused some form of IT problem that has removed the references. This could be related to Bug5643, which causes the page not to fully load. Unfortunately, even when I revert myself, the information is not recovered. Also manual cut and pasting doesn't work either. Sorry to have caused this problem and if someone would help by restoring the references, that would be really appreciated. Regardless, considering other pages are not affected, I will take a break from editting this article. 80.189.225.114 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Webdinger, thanks for reinstating the references. 80.189.70.40 10:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed Message

The article claimed: There is also criticism of the mixed message he sends. On one side, he frequently makes comments about the Chinese that provoke outrage or strong emotions against them, but at the same time asking people to have compassion for the Chinese.

The claim employs weasel words without stating its sources. Further, it is insinuated that the Dalai Lama entices 'strong emotions' against the Chinese as such, and there is no support for this.

So, if Tenzin Gyatso is criticized for provoking strong emotions against the Communist Chinese Government, then it should be stated as such and sources should be given. -- Zz 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty accurate. He constantly tells people how outrageous the Chinese were and have acted towards the Tibetan people and qualifies it saying that people should have compassion for them. Sounds like a mixed message. In theory, it's directed at Communists only, but in truth, a lot of it bleeds into the people. If you can't figure that out, you probably need more experience with human nature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.99.163 (talk • contribs) .

If he were accurate, then he would be telling people how badly Tibetans treated Tibetans. Let's face it, he was not being very truthful was he?

No, if his message were "no one ever does anything wrong", then that would be simply disassociative. The argument, "that was the wrong the wrong thing to do, but you should still have compassion for everyone" is not contradictory and certainly doesn't necessarily imply any other meaning.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He constantly tells people how outrageous the Chinese were... Does he do that? The Chinese? All of them? Throughout history? Again you are presupposing what you had to show.

I guess you see the difference between someone reporting atrocities committed on his people and blaming all Chinese as such. -- Zz 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you keep talking about atrocities and you are as beloved as the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans are in the West, then the people you talk about are going to wind up looking bad. Is the DL, whose message is that of compassion and love for everyone, actually increasing positive feeling toward the Chinese when he does so? Did people only dislike the Nazis during and after WWII? Remember the situation in the 90's with the former Yugoslavia? When they kept talking about the bad that the Serbs were doing, did people only associate it with the Serbs who were committing the atrocities? In theory, yes, people didn't go around saying, we hate all Serbs! ... Yet, here in NA, I knew Serbians who went around telling people they were some other ethnic group. And they were not the only Serbs to do so. Now, why would that be, if what you say is true? Can you explain?

So, why bring up atrocities that happened decades ago, when the situation now is radically different from what it was then (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, communization)? Well, because the DL needs to get people morally outraged to sell his cause. He, quite rightly, knows that there are hundreds of millions (probably over a billion or more) today who are much worse off than Tibetans, whether due to famine, AIDS, disease, civil war, war, poverty, etc. Can the Dalits in India make a better case for being worse off on average? Very likely. Can the Kashmiri? Palestinians?

If the atrocities were continuing, then he'd be quite right to keep bringing them up to get them stopped. But they stopped decades ago. The DL knows he needs to get people emotionally involved for his cause to get attention, else why should people bother with the Tibetan cause at all when others are far worthier? Are you at least willing to acknowledge that as being true? But I will mention that he has toned down the criticism in the past few years for the sake of rapprochement.

One must also at least acknowledge that when you talk about bad things done by some group, negative feelings accrue toward the members of that group generally. I'm not saying that all people will think negatively about everyone in that group all the time. Nor am I even saying that the DL's goal is to blacken their name. However, doing so does cause some people to think more negatively of the group. The more well liked the aggrieved group is, generally, the stronger the emotion evoked against the aggriever. Let's not forget the Tibetan cause is the 'baby seal' of the human rights movement.

So, you prefer to rant instead of backing up the claim that the Dalai Lama criticized the Chinese as such, much less that he did it in a way that lacked compassion.

As for the rest, not that it really matters, it looks as if you are resurrecting a method to punish the messenger for the message. -- Zz 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

zickzack - you should get better critical thinking skills and insight into human nature. I thought I put out a very intelligent argument, which you prefer to call a rant. I guess your idea of an argument is to nitpick individual words, i.e. "He constantly tells people how outrageous the Chinese were... Does he do that? The Chinese? All of them? Throughout history?"

I thought I made it very clear that if you frequently bring up atrocities that some group has committed and evoke strong emotions within your audience, then by extension, the audience will have more negative feelings toward that group. Granted, Tibetan Buddhism's message of compassion mollifies the negative feelings somewhat, if the listener accepts it. I'll even admit that the truer followers of TB are much less likely to have these negative emotions, but not everyone he preaches to is. Another bit of insight into human nature that I'll give you is that the more helpless you make the aggrieved group appear (i.e. 'Tibetans are pacifists and don't believe in hate or violence'), the stronger the protective emotions you evoke. That is, the more likable and helpless the aggrieved appears (e.g. baby seals), more likely, the stronger the emotion evoked.

If the DL truly wants people to have compassion for the Chinese, he shouldn't have been frequently bringing up atrocities that happened decades ago. But which I'll also admit he's toned down in the past few years. I mean, if as you believe, there was little to no negative impact on the Chinese by his doing so, then why bother qualifying it with 'but we must have compassion for the Chinese and feel no hatred towards them'? You have yet to answer any of the points or questions I've brought up.

As for how compassionately people have reacted to the Tibetan movement, you might, as I have, spend some time going through message boards of the people involved. And not the major ones which vet their messages or only like to portray a 'pristine' image of the cause, but ones (like phayul) where you can read real opinions. The truth is that no cause (other than the Holocaust) gets as much attention, compared to its seriousness, in the West. [And no, I'm not saying the Holocaust is overplayed. I think Jews have a much more legitimate cause for grievance.]

You might also note that the DL will almost never criticize the bad/atrocious that India, the U.S. or Israel does, despite the fact that he has large followings in those places (where his message would do some good). At best, he'll make some general comments about not hating the other group.

Actually, you gave more insight into your personal sensitivities than hard facts or an argument.

As for the complaint of the use of the Chinese - it was not presented to you for the first time. The words the Chinese are highly misleading, and language matters, especially so in an encyclopedia.

Finally, I do not have a statistic who is criticized by Tenzin Gyatso for what. I assume, however, that there is a reflection of him being a representantative of the Tibetan people in the things he criticizes. Hardly a surprise. -- Zz 18:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed bit

I took this out of the criticism section:

However, some researchers believe there was a strong connection between Dalai Lama's 1959 fleeing Tibet and the then PRC Central Government's determination to eventually abandon serfdom in Tibet [1], which contradicts his claims.

For one thing, the meaning of this is quite vague. What is "a strong connection" between the flight and the PRC's plans to move toward political serfdom instead of feudal serfdom? Does this mean that escaping a country without feudal serfs was his motivation for leaving the country, or does it mean something else? More importantly, as far as I can tell, the link provided doesn't say anything about this at all.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this statement (seems like someone turned it back) and added in "marxist historian" in order to clarify who exactly this guy is. the link provided seemed alittle half-assed, also...any thoughts? 68.122.5.232 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I did some copy editing before removing "strong" and "determination", neither of which are supported by references. Addhoc 12:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing aspects

I find several interesting aspects missing:

Early enthronization

I heard that the usual age of enthronization for Dalais is 18. In his case, it was rushed to 15 because of fear of China.

German teacher

What about that German from Seven Years in Tibet?

Signs of modernization

When and where did he learn English?

Was his the first car in Tibet?

Involvement in PRC

I have seen Chinese footage of Dalai and Panchen flying to Beijing as representatives of Tibet in some kind of all-China congress. A picture of the Dalai Lama meeting Mao or exchanging shawls with CPC authorities would be very interesting.

War is outdated.

He is in the news again. [2]. 74.137.230.39 18:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

The following google books link advises TG was born in eastern Admo...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0313322074&id=wLzA8YKI-coC&pg=RA3-PA2&lpg=RA3-PR17&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&sig=x2w79g1HHP71Jqn_bxhxNTSDeHk

That said, I'm not sure we have to mention this twice in the same sentence... Addhoc 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute about the fact that DL14 was born in Amdo. The question is whether his family were ethnic Monguors or not. The passage you cite implies that they were Tibetans (they have Tibetan names, for one thing); maybe they were Monguors assimilated to Tibetan culture. But, in that setting, I'm not sure what it even means to say that someone "is a Monguor" if they don't follow some kind of distinct social norms. Anyway, we certainly don't have any evidence at this point to show that they were anything other than normal Amdowa Tibetans.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob

Someone has edited the article, replacing Tenzin Gyatso with 'Bob' or 'bob'. Their IP address has been reported for vandalism severy times before. Please revert the article to the previous version. BryanJones 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, and user warned. Fvasconcellos 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of Recognition

How old was he when he was recognized as the Dalai Lama? In this article it says 5, but on the Dalai Lama's official website, it says he was two! Which is correct? --Tech Nerd 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Two years old - thanks for raising this. Addhoc 17:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Age at final exam

In the "Early Life" section it is stated: "At age twenty-five, he sat for his final examination in Lhasa's Jokhang Temple during the annual Monlam (prayer) Festival in 1959." However, DOB is listed as 6 July 1935, which means he could not be older than twenty-four. I notice that the biography page at tibet.com also incorporates this inconsistency. Mwettore 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama afraid of losing his position if Chinese took Tibetan land?

He opposed the Communist Party, as for the fact that if they took control of the land, he would lose the position as Dalai Lama.

I think that this needs a reference. It is a strong statement that the Dalai Lama was afraid of losing his power if the Chinese overtook Tibet. I think that this needs to be referenced, or deleted.--Sufipoett 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the paragraph to a more coherent version - thanks for raising this...Addhoc 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think that if the article is going to reference an internal motivation of his, it has to be backed by a credible citation. --Sufipoett 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama to visit Australia

Has there been any information about this? I read that he was coming in June-July. Does anyone know anything about this? Yuanchosaan 08:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He did a thing in Melbourne today, and I was there to see it. He was awarded with a couple of things, but I don't remember what they were called. >_< They were to do with Southern Cross University. Norar 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

The article currently has several citation needed tags, please add sources along with any other statements that you think may be questioned. Also consider looking through the article and checking all of the links to see if they disambiguate properly and there are wikilinks for words that the average reader may not know if they had no prior knowledge about the subject. --Nehrams2020 06:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama and the Price of Otter Skins

The Dalai Lama speaks out against the use of furs from endangered animals, and the price of Otter pelts drops by over one half in North America.

The problem between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government still exists and therefore Otter skins are not selling. People are reporting that it is not a matter of price, but that the Tibetans, who are the major consumers of these skins, are not willing to buy. NAFA will therefore have to re-establish new markets for these skins, a process which normally tends to take two years.

We would recommend that all of our trappers limit their Otter harvest, as prices most likely will be reduced over last year’s prices by more than half and maybe as much as two-thirds. [3].

It's kinda random, but it is an objective measure of the Dalai Lama's continued influence in Tibet. Toiyabe 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

John Marotte is the Buddha???

Will remove this from the Dalai Lama page as i believe it to be vandalism and even if John Marotte is the Buddha he should talk about it on his own page (which is non-existent!)  :) Mytchill 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

I don't get why Dalai Lama was given a Nobel Peace Prize. Is that because he did not lauch terrorist attack against China? LOL...So Osamar Bin Laden must deserve one if he did not organize 911...which makes that Prize sounds like a Nobel Prize for Politics.

Yes. Thanks for that. We often add new entries at the end. Addhoc 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its because he promotes peace?? Do you deserve it instead?? from your argument it sounds like you support terrorism!! and there should be a prize for people who support terror... people like yourself Mytchill 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

hononary doc

The Dalai Lama has recently been given an honorary doc. Do we need one for each of these, since I assume famous dignatories whould seem to get many of these. I do not think they should be listed, because I suspect if we listed all, we will end up with maybe 50+ etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What is his primary nationality

Tibetan nationality ceased at least in the 1950s. He therefore has Chinese citizenship, although he hasn't chosen to exercise it by returning to the Tibet region. He was accepted into India and given permanent residence there. Does he hold Indian nationality by now? He also has been bestowed Canadian citizenship and Ukranian citizenship more recently. So we should refer to him as a 'Chinese Monk' or 'Tibet-born Chinese-Indian-Ukranian-Canadian' Marxist-Buddhist philosopher and spiritual leader.InconvenientFacts 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because a country is colonised by another does not mean the colonised give up their original "nationality". I grew up in Trinidad, W.I. when Trinidad & Tobago were still British colonies. I don't remember any Trinidadians ever referring to themselves as "British" or "English." Nor did members of other British colonies.

H.H. the Dalai Lama is of Tibetan descent, grew up in a community steeped in Tibetan values and culture, speaks Tibetan as his first language, identifies himself as a Tibetan, and is still seen as the rightful leader of the Tibetan people by most ethnic Tibetans to this day. By any standard his "nationality" must be Tibetan - no matter how many other honours have been bestowed upon him. John Hill 11:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I might just add (in answer to the shadowy and suspect person hiding behind the name "InconvenientFacts" - who doesn't even have a User Page) that although many Scots and Welsh people are happy to be part of the "United Kingdom" you would be hard put to find any who did not consider themselves Scots or Welsh and none who would ever call themselves English. So why would you expect Tibetans to call themselves Chinese or any other nationality? John Hill 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John Hill: Because you are confusing Chinese with Han. If you equate the Hans with the English, and the Tibetans with the Welsh, then Chinese is the British. Both the English and the Welsh are British, in the same way that both the Hans and Tibetans are Chinese. You would also be hard put to find the English calling themselves Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.87.36 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2007

Well, the Ugandan Asians are British even though they were born in Uganda, are genetically Indian, and may have never set foot in Britain or India before Idi Amin kicked them out of Uganda. When Idi Amin did kick them out of the country, they came to Britain with British passports for the reason that India was once part of the British Empire. Dalai Lama may be Tibetan, but if he chooses not to be Chinese, then he cannot come into Tibet without the necessay visas, in the same way that the Ugandan Asians chose to be British and not Indians. If dl takes up Indian citizenship, then he is an Indian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.87.36 (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2007

This is a flawed way of reasoning since in most countries at least, citizenship and nationality are distinct. Hence, someone who's welsh is not necessarely also British by nationality (even, usually isnt), as a Tibetan is not necessarely Chinese by nationality. So one can be a citizen of, say, Britain, and not be british by nationality; indeed this is often the case, even for ppl who are, say, Welsh. See the article on this: Briton : Historically, British was expounded as a meta-identity for all of the residents of Britain, the number of people in Great Britain identifying themselves as British, as opposed to their national identity, has been declining. For example, it fell in England from 63% in 1991-2 to 48% in 2003, in Scotland from 31% in 1974 to 20% in 2003, and in Wales from 34% in 1978-9 to 27% in 2003. As have those describing themselves as equally British and their national identity. ....Whether someone refers to their nationality as English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, it does not necessarily mean that they do not also consider themselves British.[23] For example, a person may consider himself British or Welsh, or equally British and Welsh, or mostly one or the other. However, even when given the widest common choice of options, some people still prefer to identify themselves as exclusively English (17%), Scottish (31%), Welsh (21%),[23] or Northern Irish (21%),[30] referring to aspects of their own culture and history which distinguish the nations of the United Kingdom from each other.[31]

So, your own example with Britain seems to counter your point. Usually, national identity, if not fully determined by other criteria like birth, descent, culture, language.. is a matter of what one consideres himself/herself to be, so the easiest way to resolve this is by wikipedia policy on sources,; if there are instances where the Dalai Lama says he considers himself/herself to be Chinese, then he is chinese by nationality, at least along with being tibetan. If he says he is primarely, mostly or only chinese and not tibetan in the sense of nationality, then that should be stated for his primary nationality. --83.131.153.198 01:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been struggling to find "meta-identity" in my unabridged dictionary. If it gives me a meta-hernia, I'm going to complain to the editorial staff. Unfree 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the PRC, Tibetan is a nationality, and Han is a nationality. The PRC does not deny or suppress anyone's nationality. They are still all Chinese. 81.155.96.175 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. In the PRC, Tibetan and Han are ethnicities, not nationalities. Both groups are 'Chinese' citizens, but not the same in terms of ethnicity. Intranetusa (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)