Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

partial cleanup of list of publications

I did a partial cleanup on his list of publications, removing wikilinks to books without articles--please add back the links if the book is notable enough to justify an article--and the article is written. However, the list seems a bit of a jumble--dates should be added, and it then sorted either by date or alphabetically by title. DGG (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

... for a week, due to edit-warring. WP:RFPP request. Guys, try to resolve this on the talk page - you know the drill. When something has been hashed out, just ask or put in a request and it will be lifted again - Alison ^❤ 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved problems with the article

Criticism by religious figures

For me, the main unresolved issue is the question of anti-Chinese bias, as reflected in the deletion of the quotes from Dorje Phagmo on the grounds that two editors claim that she is some sort of Chinese agent, and also the lack of a mention in the lede that the Chinese government considers the DL to be a symbol of an outmoded theocratic system[1]. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed, above. Four people, including yourself, have expressed an opinion. All were in favour of adding a section on the Dorje Phagmo's criticisms. Strettolicious and Marvin Diode stated that if the Dorje Phagmo was notable enough to have a Reuters article covering her views, this was notable enough to be included in the WP article. Nat Krause and John Nevard spoke about the limitations of her notability in an biographical article about the Dalai Lama (i.e., she is a religious figure, not a historian). Nat Krause qualified his support in the following way:

"I do think it would be a good idea to have a brief section on criticism of the Dalai Lama by religious figures in Tibet, which could include a mention of the Samding Dorje Phagmo's criticism."

I agree with this and would further suggest that, in order to prevent any further edit warring, we agree to the wording of the section on this page—such wording would thus be completely defensible as a consensus decision. How about we work out the wording of that section in the few days we have until the article is unprotected? Sunray (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Do we have religious figures other than Samding Dorje Phagmo who have criticized him? --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a Xinhua article in which they quoted several "living Buddhas" (i.e. tulkus) denouncing the Dalai Lama for his role in supporting Gendün Chökyi Nyima as Panchen Lama. Unfortunately, the links to that article seem to be broken now and I can't find another copy of it on Google.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion of PRC view

I object to the exclusion of the views of the PRC. There are many editors who seem to think that it is entirely natural to reflect the anti-Chinese slant of the western press, but this is WP:BIAS. Western press organs have their own axes to grind, whether it be a desire to return Tibet to the colonial status it had as a British "protectorate," of whether they simply want to use Tibet as an excuse to engage in cold war brinksmanship against China. There should either be a mention of the Chinese views in the lede as in this edit, or a paragraph on the subject later in the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is mention of the relations between the PRC and the Dalai Lama in the "Tibetan independance movement" section of the article. It seems to be a fairly balanced approach and it does put the PRC's views:

"The Dalai Lama has on occasion been denounced by the Chinese government as a supporter of Tibetan independence."

There is also a statement on the feudal character of Tibet:

"There has been criticism that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as the Dalai Lama had portrayed."

I think that some additions could be made to this section. As to putting something in the lead, Sure, if we can work out appropriate wording so as not to give undue weight to his opponents. This is, after all, an article about the Dalai Lama. Sunray (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My original edit was one sentence: However, the government of the Peoples Republic of China regards him as the symbol of an outmoded theocratic system. [2] I don't think that would be undue weight. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the lead? That does give it considerable weight. But it is an accurate statement of the PRC's views. Let's see what others think. Sunray (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the main notability of the subject would seem to be his conflict with China, a brief mention of the PRC view should appear in the lede. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. He is notable as the legitimate leader of Tibet. John Nevard (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a useless proclamation of your personal POV. If what you say were true, he or his representative would have a seat at the U.N. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the good old British-fighting United Nations. Didn't see that coming. John Nevard (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tibet couldn't be a member of the UN because China has a veto on new members.
• Wikipedia shouldn't assert that the Chinese government, or any other politicians, actually believe what they say. Peter jackson (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Central Tibetan Administration, "The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country." The opinion held by Mr. Nevard may be shared by many private individuals, but it has no legal standing. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama Owned Slaves

Another problem with this article is, it is more like an eulogy of Dalai Lama. From what I have read in history documents over the years, Dalai Lama indeed was a slave owner, given slavery was commonplace in old Tibet. Dalai Lama perhaps the biggest slavery owner at the time (still needs verification on this). Even George Washington's article has a section about his slave ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunt99 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But the current Dalai Lama was a child when Tibet was incorporated into the PRC. George Washington owned slaves his entire life.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to end neutrality dispute

I propose the two following edits:

1. The addition of this sentence to the lede: However, the government of the Peoples Republic of China regards him as the symbol of an outmoded theocratic system. [3] I think that even the most die-hard PRC-haters must admit that Dalai Lama's conflict with China is important to his notability, and therefore the PRC view deserves a mention in the lede.

2. Here is my proposed version of what Nat Krause suggested, under the heading of "Criticism by Tibetan religious figures":

Several tulkus or "living Buddhas" have criticized Gyatso. Most recently, the twelfth Samding Dorje Phagmo, considered to be Tibet's only female living Buddha, was quoted saying that "The sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and seriously damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism's normal order and good reputation." She told Xinhua that "Old Tibet was dark and cruel, the serfs lived worse than horses and cattle." [4]

My suggestion would be to add these two edits, and then I would consider the article neutral. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. --Strettolicious (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of creating a criticism section. Could this be worked into another section? Perhaps a much-needed section on HH's religious positions and reforms. Until such a section is made though, this seems like a good solution. --Gimme danger (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments from the Samding can go in the section called "reception." I also agree with adding one sentence on the PRC view to the lede. --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not hearing objections, I will make these two edits and remove the neutrality tags. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to call him Gyatso: it's not a surname. The standard practice is to write Sanskrit names as 1 word, but their Tibetan translations as 2 (in most cases). Eg Vajrasattva becomes Dorje sempa. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "Tenzin Gyatso." --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Binguyen and Relata Refero have objections, as they have both deleted the section on the living Buddhas. This discussion started 10 days ago, and no one has opposed that section on this page. So, please state your objections. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically okay with the text in question remaining in the article, although I think it should be expanded a bit to include a survey of religious criticism of the Dalai Lama inside Tibet, which would allow the Samding Dorje Phagmo's specific comments to reduced and de-emphasised. However, we don't seem to have the sources we need for that at the moment. In the meantime, I think we should avoid the term "living Buddha", since it normally appears in only one kind of literature: mediocre-to-bad translations from Chinese. I suggest substituting the explanation (reincarnate lamas) for the benefit of readers who don't know the jargon term tülku (they aren't going to know what a living Buddha is, either).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The sections in question seem stable now. Should we remove the neutrality tag? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. Sunray (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Tibet severed?

This article rather surprisingly contains no hyperlink to the article on Tibet at present. I would fix this, but it is locked. Can an administrator fix this, please? Elroch (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of information

In May 2008, the Dalai Lama received an honourary doctorate of philosophy from the London Metropolitan University. The LMU doctorate is in recognition of the Dalai Lama's outstanding achievements in promoting peace globally and for his inspirational spiritual guidance and leadership.

(AdamD123 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes I added it with 2 links: * [Honorary Doctoral Degree]] of Philosophy from London's Metropolitan University on 21 May, 2008.hellomagazine.com, Dalai Lama receives honorary doctorate of philosophy in Londonnews.bbc.co.uk, Dalai gets honorory doctorate --Florentino floro (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Hi everyone, I've added a controversy section to address the issue of neutrality on this article. There are two very big issues, the Dorje Shugden controversy and the Karmapa controversy that shouldn't be ignored and not referenced. I have endevoured to give both sides of the arguments and to include as many objective references as I can. If any editor feels they can improve on the content, please feel free to do so but also please bear in mind that the article should be NPOV in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Thank you very much --Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

note to Blnguyen. It seems evident that you don't want this article to include criticism of the Dalai Lama, yet such controversy and criticism exist and need to be included to make the article more balanced. You've reverted criticism a few times now. The material on controversy is well referenced, including BBC news reports - the fact is the Dalai Lama HAS been protested against. The article needs to reflect current news facts. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks, from the edit history, like Blnguyen often deletes material with no explanation, either in edit summary or on the talk page. I believe that this is poor Wikiquette. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the last version of the paragraph on the Karmapa issue, added by User:Iheartmanjushri (oṃ namo Mañjuśrī) was well-cited and should remain in the article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, friends. Can anyone please provide a valid reason why the short paragraph added about the Karmapa issue was deleted? --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation used is not a reliable source according to WP:VER which states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The source used does not meet this description. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point -- obviously the open letter written by this group of Kagyu people was not neutral and was taken from the organization's website. However, the paragraph I added only said, "Here is what this group of Kagyu people think. Here is what they stated in their open letter." This was merely a reporting of one group's disagreement with the Dalai Lama, and did not attempt to state any "facts" about the Dalai Lama, other than the fact that there are some known controversies surrounding him. As this section is a section on controversies, and as this is a well-known, well-documented controversy, it seems only fair to include this group's point of view. Furthermore, if I am going to state, "This group of disaffected people feels they have been wronged because of XYZ," isn't the best, most "reliable source" for such a statement that group of people's own words? Your statement that it is a reliability issue does not make sense in this particular context. It is illogical to say that it is "unreliable" to represent a group's opinion by quoting that same group's own document!

In the spirit of compromise and consensus building, I would be happy to accept a re-write about the controversy surrounding the Karmapa. If you prefer to use a different source than the open letter I quoted from, I would be happy with that, too, as long as someone fairly and accurately represents this controversy.

Truthsayer62 said earlier that there are two main controversies currently around the Dalai Lama: One of them is the Shugden issue, which is currently included in the controversies section. The other is the Karmapa issue, which I attempted to insert and which was promptly removed. Let's put it back in the section in some form; I believe it deserves at least a short paragraph. Thanks. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Iheartmanjushri is right. A letter from IKKBO is a reliable source for the fact that a controversy exists.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to take a shot at putting a paragraph in about the Karmapa issue? If no one does, I will put mine back in within the next day or so. Thanks. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely a letter does not a controversy make. Anyone can write a letter. The thing about writing letters is that one is not required to do any fact checking. So no, the source is not good enough. However, if this is notable, there should be a source that meets the requirements of WP:VER. Since this is a biography of a living person, we do have clear standards to meet. If someone can a) find a reliable source, and b) write it up in a neutral manner then we can defend it and avoid edit wars! Sunray (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the IKKBO isn't just anybody. And it can hardly be in doubt that there is a genuine controversy: there is even a Wikipedia article on the subject. However, you're right that we can provide better sources. I have three books on the subject, so I suppose I can cite them. Now, you have brought up an additional point: NPOV. Can you elucidate?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 07:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the IKKBO, the letter by H. Luehrs is a political tract full of highly charged language. It would be hard to quote from this letter in a neutral manner. Moreover, this is an ancient conflict that has little to do with the present Dalai Lama. I think a paragraph from the WP article about the Karmapa controversy sets the situation in perspective:

Of the two 17th Karmapas, Ogyen Trinley Dorje has been recognized by Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsab Rinpoche. In July 1992, both asked the Office of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala to confirm their recognition. The 14th Dalai Lama confirmed the recognition of Ogyen Trinley Dorje. The head of the Sakya school, H.H. Sakya Trizin and the future head of the Nyingma school, H.H. Mindroling Trichen Rinpoche also recognised Ogyen Trinley Dorje as the reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa and composed long-life prayers for him. The government of the People's Republic of China has also accepted him.

A neutral account would have to reflect that the heads of each of the other lineages and the People's Republic of China all recognize Ogyen Trinley Dorje. However, as stated above, this controversy is not about the Dalai Lama. The account of it belongs in the article on that subject, rather than here, IMO. Sunray (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But Sunray, what makes it controversial as regards the Dalai Lama is that it is not his school -- and therefore not his place to recognize a recognition of the Karmapa. Why would a Nyinmapa, Sakyapa, and Gelugpa get involved in the recognition of a Kaguypa? Prove to me that this has a historical precedent. If it has no historical precedent, after centuries of Karmapas, Sharmapas, and Dalai Lamas, then one certainly must question why the Dalai Lama got involved -- especially given the consideration that the previous Karmapa opposed the Dalai Lama's attempts to consolidate the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one. These points indeed make it an interesting question, as well as a controversy about the Dalai Lama.

What's more, you're talking about a significant group of people who are stating that the Dalai Lama had no business in involving himself in this matter, including the Sharmapa, for heaven's sake. The Sharmapa is no splinter bit of the Kagyu school: when one of the major figures of the Kagyu school stands opposed to THE major figure of all contemporary Tibetan Buddhism, this is certainly a noteworthy controversy!

Finally, open letters are quoted in other articles to represent one side's particular point of view, and no one has removed them as an "unreliable" source. I don't see why this open letter should be treated any differently.

Nat: Perhaps you will draft a new paragraph based in your sources so that we can include this controversy in this section once more. Thanks, Sunray, for bringing up your concerns. I hope that we can create something you will be happier with. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Iheartmanjushri:You make a strong case for the notability of the Dalai Lama's involvement in the Karamapa controversy. In particular, you argue that the fact that it is precedent-setting, along with the Dalai Lama's fame, both serve to make the Dalai Lama's actions notable.

With respect to the H. Luehrs letter: it does not meet the requirements for verifiability, has been challenged, and therefore cannot be used.

However, the policy on Biographies of Living Persons dealing with well-known public figures gives us some guidance, I think:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say...

As Nat has said, there should be plenty of sources we can use. Sunray (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the original paragraph in question, it occurred to me that the average reader would get the impression from the reference to "International Karma Kagyu Buddhist Organisation" that this is the Kagyü sect speaking (it's actually the representative of one of the two sides in the controversy). Being familiar with it beforehand, I didn't notice the potential for misunderstanding. If nothing else, we should make sure that gets corrected.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

This link was removed by Tdudkowski as an "unreliable source." What exactly makes it unreliable? It is evidently from a book which has been published in German and English. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This citation is not suitable for a biography of a living person, IMO, particularly since the source has been challenged by an editor. We must bear in mind that "exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources." The policy defines reliable sources thus: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks." Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Coordinated Stealthy defamatory attacks by NKT organization

The marketing propagation and defamatory attacks by New Kadampa Tradition's formidable organization is against Wiki rules. Furthermore they try to hide this coordination. They are a sectarian group against the Dalai Lama. The following users who edited this page can be easily seen by their contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Truthsayer62

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iheartmanjushri

other members are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dspak08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emptymountains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atisha%27s_cook

They have ensured biased versions of the following articles with concerted illegal methods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsang_Gyatso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kadampa_Tradition

Can someone tell me which section of Wiki is the right place to report this coordinated organization campaign so they can be watched?

I had previously pointed out a sockpuppet successfully (GlassFet-who gave me multiple warnings before being exposed). I suspect one or more of the editors above are sockpoppets of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wisdombuddha

I don't want to take it to admin forum since it might not be the right place. Thank you in advance. Thegone (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These are heavy accusations. This is certainly not the right place to take this, an admin forum would be. You'll need to present some evidence instead of tarring several editors. Gimme danger (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

They propagate the sectarian Shugden cult fronted by NKT as can easily be checked with a little effort. As for my suspicion regarding sokpoppets it has basis due to their concerted effort which I started to uncover in the Rime article's talk page[5] and followed the leads from there to other articles where the coordinated pattern is easily seen. The only real accusations which are false are against real people like the Dalai Lama and the main body of Tibetan lamas (non-sectarian) by them (cyber nicknames) who act like a stealthy pack as can be seen by checking their contributions which is against Wiki rules (hidden coordinated organizational campaign). Thanks for your comment. I thought there might be a special section (watch-board) for possible sockpoppets. I'll wait for a few other suggestions before I take it there just to make sure. Thegone (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is. Gimme danger (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Sir/Madam Thegone (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very true, a few months ago, for example the article on Dorje Shugden was a delicate balance between pro and cons of the practice, then this edit war supposedly by NKT supporters started. If you look at it now, even the controversy section does not cite any sources against this practice anymore... Users like Kt66 have been trying to do something to balance this kind of disintegration of these articles, but had to give up in despair. Not sure what can be done about this kind of stuff though.rudy (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there are coordinated attacks on this or other articles, the best course of action would be to involve more editors through Requests for Comment. I would caution, however, against excessive speculation about the motives of the editors you don't like. Wikipedia policy is to focus on the merits of the edits, not the editors. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

Dear all,

I am in the process of also calling into question the NPOV status of the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsang_Gyatso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kadampa_Tradition

1- Can someone tell me how to do that also?

2- Is there an admin section to complain against organized marketing effort of an organization enforcing bias?

Thank you in advance. Thegone (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon! I am certainly not part of any "coordinated attack" or "organized marketing effort"! I will very happily state that I am a student of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's, but this is no different than kt66/Tenzin Peljor very happily stating his affiliation with the Dalai Lama. Therefore, if my point of view is biased, then so is his. I would imagine that there are few completely neutral editors in this "edit war", because it is unlikely that many would get involved in a relatively obscure Buddhist debate other than Buddhists themselves who already have some stake in the matter. If I am guilty of bias, then so are many others.

At any rate, I must use the term "edit war" quite loosely, because before recently deciding to step into the fray, the articles mentioned above were *heavily* biased against the New Kadampa Tradition. From my side, all I have ever done is strive to give the "other side of the story" where it has been lacking. You can see this for yourself by examining what I have written and in what context -- I have never once deleted anyone's opposing point of view, even though others have erased changes of mine they did not like. Contrary to what you accuse, I have acted utterly independently and am no "representative" of the NKT. I have been polite, I have accepted advice, and I have followed all the Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them.

The only thing I would agree with you on is that there are more students of Geshe Kelsang's who are beginning to speak up and make their voices heard. For many years the NKT's good name has been dragged through the mud all over the internet, and NKT students have by-and-large remained silent. Where was your concern then, when people like kt66/Tenzin Peljor blatantly, intentionally, and admittedly tried to steer this site and the opinions of those reading it against the NKT? Where was your concern then, that both sides of the story were not being told? Now, due to the current controversies and peaceful demonstrations against clear acts of religious discrimination, many more NKT students are choosing to break their silence. This is no "coordinated attack". This is a group of individuals who are tired of watching the tradition, the teacher, and the practice they love get unjustly dragged through the mud.

And you know what? They have a right to their say, too. The anti-NKT people have had their say, with negligible opposition, for a long time. Now more voices will be heard. Your unjust accusation, rather than deterring me, silencing me, or embarrassing me, only strengthens my resolve to be one of those voices. Congratulations -- you have awakened my stubborn streak, and will likely be seeing much more activity from me on Wikipedia in the future.

I do not know who you are, but your agenda to have only one side of the story told is overwhelmingly obvious. Good luck with your witch-hunt; you will find no more "real" evidence than Salem ever did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartmanjushri (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree mostly with Iheartmanjushri. Clearly, some editors will always be biased and will only be interested in promoting a certain view. Collaboration is discouraged if it tends to promote that sort of behaviour. However, that doesn't mean that all editors who agree with a particular viewpoint are therefore disruptive. For instance, Thegone includes Iheartmanjushri in his list of suppressive persons, but I found Iheartmanju to be quite reasonable in my brief interactions with him or her. Iheart is also correct in saying that "there are few completely neutral editors in this 'edit war', because it is unlikely that many would get involved in a relatively obscure Buddhist debate other than Buddhists themselves who already have some stake in the matter." Personally, I don't have a dog in this race, being neither a followers of NKT or of the Dalai Lama's, and I find myself with little stomach for involvement in these disputes.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Iheartmanjushri is a member of the NKT cult. A sockpoppet with many names has been identified. Some in his team of editors are the same sockpoppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wisdombuddha

They vandalize the Wiki articles on their cult and Dalai Lama as part of their daily appointed chores scheduled by their cult centers around the US and Europe. We will seek a general Wiki policy to watch out for them and blacklist them as predatory organized mass marketing serial vandals. This is made worse as many former members who have been abused have managed to classify NKT as a cult. Shugdenpa have been linked to the murder of Gelug lamas in India as testified by the Indian police, , sexual abuse as self confessed by its top leaders and much more. http://www.antishugden.com/component/content/article/35-organization/49-dharamsala-murder-linked-to-shugden-group http://www.antishugden.com/interview-with-prithvi-raj-chief-police-of-kangra/1-latest-news/48-interview-with-mr-prithvi-raj-superintendant-of-police-kangra-district http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-1.html It is very unlucky to support the Dolgyal (Shugden) cult not only for this lifetime but for many lifetimes to come, many of which could be in hellish realms for extremely long times according to ancient texts. All schools of Tibetan Buddhism have expelled them including the monastery of their leader. Read tibet.com or http://www.antishugden.com.

If you don't know what you are dealing with when it comes to Dolgyal, I advise you to research first. Good luck. Thegone (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Iheartmanjushri is a member of NKT, apparently. So what? The other editors in this discussion have been suggesting that you discuss the quality of the edits rather than the qualities of the editor. This is not the appropriate forum from which to air your grievances about the NKT or Dorje Shugden.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat, that is very kind of you.

Thegone, I am afraid that what you are doing constitutes a "Personal Attack" by Wikipedia standards. If Wikipedia Administrators look into your behavior and find it to be a "Personal Attack", they can give you a warning, and if you persist, they can even block you from making edits. I am sure that you would like to remain a participant on Wikipedia, so please consider this definition of "Personal Attack":

Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. (Emphasis mine)

You have every right to believe that my religious beliefs are not legitimate, and you have every right to practice your own form of Buddhism as you see fit. However, at least according to Wikipedia standards, you do not have the right to continue to use this kind of abusive language towards practitioners of Dorje Shugden. Please be aware that I will use the proper Wikipedia channels to report this behavior if you continue. Thanks. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prize

The fact that the DL has won the Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned twice in the lead. I removed the repetition, which was a stand alone sentence (a no-no per MoS). Inexplicably, Wingspeed put it back. As it is already referred to (more appropriately) in the last paragraph of the lead, I will once again remove the repetition. Sunray (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forigive me. Revert was made in good faith: thought, as I mentioned on your talk page, that you were referring to a repetition in the main body of the article. (Was also, I suppose, concerned that the Nobel Peace Prize was losing its due prominence.) Have re-worded final para of lede accordingly. Wingspeed (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any way it could be moved up in the lead? Its odd that I should read 200 words or so without running into it. I know from the first paragraph that he's the Dalai Lama, shouldn't I also know he's a Nobel laureate too without reading a lot longer? Fuzbaby (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair, neutral way to summarize the sovereignty dispute

What would be a fair way to summarize the 1951 PLA entry and takeover of Tibet? The actual issues are complex, and can't really be summed up fairly in 1-2 words. Ngchen (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is 'entry and takeover' a fair and neutral way to summarize the soverignty dispute? From the PRC's POV, in 1949, it formed an entirely new sovereign state called the PRC, of which Tibet is a part. There is no dispute as far as the PRC is concerned. The dispute is one-sided and comes only from dalai lama's side. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"There is no dispute as far as the PRC is concerned. The dispute is one-sided and comes only from dalai lama's side." That's the very definition of a dispute. There are two sides, and they tell different stories. You could just as easily say "There is no dispute as far as the dalai lama's side is concerned. The dispute is one-sided and comes only from the PRC's side." That would be no less ridiculous than what you did say, but anyway, the existence of an "official story" certainly doesn't eradicate the dispute -- which I think in this case is a significant one. 71.209.106.251 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

At the time Mao declared the establishment of the PRC on Oct 1, 1949, Tibet was not included. "The Central People's Government Council of the People's Republic of China took office today in the capital and unanimously made the following decisions: to proclaim the establishment of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China..." [Mao Zedong, People's Daily, October 2, 1949]. The following year, Mao wrote, "...a nation-wide victory has been won...the People's Republic of China has been founded....What is our general policy at present? It is to eliminate the remnant Kuomintang forces, the secret agents and the bandits, overthrow the landlord class, liberate Taiwan and Tibet and fight imperialism to the end." [Mao Zedong, speech at the Third Plenary Session, June 6, 1950]. Mao was clear: on Oct 1, 1949, the People's Republic of China had been established; Tibet was not part of it. Nor yet, he stated, by June 6, 1950. He earlier declared, after crossing into Tibetan border regions during the Long March, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." [Red Star over China, Edgar Snow, New York, 1961, p.214] SheilaShigley (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but now it says 'invade'. Even more opinionated. Let's keep the wording neutral shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.135 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute centers around the argument that, if we look at the article Tibet sovereignty debate, we'll find that a reasonable claim can be made that China was sovereign over Tibet in 1951. Now, if one is sovereign over a territory, one cannot logically "invade" it. For comparison, in the American Civil War, only confederate sympathizers refer to the Union army as "invading" the south, and the union always regarded its actions as reasserting control over what was always "their" territory. Ngchen (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition of invasion in Websters is based on actions not feelings. China invaded Tibet. By your reference to the American civil war you seem to be arguing that because people in China might possibly feel some discomfort being characterized as invaders-a word which evokes many historical horrors- it should not be used; but that is not a neutral application of the facts and language, and as such is not allowed under wiki guidelines.Medusaseesyou (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not arguing based upon feelings. Would/Should Wikipedia describe the American Civil War as an invasion of the Confederacy by the Union? I don't think so, because doing so would be to present the Confederate viewpoint as fact. The actions of the Union can be construed as an invasion, but can also be reasonably construed as a central government reasserting control over an area that had "always" belonged to it, based upon the argument that it's logically impossible to invade your own territory. Ngchen (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, "invasion" is commonly used in the US, and not only in the southern states, to describe military actions in the American Civil War. See, for example, William Tecumseh Sherman, or google Sherman invasion. Bertport (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True, however, the word "invasion" is used outside of a political context in Sherman's case. The statements "Sherman's army invaded Georgia," and "The United States invaded the southern states/Confederacy" are very different in terms of political connotation. The first has practically none, the second is full of political implications. Ngchen (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

??? Sorry, but you are making no sense at all here. Bertport (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sherman's army invading Georgia" refers simply to Sherman's army violently entering Georgia, without political implications. "The United States invaded the Confederacy," OTOH, does have political implications, I guess because it suggests that a political entity, "The United States," has invaded another such entity. It's this implication of a legitimate, second entity distinct from the first that is implied in the second sentence, and which raises NPOV issues. Ngchen (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ngchen is clearly implying that how people feel about the use of words should affect whether they are used or not. He mistakenly believes that people in the US care about the use of the word "invasion" when the subject of the civil war comes up, therefore he believes that the word has not or should not be used in that context-although of course it is used in that context all the time. Likewise he evidently has a little sensitivity to the image of China as having invaded Tibet and slaughtered untold numbers of people, and due to his sensitivity, he wishes people to not use the word invasion in the way it is generally used. I think this kind of emotionally based criteria makes it impossible for wiki to function-if every dictatorship can cry crocodile tears over the use of hurtful words how can any aggressive action ever be described? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medusaseesyou (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Has The United Kingdom invaded Northern Ireland, or the Falkland Islands for that matter? 86.176.51.166 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nanjing presidential Palace as source

As for the current debate over the use of something from the Nanjing Presidential Palace, perhaps it would be best to source the statements in question directly to the now museum? Ngchen (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know that the PRC government want to deny the legitimacy of ROC,so there are almost no museum directly talk about the history of ROC in mainland China,And the KMT (the party rule China before 1949) in Taiwan now want to build himself as a local party,so the history of the ROC in mainland China is a grey area,the former presidential palace is the few place talk about the history in mainland,the source in presidential Palace is credible because it is a independent sector and it is so authority because it is the head of ROC in mainland China.Raintwoto (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, all I'm asking for sources. That's how Wikipedia works. Information that we add should be verified by reliable sources. If there is no source, it can easily be removed. Khoikhoi 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

if the source is write in Chinese,Will you admit it?

and the museum is not a reliable sources?

I added some other reliable sources Raintwoto (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese-language sources are acceptable, although English sources are better because all editors are able to review them. The claim that you're adding to the article (that an ROC official recognised the 14th Dalai Lama), however, is contradicted by histories written by Melvyn Goldstein and Tsering Shakya. It seems likely to be something that government sources are saying for political reasons.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Raintwoto, thanks for providing sources. But Xinhua is not really reliable when it comes to history because it is a government-controlled news agency. It is much preferred that you use third-party sources instead. Also, I checked this one, and I can't seem to find where it says anything about a Republic of China ceremony recognizing him as the spiritual leader of Tibet. Khoikhoi 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that Xinhua is a government agency, it's also true that the CIA factbook is widely used as a source. Yes it is true that the agency will tend to "spin" things in the government's favor. But we should remember that the old ROC was a foe of the PRC, so the incentive to spin is at least lessened. IIRC a big argument against the Tibet independence movement is the fact that Tibet sent envoys to the meeting where the ROC constitution was drafted, implying that they considered themselves par of China, at least at that time. Ngchen (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Xinhua is good for news articles, but when we're dealing with history, it's best to stick to more professional, well-respected academic sources. Khoikhoi 21:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ngchen, the PRC's claim to Tibet is based 100% on the claim that it is the successor to the territories of earlier Chinese regimes. Therefore, the assertion that Tibet was part of the ROC is central to the legitimacy of the PRC's control of Tibet today. Also, Goldstein deals with the case of the Tibetan representatives at the ROC constitutional convention and shows that they did not see themselves as representatives of a part of China. For one thing, the came to Nanjing carrying a letter to Chiang Kai-shek which read, in part, "Tibet and Greater Tibet ... has [sic] been a territory unmistakably under the control and protection of the Dalai Lama ... We shall continue to maintain the independence of Tibet as a nation ruled by the successive Dalai Lamas through an authentic religious-political rule" and "Tibet has been an independent state, managing its own domestic and foreign, civil and military affairs. It continues to maintain its political and spiritual authority in its own way." At the convention, the Tibetan delegates were surprised to find a clause stating that "all the people of the countries whose delegates are present in this Assembly are subjects of the Chinese Kuomintang Government" and immediately opposed it, protesting directly to Chiang Kai-shek. In the end, the Tibetan delegates did not sign the constitution produced there.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi the source of this one says about the time that the ROC ceremony recognizing him,Find the time of 1940.2

What I want to understand is that anything the US media told you true?I have the picture which in it we can see the Dalai Lama and the ROC officer wuzhongxin,The wuzhongxin is a ROC Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission officer,and in the picture we can see the Dalai Lama is so young and what do you think they are doing?Maybe wu is just get a vacation in tibet and take a picture with Dalai Lama(Maybe in the picture he is not Dalai Lama?),I know you would say that Xinhua is not a reliable source because in your minds Xinhua is a government agency like the same agency in S.U,and what is your truth?if you want I can find lot of books writing about Dalai Lama which tell you that he is recognizing by ROC.I don't think there are more people study Dalai Lama in the US than China same reason that there are less people study the person Washington in China than which in the US.

I think my source is reliable enough,if you think blind yourself is so fun,go ahead.

here is some other sources,if you don't want to change it to be a truth,I would just thought that English Wikipedia is just a pedia for US people HAVE FUN.

Historical Status of China's Tibet by Jiawei Wang, Nyima Gyaincain, Nimajianzan,page 167

System of the Dalai Lama Reincarnation by Qingying Chen,page 126

to 100 Years of Tibet by Xiaoming Zhang,page 23

and if you want,you can type the keyword Wu zhong xin and Dalai Lama in Google Books,there are dozens of books write about that thing.

Raintwoto 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your source says, "Tenzin Gyatso, aged almost 5, is introduced as the XIVth Dalai Lama in Lhasa." But where does it say anything about the Dalai Lama's connection with the ROC? Raintwoto, I'm not advocating that we use US Media sources either. I am talking about scholarly material, from well-known, neutral experts on Tibet. And I never said Xinhua is not a reliable source, I said it is not a reliable source for historical purposes, they are not experts on Tibetan history and if this encyclopedia is to remain credible we cannot use them as source in this case. The three sources you've just cited -- I really fail to see how they are in any way neutral. To quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Overview, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Khoikhoi 09:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

unabalanced template in Controversy section

I doubt the neutrality and balance of this section:

Another controversy associated with the Dalai Lama is the recognition of the seventeenth Karmapa. To briefly sum up this controversy, two sides of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism have chosen two different Karmapas, leading to a deep division within the Kagyu school. The Dalai Lama has given his support to Urgyen Trinley Dorje, while supporters of Trinley Thaye Dorje claim that the Dalai Lama has no authority in the matter, nor is there a historical precedent for a Dalai Lama involving himself in an internal Kagyu dispute. In his 2001 address at the International Karma Kagyu Conference, Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche - a high-ranking Kagyu Lama - accused the Dalai Lama of adopting a "divide and conquer" policy to eliminate any potential political rivalry arising from within the Kagyu school. For his side, the Dalai Lama accepted the prediction letter presented by Tai Situ Rinpoche (another high-ranking Kagyu Lama) as authentic, and therefore Tai Situ Rinpoche's recognition of Urgyen Trinley Dorje, also as correct. Tibet observer Julian Gearing suggests that there might be political motives to the Dalai Lama's decision: "The Dalai Lama gave his blessing to the recognition of [Urgyen] Trinley, eager to win over the formerly troublesome sect [the Kagyu school], and with the hope that the new Karmapa could play a role in a political solution of the 'Tibet Question.' ...If the allegations are to be believed, a simple nomad boy was turned into a political and religious pawn."

The reasons are: While the dispute is complex

1. about 80% of the Tibetans and Kagyue masters follow the recognition of Trinley Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa,
2. this candidate was also recognized by the Head of the Sakya School (Sakya Trizin) and Nyingma School (Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche) and other lineage masters - and not only by the Dalai Lama as the section suggests
3. the majority of the person in charge for the recognition voted for Trinley Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa
4. since the Tibetan exile situation it is common that the Dalai Lama is consulted in spiritual issues of importance. also the Sakya do this. When HE Sakya Chimey Luding e.g. the sister of Sakya Trizin was thinking about to disrobe she contacted also the Dalai Lama for his advice. Likewise it is not uncommon that Tai Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsab Rinpoche asked the Dalai Lama for his opinion and recognition
5. it is not uncommon that high incarnations are recognized by other high lamas of other lineages

If one were to posit a political interest of the Dalai Lama in this issue, this is rather a theory of few and no 3rd party source (academic source) confirms such an assumption. The same could posited as a political interest or powertrip of Shamar Rinpoche. Therefore the section favours a theory which is a belief which seems to be rather speculative than based on facts and which is contradicting some facts and backgrounds of Tibetan Culture and attitudes. It simplifies the issue too. Therefore either this passage is to be balanced or the rather speculative assumptions should be removed. --Kt66 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article's current texts gives a fair summary of the controversial side of these events. On the other hand, a balanced explanation would have to give the Dalai Lama's response, but I'm not sure if that's how controversy sections are supposed to work. In response to specific points:

1) You mean to say "Urgyen Trinley Dorje" here. Trinley Thaye Dorje is the candidate opposed by the Dalai Lama. My impression is that it seems clear that a majority of Tibetan Kagyu followers do support Ogyen Trinley Dorje, although the numbers are perhaps a bit closer if you include non-Tibetan followers, since Thaye Dorje has a lot of support in Europe. I think it's difficult or impossible to quantify more specifically how much support each side has.

3) The core of the dispute is over who has the authority to recognise a new Karmapa. There is no tradition which holds that it is decided by a vote of the members of the search committee, which I think is what you're referring to. According to Thaye Dorje's side, the Shamarpa either has sole authority to make a recognition, or at least he is more than simply one vote among several. In any event, only two of the four members of the search committee recognised Ogyen Trinley Dorje, because the Jamgön Kongtrül died before recognising anybody (a majority would be more than 50%).

4) The criticism that is being made here is that the Dalai Lama has gone beyond simply giving advice. I do think this would be a valid point to bring up if a response is added for balance.

5) To the best of my knowledge, the Karmapas have almost always been recognised by fellow Karma Kagyu members, and occasionally by Drukpa or perhaps Nyingma lamas. I'm pretty sure there has never been any involvement by Gelug or Sakya lamas in the recognition prior to this instance.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to 14th Dalai Lama.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama → Tenzin Gyatso — This should be a no-brainer, but wikibureaucracy demands it. "14th Dalai Lama" is an honorific, and shouldn't be part of the article title. "Tenzin Gyatso" isn't ambiguous, so there's no confusion just using the name. — Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See below for the amended proposal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strongly oppose. The subject is actually known by his title; we are not in the business of manufacturing puzzles for the reader. If anything, we should drop the unused personal name. As an almost exact parallel, we use Pope Benedict XVI, not Joseph Ratzinger; the difference being that Benedict was once widely known as Ratzinger, and the Dalai Lama has never been known as simple Tenzin Gyatso. It's not even his childhood name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: My source on the childhood name is this article; but it is both plausible and (if I read the footnotes correctly) sourced on the point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I oppose this for the same reasons given by PMAnderson above. John Hill (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Very well put by PMAnderson above. I concur In particular with the notion that, if anything, we should drop the unused personal name. I was not hitherto aware that the Dalai Lama has never in fact been known as simple Tenzin Gyatso, or that it was not even his childhood name – and I consider myself pretty well informed about the Buddhist tradition, certainly more so than the average reader. So, to that extent, the present article title, rather than posing a puzzle, would appear to have had the effect of feeding me actual disinformation. What on earth is the case for seeking to distance it yet further from everyday reality? Are we in the business of creating, by small aggregations, some Wikipedia alternative universe? An urgent need, I feel, to get real. Wingspeed (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

P.S. If PM Anderson's assertions above are indeed correct, the cause of accuracy would require us to drop Tenzin Gyatso from the title and to move it, as the jargon has it, to The 14th Dalai Lama. In which case, Chris Cunningham will have done us all, and the credibility of Wikipedia, a big favour. Wingspeed (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be just as happy with that outcome (14th Dalai Lama). The aim here is to present the simplest and most common title we can. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's go with that, then. (I honestly feel a bit embarrassed if there's some sense in which the fellow's never really been Tenzin Gyatso except in Wikipedia.) What's the consensus? Wingspeed (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the Charlie Rose Show interview archive labels him Tenzin Gyatso, but then gives as its source . . . Wikipedia. Oh, dear. Wingspeed (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal below is fine by me. Good one, Chris. Wingspeed (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The section Origin of the title Dalai Lama in the article on the Third is illuminating, so I quote in full, minus the citatons: "It has been commonly claimed that the title "Dalai Lama" was first bestowed by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan upon Sonam Gyatso in 1578. This, however, is not true. Sonam Gyatso, "was invited to Mongolia by the famous conqueror Altan Khan, and on his arrival at the latter's camp the Khan addressed him in Mongol by the name of Dalai lama, the Tibetan word gyatso, "ocean," being the equivalent of dalai in Mongol. Altan, knowing that the lama's predecessor had also the word gyatso in his name, took it for a family name; and this mistake has been the origin of the name of Dalai Lama since given to all the reincarnations of the Grand Lama." This interpretation of the name Dalai Lama has been confirmed byTenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama: "So I don't really agree that the Mongols actually conferred a title. It was just a translation."

In which case, use of Gyatso and Dalai in the same clause would appear to be tautologous. Wingspeed (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Edited proposal

As above.

• Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama → 14th Dalai Lama — Commonly known only by the honorific. "Tenzin Gyatso" is not generally used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as above; I could live with the present name. What do we want to do about the other 13, which WP titles in the same style? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Support with caution. Very good point, Septentrionalis. Hadn't noticed that. Anything wrong with the other 13 in the same (number-only) style? And I don't see anywhere a list that makes possible clicking to each of them in sequence. It would aid the cause of clarity and I personally, unless I've missed it, would find such a list most useful because illuminating. (After all, if one takes the underlying rationale literally, they are all supposed to be the same entity successively re-manifesting in different form: the tradition emphasizes continuity rather than disjunction.) Wingspeed (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S. I see here is such a list. Which, interestingly, does use the Gyatsos etc, but after the number. The authority for this is, presumably, the 1991 work cited. Wingspeed (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Those should be changed too. Hopefully most of the redirects from "Xth Dalai Lama" only have one revision, so they can be moved over without admin intervention. Once this move has been resolved I'll do the rest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Category:Dalai Lamas has them all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I agree with this move. I have also suggested similar moves on Talk:Karmapa and Talk:Panchen Lama, although there will probably have to be some exceptions there.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

References

FAC withdrawn

I have archived a premature FAC nomination by an editor who has not edited the article or the talk page. The archived nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/14th Dalai Lama/archive1. Maralia (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Before exile

What significant things did the 14th Dalai Lama do before exile. --Edward130603 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Eat, shit and sleep. Highly significant processes for staying alive, same as everyone else. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first source on the subject of homosexuality states:

The Dalai Lama was interviewed by CBC News at the time of his visit to Canada during 2007-NOV. Near the end of his interview he was asked whether Buddhism condones love between two men or two women. He replied that Buddhists reject this. Genuine Buddhist practitioners, like Christians, condemn same-sex behavior as sexual misconduct. "So, [it is] not permissible, not allowed." Imagine Reason (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

They were in my opinion definitely editing that program down so that interesting statements stand out. So we don't know what the context was of the statement without the full interview. However, even in the shows arrangement of edits and right before that quote, in the CBC News, you'll find his statement that (my transcription) "there are different kinds [of love], for example sexual love, and parents love to children, and children's love to parent: different. although both very much mixed with attachment, then another level of love is showing to other people - strangers, even your enemy - showing love, respect to them, that is genuine love. That kind of love is really profound kind of love. And that kind of love is only through training of mind through reasoning." So though his statement that CBC News highlighted is interesting, in and of itself it could very well have been in the context of this distinction between love with attachment and this notion of genuine love without attachment, since they appear in close proximity. Nonetheless, the CBC show does not give us the surrounding comments to the statement or what exactly was being talked about. Separately, you'll easily find citations and official statements from him in support of equal rights for homosexuals, etc. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds quite apologetic, if you as me. So where are all these other sources where he is seen as supporting LGBT's? If these sources exist please put them into the article, it would be very helpful. Children of the dragon (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)