14th Dalai Lama was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 17, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 15, 2011. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 17, 2004, March 17, 2005, March 17, 2006, November 17, 2006, November 17, 2007, November 17, 2008, November 17, 2009, November 17, 2010, November 17, 2011, November 17, 2014, November 17, 2015, November 17, 2020, November 17, 2021, July 6, 2023, and November 17, 2025. Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is a former WikiProject Biography Collaboration (3-9 July 2005). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations. Buddhism High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Contemporary philosophy Tibet Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The entire edit was removed, shrunk and stripped of several, for exmaple the BBC interview and references are removed, "In a BBC interview conducted in 2019 when speaking on refugess, he said that "A limited number is OK, but the whole of Europe [will] eventually become Muslim country, African country - impossible".". This is the 'great replacement' theory used by the far right regulalry, his repating it is siginficant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14th_Dalai_Lama&oldid=1262631448

The bias of the person removing it is quite blatant, "In September 2018, speaking at a conference in Malmö, Sweden, home to a large immigrant population", why it is neccesary to state that 'Sweden, home to a large immigrant population', as if to jusitfy what he said? Is he allowed to say so when in a country that has an immigrant population of 14%?

If no one see the issues I have raised as problem, never mind, ignore me and just carry on.

Makes a mockery of the wikipedia, why waste time consturying something when a self appointed grandee will come and undo it with no consquence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furbian (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with your edit there was that it repeated content already covered in the Immigration section. I have no problem if you want to update that section with other sources, but there's no need to make another one with a more contentious title like "Xenophobia and Islamophobia accusations". Donkey Hot-day (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of his birth, the village was not politically part of Tibet. This is reflected in the article itself. I kept Amdo only to avoid undue emphasis. Vacosea (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would that mean that Taktser, Qinghai, Republic of China should be stated as the location of birth as opposed to Taktser, Amdo, Tibet? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may be contentious as well. Amdo is the least political description I can think of. Vacosea (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th_Dalai_Lama#Women's_rights section duplicates 14th_Dalai_Lama#Comments_on_a_potential_female_Dalai_Lama. I propose removing the "Comments_on_a_potential_female_Dalai_Lama" section as the criticism section is on the long side. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change, and came just now to initiate a general discussion on the length of the criticism section. I will do so below. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CRITICISM:

In most cases, editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies, as this violates neutral point of view. These sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints by giving them their own header; are not balanced, because they exclude positive information about the topic; create the appearance of a controversy, even if there isn't one; and often devolve into "laundry lists" of complaints, without regard for their notability or validity.

I think that it is fair to say that the criticism section of this article has become such a "laundry list," creating the appearance of a great deal of controversy around an individual who is basically uncontroversial outside of China. Of course, the controversy around the Dalai Lama's relationship with China is well-known, and should be addressed. However, in my opinion the amount of information on the "viral" videos is WP:UNDUE, and seems to just be a legacy of WP:RECENTISM.

I would propose either removing all subheaders from the criticism section and simply having a paragraph each in summary style detailing common Chinese criticisms, the Shugden controversy, and perhaps a sentence or two each about the "viral" incidents, if they are included at all. If people feel it is necessary to preserve more content than that, WP:CRITSP suggests that creating a sub-article could be a compromise, given that the Dalai Lama is a religious figure. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with proposal. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I agree with the idea that criticism sections are not so good and we should try to avoid.

Second, it is not at all true that he is basically uncontroversial out of China. Consider his kissing of the child on the mouth and asking the child to suck his tongue, which drew strong condemnation from all over the world.

Isn't the solution to begin weaving the the criticism paragraphs into his biographical history and/or the social stances section? Social stances could be broadened to "Social and political stances" and the ties to India paragraph could move from criticism to political stances. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach, thank you for suggesting it and getting started with it. I've left the incident with the child as the only aspect in the "criticism" section, with a bit of trimming. Perhaps it could be summarized a bit better. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM & WP:CRIT are essays, not a policies or guidelines. Anyway, your opinion is that they are undue. But mine is that if reliable and notable outlets cover them, they should be included. You deleted quite a lot here, which included content cited to WP:RSP sources like The Guardian as well as several mainstream Spanish-language ones. Calling him a person "who is basically uncontroversial outside of China" seems to be pushing a POV and I think the controversies are addressed neutrally enough, showing both supportive and critical viewpoints of the Dalai Lama. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the article was dominated by the criticism section. I support the reduction of negative content in this biography. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]