This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tibet B‑class High‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Criticism section is particularly biased. Is it appropriate to counter each criticism issue? Is this section criticism or counter criticism under the cover of criticism? A few references to the criticism actually do not link to the criticism, but to the counter criticism.

But I think if we want to be neutral here, writing down the opinion of both sides is necessary. So it is not that the editors here want to "counter each criticism issue", these counter criticisms have already existed as an important part of the topic, and they have equal rights to appear here, right? Following their time order, put counter criticisms after criticism issues is quite natural, how could you claim this as "not balanced"? Maybe you mean we should first give the "couter criticisms" and then "criticisms", but isn't it wield? Maybe you think the reader would believe those who give final words, but are their judgments so fragile? Wang2 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source partly on the criticism, and was never cited:

"THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA"

http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Index.htm

Perhaps someone would like to write a counter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.123.209 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2007

Suggest you have a look at the biography of living persons policy.--Addhoc 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it already. Apparently someone is pushing an agenda of preventing criticizing him. In addition, tell me where is the source of "In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned some of ancient Tibet's feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded", and why the references of criticism point to counter criticisms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.123.209 (talk)

Well, "biography of living persons" is definitely not supposed to result in an article which is biased in favour of the subject. I'm sure this is not what Addhoc was suggesting. However, this subject is particularly tricky, since English-language publications on him are so uniformly adulatory; it's hard to tell what a neutral Wikipedia article would look like.

Criticism of the government strucutures of feudal Tibet should be clear about the fact that the current Dalai Lama was never in charge of them; and so the criticism can only be of the fact that he is supposedly overmuch enthusiastic about the old government in retrospect.

I'm not sure why the sentence "In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the U.S. Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA)" is under "criticism". The Dalai Lama presumably has been criticised by somebody for this, but this criticism is not mentioned in the article.

Also, the Trimondis are not a reliable source for use in an encyclopedia article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama was NEVER in charge of Tibet? Dalai himself would not agree. Read http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=399

If he was NEVER in charge, how could he justify those reforms he claimed instituted by himself instead of the communist central government?

This link was added as the reference for the claim "In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned many of Tibet's feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded in 1951." However the interview contains neither the condemn nor any reform he instituted BEFORE Chinese invaded.

Read carefully, he assumed power at 15, in 1950, and the amnesty for prisoners was declared when he was 17. That's 1952, after the liberation. The first few things the Chinese Communist Party did after liberating anywhere in inner land China was to set free the prisoners that may be classified as "repressed brothers and sisters" and you'd expect that in Tibet.

And read the 17 points agreements you'd know Dalai was under pressure from CCP to institute reforms. The article was clearly written in the agreement, though CCP said Dalai's government could do it on its own pace. Even Dalai himself declared that the major reforms was instituted "in uneasy alliance with the Chinese". So it's clear when the reforms were instituted. It's not BEFORE the Chinese invaded but after that, under the pressure to reform so Dalai can hardly take credits for it.

Check the open documents from CCP you'd known from 1951 to 1957 CCP did not push the reforms too harshly. Worrying instigating Dalai and the monastery class' reactions, the main emphasis of the reforms was only on the so-called Jian Zu Jian Xi, or to reduce the rents and the interest rates, which were the heaviest burdens on the serfs. Even under such pressures to reform, all Dalai could do was just to abolishing "inheritable debt"? If he was willing to institute reforms he'd push his reforms ahead of what CCP requested him to do, e.g., set free the serfs, which did not happen until after he fled Tibet.

About the feudal systems, all Dalai could say was that "there were many things wrong with our society", but at the same time "Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one's karma." If you read this sentence correctly, you should see that he admitted that he represented the group of people who were responsible for the feudalism. But again, is this claim of karma much different from that used to be believed by the "25,000 slaves, who were indoctrinated to believe that their servitude was just punishment for their bad karma"?

To conclude, I think the following sentence is groundless and pure whitewash, therefore should be deleted:

"In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned many of Tibet's feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded in 1951." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.123.209 (talk) 01:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note to add that I have reverted your removal of the above sourced content. Firstly you provided no edit summary. Secondly, the content is sourced from a newspaper article and remving sourced content just because you believe it is "groundless and pure whitewash" is not how to edit wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong by saying the claim is a "sourced content". Please read my notes above. The source does not support the claim therefore it's not "sourced content". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.123.209 (talk) 01:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I have read both your message above and the source, the article from the Independent where the Dalai Lama (who is known as the Dalai Lama and not "Dalai" by the way). However, I would strongly suggest that you read and check the source fully as it most certainly does "support the claim" as you put it, and is a perfectly valid source. Whether or not you agree with what is said in the article and in the source it is from, it is still sourced content and as such, should not simply be removed. Perhaps you would also please sign your posts (it is easy to do just add four tildes (these ~) at the end of your message, that way other editors will know who to reply to. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection on the source and it was me who suggested to add a source otherwise the claim was never sourced. But I'd like to know how the source supports the claim, e.g., what reform did Dalai (To me, Lama is just a title. I don't always call W President Bush) institute BEFORE China invaded Tibet, and how he condemned the feudalism. Please point me to which sentence in the source that supports this. Thank you. 68.35.123.209 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite why I should be finding this when it is quite clear in the article I don't know. Howeber, after the interviewer put forward the criticisms about the Dalai Lama, "We cannot revert to the old Tibet, and even if we could, we do not want to, because there were many things wrong with our society," he says. Radical change would have happened without a vicious military occupation. In the brief years he was in charge of Tibet, in uneasy alliance with the Chinese, the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own." Note - "many things wrong with our society". Also note - "Radical change would have happened" and "the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own". Whether or not you agree with what he said he still said it and it is relevant and sourced. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said "Radical change would have happened without a vicious military occupation", not "I am willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded". Can't see the difference? The article says "In the brief years he was in charge of Tibet, in uneasy alliance with the Chinese, the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own." How do you infer from the contexts that the reforms were instituted BEFORE 1951? In my opinion, one may source from the article the following: "Dalai Lama admitted that Tibet feudalism was wrong and it was a bad karma that they were punished for. He also said that under Chinese occupation, in alliance with the Chinese communist government, he had instituted many reforms independently." Hwuubheain 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwuubheain, I find the point you're trying to make confusing, but you seem to want evidence that the Dalai Lama tried to implement radical reforms before the Chinese invasion, and I'm telling you that this is impossible because he was 15 years old then and he was symbolically invested with the power of state in the face of a looming invasion from a much-stronger neighbor, which then happened a short time later. It should be obvious that there is no way any reforms could be carried out under those circumstances. Of course, this does not vitiate the possible criticism that the Dalai Lama is an apologist for (i.e. insufficiently critical of) and a beneficiary of the feudal system; but he was a child at the time and cannot be held responsible for implementing it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, if what you said is right, then Dalai was lying about his independent reforms. Please justify this.Hwuubheain 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalai Lama gives his account from the perspective of his own spin. What, you're surprised? He was at best partly in charge of the country at the time, and he takes credit for reforms that were made during this period. I have no idea whether or not that's a plausible interpretation of history.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't see from the sequence of the events is that Dalai was partly in charge of Tibet's civil affairs from 1951 to 1959. Read the 17 points agreement then you'd see it. Please refer to Mao Zedong's article "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People", written in February 27, 1957, 2 years before Dalai fled Tibet. Mao was by then still optimistic about Dalai would eventually institute reforms therefore did not want to hush him up. See http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/onhandling.html, quote: "Democratic reforms have not yet been carried out in Tibet because conditions are not ripe for them. According to the seventeen-point agreement reached between the Central People's Government and the local government of Tibet, the reform of the social system must be carried out, but the timing can only be decided by the great majority of the people of Tibet and their leading public figures when they consider it practicable, and one should not be impatient. It has now been decided not to proceed with democratic reforms in Tibet during the period of the Second Five-Year Plan. Whether they will be proceeded with in the period of the Third Five-Year Plan can only be decided in the light of the situation at that time." Read the "leading public figures" Dalai, Panchan and the monastery. So my point is, Dalai was never willing to institute any reform. You may or may not believe this, but the fact is, even Dalai himself did not claim he had done any reform BEFORE 1951. Hwuubheain 03:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. He was a child then.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this up because I dispute your claim that Dalai was merely a figurehead. Even Dalai himself does not agree with you so I don't think that is a given, indisputable fact.Hwuubheain 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figurehead or no, he was a minor and was facing an imminent invasion by a vastly superior force. I don't know how you expect him to enact reforms under the circumstances.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1959 he was 24 years old. He was able to independently made the decision of fleeing Tibet and managed to plot and implement it, apparently against the will of the communist central government. He had two brothers that could plot mass uprising against China. I don't know how a mere figurehead could manage to do that under the iron fist control of a totalitarian government. But I can imagine how easy it would be for a figurehead to just nod his head on abolishing feudalism then the communists would do it for him. Isn't it apparent if you read the 17 point agreement and Mao's article that Mao wanted to abolish feudalism in Tibet? Yet Dalai didn't say he agreed. If he ever did he certainly would want to take the credit as he did on the other reforms. But Mao said "conditions are not ripe for them". I don't know how much figureheading does it take to resist Mao's will. Hwuubheain 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the period before 1951.

Also, how does having two influential brothers prove someone is not a figurehead?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai certainly can't take credits for any reforms done before 1951. But Dalai wasn't talking about before 1951. Read that article, it says "in uneasy alliance with the Chinese". There was no Chinese to be alliance with before 1951, only after.

If Dalai's family was as humble as this wiki article says, where do you think the influence of the two brothers comes from? From the general election by the serfs?Hwuubheain 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article say they were humble? It says they were moderately wealthy peasants, and that one of his older brothers was a minor reincarnate lama. And that was before he became the new Dalai Lama ... I don't know who would claim they were humble after that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humble or not aside, what's your point? Is it still that throughout his life Dalai should never be held any responsibility for the Tibet feudalism, even though I've shown enough evidence that Tibet feudalism was not abolished until 1959 when Dalai was 24 years old and by then he was independent and capable enough to institute such reforms if he ever wanted to? Hwuubheain 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's my point? You're the one that brought this up; how can you then ask me what my point is? In any event, I certainly do not think you have shown the the Dalai Lama was independent and able to implement whatever reforms he might have wanted during the 1951-1959 period.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that the Dalai Lamas family were humble. In fact the word humble is not used once in the entire article. What it does say is that they were "moderately wealthy farmers". ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read humble from one of the twenty farmer families "in a small and poor settlement", "making a precarious living off the land raising barley, buckwheat, and potatoes". No mentioning of owning slaves or not whatsoever. In any case, his family was not the kind such as the "Drepung monastery, for example, owned 25,000 slaves". I'd consider such a family humble, in the sense of either "a : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale" or "b : not costly or luxurious". That's my interpretation. If you agree or not that's a separate issue. Hwuubheain 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's interesting that Tangerines accuses me of using Wikipedia to make a point. The modification I made was to illustrate the source article's point, not mine. If you set up a section of criticism, referring to sources but then don't even bother to clearly illustrate the source article's point, what's the purpose to have a criticism section?

Again I must point out that the reference http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1998/5/20_1.html points to "His Holiness the Dalai Lama's view on India's Nuclear Tests" but was attached to Christopher Hitchens's criticism. This is false referencing, considered bad practice to even high school term papers. I deleted this but was also reversed by Tangerines. Isn't this very false referencing trying to make a point by its own? I don't see the logic behind this. Hwuubheain 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwuubheain, you have had the proper usage of the Dalai Lama's style (for such is not his name) explained to you; your persistent use of "Dalai" as a name - as we might call someone "joe" - strikes one as willfully provocative. You might call him "Kundun" if you happened to be on intimate terms with him, which I doubt you are; but to call him "dalai" repeatedly is just ridiculous.kelt1111 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kelt1111, I feel sorry that you consider my way of using one person's name offensive. The analogy of W may not be a perfect one but then you don't have (or I'm not aware of) a similar thing going on in the western tradition. That being said, I also need to point out that you must not always assume your way of calling someone's name is the only "proper" way or an unchallengeable norm. If I had wanted to used a derogative tone to call him like "Joe" I'd pick something from his real name, Tenzin Gyatso.

Actually calling him Dalai is quite normal in China, and has no intention of disrespect or alike whatsoever. That's just the norm of using names of that kind in China. For example, you wouldn't think that Chinese want to use a derogative tone on the 10th Panchen Lama, yet except for in the very official documents where his full name and titles must be spelled out as Pachen Erdeni Chökyi Gyaltsen, he's also frequently just referred to as the Panchen as well as Panchen Lama, officially or unofficially. I'm not aware of any insulting feeling he ever had over either name use.

A few more examples: the Kangxi Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi, whose formal title can be as long as 25 Chinese characters, and not an awfully long title for a Chinese emperor) is normally just referred to as Kangxi. The Wanli Emperor is just called Wanli. The Empress Dowager Cixi is just called Cixi. Is there ever a Dalai or Panchen that's not a Lama? No. Wasn't Wanli or Kangxi an emperor and Cixi an Empress Dowager? Of course yes. Then why sweat on it? Simple as that. In comparison to this kind of name use, I'd even think the use of the like His Holiness laughably pretentious. A monk is a monk. A true Buddhist should refrain from grabbing money and political power, let alone the titles. Well, I know I assume too much. Monks are human too, holiness or not.

Now come back to the name use of Dalai, please refer to a recent Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's talk about Dalai (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/2511/t321116.htm), quote:

'The words and deeds of Dalai in past decades fully demonstrate that he is not purely a religious figure, but a political exile engaging in activities splitting the motherland under the pretext of religion. No matter under what pretext or where he goes, it's not a simple issue of religion or an individual act. He represents a political force aimed at splitting the motherland and "Tibet independence".'

See? Besides the name use, I actually consider this a fairly good criticism on Dalai, only nobody here care to quote it in the Wiki, and I've decided not to sweat on it either (got better things to do). If your country has not been split and invaded and raped for the last 100 years you wouldn't have known the true meaning of a united nation. Well assured I'm no fan of communists but then any responsible government in China should do their job to keep the county united. Allowing Tibet to split would surely collapse the government, communist or not. I consider this stance towards Dalai a legitimate governance, nothing to do with democracy or not. Actually I think if China is ever to have a democratic government this stance would be much more hawky. See Taiwan as an example.

Now come back to why I consider this item biased. I think this item has not reflected the views of many Chinese people (not a small number for sure, could be much more than you can imagine. OK we're brainwashed, but how can you be so sure that you are not?) who consider Dalai a hoax and hypocrite in religion but a very skillful politician who cheats, trades, and coerces to get what he wants. We don't like him and want people to know his tricks. Like it or not, not reflecting this view in the wiki does not make it disappear, and it's your loss not knowing it. Hwuubheain 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I am Wang2 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC), a newbie of wikipedia. As Hwuubheain, I come from Mainland China and I am interested in Tibet. I express here my opinion with my bad English, hope you excuse me for that.[reply]

Hwuubheain, I'd like to say a bit more about what you have written here. I'd say no matter a fan of CCP or not, the fact you regard their hackneyed statement "fairly good criticism" already reflects that you are emotionally affected by them. If you wrote down your words under hot emotions, it's highly probable that they are biased. You wrote: If your country has not been split and invaded and raped for the last 100 years you wouldn't have known the true meaning of a united nation, as well as many insulting words towards Dalailama (hooks, etc) which should not appear in a wiki item which aims at providing readers descriptive facts. These further testify what I have said about you. In fact, I do not read these words even in the item about Hitler.

Sure, as a Mainland Chinese like you, as an insider, I can fully understand your emotion, and from a certain sense, your emotion could be partly justified. But still they are emotions and can make you biased. What's more, if we look at your (partly justified) statement further, we could see easily that we should treat it with caution. You said: If your country has not been split and... for the last 100 years.... Correct, but all of us are not born early enough to witness all these tragedies. We have learned them from CCP's teachings. Yes, those CCP says are not necessarily lies, however, ccp does have (at least) selected the facts deliberately for their own purpose. For example, if you say, "Tibet and Taiwan are unalienable parts of China", then what about Mongolia? Our Chinese have every reason to consider it a part of China if we regard Tibet as so. And we should treat it in the same way we treat Taiwan, right? But our Chinese guys, having such a painful history as you have mentioned, are actually quite "generous" towards Mongolia. The only reason I can see is that CCP has not point their propaganda machine at Mongolia as it has done to Tibet and Taiwan for so many years. And that is mainly because when CCP came to power, they needed the help from USSR and Mongolia was a satellite country of USSR at that time. Just imagine, if what the USSR had controlled had been Tibet, not Mongolia, then today we could have been "generous" to Tibet, and harsh to Mongolia. Doesn't that make sense?

What's more, yes, our Chinese have been wrongly treated for 100 years, so we develop that kind of emotions as a natural result. However to be objective, we have to put our feet into other guys' shoes, to understand their emotions, which might be equally justifiable. The fact is that tibetian guys never identified themselves as Chinese(how could they? They have very different language, grow very different faces, share a very different culture, most of them lived together in places Chinese can hardly reach)， not to say identify China as their Motherland. They also have their own systems, yes, that was quite backward and should be reformed, but anyway Chinese central government only exerted symbolic control over them. So when the modern concept "Nation" became popular, wasn't it natural for Tibetian intellectuals to think that Tibet should be an Nation as independent as China? And if their system was indeed backward, isn't natural for them to think they should reform it themselves, while maintaining their independence? Such natural things happened a lot in Europe, like Romania, Bulgaria's independence from Ottoman Turkey. (And Ottoman's govern on them was not only symbolic). Ottoman Turkey, similar with us, disintegrated in the past 200 years, but let's say if a Turkish, still dreaming of their old glories, still thinking Romania and Bulgaria parts of his "Motherland", addresses to those who doubt his belief: If your country has not been split and... for the last 100 years...., I guess even you would think him ridiculous. Actually today the Turkish people take a much more realistic view towards this, a Turkish girl told me that their history text book writes something like: "Ottoman empire governed large area and that's our past glory, but today we still lives happily in our smaller land".

Wang2 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, below is what I have written yesterday, therefore these two parts are somewhat reversed.

Wang2 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is a pity that this article has not reflected the opinion of many mainland Chinese. But why don't you add this part to it yourself other than just blaming foreigners, who are not at all familiar with Chinese opinions, for it?

2. I have to point out that it is the Chinese government who has blocked the wikipedia, therefore blocked the Chinese people from publishing the facts in their eyes on it.

3. Brain-washed or not? That someone insists on his own, maybe biased opinions does not mean that he is brain washed. If you have access to different opinions, but somehow you find one of them exceptionally appealing to you, and you stick to that, you are not brain-washed. However, if someone deliberately blocks different voices from you then he is brain washing you and if as a result, you develop an very negative view towards different opinions, you are brain washed. Therefore, a western guy finds Dalai Lama (I am sorry I do not use "Dalai", anyway I am editing the English Version of Wiki, I have to make myself understood by western guys by conforming to their conventions. Unfortunately, they think Dalai lama's name is Dalai lama.) quite attractive does not mean that he is brainwashed-anyway no one prevent him from accessing the CCP's point of view(or brainwashes him). But I'd say most of Mainland Chinese think of Dalailama as a devil since they are brainwashed. If they could hear the voice of Dalailama and judge by themselves, I don't think Dalai lama's figure could be so negative among them.

4.I do think that what you have said about Dalailama(if he was willing to reform or not around 1950's) lacks evidence, (maybe I will explain more about this later) but what he did at that time might be something minor. You should focus more on what he did when he was more mature, that is, after he came to India. I do not want to state all that myself, but would refer you to a book:

http://www.xizang-zhiye.org/gb/arch/books/Tianzang/index.html OK, it's too late and I have to sleep now, maybe I will talk a bit more when I have more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wang2 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

holy cow! what a rant. just a couple of thoughts. His title is "The Dalai Lama," yes, it is a little insulting and also just kind of dumb to call him "Dalai" only, it would be kind of like referring to The Pope and merely "Po." Both "Dalai" and "Lama" are in fact part of his title. If you disagree strongly with the idea that a simple Budhhist monk has a title, you could just use his given name, but to use half his title is silly. And seriously, the Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China is hardly a reliable source as to how he should be referred to! It's unbelievable you would even suggest that, given the immense hostility of the current government in Beijing towards the Dalai Lama.

And yes, you have been brainwashed as you espouse the idea that China was "raped" in the last 100 years, and that this somehow justifies invading a neighboring country and subjecting their people to communist totalitarian rule (what you refer to as being "liberated"). Seeking to preserve the independence of his country does not mean that the Dalai Lama wants to "split" China. I believe he has no designs on China, just on his own country, Tibet, which never was part of China. (Yes, at various times in history the government in Tibet had to pay the emporors of China money, which was basically bribery not to invade, but this is more like paying the mafia money to leave you alone, it hardly confers recognition of sovereignty). And the proposal that unless China invaded Tibet its government would collapse is also ridiculous ("Allowing Tibet to split would surely collapse the government"): Other nations have separated peacefully without difficulty, such as the former Czeckoslovakia. In fact, it is when one side seeks to use force to continue to subjegate a people who wish to be independant that trouble starts (witness the bloodbath in the former Yugoslavia because Belgrade refused to allow the republics to secure self-determination through peaceful means). The dictators in Beijing have made similar statements about Taiwan, and yet after more than 50 years of Taiwan having effective independence (their own government, money, passports, laws, etc) the government acorss the strait has not collapsed.

And lastly, by all means, please feel free to post "criticisms" of the Dalai Lama from the government of China as much as you want, it will serve to show that the government in Beijing is little more than a gang of brutal, imperialistic thugs who have to resort to violence and oppression to sustain their rule - their tyrades against a Nobel peace prize winner will help the world see them for what they really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.49 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it would be kind of like referring to The Pope and merely "Po." Actually Pope (English, one syllable) is shortened from 'Papa'(Latin languages including Italian, two syllables). So according to your reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to shorten dalai lama to dalai. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"their tyrades against a Nobel peace prize winner". Buddy, why don't you take a look at the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners and see how many of them have blood on their hands? 81.155.96.175 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text is missing from the end of the Criticism section, it looks like some content was removed. I'm not familiar with this article and its controversies enough to sort through the past few days' edits myself, would someone be able to fix this? Thank you. --Grace 03:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) One more thing: surely the term "homosexual rights activists" is not the one preferred by Wikipedia? Everyone calls them "gay rights activists" where I'm from, even newspapers. "Homosexual rights activists" is ambiguous; it seems to suggest that the activists are themselves homosexual, when they may not be. --Grace 04:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Homosexual rights activists" is ambiguous; it seems to suggest that the activists are themselves homosexual, when they may not be. Is this a joke? And "gay rights activists" doesn't suggest that the activists are themselves gay, when they may not be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.52.41 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with that statement in principle, there's potential for confusion there, but it's no different than terms like "Native Rights Activists" or "Minority Rights Activists" imply something about their members. What's more, if the term "Homosexual Rights Activist" (which is just as common) causes confusion, the same would be said for "Gay Rights Activist".--74.110.191.193 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead starts with "[[His Holiness]] Tenzin Gyatso, Dalai Lama XIV". This is rubbish. First, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes states advises against opening articles with styles. There already exists article text explaining that the Dalai Lama is styled "His Holiness" in the West, and a "style" infobox created for the express reason of not having styles be presented in the lead. Second, Dalai Lamas are not numered with Roman numberals like kings. There is a "Rama V" in Thailand but no "Dalai Lama V" in Tibet. Wikipedia follows existing conventions and does not create them.

I changed it to reflect the other Dalai Lama articles.--Jiang 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed content without an edit summary. You therefore provided no reason whatsoever for the removal of content, so your edit was reverted as vandalism. In addition, Roman Numerals are not gibberish as you for some reason told me on my talk page. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The location name "Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama" should not be used in the lead because this is not the official name. We originally moved this article to "Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama" from "Tenzin Gyatso" (modelled on British peerage articles) for the sake of guiding readers (most of whom can be assumed not to know the Dalai Lama's personal name) to the right article. But this is neither the common nor proper title - he is commonly referred to as simply the "Dalai Lama", not "Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama" and his proper personal name, which we would be using for biographies, is Tenzin Gyatso. There's no way around the ambiguity.--Jiang 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence is not clear. In layman's terms, what exactly does he do? Is he the equivalent of the Pope, except for a different religion? The rest of the document is also somewhat badly written. Sobar 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, Thondup was recognised as the rebirth of the Dalai Lama and renamed Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso ("Holy Lord, Gentle Glory, Compassionate, Defender of the Faith, Ocean of Wisdom"). I wonder where this translation comes from. It's been in this article since 2001, which is, of course, a very long time in Wikipedia terms. However, it doesn't look right. Through use of a dictionary, I find that the names mean something like this:

• Jetsün: "holy lord"
• Jampel: "disseminator of gentleness" (or something like that)
• Ngawang: "master of speech"
• Lobsang: "noble-minded"
• Yeshe': "wisdom"
• Tênzin: "holder of the teachings"
• Gyatso: "ocean"

There's no "defender of the faith" in there, and "wisdom" and "ocean" are separated by another word.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reading the autobiography of the Dalia Lama's elder brother, Thubten Jigme Norbu, called Tibet is my Country, (1960) Reprint: Wisdom Books, London (1986), ISBN 0-86171-045-2, and on p. 135 he gives the following translations of the new titles the Dalai Lama was given when he was enthroned: Ngawang, the Eloquent; Lobsang, the Wise; Tenzin, Defender of the Faith; and Gyatso, the Ocean. 'Dalai', as I am sure you know, means 'great Ocean' in Mongolian and is usually interpreted as an abbreviation for: 'Ocean of Wisdom'. It is, I believe, the equivalent of the Tibetan 'Gyatso'. Yeshe, I believe, means something like 'Absolute (or 'Divine') Knowledge or Wisdom'. I hope this is some help, but, please, there must be someone reading these pages with a real knowledge of Tibetan - who can explain the titles properly.John Hill 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found another description of His Holiness' titles in: Out of this World: Across the Himalayas to Tibet by Lowell Thomas, Jr., London (1951), p. 149. He says: "The name he received on his initiation into the priesthood is, by the way, quite a tongue-twister—Getson Ngwang Lobsang Tengin Gyapso Sisunwangyur Tshungpa Mapai Dhepal Sangpo! Meaning in plain English: "The Holy One, the Gentle Glory, Powerful in Speech, Pure in Mind, of Divine Wisdom, Holding the Faith, Ocean-Wide." I don't know how this fits in with the earlier descriptions but I hope it is of some interest anyway. Cheers, John Hill 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that my sources are dictionaries, I think that's probably more authoritative than the comments of a Tibetan politician. "Lobsang" is blo bzang, and both Webster's and the Diamond Way dictionary^[1]give "noble-minded" as the definition. Looking at the component entries, I surmise that "good intellect" or "good wisdom" would also be acceptably correct. "Master of speech" and "eloquent" are substantially the same translation of "Ngawang". "Tenzin" is bstan ’dzin, which both online dictionaries give as "holder of the teachings", or simply "teacher". The components seem to be bstan = "teachings", ’dzin = "capture; grasp; manipulate; seize; to control; to uphold; to perceive; apprehend", i.e. various meanings related to holding or comprehending. "Defender of the faith" seems quite a stretch. Yeshe’ is ye shes, which seems ot a have a variety of philosophical glosses having to do with "wisdom"; I believe that, in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, it is a direct translation for the Sanskrit jñāna. As for "Dalai" and Gyatso, I, of course, agree that it means "ocean", although I am not aware specifically that it is usually interpreted as an abbreviation for "Ocean of Wisdom"—I only recall seeing this phrase before as an extremely loose or poetic translation of "Dalai Lama", with "lama" taken to mean "wisdom".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DL stated that lama means guru. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nat: For your interest, the article, "The Institution of the Dalai Lama", by R. N. Rahul Sheel in The Tibet Journal, Vol. XIV No. 3. Autumn 1989, pp. 19-32, says on pp. 31-32, n. 1:

The word Dalai is Mongolian for "ocean", used mainly by the Chinese, the Mongols, and foreigners. Rgya mtsho, the corresponding Tibetan word, always has formed the last part of the religious name of the Dalai Lama since Dalai Lama II [sic – should read Dalai Lama III]. The expression Lama (Bla ma) means the "superior one". Western usage has taken it to mean the "priest" of the Buddhism of Tibet. The term Dalai Lama, therefore, means the lama whose wisdom is as deep, as vast and as embracing as the ocean." John Hill 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The expression Lama (Bla ma) means the "superior one"."- That's very strange, DL himself stated in his autobiography that the word 'lama' corresponds exactly to the Indian word 'guru' meaning a teacher. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the [sic] is added here. According to Wikipedia, the 2nd Dalai Lama had the personal name Gendün Gyatso.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama simply means Ocean Lama, it does not mean Ocean of Wisdom or vast and deep wisdom. Tibetans of the past actually did not know what an ocean was as they lived on a high plateau thousands of miles from the nearest ocean. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the leading paragraph of this article is mentioned the misnomer of calling Gyatso simply "the Dalai Lama" because of its implications. And yet the article goes on to use "the Dalai Lama" instead of "Gyatso". Makes no sense. Yeago 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, on reading the above discussion I see him referred to simply as "Dalai". You people are just silly. Get on the ball and make the references "Gyatso".Yeago 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to re-read the portion of the article to which you are referring. It says, "he is normally referred to in Western media simply as 'the Dalai Lama'. Contrary to a Western misconception, he does not have spiritual authority over all Buddhists as the Pope has over Roman Catholics." It does not say that referring to him as "the Dalai Lama" is a misnomer; this is unrelated to the misconception which is mentioned in the following sentence. On the contrary, he is undisputedly the Dalai Lama, and that is by far the most natural way to refer to him (or as "the 14th Dalai Lama" in cases where confusion might arise with previous Dalai Lamas). It would be very strange indeed to refer to him simply as "Gyatso" (which is not a surname). This would be like referring to Pope John Paul II as "Paul".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The caption refers to the action in the photo, which is Pres. Bush handing him the award. It isn't about who VOTED to give him the award. It feels POV to say that the president was "looking on" or whatever, when he is the one handing the Dalai Lama his award. K. Scott Bailey 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not show Bush handing the award to the 14th Dalai Lama. If you look closely, Bush is only holding the edge of the box at the same time that Byrd is, as well. Bush did not give the award to him, literally or in fact. Why not just say that the image shows the Congressional Gold Medal being awarded to the Dalai Lama and leave it at that? To say Bush gave the award to him, when he did not, is POV and wrong. Evolve17 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're really going to make an issue of this? Bush placed the award in his hand. That's all the caption is saying. Why do you care so much? I don't care at all, except to keep the caption accurate, which your first edit (something about Bush "looking on") did not. What is your point, exactly? The caption has NOTHING to do with how the award is decided upon, but rather only pertains to what is happening in the photograph. As I have to leave for awhile, if you decide to unilaterally change the caption, it will probably stand for awhile. But it MUST remain accurate to the action in the photograph, which clearly shows (no matter your INTERPRETATION) Bush physically handing the award to the Dalai Lama. K. Scott Bailey 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if you don't care and you want the caption to be accurate, how is this? "The Dalai Lama receiving a Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. George W. Bush, Robert Byrd, and Nancy Pelosi are on his left." Evolve17 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "dispute" is silly, and that caption overlong, but it's better than the apparently POV about Pres. Bush "looking on", so we might as well go with it, I guess. K. Scott Bailey 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The caption is changed.Evolve17 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to figure out why you cared so much if it wasn't POV-based. K. Scott Bailey 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern all along was simply accuracy. The current caption is accurate, and that's all that matters in my mind.Evolve17 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF, I will take your word for it. K. Scott Bailey 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dates for the Dalai Lama receiving the medal are wrong. They say 2006. It happened in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.93.20 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what exactly is the problem here? Why does it say "September 2006" when it just happened about a month ago, in 2007? 128.113.228.175 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be conducting an interview with the Dalai Lama's Representative to the Americas, Tashi Wangdi. If you have a question you would like me to consider asking, please leave it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone/Tibet --David Shankbone 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section in this article should be removed as it clearly violates BLP. (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack) The "criticism" of the Dalai Lama's administration receiving money from the CIA is an editor's POV and OR. The "criticism" based on the Dalai Lama's alleged support is unacceptable. The criticism of his association with Aum Shinrikyo is pure "guilt by association". The "criticism" that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as the Dalai Lama had portrayed is OR and irrelevant. And the "criticism" of his comments in regards to "sexual misconduct" from gay rights activists is an aspect of Buddhism not the DL. In short, the "criticisms" are all fatally flawed which is why BLP says "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article". None of these criticisms are relevant, properly sourced or represent a significant minority. Unless anyone can surprise me with an argument, I'm going to remove it. Thanks.Momento (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the poorly sourced material, and I see that others have further removed other material which is also dubious in this context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the criticism section. Any serious criticism should be incorporated in the article not as a separate section according to BLP.Momento (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalai Lama also received honourary Doctor of Laws degrees from both UBC and SFU on April 19 and 20 2006 respectively. These are notable degrees, but the awards section is getting a bit long. Worth including? Source: [1][2].--Ktims (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the honors in the world wouldn't affect the Dalai Lama's influence if he never said or did anything. It is through his wisdom, as expressed in his books, speeches, and advice, that he influences the world, aloof from its power struggles, politics, and murderous warring. He is influential more as an author, a spiritual counsellor, an advocate of peace and compassion, and a commentator on international relations than as a monk, a Buddhist, an honoree, office holder, or mild-mannered celebrity. But what authority can we cite to certify that his ethical teachings are accurate, wholesome, and worthy? Unfree 14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He than elected as vice chairman of China's National People's Congress in the same year. However, during 1959, he organized a major uprising among the Tibetan population. After several failed attempted murder and assault on Tibet governor and other officials, the Dalai Lama and his entourage began to suspect that China was planning to kill him. Consequently, he fled to Dharamsala, India, on 17 March of that year, entering India on 31 March during the Tibetan uprising." Why I could not put these words into the section. I am just telling the truth. You should not deny the truth, just because you paid by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.178.115 (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what makes you think that is true?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations as well...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny kind of truth. If the Chinese (ie with the authority of Mao) wanted to kill the DL, you can bet your bottom dollar the DL would have died a long time ago. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MoS for biographies:

"...Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI... " nor should the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria..." Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper..."

So explaining that this is his full title and discussing it is fine but referring to him by it throughout is out of bounds. RecentlyAnon (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be moved to the Dalai Lama article. The source doesn't clarify when the human rights violations took place (the interview and the exhibition might have been decades after the torture/punishment). It's unclear whether they happened under Tenzin Gyatso's or some other Dalai Lama's rule. So the allegations shouldn't be in the article on Tenzin Gyatso. --PsychoPiglet (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a generic claim.Momento (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section in this article has been re-inserted by VictorRothshild and should be removed as it clearly violates BLP. (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack) The "criticism" of the Dalai Lama's administration receiving money from the CIA is an editor's POV and OR. The "criticism" based on the Dalai Lama's alleged support is unacceptable. The criticism of his association with Aum Shinrikyo is pure "guilt by association". The "criticism" that feudal Tibet was not as benevolent as the Dalai Lama had portrayed is OR and irrelevant. And the "criticism" of his comments in regards to "sexual misconduct" from gay rights activists is an aspect of Buddhism not the DL. In short, the "criticisms" are all fatally flawed which is why BLP says "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article". None of these criticisms are relevant, properly sourced or represent a significant minority. Unless anyone can surprise me with an argument, I'm going to remove it. Thanks.Momento (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material appears to be reliably sourced and neutrally-presented. Move the information into a different order in the article if you like, but please don't delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having the material in a "Criticism" section obviously means it isn't being "neutrally-presented". Receiving money from the CIA isn't inherently negative and none of the sources criticize the DL for receiving it. Christopher Hitchens supposed criticism of the DL for "his alleged support for India's nuclear weapons testing", is actually the DL telling "developed countries" they "should not concern themselves with its (India's) internal affairs". CH criticism of the DL's statements about sexual misconduct are a Buddhist idea not just the DL's. His "suppression of Shugden worship" is attributed to others not him. And his meeting Shoko Asahara, is guilt be association as the meetings happened before SA was convicted of the sarin gas attacks. The source used for comments on "serfdom" refers back as far as the 14th century, citing incidents from 1660 and 1792. The DL began his rule in Nov, 1950 and less than a year later the Chinese invaded. Hardly enough time for the 15 year old DL to overturn 100s a years of "serfdom". It is "guilt by association" and the source does not criticize the DL. And finally the criticism by Gay rights activists is adequately covered by the DL expounding the Buddhist view on homosexuality in the article. I'm trying to think of a good reason why this "criticism" deserves to be in at all. But, hey, is it my job to correct this sort of beat up.Momento (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV says that all significant points of view must be presented. While you may not think that accepting money from the CIA is a problem someone else does, someone who is a notable commentator. Again, feel free to move the information into chronological order but please don't properly sourced, neutral-presented information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These three or four paragraphs can, and should, be moved to appropriate sections in the article, if the sources are sound. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved these to the appropriate sections. The only issue I see is that Hitchens's viewpoint is given undue weight and should be trimmed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly thinks that " accepting money from the CIA is a problem" WillBeBack. I can't find anything in either source [3][4] that criticizes the DL.Momento (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memento is right, there is indeed no "criticism" inferred in the CIA citations. The Gay criticism may be somewhat debatable too for someone who takes the trouble to read to the end of article that is cited. Paulzon (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the Pen and Teller episode of 'bulshit' that attacks the dhali lamma for whatever reasons they had? Is any of it credible and is anyof it worthy of being in this article?Sanitycult (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penn & Teller? The comics? Nah. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CRITICISM SECTION?

Good work everyone, for promoting a non-biased Wikipedia!

I suggest calling the section 'Controversies because it is less harsh (criticism is always bad, controversies are debatable). Now it sounds like a good section has been erased. Does anyone know where it is? All I found so far is some edits from 67.137.88.55 here and here and here. Here is a list of controversies that I have heard about so far:

• As a slave-owner, possibly largest, in pre-communist Tibet
• As good friend of Nazis, former Nazis, neo-Nazis, and quasi-Nazis
• As friend and/or supporter of Aum Shinrikyo
• Personally on the payroll of the CIA since 1950-something (US$186,000 per year)
• Government in Exile on the payroll of CIA since the same time ($1.7 million per year)
• Supporting the violent rebellion against the PR China government between 1950 and 1980s
• Agreeing to jointly name the Panchen Lama with the PRC government, but withdrew last minute and naming his own independently (other living Buddhas are complaining about this too)
• Religious persecution of certain sects of Tibetan Buddhists (Dorje Shugden and Karmapa) since the 1980s
• Saying HH Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of all Tibetan Buddhists is like saying HH Pope Benedikt XVI is the spiritual leader of all Christians, which is not true
• Allegedly inciting Lhasa Riots in 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schroedi (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Criticism of the Tibetan feudal society is mentioned in the article. How can the current Dalai Lama be held responsible for it? He inherited the situation and was still a minor when Tibet was incorporated into the PRC.

2) "A good friend"? Prove it. This claim sounds quite spurious. The Dalai Lama is known to have been a friend of Heinrich Harrer, if that's what you're referring to.

3) What do you suggest that we say about this? "One of the people that the Dalai Lama met with several times was Shoko Asahara, who later turned out to be crazy." A reader reading this would wonder what the significance of that fact is, and they would be right to wonder.

4) and 5) The article already mentions that the government-in-exile was funded by the CIA. I agree that it should also make it clear that some of this money went directly to the livelihood of the Dalai Lama himself, if that is, in fact, the case.

6) Again, this requires substantiation. I'm not aware that there even was an armed rebellion against the Chinese government after the late 1960s. If someone wants to add more detail about the Dalai Lama's changing strategy toward dealing with the PRC government, I think that would be great.

7) I don't believe I've ever heard anyone before claim that there was such an agreement. I doubt the Chinese government would agree to that.

8) I agree that the article should contain a brief mention of the Dorje Shugden issue and the Karmapa issue. The latter is hardly "persecution", of course, particularly not in the minds of the people the large number of people who support Ogyen Trinley Dorje.

9) I agree that the article should not say that the Dalai Lama is some sort of hierarch or church authority for Tibetan Buddhism in general. It currently doesn't. To describe him as a revered spiritual leader is entirely accurate as far as I am aware.

10) This is already mentioned in the article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.westernshugdensociety.org - the registrant details of the domain have been obscured using a domain proxy service (http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/). This is an obvious attempt to hide an identity. download "To the Dalai Lama of Tibet.pdf" (http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/file_download/10/To+the+Dalai+Lama+of+Tibe\t.pdf), and look at its metadata. The document's properties reveal the following information:

• Author: Peter
• Company: Tharpa (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's exclusive publisher, a New Kadampa Tradition enterprise)

More over the content of the site is slander and may fulfil Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 see: Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060001_en_1 Statements like

"According to some sources, you were born in a Muslim family. When you were a child who did not know anything, some ignorant Tibetans acting as representatives of the Tibetan Government chose that boy as the reincarnation of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Since that time, that boy wore saffron robes, and the local people jokingly nicknamed you as ´The Saffron Robed Muslim´. In this way, you received the position of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Because of this, many people now keep your photograph on their shrines and worship you."

"You have received a higher education in Buddhism from your kind teacher Trijang Rinpoche. However, the sad situation is that after you arrived to India your behaviour changed. You were continually against the intention of your Root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, who is the lineage holder of Je Tsonghapa´s doctrine. You strived strongly to destroy Trijang Rinpoche´s spiritual tradition, which is the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa´s doctrine. Since 1996, you have regarded Trijang Rinpoche´s followers as your enemies and you are now giving orders to the ordinary people and monasteries to expel them from their society. Following your views and your orders, many people believe that Trijang Rinpoche´s followers who practise Dorje Shugden are their enemies."

"...All these horrible situations have developed through the power of your evil actions. This is our valid evidence to prove that you are not Buddhist. Because of this, we also believe that you are the saffron robed Muslim. Throughout your life you have pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings that you have stolen from Trijang Rinpoche. By doing this, you have cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that your real nature is cruel and very evil. Copyright © 2008 WesternShugdenSociety.org. All Rights Reserved. The Western Shugden Society is only the community or confederation of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden practitioners -- it has no leader nor registered office."

are self-revealing. Of course Goldner and Trimondys don't fulfill WP:RS in any way. (Although I retired, I felt I should at least contribute a little to the discussion here).

All the edits in these articles:

• Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
• Dorje Shugden
• Dorje Shugden Controversy
• Kelsang Gyatso
• New Kadampa Tradition

started some days before the New Kadampa Tradition started their second (or third) Media Campaign under the name Western Shugden Society against the Dalai Lama on 22 April, 2008. This group try of course to get control over the information published in Wikipedia.

The speakers/frontmen/frontwomen of Western Shugden Society are Kelsang Khyenrab (present successor of Geshe Kelsang), Kelsang Dekyong (USA representative of NKT), Kelsang Pema (press speaker, NKT), Kelsang Ananda (NKT representative of Germany). The identities of them are obvious from their website WSS and their press-information like here: http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/1184651/ (see persons in charge).

Regarding the Fundamentalism of NKT, see: Fundamentalism#Buddhism. I just mention this to make visible what the background of those activities are. Until about 10 April, 2008 there hasn't been much controversy regarding these articles. WSS/NKT have now just exported there strange ideas and approach to Wikipedia. They base their claims mainly on WP:SPS or self-published and anonym websites. Ok that's it. Good luck to all editors. --Kt66 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear kt66, the reason why there was no controversy regarding these articles from your point of view was that you had a virtual monopoly on editing them and they expressed your view; now they are more neutral due to the involvement of other editors which is proper and correct for a wikipedia article which has to express all points of view. I'm afraid we live in a democracy where everyone has the right to be heard. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain controversy regarding Dalai Lama's contacts with those of Nazi ideology like Doctor Bruno Beger from Auschwitz or Miguel Serrano. No mention of this is made in the article. [5] In September 1994 a historic meeting took place in London. Seven individuals from different parts of the world gathered there to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was on a visit to the United Kingdom, and to talk about one common issue: their recollection of the days spent in independent Tibet. These individuals had spent some time in Tibet in different parts of this century. They were: Mrs. Joan Mary Jehu ( who visited Tibet in September 1932 accompanying her father, Colonel Weir, the Political Officer in Sikkim, on an official mission to Tibet.); Mr. Robert Ford ( who was radio officer with the British Mission in Lhasa in 1945 and radio officer to the Tibetan Government from 1948 to 1950.); Mr Heinrich Harrer (who spent seven years in Tibet from 1943 to 1950); Mr Archibald Jack (who visited the British Army garrison at Gyantse in 1938); Dr Bruno Beger ( anthropologist, ethnologist, geographer and physician of the 1939 German Schaefer expedition to Tibet.)

[6] The second document is a report by this Professor Hirt. "Re: Procurement of the skulls of Jewish-Bolshevistic commissars for scientific research at the University of Strassburg." I quote: "Extensive skull collections from nearly all races and people are in existence. It is only of Jews that so few skulls are available to science that work on them admits of no secure findings. The war in the East now offers us an opportunity to make good this deficiency. In the Jewish-Bolshevistic commissars, who embody a repulsive and characteristic type of subhuman, we have the possibility of acquiring a reliable scientific document by acquiring their skulls.

The smoothest and most expeditious way of obtaining and securing this provision of skulls would be to instruct the Wehrmacht to hand over all Jewish-Bolshevistic commissars immediately to the military police. The person charged with securing this material (a young physician or medical student belonging to the Werhmacht or better still to the military police) is to prepare a previously specified series of photographs and anthropoligical measurements.

After the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose head must not be injured, he will separate the head from the trunk and send it, immersed in a preserving fluid, in well-sealed lead containers made especially for this purpose, to the designated address."

And now the next document. A letter of June 21, 1943. From Ahnenerbe. Top secret.

To Reich Security Headquarters IVB4, Attention: SS-Obersturmführer Eichmann. Re: Skeleton collection.

With reference to your letter of September 25, 1942, and the consultations held since then regarding the above-mentioned matter, we wish to inform you that Dr. Bruno Beger, our staff member charged with the above-mentioned special mission, terminated his work in the Auschwitz concentration camp on June 15, 1943, because of the danger of an epidemic. In all, 115 persons, 79 male Jews, 2 Poles, 4 Central Asians, and 30 Jewesses, were processed.

These inmates have been placed, men and women separately, in the concentration-camp sick quarters, and quarantined. For the further processing of these selected persons, immediate transfer to Natzweiler concentration camp is desirable and should be effected as quickly as possible in view of the danger of infection in Auschwitz. A list of the selected persons is appended. You are requested to send the necessary instructions."

[7] Frontpage of Bruno Beger’s book: “Meine Begegnungen mit dem Ozean des

Wissens“ („My meetings with the Ocean of Knowledge”) – Königstein 1986

Not only dd the Dalai Lama meet Waldheim but he seems to have a propensity for meeting former and current Nazis. His relationship with Heinrich Harrer who served in both the Nazi SA and the SS in the 1930s is well known. On one visit to Austria he met and as photographed with Bruno Berger who had been convicted of killing Jews at Auschwitz. On a visit to to Chile in June 1992 the Dalai Lama was met at the airport by, among others the leader Chile's Nazi party Miguel Serrano, who told the reporters he had met the Dalai Lama while he was Chile's ambassador to India and the two "are friends" Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region Edited by: Barry Sautman; June Teufel Dreyer page 347 --Molobo (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Molobo (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you want the article to actually say about this? "The Dalai Lama has a propensity for meeting with Nazis"? How are we to explain the significance of this?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of Dalai Lama's meetings with Miguel Serrano. --Molobo (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The People's Liberation Army stopped short of the old border between Tibet and Xikang and demanded negotiations."

There is so many problems with this sentance. Xikang was a fictional Chinese province that existed only on Chinese maps. Tibetans call the area Kham. It is Eastern Tibet. Chamdo, where the fighting took place, was under Lhasa's administration all along. Today, it is a part of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Negotiations? The only agreement the Chinese signed was with Jigme, a Tibetan commander captured in the battle.Kauffner (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this description is suspect. Please keep the discussion calm and provide sources if possible. I've googled trying to find a map of Xikang, but couldn't find one. It seems that Xikang, whether in fact controlled by the Kuomintang government or not, did encompass most of Kham. If anything, the idea of a border in disputed territory is rather misleading, but again, I've been unable to find a map of the borders of Xikang. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Solution I've removed the sentence for now until consensus can be reached about what the article should say regarding the events of 1950. The prose still makes sense and I'm not sure that the sentence in question is necessary or useful. This biography would be incomplete without sufficient background for Tenzin Gyatso's political actions, and the section should probably be expanded, carefully. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fawning and misrepresentative and makes the Dalai Lama out to be a saint when in fact he is unpopular amongst large sections of his own Tibetan community due to his autocratic actions with respect to the Karmapa and Dorje Shugden practitioners. His part in these crises should be explained here somewhere or the neutrality of this article must remain disputed. (Wisdomsword (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

IMO all chapter written by Truthsayer62 is POV-style written and bad referenced. Should be deleted or rewrited -Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puhh, the complete section is in itself very controversial. First there is no "Banning", secondly the quotes of "the Kagyue school" refer only to a split of it around Shamar Rinpoche and Ole Nydahl, there is also more Kaygue school who sees it not that way. Not to balance the section with proper information, as they are findable in Karmapa controversy, especially that the Dalai Lama was asked by the other three main Kaygue head Lamas, to give his opinion, after Sharmapa Rinpoche found his own candidate, is very one-sided. The NKT/WSS stuff about "banning" is also very one-sided. Even the term is more like propaganda than facts. I fully support the neutrality template. I suggest deletion until at the discussion site a neutral version has been developed and discussed. I will ask another editor to help. I lack time. --Kt66 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NKT/WSS "persecution/"banning" opinion, one can also link to Dorje Shugden Controversy. Quite complex stuff. --Kt66 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalai Lama's actions have been controversial, and until now there has been nothing of the Kamarpa Controversy or the Dorje Shugden controversy on this page which is a major omission. The section has proper citations. If you think it is biased, please feel free to add what you believe to be a balanced view. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fist aid kid I removed all the not acceptable personal webpages and self-published sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources --Kt66 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section was one-sided, based on self-published sources, clearly POV and included poor sources as references, like the personal webpage of Sumati Arya or the one-sided use of webpages of Shamar Rinpoche and followers. The controversies are further very complex and there exist complex WP articles, that's why I removed the complete section according to Biographies of living persons - Sources and referred instead to the WP sub articles. I think this is common sense solution. --Kt66 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kt66: Thank you. Deleting this POV-material and referring to other articles was the best solution. Now, I'm not sure if this chapter must to be distinct first-level part of article. Maybe include this in... oe "Reception"? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is not acceptable. This section has proper citations and is linked to external sources. What you put in its place was references to other wikipedia articles which do not show the criticism that the Dalai Lama has received and do not reflect current events, therefore I have reverted your changes. If you don't like this section, please edit it to make it more balanced, not replace the hard work that other people have put into this section - with respect, you don't have the right to do that. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See rules Biographies of living persons - Sources: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removal." Moreover the controversies are very complex and are dealt with in the sub-articles. Because you are a quite new editor, and not familiar with things I suggest to wait for other editor's comment. I revert now your revert. As you can see above is already the suggestion for deletion. --Kt66 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material is sourced, so your arguments do not apply. I think you simply don't want to see criticism of the Dalai Lama that is so blatant. The article you have put in the place of this section are not adequate because they don't reflect the current position of the controversies. As you will note, I place a neutrality question on the Dorje Shugden article. Furthermore, what this section needs to show is the criticism that the Dalai Lama has received in relation to these religious matters. Your substitutes are not suitable for this purpose.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<Please check WP:SPS, and WP:BLP#Sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions seem problematic right now. As several people have pointed out, the version written by Truthsayer62 has problematic sources and would need major revision to make it more neutral. It is also far too long. However, the shorter version is not adequate as it is. Anyone want to try to re-write this in a brief summary with reliable sources? Sunray (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles wikilinked in that section are a POV minefield and highly contested. At this point linking to them brings that lack of NPOV into this article unnecessarily. Once these articles reach a state that they are useful, these could be summarized here, but not before. I have removed that section for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. Perhaps we could work out the wording of summary here about the Dorje Shugden and Karmapa controversies. Sunray (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstein source added. If there was a Ambo Province when DL was born, name the provincial governor (I doubt if anyone can). Remember it was the ROC/Han escort which protected the soul boy on the way to Lhasa.

Catherine II was born in Prussia/Germany instead of Poland even Stettin is currently Polish - MainBody (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amdo is more accurately a region, rather than a province. Where did the text say "Amdo province"? Also, what's your source for an ROC or Han escort for the young Dalai Lama? Goldstein says it was a group of Muslim traders.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qinghai was under the control of the Ma clique (Chinese Muslim warlords) throughout the Republican period. The Governor of Qinghai (appointed by the KMT government in Nanjing) was Ma Lin [8]--Jiang (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a group of editors immediately deletes any criticism, no matter how well sourced, in addition to deleting the neutrality dispute template. Can this bio be considered neutral?

I have added the neutrality dispute tag, because it looks like there are editors who systematically remove all criticism. This is unacceptable under WP:NPOV. The most recent edit of this sort is this one, where well-sourced criticism is deleted without explanation. I see from reading earlier posts on this talk page that there was at one time a "criticism" section of the article, which has evidently been deleted. The Dalai Lama's contact with the Nazis is mentioned in this context, but it appears nowhere in the article. These defects must be fixed before the article can be considered to be in compliance with the NPOV policy. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by criticism you mean slander, then I agree. I for one will continue to delete all additions (of which we have seen a lot) that are along the lines of "the dalai lama kills puppies, this is proved by [insert name of fifth-rate newspaper or propaganda mouthpiece]". The criticism has to be real criticism, not crap that is intended - by the original author and the Wikipedia editor who cites it - to make the subject of the article look bad. Yunfeng (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated this well yourself in the past: "...as everyone involved in this discussion can clearly see, the distortions of one of [Tenzin Gyatso]'s most extreme and irresponsible critics are being presented as fact." Yunfeng (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this article is mentioned also "she is also vice-chairwoman of the standing committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Regional People's Congress, or regional parliament". It's all about her credibility. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add that to the article, then. It's a well-sourced criticism coming from a notable individual. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random PRC official talking on a Chinese run government mouthpiece. Not notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a general section for Tibetan religious and former-élite types who have denounced the current Dalai Lama? But perhaps not: some might say that this reflects more on the character of those individuals, and/or on the system which encourages those denunciations, than on the present subject.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the NPOV tag must not be removed until the dispute is resolved. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article in violation of WP:NPOV? You need to explain that in order for the neutrality tag to remain. Sunray (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be obvious: all criticism is removed, no matter how well sourced. The article lacks balance. NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be represented. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide examples? In a recent case (see "Religious Controversy," above), the sources were problematic and the text removed was in violation of WP:BLP. Sunray (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case ([9]) the sources are not problematic, and there is no basis more removing them under BLP. One of the deleted edits is a news report that the Pope decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama, and the other is a comment by the lady who is supposed to be a living female Buddha, and "also vice-chairwoman of the standing committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Regional People's Congress, or regional parliament," claiming that the DL is acting in conflict with the faith. As far as I can see, these items were removed strictly for POV reasons, which is the basis for my assertion that the article is not neutral. If it were neutral, all notable viewpoints, including those critical of the DL, would be included. It appears to me that the article is being watch-dogged, WP:OWNed and sanitized by fans of the DL. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the DL. I do know that an argument has not been made that these recent statements are in any way notable for the biography of a 72-year old man that has been the subject of several book and article-length profiles. Read WP:UNDUE. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrawatt: You are saying that the article is not neutral because someone removed that cruft about the Pope not meeting with the Dali Lama?? I agree with Relata refero. This is in no way notable enough to be included in this article. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder why it is "notable" when the Dalai Lama gets a positive reception from one Pope, but it is "cruft" when he gets a negative reception from another. Perhaps you might begin to get the idea as to why this article seems biased to an outsider. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might read (or re-read) WP:BLP. Sunray (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite anything more specific about that than simply citing the whole page? What do you mean?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the section on Well-known public figures states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant... it belongs in the article." There is a huge boatload of information on the Dalai Lama, so the criterion of notability is important. An example referred to, above, was the mention of the Pope deciding not to meet with the Dalai Lama. That is a non-event. If the Pope had decided to meet with the Dalai Lama, it likely would have been notable, depending on what happened and the coverage of the event. Sunray (talk)

It had been anticipated that the Pope would meet with the Dalai Lama, and his decision not to do so was a surprise. That's why it is notable. I'd like to know why there is no criticism section -- it looks like at one time there was one. Is the Dalai Lama now immune to criticism at Wikipedia? --Strettolicious (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who did it surprise? Surely not anyone who has been watching the current Pope (the point being that this "news" item is more about the Pope than the Dalai Lama). Sunray (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for saying that it is "more about the pope than the Dalai Lama." There is no basis for putting "news" in scare quotes. These are feeble arguments, which appear to be an attempt to defend POV-driven censorship. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that was in the Criticism section is still in the article; it's just that there is no longer a separate section for it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted material I mention at the beginning of this section should be restored; the material discussed at Talk:Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama#Dalai Lama's contacts with Nazis and Neo-nazis are completely missing. should be in the article, and possibly the material deleted by Yunfeng in this edit[10] (I'm unfamiliar with that particular controversy, but there is a clear pattern of editors who are routinely sanitizing this article of all criticism.) --Terrawatt (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it is notable if some famous person has a timetable conflict and can't make it to a meeting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't play games. You know as well as I that the meeting was cancelled for political reasons.

The more I look at this article, the more absurd I find it to be. The lede had the following sentence: "He is the political and spiritual leader of Tibetans worldwide." This article is like a fan page, controlled by editors who can't tell the difference between the Dalai Lama and God. All claims of his followers are presented as fact, and any information to the contrary is immediately deleted, no matter how well sourced. And on top of that, his followers keep removing the NPOV template. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Terrawatt, you need to look a little bit deeper into the reasons behind these edits. My edit that you mentioned is a deletion of weird nonsense added by some kind of fringe religious cult. Look at that editor's other edits, and look at the other possible sockpuppet editors that also only make those edits. The Dalai Lama / Nazi connection is a popular Chinese smear with no basis in reality. Hitler died when Tenzin Gyatso was nine years old. The deletion by blnguyen that you originally complained about was also a smear, albeit a milder one - the Vatican's position is that a meeting was not planned, and the cites don't support the sentence.

This article is a real magnet for all kinds of crap, and aggressive deleting is what is called for. We are dealing with some very motivated POV pushers, from fringe cults to angry Chinese people to people who think the Dalai Lama is god. I don't think your criticism is warranted, and I wish you had been a bit more careful about looking into the background. Yunfeng (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that the Nazi connection is a "popular Chinese smear," which seems like quite a conspiracy theory, given the popularity of the book Seven Years in Tibet and the film by the same name -- I take it that the Chinese were behind these? If you want to include sourced material that the Vatican's position was that a meeting was not planned, fine, but it seems that you prefer to delete well sourced press coverage of the other side of story. And you haven't yet explained why you deleted the one point that struck me as most notable, which was sourced to this article: http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-33305820080429. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Gyatso's friend Harrer was in the Nazi party does not mean that Gyatso had Nazi connections, or that he was a Nazi sympathizer, or any of the other related smears that are built around this association are true. Harrer could hardly have been an "active" Nazi when he arrived in Tibet in 1944 - he had been in a prison since the beginning of the war and hadn't had any contact with other Germans. I think you are incredibly gullible for giving this claim even a second of your time - it is a false, calculated smear of the worst kind. As for the "Tibet's Only Living Female Buddha" comments, if we included every anti-DL comment made by a Chinese stooge, then this would be a very long article indeed. Her comments are noteworthy only in that they are Chinese propaganda and that is one viewpoint that, in this area, does not need additional defending. I appreciate that you think you are doing the right thing by challenging the editors of this article, but by not doing your homework you have come down on the wrong side. Yunfeng (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a bit oblivious to the NPOV policy. We don't speak of "Chinese propaganda" and "Chinese stooges" in a context like this, nor do we speak of "Hollywood propaganda" or "British stooges." The views of the PRC are every bit as notable as the views of the Dalai Lama's western sponsors, and to insist that Wikipedia take sides and censor one viewpoint or the other is a bad case of WP:BIAS. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a minute and re-read what I wrote. China's views on the Dalai Lama are well represented in this article, and there is no need to add to them. The speaker of that quote is only notable insofar as she is parroting the official line, and there are actual government spokespeople that we can quote for that. Yunfeng (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least six editors have disagreed with various points you have made Terrawatt. Your POV is showing. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, but, as you can see here, Lyndon LaRouche believes the Dalai Lama is a Malthusian Nazi/British spy. Who are you to deny the great Lyndon LaRouche, proponent of megalomaniacial public works projects to generate gigawatts, nay, terrawatts, of electricity from fusion power? John Nevard (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever contribute anything useful to Wikipedia, or do you just roam from article talk page to article talk page, making ad hominem attacks? --Terrawatt (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make many, many more productive edits to Wikipedia than you make edits that don't strangely happen to coincide with Lyndon LaRouche's latest line. And as keeping Wikipedia free of LaRouche crap-spamming is considered desirable by the community, I don't even have to make edits that don't have anything to do with LaRouche to do so. John Nevard (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the article, I will say that it has neutrality issues. The reincarnation claims are presented as fact, when obviously something as controversial as reincarnation shouldn't be presented as such. In terms of criticism, a criticism section should be (re)added with sourced criticism added. For controversial critics (such as PRC officials), the criticism should be clearly stated as being from said groups. BLP should not be used as an excuse to leave out sourced criticism. Disclaimer: I personally believe that the PRC has clearly misruled Tibet, and continues to misrule the place (the reincarnation application being the latest example). OTOH, to portray the religious life of the place as utopia is misleading as well.Ngchen (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems totally reasonable to me. Why don't you propose some specific changes? Yunfeng (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim from the lede that he is "the political of Tibetans worldwide," which I assume was intended to mean "political leader of Tibetans worldwide." That is quite a grand claim to be presented without a source, particularly when it seems clear that he has no official political power in Tibet at this time. Politically, he would seem to be the equivalent of a number of European figures who are the descendants of various monarchs, but of countries that have abandoned their monarchies and now have other forms of government. One might argue that the PRC does not rule Tibet legitimately, but they do rule it nonetheless. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Relato Refero has added an even grander claim, that "He is the political and spiritual leader of Tibetans worldwide." This definately requires a source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely accepted that he is political leader of Tibetans worldwide (though in exile). He is spiritual leader of the Gelug. I will provide citations. Sunray (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalai Lama's website and many other reliable sources state that he is the "head of state and the spiritual leader of Tibet."[11]. I will modify the lead accordingly.

That's a bit over the top. I've changed it to "The Dalai Lama professes to be the head of state." --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least: Time [12], Nobel Committee [13] and Mao (meeting with him in 1954) attributed some kind of leadership (heh, irony inserted) to DL. If you want to say that "Tibet abandoned DL" please give independent source for this claim. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations would be useful, but I think that the encyclopedic approach would be to say that he is regarded by his followers as the political leader of Tibetans. He is clearly not regarded as their political leader by the PRC, for example. I would be interested in seeing reliable evidence that he is so regarded by Tibetans living in Tibet. Incidentally, I looked up the bio of Jesus, and in the lede it says he is "revered by most Christians as the incarnation of God." It is appropriate to attribute the claims about a leader to his followers, and not to present them as objective fact. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that if organizations such as the Nobel Committee, Time and the Christian Science Monitor[14] all say he is the spiritual and political leader of Tibetans, we don't really have the justification for qualifying it. It is not just his followers who are saying it, it is a majority of people the world over. Sunray (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is organzations such as the Nobel Committee, Time and the Christian Science Monitor who are saying it. While notable, these opinions do not translate into "the majority of people the world over." This is a clear example of WP:BIAS. Undeniably, the government of the PRC does not share this view, and the PRC represents a very substantial part of the world's population. So, I have added to the lede the PRC view that the Dalai Lama is the symbol of an outmoded theocratic system. Please do not respond by demonizing China -- under NPOV, the Chinese view must be represented in the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit that I tried to make when this controversy began:

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." [15]-- Source: Reuters

This (Reuters) is a reliable source as I understand the policy here. It is also a notable person. There is at least one major book written about her [16]. So, I think that those editors that immediately deleted this well-sourced reference made a mistake, and the fact that one editor on this talk page calls Samding Dorje Phagmo a "Random PRC official" and another called her "a Chinese stooge" suggests that these editors are extremely biased. So, in my opinion this article is not neutral, because viewpoints are being excluded on the basis of prejudice. --Strettolicious (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not the case that every person about whom a book has been written has a relevant opinion about the Dalai Lama. Especially so, since the book in question is not primarily about the current Samding Dorje Phagmo, but about all the Samding Dorje Phagmos. The comments she makes don't really provide any content that seems worthwhile to quote: she might be considered an authority on religion, but she is not, to my knowledge, a historian, so her opinions on what life used to be like in Tibet are no more relevant than any other eyewitness account; she mentions the "sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers" but she does not specify what she is referring to. Lastly, we don't know what kind of political pressure this woman was under to make such a statement.

That said, 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.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found seven mentions of "Dorje Phagmo", which seems to be the most common transliteration, in the Google News Archive. You can draw ur own conclusions about her relevance outside the Communist Party advisory committees on Tibet. It'd be interesting to pick the mind of the guy who wrote this article on the German Wikipedia. John Nevard (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, judging by machine translation, that article seems to be about the metaphysical concept of Dorje Phagmo. It would be like consulting the author of an article on Avalokiteśvara about the activities of the current Dalai Lama.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, she doesn't seem to be a particularly notable figure, to say the least. John Nevard (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's notable enough to be covered by Reuters, which is sufficient for inclusion in the article. We don't "draw ur own conclusions about her relevance outside the Communist Party advisory committees on Tibet." We include what has been said in Reliable Sources. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sentence in the lead that starts "The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans". Surely that's not true, since a non-negligible number of people living in Tibet don't acknowledge him as such. I thought they would be mostly Chinese-communism-influenced atheists, so I was going to change that to "The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists", excepe it seems, from a cursory reading of that article, that he's really only the leader of one of four schools - is that right? If so, we really should strike that bit entirely, and just state "head of govt in exile and Gelugpo school of TB". If I misunderstood, then we should at least change it to "of Tibetan Buddhists". --GRuban (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references that support the view that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibet:

• " In 1640 the 5th Dalai Lama, having with the aid of the Mongols acquired temporal as well as spiritual control of the whole country" BuddhaNet [17]
• "the 5th. Dalai Lama became temporal and spiritual leader of Tibet by order of the Mongol ruler Gushri Khan." Kalachakranet [18]
• "The 17th Karmapa’s identity was confirmed by the unfailing wisdom of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, the supreme spiritual leader of Tibet." Simhanda [19]
• "...in 1642, the Dalai Lama was enthroned in the main hall of Shigatse as both the spiritual and political leader of Tibet." Dalai Lama's website. [20]

Trust this helps. Sunray (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Daniel Cozort, Highest Yoga Tantra, foreword (I think), the actual head of the Gelugpas is the Ganden Rinpoche. Peter jackson (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be true that in the 17th Century, the Dalai Lama was the spiritual leader of all Tibetans. However, Gruban's question appears to address the present Dalai Lama, subject of this article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Dalai Lama Campaigns to End Wildlife Trade is example how strong is spiritual influence of Dalailama in Tibet now. Exactly spiritual, not religious because there are four independent schools of Tibetan Buddhism. And again: if you want to say that something changed in last 3 centuries please give independent source for this claim. If you want to say something please proof it at first. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for thing, Tibet changed hands several times in the past 3 centuries. But more to the point, this is an article about the 14th Dalai Lama. Therefore, sources used for his biography should be specific to his life. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many things changed in the last 3 centuries in Tibet, for sure. But not position of Dalai Lama. You give no proof, no independent source for your claims. I hope linked article is enough specific for XIVth Dalai Lama. Did you read it? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article would make a fine source for a claim that the Dalai Lama was active in wildlife conservation. It is inadequate for the claim that he is the "spiritual leader of all Tibetans." And I think that you are missing an important concept about Wikipedia policy: the burden of proof is on the person who adds the claim to an article. You don't make a claim and then challenge others to provide sources that disprove it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should to read this article again. It's not only about Dalai Lama engagement in wildlife conservation but about strong inluence in occupied Tibet also. Even police can't stop people burning animal skins. Shame on me if I'm missing any important concept but you made two claims in this discussion: "Tibet abandoned Dalai Lama" and "Dalai Lama lost his spiritual influence" and didnt provide any proofs for this claims. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made neither of those claims. My concern is that the claims made in the article, not the discussion, be appropriately sourced. Since the beginning of the discussion, however, I see that the claims in the article have been scaled back somewhat. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiritual and political leader" is a very sweeping claim and it requires stronger citations than that (see also brief discussions of the same subject onTalk:Dalai Lama). None of these quotations is from a serious historian—one of them is from the Dalai Lama's own website! Also, the statement that the Great Fifth "acquired temporal as well as spiritual control of the whole country" is not accurate if you use the definition of "Tibet" that Wikipedia does (which is essentially the same as the current Dalai Lama's definition, chölka-sum), since the Lhasa state ruled only about half of Tibet.

I'm not really sure what the term "spiritual and temporal leader" is supposed to mean. Some Tibetans are Muslims; is the Dalai Lama their spiritual leader? Is he the temporal leader of Tibetans who have become loyal citizens of another country?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You all raise good points. And it is true that while the lineages came together in the 17th century, there have been divergences since. While there are members of each of the lineages that today recognize the Dalai Lama's spiritual leadership, there are also controversies and exceptions. The current wording in the article is: "the spiritual leader of the Tibetans." How about we change that to "a spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists"? Sunray (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only hesitation with this is that it seems weak. I'm not sure it captures the true picture. Perhaps "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists." Sunray (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists" is a fine idea. A recent revert changed it back, though. I still don't understand what "the spiritual leader of the Tibetans" means.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A revered spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists" is only a part of his position and not most important. Dalai Lama is recognised as a Tibetan leader (and not Tibetan Buddists leader) by EU and USA. "Spiritual" means... lets use an example - like Ghandi for Indians, nor strictly political in formal way, nor religious also, but a national leader. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite right. However, I thought we had covered that already in the lead in the reference to being head of the Tibetan Government in Exile. Sunray (talk)

But CTA is not recognised by any country as a political representation, and international position of Dalai Lama is not a result of heading CTA. His role in CTA is only formal support for his previous, traditional position. Who on the world knows what is CTA? Who knows any other person from CTA? Dalai Lama - not CTA - is (of course unofficialy) recognised as a representative of Tibetans in media and politics. Everytime when you read about Tibet Dalai Lama is mentioned (and vice versa). And this is wikipedia definition of Ghandi position "a major political and spiritual leader of India" --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (if I understand you correctly). Any suggestions on the text below? Sunray (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dalai Lama is spiritual leader of Tibetans just the same way like Ghandi was spiritual leader for Indians, and for sure many Tibetans don't recognise his leadership, and some are even hostile to Dalai Lama. But this don't change his position. Many Indians don't recognised leadership of Ghandi, some of them even killed him, but no one doubt his role as an Indian leader. IMO in Dalai Lama case is only one difference - political status of his country. And this is reason for all this controversy and discussion. Because his leadership among Tibetan Buddhists is much more dubious then spiritual (or national) leadership for Tibetans I can't agree with proposed change. If Ghandi can be "spiritual leader" why Dalai Lama can't? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I've adjusted the wording below. I will wait to see what others think. Sunray (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] The portion in question reads:

"The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans and head of the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India^[1][2][3] and exerts a powerful influence over the the Gelug School of Tibetan Buddhism."

The proposed change would read:

The Dalai Lama is a revered spiritual leader among Tibetans and exerts a powerful influence over the the Gelug School. He is head of the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India^[4][5][6] [Proposed new wording shown in bold]

Are there other adjustments needed? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me as well. Tadeusz, my main objection is to the articles: "the". "The spiritual leader" and "the Tibetans" means that he is the main or only spiritual leader for all Tibetans, which is clearly not true. Changing it to "a", or "among" or anything like that, will work. --GRuban (talk)

I don't understand this objection. There is no political or national leader with 100% support. Even Ghandi, evidently and undoubtly Indian leader in wikipedia named "a major political and spiritual leader of India" was not leader for all Indians (and in fact some of them killed him). There are the facts: Tibetans haven't any other recognisable leader, Dalai Lama is recognised as a Tibetan leader in media (this two topics "Tibet" and "Dalai Lama" are always tied together), and unoficially by such political organisations like USA, EU, UN, and even PRC (Mao meet him in 1954, and now such meetings are planned with PRC officials [21] - "The official New China News Agency reported Saturday that the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Singapore and the head of the European Commission had all praised China's offer to meet.") - they all accepted position of Dalai Lama as a Tibetan leader. Of course Dalai Lama is not a (spiritual, political or national) leader of all Tibetans, but the same situation is in every other case of (spiritual, political, or national) leader. Without any exception, can you find any? Unqestionable Indian leader, Ghandi was killed by Indians, the most famous Roman leader Ceasar was killed by Romans, but this both are recognised in history and politics as a leaders (Ghandi more spiritual, Caesar more political) and of course everybody knows there was many (you can be sure) Indians and Romans which didnt agree with that. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's hard to get something simple across. Let me write it again. Change the articles. Change the words "the". Change "the" to "a", or something similar. Just as in the Ghandhi article, which doesn't say "Ghandhi was the spiritual leader of India", it says "a". Doing exactly that for this article would be fine too. To restate, just get rid of at least one of the words "the" from the sentence "is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans". You can write "is a spiritual leader of the Tibetans" or "is the spiritual leader of many Tibetans", or any of the above proposals by Sunray, because those would be true. "is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans" is not true, because a non-negligible number of Tibetans do not consider him such. --GRuban (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your proposition is "a Tibetan leader" I agree. For now it's ok for me. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to the following, which I think is accurate: The Dalai Lama is the head of the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India, and is regarded by most Tibetans as their spiritual leader,^[7][8][9] who exerts a powerful influence over the the Gelug School of Tibetan Buddhism. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for this change by Terrawatt. I do not favour it, mainly because the syntax is poor. I will revert to what was there before this discussion began—until we can get consensus. It is my impression that we were very close. Sunray (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "the leader..." to "a leader," as I think everyone who spoke agreed with that. Sunray (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the above discussion, I believe that we have consensus on the proposal I put forward above. Nat Krause and GRuban have indicated support; Tadeusz seems generally favourable to it. Terrawatt had a slightly different version, but it contains the same facts. I will make the change. Sunray (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - a teriary source:

• On February 22, 1940, he was officially installed as spiritual leader of Tibet, though political rule remained in the hands of the regents.
  • Encyclopedia of World Biography. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2004. p369-371.

Note that this source referes to the place rather than the people, and omits the article ("a" or "the"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's not the same thing: for example, Henry VIII was officially installed as spiritual leader of England, but surely we don't want to write that he was the spiritual leader of the English! The current phrase, "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetans", is fine. (I doubt even that would have applied to Henry... :-) )--GRuban (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current phrase, "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetans", is fine. It is supported by the cites in the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am all for NPOV but when I see such POV crusaders pushing their view into my face, I find that an insult. You don't go around other people's house and steal or stick something in there whilst claiming to be waiting for the Police to arrive to arrest you and still expect the owner wouldn't pull out a 12-gauge shot gun without any buckshots that won't have your name on it, do you? Perhaps that was a bad analogy but the bottom-line here is, please respect others here even if you disagree with them. I agree to disagree and I also disagree to agree but should you find yourself unable to do so, I think it's best you take a break and do something else instead of getting your temper or view fouled up by your personal inability to agree with what I just said here.

Read also

1. Wikipedia:WikiLove
2. Wikipedia:WikiHate
3. Wikipedia:WikiCrime
4. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

Please note that the NPOV TAG MUST NOT BE REMOVED until the dispute is resolved.

--Dave1185 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to explain the reasons (referring to applicable WP policies) for maintaining a neutrality tag on this article? Sunray (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a self explanatory tag, go read below (Talk:Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama#Article protected) for more details and if you are still not sure it, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the tag is indeed self-explanatory. It says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." There is lots of discussion here and several things have been worked out. I asked for your views. I would especially like to hear your views on where the article is lacking. You ask me to read WP:NPOV. I do. Here's part of that policy that seems applicable here: WP:UNDUE. One has to bear in mind that this is a biography of a living person. That policy has a particularly applicable section on: Well-known public figures. Would you please explain your views on the article with reference to those policies? Sunray (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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[22]. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [23] I don't think that would be undue weight. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [24] 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." [25]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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.

^[10](AdamD123 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[11] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[26] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]