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

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

Template:Vital article

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

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 (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is a former WikiProject Biography Collaboration (3-9 July 2005). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations. 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. 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. Philosophy: Philosophers / Contemporary 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 Contemporary philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tibet B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-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. China B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-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. India B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwang2037, Eboskovski, Lin1248, ShengO (article contribs).

Noticed Wylie is reduced to a note, which isn't standard on leads within Tibetan Buddhist pages. There's not a current discussion on the topic. Reasons for the change? If not, I'd like to propose re-adding them to the lead. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor edits to lead were made before noticing language for CON:

• Common practice in RS is to use the term of 'spiritual' not 'religious' to note the Dalai Lama, as in "most important spiritual leader of Tibet" . Thus, changed 'religious name'. Also shifted spiritual name position to front.
• Replaced 'shortened to' with 'known as', a standard used in pages.
• Corrected 'monk' since he's a lama.
• Added mention he's a living Buddha, from RS. Since refs on leads aren't common, didn't add a ref, but can if necessary.
• Not sure the note on Gelug school as 'newest' is necessary in lead. Would prefer to edit to " the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism ", which is the standard form on most pages.
• Added the full romanized title to the picture caption, since it was not included in lead. It should be in lead, after his name, as in, "He is formally called His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama".

Give a ping if there are issues. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP. At present, it's more about quibbling views than a bio on his life; views should be elsewhere than in the opening. Will get info and propose changes in openings, sections. Thanks.Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the first line of the Early life and background section it is specifically clarified that he was born in ROC controlled China, not Tibet. I see a lot of references cited that he was supposedly born in Tibet, but they all seem to be taking this fact from his own biography, which would not be considered a reliable source if it conflicts with actual historical accounts, and none explain how the village of Takster was part of Tibet since it has never been under Tibetan control. Unless there is some source that can verify this claim the birth section should be changed to Takster, Qinghai, China (ROC). Since the Dalai Lama claims to have been born in "northeastern Tibet" while all other facts claim otherwise, clearly we should side with actual historic accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In his 2007 book Conversations with the Dalaï-Lama, Thomas Laird writes:

"In the 1930s, the Muslim warlord Ma Pu-fang seized the northeast corner of Amdo in the name of Chiang Kai-sheik's weak central government and incorporated it into the Chinese province of Qinghai. He ruled the area from the town called Xining (pronounced shi-ning), capital of Qinhai Province. Tibetans in Amdo ordinarily spoke Tibetan, so it was a surprise to hear the Dalai Lama say that in Taktser (nominally under Ma Pu-fang's control in 1935), although two of the seventeen households were Chinese, his family did not speak Tibetan as its first language. "At that time in my village, "he said, "we spoke a broken Chinese. As a child, I spoke Chinese first, but it was a broken Xining language which was (a dialect of the) Chinese language." "So your first language, " I responded, "was a broken Chinese regional dialect, which we might call Xining Chinese. It was not Tibetan. You learned Tibetan when you came to Lhasa." "Yes," he answered, "that is correct, but then, you see, my brother Lobsang Samtem entered Kumbum monastery before me and the Amdo dialect was spoken there. They spoke Amdo Tibetan in the monastery. In other villages, they spoke Amdo Tibetan. But in my village, I don't know why, my parents spoke broken Xining language." (p. 262).

Clearly, Taktser at the time was officially part of Qinghai.

If further proof is needed, it can be found in the 2015 book The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of My Struggle for Tibet by Gyalo Thondup (the Dalai Lama's older brother) and Anne F Thurston:

"A few days after the search party departed, some fifteen soldiers from the army of Qinghai's governor-general, Ma Bufang, suddenly arrived at our house. Ma Bufang was a Hui, a Muslim, from a powerful military family. In 1928, after Chiang Kai-shek became president of the Chinese Republic, Qinghai (Amdo) had been officially designated a province, and Ma had assumed the post of governor-general." (p. 25).

Need more to be said? --Elnon (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what should be said is the same thing that's said every time this issue comes up again, and these sources are quoted again as proof, such as: here, here, and older discussions. When reliable sources are not all in agreement, it's not the role of Wikipedia to determine what is the "historical truth", but to follow the neutral point of view policy, in summary: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." An unequivocal statement in Wikipedia's voice that he was born in China, or born in Tibet, as an undisputed fact, doesn't adhere to this policy. Given the numerous prominent reliable sources that say Tibet (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica: [1], the Nobel Prize organization: [2], ABC News: [3], the Wall Street Journal: [4], etc.), we are required to give appropriate weight to that point of view, as well as to others that say China, or give some other more nuanced explanation. The article as it stands doesn't seem to accomplish this adequately, but simply changing "Tibet" to "China" doesn't produce an improvement. --IamNotU (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it deserves a mention that the Dalai Lama himself claims he was born in Tibet, it's just factually incorrect to have it in the infobox. We wouldn't cite historical "facts" from otherwise reliable sources that turned out to be untrue, so why is it done here? I would propose replacing the note in the first sentence of the early life section that currently says he was born in Qinghai, to mention the Dalai Lama's own claims but clarifying that they are historically inconsistent, and replacing the birthplace in the infobox with the actual political situation at his birth as is consistent with all other biographies, instead of the historic cultural region that is currently used as his place of birth Nathan868 (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only he who "claims he was born in Tibet". Did you look at the sources I linked to? I'll add a couple more, but many others are easily found. We have:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "14th Dalai Lama, also called Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso, Bstan-’dzin-rgya-mtsho, or Tenzin Gyatso, original name Lhamo Dhondup, (born July 6, 1935, Tibet)"^[1]
• Nobel Foundation: "He was born in a small village called Taktser in northeastern Tibet."^[2]
• ABC News: "The 14th Dalai Lama, born Lhamo Thondup in 1935 to a peasant family in Taktser, Tibet"^[3]
• The Wall Street Journal: "On July 6, 1935, was born a boy to a family of peasants in the village of Taktser in the far northeast of Tibet"^[4]
• Elizabeth Cody Kimmel, Boy on the Lion Throne: "Lhamo's mountain community of Taktser was a small and remote village in the Tibetan province of Amdo"^[5]
• BBC News, Tibet profile - Timeline: "1935 - The man who will later become the 14th Dalai Lama is born to a peasant family in a small village in north-eastern Tibet."^[6]
• Nathan868: "the Dalai Lama himself claims he was born in Tibet, it's just factually incorrect ... as is consistent with all other biographies"^[7]

Reviewing again Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia) regarding due weight, it would indicate that the appropriate weight given to the final source in the list should be approximately zero. The viewpoint that with the exception of the Dalai Lama's personal web page, "all other biographies" state unequivocably that he was born in China, is clearly a fringe opinion.[edit: apparently this was not the intention of the statement]. The proposal to simply replace "Tibet" with "China" in the infobox does not have a convincing basis in Wikipedia policy.

There may be many reasons why the description of his birthplace is not universally consistent among prominent reliable sources. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to simply dismiss a widely-published viewpoint in preference to another that fits their own. I would support, as I previously suggested, adding an explanatory footnote to the infobox, perhaps linking to Definitions of Tibet § Geographical definitions, to help document and explain the major points of view and clarify the differing accounts, but certainly not one that states that the Dalai Lama "claims" to have been born in Tibet but that he is incorrect. --IamNotU (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, when I said all other biographies I meant biographies of other living persons. Amdo is a historic and cultural region, not a political division as typical Wikipedia birthplace convention would dictate. From Tom Grunfield's The Making of Modern Tibet, Amdo has not been under Tibetan rule since the 18th century. Albert Ettinger's Battleground Tibet also states the 14th Dalai Lama's birthplace as being in Qinghai province. Supposedly reliable sources are not infalliable, and it's certainly possible if not likely that each of the sources you stated took their information directly from his own biography, especially since none give further clarification on the topic, unlike the books and other sources which explain that it was under ROC-allied warlord control etc. It seems strange that between listing either Qinghai, ROC or Amdo, Tibet, the concensus seems to lie with the region which has not existed as a political entity for over 100 years? Can you explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the viewpoint is that being "under ROC-allied warlord control" is insufficient to describe it as being China and no longer Tibet? I don't know. If you'd like to know why the BBC, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others give Tibet as his place of birth, you'd best ask them. The speculation that it's likely they just took it from his website without doing any fact-checking, and have carelessly left an error in place for many years, is not credible. Whatever their reasoning, the sources can't simply be dismissed. The "typical Wikipedia birthplace convention" – whatever that is – doesn't dictate what we do in this article, and the choice between either Qinghai, ROC or Amdo, Tibet in the infobox is a false dichotomy. I've already given my suggestion for improvement, which doesn't involve tossing WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT out the window. --IamNotU (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the reasoning behind otherwise reliable sources leaving a glaring error in their work, but it doesn't change the fact that the claim is inconsistent with what we know about the political control of Takster and the Amdo region as a whole - namely that it hasn't been under Tibetan rule since the 18th century. Of course it should be mentioned that he was born in the traditional Tibetan region of Amdo, this just isn't the political situation of his birth which seems to be the wikipedia standard as I'm not aware of any pages that deviate from this.Nathan868 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with IamNotU, the vast majority of sources including incredibly well known and very reliable ones like BBC News, CBS, the Nobel Foundation and the Encyclopedia Britannica all metion Tibet as his place of birth. The idea that he was born in ROC is fringe to say the least. I opposse any change in the infobox or the rest of the article for that matters on that regard. I suspect the insistance in saying that the Dalai Lama was born in China is part of a conscious effort from the Chinese government to whether undermine the position of the Dalai Lama by claiming he's not an authentic Tibetan or for their bogus claim that they have always pick the Dalai Lamas and that they will be picking the next. But in any case as the Wikipedia policies establish fringe theories can be included as long as the due weight is given and they are not presented as fact value or give the same time and importance than convensional theories. Under that logic a note or a small subsection can be added saying that some Chinese government sources claim the Dalai Lama was born in ROC-controlled territory, but mentioning that this is not the mainstream accepted fact by most historians. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned a "fringe opinion", it wasn't regarding whether Taktser was or was not under the control of the Chiang Kai-shek government; it was about the statement that all biographies of the Dalai Lama, other than his own, say that he was born in China. But Nathan868 has clarified that wasn't the intended meaning, so I've struck that out. I don't actually agree with the wording of Dereck Camacho's proposed note. --IamNotU (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case no note is needed. The current status quo is the best option. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In his own autobiography, Tibet, patrie perdue, raconté par Heinrich Harrer, published in French in 1963^[8], the 14th Dalai Lama's other brother, Thubten Dechigme Norbu, provides quite clear indications about their native village of Taktser being at the time under the control of Chinese authorities:

pages 2-3: "Tengtser était un pauvre petit village sur la route des caravanes menant de Sining, siège de nos autorités chinoises, au Labrang de Traschi Khji, le second en grandeur des monastères de la province" ("Tengtser was a poor, small village on the caravan road linking Sining, the seat of our Chinese authorities, to the labrang of Traschi Khji, the province's second largest monastery") ;

page 57: "Nous payions nos impôts à Mapufang, le gouverneur de l'Etat chinois" (We would pay our taxes to Mapufang, the governor for the Chinese state") ;

page 141: "Tengtser étant sous la suzeraineté chinoise, les autorités commencèrent à s'intéresser sérieusement à Lhamo Döndrub. Et au début de l'hiver 1938-1939, le gouverneur Mapufang fit venir à Sining mes parents et leur dernier-né. Il leur conseilla de placer l'enfant au monastère de Kumbum, qui se trouvait également en territoire soumis à l'autorité chinoise" (As Tengtser was under Chinese suzerainty, the authorities started to take an earnest interest in Lhamo Döndrub so that at the beginning of the 1938-1939 winter, governor Mapufang had my parents travel to Sining with their last-born child. He advised them to place the child in the care of the Kumbum monastery, which was also in Chinese-controlled territory."

Could it be that the Dalai Lama's brother Norbu is not only promoting a fringe theory but also is part of the Chinese government's effort to undermine the position of the Dalai Lama? The mind boggles. --Elnon (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First if is the brother himself is Primary sources. Second, been under control of the Chinese and be part of the ROC are two different things. Third I would like to see the source myself to read it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dereck Camacho that being under the control of a warlord - and note that the Laird reference above says nominal control - who is allied with a government that claims it as their territory, is a different thing than it being internationally and uncontroversially acknowledged as part of China. Perhaps reliable sources consider it to have been a disputed or occupied territory (in which case we can explain the dispute). Again, there's no basis to believe that the usage of "Tibet" by numerous major news organizations and other encyclopedias is simply a "glaring error". --IamNotU (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case checking the archive this matter has been brought on and on againt time after time already and has never reached enough consensus for the change. How many times we'll have to discuss it? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources that support both viewpoints. The problem is that people have been changing it back and forth from one to the other for years, based on a certain selection of sources and who participates in the discussion. There have been times when it seems there was a consensus to use China. However, a consensus that fails to adhere to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT isn't valid; that policy is non-negotiable on Wikipedia. That's why I've suggested the use of an explanatory note, outlining the fact that sources differ, rather than just trying to decide between one or the other option based on an agreement of editors, which is not actually allowed by Wikipedia policy. --IamNotU (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another quotation from Thomas Laird's book The Story of Tibet: Conversations With the Dalai Lama (2007):

"In the 1930s, the Muslim warlord Ma Pu-fang seized the northeast corner of Amdo in the name of Chiang Kai-shek's weak central government and incorporated it into the Chinese province of Qinghai He ruled the area from the town now called Xining (pronounced shi-ning), capital of Qinhai Province. Tibetans in Amdo ordinarily spoke Tibetan, so it was a surprise to hear the Dalai Lama say that in Taktser (nominally under Ma Pu-fang's control in 1935), although only two of the seventeen households were Chinese, his family did not speak Tibetan as its first language" (page 262).

Now from John Gittings's obituary of Thubten Jigme Norbu (theguardian.com, September 7, 2008): « Norbu […] had been recognised by the 13th Dalai Lama […] as the Taktser Rinpoche, one of the highest reincarnates in the region of Amdo (eastern Tibet), which was already under Chinese Nationalist rule. The subsequent discovery of his younger brother as the new incarnate Dalai Lama was not quite so amazing as the usual story makes out. The family was already known in religious circles: the previous Taktser Rinpoche was their father's maternal uncle and one of their own uncles was treasurer of the great monastery of Kumbum."

These quotations, along with those mentioned above, portray a different picture from the viewpoint that is found in the reverential hagiographical biographies of the 1980's and 1990's. Both the historically relevant facts and the official hagiographical version should be stated on a par in the main page. --Elnon (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even the sources that you present say nominally. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elnon, that's the fifth time you've posted that Laird quote on this talk page - I think we get it. It does say "nominal" control. The second quote specifically refers to it as being in "the region of Amdo (eastern Tibet)". It says it "was already under Chinese Nationalist rule", (nominally) but that is significantly different from stating that it was unambiguously part of the Republic of China and no longer Tibet. Yes, the discrepancy between some sources should be explained, fairly and without editorial bias, and in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I'm not sure exactly how that should be worded, but I don't agree with using Wikipedia's voice to describe one as a "hagiographic version" and the other as "historical facts", given the stature of the (very recent) sources I cited above (BBC, ABC, WSJ, Britannica, etc.), as well as the somewhat indefinite nature of the sources you've provided. --IamNotU (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]