Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 9

nationality
User Tessarman denied his Chinese nationality. When he was awarded Nobel prize in 1989, world saw one Tibetan under the chinese rule got Nobel prize. I think he is Tibetan Pope or Emperor, but Tibet is under the Chinese rule, so his temporary nationality is China. If Tessarman way is allowed, activists fighting for their independence are categorized into his satisfactory nationality. It's nonsense.--Syngmung (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Nobel committee considers him "Tibetan" (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1989/lama.html), which he is, despite the (somewhat ironic) claims of the PRC. As far as what "piece of paper" he uses to travel across borders, he has a special Indian document (and is considered a VVIP there -- essentially a diplomat's passport) Tessarman (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This information must be presented without WP:SYN. He travels on an Indian Identity Certificate so his nationality status is ambiguous and best left unstated. The exception is when he entered Taiwan in 1997 on an entry permit issued to unregistered nationals because the Kuomintang administration there has considered Tibet to be a part of the Republic of China, and therefore the Dalai Lama a Chinese national.--Jiang (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"His Holiness"
Can someone specify why the Dalai Lama is accorded this honorific, when other figures who also have the same right to it have this omitted in their own articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/His_Holiness)? In order to maintain consistency throughout Wikipedia, I propose this also become the case for any and all Dalai Lamas.65.23.214.85 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC) It's been a week and there has been no response. I heartily recommend that the phrase "His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama" should be stricken from the infobox and changed to "14th Dalai Lama." The reasons for it are to maintain consistency with the way it's written in the other 13 Dalai Lamas' articles, and that it goes against the manual of style's rules on honorifics. The above poster's link on Pope Benedict XVI has already discussed the issue in relation to an analogous religious figure and held that such a practice should be dissuaded.64.237.173.156 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Pope Francis article and it does mention "His Holiness" as his style. As far as I can tell, the last time it was discussed in Ratzinger's article was in 2005. "His Holiness" is often used in reference to the Dalai Lama and I think it should be mentioned. Clearly, we don't need to refer to him as "His Holiness" in the main text of the article.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You missed my point entirely. I am asking that the honorific be removed from the infobox, as is standard practice according to the Manual of Style, and in the articles of other people who are entitled to use the same honorific. It should go in a separate section if mentioned at all; in fact, many of these figures include a section in their articles elaborating on their style(s).64.237.173.156 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the initial comment didn't say anything about the infobox, it just said that "His Holiness" should be omitted in the article. I have no opinion about what should go in the infobox, except that I agree it should conform to other Wikipedia articles.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The second comment made the edit request. He said: the phrase 'His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama' should be stricken from the infobox and changed to '14th Dalai Lama.'" I looked at the other Dalai Lamas' articles to check, and it seems that's also how it appears in their articles. ("The XXth Dalai Lama")66.50.19.19 (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to "The 14th Dalai Lama".-- Laun  chba  ller  18:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post Article on Women's Rights
A) The actual author in the cite I edited is quoted, at that same source, with a very different conclusion based on the exact same information here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamara-conniff/the-dalai-lama-proclaims_b_297285.html

B) The consensus in a quick, down-dirty survey of top Google articles on the subject of "Dalai Lama + Feminism" is that he has worked and spoken for the rights of women both inside Buddhism and in the world at large (scanning articles at the Progressive, Jezebel, Memphis Flyer, the Telegraph, and ABC Online.) Any included data that is going to argue the opposite should be well weighted for balance.

EeBee 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dalai Lama in Gelug hierarchy
According to Dalai Lama the Dalai Lama is not head of the Gelugpa, but the introduction claims the contrary. 84.159.188.77 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis

No contrast regarding homosexuality:
There is no contrast between his views and the texts he use to place homosexuality as misconduct. His supposed apologetics were explained in the newest interviews, where he said homosexuality is ok for people who do not follow buddhism or other religons, But incorrect in the buddhist perspective. http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1999&m=5&p=11_2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/burmamyanmar/1514537/Westerners-are-too-self-absorbed.html

In 1999,an interview with Alice Thompson,he stated: "They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong" speaking regarding masturbation and oral sex. Also saying that "If an individual has no faith, that is a different matter"..."If two men really love each other and are not religious, then that is OK by me."-1999

"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong." -2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.208.215 (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dalai Lama's sister
I read a newspaper article claiming that Tsering Dolma Gyaltong was the Dalai Lama's sister. However, I note that a sister of His Holiness with the name Tsering Dolma died in 1964. Therefore I undid my recent article edit Is the journalist mistaken? See We must protect the earth - Mail Tribune. Fountain Posters (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Intro text
During the 1959 Tibetan uprising, which China regards as an uprising of feudal landlords, the Dalai Lama, who regards the uprising as an expression of widespread discontent, fled to India, where he denounced the People's Republic and established a Tibetan government in exile. This sentence is extremely long. What if we removed the competing perspectives on what the uprising was, or what if we moved them to a separate sentence? During the 1959 Tibetan uprising, the Dalai Lama fled to India, where he denounced the People's Republic and established a Tibetan government in exile. Either get rid of the opposing perspectives or put them together as ...exile; China regarded the uprising as an uprising of feudal landlords, while he considered it an expression of widespread discontent.  Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to be. Go ahead and edit the short one in, the details are in the body. If anyone reverts we can seek consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2013
Please Change the nationality of His Holiness from Chinese to Tibetan because in most of his books His Holiness has mentioned he is Tibetan not Chinese and they are totally different nations.The reliable sources are all his written books.thank you! Ihateprc (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) ... In the 17th century ... Ge-lug-pa ... was officially recognized by the Chinese emperor as the dalai lama. This marked the beginning of 250 years of Chinese tutelage over the heads of Lamaism. In 1911 China became a republic. Years of civil wars and internal dissension ensued. With the encouragement of the British, Tibet openly defied Chinese overlordship. Though nominally under Chinese sovereignty or suzerainty, Tibet was, to all intents and purposes, an independent nation from 1913 to 1950. [emphasis added]"
 * He was born in Amdo in 1938 1935. The Amdo article states "...however, most of the communities of the rural areas of Amdo and Kham remained under their own local, Tibetan lay and monastic leaders into the 1950s." See also: Definitions_of_Tibet and Tibet (1912–51). This will probably need broader input to get consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What specific change is being requested?
 * It's debatable whether a "Tibetan nationality" currently exists; Richard Gere would say yes, Xi Jinping would undoubtedly say no. The infobox does not list a nationality. Several categories use "Tibetan". The place of birth does say "China", and footnotes this with several apparently reliable sources which would probably trump that quote from our Amdo article. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the map at the top of the Tibet article it seems that it is claimed by both. I don't know how international governments consider the claims. If someone was born in France when it was occupied by Germany were they born in France or Germany?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that, with the possible exception of some small, historically disputed areas such as Alsace, Germany never formally annexed France. Should we go through and change the biographies of everyone born in Jerusalem (especially East Jerusalem) in the last 65 years to say they were born in Jordan or Palestine because the original inhabitants and tribal chiefs in the area don't recognize Israeli sovereignty?
 * As far as international governments go, it may be interesting to note that the CIA World Factbook does not even have a separate entry for Tibet, even though there are entries for Gaza Strip, Hong Kong, Macau, and West Bank. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have hardly ever looked at the Tibet issues. I am just wondering what most English readers would consider for that area. Is it China or occupied Tibet? I would assume that Wikipedian editors are on both sides of the issue. The footnotes for his birthplace may have been placed by one side after being bullying the other side. I would assume that one side is mellow Buddhists and the other side are forceful Chinese just like in the real world. We may have to count up all the English speaking groups that recognize Tibet and weigh those against the ones that don't. The Tibetans may be too mellow to fight the battle but we may be able to for them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor have I. Definite can of worms.
 * I checked an old hardcopy version of Britannica, figuring it was less likely to have been a battleground of conflicting points of view, as Wiki can be at times, while recognizing that there could be some Cold War anti-Red China undertones at play. The phrasing there, however, is (IMO) about as clear and transparent as a mud bath:
 * "Tibet, a country of central Asis, annexed to the People's Republic of China in 1951 and since regarded as an autonomous region of China.


 * Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good find! I also found:
 * "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." ,
 * "...it is clear that on the eve of the invasion in 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country." and "The USA joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese "aggression" and "invasion" of Tibet.
 * When I try to go to online sites for reading the book my anti-virus crashes my browser. Same when I try to go to sites about Michael C. Van Walt van Praag. "Dr. Michael C. van Walt van Praag Current Positions Council Member and Executive President of Kreddha: International Peace Council for States, Peoples and Minorities." is what I get in the Google search page without clicking the link and crashing. I would say he was born in Taktser, Amdo, Tibet. It may have been occupied by a Chinese warlord but the UN and many others call it Tibet at that time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A consensus about the Dalai Lama's birthplace being in Qinghai was reached a long time ago (see section "People must respect the history of Asia" above). Already in 1935, Taktser had been officially and administratively in Qinghai for seven years (albeit culturally in Amdo). So this is what should be mentioned. --Christian Lassure (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the reasons for the consensus reached above (top of Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 8). What we need though is reliable sources that state it. So far the BBC states Tibet so we should infer it is Taktser, Amdo, Tibet as well. As mentioned above if it was 'occupied Tibet' then it would be the same as those born in occupied France during WWII. We don't put born in France/Germany for those BLP articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For a Frenchman or woman to have been born in "France/Germany", it would have taken a formal annexation of occupied France by Germany, which - fortunately - did not happen.
 * There is no dearth of books giving the official line that Tenzin Gyatso was born Lhamo Dhondup on July 6, 1935, in the village of Taktser in Northwestern Amdo, Tibet. But you will also find more factual assertions like "Tenzin Gyatso was born July 6, 1935, in Qinghai, China" (see Aasef Shafik, Global Peace Lovers, 2008, p. 141) or "The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was born July 6, 1935 in what is now Qinghai, China" (see Meijer Bjorn, The Secret to Life, 2009, p. 66). Some more information about his birthplace and the local political context in 1935 can be gleaned here. --Christian Lassure (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can use the source "what is now Qinghai, China" which indicates it was Tibet at the time. The BBC source backs it up as Tibet if we really need two sources. The first source is probably stating that is the name China calls it now. Joey Smallwood was born in Newfoundland (country) but now it is part of Canada (country). We did the same with hockey players born in the former U.S.S.R. They say Ukraine, etc. now and not U.S.S.R. I think it was because they considered Ukraine as occupied territory by the U.S.S.R. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A detailed historical account of Amdo is found in an article that Anthropologist Melvyn Goldstein "What Is Tibet?" contributed to Resistance and Reform in Tibet (Barnett and Akiner eds.), London: Hurst & Co., 1994. His concluding remarks are worth noting:
 * "the increasingly common claim that Tibet was invaded by the Chinese Communist in 1949 is also incorrect. This, to be sure, is the time when Amdo and Eastern Kham were conquered by the PLA; but as elaborated above, Amdo and Eastern Kham were not part of the Tibetan state at that time.	This, moreover, is not simply the view of a Western historian in the 1990s. It was also the view of the Tibetan Government in 1949, which did not consider the Chinese Communist conquest of China (including Amdo and much of Kham) as an invasion of its territory. As a result, in 1949 it neither sent its troops to defend these areas nor issued any protests, appeals or charges that its territory had been invaded. [...] The Tibetan Government’s understanding and use of the term ‘Tibet’ in 1949-50, therefore, was identical with that of Richardson in that it did not include the ethnic areas not under its control. The Tibetan Government, to be sure, did not relinquish its claims to these areas, but there was no question of where the authority of its state ended." --Christian Lassure (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look like it was Taktser in the Amdo region of 'ethnic' Tibet. There is also a 'political' Tibet that has firmer borders. I don't think I have seen a source yet that says he was 'born in China'. I have only seen contradictory sources about the political status of Taktser on July 6, 1935. Therefore making the connection that he was (born in Taktser) + (Taktser claimed by China) = (born in China) would be original research in the article as it was before. I should see where the quote above came from: "most of the communities of the rural areas of Amdo and Kham remained under their own local, Tibetan lay and monastic leaders into the 1950s". Our western ideas of where a person was born are easier to nail down because our borders are well marked and guarded. In the east it seems they took turns claiming areas from their thrones with maps and rarely going anywhere to insure the people 'knew' where they lived. I would say the people of the area would believe Tibet but admit China at times. The BBC states Tibet but Chinese sources may all say China. Since this is the English Wikipedia we should source the BBC.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am leaving it to you to find the best possible wording and sourcing. Thanks a lot for your replies and comments. --Christian Lassure (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I will put Taktser, Amdo, Tibet back in with the BBC source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous request. It's like saying don't call a Scotsman British. 81.129.179.252 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Introducing criticisms into the lead
Hi all. I believe Tomathan (previously Anon) recently tried to add some content to the lead covering perspectives that are critical of the article subject. I reverted the edit due to mainly concerns about unreferenced claims. After a bit of resistance to WP:BRD Tomathan has begun a constructive conversation about the edit over on my talk page. I am going to bring that conversation over here so other editors can easily keep apprised. The crux of Tomathan's argument is as follows:
 * Please give a good reason for undoing my edits. As far as I can tell, the references used strongly support the added content and came from credible sources. I assure you that there is an abundance of hard evidence for the added content, enough that it would be very difficult to deny on plausible grounds.

I believe that I provided "good reason" in my original edit summary, but I hope it will help to provide some specific examples where I believe content was unsupported: Hopefully, this clarifies things. It is probably worth noting that at least one other editor (pleased to meet you Fat&Happy) shares my concerns. Actually, that other editor seems on board with my other piece of advise to Tomathan, which was that he or she should first look to improve the article body before attempting to make changes to the lead. This is because the lead should mainly be a reflection of the body. It is not the space to enter new content. I hope that resonates with Tomathan and others. If not I am of course keen to hear feedback. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Many have condemned the Dalai Lama for hypocritically promoting "peace" worldwide as a means to regain power over Tibet." - This claim has no citation at all.
 * "the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet as a theocratic dictatorship" - the provided reference makes no explicit mention of the form of government of Tibet during that time.
 * "the Dalai Lama received funding from the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s" - This implies that the 14th Dalai Lama personally received the funding, which the source does not suggest.
 * It is not acceptable to include non-referenced material or material from poor sources into WP:Biografies. The rules about what content can be added are very clear in WP:ALIVE. Please be so brave and clear to remove such non-sense as "the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet as a theocratic dictatorship". 213.182.68.42 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality
I added the sentence "The Dalai Lama has expressed concern at “reports of violence and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people” and “urges respect, tolerance and the full recognition of human rights for all.”[79]" Source see here: http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/782 213.182.68.42 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama → Tenzin Gyatso – WP:COMMONNAME. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I can't think of a public figure whose personal name is less known. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In fact he is so well known under the name Dalai Lama that he could almost qualify as the primary topic and displace the existing article Dalai Lama → Dalai Lama (title). Rincewind42 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While there are good reasons to distinguish the person from the office, the current Dalai Lama is universally known in English simply as "the Dalai Lama". The present page title already makes it difficult to find the article on this person without knowing a great deal about him beforehand. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'd suggest withdrawing this one. Did you really mean to argue that he is usually referred to as Tenzin Gyatso? Dekimasu よ! 03:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Can't believe the nom has cited WP:COMMONNAME, which says completely the opposite of what he's proposing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A reference
When 12 religious groups assembled in Assisi, Italy, in the October 1986, of at the request of Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II. Tenzin Gyatso; recognized as the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibetan buddhism, according to The New York Times, the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist leader, “converted the altar of the Church of San Pietro by placing a small statue of the Buddha atop the tabernacle and setting prayer scrolls and incense burners around it.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 March 2009‎ (UTC)


 * I remember DL did that. But shortly before JP2 died he warned the world not to believe these esoteric eastern "religions", as the only way to God and eternal life is through Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. To which DL14 replied that he understood, and that Tibetan Buddhism is not for everyone. 81.151.237.246 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Journey into Exile
I was wondering if anyone had a reference as to how the Dalai Lama went into exile. Was it all on foot, or on horseback? What was the distance that he covered, and in how many days? Amphibio (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Geshe degree
The article said the highest geshe degree is roughly equivalent to a doctorate (presumably those awarded by a reputable western university). Are there any reputable western universities that recognize these so called degrees as degrees? Also a doctorate in a western university is done through research and then a written thesis, and then defence. What research has dl or anyone done and what theses have been written by these people to earn their "doctorates", as they all seem to be examined orally? 81.151.237.246 (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the operative word here is "roughly" - It was the of course highest type of degree (though there were four different levels of honours) awarded by the Geluk monastic education system (other Tibetan traditions had their own degrees) in Tibet and took a similar number of years of education to achieve as it takes in the west to achieve a PhD. Other than that there is little direct equivalence. In recent times there has been the criticism that becoming a Geshe involved a great deal of memorization of texts and thoroughly learning and being able to uphold and defend in public "debate" the commentarial texts and views of the particular monastery, college and house the scholar was attached to against those of other geshe candidates belonging to other Geluk monasteries, colleges and houses. Conflicting views were often only studied on order to be able to refute them - and non Geluk texts rarely, if ever, studied. There was also little, if any, writing involved - certainly no original written thesis.
 * Still some western Universities have treated the Geshe degree, which is very rigorous in its own terms, as an "equivalent" most notably by appointing some Tibetan Geshes to academic teaching positions which would normally require a PhD - so I think "roughly equivalent" is fair here. The details and differences really belong in the separate article Geshe. There is absolutely no need to go into them in this article which is about the 14th Dalai Lama.


 * If you want to know more about the Geluk monastic education system, a good place to start is: Tibetan Monastic Education.


 * Chris Fynn (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)