Talk:14th Dalai Lama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 14th Dalai Lama was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing 14th Dalai Lama and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
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.
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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. Please participate by editing the article 14th Dalai Lama, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for 14th Dalai Lama:
  • Add information about religious role and policies.
  • Add note on correct pronunciation of "Dalai"

No consensus for recent Dorje Shugden controversy content[edit]

I consider it highly unlikely that consensus will be achieved to include the recently discussed content. Perhaps someone might like to propose some brief scrupulously neutral language that links to Dorje Shugden controversy? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere above, I suggested the following:
"The Dalai Lama has been criticised by some worshippers the controversial Tibetan spirit Dholgyal Shugden for discouraging and abjuring this practice which he regards as a harmful. He has said that, out of ignorance, he was once a follower of this "spirit", a practice he was introduced to by one of his tutors, but by the 1970's he ceased the practice after examining and researching it for himself. He has also said that it is his responsibility as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism to advise his followers about this practice. "How they choose to act on the basis of that knowledge is up to them". Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshipping the spirit claim they are now ostracised by the rest of the Tibetan community and complain they suffer as a consequence."
This states the that the DL has been criticised about this, that he once did the practice and abandoned it and briefly states his reasons for abjuring the practice and advising others against it. Also that DS practitioners claim they suffer as a consequence. While some may want to nitpick about certain words, no more than this is needed or justified in this article. Any more details should left to the Dorje Shugden or Dorje Shugden controversy articles. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That is a good proposal that may resolve this dispute. Thanks for the effort, and hope it is adopted. Cwobeel (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Just added Chris' suggestion with a few small changes. Kjangdom (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please don't make changes, and then claim you have consensus. Even if you didn't make changes, you would not have consensus. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See below for the section about the Dorje Shugden controversy that I added:
"The Dalai Lama has been criticised by some worshippers of the Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden for discouraging and abjuring this practice which he regards as harmful. He has said that, out of ignorance, he was once a follower of this "spirit", a practice he was introduced to by one of his tutors, but by the 1970's he ceased the practice after examining and researching it for himself. He has also said that it is his responsibility as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism to advise his followers about this practice. "How they choose to act on the basis of that knowledge is up to them". Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshipping the deity claim they are now ostracised by the rest of the Tibetan community and that they suffer as a consequence."
This is almost identical to Chris' suggestion (see above). The changes I made included correcting a typo, changing Dholgyal to Dorje for consistency and to avoide confusion (the section is of course called the Dorje Shugden controversy, not the Dholgyal Shugden controversy). And I changed one reference of spirit to deity, since there is already one mention of spirit in the Dalai Lama's description of Dorje Shugden. Dorje Shugden is considered a deity by some, a spirit by others - this point is at the heart of the 'controversy'! Also, I took out complain, to make it more neutral. Complain = moan, no? Seemed slightly negative to me, and the way I reworded it did not affect the meaning. Hope this it explains it OK. Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course your changes affect the meaning. If they didn't affect the meaning, there would be no reason to make them. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have implemented the proposal by @CFynn:, with the hope it is acceptable as a compromise and put this dispute to rest. Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I made one small change - changing Dholgyal to Dorje. I made this change for the sake of consistency, the section is called the Dorje Shugden controversy (not the Dholgyal Shugden controversy). Moreover the main article referred to is called Dorje Shugden controversy (not Dholgyal Shugden controversy). This minor change merely is trying to avoid any possible confusion. I'd be happy to hear though, if there is a good reason for keeping "Dholgyal" :) Thank you. Kjangdom (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Kjangdom and VictoriaGrayson are at the verge of crossing the 3RR bright line. I'd suggest to both to stop edit warring and discuss here, as we are very close to resolving this without anyone being blocked. Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: Dholgyal Shugden redirects to Dorje Shugden, so per WP:MOS we don't link to redirects. That is the reason it should be kept as Dorje Shugden. Now, please, lets put this to rest, OK? Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input @Cwobeel: Helpful clarification about the redirect. I'd be happy to discuss more here in the future. (I have a couple more suggestions for this section... but we can come back to them!). I'd be interested to know more about 3RR - do you have a link you could share, or could you explain a little more exactly how the recent edits affect the 3RR? I had vaguely heard of the 3RR - I thought it was more about deleting other people's edits - hence why I thought it was OK to add content that had already been discussed. All the best, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You were warned multiple times through discussion here and the edit summaries, to please not change Chris Fynn's wording and then claim you have consensus. Even after Cwobeel inserted Chris Fynn's unadulterated wording, you once again changed it. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:3RR:The three-revert rule states:
Cwobeel (talk)
In my suggested text, I deliberately used "Dholgyal Shugden" rather than "Dorje Shugden" as this is how the Dalai Lama always refers to this entity - and, since the present article is about the Dali Lama, I think it best to use his own words here. "Dholgyal Shugden" could be kept and linked like this: [[Dorje Shugden|Dholgyal Shugden]] - which would avoid linking to a redirect page (the rationale given by Kjangdom for his change). Using the name "Dorje Shugden" in this article is problematic as the name itself reflects a view of this entity which the Dalai Lama, who is the subject of the article, does not hold. Similar case in the choice of "spirit" vs "deity". The Dalai Lama views this entity as a "malevolent spirit" not as a deity and does not use the later term when referring to it. Explanation of the fact that a portion of Tibetan Buddhists believe Shugden is a deity or enlightened dharma protector, while other Tibetan Buddhists including the Dalai Lama believe it is worldly spirit, should be left to the Dorje Shugden/Dorje Shugden controversy articles. (At least the differing sides seem to agree on one thing — that an entity, D. Shugden, exists. It is just the nature of that entity that they disagree on. Of course, to the rest of the world, D. Shugden is a superstition no more real than Santa Claus or leprechauns.) Chris Fynn (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@CFynn: That is a good argument which can be easily understood. Go ahead and make the change, which I support. Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

CFynn, what do you think about getting rid of the last sentence "Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshiping the spirit claim they are now ostracized by the rest of the Tibetan community and complain they suffer as a consequence." That seems like quite a questionable statement to include in a WP:BLP. We must be extra careful in BLPs, as you know. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What have the hundreds of Tibetan and Western demonstrators at the Dalai Lama's recent events [Kj 1][Kj 2][Kj 3][Kj 4][Kj 5][Kj 6] been 'complaining' about then?
  1. ^ Demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in San Francisco http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/22/us-usa-dalailama-protests-idUSBREA1L17O20140222
  2. ^ Demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in Berkeley http://www.dailycal.org/2014/02/23/shugden-buddhists-protest-dalai-lamas-visit-berkeley/
  3. ^ Demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in Washington DC http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/protesters-denounce-the-dalai-lama-as-a-dictator/2014/03/06/5f758972-a57c-11e3-b865-38b254d92063_story.html
  4. ^ Demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in Oslo http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/buddhists-protest-dalai-lama-norway-visit-in-their-hundreds/
  5. ^ Demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in Rotterdam http://boeddhistischdagblad.nl/29770-demonstratie-tegen-dalai-lama-rotterdam/
  6. ^ Demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in Frankfurt, https://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/hunderte-buddhisten-demonstrieren-gegen-dalai-lama-bei-deutschlandbesuch-000000799.html
Kjangdom (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "hundreds of Tibetan and Western demonstrators" but "hundreds of Western and a few Tibetan demonstrators"
Chris Fynn (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
My two cents: We certainly must be very careful but not to the point of sweeping under the carpet everything that may detract from a purely hagiographical biography. --Elnon (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Good evening @Cwobeel, CFynn, VictoriaGrayson, Cullen328:
I would like to ask everyone to look a little more closely at this matter. There are two issues I would like to address - 'Dholgyal' vs 'Dorje' and 'spirit' vs 'deity'.
The redirect aside, another important reason for using Dorje rather than Dholgyal is simply to avoid confusion. Dorje Shugden (not Dholgyal Shugden) is mentioned:
1) In the table of contents (6.4 Dorje Shugden controversy)
2) As the title of this section (Dorje Shugden controversy)
3) In the subheader in italics (Main article: Dorje Shugden controversy)
And then in the very first sentence of this section we call Dorje Shugden, Dholgyal Shugden!! It is not difficult to see how this could easily lead to confusion for Wikipedia's readers here. Consistency would help avoid this problem.
Next, Chris says "since the present article is about the Dali Lama, I think it best to use his own words here". That is fine for when we are quoting the Dalai Lama, but otherwise, we should still be as neutral as possible. 'Dholgyal Shugden' is actually a derogatory name for 'Dorje Shugden'. Just because other famous people use derogatory / racist etc language, this is no reason for Wikipedia to adopt it as well. Moreover, if there was a general rule for using the actual words of the person the article is about, then there would be be some very odd pages on Wikipedia about various celebrities (no need to mention names). Fortunately there is no such rule or even guidelines to this effect.
Next, why do the following academics all use Dorje Shugden instead of Dholgyal? Because they all know that Dholgyal is a derogatory terms.
George D Chryssides (2001) Exploring new religions
Jane Ardley (2002) The Tibetan Independence Movement
Robert Bluck (2006) British Buddhism, Teachings, practice and development.
David Kay (1997) The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition
David Kay (2004) Tibetan and Zen Buddhism is Britain
Martin Mills (2003). This Turbulent Priest: Contesting religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden controversy
Martin A Mills (2009) Charting the Shugden Interdiction in the Western Himalaya
Glenn Mullin (2009) The fourteen Dalai Lamas
Lindsay McCune (2007) Tales of Intrigue from Tibet's Holy City
Please check the facts for yourself.
Moving on to 'spirit' vs 'deity', if we look a little more closely at the actual sentence, it says "worshippers of the Tibetan spirit". This is a false and misguiding statement. From a subjective point of view there are no worshippers of the Tibetan spirit Dholgyal Shugden. The worshippers of Dorje Shugden believe they are worshipping an enlightened being. Those such as the Dalai Lama believe they are not worshipping a Tibetan spirit. I.e. from a subjective point of view there are two camps - one camp that worships the enlightened being, Dorje Shugden, and another camp who does not worship the worldly spirit Dorje Shugden. If practitioners believed that Dorje Shugden was a spirit they would cease their practice, like the Dalai Lama did.
Furthermore, this first sentence is not a quote by the Dalai Lama, it is in the voice of Wikipedia. We are not saying that the Dalai Lama considers this entity to be a spirit - we are saying in the authoritative voice of Wikipedia that there exist spirit worshippers in the form of Dorje Shugden practitioners. This is wrong. In my opinion, to be called a spirit worshipper would necessarily be a negative slur, and it is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia to do this. Is it more offensive not to worship a 'controversial deity' or to worship a 'spirit'? I.e. Is it such a big deal not worship a 'controversial deity'? No. Is it such a big deal to be accused of worshipping a 'spirit'? Yes!
'Deity' on the other hand is much more neutral. There can be deities one propitiates, and other deities one would rather not.
Many view Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being, a Buddha. But I am not arguing for the inclusion of the word 'Buddha', I am arguing that 'deity' is a suitable compromise falling somewhere between 'spirit' and 'Buddha'. Please note that I am neither arguing for 'enlightened deity' - merely 'deity'.
Finally, please note that as early as the second sentence in this paragraph, the word 'spirit' is used, and rightfully so, it is in speech marks. So this view is still included. Therefore I would suggest changing 'spirit' to 'deity' but leaving 'spirit' where it is a direct quote of the Dalai Lama. Thank you :) Kjangdom (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Unless there is a government, respected NGO, or academic which validates the claims of the mostly Caucasian protesters, that sentence should be omitted. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom:Perhaps the easiest way to end the debate about "Dorje Shugden" vs. "Dhogyal Shugden" is to simply use "Shugden" (including in the table of contents/ section header). There is no other Tibetan entity known as Shugden - so excluding both "Dorje" and "Dolgyal" is not going to confuse anyone. The only place these appellations are necessary are in direct quotes where the person being quoted has used them. "Dorje Shugden" certainly can't be used in any way that makes it appear that this is the term the Dalai Lama uses, as that would effectively be putting words he never uses in his mouth.(BTW Dholgyal is not derogatory. In Tibetan texts a number of adherents of Shugden sometimes call him Dolgyal. By insisting the term is derogatory then, by implication, you are effectively saying these lamas were deprecating Shugden - which clearly isn't the case.)
Regarding "spirit" vs. "deity". This particular Wikipedia article is about the Dalai Lama and the section about the Dalai Lama and Shugden not about Shugden in general. If the Dalai Lama views this entity as a "spirit" or "evil spirit" then we should say so. When referring to DS the DL doesn't use the word "deity" - so again let's avoid putting words in his mouth or distorting his views. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:I don't think there is anything controversial about saying some Shugden worshippers "claim" or "allege" that they are discriminated against and ostracised - the fact that such claims have been made is easily verifiable and no one would pretend otherwise. Whether those claims and allegations are true or not is a different matter. If the article itself says or implies Shugden worshippers actually have been discriminated against then this would need solid good quality independent sources with a reputation for fact checking to back that up. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Section[edit]

Hi @VictoriaGrayson: @Elnon: I have seen some edits re the Controversy section. Victoria, I have noticed some complaints about the section in the edit summary. Any thoughts on this? would be interested in hearing what your issue is. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Karmapa controversy section is entirely BLP violation in my opinion. Its OR / SYNTH based on nonRS. Simple as that. It seems only Wikipedia and the New Kadampa Tradition associates this stuff with the Dalai Lama. This issue belongs to the Karma Kagyu school i.e. Tai Situ and Shamarpa.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is of high visibility and needs to be scrupulously neutral and exactingly sourced. What cannot be verified from high quality third party sources needs to be omitted until it can be properly done. The Karmapa thing probably DOES need to go in, but kept very, very brief and refer to the longer article. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The section on the Karmapa controversy had been left practically untouched for several years when a contributor recently removed it completely - with the sibylline words "OR and non RS that violates BLP" (ie Original Research and non Reliable Sourcing that violates Biographies of Living Persons). I looked for a more detailed explanation in the talk page but could find none. This modus operandi is contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
As far as the section on the Shugden controversy is concerned, the same contributor on August 22nd replaced the existing paragraph - the result of lengthy and difficult discussions on the talk page - with her own personal text. I looked for some explanation in the talk page but none was forthcoming. Again, this is a one-way mode of operation.
Under such circumstances, I think it would be a waste of time for any person to commit themselves to any attempt at sourcing or rewriting on these two sections. --Elnon (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Elnon. I agree. Especially regarding the Shugden controversy, there was some very good BRD going on and I think there was quite a high quality paragraph that appeared via collaboration. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Elnon: Moon over Manhattan here. I'm new to WP and just learning the ropes --Thank you so much for your patience with my edit! Re: Addition of Kashag Statement 1996. Thank you for your comment -- I've read many references stating the DS controversy is political in nature as the DL issued the DS decree while still in political office. The way the section reads at the moment, it looks as though it is a strictly spiritual debate. My hope was to try to include additional references to balance the (lone) Kashag Statement. Moon over manhattan (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For now, the Karmapa section is better left out or directed to its controversy page rather than be badly written here. This is a BLP and WP:BLP is one of the strictest policies on wikipedia. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Title[edit]

  1. ^ "The 14th Dalai Lama" Gewang Page 12

Lopez is wrong according to 2005 journal article[edit]

Dreyfus calls out Lopez in this 2005 journal article, which by the way mocks Lopez's book title. If you want to know the Dalai Lama's motivation, this is the journal article to read.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)