Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Criticism section

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)

"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)

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)

Lead paragraph

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)

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)

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)

Needs considerable work

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)

translation of name

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)

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)

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)

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 dictionarygive "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)

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

The title "Dalai Lama"

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Constant references to "the Dalai Lama"

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)

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)

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)

Medal Ceremony Caption

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Wikinews Interview with the Dalai Lama's representative

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)

Criticism section

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)

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)

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)

UBC and SFU honourary degrees

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)

Influential

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)

Why?

"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)

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

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

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)

Honorific "His Holiness"

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)

"Human rights violations" section

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)

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

Criticism section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)