Jump to content

Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

"Dalai Lamas are amongst the head monks of the Gelug school"

I'm a bit confused by this. Isn't the Dalai Lama the head monk? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the Dalai Lama is by far the most prestigious and influential monk the Geluk school, but he is officially the head monk. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ask any Tibetan or any Gelugpa and they will say the Gelug head monk is the Ganden Tripa (Holder of the Golden Throne of Ganden), which the Dalai Lama is not nor ever has been. It is a common misconception in the west, and oft repeated, that the Dalai Lama is 'the' head monk of the Gelug school, but who would say that these western observers know better than the Tibetans and the Gelugpas themselves? It is their system! Notwithstanding his non-head-monk status within the Gelug tradition, he is widely recognised by most Tibetans as the overall spiritual leader of the Tibetan ,which is another role altogether. In addition, he is not even the 'head monk' (or abbot) of his own personal monastery, Namgyal. MacPraughan (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you ask the Ganden Tripa, he will say Dalai Lama is the head.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right VictoriaGrayson, I agree that if anyone asked the Ganden Tripa "who is the overall head of Tibetan Buddhism?" he would certainly respond "it's the Dalai Lama", being the generally acknowledged spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, and over the Ganden Tripa in that respect, but he would also clarify that the Dalai Lama always fully respects the Gaden Tripa's specific and defined roles and responsibilities as the appointed sole head monk of the Gelug school; the main role apparently being to act as the main lineage-holder of Je Tsongkhapa's teachings (see Ganden Tripa for more details). I hope this helps get things in the right perspective. MacPraughan (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In my original comment above, I wrote “he is officially the head monk” but I meant to say “he is not officially the head monk”. In hindsight, though, I wonder what the authoritative source is for this information. I think I learned it primarily from Wikipedia. I’m not even sure what an authoritative source would be. I guess if we have the current Ganden Tripa and the Dalai Lama both on record addressing this question in so many words, and if they give the same answer, that would pretty much settle it. All I can say for sure is that the Ganden Tripa is a prestigious Geluk position that was around before the Dalai Lamas were prominent. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So, the position in this question is quite clear: it is as described in the first para of Dalai Lama, which adds up, explains the confusion about this point and makes perfect sense. This being so, why has the respected user called Skyerise now changed the relevant corrected text in the first para of this article back to revert to the incorrect version, stating: "Dalai Lamas are the head monks of the Gelug school"? Skyerise, I think your other edits you did here are very good and I agree with them, but perhaps you are not fully aware of the facts on this particular point. It is, admittedly, a little confusing, unless you see the structure as described in Dalai Lama. I hesitate to undo anyone's edits so perhaps Skyerise would kindly come forth and either show how the stated facts in Dalai Lama are wrong, or kindly accept the position and undo his own edit here? Many thanks! MacPraughan (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I made the change you refer to. I just reworded what was there to avoid having to have "Tibetan Buddhism" in the same sentence twice. Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelug school, and as far as I know, has no authority whatsoever in the other schools. If you want to assert that the DL is considered a "head monk" by the Nyingma, Kagyu, or Shakya schools, do you have sources that explicitly state that? Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Skyerise.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks VictoriaGrayson and Skyerise, I will try to improve my work and get back with some wording you will find more acceptable. I appreciate your encouragement and your high standards, I am new to Wiki, and on a learning curve, so thanks again for your criticism I will take it as constructive and go back to the drawing board, it's all a good training exercise for me. MacPraughan (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
And Skyerise, firstly, your last revision did change the text in para 1 from "The DLs are the head monks of Tibetan Buddhism" to "The DLs are the head monks of the Gelug school" (it's there in the history) and secondly, I didn't assert anywhere that 'the D.L. is the head of the Nyingma' or any other Tibetan Buddhist tradition; I just stated the widely accepted fact that he's the overall spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism, and, if you go to any major teaching or initiation in India given by the D.L. you will usually see all the leading lamas of all the different schools lined up on lower thrones to listen to him. It's analogous to how the Pope is the supreme spiritual authority for all Catholics, and personally belongs to the Jesuit order, which is currently as of 2015 headed by not Pope Francis but Adolfo Nicolas; each Catholic order of priests, monks, nuns etc having its own leadership but all deferring to the Pope. So there is a precedent for the Dalai Lama situation as put forth. Anyway, I'll check out more citations to make it more clear, so thanks for your criticism anyway, it is helping me learn more quickly and I appreciate your interest in getting this right and showing me the way. MacPraughan (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"head monks of the gelug school" is verifiably false and poor bad research. The Ganden Tripa is the head of the Gelug school. This is massively available in RS. I simply searched on google books "Ganden Tripa" and found source after source verifying this. "The Ganden Tripa is the nominal head of the Gelugpa order, the highest post among the Gelugpa."(https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0393321673). Snelling, in " The Buddhist Handbook: A Complete Guide to Buddhist Schools, Teaching.." on 287 calls Ling Rinpoche, "Abbot of Ganden Monastery and head of Gelugpa School". In "The Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art", the author calls Tsongkhapa "The Ganden Tripa..The first Throne-holder of Ganden". David Kay in "Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation" explains that the Dalai Lama "Though not the formal head of the Gelug order – this position being reserved for the abbot of Ganden monastery, known as the Ganden Tripa (dGa'ldan Khripa)". So on and so on. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Prasangika37, in general I for one do agree with you, but you quote at least one misconception. The position of Ganden Tripa has little to do with being the abbot of Ganden monastery, although it is possible that a former abbot of Ganden can become the Ganden Tripa, but only provided that he has also acted as abbot of either Gyuto, or Gyume, Tantric College.
This has been well researched now with the Gelug authorities in Dharamsala and the detailed official procedure for appointment of the Ganden Tripa, taken from a Norbulingka journal called Me-Long (November 2011 issue), has now been published on his own Wikipedia article, Ganden Tripa Mode of Appointment. Nevertheless, whilst being the undisputed holder of the post of "Supreme Head of the Gelug School" and so forth, the Ganden Tripa's only responsibility is said to be to teach; and it is the Dalai Lama alone who appoints the Gelug abbots - including the Gyuto and Gyume abbots from whom all the Ganden Tripas are drawn. Thanks for your help in clarifying this rather tricky Tibetan matter! It seems that just because the Dalai Lama is seen to be making all the major decisions, and everyone defers to him as "the Boss", people say he is 'the head of the Gelugpas', which is understandable; nevertheless, it is the Tibetans' and the Gelugpas' own system, and if they have it that the Ganden Tripa is the head Monk, then so be it - it's just that the Dalai Lama wields all the power of appointing abbots, and the Supreme Head just teaches. Go figure! MacPraughan (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC a
By the way Prasangika37 there is a similar statement in the Dalai Lama saying the same thing that you might like to change as well. I did it myself before but others, Skyerise and VictoriaGrayson have reverted it. Maybe they will have more respect for you. MacPraughan (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem I had with your version was that it said "Dalai Lamas are the head monks of Tibetan Buddhism" which is even more incorrect that saying he is among the head monks of the Gelug school. Sources call him the "spiritual leader" of Tibetan Buddhism, but he has no chain of authority outside the Gelug school. Also, there is a reason Ganden Tripa is referred to as the nominal head. It's true, he's the "official" head monk, but the Dalai Lama is effectively the head when it comes to decision making. Skyerise (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Skyerise, for getting back to me. What I wrote was put there as a direct quotation from the citation from BBC, which started off with those very words, and I thought a seriously researched BBC religious information article covering the role of the Dalai Lama would be acceptable in Wikipedia as a solid citation and as a basis for a statement like this in Wikipedia. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/people/dalailama_1.shtml. Now someone has reverted to "the Dalai Lama is amongst the head monks of the Geluga school" but the BBC citation I thought I put there saying differently has been removed and no citation has been put there in its place, where a citation is really needed, I would have thought. I have checked personally with the Tibetologist author of the citation quoted at the end of the sentence and he confirms by email that his book page 129 only confirms that the Gelug is the newest sect of Tibetan Buddhism and makes no mention about the status of the Dalai Lama. Now, on the basis that the Dalai Lama personally appoints every abbot of every Gelug monastery, and that the heads of all the other schools look to the Dalai Lama to approve not only their own appointed heads of school but also to approve the recognition of the senior tulkus of their non-Gelugpa schools, he is definitely the overall head monk. The heads of all the other schools always can be seen to sit on lower thrones at the Dalai Lama's major teachings in India, whereas he is never seen even attending anyone else's teachings because they all defer to him and out of respect they would never dream of being seen to be teaching him in public; neither would he embarrass them by turning up at their teachings. I thought informed people would know all that and acknowledge him as head monk of Tibet or spiritual leader or whatever you want to call it. I agree with you that the Ganden Tripa is nominated or nominal head of the Gelugpa even though his only responsibility is to teach and it's the Dalai Lama who appoints all the abbots including the abbots of Gyuto and Gyume - the senior-most retired abbots of which being the only two candidates, one of whom is appointed as the Ganden Tripa every seven years on an alternating basis, when the incumbent's tenure is over. MacPraughan (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Short answers:
  1. BBC is indeed wrong, we need academic sources.
  2. Other schools are not "lower" in any way to Gelug. - except maybe to the Gelug.
  3. Citations cover entire sentences, not just the last clause
  4. There should be no citations in the lead at all, anyway, since it should only be summarizing points cited in the article body.
Skyerise (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Your item 2 is unclear to me, at least, Skyerise, please explain. I did not wish to imply that the other schools are "lower" than the Gelug (far be it from me!), I just stated the observed fact that all the heads of all the traditions defer to the Dalai Lama in the ways I mentioned; my implication if any was that this is done not because he is a Gelugpa but because he is acknowledged as the supreme spiritual authority of Tibetan Buddhism by the vast majority of Tibetan Buddhists - including by the heads of all the traditions. Right? I am researching an academic citation to substantiate this impression. MacPraughan (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want an academic source to confirm Dalai Lamas are not the head monks of the Gelug, I have found a good one, Dr Alexander Berzin. He is quite categorical here.[1] Hope this settles the discussion amicably. Thanks for the encouragement. MacPraughan (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
How about we say something like "The Dalai Lama is the most prestigious and influential leader of the Geluk school and is highly influential in Tibetan Buddhism generally." – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Then according to Skyerise, we need an academic citation to that effect, Greg Pandatshang. It seems no matter what is written, or how it is substantiated, someone will find grounds to object. The Tibetans must be chuckling over the Injis' attempts to fit their system within a western structure. Either we define them according to western Cartesian concepts, or accept what they say themselves about how they organise their system, even if it seems illogical to some. Perhaps the best way would be to give all sides of the argument succinctly and let readers make up their own minds. How about something like this:
"While a few non-Buddhist[cite example] and western sources[cite example] are sure that "the Dalai Lama is the head monk of the Gelug school", other western sources[cite example] including the Office of the Dalai Lama himself,[cite DL's office] say this position is attained and held on merit only by the person appointed as the Ganden Tripa, who, as of 2015, is Rizong Rinpoche.[cite U.S.A. news report] Dictionaries and other reliable sources also state that the Dalai Lama is regarded instead as the ‘spiritual head’ or ‘head monk’ of Tibetan Buddhism.[cite examples] Since all the non-Gelug schools have their own independent leaders, this assertion is questioned by some westerners,[cite example] but it could be said to be roughly analogous to the way the Pope has ultimate authority over all Catholic orders,[citation] which all have their own individual leaderships, including the Jesuits, whose leader is not the Pope, who happens to be a Jesuit himself,[citation] just as the Dalai Lama is a Gelugpa monk but not the "Head" of the order."
All necessary citations are on hand to support all these different views but as Skyerise says, the lead should not have any citations, it should summarise what goes below. Therefore, this new paragraph on the issue can be added under sections 6 or 7 (controversy, or public image), and in the lead say "he is a this, or he is a that", what do you think? Trying to establish a compromise that is correct according to guidelines. MacPraughan (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Prasangika. Those are good sources and I think they will be useful for the article. Even better sources would be if we can find a scholar addressing in detail the Dalai Lamas, the Ganden Tripas, their respective roles in the Geluk sect, and how those roles have been presented and described by various parties. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to VictoriaGrayson for clarifying my confusing language again, and for kindly acknowledging in her edit that the Dalai Lama is not the head of the Gelug tradition. MacPraughan (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Dr Alexander Berzin (November 2014). "Special Features of the Gelug Tradition - para. on Administration". The Buddhist Archives of Dr Alexander Berzin. Berzin Archives. Retrieved 8 May 2015. The Dalai Lamas are not the heads of the Gelug tradition

Removal of reference book as unreliable

On 16 August at 21:54 I added to the list at the foot of this article a newly-published (in 2015) source book called The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong by Gyalo Thondup (revision number 676420940), before having actually read it through. Since it is the personal memoir of the elder brother of the Dalai Lama, co-authored by a known author, Anne F. Thurston (who also co-edited The Private Life of Chairman Mao which was also criticised for inaccuracy), I naturally assumed it would comprise a reasonably reliable source of information for Wikipedia. However having now read the book I no longer consider it reliable for various reasons and have therefore removed it from the list again by "undoing" the edit by which I placed it there. I am also in the process of replacing information I drew from this book for this article with equivalent quotations and citations from historians generally accepted as reliable such as Thomas Laird, Shakabpa, Smith, K. Dhondup, Richardson and Bell.

It is telling that Thurston herself goes to some lengths in both her Preface and her Afterword to dissociate herself from the content (apart from assisting to express and arrange Thondup's thoughts) and to absolve herself from any personal responsibility for the veracity of these memoirs. In the Preface she goes to some lengths to make it clear that she has merely assisted Thondup to write his own story down, in just the way he wishes it written himself, as he himself insisted, and that she herself has had no input into its actual content and can therefore take no responsibility for it. In the Afterword, she specifies three categories of instances she encountered where she does not concur with Thondup: firstly, instances where the evidence presented by Thondup "does not warrant the conclusions he draws"; secondly, instances when she herself "would have drawn a different conclusion from the same evidence"; and thirdly, instances where "Thondup's account is so different from others that the differences need to be noted". She goes on to give examples of such controversial and unproven statements: the supposed murder by poisoning of his father; the accusation of grand theft by the otherwise respectable Minister Tsarong through his operation of a private mint, based only on the unsubstatiated alleged statement of a Japanese spy, Hisao Kimura, who masqueraded as a Mongolian monk; similar allegations against Tsarong's equally respectable son George Tsarong of grand theft of the government's bullion, accusations for which Thondup freely admits that he has no evidence or proof, and which have been subsequently exposed as libellous, with detailed and corroborated evidence, in an article published in the Tibetan Political Review on 22nd April 2015. The second category is illustrated by Thondup's accusation that in the 1980s foreign intelligence agencies deliberately financed foreigners to instigate mass demonstrations inside Tibet and his suspicions that the Tiananmen Square protests, ending in the massacre of students (which he refers to as "an incident") were similarly inspired by outside elements. In this he is voicing standard CCP propaganda blaming outside agencies for internal problems in China and Tibet and showing himself to be a CCP apologist and sympathiser: standpoints which from the Tibetan patriot's point of view would place him as a collaborator with the forces militarily occupying Tibet. The third instance, interestingly, is exemplified by Thondup's disrespect towards the Panchen Lama, judging him to be a communist collaborator and tool (p.292). Thurston gives substantial evidence to express her complete disagreement with Thondup's accusation. Finally she details "glaring differences" between Thondup's account of various events and the accounts of the same events in the memoirs of his "long term, trusted deputy" (p.140), Lhamo Tsering, who is one of the few Tibetans for whom Thondup has a good word to say in the entire book. She devotes several pages to analysis of these differences, and she wonders (p.310) whether the differences in the two accounts constitute 'failure of memory, mistake, misinterpretation or deception'. It is left to the reader to decide. Whatever the answer, it casts doubt on Thondup's account, especially considering that she notes that Lhamo Tsering was widely recognised (including by Thondup himself) as a man of "exceptional integrity, scrupulously meticulous and careful".

It is also telling and notable that almost all books of this nature concerning Tibet, and there are many of them, are accredited on the opening page with a prominent and appreciative foreword by the Dalai Lama, the insertion of which, one can fairly assume, adds credibility and confidence in the minds of many potential purchasers and readers. Yet, despite the fact that Thondup is his own elder brother, in this case a suitable foreword by the Dalai Lama is all the more noticeable by its absence. What is one to assume from this?

All in all, the conclusion has to be that this book as a reliable source of information is questionable at the very least. For myself, the respect I previously felt for Thondup as elder brother of the Dalai Lama steadily evaporated as I progressed from one chapter to the next. Reading it has been a disappointing experience. I therefore feel that, being the person who added this book to the list of sources, having now lost confidence in it after reading it I should remove it from the list of sources. I sincerely apologise to anyone inconvenienced in any way by this action, and I would be interested to hear any other opinions or assessments of this book from anyone else who might have read it or heard about it. MacPraughan (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Since posting this comment I have further edited it to make it more neutral, adding more details and citing various instances to substantiate my assessment and the decision to remove it. MacPraughan (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

English pronunciation

This recent edit by W. P. Uzer changes the English pronunciation from /ˈdɑːlaɪ ˈlɑːmə/ to /ˌdælaɪ ˈlɑːmə/ with the explanation “this is the normal British pronunciation, maybe American is different?”

Yes, the American English pronunciation of the first syllable is consistently /dɑ/, fitting the general pattern where American English favors /ɑ/ in loan words while British English prefers the more native-sounding /æ/. The second syllable in American English, in my experience, is usually /li/, not /lɑɪ̯/, despite the spelling. This makes “Dalai” basically a homophone of “dolly”, prompting no shortage of puns such as “Hello, Dalai!” /lɑɪ̯/ is a spelling pronunciation, anyway, unless one has in mind Mongolian rather than Tibetan. In Standard Tibetan, expect something along the lines of /dɑlɛ/, not /dɑlɑɪ̯/. A Frenchman might guess right.

What should we do about the English pronunciation, given that it’s a foreign word with regional variation in the English-speaking world? List both? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

One possibility is not to give the pronunciation in this article at all, but to give it only at the Dalai Lama article. And certainly list both, or all, pronunciations that we can find in reliable dictionaries, with explanation as to whether they are GB/US/whatever. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Monguor

There is only one source stating that is family if of Monguor origin, when all the other ones say his family is of Tibetan origin. So, this is dubious. See for instance My Land and My People, p. 10; and Michael Harris Goodman, The last Dalai Lama, p. 38 : "Sonam Tsomo's new family had roots in Amdo that could be traced back to the reign of King Mangson Mangtsen, the grandson of Songtsen Gampo, who in the middle of the seventh century had stationed a central Tibetan garrison there to protect his frontiers from Chinese incursions. " --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it one or the other? One could suppose that an English or Anglo-Norman family might trace their ancestry back to King Arthur without seeing themselves as Welsh rather than English or Anglo-Norman. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the sources do not state he would be Tibeto-Monguor. I find the affirmation/statement that his family would be of Monguor origin diffcult to trust because there is only one reference, that do not specify the source of this. It is also unlikely that it would be the case, since the family members did not speak Monguor langage, but Xining dialect. If it was true, I see no reason why we would not find other references. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Some Monguors spoke Monguor, others spoke Tibetan while a certain number around Xining spoke the Chinese dialect of Xining (they were sinicized Monguors). --Elnon (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
If a reference is available, in particular for Xining dialect, it would be nice. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
What difference does that make? He is actually the reincarnation of the previous dl, who in turn was the reincarnation of the previous dl, etc. But if you believe that you will believe in anything. 213.1.8.47 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Migrant comments

Mawlidman has made four reversions of content in less than 15 hours, violating WP:3RR, regarding the Dalai Lama's comments on migrants. Please discuss this dispute and stop edit warring. Under the process of WP:BRD, this addition should be discussed here and consensus found before re-addition of the content. I'm returning the text to the status ante, per policy. I'm not certain that this content constitutes advocacy, but I also question whether it is of due weight for inclusion. Regardless, the issue needs to be discussed here and the edit warring needs to stop. Please stop reverting other editors without discussion. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I fail to grasp why mentioning what the media says about the dalai lama's comments on migants to Europe should be likened to "advocacy" and suppressed. Advocacy for what ? VictoriaGrayson, a member of Wikiproject's Buddhism, provides no proof of her strange claim. --Elnon (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
If you carefully parse what he is saying, it is clear that he is not making anti-Arab statements, but rather, he makes a plea for them to be able to return to their homelands, presumably with the restoration of peace. His phrasing is awkward, clearly open to multiple misinterpretations, and I think we need to let this play out in the media for a couple weeks to see how it shakes out and how he may or may not clarify his statements. This isn't ITN, and we need to be careful that we don't engage in our own analysis in the article, which is inappropriate WP:SYNTH. Let it play out and if it becomes the significant story of 2016, we can add more, with analysis from others. But for now, my take is it's too soon. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: I think it is of due weight for inclusion. Many news articles were written about it, hence it is definitely notable enough for inclusion. Also, in most of these articles it is reported as something controversial, hence its relevance to the controversy section of the wiki article.
@Elnon: I was arguing the same against VictoriaGrayson's claim of advocacy in my wiki summaries. She never provides proof of her claims. But apparently anyone can hobble an article's expansion by using any unfounded excuse to remove content then use the defence of 3RR.
@Montanabw: What you make of the Dalai Lama's comments is beyond the point of whether they deserve inclusion in the article. He made some comments that were widely reported as controversial, and this alone warrants inclusion in the article. Whether he clarifies his statements or not is irrelevant. If he does later clarify then that can be added to the article too, but it doesn't remove the fact that he made notable comments that were taken as being controversial. --Mawlidman (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. It appears to me the only controversy is sensationalizing one part of his comment (too many migrants) while ignoring the totality of what he is saying. The context that the goal should be return of the migrants to help rebuild their countries is completely reasonable, and he affirms his position by stating that as his own goal as a refugee. Mostly looks like reporters trying to score a gotcha moment that was then defused. As a result, I agree with Montanabw that waiting to see if there is any fire beyond the smoke would be proper. Also, nobody forced you to violate 3RR. In the same vein as what Montanabw said, there is plenty of time for discussion and consideration of the issue, and no urgency justifying edit warring. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
My view is that WP:SYNTH governs. Here, even the cited articles have caveats such as "apparently said," (Washington Post)and so on. The interview was by a German outlet which translated his interview (which probably was in English, presumably, and his English isn't all that great), and then English-speaking news outlets have been putting their own spin on it without having much of a clue. No way is this ready for prime time. I thought this article handled the confusion well. The original interview in machine translation suggests he is actually saying that there are too many refugees, not that the nations are admitting too many for asylum. A statement such as "Germany can be no Arab country" (zum Beispiel Deutschland, kann kein arabisches Land werden) can be interpreted to mean that Germany isn't another people's homeland, which is merely a statement of fact. He clearly begins by showing compassion for refugees and in no way is making an anti-Islam statement. This is, in short, a great example of how WP needs to just let the issue play out. Montanabw(talk) 21:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 14th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sunmist3 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 14th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sunmist3 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 14th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dubious citations re: CIA involvement

Just reading through the section 'Cooperation and conflicts with the People's Republic of China', the following: < "The CIA, with the Korean War only recently over, offered the Dalai Lama assistance. In 1956, a large rebellion broke out in eastern Kham, an ethnically Tibetan region in Sichuan province. To support the rebels, the CIA launched a covert action campaign against the Communist Chinese. A secret military training camp for the Khampa guerrillas was established at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, in the U.S." > is supported by just one link, to an article by "globalresearch.ca", which I do not believe qualifies as a credible primary source at all. That site is well-known as an extremely biased, pro-Communist, anti-Western disinformation site. For now I will just tag it as dubious, but I'd like this section to be edited to either include stronger support or remove the sentences that are only supported by such an uncredible source. 195.22.127.30 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, after further consideration and scrutiny of the source, I've decided the offending sentences should be removed pending stronger citations. As per WP: SOURCE, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and the "notice about sources" warning box on living persons edit pages ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article"). "Global Research" is definitely not NPOV. It is on the same level of credibility as Infowars, and has been mentioned as a conduit for anti-Western, Kremlin propaganda by sites that monitor the spread of online disinformation, see http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/euvsdisinfo/docs/disinformation_review_22-12-2015_en.pdf and http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/euvsdisinfo/docs/disinformation_review_12-01-2016.pdf 195.22.127.30 (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 14th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 14th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 14th Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Friends of the dalai lama

Among people who claim to be friends of the dl are a'bishop Tutu and Uk's Prince Charles. But aren't these christian leaders obliged by their religion to convert the dl and the tibetan people into their christian religion, as they believe their religion is the one and only true religion for mankind, and thereby destroy the tibetan culture and way of life? Are they true friends or fairweather friends or no friends at all? 81.159.239.16 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither Prince Charles nor Bishop Tutu have histories of engaging in evangelism, and hence are unlikely to pressure the Dalai Lama or any other Tibetan to convert. Whether the Dalai Lama considers them real friends is up to him to decide. Tim gueguen (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Enthronement controversy

I have removed all opinions about the enthronement and recognition of the 14th Dalai Lama by the Chinese government. This subject is politically too sensitive to use primary sources for this. If anyone reverts this without adding in any independent sources, I will tag your talk page with a warning.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I second that. Same should apply to the 13th Dalai Lama article btw. --TV Guy (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Farang, the following statement is not opinion, also it's not controversial, it was interaction between the local Tibet government and Republic of Taiwan. Probably I can give more information for that, especially feedback from the local Tibet government at that time, let me post more data for this. Eipviongll (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Wu Zhongxin of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission of China found out the total amount to be requested by Ma was 439000 dollars, he quested the Central Government of China for 400000 dollars, and that included the expense for the enthronement ceremony of the 14th Dalai Lama.
Reference: https://books.google.com/books?id=eWCa0NSILSsC&pg=PA133
Quote: 西藏方面被马步芳索要款项共计四十三万九千元，据此提出“拟请中央以颁发第十四辈达赖坐床大典名义，特给以法币四十万元。”行政院接吴电后，当即呈报国民政府下令，正式拔款四十万元作为坐床典礼经费。……对此，热振和噶厦分别于3月7日和8日向国民政府主席林森玫电感谢。
Quote: 热振和噶厦分别于3月7日和8日向国民政府主席林森电感谢。
Translation: thanks letters (telegraphs) were sent from both Reting Rinpoche and Kashag between 3/7 and 3/8 to the president of the government of Republic of China.
Eipviongll, I am not debating what is true or false, but on Wikipedia, we use secondary, independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Secondary means not a source from a Tibetan monk or the Chinese government, but sources by scholars or journalists who are not involved with either party. See also WP:OR.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Farang, here's the statement from your WP:RS link, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.", can you provide Wikipedia source for your statement "Secondary means not a source from a Tibetan monk or the Chinese government"? In this case, the book itself was published by 2 scholars, not Chinese government, and one of them is Tibetan Chinese, monk, historian, and scholar at Tibetan Buddhism University. Eipviongll (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Eipviongll, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved ... A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." Quoted from WP:OR.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Your comments mean the information can be used then, or you reject any of the following? (1) Wikipedia can contain all primary, secondary and tertiary sources. (2) For this particular context, no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis was involved in the fact, also there's no original research. (3) The book was not published for any government, the authors are in fact not related to local Taiwanese (ROC) government. Eipviongll (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll,

  1. Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, but only very limited on articles about living people. Since this is also a very politically sensitive article, no primary sources should be used at all.
  2. There may have been original research involved in your edits, since the notability or due weight of the primary sources has not been established by using secondary sources, per WP:DUE. You could be cherry-picking primary sources.
  3. I don't know why you get Taiwan involved in this, but apart from the article on The Economist, i don't see any other sources that we can verify as reliable and secondary. However, if you want to make the case for the Wuzhou Communication Publishing House, I am ready to listen, but you need to prove it has a reliable reputation among scholars and is not related to the government of Mainland China. Considering that all your other sources until now have been proven to be government-related, I have serious reservations about this publishing house though.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
For your #1, link to this policy please, do you even know what primary source means? for your #2, original research in my edits? proof please, for your #3: you brought up the "government" variable right? ROC (China Taiwan) was the government involved in this. I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. Eipviongll (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, Farang is right. Non of your sources can be use nor they fulfil Wikipedia's standards according to its policies. Whether you are not understanging correctly due to language barrier or you don't want to accept it. You can bring admins if you want and probably they would say the same. --TV Guy (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to discuss, write something relevant and meaningful, you even don't know what we're talking about. Eipviongll (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess you meant "You don't even know what we're talking about", which I wonder how do you dare to even do such estatement. --TV Guy (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we can continue this discussion at User talk:Eipviongll#October 2017, since it is more about Eipviongll than the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Anything not related to the content of the page, you're welcome to come to my talk page. Eipviongll (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case why you erased from you talk page? --TV Guy (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Tibet Buddhist Theological Institute fake?

The Tibet Buddhist Theological Institute in Lhasa, in some sources also referred to as the Tibetan Buddhism University, appears to be fake, or a propaganda mouth piece. I have done some research on it here. This is important to know, as many edits on this WP article have referred to The historical status of China's Tibet, purportedly published by this Institute.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Farang Rak Tham. I very much appreciate your research into this supposed 'institute' or 'fake university'. I have read the results of your work on the links you have kindly provided and find them very interesting. I wonder if Epiviongll is a part of this project? According to my knowledge of Tibet going back to 1975 it is in accordance with my experience of Chinese interference in Tibetan culture and its attempts to nullify it and assert a possession and control that never existed through fake research by tame propagandists, including Tibetan collaborators who are given a sinecure and told exactly what to write so the Chinese can then say "Oh, look, here is an independent Tibetan scholar and researcher who agrees with our propaganda! Therefore it must be true." MacPraughan (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it will be a good idea to check all the Tibet-related articles that are controversial in order to purge a little, if is not been done right now, once we end with the DL articles. --TV Guy (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang, people are very happy to see this fake public school, with fake scholarship? But, can people trust your words? Eipviongll (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, please assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. If you have any factual evidence to show that your source is not a fake university, as shown by Farang Rak Tham with evidence provided for his statement, the correct response from you here, instead questioning his trustworthyness sarcastically, would be to provide that evidence in support of your claims and your source - if any. The fact that you have not done so, and made a personal attack on his sincerity, indicates that you have no such evidence. MacPraughan (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
New update over here. Apparently, the institute was founded to deal with the "Dalai Lama clique". It just keeps on getting better.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lhamo Thondup was born in Qinghai, China

If there's dispute, include both, China Tibet. Eipviongll (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The following reference has been removed from the article although it should help settle the current dispute about whether Tgagtser is in Qinghai. See The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of the Dalai Lama and the Secret Struggle for Tibet], by Gyalo Thondup, Anne F. Thurston, PublicAffairs, 2015, 384 p., p. 25: "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."
The Dalai Lama's other brother, Thubten Dschigme Norbu, said more or less the same thing in his autobiography published in German in the early 1960s (I have only the French edition): "Tagtser était un pauvre petit village sur la route des caravanes menant de Sining, siège de nos autorités chinoises, au Labrang de Trashi Kkjii." (Thubten Dschigme Norbu, Tibet patrie perdue, raconté par Heinrich Harrer, éditions Alain Michel, 1983, (pp. 17-18)).
It's no secret that the dalai Lama's family had to pay taxes to Qinghai's governor general Ma Bu Fang. : --Elnon (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the article Taktser it is obvious that Taktser belong to Qinghai Province, regardless of ROC / PRC. Please also refer to the following two references [1][2], Taiwan China --暖城2016-02-05 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ 中国藏学研究中心当代研究所副研究员王小彬 (2013). "十四世达赖的政治生命与西藏的和平解放". 七百多年来，众多民族在这里往来迁徙，逐渐成为藏、汉、回等民族混居地区。清代以来，回族人逐渐成为这条山沟的居民。
  2. ^ The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of the Dalai Lama and the Secret Struggle for Tibet, by Gyalo Thondup, Anne F. Thurston, PublicAffairs, 2015, 384 p., p. 25: "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."
    3. There seems to be only one way to settle this dispute: mentioning both Amdo, the cultural Tibetan region, and Qinghai, the administrative location. --Elnon (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Though Tibet was de facto independent in the period of Republic of China, it was never recognized by any nations, so I do not think it appropriate to list Tibet in the end. --暖城2016-02-05 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think Elnon suggestion is a good solution. Though I would like to see Farang's and TaerkastUA's opinion too. --TV Guy (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Elnon and 暖城2016-02-05, your sources help a lot, please help to improve this 14th Dalai Lama page. From the comment from the other page "Dalai Lama", it seems it was discussed before, "for See discussion, June 27 edit request, 2013, archive 10.", and this was specified: Taktser, Qinghai. I think we have the following choices:
    1. Taktser, Qinghai
    2. Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省
    3. Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省, China
    #3 seems to be the best. I think 暖城2016-02-05 prefers #3, I also prefer #3. Any comments? Eipviongll (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

    Why so much fuss about this? The talkpage archives are already full of discussions related to the birthplace of the XIV dalai lama. Taktser was in 1935 under the control of the Ma Clique warlords, who were aligned with the Republic of China. It would be a daring shortcut to simply mention Taktser, Qinghai, Republic of China without mentioning that this area was effectively under the control of the warlords. At the same time, Taktser was definitely not part of "political Tibet" (and had not been taken from this entity by the warlords), so it is definitely not incorrect to write that Taktser was in Qinghai, a province that was nominally created in 1928. On the other side, Taktser does belong to Amdo in Tibet (in 1935 as in 2017), as these two terms are unequivocally defined. Most non-Chinese academic and encyclopedic (for example Britannica) publications will associate the name of Taktser with Amdo and Tibet, this would be a gross POV-pushing to delete this information from the infobox. I believe the best option is to mention both Amdo/Tibet (the description usually found in non-Chinese English publications) and Qinghai/Ma warlords/ROC (the official administrative divisions and controlling powers at that time). I urge everyone to refrain from manipulating comments that are the result of previous lengthy discussions, such as these editions by 暖城2016-02-05. Thanks, --Tiger Chair (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

    Agreed with mentioning both Amdo and Qinghai: If the current description has no consensus yet, we could list what independent sources say. It seems to me that Elnon's suggestion is a good compromise.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Tiger Chair, Qinghai was not created in 1928, check Qing Dynasty map and you will see Qinghai. Amdo is just a a cultural region, there's no clear boundary, i.e. no clear definition on where's where. Taktser 当才村 was/is a village, there's boundary. Eipviongll (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    We probably all agree that Kokonor / Amdo / Qinghai had unclear and varying boundaries throughout most of their history, but this is off-topic. As I wrote, the province of Qinghai was established in 1928 ("During the Qing period immigrants from the east settled in Qinghai, and Chinese political and cultural influence in the region increased. Qinghai was made a province of China in 1928. The Ma clan governed the region during the Republican period"). I hope this helps. --Tiger Chair (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    You wrote "it is definitely not incorrect to write that Taktser was in Qinghai", before 1928, there was called Qinghai, see https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B8%85%E6%9C%9D%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF%E5%8C%BA%E5%88%92 Eipviongll (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    @ Eipviongll: back to my proposal, can you agree with the mention of both Amdo/Tibet (the description usually found in non-Chinese English publications) and Qinghai/Ma warlords/ROC (the official administrative divisions and controlling powers at that time)?--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    Since it was discussed before in the past, the last concensus was "Taktser, Qinghai", adding Chinese words seem to be more appropriate "Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省". Problem with Amdo is it's cultural concept, there's no boundary. Problem with Tibet is, the 14th Dalai Lama was not born in Tibet, check your britannica.com link and you will see why. Eipviongll (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    Let's keep the previous consensus, but add some Chinese characters "Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省". Any objections? Eipviongll (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    The previous consensus was "Taktser, Amdo, Tibet", until User:暖城2016-02-05 changed it twice on 29 September and 30 September. I however propose to include Ma warlords/Qinghai/ROC, as this reflect the official administrative divisions and controlling powers at that time. Once again, it is meaningless to oppose Amdo/Tibet to Qinghai/ROC, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide what is right or wrong, but what the majority of reliable sources are saying on the topic. It would be awkward not to mention Amdo/Tibet, as this is how most English-language source locate his birth place, for example the Nobel Committee says "He was born in a small village called Taktser in northeastern Tibet". --Tiger Chair (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    All these names exist and are traditionally and currently used; every part of the world has different names according to who is talking about them, in what period in history and all borders are constantly changing as countries and empires arise, expand, contract and disappear over the centuries and millennia. The place I happen to live has at least six different names, both historical and current, which are all currently used by everyone who live here, depending on the context; many Indians still refer to England as "Britannia", for example.
    For centuries Amdo, also more recently called Qinghai, has been a "grey area" as regards political control. Until about the 16th century it was mostly inhabited by Tibetan nomads. In the 17th century, Mongols moved there, stayed and eventually became completely Tibetanised. In the 18th century the Qing dynasty first took an interest in the Amdo region in their wars against the Mongols and their armies appeared in what had always been called Amdo for the first time. [I can provide reliable sources for all this if required] However, for all ethnic Tibetans that I have ever met over the last 42 years (including in 5 extensive trips around "China's" Tibet), and I have met many, the place is always referred to as 'Amdo', even though the ethnic Chinese now always refer to it as 'Qinghai'. These are the facts of the matter. Is there any problem with saying the birthplace is "known to Tibetans as 'Amdo' and to Chinese as 'Qinghai'"? MacPraughan (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

    Deletion discussions

    There are deletion discussions pertaining to sources that have been used in this article here and here. Your input is welcome, whether pro or con.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama/Archive_12&oldid=1089882242"