Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Not a balanced item

The Criticism section is particularly biased. Is it appropriate to counter each criticism issue? Is this section criticism or counter criticism under the cover of criticism? A few references to the criticism actually do not link to the criticism, but to the counter criticism.

But I think if we want to be neutral here, writing down the opinion of both sides is necessary. So it is not that the editors here want to "counter each criticism issue", these counter criticisms have already existed as an important part of the topic, and they have equal rights to appear here, right? Following their time order, put counter criticisms after criticism issues is quite natural, how could you claim this as "not balanced"? Maybe you mean we should first give the "couter criticisms" and then "criticisms", but isn't it wield? Maybe you think the reader would believe those who give final words, but are their judgments so fragile? Wang2 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source partly on the criticism, and was never cited:

"THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA"

http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Index.htm

Perhaps someone would like to write a counter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.123.209 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2007

Suggest you have a look at the biography of living persons policy.--Addhoc 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at it already. Apparently someone is pushing an agenda of preventing criticizing him. In addition, tell me where is the source of "In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned some of ancient Tibet's feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded", and why the references of criticism point to counter criticisms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.123.209 (talk)

Well, "biography of living persons" is definitely not supposed to result in an article which is biased in favour of the subject. I'm sure this is not what Addhoc was suggesting. However, this subject is particularly tricky, since English-language publications on him are so uniformly adulatory; it's hard to tell what a neutral Wikipedia article would look like.

Criticism of the government strucutures of feudal Tibet should be clear about the fact that the current Dalai Lama was never in charge of them; and so the criticism can only be of the fact that he is supposedly overmuch enthusiastic about the old government in retrospect.

I'm not sure why the sentence "In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the U.S. Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA)" is under "criticism". The Dalai Lama presumably has been criticised by somebody for this, but this criticism is not mentioned in the article.

Also, the Trimondis are not a reliable source for use in an encyclopedia article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama was NEVER in charge of Tibet? Dalai himself would not agree. Read http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=399

If he was NEVER in charge, how could he justify those reforms he claimed instituted by himself instead of the communist central government?

This link was added as the reference for the claim "In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned many of Tibet's feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded in 1951." However the interview contains neither the condemn nor any reform he instituted BEFORE Chinese invaded.

Read carefully, he assumed power at 15, in 1950, and the amnesty for prisoners was declared when he was 17. That's 1952, after the liberation. The first few things the Chinese Communist Party did after liberating anywhere in inner land China was to set free the prisoners that may be classified as "repressed brothers and sisters" and you'd expect that in Tibet.

And read the 17 points agreements you'd know Dalai was under pressure from CCP to institute reforms. The article was clearly written in the agreement, though CCP said Dalai's government could do it on its own pace. Even Dalai himself declared that the major reforms was instituted "in uneasy alliance with the Chinese". So it's clear when the reforms were instituted. It's not BEFORE the Chinese invaded but after that, under the pressure to reform so Dalai can hardly take credits for it.

Check the open documents from CCP you'd known from 1951 to 1957 CCP did not push the reforms too harshly. Worrying instigating Dalai and the monastery class' reactions, the main emphasis of the reforms was only on the so-called Jian Zu Jian Xi, or to reduce the rents and the interest rates, which were the heaviest burdens on the serfs. Even under such pressures to reform, all Dalai could do was just to abolishing "inheritable debt"? If he was willing to institute reforms he'd push his reforms ahead of what CCP requested him to do, e.g., set free the serfs, which did not happen until after he fled Tibet.

About the feudal systems, all Dalai could say was that "there were many things wrong with our society", but at the same time "Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one's karma." If you read this sentence correctly, you should see that he admitted that he represented the group of people who were responsible for the feudalism. But again, is this claim of karma much different from that used to be believed by the "25,000 slaves, who were indoctrinated to believe that their servitude was just punishment for their bad karma"?

To conclude, I think the following sentence is groundless and pure whitewash, therefore should be deleted:

"In response, the Dalai Lama has since condemned many of Tibet's feudal practices and has added that he was willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded in 1951." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.123.209 (talk) 01:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note to add that I have reverted your removal of the above sourced content. Firstly you provided no edit summary. Secondly, the content is sourced from a newspaper article and remving sourced content just because you believe it is "groundless and pure whitewash" is not how to edit wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong by saying the claim is a "sourced content". Please read my notes above. The source does not support the claim therefore it's not "sourced content". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.123.209 (talk) 01:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I have read both your message above and the source, the article from the Independent where the Dalai Lama (who is known as the Dalai Lama and not "Dalai" by the way). However, I would strongly suggest that you read and check the source fully as it most certainly does "support the claim" as you put it, and is a perfectly valid source. Whether or not you agree with what is said in the article and in the source it is from, it is still sourced content and as such, should not simply be removed. Perhaps you would also please sign your posts (it is easy to do just add four tildes (these ~) at the end of your message, that way other editors will know who to reply to. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection on the source and it was me who suggested to add a source otherwise the claim was never sourced. But I'd like to know how the source supports the claim, e.g., what reform did Dalai (To me, Lama is just a title. I don't always call W President Bush) institute BEFORE China invaded Tibet, and how he condemned the feudalism. Please point me to which sentence in the source that supports this. Thank you. 68.35.123.209 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite why I should be finding this when it is quite clear in the article I don't know. Howeber, after the interviewer put forward the criticisms about the Dalai Lama, "We cannot revert to the old Tibet, and even if we could, we do not want to, because there were many things wrong with our society," he says. Radical change would have happened without a vicious military occupation. In the brief years he was in charge of Tibet, in uneasy alliance with the Chinese, the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own." Note - "many things wrong with our society". Also note - "Radical change would have happened" and "the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own". Whether or not you agree with what he said he still said it and it is relevant and sourced. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He said "Radical change would have happened without a vicious military occupation", not "I am willing to institute reforms before the Chinese invaded". Can't see the difference? The article says "In the brief years he was in charge of Tibet, in uneasy alliance with the Chinese, the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own." How do you infer from the contexts that the reforms were instituted BEFORE 1951? In my opinion, one may source from the article the following: "Dalai Lama admitted that Tibet feudalism was wrong and it was a bad karma that they were punished for. He also said that under Chinese occupation, in alliance with the Chinese communist government, he had instituted many reforms independently." Hwuubheain 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hwuubheain, I find the point you're trying to make confusing, but you seem to want evidence that the Dalai Lama tried to implement radical reforms before the Chinese invasion, and I'm telling you that this is impossible because he was 15 years old then and he was symbolically invested with the power of state in the face of a looming invasion from a much-stronger neighbor, which then happened a short time later. It should be obvious that there is no way any reforms could be carried out under those circumstances. Of course, this does not vitiate the possible criticism that the Dalai Lama is an apologist for (i.e. insufficiently critical of) and a beneficiary of the feudal system; but he was a child at the time and cannot be held responsible for implementing it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nat, if what you said is right, then Dalai was lying about his independent reforms. Please justify this.Hwuubheain 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama gives his account from the perspective of his own spin. What, you're surprised? He was at best partly in charge of the country at the time, and he takes credit for reforms that were made during this period. I have no idea whether or not that's a plausible interpretation of history.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What you don't see from the sequence of the events is that Dalai was partly in charge of Tibet's civil affairs from 1951 to 1959. Read the 17 points agreement then you'd see it. Please refer to Mao Zedong's article "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People", written in February 27, 1957, 2 years before Dalai fled Tibet. Mao was by then still optimistic about Dalai would eventually institute reforms therefore did not want to hush him up. See http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/onhandling.html, quote: "Democratic reforms have not yet been carried out in Tibet because conditions are not ripe for them. According to the seventeen-point agreement reached between the Central People's Government and the local government of Tibet, the reform of the social system must be carried out, but the timing can only be decided by the great majority of the people of Tibet and their leading public figures when they consider it practicable, and one should not be impatient. It has now been decided not to proceed with democratic reforms in Tibet during the period of the Second Five-Year Plan. Whether they will be proceeded with in the period of the Third Five-Year Plan can only be decided in the light of the situation at that time." Read the "leading public figures" Dalai, Panchan and the monastery. So my point is, Dalai was never willing to institute any reform. You may or may not believe this, but the fact is, even Dalai himself did not claim he had done any reform BEFORE 1951. Hwuubheain 03:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. He was a child then.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I bring this up because I dispute your claim that Dalai was merely a figurehead. Even Dalai himself does not agree with you so I don't think that is a given, indisputable fact.Hwuubheain 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Figurehead or no, he was a minor and was facing an imminent invasion by a vastly superior force. I don't know how you expect him to enact reforms under the circumstances.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In 1959 he was 24 years old. He was able to independently made the decision of fleeing Tibet and managed to plot and implement it, apparently against the will of the communist central government. He had two brothers that could plot mass uprising against China. I don't know how a mere figurehead could manage to do that under the iron fist control of a totalitarian government. But I can imagine how easy it would be for a figurehead to just nod his head on abolishing feudalism then the communists would do it for him. Isn't it apparent if you read the 17 point agreement and Mao's article that Mao wanted to abolish feudalism in Tibet? Yet Dalai didn't say he agreed. If he ever did he certainly would want to take the credit as he did on the other reforms. But Mao said "conditions are not ripe for them". I don't know how much figureheading does it take to resist Mao's will. Hwuubheain 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the period before 1951.

Also, how does having two influential brothers prove someone is not a figurehead?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalai certainly can't take credits for any reforms done before 1951. But Dalai wasn't talking about before 1951. Read that article, it says "in uneasy alliance with the Chinese". There was no Chinese to be alliance with before 1951, only after.

If Dalai's family was as humble as this wiki article says, where do you think the influence of the two brothers comes from? From the general election by the serfs?Hwuubheain 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does the article say they were humble? It says they were moderately wealthy peasants, and that one of his older brothers was a minor reincarnate lama. And that was before he became the new Dalai Lama ... I don't know who would claim they were humble after that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Humble or not aside, what's your point? Is it still that throughout his life Dalai should never be held any responsibility for the Tibet feudalism, even though I've shown enough evidence that Tibet feudalism was not abolished until 1959 when Dalai was 24 years old and by then he was independent and capable enough to institute such reforms if he ever wanted to? Hwuubheain 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What's my point? You're the one that brought this up; how can you then ask me what my point is? In any event, I certainly do not think you have shown the the Dalai Lama was independent and able to implement whatever reforms he might have wanted during the 1951-1959 period.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state that the Dalai Lamas family were humble. In fact the word humble is not used once in the entire article. What it does say is that they were "moderately wealthy farmers". ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I read humble from one of the twenty farmer families "in a small and poor settlement", "making a precarious living off the land raising barley, buckwheat, and potatoes". No mentioning of owning slaves or not whatsoever. In any case, his family was not the kind such as the "Drepung monastery, for example, owned 25,000 slaves". I'd consider such a family humble, in the sense of either "a : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale" or "b : not costly or luxurious". That's my interpretation. If you agree or not that's a separate issue. Hwuubheain 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it's interesting that Tangerines accuses me of using Wikipedia to make a point. The modification I made was to illustrate the source article's point, not mine. If you set up a section of criticism, referring to sources but then don't even bother to clearly illustrate the source article's point, what's the purpose to have a criticism section?

Again I must point out that the reference http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1998/5/20_1.html points to "His Holiness the Dalai Lama's view on India's Nuclear Tests" but was attached to Christopher Hitchens's criticism. This is false referencing, considered bad practice to even high school term papers. I deleted this but was also reversed by Tangerines. Isn't this very false referencing trying to make a point by its own? I don't see the logic behind this. Hwuubheain 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hwuubheain, you have had the proper usage of the Dalai Lama's style (for such is not his name) explained to you; your persistent use of "Dalai" as a name - as we might call someone "joe" - strikes one as willfully provocative. You might call him "Kundun" if you happened to be on intimate terms with him, which I doubt you are; but to call him "dalai" repeatedly is just ridiculous.kelt1111 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

kelt1111, I feel sorry that you consider my way of using one person's name offensive. The analogy of W may not be a perfect one but then you don't have (or I'm not aware of) a similar thing going on in the western tradition. That being said, I also need to point out that you must not always assume your way of calling someone's name is the only "proper" way or an unchallengeable norm. If I had wanted to used a derogative tone to call him like "Joe" I'd pick something from his real name, Tenzin Gyatso.

Actually calling him Dalai is quite normal in China, and has no intention of disrespect or alike whatsoever. That's just the norm of using names of that kind in China. For example, you wouldn't think that Chinese want to use a derogative tone on the 10th Panchen Lama, yet except for in the very official documents where his full name and titles must be spelled out as Pachen Erdeni Chökyi Gyaltsen, he's also frequently just referred to as the Panchen as well as Panchen Lama, officially or unofficially. I'm not aware of any insulting feeling he ever had over either name use.

A few more examples: the Kangxi Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi, whose formal title can be as long as 25 Chinese characters, and not an awfully long title for a Chinese emperor) is normally just referred to as Kangxi. The Wanli Emperor is just called Wanli. The Empress Dowager Cixi is just called Cixi. Is there ever a Dalai or Panchen that's not a Lama? No. Wasn't Wanli or Kangxi an emperor and Cixi an Empress Dowager? Of course yes. Then why sweat on it? Simple as that. In comparison to this kind of name use, I'd even think the use of the like His Holiness laughably pretentious. A monk is a monk. A true Buddhist should refrain from grabbing money and political power, let alone the titles. Well, I know I assume too much. Monks are human too, holiness or not.

Now come back to the name use of Dalai, please refer to a recent Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's talk about Dalai (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/2511/t321116.htm), quote:

'The words and deeds of Dalai in past decades fully demonstrate that he is not purely a religious figure, but a political exile engaging in activities splitting the motherland under the pretext of religion. No matter under what pretext or where he goes, it's not a simple issue of religion or an individual act. He represents a political force aimed at splitting the motherland and "Tibet independence".'

See? Besides the name use, I actually consider this a fairly good criticism on Dalai, only nobody here care to quote it in the Wiki, and I've decided not to sweat on it either (got better things to do). If your country has not been split and invaded and raped for the last 100 years you wouldn't have known the true meaning of a united nation. Well assured I'm no fan of communists but then any responsible government in China should do their job to keep the county united. Allowing Tibet to split would surely collapse the government, communist or not. I consider this stance towards Dalai a legitimate governance, nothing to do with democracy or not. Actually I think if China is ever to have a democratic government this stance would be much more hawky. See Taiwan as an example.

Now come back to why I consider this item biased. I think this item has not reflected the views of many Chinese people (not a small number for sure, could be much more than you can imagine. OK we're brainwashed, but how can you be so sure that you are not?) who consider Dalai a hoax and hypocrite in religion but a very skillful politician who cheats, trades, and coerces to get what he wants. We don't like him and want people to know his tricks. Like it or not, not reflecting this view in the wiki does not make it disappear, and it's your loss not knowing it. Hwuubheain 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am Wang2 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC), a newbie of wikipedia. As Hwuubheain, I come from Mainland China and I am interested in Tibet. I express here my opinion with my bad English, hope you excuse me for that.

Hwuubheain, I'd like to say a bit more about what you have written here. I'd say no matter a fan of CCP or not, the fact you regard their hackneyed statement "fairly good criticism" already reflects that you are emotionally affected by them. If you wrote down your words under hot emotions, it's highly probable that they are biased. You wrote: If your country has not been split and invaded and raped for the last 100 years you wouldn't have known the true meaning of a united nation, as well as many insulting words towards Dalailama (hooks, etc) which should not appear in a wiki item which aims at providing readers descriptive facts. These further testify what I have said about you. In fact, I do not read these words even in the item about Hitler.

Sure, as a Mainland Chinese like you, as an insider, I can fully understand your emotion, and from a certain sense, your emotion could be partly justified. But still they are emotions and can make you biased. What's more, if we look at your (partly justified) statement further, we could see easily that we should treat it with caution. You said: If your country has not been split and... for the last 100 years.... Correct, but all of us are not born early enough to witness all these tragedies. We have learned them from CCP's teachings. Yes, those CCP says are not necessarily lies, however, ccp does have (at least) selected the facts deliberately for their own purpose. For example, if you say, "Tibet and Taiwan are unalienable parts of China", then what about Mongolia? Our Chinese have every reason to consider it a part of China if we regard Tibet as so. And we should treat it in the same way we treat Taiwan, right? But our Chinese guys, having such a painful history as you have mentioned, are actually quite "generous" towards Mongolia. The only reason I can see is that CCP has not point their propaganda machine at Mongolia as it has done to Tibet and Taiwan for so many years. And that is mainly because when CCP came to power, they needed the help from USSR and Mongolia was a satellite country of USSR at that time. Just imagine, if what the USSR had controlled had been Tibet, not Mongolia, then today we could have been "generous" to Tibet, and harsh to Mongolia. Doesn't that make sense?

What's more, yes, our Chinese have been wrongly treated for 100 years, so we develop that kind of emotions as a natural result. However to be objective, we have to put our feet into other guys' shoes, to understand their emotions, which might be equally justifiable. The fact is that tibetian guys never identified themselves as Chinese(how could they? They have very different language, grow very different faces, share a very different culture, most of them lived together in places Chinese can hardly reach)， not to say identify China as their Motherland. They also have their own systems, yes, that was quite backward and should be reformed, but anyway Chinese central government only exerted symbolic control over them. So when the modern concept "Nation" became popular, wasn't it natural for Tibetian intellectuals to think that Tibet should be an Nation as independent as China? And if their system was indeed backward, isn't natural for them to think they should reform it themselves, while maintaining their independence? Such natural things happened a lot in Europe, like Romania, Bulgaria's independence from Ottoman Turkey. (And Ottoman's govern on them was not only symbolic). Ottoman Turkey, similar with us, disintegrated in the past 200 years, but let's say if a Turkish, still dreaming of their old glories, still thinking Romania and Bulgaria parts of his "Motherland", addresses to those who doubt his belief: If your country has not been split and... for the last 100 years...., I guess even you would think him ridiculous. Actually today the Turkish people take a much more realistic view towards this, a Turkish girl told me that their history text book writes something like: "Ottoman empire governed large area and that's our past glory, but today we still lives happily in our smaller land".

Wang2 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, below is what I have written yesterday, therefore these two parts are somewhat reversed.

Wang2 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It is a pity that this article has not reflected the opinion of many mainland Chinese. But why don't you add this part to it yourself other than just blaming foreigners, who are not at all familiar with Chinese opinions, for it?

2. I have to point out that it is the Chinese government who has blocked the wikipedia, therefore blocked the Chinese people from publishing the facts in their eyes on it.

3. Brain-washed or not? That someone insists on his own, maybe biased opinions does not mean that he is brain washed. If you have access to different opinions, but somehow you find one of them exceptionally appealing to you, and you stick to that, you are not brain-washed. However, if someone deliberately blocks different voices from you then he is brain washing you and if as a result, you develop an very negative view towards different opinions, you are brain washed. Therefore, a western guy finds Dalai Lama (I am sorry I do not use "Dalai", anyway I am editing the English Version of Wiki, I have to make myself understood by western guys by conforming to their conventions. Unfortunately, they think Dalai lama's name is Dalai lama.) quite attractive does not mean that he is brainwashed-anyway no one prevent him from accessing the CCP's point of view(or brainwashes him). But I'd say most of Mainland Chinese think of Dalailama as a devil since they are brainwashed. If they could hear the voice of Dalailama and judge by themselves, I don't think Dalai lama's figure could be so negative among them.

4.I do think that what you have said about Dalailama(if he was willing to reform or not around 1950's) lacks evidence, (maybe I will explain more about this later) but what he did at that time might be something minor. You should focus more on what he did when he was more mature, that is, after he came to India. I do not want to state all that myself, but would refer you to a book:

http://www.xizang-zhiye.org/gb/arch/books/Tianzang/index.html OK, it's too late and I have to sleep now, maybe I will talk a bit more when I have more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wang2 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

holy cow! what a rant. just a couple of thoughts. His title is "The Dalai Lama," yes, it is a little insulting and also just kind of dumb to call him "Dalai" only, it would be kind of like referring to The Pope and merely "Po." Both "Dalai" and "Lama" are in fact part of his title. If you disagree strongly with the idea that a simple Budhhist monk has a title, you could just use his given name, but to use half his title is silly. And seriously, the Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China is hardly a reliable source as to how he should be referred to! It's unbelievable you would even suggest that, given the immense hostility of the current government in Beijing towards the Dalai Lama.

And yes, you have been brainwashed as you espouse the idea that China was "raped" in the last 100 years, and that this somehow justifies invading a neighboring country and subjecting their people to communist totalitarian rule (what you refer to as being "liberated"). Seeking to preserve the independence of his country does not mean that the Dalai Lama wants to "split" China. I believe he has no designs on China, just on his own country, Tibet, which never was part of China. (Yes, at various times in history the government in Tibet had to pay the emporors of China money, which was basically bribery not to invade, but this is more like paying the mafia money to leave you alone, it hardly confers recognition of sovereignty). And the proposal that unless China invaded Tibet its government would collapse is also ridiculous ("Allowing Tibet to split would surely collapse the government"): Other nations have separated peacefully without difficulty, such as the former Czeckoslovakia. In fact, it is when one side seeks to use force to continue to subjegate a people who wish to be independant that trouble starts (witness the bloodbath in the former Yugoslavia because Belgrade refused to allow the republics to secure self-determination through peaceful means). The dictators in Beijing have made similar statements about Taiwan, and yet after more than 50 years of Taiwan having effective independence (their own government, money, passports, laws, etc) the government acorss the strait has not collapsed.

And lastly, by all means, please feel free to post "criticisms" of the Dalai Lama from the government of China as much as you want, it will serve to show that the government in Beijing is little more than a gang of brutal, imperialistic thugs who have to resort to violence and oppression to sustain their rule - their tyrades against a Nobel peace prize winner will help the world see them for what they really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.49 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"it would be kind of like referring to The Pope and merely "Po." Actually Pope (English, one syllable) is shortened from 'Papa'(Latin languages including Italian, two syllables). So according to your reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to shorten dalai lama to dalai. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"their tyrades against a Nobel peace prize winner". Buddy, why don't you take a look at the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners and see how many of them have blood on their hands? 81.155.96.175 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)