Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RfC: Neutrality dispute

It appears that a group of editors immediately deletes any criticism, no matter how well sourced, in addition to deleting the neutrality dispute template. Can this bio be considered neutral?

I have added the neutrality dispute tag, because it looks like there are editors who systematically remove all criticism. This is unacceptable under WP:NPOV. The most recent edit of this sort is this one, where well-sourced criticism is deleted without explanation. I see from reading earlier posts on this talk page that there was at one time a "criticism" section of the article, which has evidently been deleted. The Dalai Lama's contact with the Nazis is mentioned in this context, but it appears nowhere in the article. These defects must be fixed before the article can be considered to be in compliance with the NPOV policy. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If by criticism you mean slander, then I agree. I for one will continue to delete all additions (of which we have seen a lot) that are along the lines of "the dalai lama kills puppies, this is proved by [insert name of fifth-rate newspaper or propaganda mouthpiece]". The criticism has to be real criticism, not crap that is intended - by the original author and the Wikipedia editor who cites it - to make the subject of the article look bad. Yunfeng (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You have stated this well yourself in the past: "...as everyone involved in this discussion can clearly see, the distortions of one of [Tenzin Gyatso]'s most extreme and irresponsible critics are being presented as fact." Yunfeng (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In this article is mentioned also "she is also vice-chairwoman of the standing committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Regional People's Congress, or regional parliament". It's all about her credibility. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Add that to the article, then. It's a well-sourced criticism coming from a notable individual. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Random PRC official talking on a Chinese run government mouthpiece. Not notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a general section for Tibetan religious and former-élite types who have denounced the current Dalai Lama? But perhaps not: some might say that this reflects more on the character of those individuals, and/or on the system which encourages those denunciations, than on the present subject.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the NPOV tag must not be removed until the dispute is resolved. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this article in violation of WP:NPOV? You need to explain that in order for the neutrality tag to remain. Sunray (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That should be obvious: all criticism is removed, no matter how well sourced. The article lacks balance. NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be represented. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide examples? In a recent case (see "Religious Controversy," above), the sources were problematic and the text removed was in violation of WP:BLP. Sunray (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case ([1]) the sources are not problematic, and there is no basis more removing them under BLP. One of the deleted edits is a news report that the Pope decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama, and the other is a comment by the lady who is supposed to be a living female Buddha, and "also vice-chairwoman of the standing committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Regional People's Congress, or regional parliament," claiming that the DL is acting in conflict with the faith. As far as I can see, these items were removed strictly for POV reasons, which is the basis for my assertion that the article is not neutral. If it were neutral, all notable viewpoints, including those critical of the DL, would be included. It appears to me that the article is being watch-dogged, WP:OWNed and sanitized by fans of the DL. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the DL. I do know that an argument has not been made that these recent statements are in any way notable for the biography of a 72-year old man that has been the subject of several book and article-length profiles. Read WP:UNDUE. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt: You are saying that the article is not neutral because someone removed that cruft about the Pope not meeting with the Dali Lama?? I agree with Relata refero. This is in no way notable enough to be included in this article. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why it is "notable" when the Dalai Lama gets a positive reception from one Pope, but it is "cruft" when he gets a negative reception from another. Perhaps you might begin to get the idea as to why this article seems biased to an outsider. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might read (or re-read) WP:BLP. Sunray (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite anything more specific about that than simply citing the whole page? What do you mean?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the section on Well-known public figures states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant... it belongs in the article." There is a huge boatload of information on the Dalai Lama, so the criterion of notability is important. An example referred to, above, was the mention of the Pope deciding not to meet with the Dalai Lama. That is a non-event. If the Pope had decided to meet with the Dalai Lama, it likely would have been notable, depending on what happened and the coverage of the event. Sunray (talk)

It had been anticipated that the Pope would meet with the Dalai Lama, and his decision not to do so was a surprise. That's why it is notable. I'd like to know why there is no criticism section -- it looks like at one time there was one. Is the Dalai Lama now immune to criticism at Wikipedia? --Strettolicious (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who did it surprise? Surely not anyone who has been watching the current Pope (the point being that this "news" item is more about the Pope than the Dalai Lama). Sunray (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no basis for saying that it is "more about the pope than the Dalai Lama." There is no basis for putting "news" in scare quotes. These are feeble arguments, which appear to be an attempt to defend POV-driven censorship. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything that was in the Criticism section is still in the article; it's just that there is no longer a separate section for it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The deleted material I mention at the beginning of this section should be restored; the material discussed at Talk:Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama#Dalai Lama's contacts with Nazis and Neo-nazis are completely missing. should be in the article, and possibly the material deleted by Yunfeng in this edit[2] (I'm unfamiliar with that particular controversy, but there is a clear pattern of editors who are routinely sanitizing this article of all criticism.) --Terrawatt (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain how it is notable if some famous person has a timetable conflict and can't make it to a meeting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't play games. You know as well as I that the meeting was cancelled for political reasons.

The more I look at this article, the more absurd I find it to be. The lede had the following sentence: "He is the political and spiritual leader of Tibetans worldwide." This article is like a fan page, controlled by editors who can't tell the difference between the Dalai Lama and God. All claims of his followers are presented as fact, and any information to the contrary is immediately deleted, no matter how well sourced. And on top of that, his followers keep removing the NPOV template. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Terrawatt, you need to look a little bit deeper into the reasons behind these edits. My edit that you mentioned is a deletion of weird nonsense added by some kind of fringe religious cult. Look at that editor's other edits, and look at the other possible sockpuppet editors that also only make those edits. The Dalai Lama / Nazi connection is a popular Chinese smear with no basis in reality. Hitler died when Tenzin Gyatso was nine years old. The deletion by blnguyen that you originally complained about was also a smear, albeit a milder one - the Vatican's position is that a meeting was not planned, and the cites don't support the sentence.

This article is a real magnet for all kinds of crap, and aggressive deleting is what is called for. We are dealing with some very motivated POV pushers, from fringe cults to angry Chinese people to people who think the Dalai Lama is god. I don't think your criticism is warranted, and I wish you had been a bit more careful about looking into the background. Yunfeng (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You claim that the Nazi connection is a "popular Chinese smear," which seems like quite a conspiracy theory, given the popularity of the book Seven Years in Tibet and the film by the same name -- I take it that the Chinese were behind these? If you want to include sourced material that the Vatican's position was that a meeting was not planned, fine, but it seems that you prefer to delete well sourced press coverage of the other side of story. And you haven't yet explained why you deleted the one point that struck me as most notable, which was sourced to this article: http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-33305820080429. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Gyatso's friend Harrer was in the Nazi party does not mean that Gyatso had Nazi connections, or that he was a Nazi sympathizer, or any of the other related smears that are built around this association are true. Harrer could hardly have been an "active" Nazi when he arrived in Tibet in 1944 - he had been in a prison since the beginning of the war and hadn't had any contact with other Germans. I think you are incredibly gullible for giving this claim even a second of your time - it is a false, calculated smear of the worst kind. As for the "Tibet's Only Living Female Buddha" comments, if we included every anti-DL comment made by a Chinese stooge, then this would be a very long article indeed. Her comments are noteworthy only in that they are Chinese propaganda and that is one viewpoint that, in this area, does not need additional defending. I appreciate that you think you are doing the right thing by challenging the editors of this article, but by not doing your homework you have come down on the wrong side. Yunfeng (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit oblivious to the NPOV policy. We don't speak of "Chinese propaganda" and "Chinese stooges" in a context like this, nor do we speak of "Hollywood propaganda" or "British stooges." The views of the PRC are every bit as notable as the views of the Dalai Lama's western sponsors, and to insist that Wikipedia take sides and censor one viewpoint or the other is a bad case of WP:BIAS. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a minute and re-read what I wrote. China's views on the Dalai Lama are well represented in this article, and there is no need to add to them. The speaker of that quote is only notable insofar as she is parroting the official line, and there are actual government spokespeople that we can quote for that. Yunfeng (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

At least six editors have disagreed with various points you have made Terrawatt. Your POV is showing. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But, but, as you can see here, Lyndon LaRouche believes the Dalai Lama is a Malthusian Nazi/British spy. Who are you to deny the great Lyndon LaRouche, proponent of megalomaniacial public works projects to generate gigawatts, nay, terrawatts, of electricity from fusion power? John Nevard (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever contribute anything useful to Wikipedia, or do you just roam from article talk page to article talk page, making ad hominem attacks? --Terrawatt (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I make many, many more productive edits to Wikipedia than you make edits that don't strangely happen to coincide with Lyndon LaRouche's latest line. And as keeping Wikipedia free of LaRouche crap-spamming is considered desirable by the community, I don't even have to make edits that don't have anything to do with LaRouche to do so. John Nevard (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After looking over the article, I will say that it has neutrality issues. The reincarnation claims are presented as fact, when obviously something as controversial as reincarnation shouldn't be presented as such. In terms of criticism, a criticism section should be (re)added with sourced criticism added. For controversial critics (such as PRC officials), the criticism should be clearly stated as being from said groups. BLP should not be used as an excuse to leave out sourced criticism. Disclaimer: I personally believe that the PRC has clearly misruled Tibet, and continues to misrule the place (the reincarnation application being the latest example). OTOH, to portray the religious life of the place as utopia is misleading as well.Ngchen (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems totally reasonable to me. Why don't you propose some specific changes? Yunfeng (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the lede that he is "the political of Tibetans worldwide," which I assume was intended to mean "political leader of Tibetans worldwide." That is quite a grand claim to be presented without a source, particularly when it seems clear that he has no official political power in Tibet at this time. Politically, he would seem to be the equivalent of a number of European figures who are the descendants of various monarchs, but of countries that have abandoned their monarchies and now have other forms of government. One might argue that the PRC does not rule Tibet legitimately, but they do rule it nonetheless. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now Relato Refero has added an even grander claim, that "He is the political and spiritual leader of Tibetans worldwide." This definately requires a source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that he is political leader of Tibetans worldwide (though in exile). He is spiritual leader of the Gelug. I will provide citations. Sunray (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama's website and many other reliable sources state that he is the "head of state and the spiritual leader of Tibet."[3]. I will modify the lead accordingly.

That's a bit over the top. I've changed it to "The Dalai Lama professes to be the head of state." --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

At least: Time [4], Nobel Committee [5] and Mao (meeting with him in 1954) attributed some kind of leadership (heh, irony inserted) to DL. If you want to say that "Tibet abandoned DL" please give independent source for this claim. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations would be useful, but I think that the encyclopedic approach would be to say that he is regarded by his followers as the political leader of Tibetans. He is clearly not regarded as their political leader by the PRC, for example. I would be interested in seeing reliable evidence that he is so regarded by Tibetans living in Tibet. Incidentally, I looked up the bio of Jesus, and in the lede it says he is "revered by most Christians as the incarnation of God." It is appropriate to attribute the claims about a leader to his followers, and not to present them as objective fact. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that if organizations such as the Nobel Committee, Time and the Christian Science Monitor[6] all say he is the spiritual and political leader of Tibetans, we don't really have the justification for qualifying it. It is not just his followers who are saying it, it is a majority of people the world over. Sunray (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is organzations such as the Nobel Committee, Time and the Christian Science Monitor who are saying it. While notable, these opinions do not translate into "the majority of people the world over." This is a clear example of WP:BIAS. Undeniably, the government of the PRC does not share this view, and the PRC represents a very substantial part of the world's population. So, I have added to the lede the PRC view that the Dalai Lama is the symbol of an outmoded theocratic system. Please do not respond by demonizing China -- under NPOV, the Chinese view must be represented in the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Phagmo dispute

This is the edit that I tried to make when this controversy began:

The twelfth Samding Dorje Phagmo, considered to be Tibet's only female living Buddha, was quoted saying that "The sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and seriously damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism's normal order and good reputation." She told Xinhua that "Old Tibet was dark and cruel, the serfs lived worse than horses and cattle." [7]-- Source: Reuters

This (Reuters) is a reliable source as I understand the policy here. It is also a notable person. There is at least one major book written about her [8]. So, I think that those editors that immediately deleted this well-sourced reference made a mistake, and the fact that one editor on this talk page calls Samding Dorje Phagmo a "Random PRC official" and another called her "a Chinese stooge" suggests that these editors are extremely biased. So, in my opinion this article is not neutral, because viewpoints are being excluded on the basis of prejudice. --Strettolicious (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not the case that every person about whom a book has been written has a relevant opinion about the Dalai Lama. Especially so, since the book in question is not primarily about the current Samding Dorje Phagmo, but about all the Samding Dorje Phagmos. The comments she makes don't really provide any content that seems worthwhile to quote: she might be considered an authority on religion, but she is not, to my knowledge, a historian, so her opinions on what life used to be like in Tibet are no more relevant than any other eyewitness account; she mentions the "sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers" but she does not specify what she is referring to. Lastly, we don't know what kind of political pressure this woman was under to make such a statement.

That said, I do think it would be a good idea to have a brief section on criticism of the Dalai Lama by religious figures in Tibet, which could include a mention of the Samding Dorje Phagmo's criticism.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I found seven mentions of "Dorje Phagmo", which seems to be the most common transliteration, in the Google News Archive. You can draw ur own conclusions about her relevance outside the Communist Party advisory committees on Tibet. It'd be interesting to pick the mind of the guy who wrote this article on the German Wikipedia. John Nevard (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, judging by machine translation, that article seems to be about the metaphysical concept of Dorje Phagmo. It would be like consulting the author of an article on Avalokiteśvara about the activities of the current Dalai Lama.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, she doesn't seem to be a particularly notable figure, to say the least. John Nevard (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

She's notable enough to be covered by Reuters, which is sufficient for inclusion in the article. We don't "draw ur own conclusions about her relevance outside the Communist Party advisory committees on Tibet." We include what has been said in Reliable Sources. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"spiritual leader of the Tibetans"?

There's a sentence in the lead that starts "The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans". Surely that's not true, since a non-negligible number of people living in Tibet don't acknowledge him as such. I thought they would be mostly Chinese-communism-influenced atheists, so I was going to change that to "The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists", excepe it seems, from a cursory reading of that article, that he's really only the leader of one of four schools - is that right? If so, we really should strike that bit entirely, and just state "head of govt in exile and Gelugpo school of TB". If I misunderstood, then we should at least change it to "of Tibetan Buddhists". --GRuban (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some references that support the view that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibet:

• " In 1640 the 5th Dalai Lama, having with the aid of the Mongols acquired temporal as well as spiritual control of the whole country" BuddhaNet [9]
• "the 5th. Dalai Lama became temporal and spiritual leader of Tibet by order of the Mongol ruler Gushri Khan." Kalachakranet [10]
• "The 17th Karmapa’s identity was confirmed by the unfailing wisdom of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, the supreme spiritual leader of Tibet." Simhanda [11]
• "...in 1642, the Dalai Lama was enthroned in the main hall of Shigatse as both the spiritual and political leader of Tibet." Dalai Lama's website. [12]

Trust this helps. Sunray (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Daniel Cozort, Highest Yoga Tantra, foreword (I think), the actual head of the Gelugpas is the Ganden Rinpoche. Peter jackson (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It may well be true that in the 17th Century, the Dalai Lama was the spiritual leader of all Tibetans. However, Gruban's question appears to address the present Dalai Lama, subject of this article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This Dalai Lama Campaigns to End Wildlife Trade is example how strong is spiritual influence of Dalailama in Tibet now. Exactly spiritual, not religious because there are four independent schools of Tibetan Buddhism. And again: if you want to say that something changed in last 3 centuries please give independent source for this claim. If you want to say something please proof it at first. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for thing, Tibet changed hands several times in the past 3 centuries. But more to the point, this is an article about the 14th Dalai Lama. Therefore, sources used for his biography should be specific to his life. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Many things changed in the last 3 centuries in Tibet, for sure. But not position of Dalai Lama. You give no proof, no independent source for your claims. I hope linked article is enough specific for XIVth Dalai Lama. Did you read it? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article would make a fine source for a claim that the Dalai Lama was active in wildlife conservation. It is inadequate for the claim that he is the "spiritual leader of all Tibetans." And I think that you are missing an important concept about Wikipedia policy: the burden of proof is on the person who adds the claim to an article. You don't make a claim and then challenge others to provide sources that disprove it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should to read this article again. It's not only about Dalai Lama engagement in wildlife conservation but about strong inluence in occupied Tibet also. Even police can't stop people burning animal skins. Shame on me if I'm missing any important concept but you made two claims in this discussion: "Tibet abandoned Dalai Lama" and "Dalai Lama lost his spiritual influence" and didnt provide any proofs for this claims. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made neither of those claims. My concern is that the claims made in the article, not the discussion, be appropriately sourced. Since the beginning of the discussion, however, I see that the claims in the article have been scaled back somewhat. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Spiritual and political leader" is a very sweeping claim and it requires stronger citations than that (see also brief discussions of the same subject onTalk:Dalai Lama). None of these quotations is from a serious historian—one of them is from the Dalai Lama's own website! Also, the statement that the Great Fifth "acquired temporal as well as spiritual control of the whole country" is not accurate if you use the definition of "Tibet" that Wikipedia does (which is essentially the same as the current Dalai Lama's definition, chölka-sum), since the Lhasa state ruled only about half of Tibet.

I'm not really sure what the term "spiritual and temporal leader" is supposed to mean. Some Tibetans are Muslims; is the Dalai Lama their spiritual leader? Is he the temporal leader of Tibetans who have become loyal citizens of another country?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You all raise good points. And it is true that while the lineages came together in the 17th century, there have been divergences since. While there are members of each of the lineages that today recognize the Dalai Lama's spiritual leadership, there are also controversies and exceptions. The current wording in the article is: "the spiritual leader of the Tibetans." How about we change that to "a spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists"? Sunray (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My only hesitation with this is that it seems weak. I'm not sure it captures the true picture. Perhaps "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists." Sunray (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists" is a fine idea. A recent revert changed it back, though. I still don't understand what "the spiritual leader of the Tibetans" means.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"A revered spiritual leader among Tibetan Buddhists" is only a part of his position and not most important. Dalai Lama is recognised as a Tibetan leader (and not Tibetan Buddists leader) by EU and USA. "Spiritual" means... lets use an example - like Ghandi for Indians, nor strictly political in formal way, nor religious also, but a national leader. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. However, I thought we had covered that already in the lead in the reference to being head of the Tibetan Government in Exile. Sunray (talk)

But CTA is not recognised by any country as a political representation, and international position of Dalai Lama is not a result of heading CTA. His role in CTA is only formal support for his previous, traditional position. Who on the world knows what is CTA? Who knows any other person from CTA? Dalai Lama - not CTA - is (of course unofficialy) recognised as a representative of Tibetans in media and politics. Everytime when you read about Tibet Dalai Lama is mentioned (and vice versa). And this is wikipedia definition of Ghandi position "a major political and spiritual leader of India" --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree (if I understand you correctly). Any suggestions on the text below? Sunray (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Dalai Lama is spiritual leader of Tibetans just the same way like Ghandi was spiritual leader for Indians, and for sure many Tibetans don't recognise his leadership, and some are even hostile to Dalai Lama. But this don't change his position. Many Indians don't recognised leadership of Ghandi, some of them even killed him, but no one doubt his role as an Indian leader. IMO in Dalai Lama case is only one difference - political status of his country. And this is reason for all this controversy and discussion. Because his leadership among Tibetan Buddhists is much more dubious then spiritual (or national) leadership for Tibetans I can't agree with proposed change. If Ghandi can be "spiritual leader" why Dalai Lama can't? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I've adjusted the wording below. I will wait to see what others think. Sunray (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] The portion in question reads:

"The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans and head of the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India and exerts a powerful influence over the the Gelug School of Tibetan Buddhism."

The proposed change would read:

The Dalai Lama is a revered spiritual leader among Tibetans and exerts a powerful influence over the the Gelug School. He is head of the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India [Proposed new wording shown in bold]

Are there other adjustments needed? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That works for me as well. Tadeusz, my main objection is to the articles: "the". "The spiritual leader" and "the Tibetans" means that he is the main or only spiritual leader for all Tibetans, which is clearly not true. Changing it to "a", or "among" or anything like that, will work. --GRuban (talk)

I don't understand this objection. There is no political or national leader with 100% support. Even Ghandi, evidently and undoubtly Indian leader in wikipedia named "a major political and spiritual leader of India" was not leader for all Indians (and in fact some of them killed him). There are the facts: Tibetans haven't any other recognisable leader, Dalai Lama is recognised as a Tibetan leader in media (this two topics "Tibet" and "Dalai Lama" are always tied together), and unoficially by such political organisations like USA, EU, UN, and even PRC (Mao meet him in 1954, and now such meetings are planned with PRC officials [13] - "The official New China News Agency reported Saturday that the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Singapore and the head of the European Commission had all praised China's offer to meet.") - they all accepted position of Dalai Lama as a Tibetan leader. Of course Dalai Lama is not a (spiritual, political or national) leader of all Tibetans, but the same situation is in every other case of (spiritual, political, or national) leader. Without any exception, can you find any? Unqestionable Indian leader, Ghandi was killed by Indians, the most famous Roman leader Ceasar was killed by Romans, but this both are recognised in history and politics as a leaders (Ghandi more spiritual, Caesar more political) and of course everybody knows there was many (you can be sure) Indians and Romans which didnt agree with that. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's hard to get something simple across. Let me write it again. Change the articles. Change the words "the". Change "the" to "a", or something similar. Just as in the Ghandhi article, which doesn't say "Ghandhi was the spiritual leader of India", it says "a". Doing exactly that for this article would be fine too. To restate, just get rid of at least one of the words "the" from the sentence "is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans". You can write "is a spiritual leader of the Tibetans" or "is the spiritual leader of many Tibetans", or any of the above proposals by Sunray, because those would be true. "is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans" is not true, because a non-negligible number of Tibetans do not consider him such. --GRuban (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If your proposition is "a Tibetan leader" I agree. For now it's ok for me. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to the following, which I think is accurate: The Dalai Lama is the head of the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India, and is regarded by most Tibetans as their spiritual leader, who exerts a powerful influence over the the Gelug School of Tibetan Buddhism. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change by Terrawatt. I do not favour it, mainly because the syntax is poor. I will revert to what was there before this discussion began—until we can get consensus. It is my impression that we were very close. Sunray (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "the leader..." to "a leader," as I think everyone who spoke agreed with that. Sunray (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the above discussion, I believe that we have consensus on the proposal I put forward above. Nat Krause and GRuban have indicated support; Tadeusz seems generally favourable to it. Terrawatt had a slightly different version, but it contains the same facts. I will make the change. Sunray (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI - a teriary source:

• On February 22, 1940, he was officially installed as spiritual leader of Tibet, though political rule remained in the hands of the regents.
  • Encyclopedia of World Biography. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2004. p369-371.

Note that this source referes to the place rather than the people, and omits the article ("a" or "the"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's not the same thing: for example, Henry VIII was officially installed as spiritual leader of England, but surely we don't want to write that he was the spiritual leader of the English! The current phrase, "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetans", is fine. (I doubt even that would have applied to Henry... :-) )--GRuban (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current phrase, "a revered spiritual leader among Tibetans", is fine. It is supported by the cites in the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE NPOV TAG

A guide to applying WikiLove towards another editor.

• I am all for NPOV but when I see such POV crusaders pushing their view into my face, I find that an insult. You don't go around other people's house and steal or stick something in there whilst claiming to be waiting for the Police to arrive to arrest you and still expect the owner wouldn't pull out a 12-gauge shot gun without any buckshots that won't have your name on it, do you? Perhaps that was a bad analogy but the bottom-line here is, please respect others here even if you disagree with them. I agree to disagree and I also disagree to agree but should you find yourself unable to do so, I think it's best you take a break and do something else instead of getting your temper or view fouled up by your personal inability to agree with what I just said here.

Read also

1. Wikipedia:WikiLove
2. Wikipedia:WikiHate
3. Wikipedia:WikiCrime
4. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

Please note that the NPOV TAG MUST NOT BE REMOVED until the dispute is resolved.

--Dave1185 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to explain the reasons (referring to applicable WP policies) for maintaining a neutrality tag on this article? Sunray (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is a self explanatory tag, go read below (Talk:Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama#Article protected) for more details and if you are still not sure it, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the tag is indeed self-explanatory. It says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." There is lots of discussion here and several things have been worked out. I asked for your views. I would especially like to hear your views on where the article is lacking. You ask me to read WP:NPOV. I do. Here's part of that policy that seems applicable here: WP:UNDUE. One has to bear in mind that this is a biography of a living person. That policy has a particularly applicable section on: Well-known public figures. Would you please explain your views on the article with reference to those policies? Sunray (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)