Talk:14th Dalai Lama

Nobel prize

The fact that the DL has won the Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned twice in the lead. I removed the repetition, which was a stand alone sentence (a no-no per MoS). Inexplicably, Wingspeed put it back. As it is already referred to (more appropriately) in the last paragraph of the lead, I will once again remove the repetition. Sunray (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forigive me. Revert was made in good faith: thought, as I mentioned on your talk page, that you were referring to a repetition in the main body of the article. (Was also, I suppose, concerned that the Nobel Peace Prize was losing its due prominence.) Have re-worded final para of lede accordingly. Wingspeed (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any way it could be moved up in the lead? Its odd that I should read 200 words or so without running into it. I know from the first paragraph that he's the Dalai Lama, shouldn't I also know he's a Nobel laureate too without reading a lot longer? Fuzbaby (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair, neutral way to summarize the sovereignty dispute

What would be a fair way to summarize the 1951 PLA entry and takeover of Tibet? The actual issues are complex, and can't really be summed up fairly in 1-2 words. Ngchen (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is 'entry and takeover' a fair and neutral way to summarize the soverignty dispute? From the PRC's POV, in 1949, it formed an entirely new sovereign state called the PRC, of which Tibet is a part. There is no dispute as far as the PRC is concerned. The dispute is one-sided and comes only from dalai lama's side. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but now it says 'invade'. Even more opinionated. Let's keep the wording neutral shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.135 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

China's army marched into Tibet and used military hardware to take control. Why would anyone argue that "invasion" is a bad way to describe this action? I can understand that the Chinese might be ashamed and might want to justify or explain away the invasion, or argue over the exact number of men, women and children the Chinese military maimed and slaughtered, but the word invasion is a neutral term defined in Websters. So where is the dispute?Medusaseesyou (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The dispute centers around the argument that, if we look at the article Tibet sovereignty debate, we'll find that a reasonable claim can be made that China was sovereign over Tibet in 1951. Now, if one is sovereign over a territory, one cannot logically "invade" it. For comparison, in the American Civil War, only confederate sympathizers refer to the Union army as "invading" the south, and the union always regarded its actions as reasserting control over what was always "their" territory. Ngchen (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition of invasion in Websters is based on actions not feelings. China invaded Tibet. By your reference to the American civil war you seem to be arguing that because people in China might possibly feel some discomfort being characterized as invaders-a word which evokes many historical horrors- it should not be used; but that is not a neutral application of the facts and language, and as such is not allowed under wiki guidelines.Medusaseesyou (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not arguing based upon feelings. Would/Should Wikipedia describe the American Civil War as an invasion of the Confederacy by the Union? I don't think so, because doing so would be to present the Confederate viewpoint as fact. The actions of the Union can be construed as an invasion, but can also be reasonably construed as a central government reasserting control over an area that had "always" belonged to it, based upon the argument that it's logically impossible to invade your own territory. Ngchen (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, "invasion" is commonly used in the US, and not only in the southern states, to describe military actions in the American Civil War. See, for example, William Tecumseh Sherman, or google Sherman invasion. Bertport (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True, however, the word "invasion" is used outside of a political context in Sherman's case. The statements "Sherman's army invaded Georgia," and "The United States invaded the southern states/Confederacy" are very different in terms of political connotation. The first has practically none, the second is full of political implications. Ngchen (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

??? Sorry, but you are making no sense at all here. Bertport (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sherman's army invading Georgia" refers simply to Sherman's army violently entering Georgia, without political implications. "The United States invaded the Confederacy," OTOH, does have political implications, I guess because it suggests that a political entity, "The United States," has invaded another such entity. It's this implication of a legitimate, second entity distinct from the first that is implied in the second sentence, and which raises NPOV issues. Ngchen (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ngchen is clearly implying that how people feel about the use of words should affect whether they are used or not. He mistakenly believes that people in the US care about the use of the word "invasion" when the subject of the civil war comes up, therefore he believes that the word has not or should not be used in that context-although of course it is used in that context all the time. Likewise he evidently has a little sensitivity to the image of China as having invaded Tibet and slaughtered untold numbers of people, and due to his sensitivity, he wishes people to not use the word invasion in the way it is generally used. I think this kind of emotionally based criteria makes it impossible for wiki to function-if every dictatorship can cry crocodile tears over the use of hurtful words how can any aggressive action ever be described? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medusaseesyou (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Has The United Kingdom invaded Northern Ireland, or the Falkland Islands for that matter? 86.176.51.166 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nanjing presidential Palace as source

As for the current debate over the use of something from the Nanjing Presidential Palace, perhaps it would be best to source the statements in question directly to the now museum? Ngchen (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know that the PRC government want to deny the legitimacy of ROC,so there are almost no museum directly talk about the history of ROC in mainland China,And the KMT (the party rule China before 1949) in Taiwan now want to build himself as a local party,so the history of the ROC in mainland China is a grey area,the former presidential palace is the few place talk about the history in mainland,the source in presidential Palace is credible because it is a independent sector and it is so authority because it is the head of ROC in mainland China.Raintwoto (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, all I'm asking for sources. That's how Wikipedia works. Information that we add should be verified by reliable sources. If there is no source, it can easily be removed. Khoikhoi 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

if the source is write in Chinese,Will you admit it?

and the museum is not a reliable sources?

I added some other reliable sources Raintwoto (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese-language sources are acceptable, although English sources are better because all editors are able to review them. The claim that you're adding to the article (that an ROC official recognised the 14th Dalai Lama), however, is contradicted by histories written by Melvyn Goldstein and Tsering Shakya. It seems likely to be something that government sources are saying for political reasons.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Raintwoto, thanks for providing sources. But Xinhua is not really reliable when it comes to history because it is a government-controlled news agency. It is much preferred that you use third-party sources instead. Also, I checked this one, and I can't seem to find where it says anything about a Republic of China ceremony recognizing him as the spiritual leader of Tibet. Khoikhoi 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that Xinhua is a government agency, it's also true that the CIA factbook is widely used as a source. Yes it is true that the agency will tend to "spin" things in the government's favor. But we should remember that the old ROC was a foe of the PRC, so the incentive to spin is at least lessened. IIRC a big argument against the Tibet independence movement is the fact that Tibet sent envoys to the meeting where the ROC constitution was drafted, implying that they considered themselves par of China, at least at that time. Ngchen (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Xinhua is good for news articles, but when we're dealing with history, it's best to stick to more professional, well-respected academic sources. Khoikhoi 21:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ngchen, the PRC's claim to Tibet is based 100% on the claim that it is the successor to the territories of earlier Chinese regimes. Therefore, the assertion that Tibet was part of the ROC is central to the legitimacy of the PRC's control of Tibet today. Also, Goldstein deals with the case of the Tibetan representatives at the ROC constitutional convention and shows that they did not see themselves as representatives of a part of China. For one thing, the came to Nanjing carrying a letter to Chiang Kai-shek which read, in part, "Tibet and Greater Tibet ... has [sic] been a territory unmistakably under the control and protection of the Dalai Lama ... We shall continue to maintain the independence of Tibet as a nation ruled by the successive Dalai Lamas through an authentic religious-political rule" and "Tibet has been an independent state, managing its own domestic and foreign, civil and military affairs. It continues to maintain its political and spiritual authority in its own way." At the convention, the Tibetan delegates were surprised to find a clause stating that "all the people of the countries whose delegates are present in this Assembly are subjects of the Chinese Kuomintang Government" and immediately opposed it, protesting directly to Chiang Kai-shek. In the end, the Tibetan delegates did not sign the constitution produced there.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi the source of this one says about the time that the ROC ceremony recognizing him,Find the time of 1940.2

What I want to understand is that anything the US media told you true?I have the picture which in it we can see the Dalai Lama and the ROC officer wuzhongxin,The wuzhongxin is a ROC Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission officer,and in the picture we can see the Dalai Lama is so young and what do you think they are doing?Maybe wu is just get a vacation in tibet and take a picture with Dalai Lama(Maybe in the picture he is not Dalai Lama?),I know you would say that Xinhua is not a reliable source because in your minds Xinhua is a government agency like the same agency in S.U,and what is your truth?if you want I can find lot of books writing about Dalai Lama which tell you that he is recognizing by ROC.I don't think there are more people study Dalai Lama in the US than China same reason that there are less people study the person Washington in China than which in the US.

I think my source is reliable enough,if you think blind yourself is so fun,go ahead.

here is some other sources,if you don't want to change it to be a truth,I would just thought that English Wikipedia is just a pedia for US people HAVE FUN.

Historical Status of China's Tibet by Jiawei Wang, Nyima Gyaincain, Nimajianzan,page 167

System of the Dalai Lama Reincarnation by Qingying Chen,page 126

to 100 Years of Tibet by Xiaoming Zhang,page 23

and if you want,you can type the keyword Wu zhong xin and Dalai Lama in Google Books,there are dozens of books write about that thing.

Raintwoto 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your source says, "Tenzin Gyatso, aged almost 5, is introduced as the XIVth Dalai Lama in Lhasa." But where does it say anything about the Dalai Lama's connection with the ROC? Raintwoto, I'm not advocating that we use US Media sources either. I am talking about scholarly material, from well-known, neutral experts on Tibet. And I never said Xinhua is not a reliable source, I said it is not a reliable source for historical purposes, they are not experts on Tibetan history and if this encyclopedia is to remain credible we cannot use them as source in this case. The three sources you've just cited -- I really fail to see how they are in any way neutral. To quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Overview, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Khoikhoi 09:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

unabalanced template in Controversy section

I doubt the neutrality and balance of this section:

Another controversy associated with the Dalai Lama is the recognition of the seventeenth Karmapa. To briefly sum up this controversy, two sides of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism have chosen two different Karmapas, leading to a deep division within the Kagyu school. The Dalai Lama has given his support to Urgyen Trinley Dorje, while supporters of Trinley Thaye Dorje claim that the Dalai Lama has no authority in the matter, nor is there a historical precedent for a Dalai Lama involving himself in an internal Kagyu dispute. In his 2001 address at the International Karma Kagyu Conference, Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche - a high-ranking Kagyu Lama - accused the Dalai Lama of adopting a "divide and conquer" policy to eliminate any potential political rivalry arising from within the Kagyu school. For his side, the Dalai Lama accepted the prediction letter presented by Tai Situ Rinpoche (another high-ranking Kagyu Lama) as authentic, and therefore Tai Situ Rinpoche's recognition of Urgyen Trinley Dorje, also as correct. Tibet observer Julian Gearing suggests that there might be political motives to the Dalai Lama's decision: "The Dalai Lama gave his blessing to the recognition of [Urgyen] Trinley, eager to win over the formerly troublesome sect [the Kagyu school], and with the hope that the new Karmapa could play a role in a political solution of the 'Tibet Question.' ...If the allegations are to be believed, a simple nomad boy was turned into a political and religious pawn."

The reasons are: While the dispute is complex

1. about 80% of the Tibetans and Kagyue masters follow the recognition of Trinley Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa,
2. this candidate was also recognized by the Head of the Sakya School (Sakya Trizin) and Nyingma School (Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche) and other lineage masters - and not only by the Dalai Lama as the section suggests
3. the majority of the person in charge for the recognition voted for Trinley Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa
4. since the Tibetan exile situation it is common that the Dalai Lama is consulted in spiritual issues of importance. also the Sakya do this. When HE Sakya Chimey Luding e.g. the sister of Sakya Trizin was thinking about to disrobe she contacted also the Dalai Lama for his advice. Likewise it is not uncommon that Tai Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsab Rinpoche asked the Dalai Lama for his opinion and recognition
5. it is not uncommon that high incarnations are recognized by other high lamas of other lineages

If one were to posit a political interest of the Dalai Lama in this issue, this is rather a theory of few and no 3rd party source (academic source) confirms such an assumption. The same could posited as a political interest or powertrip of Shamar Rinpoche. Therefore the section favours a theory which is a belief which seems to be rather speculative than based on facts and which is contradicting some facts and backgrounds of Tibetan Culture and attitudes. It simplifies the issue too. Therefore either this passage is to be balanced or the rather speculative assumptions should be removed. --Kt66 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article's current texts gives a fair summary of the controversial side of these events. On the other hand, a balanced explanation would have to give the Dalai Lama's response, but I'm not sure if that's how controversy sections are supposed to work. In response to specific points:

1) You mean to say "Urgyen Trinley Dorje" here. Trinley Thaye Dorje is the candidate opposed by the Dalai Lama. My impression is that it seems clear that a majority of Tibetan Kagyu followers do support Ogyen Trinley Dorje, although the numbers are perhaps a bit closer if you include non-Tibetan followers, since Thaye Dorje has a lot of support in Europe. I think it's difficult or impossible to quantify more specifically how much support each side has.

3) The core of the dispute is over who has the authority to recognise a new Karmapa. There is no tradition which holds that it is decided by a vote of the members of the search committee, which I think is what you're referring to. According to Thaye Dorje's side, the Shamarpa either has sole authority to make a recognition, or at least he is more than simply one vote among several. In any event, only two of the four members of the search committee recognised Ogyen Trinley Dorje, because the Jamgön Kongtrül died before recognising anybody (a majority would be more than 50%).

4) The criticism that is being made here is that the Dalai Lama has gone beyond simply giving advice. I do think this would be a valid point to bring up if a response is added for balance.

5) To the best of my knowledge, the Karmapas have almost always been recognised by fellow Karma Kagyu members, and occasionally by Drukpa or perhaps Nyingma lamas. I'm pretty sure there has never been any involvement by Gelug or Sakya lamas in the recognition prior to this instance.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to 14th Dalai Lama.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A reference

When 12 religious groups assembled in Assisi, Italy, in the October 1986, of at the request of Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II. Tenzin Gyatso; recognized as the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibetan buddhism, according to The New York Times, the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist leader, “converted the altar of the Church of San Pietro by placing a small statue of the Buddha atop the tabernacle and setting prayer scrolls and incense burners around it.”

Requested move

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama → Tenzin Gyatso — This should be a no-brainer, but wikibureaucracy demands it. "14th Dalai Lama" is an honorific, and shouldn't be part of the article title. "Tenzin Gyatso" isn't ambiguous, so there's no confusion just using the name. — Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See below for the amended proposal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strongly oppose. The subject is actually known by his title; we are not in the business of manufacturing puzzles for the reader. If anything, we should drop the unused personal name. As an almost exact parallel, we use Pope Benedict XVI, not Joseph Ratzinger; the difference being that Benedict was once widely known as Ratzinger, and the Dalai Lama has never been known as simple Tenzin Gyatso. It's not even his childhood name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: My source on the childhood name is this article; but it is both plausible and (if I read the footnotes correctly) sourced on the point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I oppose this for the same reasons given by PMAnderson above. John Hill (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Very well put by PMAnderson above. I concur In particular with the notion that, if anything, we should drop the unused personal name. I was not hitherto aware that the Dalai Lama has never in fact been known as simple Tenzin Gyatso, or that it was not even his childhood name–and I consider myself pretty well informed about the Buddhist tradition, certainly more so than the average reader. So, to that extent, the present article title, rather than posing a puzzle, would appear to have had the effect of feeding me actual disinformation. What on earth is the case for seeking to distance it yet further from everyday reality? Are we in the business of creating, by small aggregations, some Wikipedia alternative universe? An urgent need, I feel, to get real. Wingspeed (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

P.S. If PM Anderson's assertions above are indeed correct, the cause of accuracy would require us to drop Tenzin Gyatso from the title and to move it, as the jargon has it, to The 14th Dalai Lama. In which case, Chris Cunningham will have done us all, and the credibility of Wikipedia, a big favour. Wingspeed (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be just as happy with that outcome (14th Dalai Lama). The aim here is to present the simplest and most common title we can. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's go with that, then. (I honestly feel a bit embarrassed if there's some sense in which the fellow's never really been Tenzin Gyatso except in Wikipedia.) What's the consensus? Wingspeed (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the Charlie Rose Show interview archive labels him Tenzin Gyatso, but then gives as its source . . . Wikipedia. Oh, dear. Wingspeed (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal below is fine by me. Good one, Chris. Wingspeed (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The section Origin of the title Dalai Lama in the article on the Third is illuminating, so I quote in full, minus the citatons: "It has been commonly claimed that the title "Dalai Lama" was first bestowed by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan upon Sonam Gyatso in 1578. This, however, is not true. Sonam Gyatso, "was invited to Mongolia by the famous conqueror Altan Khan, and on his arrival at the latter's camp the Khan addressed him in Mongol by the name of Dalai lama, the Tibetan word gyatso, "ocean," being the equivalent of dalai in Mongol. Altan, knowing that the lama's predecessor had also the word gyatso in his name, took it for a family name; and this mistake has been the origin of the name of Dalai Lama since given to all the reincarnations of the Grand Lama." This interpretation of the name Dalai Lama has been confirmed byTenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama: "So I don't really agree that the Mongols actually conferred a title. It was just a translation."

In which case, use of Gyatso and Dalai in the same clause would appear to be tautologous. Wingspeed (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Edited proposal

As above.

• Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama → 14th Dalai Lama — Commonly known only by the honorific. "Tenzin Gyatso" is not generally used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as above; I could live with the present name. What do we want to do about the other 13, which WP titles in the same style? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Support with caution. Very good point, Septentrionalis. Hadn't noticed that. Anything wrong with the other 13 in the same (number-only) style? And I don't see anywhere a list that makes possible clicking to each of them in sequence. It would aid the cause of clarity and I personally, unless I've missed it, would find such a list most useful because illuminating. (After all, if one takes the underlying rationale literally, they are all supposed to be the same entity successively re-manifesting in different form: the tradition emphasizes continuity rather than disjunction.) Wingspeed (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S. I see here is such a list. Which, interestingly, does use the Gyatsos etc, but after the number. The authority for this is, presumably, the 1991 work cited. Wingspeed (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Those should be changed too. Hopefully most of the redirects from "Xth Dalai Lama" only have one revision, so they can be moved over without admin intervention. Once this move has been resolved I'll do the rest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Category:Dalai Lamas has them all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I agree with this move. I have also suggested similar moves on Talk:Karmapa and Talk:Panchen Lama, although there will probably have to be some exceptions there.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

I have archived a premature FAC nomination by an editor who has not edited the article or the talk page. The archived nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/14th Dalai Lama/archive1. Maralia (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Before exile

What significant things did the 14th Dalai Lama do before exile. --Edward130603 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Eat, shit and sleep. Highly significant processes for staying alive, same as everyone else. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first source on the subject of homosexuality states:

The Dalai Lama was interviewed by CBC News at the time of his visit to Canada during 2007-NOV. Near the end of his interview he was asked whether Buddhism condones love between two men or two women. He replied that Buddhists reject this. Genuine Buddhist practitioners, like Christians, condemn same-sex behavior as sexual misconduct. "So, [it is] not permissible, not allowed." Imagine Reason (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

They were in my opinion definitely editing that program down so that interesting statements stand out. So we don't know what the context was of the statement without the full interview. However, even in the shows arrangement of edits and right before that quote, in the CBC News, you'll find his statement that (my transcription) "there are different kinds [of love], for example sexual love, and parents love to children, and children's love to parent: different. although both very much mixed with attachment, then another level of love is showing to other people - strangers, even your enemy - showing love, respect to them, that is genuine love. That kind of love is really profound kind of love. And that kind of love is only through training of mind through reasoning." So though his statement that CBC News highlighted is interesting, in and of itself it could very well have been in the context of this distinction between love with attachment and this notion of genuine love without attachment, since they appear in close proximity. Nonetheless, the CBC show does not give us the surrounding comments to the statement or what exactly was being talked about. Separately, you'll easily find citations and official statements from him in support of equal rights for homosexuals, etc. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

People must respect the history of Asia

The 14th Dalai Lama was born in 1935 in Qinghai. The whole Qinghai Province was established and controlled by the Republic of China as early as in 1928. So there was NO such so-called "Qinghai Province of Tibert" during that time when Mr. Dalai was born, and, such saying is still wrong today.

Hope those rumors respect the history of Asia a little bit! (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Dalai Lama was born in Qinghai province of the Republic of China."Dalai Lama claimed all of Kham and Amdo in the Simla Convention of 1913-14 – most of these areas in fact were not a part of its polity for the two centuries preceding the rise to power of the Communists in China in 1949....The term ‘Tibet’ refers to the political state ruled by the Dalai Lamas; it does not refer to the ethnic border areas such as Amdo and Kham which were not part of that state in modern times, let alone to Ladakh or Northern Nepal. Until recently, this convention was, as far as I can discern, universally accepted in the scholarly literature" [1] 93.139.115.42 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are partially correct, although the situation is more complicated than you allow. I have changed it to read . . born in Amdo/Quinhai, which I think is the fairest way to put it. The area is a border region that has always been ruled by local cheiftans, with the overlords changing periodically. It is true that it has not been ruled by the Lhasa government for a long time, but that is not the only way to define "Tibet." The Tibetans there have always called it Amdo, the Chinese have always called it Qinghai, and the article should take note of both since both are relevant.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am correct,the QingHai province was controlled by the Muslim warlord Ma Bufang（马步芳）in the 1920-1940s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.141.138 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaningful autonomy

What is meaningful autonomy? 81.153.165.128 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Autonomy means "having the right or power of self-government". Meaningful autonomy means having actual autonomy in practice, rather than only nominal autonomy.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any states or territories within a sovereign state in any of the world's countries that have 'meaningful autonomy'? 81.156.182.33 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which ones and where? 81.156.182.33 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page to is to discuss improvements to the article. If you have questions regarding general knowledge, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia reference desk.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nat, since you promote yourself as one who has a world of knowledge at your finger-tips, could I ask that you expand your 'yes' answer from above? How can it not improve the article if the term 'meaningful autonomy' is clarified by examples of existing models (should any exist)? 86.134.239.144 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, now I remember you. You're that guy who used to always try to use the talk pages for discussions not really directly related to improving the articles. No, thanks.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I take that that your earlier 'yes' answer is really 'no', that is there is no territory within any sovereign state in this world that has what dl calls 'meaningful autonomy'. And Nat, no I am not that person Nat Krause who always use the talk pages to promote his own views, and not be able to answer questions when challenged. 86.142.163.219 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not up to par concerning the netiquette in use here, as well as to end this section, may I humbly suggest refering you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aland for an example of 'meaningful autonomy'. Qwrk (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. The island you refer to comprises 0.49% of the land area of Finland, and was once ceded to Russia. There are similar arrangements in China for Hong Kong and Macau which were once ceded to Britain and Portugal respectively. Tibet was never ceded to any other country, so such an arrangement was not arranged. Despite these, there are features similar to that of Tibet. For example Tibet also has a local autonomous government; Tibetans are not required to join military conscription, and Tibetans are not bound by family planning guidelines. The dl's demand for 'meaningful autonomy' appears to imply that he expects automatically to be the head of the local government without elections and the office is to be held for life followed after his death by an appointee who is supposed to be his reborn incarnation, over and over again. Indeed with 'meaningful autonomy' slavery will be allowed in Tibet despite the fact that it is illegal in the whole of The PRC. In other words, 'meaningful autonomy' is in reality slavery through the back-door. 86.142.162.252 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.38.247 (talk)

Can you specify what changes you are interested in making to the article?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a passionate believer of Wiki concensus, freedom and democracy, any changes to be made must be agreed upon, unless it is so obvious. Thus the meaning of 'meaningful autonomy' must be clarified. For example does it mean 'slavery through the back-door' and unelected and unremoveable rulers such as dl? 86.134.237.57 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no one cares what your feelings are about the issue. We are not going to add the sentence "An IP Wikipedia editor thinks that the Dalai Lama's desire for meaningful autonomy is a way to get 'slavery through the back-door' in Tibet." Find reliable sources, or shut up about it; this is NOT a forum. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "meaningful autonomy" is never used in the article. This is a non-issue; there is no need to "clarify" language that we are not using. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Public domain images

• 
• 
• File:Dalai-mao-oct13-1954.jpg
• File:Dalai mao colour1.jpg
• File:Dalai panchen mao zhou.jpg
• 
• File:Ac DalaiAndMao.jpg

Use at your own will. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are photos not showing?

Two photos in the article are not showing on my computer - one with HH and Mao in 1955 and one of his teaching room in Dharamsala. I have tried all kinds of tricks to get them to show, but nothing seems to work for me. Can anyone please help? And if you can, would you please explain here what was going wrong? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK John, let me start with trying the obvious solutions. Did you empty the cache of your browser [temporary internet files], the browser history and have you restarted the browser and tried again? Do they show up in any other browser than the one that you're using? Do you have another computer to try and access this page and what's the result of that? Qwrk (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the links broke, but they're fixed now. Bertport (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama's ethnicity

Someone from an anonymous IP address has just claimed that the Dalai Lama was born a "Han Chinese". This remarkable and unbelievable claim was based on the discussion in Thomas Laird's book (The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, 262), about Takster, the Dalai Lama's home village, and the dialect spoken in the Dalai Lama's home (a local dialect of Chinese).

There are a couple of things the person writing from IP 211.27.45.26 obviously does not understand. First, the Han Chinese are an ethnic group quite distinct from ethnic Tibetans. One does not become Han Chinese by being born in China or speaking Chinese. In fact there are some 55 other ethnic groups (including Tibetans) recognised in China.

Secondly, he or she obviously did not read the whole of the text on p. 262. In particular, the passage which says that in Takster only 2 out of the 17 households were Chinese. There can be no doubt that the Dalai Lama and his family have always considered themselves ethnic Tibetans. As Laird notes (p. 261), "His parents were Tibetan subsistence farmers . . . ." All the family names were Tibetan names - not Chinese.

Additionally, Takster has always been in a border region between China and Tibet - sometimes claimed by one, and sometimes by the other. It is called Amdo by the Tibetans and is now called Qinghai by the Chinese. At least until very recently, the bulk of the population of Amdo/Qinghai were of Tibetan ethnicity.

"The entire region sits along a natural border that has become a political and ethnic boundary line. Until the eighth century, Amdo was inhabited solely by Tibetans, but as they clashed with Mongols and Chinese along the plateau's eastern edge, the area was slowly settled by other ethnic groups. The feeling of political connection between Amdo Tibetans and Central Tibetans weakened, and the dialect of Amdo grew more and more distinct." Laird, p. 262.

So, please, spare us in future from such bizarre, unsupported claims about the ethnicity of HH the 14th Dalai Lama. Yours, John Hill (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section for a figure like the Dalai Lama should summarize its contents and be, short, fact-oriented, and to-the-point. It should not be a battleground discussing such nuances as his "first language". The section needs serious rescue. Colipon+(Talk) 23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the tidbit about his first language, while interesting, does not merit inclusion in the lead. It was Sylvain1972 who last put it there. Maybe he'd like to come back and justify it, or agree to moving it further down. But overall, I don't think the lead of this article is all that bad. What would you like to do to it? Bertport (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambo

Seen heavy POV pushing since months ago. There was no such thing as Amdo Province throughout the first half of the 20th century. It was even Tibet's official position:

"The Chinese Communist troops have invaded the Chinese Provinces of Lanchow, Chinghai and Sinkiang; and as these Provinces are situated on the border of Tibet, we have sent an official letter to Mr. Mautsetung leader of the Chinese Communist Government, asking him to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet"

- Tibetan Foreign Affair Bureau, Lhasa, 1949, quoted from M.C. Goldstein's A History of Modern Tibet: The Demise of the Lamaist State, p625

"The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century, and during the Simla Conference of 1913, the thirteenth Dalai Lama was even willing to sign away rights to them"

- Grunfeld, A.T., The Making of Modern Tibet, p245

Let history speaks. MainBody (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that Amdo Province is misnomer. Amdo is a region.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding what

Rodger Kamenetz

-- 88.75.200.58 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"In a letter to Seder participants, the Dalai Lama wrote, "In our dialogue with rabbis and Jewish scholars, the Tibetan people have learned about the secrets of Jewish spiritual survival in exile: one secret is the Passover seder. Through it for 2000 years, even in very difficult times, Jewish people remember their liberation from slavery to freedom and this has brought you hope in times of difficulty. We are grateful to our Jewish brothers and sisters for adding to their celebration of freedom the thought of freedom for the Tibetan people."

-- 88.72.22.205 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

foreign heads of state theater

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=14th_Dalai_Lama&action=historysubmit&diff=345680017&oldid=345679146 and other examples exists. The Dalai Lama regularly meets with foreign leaders. Not much happens except the People's Republic of China gets mad. They have pressured countries so meetings are less frequent. There are RS confirming this. This is more important than a diary of meetings. Keep this in mind as we edit. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend addition of note on correct pronunciation of "Dalai". He may be charming, but he is not a "Dolly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.110.152.159 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)