Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

Copied from WP:RM. Dragons flight 05:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Since the page for the Chinese version of the Panchen Lama, Erdini Qoigyijabu has no "11th Panchen Lama" suffix to his name, we should remove it from Gedhun Choekyi Nyima's name because two different people think they are the Panchen Lama. --Hottentot

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support --Hottentot 06:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reserved, I would also have no prob with adding "11th Panchen Lama" suffix to Erdini Qoigyijabu, as both are claimed to be that incarnation.Alf 12:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I dont believe just because their is a dispute that it should be removed (though I favor this canidate to be the true panchen lama). I think until proof might one day be given, they both be marked the "11th Panchen Lama", especially in the case that it starts a devision on the line of reincarnations. Midusunknown 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Since the other Panchen Lama also now has the title in his name, and none of the discussions on the matter seem to have attracted much attention, I'm going to close this as no consensus and go with the apparent convention to let them keep the title. Dragons flight 05:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Discusion requested to be centralised at Panchen Lama. Alf 01:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Broken link

The reuters link (hosted by yahoo) is broken. I can't find it on Reuters now. 24.18.128.228 03:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I removed it and replaced it with a {{fact}} tag. Perhaps someone could find a source that works. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden Urn?

Just came to read this article, not edit. Wondered what 'the Golden Urn is'? Could it be wikilinked or explained? 89.240.15.94 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and User:Blnguyen (cross posted to Qoigyijabu)

User:Blnguyen is actively pursuing a POV representation on the issue of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima versus Qoigyijabu. That WP:NPOV dictates that neither should be identified as the Panchen Lama seems trite policy to me.

It is telling that User:Blnguyen signs off with an edit summary of "POV", for indeed that is the best description for his reversions. Please keep to NPOV. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries correctly if you're going to do reverts. A revert is never a minor edit, and your edit summary should state that the edit in question is a revert.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, a repeated revert where the other side has not given a sensible reason is a trivial revert, and is thus a minor edit. However, I will keep your view in mind for the future. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, your version is based on moral relativism. The subject of this article was indeed installed by the PRC, and then they removed the original Panchen Lama. The PRC is avowedly athestic, and speaks against religion; they are definitely not a religious authority and communist doctrine is avowedly against religion. Your versions (and in the corresponding article) assume that both the Tibetan monastic community and Chinese Communist Party are of the same genre, ie, competing Buddhist organistations, which is misleading. A search on news sites etc, shows that the CCP is taken as a political org and call him "China's Panchen Lama" and note that he was "installed" and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Moral relativism?? You can't be serious. Wikipedia is about attribution to verifiable sources, not your own moral judgments! Keep your ideology out of Wikipedia, please, and stick to reporting the facts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"My" version is based on the agreed NPOV version which had been stable for a long time. The reality of the situation is that there are two views as to who the Panchen Lama is. The PRC government has one view, and that view is, at least nominally, accepted by religious leaders in Tibet. The government in exile has another view, and that view is, at least nominally, accepted by religious leaders outside Tibet. As I said before, it is trite policy that both views should be presented and neither should be presented as the Panchen Lama.

Seriously, I can't believe Blnguyen, an experienced administrator of excellent standing, is proposing such an extremist and POV verison. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PalaceGuard, I appreciate that your goal here is to seek NPOV. I have to admit that I don't really know what the NPOV solution is. The problem is not so much "moral relativity" as Blnguyen puts it, but of balancing competing claims. We don't describe Benedict XVI in the same terms that we use for Michael I or Pius XIII, even though each claims to be the Pope. This is not completely analogous to the Panchen situation, since both contenders presumably have more supporters than any of the fringe soi disant popes. However, it's very difficult to judge the extent of support for Qoigyijabu, since there is political repression of public support for the other candidate.

With regard to Qoigyijabu, it is probably sufficient to say that he is supported by the People's Republic of China. However, it is misleading to say simply that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is supported by the exile government. More importantly, he is supported by the Dalai Lama and also by the Ganden Tripa (the formal head of the Gelug sect); and, crucially, by Chadrel Rinpoche, a thoroughly nonpolitical figure who was abbot of the Panchen Lama's monastery, Tashilhunpo, and the head of the government-sponsored search committee for the new Panchen Lama; and, also by the authorities at the exile campus of Tashilhunpo in Bylakuppe. Riots at Tashilhunpo (in Shigatse) after the selection of Qoigyijabu seem to imply that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima had significant support among the rank-and-file of Tashilhunpo as well. Would it be fair to say that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is the current Panchen Lama "according to religious authorities"?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nat, I am okay with your proposal. There are several difficulties I see with this situation, and which I think means Wikipedia should tread carefully in this instace. I don't know whether you will agree with any or all of them, so here they are:

First, the actual level of support among Tibetans in Tibet for either candidate is difficult to guage. We have evidence towards the one side or the other from different sources, and the persuasiveness of those sources is debatable and would vary from person to person according to ideology.

Secondly, as you say, it's inaccurate to say that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is supported by the government in exile, as that implies that he is supported only by the government in exile. At the same time, given point one, I think it is also inaccurate to say that Qoigyijabu is supported by the PRC government, as that implies that he is supported only by the PRC government - we simply don't know with any level of certainty the level of acceptance for him on the ground in Tibet.

Thirdly, one issue I had with simply descripting Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as "the Panchen Lama" is that he hasn't actually been officially recognised as the Panchen Lama. He was the favoured candidate according to the original selection committee, a view supported by the Dalai Lama, but the rites confirming him as the Panchen Lama were never performed.

In any case, your proposal is an improvement on the current version, and I would support it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the relevant difference between the situation of Gendün Chökyi Nyima and that of Qögyijabu is that the People's Republic of China government seems to be his most important and relevant supporter. Do we have any concrete examples of anybody outside the government who is known to really support Qögyijabu? On the other hand, Gendün Chökyi Nyima's supporters are the various religious leaders of the Gelug sect, of which the Panchen is a member. So, it's not clear to me that the evidence warrants treating them equally.

Also, FYI, the enthronement ceremonies for Gendün Chökyi Nyima have never been carried out in his presence, but they were held on his behalf in March, 1996 at the Bylakuppe campus of Tashilhünpo.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, remote enthronement has about as much practical legitimacy as the Jacobite succession.

I mean, the situation is that, within the PRC, for all practical purposes, Qögyijabu is the Panchen Lama. Now, the religious legitimacy of that situation might well be doubted, but that is the reality. Remember that most of Tibet is in the PRC and most Tibetans live in the PRC. Even if they do not accept him, he is the only Panchen Lama that they see. There are probably also Tibetans who do not accept the PRC government in Tibet, but it is nevertheless governing Tibet.

Here on Wikipedia, we should report what is disclosed by reliable sources, and what is disclosed by reliable sources is this: Qögyijabu is supported by the PRC, and Gendün Chökyi Nyima is supported by the exiled government and/or community. The actual level of support for either amongst ordinary Tibetans is unknown and unverifiable, because there has not been, nor is there likely to be, a poll amongst ordinary Tibetans in Tibet. Unless and until the repressive communist regime gets overthrown or reforms of its own accord, any evidence about Tibetans supporting the one or the other is inherently anecdotal or propagandist in nature - and we have such evidence from both sides of the debate.

You ask if there is any evidence that anybody outside the government is known to "really" support Qögyijabu? There is no way for us to know that. All the principal lamas in Tibet appears to support him. Are they doing this genuinely or out of fear of the government? We can all guess what the answer is, but it would be irresponsible to present guesswork and speculation as fact on Wikipedia.

And once you start delving into who really supports who, it all gets postmodernist and you may as well start asking "does anybody in China really support the PRC government? and if not, does that make the PRC not the government of China?"

The thing is, Gendün Chökyi Nyima enjoys a much wider celebrity outside China than he does inside. Given the unpopularity of the communist government and the popularity of the Dalai Lama, it is easy to condemn everything associated with the PRC government and present it as fake, illegitimate, or part of a campaign of oppression. It is harder, but in better accordance with Wikipedia's principles, to be neutral and stick to reporting the facts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Compassion

Please see Talk:Panchen Lama for some remarks about the two articles on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu. Mesopelagicity (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

First off, the three sources in the beginning of the of the article do not say "as interpreted by the Tibetan Government in Exile", they say:

• "This child has been subjected to virtual house arrest for the last five years simply because most Tibetans have accepted him as the incarnation of the Panchen Lama and rejected the child whom the Chinese government named as Panchen Lama." [1]
• "Most Tibetans, experts say, wholeheartedly rejected the Chinese-chosen Panchen Lama." [2]
• "Gyaltsen Norbu, who is not recognised as the Panchen Lama by most Tibetans, has been sent to study in Beijing, where the Chinese government can assure the boy's safety and influence his thinking." [3]

IMO, the article was fine before, I don't see how it had "bias against the PRC". Also, the three references that I cited were non-partisan, third party sources. Furthermore, some of the extra info you added to the info is already covered in the "Whereabouts" section. Per, WP:INTRO, the introduction is only meant to include an overview of what's about to be mentioned in the article, it shouldn't go into as much detail as you included. Khoikhoi 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok...however, the article is still poorly written. nat.utoronto 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How to word the article's description of the recognition of Gendün Chökyi Nyima is tricky, and it has been discussed before without a clear conclusion. My opinion is that it is misleading to simply have the article state that GCN is the Panchen Lama according to the Dalai Lama or the government-in-exile. On the other, I think the current wording, "is the eleventh Panchen Lama as interpreted by most Tibetan Buddhists" overdoes it a bit. How about something along the following lines, GCN "is the current Panchen Lama according to the Dalai Lama and the then-abbott of Tashilhünpo. According to sources such as XYZ, he is seen as the true Panchen Lama by most of the monks at Tashilhünpo and by most Tibetans" ... ?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya...I think that might work... nat.utoronto 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good, but it might sound awkward saying, "according to the U.S. congress, the BBC, etc." Perhaps we could include a quote from one of the above sources, and then to make it neutral, have a source from the PRC side, as I'm not sure whether they dispute whether most Tibetans recognize Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the Panchen Lama or not. Khoikhoi 01:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, this article already mentions the current situation with the subject. In the "Whereabouts" section, it says "According to Chinese government claims..." The way you phrased it ("Chinese authorities had placed Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family under protective custody and were moved to another part of the People's Republic of China.") made it sound like it was an undisputed fact, as opposed to the PRC side of the story. But I don't think we should mention any of it int he intro regardless. Khoikhoi 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've added a POV tag to this article for reasons explained in Talk:Panchen Lama, in particular the link to "forced disappearance" from the text that currently reads "his whereabouts are kept undisclosed to protect him". Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the same link today from the Panchen Lama article per WP:EGG. It does seem to be a case of Googlewashing. __meco (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, Redux

I've removed the NPOV tag from the article since there is no ongoing discussion, and, presumably then, no conflict. If editors have objections to the neutrality of this article, please revert my change and list your grievances here. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Dalai Lama gets to find the new Panchen?

Is there any evidence from official Chinese (Qing Dynasty) or Tibetan record stating that? Because I went through zh:欽定藏內善後章程, there seems no evidence there.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. There is a tradition that the Dalai Lama is involved in finding the new Panchen Lama and vice versa. The question of whether the Dalai Lama alone can find the new Panchen Lama hasn't come up yet, since in the most recent case, the Dalai Lama worked together with the leadership of the Panchen Lama's monastery, Tashilhünpo.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Supporters"?

It's ironic that the following sentence, which seems to be critical of propaganda, reads so much like propaganda itself: "The promises of a regime well-known for widespread use of censorship and propaganda are rejected by Nyima's supporters, who call upon China's ruling party to prove that he is safe and happy." This appears to be a proclamation on behalf of whoever wrote it, rather than an encyclopedic entry, which would read more like this: "Such-and-such people [who exactly?] made a statement on such-and-such date rejecting the PRC's assertions [not promises], accusing the PRC of using censorship and propaganda, and calling upon the PRC to prove that he is safe and happy [reference to the statement]". The term "supporters" presupposes a point of view. Here is how I see it: a group of lamas effectively says to a little boy, "Our supernatural powers have revealed to us that you are not just who you think you are. In reality, you are our comrade who died a thousand years ago. We will take you away from your home and indoctrinate you to help us perpetuate our theocracy." Although such people may have sincere beliefs and good intentions, I don't believe in their supernatural powers and I consider them in this context to be not "supporters" but "child abusers". If there are people who want to orchestrate a conflict, they're not "supporters" but "agitators" or "warmongers". There appears to be no evidence that Nyima himself ever claimed to be a reincarnation, or that he was even religious, or ever requested support. If it's true that he is a prisoner, then it is accurate to describe those who seek his release as "supporters"; but that assumes that he is in fact a prisoner, and making that assumption would not be neutral. Mesopelagicity (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Surprisingly, I didn't notice this when you first wrote it. It's important to be aware of and disclose any conflicts of interest you have as an editor that may prevent you from editing the article in a neutral fashion. I'm glad that you have pinpointed this underlying motivation for our earlier debate, and I suggest you take those beliefs into account as they represent a clear bias towards any further editing of this article. I have taken care to add only properly sourced statements to this article since our debate, as it is very simple indeed to find citations for everything I had written earlier. My "synthesis" and "original research" was really just lazy sourcing, which is why I denied the accusation so fiercely. Cheers from 2009. Dragonnas (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed List of Nobel Laureates

I do not believe listing all the names of these Nobel laureates on this page serves much purpose, as the article already states the fact that about 20 or so Nobel laureates already signed such document. Other opinions?Children of the dragon (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence says, "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (born April 25, 1989) is the eleventh Panchen Lama as interpreted by most Tibetan Buddhists". An editor has just put a "citation needed" on it with the comment, "those references cannot prove he's the 'most'". There are three citations given for the statement. I am not able to verify the first, but the second says, "Most Tibetans, experts say, wholeheartedly rejected the Chinese-chosen Panchen Lama" and the third says, "Gyaltsen Norbu, who is not recognised as the Panchen Lama by most Tibetans". I think these citations are sufficient to support the opening sentence. Bertport (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's going to difficult to cite well on this point, although I certainly prefer not to resort to silence as an alternative. The two citations that are available on the web are not very good, because they are journalistic sources rather than experts. One refers to "experts say" without naming the experts and the other doesn't say where the information comes from.

If we are going to use these sources, I think we should be careful about what they are saying. Both refer to "most Tibetans" rather than "most Tibetan Buddhists". Considering the number of Mongols, etc. in the world, Tibetans are not the overwhelming majority of Tibetan Buddhists even in the traditional countries—plus there are probably somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 converts to Tibetan Buddhism in the Western world. I assume that both the Mongols and the Westerners are overwhelmingly in favor of Gendün Chökyi Nyima, but we don't have a source that says that. What's more, there is definitely a certain amount of interest in Tibetan Buddhism among Chinese people, too; and the Han Chinese are so numerous that if even 1% of them followed Tibetan Buddhism, they would probably constitute the majority of Tibetan Buddhists. I doubt Chinese Tibetan Buddhists are that numerous yet, but they might constitute a significant minority among Tibetan Buddhists as a whole.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Steadfast through the storm of 50 Cent Party editors

I am encouraged and pleased to see that this article has changed relatively little in the past 2 years. In fact, most of the wording and grammar I used in my major rewrite in early 2008 is still present. This is remarkable given the fact that the article is blanked and vandalized constantly by representatives of what I hope to be the Wu Mao Dang. Good work, wikipedians for defending that which is adequately sourced and reliable material, even if it is not pleasant to think about or attractive to behold. The only major changes I've seen here have been the addition of voluminous references to my (originally poorly sourced) material. I am very pleased. PS: I'm not necessarily claiming ownership of the article... merely noting that my unique grammatical signature has been largely preserved throughout tens of thousands of edits. Dragonnas (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

External links restored

Hi Quigley,

I looked at all the external links that were removed, and as far as I can tell they each contained information that was not duplicated in the article. Is there something that I am missing or was there another reason you removed them? Cheers A13ean (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes; many of the external links provided an end-run around Wikipedia's policies, by including information and heavily promoting a viewpoint that neutral point of view and undue weight would not allow. For example, this website only includes a long prayer to Nyima, treating him as if he is the true and only Panchen Lama, and some not particularly relevant information on the Tashilhunpo Monastery. The Wikinews interview with the Dalai Lama's representative: why do his opinions and speculations need to be covered in such detail? The BBC and Independent articles at least have a few useful points (not without biased presentation, ex. "Chinese authorities sought to hijack the Tibetan Buddhist church once and for all") that can be extracted before their removal. Quigley (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC ref in first paragraph

Hi Quigley,

You recently removed the later half of the sentence at the end of the first paragraph:

Gyancain Norbu was later named as Panchen Lama by the People's Republic of China, a choice that is rejected by most Tibetan Buddhists.

With the comment "The link talks about Tibetan people, not Tibetan Buddhists (many of whom live outside). Plus, article is about Nyima, not Norbu &methodology in authoritan countries ?able, things can change 2005-2010"

To address these concerns I would like to propose the following version:

Gyancain Norbu was later named as Panchen Lama by the People's Republic of China, a choice that the BBC reported to be rejected by most Tibetans.

Does this sound acceptable to you, or can you find any article that suggests that things might have changed in the past few years? Thanks, A13ean (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That version is more close to the source, but not necessarily more accurate or relevant. First of all, this is an article about Nyima, not Norbu, so it would be much better to say something about residents of Tibet's knowledge and/or acceptance of Nyima. You can't conclude that rejection of Norbu means acceptance of Nyima, as the previous version did. Also, public opinion polling is notoriously unreliable in authoritarian regimes. The news website's oversimplifications (no name of expert or institute, no methodology: was this a poll conducted in Tibet, or did they ask some CTA press officer about what "Tibetans" think?) obscure any details that may be used to qualify this information.

It logically follows that tolerance or acceptance of Norbu would grow as the relevant campaigns and education continue, and as he himself grows old enough to assume his duties and visit monasteries and villages, as he has been doing, and which his own article mentions. Time may have frozen in 1995 for Nyima's supporters; which is why he is always portrayed as a sympathetic little child, including in the Wikipedia photograph, but it continues to pass for the institution of the Panchen Lama, legitimately as you may think or not. Quigley (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I support Quigley's version, mostly per WP:WEIGHT. BBC is usually a reliable source; if the BBC source given here says most Tibetans reject Norbu, that probably belongs in the article, though not imo in the lead section since this article is not about Norbu. Quigley's version without that remark seems fine as-is for that; the BBC assessment of "Tibetan" opinion would be fine if mentioned neutrally further in the body of the article.—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is that "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is, according to the 14th Dalai Lama, the eleventh Panchen Lama" is an inadequate description. Not just the Dalai Lama but lots of other people recognise GCN as the current Panchen Lama. The deeper problem is that we don't know which and how many people those are. It would be interesting to try to do a survey of Tibetan Buddhists living outside of the PRC on this question — my guess is that support for Gyaincain Norbu would be almost 0. However, I also guesstimate that at least 2/3 of the world's Tibetan Buddhists do live in the PRC, so that kind of survey would hardly be definitive.

The BBC source is fishy because they don't say who the "experts" they talked to are. I'll try to keep track of any better sources I come across. If we had a better source, maybe it should go in the lede, but I don't like having this one there.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

References

The two contenders for Panchen Lama

I made some changes to the text of the article on Gyaincain Norbu, the Chinese-backed contender for the title of Panchen Lama yesterday to correct some mistakes but I note today that they have been reversed. I take the editor's point that both contenders should have a qualifier added to the caption on their photo, not just one, and I have just done this. But it is not correct to state that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the other contender, was picked by the "Tibetan Government in exile" - this is just not true - he was picked by Tibetan Buddhist Church authorities. Gyaincain Norbu was picked by appointees of the Chinese Government using the so-called "Golden Urn" method of drawing a name out of an urn under the supervision of Chinese government authorities. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

is this article legal?

or against the subject country's laws? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's 100% legal. Factual discussion of historical situations are always legal, in fact it is a crime against humanity to attempt to do otherwise. 76.105.179.191 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. a13ean (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Age

We might add an Age counter to show his current age.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That is such a good idea. Fountain Posters (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The final line of him turning 24 in 2013 seems bizarre and the source link is dead anyhow. Can we replace that w/ current age? Worddoc (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080602174257/http://www.tchrd.org/press/2001/pr20010824.html to http://www.tchrd.org/press/2001/pr20010824.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725045825/http://tibet.com/PL/nov11.html to http://www.tibet.com/pl/nov11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060824025010/http://www.xizang-zhiye.org:80/gb/xzxinwen/0504/index.html to http://www.xizang-zhiye.org/gb/xzxinwen/0504/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080324212758/http://www.tchrd.org:80/publications/brochures/panchen_lama_XI-2005.html to http://www.tchrd.org/publications/brochures/panchen_lama_XI-2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080324212758/http://www.tchrd.org:80/publications/brochures/panchen_lama_XI-2005.html to http://www.tchrd.org/publications/brochures/panchen_lama_XI-2005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080324003948/http://www.tibet.com:80/PL/nov10b.html to http://www.tibet.com/pl/nov10b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External Link : The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know

• The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know...

Does anybody else think the external link above would be helpful? I have posted it to this article, but it was removed by Hottentot. Please give an opinion. I personally, believe that the link is extremely relavent to the article.--FT in Leeds 02:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the news article is fine, but I must admit the above titlte is very POV, I'm fine with how I left it as I see no problem refering to it by the same name as the BBC uses for the article. I personally do not mind discussing these three articles on individual pages, but I genuinely think we'd be better talking about them together, on one page. Alf 12:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait until the BBC reporter becomes a Tibetan Buddhist, or live in Tibet for a while (10 years let's say), maybe I will start to believe the report.

In political term it's called "propaganda", every country is the same, the government uses the technique to make the rivals look evil, so the government can step further to control the general public. It's not a matter of communism or capitalism or democracy or whatever; propaganda is used EVERYWHERE and used by every government.
So, in conclusion of the report, every Chinese is stupid, they have no ideas about the country and the world???
No matter what type of government in China will claim the integrity of the country. The living standards of the people need to be improved or the government will be overthrown. --61.30.72.148 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like racist propaganda. Not having it!Sea Captain Cormac 23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Reincarnation inconsistency?

If 10th Panchen died on Jan. 28 1989, how could Nyima born on Apr. 25 1989 be his next reincarnation? As you can see from the list of every Dalai and Panchen, they often followed the previous ones with an interval of a year or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialsz (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no "rules" for reincarnation as we know it, lol. People are so funny trying to add legality and regulations to the wheel of life and death! The communist party: "You're not allowed to reincarnate without our permission!" To them I would say, try and stop me. What, you gonna kill me for reincarnating? What do you think will happen when I die?Dragonnas (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation can neither be confirmed nor denied. For all we know, he could have died, time looped back on itself a bit, making a "pinch," and thus his next reincarnation was born before he died. Think of it like Doctor Who. He dies, and as he is regenerating, the TARDIS travels backwards in time a bit. Sea Captain Cormac 23:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

POV again

The references for "unlikely possibility" do not refer to Nyima and do not say anything about this possibility being "unlikely". I changed the page accordingly and my change was immediately reverted. Therefore I'm adding a POV tag to the article. Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how is it "POV" to assume someone who's been missing for more than 10 years, who represents the critics of a violent political regime well-known for executing its enemies might possibly be dead? I'm going to leave POV up because even though the article suits my tastes, I realize that it expresses an unpopular possibility for which there is no evidence against. To answer your unasked question, the references in "unlikely" link to two other news article examples in which the Government of China did not leave a potential political risk alone to live in peace. One article also explicitly states that this is how the CPC deals with many different "undesireable" elements of society. Hence, the possibility that the CPC has let Nyima alone to live his life in peace is unlikely. Since there is very little evidence, we have to use what little we do have at our disposal to inform the public. And I believe the propaganda and censorship links/examples are self-explanatory in throwing a sense of realism on the "official" party line. Dragonnas (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice your use of the word "assume." I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing) with your opinions on the controversy. What I do disagree with is using this Wikipedia article as a platform for promoting the editors' opinions and assumptions, while violating particular principles of this encyclopedia as well as general principles of scholarship and fairness. When you attach references to a statement in the article, the reader should be able to trust that the references directly support the statement. Consider the statement, "As there is no evidence to support the unlikely possibility that the government has allowed him to live in peace, his supporters fear that he has been imprisoned or executed." When you attach two references to that statement, the reader is naturally and logically led to believe that the references actually confirm that some published authority has said it is unlikely that the government has allowed Nyima to live in peace. In reality, those articles say nothing whatsoever about Nyima. You say, "we have to use what little we do have at our disposal to inform the public." Is that really the purpose of an encyclopedia and consistent with this encyclopedia's mission? Is it fair to the reader to "use what little we do have" to promote a particular opinion, even to the extent of citing references that don't actually say what they are implied to say? I'm not questioning your motives, but do the ends really justify the means in this case? Wouldn't it be more considerate to the user if you attached those references to a statement they really do support? For example, you've just written, "One article explicitly states that this is how the CPC deals... Hence, the possibility ... is unlikely." If you were to put that argument into the article, and attach the references to that argument, while making it clear that the references do not refer in any way to Nyima specifically, that would be far more considerate to the reader. However, there would still be a problem, namely that the argument is original research. You're not quoting an authority who draws the conclusion that since the CPC is said to deal with some people a certain way, it is unlikely to have dealt with Nyima any differently. That's a conclusion that you seem to have drawn yourself. (It strikes me as a dubious conclusion, but that's beside the point.) How about sticking to facts and letting the readers draw their own conclusions? Elsewhere the article says, "Indeed, the circumstances surrounding Nyima's absence fit all the telltale signs of a forced disappearance." Why should a neutral encyclopedia article use the word "indeed" to introduce an opinion about a controversial subject? "Indeed" means "in reality", "in truth", "verily"; is that the purpose of the article, to persuade the reader to believe in the one and only "truth"? What are "all the telltale signs"? There's no list given of what those signs are. Has someone really made a list of ALL the telltale signs and verified that Nyima's absence fits ALL of them? Was that research conducted by a recognized, published authority? If so, how about a reference? And if not, how about sticking to the facts, rather than an original interpretation of them? Mesopelagicity (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::"You're not quoting an authority who draws the conclusion that since the CPC is said to deal with some people a certain way, it is unlikely to have dealt with Nyima any differently." Many authorities have, in fact, gone on record to say exactly that. I shall find an article that includes this and cite it. Also, some of the other articles, I believe "the worlds' youngest political prisoner" describes his absence in terms fitting the description of a forced disappearance. Why not read the article on forced disappearances? You tell us all what the evidence suggests. Honestly, it's unbelievable to me that noone here is willing to admit he might be dead. I believe it only takes 7 years to declare a missing person dead in america, which is where I live. Do you expect Hu Jintao to hold a press conference and display the body? Dragonnas (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer you point by point. You say you'll find references to cite: that's good; in the meantime it's still necessary to address the fact that some of the current citations are misleading. You say, "tell us what the evidence suggests": bad idea, that would be original research. "... admit he might be dead": you seem to forget the discussion between you and me on the talk page for Panchen Lama, where I wrote "I believe that he could be dead, or ...". "Do you expect Hu Jintao ...": it makes no difference. Please distinguish between facts and opinions. I keep raising issues of editorial policy such as neutrality, original research, and verifiability; and you keep responding by arguing about Nyima and China. Again, a distinction is necessary: please distinguish between issues of editorial policy, and the subject of the article. Mesopelagicity (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason we disagree is that I believe common sense should affect the meaning of these articles as well. I Don't need a citation to say that Water is Wet, even though it's technically "original research" without one. When someone goes missing for 13 years, the police don't need a news article to conjecture that that person might be dead. It's common sense. I'm sorry that you don't believe that water is wet just because you can't find an article about it, but some of us like to use common sense. PS I found something funny- the common sense article has an "original research" tag. Apparently someone else disagrees with me too! Dragonnas (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again using common sense, it seems like the burden of proof should be greater for someone attempting to prove Nyima is alive than for someone who presumes him to be dead. But there I go with my original research again! Missing in china for 13 years, kidnapped by the government? Of course he's alive! Otherwise the CPC would surely run an obituary or a confession or something. Dragonnas (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on one side or the other of the controversy. It is on any editor who wants to add material that goes beyond established facts. "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately..." Your claim that I "don't believe water is wet" strikes me as sarcastic, ad hominem, and inappropriate. Common sense is good; you can use it without accusing me of lacking it. Mesopelagicity (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." WP:BLP Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Your first sentence SCREAMS POV. Sea Captain Cormac 23:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Common Sense

I've decided to cite a few rules that might help us sort this little disagreement out. Here is a statement on the value of mindless bureaucracies. Wikilawyers who push aside intelligent thought because it's "against the rules" should remember Wikipedia is not a battleground and also read this essay to understand the meaning of using your mind as a balance to rules. Also I suggest reading this to understand how some things might SEEM to be original research but are NOT, due to the "original research" conclusion being supported by the thought processes of most intelligent people. Finally, to help better understand the concept we are debating here now, please read Death in absentia. Dragonnas (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good to be citing and reviewing these policies. However, they haven't changed my perception that this article has major problems. I'll respond point by point. (1) You've linked "mindless bureaucracies" to the article WP:BURO, which doesn't say anything about "mindless bureaucracies" or their value; it says that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" and that we should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the rules. Understood, but this article violates the spirit, and not merely the letter, of NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability. (2) Where exactly in relation to this article do you see WP:Wikilawyering (utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes)? (3) "Ignore all rules" is fine, but it "is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule" (WP:WIARM). If you consider this article to have broken a rule for a good reason, that's very important, so please explain what the rule is and what the good reason is; otherwise, WP:IAR isn't relevant. (4) "Wikipedia is not a battleground": agreed, and that's why I've requested that you refrain from ad hominem sarcastic remarks. (5) "Use common sense": I'm all for it. (6) You linked "using your mind" to WP:AGF, and it's not clear why, but I'll assume good faith. (7) You linked "rules" to "Rules Lawyer" but no such article exists. (8) WP:NOTOR is very relevant. It says "Organizing published facts and opinions — without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion — is not original research." However, it also says, "An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' 'benefit'. Let the reader draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." That's what I've been saying: the article currently presents unpublished analysis and conclusions. (9) Nobody seems to be debating with you about whether Nyima is alive or dead. If a court of law makes a ruling about Nyima, of course that will be a fact to include in the article, but otherwise it's not clear how the concept of Death in absentia could help us improve this article. Mesopelagicity (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." (WP:SYN) This is applicable to the "unlikely possibility" conclusion based on references that don't mention Nyima, and maybe also to the "all the telltale signs" conclusion (although no references are cited for the latter). Given this explicit policy, it does not seem adequate to justify conclusions as "supported by the thought processes of most intelligent people" (especially when the issue is obviously controversial and no evidence is provided for the claim about "most intelligent people"). Mesopelagicity (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am from Third Opinion. Due to common sense, I agree with Dragonnas. This man has been missing for 10 years, and was opposed to a somewhat violent goverment. He may well be dead. That is my opinion. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that in terms of how you think the article should be worded?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the end, "As china sometimes executes its enimies or those oppose its judgment, Gedhun Nyima may be dead." Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about adding that sentence? To the end of where?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As the "third opinion" offered by Tutthoth-Ankhre did not address the encyclopedic issues in the above discussion about how to treat and cite the question of whether the subject is living or dead, I will restore the listing as originally posted two days ago (diff) on Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements for further attention from more experienced volunteers. — Athaenara ✉ 19:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Observation

Wikipedia:Tip of the day/August 28 ("Where did that fact come from?") addresses this kind of thing. — Athaenara ✉ 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Third Opinion Reply

Hello. I am providing a third opinion that I believe is based on wikipedia policies. After reading the discussion, and reading the section on Whereabouts, here is my personal opinion:

In describing the entire section, I wouldn't use the phrase POV as much as original research (which is a form of POV though). "Indeed, the circumstances surrounding Nyima's absence fit all the telltale signs of a forced disappearance." is clearly an uncited opinion. It implies that all forced disappearances follow a certain pattern, AND that Nyima's disappearance matches those patterns. I don't think that the former is even a fact one could ever prove. It is one thing to provide cited opinions from authorities that suggest that they believe it, but another to suggest it's a fact without citation. The section says that the Chinese say "he is attending school", and cites an Amnesty Int'l document that doesn't say anything I could see about school. I believe that this entire line should be read "According to Amnesty International, the Chinese government claims that..." Unless a primary source that show's the Chinese government's claim is listed. Amnesty Int'l is not a representative of the Chinese gov't, and might have reason not to accurately relay China's statements.

As to the crux of the issue, the words "Unlikely possibility" is a clear example of POV. It is completely unacceptable to use original research in this way on many levels. First, two examples of china detaining people is NOT proof that they detain everyone. Second, even if it WAS proof that they detain everyone, it is still a deduction to say it is "unlikely" that this one person has been detained, and Wikipedia doesn't permit deduction from sources. This is called Synthesis (WP:SYN), meaning you are not allowed to cite two sources that TOGETHER prove your point (For example, you may not cite an article on Bob that says "Bob has never lived in Canada" and an article on Canada that says "Only residents of Canada may play Lotto-Canada" and infer that Bob has never won LottoCanada (even to say he's never played it would be SYN). It occurs somewhat commonly on Wikipedia, but often it is disguised by splitting it up and saying something like "Bob has never lived in Canada[cite], and thus has never won LottoCanada[cite]." This is still synthesis. It's drawing your own conclusion, ie. research (synthesis is a form of Original Research). However, it is far more inflamatory as in this case, where the synthesis is used to debate an official stance of a government. Unless you can cite a neutral source on the liklihood of Nyima's being living safely, you may not infer the liklihood in this article. Furthermore, I don't believe it is necessary. It is clear what the Chinese position is, and there are a number of sources of disputes from other groups. Anyone familiar with China's reputation can draw the same assumption that you have (that China is lying), and for anyone who believes otherwise, it is not you job to sway their opinion without actual facts of Nyima's case.

I would also like to see citations for "...are rejected by Nyima's supporters, who call upon China's ruling party to prove that he is safe and happy." and that "his supporters fear that he has been imprisoned or executed." These are claims of the beliefs of a group that are uncited. I'm adding fact tags to them until citations can be obtained, as I doubt they are inaccurate.

I also want to make clear that Tutthoth-Ankhre's third opinion is NOT A proper third opinion. Common Sense is NOT appropriate here. Even if it WAS "common sense" that China executes lots of people (which would be extremely inflamatory to say without citation), that does not make it a fact that any one person was likely executed by China. But moreover, Wikipedia's Common Sense guideline (which is actually an essay that supports a guideline) is NOT saying that "if something is common sense, you can add it to an article". It is a guideline that suggests "use common sense when deciding whether to ignore a rule.

There is NO comparisson of "water is wet" to "someone who is missing for ten years is probably dead". First, "water is wet", "someone is probably dead". One is a statement of fact. One is a statement of likelihood. Inherently, there is a matter of guessing and probablility that you admit you don't know for sure. Second, water is commonly available to most if not all readers, every one of which must have experienced and observed water in their lifetime (or they'd be dead), which makes it common knowledge (not common sense). [Note that wikpedia has no Common Knowledge guideline or policy; just an essay]. There is no reason to believe that a majority of readers KNOW about China, Chinese human rights policy and activities, and the odds that this person is alive.

"When someone goes missing for 13 years, the police don't need a news article to conjecture that that person might be dead. It's common sense." This is complete farce. The police DO NOT declare a person missing for 13 years dead. They declare them missing. A COURT might declare them LEGALLY dead, but that does not declare that they are, as a fact, dead, until some actual proof is discovered. Also, There is a difference betweeen an entire family all being missing in a giant country that could have them anywhere, and where they could as far as anyone knows, honestly be living a normal life (you have no proof that they aren't, you admit that China hasn't provided proof they are; that doesn't equate to proof they aren't). People can be anywhere; have name changes... could even have plastic surgery to alter their appearance. Disapperance from those looking for someone does result in a factual death. Period. I hope I have been clear enough for you. If you would like clarification on anything in particular, please reply here and quote the passage you are replying to, so I know what you are referencing. Thank you.

On an unrelated note, citation 10 and 11 are the same link, and the use of naming (WP:FOOT#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once) should be used to make one reference point for the two (the reference should also be given a name). TheHYPO (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. I've deleted the "telltale signs" sentence and part of the "unlikely possibility" sentence. I've also used a named reference as suggested. Mesopelagicity (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308133516/http://weblog.savetibet.org/2011/08/24/propaganda-and-the-panchen-lama-playing-politics/ to http://weblog.savetibet.org/2011/08/24/propaganda-and-the-panchen-lama-playing-politics/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV again 3.0

Alrighty please read this: as Tibet had been under the occupation and control of the anti-religious government of the People's Republic of China since 1959.

I mean it's factually correct alright but occupation and control seems a little morbid and over the top to me. I prefer as Tibet was annexed by the People's Republic of China in 1959. Discuss? Augend (drop a line) 23:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support; "occupation and control" suggests temporary takeover (such as in the case of Japanese occupation); anti-religion is a subjective term that doesn't cover the complexity of Religion in China and is entirely irrelevant in this context. NoNews! 06:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Tibet's history with China was a priest-patron relationship. Tibet was independent. If war wasn't waged Battle of Chamdo and if previous invasions of eastern Tibet by China didn't occur, and if unknown numbers of people weren't killed from 1949/50 and thru the Cultural Revolution, then "annexation" could be appropriate. See also Antireligious campaigns in China - not a subjective term on the project, nor for this subject. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move at this time, and no discussion of substance on the question for well over a week. There is no particular policy-based reason to allow a discussion that is ripe for closure to linger unclosed because one participant is blocked for a period of time. If circumstances change in the future, a new move proposal can always be made. BD2412 T 01:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima → 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima –

• As of 2020, multiple RS and international majority opinion state Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is the Panchen Lama.
• For context, in 1996, the French Senate referred to him as "the youngest political prisoner in the world"[4]. A French-based call to the UN followed, and by 2003 it was signed by 371 associations including Nobel Prize laureates, scientists, public personalities, and NGO's [5]
• The RS indicates a further and notable shift in the agreed recognition of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in 2017, with Canada's call for a UN visit to "the Panchen Lama" [6] (link found in [7]).
• In 2018, a call for the immediate release of "the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima" by U.S. State Dept [8] agrees with the recognition of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. The U.S. Senate in 2018 also uanimously resolved that interference in the Tibetan Buddhist religious identification process by China is "invalid" [9]. Another 2019 U.S. report [10] and in a 2020 call, continued agreement of the Panchen Lama's identity [11].
• There's more RS in 2020 where Canada's PM Trudeau agrees with the recognition and writes "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet" [12], further supported by a statement read at the UN, "Tibet's religious leader 11th Panchen Lama Gedhun Choekyi Nyima" [13], as well as by parliamentary statements referring to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the "11th Panchen Lama" read in Lithuania and UK [14], and by other governments and representatives in 2020 including South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and Australia [15], and by Italy (with a video message to the Panchen Lama), Estonia and Germany, Scotland, and Belgium [16].
• In 2020, the European Parliament's Tibet Interest Group writes, "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet"[17], which was signed by 32 members of the European Parliament, and forwarded to the European Commission, [18] on the eve of the Panchen Lama's 31st birthday.
• In April/May 2020, a group of 159 NGO's joined in agreement and called the UN to apply more pressures for the Panchen Lama's release [19].
• Also in 2020, five UN mandates wrote to China expressing "grave concerns" about "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (the 11th Panchen Lama)"[20][21], and about its related concerns for the recognition process of the 15th Dalai Lama, which is interconnected with the Panchen Lama.
• These RS, and others, agree that Gedhun Choeki Nyima is the Panchen Lama, and give us the position to know which Panchen Lama is considered legitimate by an international majority.
• Thus, the move request is for renaming the page according to the international majority's use and understanding of the spiritual leader's title, the 11th Panchen Lama.
• The standard Tibetan Buddhist form of title then name, as in '11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima', is requested.
• A related request would be to move/merge the 11th Panchen Lama controversy here and into a section entitled 'Controversy'.
• Understanding the requests might be controversial, this template is used to help build CON and for comments. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 01:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• Oppose: The proposed lengthened title contains obvious redundancy and thus fails WP:CONCISE. It also seems to be expressing a potentially controversial statement of fact in the title, which is generally not appropriate. The provided rationale does not seem to address relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Just because some sources say something does not mean that statement should be included in the title of an article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the point of the request wasn't clear @BarrelProof. It's to provide a page that corresponds to the international public's recognition of the 11th Panchen Lama. Provided are not "some sources" but a collection of RS which evidences the world (excepting China) agrees that Gedhun Chokyi Nyima is recognized by the international community as the 11th Panchen Lama. The RS evidence meets the policy request for a preponderance of agreement of stated fact. Thus, the proposal is to change the page's title to reflect international agreement and understanding of fact.

The page for the 10th Panchen Lama corresponds with the proposed title here (although titles and commonly used names are switched), so CONCISE isn't an issue. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was listed as the 11th Panchen Lama until an editor moved it almost 10 yrs ago [22][23]. Trying to discover if it was a unilateral move without CON, which is likely, based on other edits I've discovered. If so, maybe the move can be undone.

Disclosure: Just pinged two recent editors, the first editors in the edit log with more lengthy edits, at the Controversy page; stated the pings weren't CANVAS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support based on original page title: In WP:TITLECHANGES, policy states If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. As diffs [24][25]and research evidences, the earlier move was made without CON or request. Since that move made it unstable, the default policy is to return to the original name, and remove the redirect to [11th Panchen Lama controversy]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. PDC, that move was made 10 years ago, replaced a disambiguation page, and doesn't seem to have ever been reverted or even questioned by the dozens of editors of that article since. I don't think you can call that a move without consensus, nor call the article unstable, simply because there was no discussion at the time. It may have simply been uncontroversial. Your sources appear to be all either Tibetan or OR. You need secondary sources independent of Tibet to support this move. —valereee (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That response does not address the topic here, but those at another page 11th Panchen Lama. The sources here are from various govt entities talking about themselves. Or from RS citing govt actions. Meets RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the page 11th Panchen Lama was recently moved by Pasdecomplot from 11th Panchen Lama controversy, then edited to support that move. This is a very complicated move request and will likely require an experienced closer. —valereee (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's not the topic here. It would be much more helpful to stay on topic, as the request here in itself is the topic. It's unclear if the vote is for the other page, or for this topic. Let's focus and be constructive. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree that this is off topic. This RfC and the one at the other page are closely related. They probably need to be closed together. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. In 2014, the Dalai Lama himself, speaking of the official Panchen Lama, pointed out that within buddhist tradition there are instances of a reincarnated lama taking multiple manifestations. So what's the point of the requested move if Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyaincain Norbu may be both reincarnated manifestations of the Panchen Lama? I also agree with Valeree: the sources mentioned are not independent ones. --Elnon (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elnon I've read that misunderstanding before. Multiple reincarnations are recognized as such, as in the Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche lineage incarnates. This isn't the case here, and the Dalai Lama has also made clear it isn't the case here. No other high Tibetan lamas have recognized the other, so the argument isn't valid in this case. Additionally, RS agree the other is a purely political manoeuvre - also evidenced by the abduction and continuing hostage status. And, most of the sources are various govt entities talking about themselves. Or from RS citing govt actions. They adhere to RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Abduction and continuing hostage status" is what the International Campaign for Tibet claims, and so should be taken with a pinch of salt. --Elnon (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, @Elnon, all kinds of RS on the subject are provided in the request. Didn't know ICT used same words. Also, there's lots of RS on the pages/articles where you voted. Mischaracterizing a child abduction and continuing hostage situation as not credible is troubling, especially given RS standards and WPpolicy on Bios and BLP. Didn't bother with the RS before 'plumping' (word from other vote at 11th Panchen Lama request for move) out a vote here? Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer: it appears that two oppose votes weren't based on the Request's RS or text, nor on Bio/BLP basic guidelines. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to mine, I disagree. I specifically stated that those sources either can't be counted as independent/unaffiliated or represent original research. Ditto for Elnon's oppose. That leaves BarrelProof, who expressed other concerns. I don't know what BLP/BASIC guidelines you're referring to, but if you'll briefly specify, I can comment. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As clearly written above :And, most of the sources are various govt entities talking about themselves. Or from RS citing govt actions. They adhere to RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

PDC, literally in the first provided source you wrote in your OP: For context, in 1996, the French Senate referred to him as "the youngest political prisoner in the world"[26]. That is not the French Senate talking about the French Senate. It is the French Senate opining on the subject. It's a primary source, and a source that has an advocacy opinion. The other sources are also either Tibetan or primary sources from political parties that are advocating. These are not independent secondary sources. Look, I'm not out to defend China. They're crap. But these are not independent reliable secondary sources. —valereee (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. In RSN, governments can talk about themselves. Usable. First link is a link to the French Senate's site and where the French Senate is recorded doing business with itself, in the form of questions to the leadership. It's only a record of an official question, but it also includes a name. Bingo. Another is a letter from a MEP speaking about its committee, ITSELF, what it's doing. The letter also includes a name AND a title. BINGO AGAIN. These are all simply RECORDS OF WHAT GOVERNMENT ENTITY'S WRITE IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS. And, in these records is evidence all are in agreement with the world about the IDENTITY of a page's subject. They are a RECORD of the commonly used name, and RECORD of the spiritual leadership position. "Look, I'm not out to defend China." I am looking, and visible are two positions contrary to page move requests when Tibetan Buddhism is not an area of knowledge, and a long history of admin pre-involvement. Pay attention to the subject, or just stop. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not use governments as reliable sources for their conflicts with other governments. We do not use original research. We do not use advocacy groups as reliable sources when they're describing the issues for which they advocate. All of your sources fall into one of these categories.

I am not acting as an administrator here but as an editor; I'm free to do that anywhere, and only if I used admin tools here, or with someone with whom I'm discussing this article, would I be considered "an involved admin." —valereee (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read again. There is no conflict with other governments. There is no OR in the RS, and this is a talk page where OR is permitted. The so-called advocacy forums (which?) are quoting government documents. These repeated claims appear to work as discussion forks. The request focuses on the commonly understood identity of a page's subject, based on the names and titles on official government documents. Period. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Valereee
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
French government proceedings	? The French government has a political relationship with both China and Tibet	? The French government has a political relationship with both China and Tibet	OR -- French government proceedings	✘ No
tibet.fr	Advocacy group	Advocacy group	Covering Tibet/China conflict is all they do	✘ No
Statement by Canadian elected official	? The Canadian government has a political relationship with both China and Tibet	? The Canadian government has a political relationship with both China and Tibet	OR -- statement by a Canadian politician on the Canadian government website	✘ No
Free Tibet	Advocacy group	Advocacy group	Covering Tibet/China conflict is all they do	✘ No
Central Tibetan Administration	Tibetan government has a political relationship with China	Tibetan government has a political relationship with China	~ Tibetan government statement	✘ No
Tibetan Review	? Is the Tibetan Review an independent source for information about China/Tibet relations?	? Is the Tibetan Review a reliable source for information about		? Unknown
US govt report	? US govt has a political relationship with China and Tibet	? US govt has a political relationship with China and Tibet	OR	✘ No
Tibet Post	? Is Tibet Post an independent source for information on the political relationship between China/Tibet?	? Is Tibet Post a reliable source for information on the political relationship between China/Tibet?		? Unknown
Phayul.com	? Is Phayul.com independent w/re ditto	? Is Phayul.com reliable ditto?		? Unknown
EU Pirate Party statement	? EU political party, has political relationship with etc.	? EU political party, has political relationship with etc.	OR -- statement of political party	✘ No
UN report	? UN working group statement	? UN working group statement	OR -- statement of UN working group on Tibet issues	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Not a perfect way to assess these, as this table is intended to assess sources for purposes of determining notability, and that's not the question here. But it's a useful template to assess whether these sources can be used to support a move/merge. —valereee (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Turning the fork back to the subject: We are focusing on the identity of a living person, which was established before their abduction. The abduction does not change their identity. Conflating geo-politics with the identity of a person does not follow BLP or Bio guidelines. Geo-politics cannot subjectively change a person's identity. The request does not discuss geo-politics, but the above template does. The template also subjectively and curiously renders RS as "unknown", which is OR, and a personal opinion.

The sources and RS are a record - not of geo-political positions - but only of the commonly understood identity of a person, identified by records of their written name. Beyond the context sources, each record of the person's name indicates the identity of that person has not changed, and that governmental entities agree on that person's identity. Each record is either published by a governmental entity or directly quotes a governmental entity - the "NO"s on the template fail to address these points. And, governmental entities are the most reliable sources for a person's legal identity.

If the request was predicated on geo-political positions described in the sources and RS, it would be another matter.

Again, the request is only about correcting the project's page's name to correspond to the legal and commonly understood identity and commonly used name of its subject - a living person. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note to any potential closer: Pasdecomplot is currently blocked and has asked that this not be closed until he is unblocked (which is currently set for December 17. Valereee has indicated she has no objections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.