Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Time to reach consensus around Dorje Shugden controversy

There has been quite a lot of discussion around including a short section on the Dorje Shugden controversy. Based on Cflynn's original suggestion I propose the inclusion following section (at least for starters):

The Dalai Lama has been criticized by some worshippers of the Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden for discouraging and abjuring this practice which he regards as harmful. He has said that, out of ignorance, he was once a follower of this "spirit", a practice he was introduced to by one of his tutors, but by the 1970's he ceased the practice after examining and researching it for himself. He has also said that it is his responsibility as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism to advise his followers about this practice. "How they choose to act on the basis of that knowledge is up to them". Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshiping the deity claim they are now ostracized by the rest of the Tibetan community and that they suffer as a consequence.

Above on this talk page I have explained why 'deity' should be used instead of spirit and why 'Dorje' should be used instead of 'Dholgyal'.

If someone believes this section should not be included I would ask that you actually give a valid reason (rather than just stating that you don't think we should add such a section, as this adds nothing to the debate). I also ask editors who are opposed to the inclusion of a section about the Dorje Shugden controversy to explain why the other controversies that are included in this article are more important / relevant than this section. Look forwarding to moving forward on this issue now! Jangdom :) Kjangdom (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This does seem sensible. We of course would want some sources here to establish any of the points brought up. I would say this is fair as it presents the Dalai Lama's point of view in a way that doesn't defame him or doesn't speak badly about him, but just shows that there is a criticism of a certain denouncement he has made. Also, its nice that it is brief, as making it too long would give the section too much weight in the article about him.Prasangika37 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK cool. What do other people think about this? @Cullen328, VictoriaGrayson, John Carter, and CFynn: ???

Based on an academic journal article, any proposed section should be more like:

The Dalai Lama's opposition to Shukden is motivated by his return to a more traditional stance in which this deity is seen as incompatible with the vision of the tradition (the “clan”) represented by the Fifth Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has a commitment to another protector, Nechung, who is said to resent Shukden. The propitiation of Shugden is a relatively recent invention associated with Pabongkha.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if @VictoriaGrayson: could explain why "any proposed section" should be more like the suggested quote. That was quite a bold statement with no further explanation, so it is difficult to follow your train of thought.

Regarding the suggested quote, it is simply not correct to say "The Dalai Lama's opposition to Shukden is motivated by his return to a more traditional stance". In no Buddhist tradition is giving up a heart practice one has received from one's guru (and publicly denouncing one's gurus) considered a traditional practice. Quite the opposite, it goes against the root of the spiritual path. If we want to talk about the Dalai Lama's motivation for banning the practice of Dorje Shugden, here are a couple of ideas:

(i) To weaken the Gelug school, and integrate all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one, of which he is the head.

(ii) To act as a scapegoat for his failure to accomplish a free Tibet in over 60 years.

However, there will be different opinions on what the Dalai Lama's real motivation is for banning the practice of Dorje Shugden, so it might be easiest to avoid this point all together?

Also 'invention' sounds very odd to me in this context. Since when was the propitiation of Buddhist deities commonly referred to in this way?!!

But perhaps we could add a sentence about the Dalai Lama's reliance on Nechung to the first suggestion if people really think it adds value, and can think of a way of including it so that this section doesn't get too long. Even though there's lots to say on the Dalai Lama's involvement in the Dorje Shugden controversy, I don't think this section should be too long. We want to give space for the other controversies the Dalai Lama is involved in as well.

Does anyone have any specific suggestions / improvements to the first suggestion (above)? Kjangdom (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going by the journal article. Did you read it?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with use of "abjured" which is an obscure word to most readers. I object to the phrase "out of ignorance" without rock solid sourcing. Any quotes must be referenced; that is policy. We also need solid independent sourcing on issues like "ostracism" and "suffering". So, I will continue to oppose this version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to replace 'abjure' with a less obscure word. Will give this section a little more thought and hopefully come up with an improved version within the next day or two, unless someone else gets there first!

Victoriagrayson - I haven't read the article you refer to yet, but I plan to. In the meantime, I would recommend that you (and anyone else who is genuinely interested in this article and the 'controversy' in quetsion) read the following short e-book (which has an abundance of 'solid independent sourcing') http://internationalshugdencommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The_False_Dalai_Lama.pdf . Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion for "rock solid sourcing" - this verifiable quotation from the Dalai Lama's website doesn't say "out of ignorance" but says "To begin with, in the past, when even I was not aware of the issues involved." http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/speeches-by-his-holiness/dharamsala-teaching Beeflin (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As to the Dalai Lama's motivation: I say let people say what their own motivation was, and let us speak of the effects of their actions, but we can't know what another's motivation was surely enough to expect our mere opinion to stand in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeflin (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328, VictoriaGrayson, John Carter, CFynn, and Prasangika37: I have tried to include some of the above suggestions in this new and improved section (e.g. removed 'abjured' and 'out of ignorance' and included a number of rock solid independent sources). What do you think now?

The Dalai Lama has been criticized by some worshippers of the Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden for opposing this practice. He has said that he was a follower of this "spirit" - a practice he was introduced to by his junior tutor, Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso - until 1975, but then he ceased the practice after "long and careful investigations". In March 1996 the Dalai Lama "strongly advised his followers not to rely on the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden because, according to the prophecies of his oracles, Dorje Shugden harms the institution of Dalai Lama, his life, his government, and the cause of Tibet." The Dalai Lama's opposition to the practice of Shugden is considered by some to constitute a prohibition. Others disagree: Thierry Dodin says "No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here. No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is repressing religious freedom." However, some practitioners claim that they face ostracismin their communities if they do not renounce the practice of Dorje Shugden. According to Lopez, "The Dalai Lama's renunciation of Shugden caused great discord within the Geluk community, where devotion to the deity remained strong among the Geluk hierarchy and among large factions of the refugee lay com­munity".

Forgot to sign the above post the other day. Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The part about oracles is giving to much weight to this single reason. This is only one amongst several reasons the DL gave on that occasion for abjuring this practice. The way you phrased this appears like an attempt to imply that was the only, or main, reason. Please try to avoid selectively quoting or cherry picking quotes. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the above section looks very good. I hope others will agree that it has real balance. Beeflin (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's better than no section at all as is currently the case. --Elnon (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon:, perhaps you could present a valid reason for this statement.

I think the above section on the Dorje Shugden controversy is balanced, short, neutral and well referenced with reliable sources. What do you other editors think? @Cullen328, VictoriaGrayson, John Carter, CFynn, and Prasangika37: Kjangdom (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say there was something amiss with the section, it's just that it took a long time for the wording to be thrashed out, but the end result is fine. --Elnon (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No objections here. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon: Just realized I misread your first comment, so please ignore my request for 'a valid reason...'. Sorry about that. Glad you agree that it is better to include a section on this important topic than not. Kjangdom (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems good to me. I appreciate the inclusion of the fact that some think this is not the case as it keeps a more balanced point of view. We definitely need to include both (Not just there IS ostracism, but some are experiencing it BUT some say this is not true)..as it is quite controversial.Prasangika37 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there is consensus to include the above section, so I will add it now. Kjangdom (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus? I still don't know why this article, which is about the 14th Dalai Lama, needs have much more than an outline of his own views on the matter and to say that there is a controversy about this. Should readers wish to know more, all the details are in the clearly linked Dorje Shugden controversy article. Those claiming "consensus" are Kjangdom who says he is a "practitioner of the Wisdom Buddha, Dorje Shugden" and "most interested in editing pages to do with Dorje Shugden"; and Prasangika37, who says he is a follower of "Kadampa Buddhism", may have a particular dog in this race and may not be the best ones to decide. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFynn.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about the views about the Dalai Lama. That is why it is incorrect to include only his views on this matter. It is about the Dalai Lama himself and one of the most defining aspects of his life is his ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden, because of the far reaching implications of this action. The section on the Dorje Shugden controversy is of a similar length to the other controversies in this article. It is very neutral and well referenced and is the culmination of a number of editors, including yourself CFynn! I have not decided unilaterally on the content of this section. If had done, believe me it would look very different. I have genuinely tried to reach a consensus on this matter and we have used a month or so on this discussion. But of course, what you consider consensus might not be the same as what I consider consensus. Does anyone have a concrete suggestion how to actually improve this section then? If not, then I suggest we leave it as it is. Kjangdom (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No. This article is mainly about the Dalai Lama his life and his views on different issues. We certainly shouldn't be putting words in his mouth even by implication. He never calls Shugden "Dorje Shugden" or considers him a "deity" and predictions of oracles are not the only or the main reason he abjures the practice. I've changed things a bit to get rid of these implications. This not hiding the fact that there is a controversy over this, that Shugden worshippers are distressed, and that those who are Tibetan say they are sometimes ostracised by others in their community. For more details there us a clear link to the relevant article at the top of the section. I'm one of the people who argued for inclusion of this section when several other editors wanted to remove it - but I do think we need to be absolutely scrupulous to avoid even subtly mis-representing the views of the Dalai Lama. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mostly good CFynn. I would argue that the Bernis PDF is not reliable since it was rejected from being published, let alone cited by other scholars.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for recent Dorje Shugden controversy content

I consider it highly unlikely that consensus will be achieved to include the recently discussed content. Perhaps someone might like to propose some brief scrupulously neutral language that links to Dorje Shugden controversy? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere above, I suggested the following:

"The Dalai Lama has been criticised by some worshippers the controversial Tibetan spirit Dholgyal Shugden for discouraging and abjuring this practice which he regards as a harmful. He has said that, out of ignorance, he was once a follower of this "spirit", a practice he was introduced to by one of his tutors, but by the 1970's he ceased the practice after examining and researching it for himself. He has also said that it is his responsibility as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism to advise his followers about this practice. "How they choose to act on the basis of that knowledge is up to them". Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshipping the spirit claim they are now ostracised by the rest of the Tibetan community and complain they suffer as a consequence."

This states the that the DL has been criticised about this, that he once did the practice and abandoned it and briefly states his reasons for abjuring the practice and advising others against it. Also that DS practitioners claim they suffer as a consequence. While some may want to nitpick about certain words, no more than this is needed or justified in this article. Any more details should left to the Dorje Shugden or Dorje Shugden controversy articles. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a good proposal that may resolve this dispute. Thanks for the effort, and hope it is adopted. Cwobeel (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just added Chris' suggestion with a few small changes. Kjangdom (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make changes, and then claim you have consensus. Even if you didn't make changes, you would not have consensus. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

See below for the section about the Dorje Shugden controversy that I added:

"The Dalai Lama has been criticised by some worshippers of the Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden for discouraging and abjuring this practice which he regards as harmful. He has said that, out of ignorance, he was once a follower of this "spirit", a practice he was introduced to by one of his tutors, but by the 1970's he ceased the practice after examining and researching it for himself. He has also said that it is his responsibility as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism to advise his followers about this practice. "How they choose to act on the basis of that knowledge is up to them". Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshipping the deity claim they are now ostracised by the rest of the Tibetan community and that they suffer as a consequence."

This is almost identical to Chris' suggestion (see above). The changes I made included correcting a typo, changing Dholgyal to Dorje for consistency and to avoide confusion (the section is of course called the Dorje Shugden controversy, not the Dholgyal Shugden controversy). And I changed one reference of spirit to deity, since there is already one mention of spirit in the Dalai Lama's description of Dorje Shugden. Dorje Shugden is considered a deity by some, a spirit by others - this point is at the heart of the 'controversy'! Also, I took out complain, to make it more neutral. Complain = moan, no? Seemed slightly negative to me, and the way I reworded it did not affect the meaning. Hope this it explains it OK. Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course your changes affect the meaning. If they didn't affect the meaning, there would be no reason to make them. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have implemented the proposal by @CFynn:, with the hope it is acceptable as a compromise and put this dispute to rest. Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I made one small change - changing Dholgyal to Dorje. I made this change for the sake of consistency, the section is called the Dorje Shugden controversy (not the Dholgyal Shugden controversy). Moreover the main article referred to is called Dorje Shugden controversy (not Dholgyal Shugden controversy). This minor change merely is trying to avoid any possible confusion. I'd be happy to hear though, if there is a good reason for keeping "Dholgyal" :) Thank you. Kjangdom (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Kjangdom and VictoriaGrayson are at the verge of crossing the 3RR bright line. I'd suggest to both to stop edit warring and discuss here, as we are very close to resolving this without anyone being blocked. Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: Dholgyal Shugden redirects to Dorje Shugden, so per WP:MOS we don't link to redirects. That is the reason it should be kept as Dorje Shugden. Now, please, lets put this to rest, OK? Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input @Cwobeel: Helpful clarification about the redirect. I'd be happy to discuss more here in the future. (I have a couple more suggestions for this section... but we can come back to them!). I'd be interested to know more about 3RR - do you have a link you could share, or could you explain a little more exactly how the recent edits affect the 3RR? I had vaguely heard of the 3RR - I thought it was more about deleting other people's edits - hence why I thought it was OK to add content that had already been discussed. All the best, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You were warned multiple times through discussion here and the edit summaries, to please not change Chris Fynn's wording and then claim you have consensus. Even after Cwobeel inserted Chris Fynn's unadulterated wording, you once again changed it. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR:The three-revert rule states:

Cwobeel (talk)

In my suggested text, I deliberately used "Dholgyal Shugden" rather than "Dorje Shugden" as this is how the Dalai Lama always refers to this entity - and, since the present article is about the Dali Lama, I think it best to use his own words here. "Dholgyal Shugden" could be kept and linked like this: [[Dorje Shugden|Dholgyal Shugden]] - which would avoid linking to a redirect page (the rationale given by Kjangdom for his change). Using the name "Dorje Shugden" in this article is problematic as the name itself reflects a view of this entity which the Dalai Lama, who is the subject of the article, does not hold. Similar case in the choice of "spirit" vs "deity". The Dalai Lama views this entity as a "malevolent spirit" not as a deity and does not use the later term when referring to it. Explanation of the fact that a portion of Tibetan Buddhists believe Shugden is a deity or enlightened dharma protector, while other Tibetan Buddhists including the Dalai Lama believe it is worldly spirit, should be left to the Dorje Shugden/Dorje Shugden controversy articles. (At least the differing sides seem to agree on one thing — that an entity, D. Shugden, exists. It is just the nature of that entity that they disagree on. Of course, to the rest of the world, D. Shugden is a superstition no more real than Santa Claus or leprechauns.) Chris Fynn (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: That is a good argument which can be easily understood. Go ahead and make the change, which I support. Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

CFynn, what do you think about getting rid of the last sentence "Since the Dalai Lama has publicly abjured this practice some of those who have continued worshiping the spirit claim they are now ostracized by the rest of the Tibetan community and complain they suffer as a consequence." That seems like quite a questionable statement to include in a WP:BLP. We must be extra careful in BLPs, as you know. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What have the hundreds of Tibetan and Western demonstrators at the Dalai Lama's recent events been 'complaining' about then?

Kjangdom (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "hundreds of Tibetan and Western demonstrators" but "hundreds of Western and a few Tibetan demonstrators"

Chris Fynn (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: We certainly must be very careful but not to the point of sweeping under the carpet everything that may detract from a purely hagiographical biography. --Elnon (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Good evening @Cwobeel, CFynn, VictoriaGrayson, and Cullen328:

I would like to ask everyone to look a little more closely at this matter. There are two issues I would like to address - 'Dholgyal' vs 'Dorje' and 'spirit' vs 'deity'.

The redirect aside, another important reason for using Dorje rather than Dholgyal is simply to avoid confusion. Dorje Shugden (not Dholgyal Shugden) is mentioned:

1) In the table of contents (6.4 Dorje Shugden controversy)

2) As the title of this section (Dorje Shugden controversy)

3) In the subheader in italics (Main article: Dorje Shugden controversy)

And then in the very first sentence of this section we call Dorje Shugden, Dholgyal Shugden!! It is not difficult to see how this could easily lead to confusion for Wikipedia's readers here. Consistency would help avoid this problem.

Next, Chris says "since the present article is about the Dali Lama, I think it best to use his own words here". That is fine for when we are quoting the Dalai Lama, but otherwise, we should still be as neutral as possible. 'Dholgyal Shugden' is actually a derogatory name for 'Dorje Shugden'. Just because other famous people use derogatory / racist etc language, this is no reason for Wikipedia to adopt it as well. Moreover, if there was a general rule for using the actual words of the person the article is about, then there would be be some very odd pages on Wikipedia about various celebrities (no need to mention names). Fortunately there is no such rule or even guidelines to this effect.

Next, why do the following academics all use Dorje Shugden instead of Dholgyal? Because they all know that Dholgyal is a derogatory terms.

George D Chryssides (2001) Exploring new religions

Jane Ardley (2002) The Tibetan Independence Movement

Robert Bluck (2006) British Buddhism, Teachings, practice and development.

David Kay (1997) The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition

David Kay (2004) Tibetan and Zen Buddhism is Britain

Martin Mills (2003). This Turbulent Priest: Contesting religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden controversy

Martin A Mills (2009) Charting the Shugden Interdiction in the Western Himalaya

Glenn Mullin (2009) The fourteen Dalai Lamas

Lindsay McCune (2007) Tales of Intrigue from Tibet's Holy City

Please check the facts for yourself.

Moving on to 'spirit' vs 'deity', if we look a little more closely at the actual sentence, it says "worshippers of the Tibetan spirit". This is a false and misguiding statement. From a subjective point of view there are no worshippers of the Tibetan spirit Dholgyal Shugden. The worshippers of Dorje Shugden believe they are worshipping an enlightened being. Those such as the Dalai Lama believe they are not worshipping a Tibetan spirit. I.e. from a subjective point of view there are two camps - one camp that worships the enlightened being, Dorje Shugden, and another camp who does not worship the worldly spirit Dorje Shugden. If practitioners believed that Dorje Shugden was a spirit they would cease their practice, like the Dalai Lama did.

Furthermore, this first sentence is not a quote by the Dalai Lama, it is in the voice of Wikipedia. We are not saying that the Dalai Lama considers this entity to be a spirit - we are saying in the authoritative voice of Wikipedia that there exist spirit worshippers in the form of Dorje Shugden practitioners. This is wrong. In my opinion, to be called a spirit worshipper would necessarily be a negative slur, and it is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia to do this. Is it more offensive not to worship a 'controversial deity' or to worship a 'spirit'? I.e. Is it such a big deal not worship a 'controversial deity'? No. Is it such a big deal to be accused of worshipping a 'spirit'? Yes!

'Deity' on the other hand is much more neutral. There can be deities one propitiates, and other deities one would rather not.

Many view Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being, a Buddha. But I am not arguing for the inclusion of the word 'Buddha', I am arguing that 'deity' is a suitable compromise falling somewhere between 'spirit' and 'Buddha'. Please note that I am neither arguing for 'enlightened deity' - merely 'deity'.

Finally, please note that as early as the second sentence in this paragraph, the word 'spirit' is used, and rightfully so, it is in speech marks. So this view is still included. Therefore I would suggest changing 'spirit' to 'deity' but leaving 'spirit' where it is a direct quote of the Dalai Lama. Thank you :) Kjangdom (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a government, respected NGO, or academic which validates the claims of the mostly Caucasian protesters, that sentence should be omitted. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom:Perhaps the easiest way to end the debate about "Dorje Shugden" vs. "Dhogyal Shugden" is to simply use "Shugden" (including in the table of contents/ section header). There is no other Tibetan entity known as Shugden - so excluding both "Dorje" and "Dolgyal" is not going to confuse anyone. The only place these appellations are necessary are in direct quotes where the person being quoted has used them. "Dorje Shugden" certainly can't be used in any way that makes it appear that this is the term the Dalai Lama uses, as that would effectively be putting words he never uses in his mouth.(BTW Dholgyal is not derogatory. In Tibetan texts a number of adherents of Shugden sometimes call him Dolgyal. By insisting the term is derogatory then, by implication, you are effectively saying these lamas were deprecating Shugden - which clearly isn't the case.)
Regarding "spirit" vs. "deity". This particular Wikipedia article is about the Dalai Lama and the section about the Dalai Lama and Shugden not about Shugden in general. If the Dalai Lama views this entity as a "spirit" or "evil spirit" then we should say so. When referring to DS the DL doesn't use the word "deity" - so again let's avoid putting words in his mouth or distorting his views. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:I don't think there is anything controversial about saying some Shugden worshippers "claim" or "allege" that they are discriminated against and ostracised - the fact that such claims have been made is easily verifiable and no one would pretend otherwise. Whether those claims and allegations are true or not is a different matter. If the article itself says or implies Shugden worshippers actually have been discriminated against then this would need solid good quality independent sources with a reputation for fact checking to back that up. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Hi @VictoriaGrayson: @Elnon: I have seen some edits re the Controversy section. Victoria, I have noticed some complaints about the section in the edit summary. Any thoughts on this? would be interested in hearing what your issue is. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Karmapa controversy section is entirely BLP violation in my opinion. Its OR / SYNTH based on nonRS. Simple as that. It seems only Wikipedia and the New Kadampa Tradition associates this stuff with the Dalai Lama. This issue belongs to the Karma Kagyu school i.e. Tai Situ and Shamarpa.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is of high visibility and needs to be scrupulously neutral and exactingly sourced. What cannot be verified from high quality third party sources needs to be omitted until it can be properly done. The Karmapa thing probably DOES need to go in, but kept very, very brief and refer to the longer article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The section on the Karmapa controversy had been left practically untouched for several years when a contributor recently removed it completely - with the sibylline words "OR and non RS that violates BLP" (ie Original Research and non Reliable Sourcing that violates Biographies of Living Persons). I looked for a more detailed explanation in the talk page but could find none. This modus operandi is contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

As far as the section on the Shugden controversy is concerned, the same contributor on August 22nd replaced the existing paragraph - the result of lengthy and difficult discussions on the talk page - with her own personal text. I looked for some explanation in the talk page but none was forthcoming. Again, this is a one-way mode of operation.

Under such circumstances, I think it would be a waste of time for any person to commit themselves to any attempt at sourcing or rewriting on these two sections. --Elnon (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Elnon. I agree. Especially regarding the Shugden controversy, there was some very good BRD going on and I think there was quite a high quality paragraph that appeared via collaboration. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Elnon: Moon over Manhattan here. I'm new to WP and just learning the ropes --Thank you so much for your patience with my edit! Re: Addition of Kashag Statement 1996. Thank you for your comment -- I've read many references stating the DS controversy is political in nature as the DL issued the DS decree while still in political office. The way the section reads at the moment, it looks as though it is a strictly spiritual debate. My hope was to try to include additional references to balance the (lone) Kashag Statement. Moon over manhattan (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For now, the Karmapa section is better left out or directed to its controversy page rather than be badly written here. This is a BLP and WP:BLP is one of the strictest policies on wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Title

Closing discussion, extended content here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I propose that in keeping with Wikipedia's policy on the use of honorific titles this page should be moved to Tenzin Gyatso.HighWindows (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC) HighWindows, why don't you try reading the policy? See for example the Mother Teresa article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC) HighWindows, we have already explained this to you at the other article. Pope Francis is NOT titled "Jorge Mario Bergoglio" and the Dalai Lama is an analogous situation. Now knock off the "I didn't hear that" behavior. Your strongly anti-Dalai Lama POV is showing and you are beginning to be disruptive. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC) This man won the Nobel Peace Prize as the "Dalai Lama" and is universally known that way in reliable sources. The situation is analogous to how we name articles about Popes. They are referred to by papal names the overwhelming majority of the time in reliable sources. Their given names are, for all practical purposes, abandoned, as opposed to those who gain the "geshe" degree, which is just added to their previous name. I oppose any move.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I kind-of get the idea, but it does seem like he is always called the "Dalai Lama" in 99.9% of resources. Also he is holding that specific position, which the article is about. Is there anything different about "Dalai Lama" and "Pope" ? The thing is Tenzin Gyatso redirects here anyway, so it would probably be superfluous to have two separate articles (Dalai Lama XIV and Tenzin Gyatso), especially when the specific position and its function does merit a page. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC) My two cents. Even if the page's title were changed to "Tenzin Gyatso" as in the French, Spanish, German, Italian and Portuguese encyclopedias among others, this does't mean that every occurrence of "Dala Lama" or "14th Dalai Lama" in it would have to be systematically replaced with "Tenzin Gyatso".--Elnon (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I have read the policy and I have been told by several other editors that honorific titles should not be used in the title, and only in the introduction to the body of the text. Dalai Lama is listed in Wikipedia as an honorific title, along with Geshe; which some of you were very in favour of removing on Kelsang Gyatso's page. Dalai Lama is also explained to be an honorific title in Encyclopedia Britannica and other reliable academic sources Indeed Gewang's book goes into some considerable details about why this honorific title has been bestowed on different Dalai Lamas for different reasons. I do not see why the Dalai Lama should be an exception to this policy personally. I cannot comment on the Pope, I was looking at this from the perspective of making sure all Tibetan honorific title holders were presented in the same way. I have had a look at the Roman Catholic honorific titles on Wikipedia and I can't see the Pope on there.HighWindows (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Sometimes that only reflects a systemic bias in favor of western culture and religion. You are ust pissed off that you didn't get to use the label "geshe" - but a geshe and a reincarnated lama are very different things and if you are some kind of Buddhist you should know that and I shouldn't have to be 'splaining it to you. Montanabw(talk) 23:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Also I do take the point that he is always called this but this was not accepted as a suitable argument for keeping the full name Geshe Kelsang Gyatso on his page, despite numerous references supporting this. HighWindows (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC) That argument is beginning to sound just a wee bit WP:POINTY. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus developing in support of the proposed move. If "several other editors" think the proposal has merit, they are, of course, welcome to join the discussion here. (As a new editor, though, please be sure you are familiar with WP:CANVASS.) 2600:1006:B011:BA79:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Oh, for the record: Oppose: Based loosely on WP:COMMONNAME. 2600:1006:B011:BA79:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) It is clear that Dalai Lama is an honorific title and in keeping with Wikipedia's own guidelines I suggest it should be removed from the article title. Anyone have any ideas how to do this? I propose renaming the article Tenzin Gyatso or something else. Any other thoughts? Audrey37 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose (for the record) "Dalai Lama" is a TITLE, "His Holiness" is an honorific. And Wikipedia lists are not a RS for anything on wikipedia. Montanabw(talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose As per all the reasons above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose Not sure what all the controversy is about, it's pretty clear that according to WP:COMMONNAME the more recognizable name should be used, regardless of its official status. A simple Google search shows about 35.6 million hits for Dalai lama, with only 671.000 hits for Tenzin Gyatso. Even "14th Dalai Lama" gets more hits (969.000) than Tenzin Gyatso. Dunditschia (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC) I oppose the use of "Tenzin Gyatso" within the article (although not as the the page's title). For the title, why not opt for "Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama", along the lines of "Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama"? --Elnon (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC) I feel that people pick or choose their policy depending on their bias. On Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's page the word Geshe was removed because it was an honorific title, despite the fact it is far and away the most commonly used name for him. If we are going to apply WP:COMMONNAME in this case, then in the interests of neutrality it should also be applied to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's page. I asked that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's page be returned to his full name because it is the name he is known as and Wikipedia says; "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Wikipedia:Article_titles I gave examples of this use of his full name in reliable sources and the edits were reverted and the title not changed because "it is an honorific title." This is going round in circles because people are trying to manipulate the policies to their own clearly biased ends. Either we should apply the use of titles policy or the common use policy, not choosing the one that suits the aims of some to reduce the position of one person and raise the position of another through inference HighWindows (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC) The Geshe title does not replace ones name though, being used as a prefix. Prefixes are generally not used in an article. In the case of Tenzin Gyatso he is generally known as "The Dalai Lama", not as "Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso". You can see the same with, for example, Barack Obama, who is generally addressed similarly to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with "President Obama". His Wikipedia article just uses Barack Obama as its title. Compare this to, for example, Mother Theresa who is only very rarely referred to by her birth name in general use. Dunditschia (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you for that, I disagree, I believe the Geshe title does replace ones birth name, once you have achieved that level that is what you are called, rather like a woman changing her maiden name once married, that is what you are known as from then on. All reliable articles show this is what the Geshes are called.HighWindows (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC) That's pretty impractical though, considering there's multiple people with the Geshe title (contrary the the Dalai Lama). A simple Google search for "Geshe" gets me various articles (Including Geshe) about the title, and multiple different people with the Geshe title (Kelsang Gyatso, Micheal Roach, Lhundub Sopa, all on the first page). So the page would still need to use someones name besides the Geshe title. At that point Geshe is just a prefix, not replacing anything (except maybe a previous prefix) so it's generally not used, even if the prefix is usually used when addressing a person. Also see, for example, Elizabeth II, who is nearly always addressed as Queen Elizabeth, to the point where "The Queen" is synonymous with her, but the page uses her actual name. Dunditschia (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you Dunditschia Geshe is considered to be part of the person's name, not a title so it was used on the wikipedia page. It was subsequently removed by people saying that it was an honorary title and therefore should be removed, just as you say the Queen's title is removed. I believe that if Geshe is going to be considered an honorary title, then all Tibetan titles should be considered thus, otherwise it suggests bias, it infers inferiority on the others who are not using their names. I have provided evidence that shows other people consider Dalai Lama to be an honorary title. I have shown that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is always referred to as that, so if we are going on common use his full name should be reinstated. We cannot go with the argument that Dalai Lama is a title conferred by reincarnation as this is a Buddhist belief; more importantly the Dalai Lama is on film stating he does not consider himself to be the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lamas. At the moment the Dalai Lama is being treated differently to everyone else and this, for me, is not neutral. HighWindows (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC) HighWindows has little understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. Geshe is analogous or even equivalent to a PhD. It is certainly not "part of the person's name". It is certainly not equivalent to Dalai Lama. I suggest someone close and hat this discussion. VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC) This is going on with no resolution in sight. Time for everyone to drop the WP:STICK and move along. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lopez is wrong according to 2005 journal article

Dreyfus calls out Lopez in this 2005 journal article, which by the way mocks Lopez's book title. If you want to know the Dalai Lama's motivation, this is the journal article to read.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dondrub or Thondup

The first sentence names him as Lhamo Dondrub but later he becomes Thondup. It would seem to me that the usage of the article would be introduced in the lede, rather than using a name in the lede only to reject it later. I suggest we pick one, and put it in the lede with an alternative spelling in brackets, once and then forgotten). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree: it should be consistent and it doesn't need to be mentioned very much. The name in question is spelled various ways in English texts. It should be Dhöndrup in the Tournadre system, Döndrup in the THL system, or Toinzhub in Tibetan Pinyin, but most writers don't go by any system. The first consonant is pronounced like a /t/. We just need to pick something. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Gays and...gays"? Lesbians "aren't homosexual"? "Videos and DVDs"? "Colors and reds"? "Numbers and 4s"? "Shapes and circles"? HUH?

I found an errant phrase, "gays and lesbians," which, because of the conjunction (an "and" or an "or") separating the two, gives the idea of "one and the other," hence the clearly false implication that "lesbians are not gay," just like saying "videos and DVDs," since DVDs are videos. It's like saying "colors and reds;" that implies that red "is not a color"! Or it's like people think that the word "gay" only applies to men, as if it were sex-specific like the word "lesbian" is, even though that's not true.

So if I replace that falsehood with "gay women and men," or, even more concisely, just "gay people," why should that, which is correct and actually makes real sense, be reverted in favor of the nonsensical version's return just because the vandal doesn't get what the improvement is?

Springing Up (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The real problem is, you're being a jerk over nothing, newbie. Skyerise (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, skye, wanting things to make sense (by not saying something illogical like "gay people and gay women" as if lesbians "aren't homosexual" so they "can't be included under 'gay'") is not being a "dick" (the uncivil term you originally used) or being a jerk (the uncivil term you replaced that with for some reason). It's simply wanting things to make as much logical sense as they should. Why do you feel "eliminated" if we just say "homosexual people"?

(Oh yeah, I forgot to sign this one too. Springing Up (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

Yawn. Please don't intersperse comments unless you sign each one. It's a matter of self-identification and sources. Against your "logic" and "always rightness", despite the fact that you've been here, what 3 days, and choose to pick a fight with a ten year veteran with 85,000 edits? Back off. This is not a video game, chum. Skyerise (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, nope, I'm not the one picking a fight, chum. Look who's being uncivil here. And I never claimed to be "always right," either. I was simply using basic logic to form a phrase that makes sense.

Springing Up (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Except that everyone understands perfectly what the source means when it says "gays and lesbians" — and all without any interference or enlightenment about logic by you. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Skyerise (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say that it's like they think that "gay" means "homosexual" only for men, which isn't correct, even if they supposedly "understand what it means." Where did they get that false idea from, and then start the ball rolling with it, anyway?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But since it is broken, fix it. Springing Up (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the cited source, as well as LGBT organizations, use the terms "gays and lesbians." The idea that this is confusing or illogical is dubious. Second, another editor disagreeing with you does not make her a vandal. Please treat other editors in a civil manner and discuss disputes rather than calling names. Particularly distressing on the Dalai Lama article to have you both resorting to name-calling rather than discussing the dispute. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything about "confusion." It is, however, still illogical, because "[one] AND [the other]" is to say that one is not the other; they are separate things. You can't understand that "gay" already means "homosexual" and is not sex-specific like "lesbian" is only for women? What's "wrong" with just replacing that with the term "homosexual people"? Springing Up (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Springing Up: You are being unnecessarily argumentative, particularly when several editors disagree with you. Perhaps you'd prefer to go argue with the term LGBT, as it employs the same problem you are (oddly) trying to resolve here. And Skyerise, please review the policy WP:BITE. You would both do well to review WP:NPA. WP is a collaborative effort, not a brawl. Sheesh, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You know, the real problem with WP:BITE is that it presumes that all new editors are equally valuable. Some, however, make their non-agenda obvious fairly early. Me, I don't care if I drive off the trolls. Skyerise (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem, skyerise, is that you have not been driving off trolls here, because you're still here. There's no other troll in this scene just because I'm trying to make an article more logically correct. Springing Up (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with me or not, Laszlo Panaflex and others, I don't see what the holy-freak "big deal" is with using a clean, short, encompassing term like "homosexual people" (yes, that includes lesbians and men who are also gay) when that's cleaner, more logical, and also does not eliminate or belittle women. But no, wanting to make that cleaner is not "odd." And yeah, the "LGBT" term, though it had unfortunately already gained a stronghold, isn't really correct either. It does have that same problem, but this article and others with this in it are easier to fix than the error that growing community has already used for a while. What's the big deal with just saying "homosexual people" or "gay people"? Why this "precious" need for women to be separately named from general?

Whatever makes your people feel validated and "floats your boats," I guess, skye....

But no, Lazlo I wouldn't need to be reading something about personal attacks, because I was not delivering any. I guess, for whatever reason, because of vocal minority, the Wikipedia can't be as cleanly worded as it would without them.... Springing Up (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: because it's about people who have identificational preferences, something legitimate journalists and other writers know and adapt to. Something other people are sensitive to, and don't presume their "logic" is so exalted that it trumps another whole class of person's preferred terms of identification. Who do you think you are??? God? Trying to fix "gays and lesbians"? There's nothing wrong with them. :-) Skyerise (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to fix gay people (homosexual women and men). I was trying to fix the error in that terminology. Why do you guys, skye and other lesbians, feel like it's so important to be identified as "lesbians" specifically instead of just part of homosexual people in general? If men don't, and they're people too, why do women? What's the supposed "advantage" for women?

Springing Up (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you object to the term so strenuously? Are you planning on fixing every article on Wikiepdia when they aren't broken? It's not an error in terminology. It's an error in your thinking and feelings. Feel free to not stick around. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How about you answer my question first? No, it's not an error in my feelings. Yes, the terminology doesn't really work, so it is "broken." Why is the phrase "gays and lesbians," which is like saying "gay people, and gay people who are women," or or "there are homosexual people, and then there are something that's different from homosexual people: the lesbians" (whatever that supposed "difference" is), which is a redundancy or an ignorance, or both, so "correct" to you? And then my question from above: how about answering that?

And since that separate identity is so important to you guys, then why not just insert the word "other," as in "lesbians and other gays"? Springing Up (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Springing Up, the standard and correct terminology for LGBTQ people is "gay and lesbian." This is not a debatable point. Now please stop behaving like a troll; your behavior has become disruptive. Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

recognized and enthroned

The lede says "he was only formally recognized as the 14th Dalai Lama on 17 November 1950, at the age of 15." Later the article says "Lhamo Thondup was recognised formally as the reincarnated Dalai Lama ... although he was not formally enthroned as the Dalai Lama until the age of 15." In the context, this follows immediately after his recognition as tulku. So was he recognized formally at an early age? or only at age 15? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the former. What whoever wrote this had in mind is the fact that the Dalai Lama assumed political power (as monarch with no regent) in 1950 when he as 15 years old. Thus, he had a political enthronement at that time. He had certainly been recognised as a small boy much earlier than that. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, on the 'Chronology of Events' on the Dalai Lama's own website (http://www.dalailama.com/biography/chronology-of-events) it is written: "1939: Public Declaration of the Official Recognition of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama near town of Bumchen". And he ought to know! MacPraughan (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)