| Revision as of 21:05, 5 February 2019 editMacPraughan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,871 edits →Dalai Lama title← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:24, 12 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,516 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 10) (bot |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Lama, Dalai|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Tibet|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|listas=Lama, Dalai}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}} |
|
| blpo=yes}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
| Line 16: |
Line 17: |
|
|archive = Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 9 2023}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mind and Life Institute? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I came across ], which claims to be the organization responsible for convening conferences and dialogues with the Dalia Lama. I went through and marked some dead links, but it stuck me how much of the notability of the institute is based on the Dalai Lama. ] aside, the fact that the Institute isn't mentioned in the Dalai Lama article seems odd. Anyone have any thoughts on whether a) the info should be linked to somewhere in the Dalai Lama article, or b) is it really that notable an organization? ] ] ] 00:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==exorcism== |
|
== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
|
The Dalai Lama has a autobiography called freedom in exile. In this books he talks about how he exorcised a spirit. Don't know if it's important. But it maybe added to thearticle what do you think? |
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-01-08T21:51:45.405049 | 12thDalai Lama.jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 21:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dalai Lama title == |
|
== legally returned? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says in lede that DL "legally returned to the secular leadership position of governing Tibet". But under what authority? Tibetan sovereignty isn't recognised by anyone including the United states. They all recognised it as part of China especially during the mid 1900s. Not only is that statement unsourced but it's obviously got no reliable sources to support that statement. ] (]) 00:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
I am surprised that no one points out the term Dalai Lama was given by Altan Khan, the leader of Tumet Mongol to the third Dalai Lama Sonam Gyatso (Tib: bsod nams rgya mtsho) in 1578.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P999|title=Buddhist Digital Resource Center|website=www.tbrc.org|access-date=2019-02-05}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Also previous revision makes it seem like Tibet had an independent leader when technically Tibet was under non Tibetan surzeingty since 13th century. And omitted that Ganden Phodrang government was a protectorate under Qing China rule. You can't omit this context merely because it's not a popular truth. I added in that Ganden Phodrang government functioned as a protectorate under Qing China rule but its leaders disagreed that relationship continued with ROC and declared independence. Tho international law doesn't recognise that independence and that DL despite revoking the agreement with China and supporting independence of Tibet, later moderated his views to not support separatism and agree Tibet was part of China in 2005. I included all sources to support the previously omitted context. Without that context, this article is just pushing a pov and omitting facts that are obviously politically unpopular in the west. ] (]) 01:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::Please feel free to add it here if you feel it is appropriate, whoever you are (anonymous?), plus this is mentioned under the article on the Third Dalai Lama who was the one to receive it. Cheers, ] (]) 21:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Also, the final paragraph of the lead section presents an oversimplified perspective, aligning primarily with the Tibetan exile government's viewpoint, which is not universally accepted. Historian Sam van Schaik notes that during the Mongol rule, Tibet functioned as a colony. The Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs and the Imperial Preceptor, based in Khanbaliq (modern-day Beijing), were officially at the helm of Tibetan administration. However, due to the considerable distance between Mongolia and Tibet, their direct influence on daily governance was minimal. Portraying Tibet as an independent country during this period, free from non-Tibetan suzerainty, lacks support from international law and is not corroborated by historical records from other nations. Notably, during the Qing Dynasty, no country recognized Tibet as an independent state; the relationship was characterized more accurately as a priest-patron dynamic. It should be rewritten to reflect Global consensus and not narrowly to a party in exile unilateral talking point, that's disputed by most western scholars. ] (]) 02:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
The Dalai Lama has a autobiography called freedom in exile. In this books he talks about how he exorcised a spirit. Don't know if it's important. But it maybe added to thearticle what do you think?
The article says in lede that DL "legally returned to the secular leadership position of governing Tibet". But under what authority? Tibetan sovereignty isn't recognised by anyone including the United states. They all recognised it as part of China especially during the mid 1900s. Not only is that statement unsourced but it's obviously got no reliable sources to support that statement. 49.180.4.243 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
