Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dalai Lama: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:09, 24 July 2020 editMaynardClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users31,651 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:24, 12 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,506 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 10) (bot 
(31 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ {{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion|anchor=Traditions (15 articles)}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Lama, Dalai|1=
⚫ {{talk header}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Tibet|importance=top}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism|class=C|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|listas=Lama, Dalai}} {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=C|importance=milowd}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}}
}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=mid}}
| blpo=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 18: 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}}

== Dalai Lama title ==

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>

::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)

{{reflist-talk}}


It was there at one time. ] (]) 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

:I think it was taken away once there was a massive edit from Chinese account that wanted to make the Dalai Lama title something made up and control by China, thus taken away mentions of other countries' involvement. --] (]) 20:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


==exorcism==
::That's not really an excuse to justify a serious omission of facts. What did the chinese write? Was it inacurrate? Regardless, the accurate info that shouldn't be left out, was that Dalai lamas only existed after Tibet was Colonised. There used to be tibetan kings prior. What changed was the mongols. They took over and created the dai lai lamas and got rid of the tibetan kings's total rule. The first dalai lama was ultimately politically powerless and served the mongols as its class superior. The very name, “dalai” is indeed of mongol origin. Not tibetan deprivation. They did not freely adopt the mongol word for the novelty of it, but the title itself was created by the mongols and not tibetans. That is not written clearly in the article anywhere.
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?


== legally returned? ==
″The political or secular authority of the Dalai Lamas over Tibet was a mechanism of non-Tibetan origin, and the name Dalai is of Mongol, not Tibetan, derivation. Since the 18th century Chinese authorities assumed the right to supervise the choice of new Dalai and Panchen Lamas, and the Tibetans have had to turn to China for protection against foreign invasions."


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)
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/01/opinion/l-tibet-couldn-t-lose-what-it-never-had-332046.html
] (]) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


: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)
== Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion ==
::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 following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 10thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 11thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 1stDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 2ndDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 3rdDalaiLama2.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 4thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 5thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 6thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 7thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 8thDalaiLama.jpg -->
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-08-01T02:53:34.467390 | 9thDalaiLama.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 02:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:24, 12 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalai Lama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTibet Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconBuddhism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconVeganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

exorcism

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?

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. 49.180.4.243 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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. 49.180.4.243 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2025 (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. 49.180.4.243 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Dalai Lama: Difference between revisions Add topic