| Revision as of 21:41, 26 February 2010 editShadowRangerRIT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,025 edits →Dalai Lama Twitter feed← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:51, 26 February 2010 edit undoRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 edits →Dalai Lama Twitter feed: comment +Next edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| :In my opinion, no. The twitter feed duplicates information already provided on the Daiai Lama's , which is an inclusion test under ]. (Though, it would be a marked improvement over having a section titled 'Dalai Lama on twitter'!)--] (]) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | :In my opinion, no. The twitter feed duplicates information already provided on the Daiai Lama's , which is an inclusion test under ]. (Though, it would be a marked improvement over having a section titled 'Dalai Lama on twitter'!)--] (]) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yeah, like I said, it has no place in the article prose. If the main official link also links to Twitter, then I agree there is no justification. Even if it didn't link to the Twitter feed I'd be conflicted, and since it does, I think I agree with you that it is unnecessary. —] <sup>(]|])</sup> 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | ::Yeah, like I said, it has no place in the article prose. If the main official link also links to Twitter, then I agree there is no justification. Even if it didn't link to the Twitter feed I'd be conflicted, and since it does, I think I agree with you that it is unnecessary. —] <sup>(]|])</sup> 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::It doesn't link to twitter, but contains the same information. No reflection, if you think it useful, go ahead and add it since it is under the control of the Dalai Lama's office and twitter is an important enough information feed to be of value. --] (]) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:51, 26 February 2010
| 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. |
|
| 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  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
Dalai Lama lies ?
From the Article:
The current 14th Dalai Lama seeks separate Tibet from China, although he lies to the Western world that he only seeks autonomy.
Surely this cannot be included without very strong evidence. It would be grounds for a libel suit in the UK. 82.13.143.58 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- The comment has been removed from the article. --User:Iambus | talk 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- the person who continually adds that line is Lxoe. I have attempted communication with him on his talk page regarding this continuing POV edits. I have also linked him to His Holiness so that he can read and understand the definition. If he reads this discussion page (which, statistically speaking, is unlikely given that most vandals don't care about the community which they vandalize), I also encourage him to read libel and Reliable Sources for wikepedia's policies on spreading lies about living people. If the Dalai Lama were truly a mean-spirited person as this person claims he is, I imagine HH would want to sue Lxoe for posting unsourced and untrue information about him. Interesting catch-22. It's always those who are willing to lie about others who end up victimizing those who aren't willing to victimize. Dragonnas (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (I always forget to sign my comments :P)
Even though Lxoe did not provide adequate sources for his claims, there are articles that talk about protesters calling him a lier like this one from reuters for example. Maybe add to criticism or to the current Dali lama's page? --stanthefisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.131.66 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- This article is about the Dalai Lama lineage, not the 14th Dalai Lama. But even at that page, it would be undue weight to write up this one Reuters article. Bertport (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
"Spiritual and temporal leader"
The first line of the article says, "Dalai Lama is the title given to an individual who is the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibetan Buddhists worldwide." This seems quite unclear and requires a lot more nuance. What does it mean to say that he is the temporal leader of Tibetan Buddhists? So a convert to Tibetan Buddhism living in, say, France, would acknowledge the Dalai Lama as his or her temporal leader? How so? Even to say that the Dalai Lama is a temporal leader of Tibetans in Tibet is highly controversial and not really in evidence. As for whether the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, this is also controversial. There are five major sects of Tibetan Buddhism (Gelug, Kagyü, Nyingma, Sakya, and Jonang) and the Dalai Lama is the de facto head of one of them. The controversial issue is his role in the other four sects, which are hardly marginal. Traditionally, he has no role. This being the case, it won't due to say that he is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. Pending a rewrite that resolves these issues, I am removing the first sentence.—Nat Krause 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're aware that this removes a huge chunk of context, right? If it needs to be made more specific, make it more specific. That sentence is the first time in months that the article has started with an introduction which gives the lay reader a reasonable place to start, and its omission isn't a very good idea. I'd much rather it be re-added without "temporal" and with "worldwide" made sect-specific. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. I agree that the previous intro was not very good, but the new version was not that great, either, since it led with inaccuracies right off the bat. I like your suggestion, at least as a temporary measure, and I have rewritten the opening sentence accordingly.—Nat Krause 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The revision is perfect, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sometimes he was seen as spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhist, but in fact this is not true. Before PRC occupation Dalailama was political leader of Tibet, after Chinese invasion he becomes (unnoficial but accepted) representative of Tibetans and Tibet's affair on international stage. His function is is politcal and national, but not religious (except Gelug school). But he is also most popular buddhist teacher (and maybe Buddhist) on the world. In this context sometimes he can be seen as a representative of Buddhism in the modern world. Maybe mixing this two roles (political leadership of Tibet and popularity as a Buddhist teacher) in media made this mistake so common. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of references below which addresses the question above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJY1eK9jQ28&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruuxoDQpSc&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.234.106 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The dalai lama is not a teacher or leader of Buddhism- he is a teacher and leader of tibetan buddhism (lamaism). Buddhism and tibetan buddhism are two different religions by western defintions in the same way Roman Catholicism and Mormonism are two different religions. 81.157.99.169 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that they fall under the category of Buddhism. Similar to Christianity, it has many branches. You cannot deny that they are totally separate religions, just like Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism. Prowikipedians (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Buddhism amd tibetan buddhism are not simply branches of the same religion, they are different religions by western definition. A Mormon does not agree with the Christianity of a Roman Catholic, and a Roman Catholic will not agree with the 'Christianity' of a Mormon. The dalai lama is accepted by tibetan buddhists as a teacher, he is not accepted by buddhists in general as a buddhist teacher. 81.133.120.149 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Dalai Lama = Spiritual Leader who takes care of you in your next life. Panchen Lama = Temporal Leader who takes care of you in this life. So, strictly speaking, Dalai Lama cannot head a "government in exile". That's why the PRC is hanging on to the Panchen Lama.--VimalaNowlis (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
How can the dl = spiritual leader who takes care of you in your next life, when he gets reborn into this life after he dies? Where have you seen the dl take care of anyone? It seems he gets taken care of by everyone else. He certainly appears to have a better life than most of his Tibetan followers, and he's not been seen to make any pilgrimages of kneeling taking a few steps forward, then dropping on his knees and so on. 86.136.143.144 (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
1426
The reign of the first Dalai Lama began in 1426, says Joseph de Guignes (Histoire générale des Huns, des Mongoles, des Turcs et des autres Tartares occidentaux (1756-1758) ). I have the Turkish version of this book. Böri (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Dalai Lama - descended from Avalokiteśvara
The Dalai Lama (transliterated from the Mongolian language and Tibetan language roughly as "Ocean Priest") is, if my sources are correct, descended from a bodhisattva, namely Avalokiteśvara. I noticed that this was not mentioned in the opening paragraph, although it did say he was reborn from a line of tulkus. I thought it would be valuable information to readers of Misplaced Pages if it stated who the Dalai Lama was descended from, because if we are going to acknowledge him as a reincarnation, then I believe we must say who he is reincarnated from. This is the explanation for my edit, and I only point this out because I am no expert on Gelug, and I only did this with the best intentions of everybody in mind. Also, note that in forms of Tibetan Buddhism, Avalokiteśvara is known as Chenrezig, however I referred to him by Avalokiteśvara because that is the more common name. --71.191.199.74 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Chinese propaganda
This article should really have a section dealing with the anti-Dalai Lama propaganda prevalent in mainland China. At the least, the vast gulf between the views of the Chinese and the West deserves a mention; it's virtually unparalleled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.132.95 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Dalai Lama Twitter feed
I noticed a previous editor added a link, and RegentsPark removed it. While I agree it has no place in the prose section of the article, is there a problem with linking it in the External Links section? Given that it has been officially announced, I would think it qualifies under WP:ELOFFICIAL. Does anyone object to linking it from the EL section? —ShadowRanger 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no. The twitter feed duplicates information already provided on the Daiai Lama's official page, which is an inclusion test under WP:ELOFFICIAL. (Though, it would be a marked improvement over having a section titled 'Dalai Lama on twitter'!)--RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, like I said, it has no place in the article prose. If the main official link also links to Twitter, then I agree there is no justification. Even if it didn't link to the Twitter feed I'd be conflicted, and since it does, I think I agree with you that it is unnecessary. —ShadowRanger 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't link to twitter, but contains the same information. No reflection, if you think it useful, go ahead and add it since it is under the control of the Dalai Lama's office and twitter is an important enough information feed to be of value. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, like I said, it has no place in the article prose. If the main official link also links to Twitter, then I agree there is no justification. Even if it didn't link to the Twitter feed I'd be conflicted, and since it does, I think I agree with you that it is unnecessary. —ShadowRanger 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)