Jump to content

Talk:Dalai Lama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page is confusing

[edit]

This page is about a spiritual title, but might easily appear to unsuspecting readers as the 14th Dalai Lama's bio page (despite the info box at the top).

The introduction of the alleged lottery concept golden urn to the lede is not sourced, and is a higly contentious historical subject. Scholars and Tibetan representatives are on one side, and post-communist reinterpretations are on the other.

The page should be renamed, possibly to Dalai Lama (spiritual title). Metokpema (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exorcism

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]