Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Neutrality, Critisism, and Western Shugden Society

www.westernshugdensociety.org - the registrant details of the domain have been obscured using a domain proxy service (http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/). This is an obvious attempt to hide an identity. download "To the Dalai Lama of Tibet.pdf" (http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/file_download/10/To+the+Dalai+Lama+of+Tibe\t.pdf), and look at its metadata. The document's properties reveal the following information:

• Author: Peter
• Company: Tharpa (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's exclusive publisher, a New Kadampa Tradition enterprise)

More over the content of the site is slander and may fulfil Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 see: Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060001_en_1 Statements like

"According to some sources, you were born in a Muslim family. When you were a child who did not know anything, some ignorant Tibetans acting as representatives of the Tibetan Government chose that boy as the reincarnation of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Since that time, that boy wore saffron robes, and the local people jokingly nicknamed you as ´The Saffron Robed Muslim´. In this way, you received the position of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Because of this, many people now keep your photograph on their shrines and worship you."

"You have received a higher education in Buddhism from your kind teacher Trijang Rinpoche. However, the sad situation is that after you arrived to India your behaviour changed. You were continually against the intention of your Root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, who is the lineage holder of Je Tsonghapa´s doctrine. You strived strongly to destroy Trijang Rinpoche´s spiritual tradition, which is the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa´s doctrine. Since 1996, you have regarded Trijang Rinpoche´s followers as your enemies and you are now giving orders to the ordinary people and monasteries to expel them from their society. Following your views and your orders, many people believe that Trijang Rinpoche´s followers who practise Dorje Shugden are their enemies."

"...All these horrible situations have developed through the power of your evil actions. This is our valid evidence to prove that you are not Buddhist. Because of this, we also believe that you are the saffron robed Muslim. Throughout your life you have pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings that you have stolen from Trijang Rinpoche. By doing this, you have cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that your real nature is cruel and very evil. Copyright © 2008 WesternShugdenSociety.org. All Rights Reserved. The Western Shugden Society is only the community or confederation of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden practitioners -- it has no leader nor registered office."

are self-revealing. Of course Goldner and Trimondys don't fulfill WP:RS in any way. (Although I retired, I felt I should at least contribute a little to the discussion here).

All the edits in these articles:

• Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
• Dorje Shugden
• Dorje Shugden Controversy
• Kelsang Gyatso
• New Kadampa Tradition

started some days before the New Kadampa Tradition started their second (or third) Media Campaign under the name Western Shugden Society against the Dalai Lama on 22 April, 2008. This group try of course to get control over the information published in Wikipedia.

The speakers/frontmen/frontwomen of Western Shugden Society are Kelsang Khyenrab (present successor of Geshe Kelsang), Kelsang Dekyong (USA representative of NKT), Kelsang Pema (press speaker, NKT), Kelsang Ananda (NKT representative of Germany). The identities of them are obvious from their website WSS and their press-information like here: http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/1184651/ (see persons in charge).

Regarding the Fundamentalism of NKT, see: Fundamentalism#Buddhism. I just mention this to make visible what the background of those activities are. Until about 10 April, 2008 there hasn't been much controversy regarding these articles. WSS/NKT have now just exported there strange ideas and approach to Wikipedia. They base their claims mainly on WP:SPS or self-published and anonym websites. Ok that's it. Good luck to all editors. --Kt66 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear kt66, the reason why there was no controversy regarding these articles from your point of view was that you had a virtual monopoly on editing them and they expressed your view; now they are more neutral due to the involvement of other editors which is proper and correct for a wikipedia article which has to express all points of view. I'm afraid we live in a democracy where everyone has the right to be heard. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama's contacts with Nazis and Neo-nazis are completely missing.

There is a certain controversy regarding Dalai Lama's contacts with those of Nazi ideology like Doctor Bruno Beger from Auschwitz or Miguel Serrano. No mention of this is made in the article. [1] In September 1994 a historic meeting took place in London. Seven individuals from different parts of the world gathered there to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was on a visit to the United Kingdom, and to talk about one common issue: their recollection of the days spent in independent Tibet. These individuals had spent some time in Tibet in different parts of this century. They were: Mrs. Joan Mary Jehu ( who visited Tibet in September 1932 accompanying her father, Colonel Weir, the Political Officer in Sikkim, on an official mission to Tibet.); Mr. Robert Ford ( who was radio officer with the British Mission in Lhasa in 1945 and radio officer to the Tibetan Government from 1948 to 1950.); Mr Heinrich Harrer (who spent seven years in Tibet from 1943 to 1950); Mr Archibald Jack (who visited the British Army garrison at Gyantse in 1938); Dr Bruno Beger ( anthropologist, ethnologist, geographer and physician of the 1939 German Schaefer expedition to Tibet.)

[2] The second document is a report by this Professor Hirt. "Re: Procurement of the skulls of Jewish-Bolshevistic commissars for scientific research at the University of Strassburg." I quote: "Extensive skull collections from nearly all races and people are in existence. It is only of Jews that so few skulls are available to science that work on them admits of no secure findings. The war in the East now offers us an opportunity to make good this deficiency. In the Jewish-Bolshevistic commissars, who embody a repulsive and characteristic type of subhuman, we have the possibility of acquiring a reliable scientific document by acquiring their skulls.

The smoothest and most expeditious way of obtaining and securing this provision of skulls would be to instruct the Wehrmacht to hand over all Jewish-Bolshevistic commissars immediately to the military police. The person charged with securing this material (a young physician or medical student belonging to the Werhmacht or better still to the military police) is to prepare a previously specified series of photographs and anthropoligical measurements.

After the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose head must not be injured, he will separate the head from the trunk and send it, immersed in a preserving fluid, in well-sealed lead containers made especially for this purpose, to the designated address."

And now the next document. A letter of June 21, 1943. From Ahnenerbe. Top secret.

To Reich Security Headquarters IVB4, Attention: SS-Obersturmführer Eichmann. Re: Skeleton collection.

With reference to your letter of September 25, 1942, and the consultations held since then regarding the above-mentioned matter, we wish to inform you that Dr. Bruno Beger, our staff member charged with the above-mentioned special mission, terminated his work in the Auschwitz concentration camp on June 15, 1943, because of the danger of an epidemic. In all, 115 persons, 79 male Jews, 2 Poles, 4 Central Asians, and 30 Jewesses, were processed.

These inmates have been placed, men and women separately, in the concentration-camp sick quarters, and quarantined. For the further processing of these selected persons, immediate transfer to Natzweiler concentration camp is desirable and should be effected as quickly as possible in view of the danger of infection in Auschwitz. A list of the selected persons is appended. You are requested to send the necessary instructions."

[3] Frontpage of Bruno Beger’s book: “Meine Begegnungen mit dem Ozean des

Wissens“ („My meetings with the Ocean of Knowledge”) – Königstein 1986

Not only dd the Dalai Lama meet Waldheim but he seems to have a propensity for meeting former and current Nazis. His relationship with Heinrich Harrer who served in both the Nazi SA and the SS in the 1930s is well known. On one visit to Austria he met and as photographed with Bruno Berger who had been convicted of killing Jews at Auschwitz. On a visit to to Chile in June 1992 the Dalai Lama was met at the airport by, among others the leader Chile's Nazi party Miguel Serrano, who told the reporters he had met the Dalai Lama while he was Chile's ambassador to India and the two "are friends" Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region Edited by: Barry Sautman; June Teufel Dreyer page 347 --Molobo (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

--Molobo (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you want the article to actually say about this? "The Dalai Lama has a propensity for meeting with Nazis"? How are we to explain the significance of this?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the nature of his meetings with Miguel Serrano ?

What is the nature of Dalai Lama's meetings with Miguel Serrano. --Molobo (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chamdo

"The People's Liberation Army stopped short of the old border between Tibet and Xikang and demanded negotiations."

There is so many problems with this sentance. Xikang was a fictional Chinese province that existed only on Chinese maps. Tibetans call the area Kham. It is Eastern Tibet. Chamdo, where the fighting took place, was under Lhasa's administration all along. Today, it is a part of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Negotiations? The only agreement the Chinese signed was with Jigme, a Tibetan commander captured in the battle.Kauffner (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree that this description is suspect. Please keep the discussion calm and provide sources if possible. I've googled trying to find a map of Xikang, but couldn't find one. It seems that Xikang, whether in fact controlled by the Kuomintang government or not, did encompass most of Kham. If anything, the idea of a border in disputed territory is rather misleading, but again, I've been unable to find a map of the borders of Xikang. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Solution I've removed the sentence for now until consensus can be reached about what the article should say regarding the events of 1950. The prose still makes sense and I'm not sure that the sentence in question is necessary or useful. This biography would be incomplete without sufficient background for Tenzin Gyatso's political actions, and the section should probably be expanded, carefully. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Religious Controversy"

This article is fawning and misrepresentative and makes the Dalai Lama out to be a saint when in fact he is unpopular amongst large sections of his own Tibetan community due to his autocratic actions with respect to the Karmapa and Dorje Shugden practitioners. His part in these crises should be explained here somewhere or the neutrality of this article must remain disputed. (Wisdomsword (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

IMO all chapter written by Truthsayer62 is POV-style written and bad referenced. Should be deleted or rewrited -Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Puhh, the complete section is in itself very controversial. First there is no "Banning", secondly the quotes of "the Kagyue school" refer only to a split of it around Shamar Rinpoche and Ole Nydahl, there is also more Kaygue school who sees it not that way. Not to balance the section with proper information, as they are findable in Karmapa controversy, especially that the Dalai Lama was asked by the other three main Kaygue head Lamas, to give his opinion, after Sharmapa Rinpoche found his own candidate, is very one-sided. The NKT/WSS stuff about "banning" is also very one-sided. Even the term is more like propaganda than facts. I fully support the neutrality template. I suggest deletion until at the discussion site a neutral version has been developed and discussed. I will ask another editor to help. I lack time. --Kt66 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the NKT/WSS "persecution/"banning" opinion, one can also link to Dorje Shugden Controversy. Quite complex stuff. --Kt66 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama's actions have been controversial, and until now there has been nothing of the Kamarpa Controversy or the Dorje Shugden controversy on this page which is a major omission. The section has proper citations. If you think it is biased, please feel free to add what you believe to be a balanced view. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As a fist aid kid I removed all the not acceptable personal webpages and self-published sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources --Kt66 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The section was one-sided, based on self-published sources, clearly POV and included poor sources as references, like the personal webpage of Sumati Arya or the one-sided use of webpages of Shamar Rinpoche and followers. The controversies are further very complex and there exist complex WP articles, that's why I removed the complete section according to Biographies of living persons - Sources and referred instead to the WP sub articles. I think this is common sense solution. --Kt66 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kt66: Thank you. Deleting this POV-material and referring to other articles was the best solution. Now, I'm not sure if this chapter must to be distinct first-level part of article. Maybe include this in... oe "Reception"? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you did is not acceptable. This section has proper citations and is linked to external sources. What you put in its place was references to other wikipedia articles which do not show the criticism that the Dalai Lama has received and do not reflect current events, therefore I have reverted your changes. If you don't like this section, please edit it to make it more balanced, not replace the hard work that other people have put into this section - with respect, you don't have the right to do that. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See rules Biographies of living persons - Sources: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removal." Moreover the controversies are very complex and are dealt with in the sub-articles. Because you are a quite new editor, and not familiar with things I suggest to wait for other editor's comment. I revert now your revert. As you can see above is already the suggestion for deletion. --Kt66 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The material is sourced, so your arguments do not apply. I think you simply don't want to see criticism of the Dalai Lama that is so blatant. The article you have put in the place of this section are not adequate because they don't reflect the current position of the controversies. As you will note, I place a neutrality question on the Dorje Shugden article. Furthermore, what this section needs to show is the criticism that the Dalai Lama has received in relation to these religious matters. Your substitutes are not suitable for this purpose.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<<Please check WP:SPS, and WP:BLP#Sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Both versions seem problematic right now. As several people have pointed out, the version written by Truthsayer62 has problematic sources and would need major revision to make it more neutral. It is also far too long. However, the shorter version is not adequate as it is. Anyone want to try to re-write this in a brief summary with reliable sources? Sunray (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles wikilinked in that section are a POV minefield and highly contested. At this point linking to them brings that lack of NPOV into this article unnecessarily. Once these articles reach a state that they are useful, these could be summarized here, but not before. I have removed that section for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Perhaps we could work out the wording of summary here about the Dorje Shugden and Karmapa controversies. Sunray (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

birthplace

Goldstein source added. If there was a Ambo Province when DL was born, name the provincial governor (I doubt if anyone can). Remember it was the ROC/Han escort which protected the soul boy on the way to Lhasa.

Catherine II was born in Prussia/Germany instead of Poland even Stettin is currently Polish - MainBody (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Amdo is more accurately a region, rather than a province. Where did the text say "Amdo province"? Also, what's your source for an ROC or Han escort for the young Dalai Lama? Goldstein says it was a group of Muslim traders.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Qinghai was under the control of the Ma clique (Chinese Muslim warlords) throughout the Republican period. The Governor of Qinghai (appointed by the KMT government in Nanjing) was Ma Lin [4]--Jiang (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)