Talk:Panchen Lama

NPOV, Redux

I've removed the NPOV tag from the article since there is no ongoing discussion, and, presumably then, no conflict. If editors have objections to the neutrality of this article, please revert my change and list your grievances here. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No POV fine, but there is an explanation for what happened - Chinese hijacked the Panchen Lama because he is the key in recognizing next Dalai Lama. They committed a crime by all standards in order to prevent Dalai Lama from reincarnating in a traditional way. There are sources that explains this, for example John Oliver and many more. There is no ambiguity among decent people what happened. Freetibet1 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Chinese POV incorporation

There's a series of articles given in external links detailing the PRC view of the Panchen Lama lineage. These articles should be incorporated through inline citation in this and related articles. (This is partly a note to myself that this needs to be done, and partly a call to action for other editors. I'll get to it eventually, but it would be fabulous if someone else could take this up in the meantime.) --Gimme danger (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese are crooks, they kidnapped a boy in order to hijack Dalai Lama - Panchen Lapa mutual connection. They installed their stupid commie puppet who knows as much about enlightenment as a rat about Linux. They use Buddhism to put Tibet on its knees. They build big stupid empty monasteries in Tibet and Nepal, put dumb lamas there who preach idiocy there. That's worse than what USSR was doing with the church. Tibetan Buddhism is a live tool for enlightenment and those morons are blocking people from knowledge. Freetibet1 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Names of the articles on the Panchen Lamas

After a recent discussion at Talk:14th Dalai Lama, all of the articles on the individual Dalai Lamas were moved from the format "Personal Name, Xth Dalai Lama" to simply "Xth Dalai Lama". I think this is the right format. When referring to a Dalai Lama in English, if it's necessary to differentiate between more than one of them, I think that "Xth Dalai Lama" is much more common than using the personal name. I would suggest following the same pattern for the Panchen Lamas, whose articles currently all are titled simply by the personal name. So, Choekyi Gyaltsen would move to 10th Panchen Lama. I think we should make an exception for Khedrup Je, who is better known by that name. Also, it would not be possible to have an article titled 11th Panchen Lama, since the controversy over his identity is ongoing. Any ideas?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the lamas are all consistent, I am fine with moving. Gryffindor (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism

I have some concerns about the "Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section, which was added to several articles. Please see my comments at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#"Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dalai chooses next Panchen and vice versa?

Is there any neutral reference like the official rules from Qing Dynasty's history record but from neither PRC or Tibet government in exile? Besides, the "www.tibet.org" only provides history before Qianlong and the use of Golden Urn.

I went through zh:欽定藏內善後章程. It only states that

達賴喇嘛和班禪額爾德尼像父子一樣，認定他們的靈童時，亦須將他們的名字用滿漢藏三種文字寫在籤牌上，同樣進行

It said Dalai and Panchen were like father and son, but not like who gets to choose the next of the other.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate the request for a neutral reference supporting this claim. I do not know well the history of the political situation in Tibet, but, looking at the Dalai Lama as a religious leader, I cannot possibly see how the PRC's candidate for Panchen Lama could warrant even a shred of consideration.

It also seems like it wouldn't matter even if the PRC had a political claim, as (1) few dispute the Dalai Lama as the religious leader and his necessary role in the choice, (2) he had already chosen a Panchen Lama prior to PRC, and (3) there no longer exists an emperor of China. So, regardless of whether there is text supporting his sole right to chose the Panchen Lama, it seems clear that any choice made by PRC is not consistent with any tradition.

I consider myself rather neutral on the issue, but, so far, all the evidence points to puppeteering of the PRC. I realize this is not a discussion board, but if there is any rationale (not already listed in the article) that contradicts the above conclusion, please provide it here. 108.202.193.145 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflict should be in the introduction

I believe the conflict between the Dalai Lama-run organization and the Chinese authorities is central enough to warrant a mention in the intro section. __meco (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Panchen Lamas

There seems to be a discrepency in the list of Panchen Lamas concerning who is the "first" Panchen Lama. The Dalai Lama, the NKT, and the FPMT all list Lobsang Chökyi Gyalsten as the First Panchen Lama, not the Fourth. I inquired about this and it was explained to me that the posthumous naming convention currently used in the article is the Chinese naming convention, not the Tibetan. At minimum, both naming conventions should be listed in the table and an explanation for the difference given. Any thoughts? Emptymountains (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tashi Lama?

Is this the same position described in Sven Hedin's My Life as an Explorer as the Tashi Lama? The Tashi Lama whom Hedin met also lived in Shigatse. If so, it should be included in the introduction that this is another term (maybe outmoded?) Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, older English sources often refer to the Panchen Lama as Tashi Lama. Actually, I often wonder how "official" or "correct" names like "Panchen Lama" or "Dalai Lama" are. It is well known that Tibetans rarely refer to the Dalai Lama as Dalai Lama when they are speaking Tibetan, instead using various epithets such as Kundün or Ghongsa Chog. I don't know what term Tibetans most commonly use for the Panchen Lama. There are English variants such as "Panchen Rinpoche" (used by Tsering Shakya) and "Panchen Erdeni" (especially in Chinese sources, since it emphasises ties to the Qing). In any event, "Panchen Lama" is the English standard right now.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The panchem lama is referred to as Teshoo Lama here.Rajmaan (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Panchen Erdeni

This guy is usually called Panchen Erdeni by Chinese, a title given by Kangxi Emperor. Erdeni is a Manchu word.--刻意(Kèyì) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Panchen Lama of Tibet and Panchen Lama of PRC templates

Panchen Lama is the highest ranking Lama in Tibetan Buddhism after the Dalai Lama. The current 14th Dalai Lama has appointed Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the new Panchen Lama in a Chinese-occupied Tibet. The middle-man in the Chinese-occupied Tibet who assisted Dalai Lama in appointing Panchen Lama was immediately arrested and charged with treason, and the newly appointed Panchen Lama went missing at the age of six. One year later, the Chinese government unilaterally selected a Panchen Lama for themselves, who is Gyaincain Norbu. The dispute here is whether Panchen Lama appointed by the PRC should be among the traditional line of Panchen Lamas in a template. The article current has two templates, one for the traditional Panchen Lamas, and another one for Panchen Lamas appointed by PRC. Any input is welcome, thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The naming of religious leaders is usually reserved for the religious organization so it seems that the Chinese government appointments shouldn't be listed. If they are, I suggest that the comment "(disputed)" should be included for those appointed by the Chinese government. FurrySings (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The connections between the state and institutional religion in Tibet have always been strong, which is really the rule rather than the exception throughout the world. I think it would be a serious POV problem for Wikipedia to simply declare that the government’s interference in the selection of Gyaincain Norbu makes it illegitimate. Gyaincain Norbu certainly does not present himself as the first of new lineage of “PRC Panchen Lamas”. We are simply not in a position to know which Panchen Lama candidate is seen as more legitimate by Tibetan Buddhists, and whether the less popular candidate is supported by a large minority or only a fringe element. That being the case, the best we can do is to describe the controversy and treat neither as more legitimate than the other.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is easy: document the controversy and do not exclude or give weight to supposing or opposing opinions. It isn't so simple to say that military forces may not influence or control religious governments, because they have and they do. The Sunni/Shiite Muslim schism is a good example where a schism took place because of it, whereas the Catholic Church is an example where military appointments were legitimated. The fact of the matter is that using violence to affect religious change is not historically uncommon; it just a very recent European-American ideal that the practice is wrong. This is a classic situation where a bona fide disagreement in society is taking place, and the article should reflect that, replete with sources. Sources should be given covering procedures for appointment, as well as appointment acts, along with any significant differences of opinion on either. Think of Wikipedia like the Red Cross of the Internet, we are just here to document the affair, not to decide who is right and who is wrong or to interfere. As the Austrians and Germans attempt to murder the entire Jewish race, the Red Cross gives out cold medicine and takes pictures, but otherwise lets it happen. Its sad and outrageous but it has purpose and the neutrality is a fundamental component. Int21h (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment:Wikipedia:Navigation templates says: "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." If Panchen Lamas (People's Republic of China) has only one link then separate navigation template is unjustified and Panchen Lamas (People's Republic of China) should be presented within one Panchen Lamas template, clearly separated, with short description of the controversy. (I commented here based on invitation of RfC bot).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment A link to the proposed template might be useful in working out the details. In general terms I agree with the previous 3 comments: both Panchen Lamas need to be listed with mention that the identity of the current Panchen Lama is disputed.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment-Both Panchen Lama need to be displayed and denoted as legitimate claimants to the title. However, it should be made evident that both claims are disputed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment-As of 2020, multiple RS and international majority opinion state Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is the Panchen Lama. In 1996, the French Senate referred to him as "the youngest political prisoner in the world"[1], for context. RS indicates a notable shift in 2017 with Canada's call for a UN visit to "the Panchen Lama" [2] (link found in [3]), and with a call for the immediate release of "the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima" in 2018 by U.S. State Dept [4], and there's more RS in 2020 where Trudeau writes "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet" [5]; A statement read at the UN, "Tibet's religious leader 11th Panchen Lama Gedhun Choekyi Nyima" [6]; Parliamentary statements as the "11th Panchen Lama" read in Lithuania and UK [7]; And others in 2020 including [8]. These change the dispute @Cydevil38 since we are now in the position to know which Panchen Lama is considered legitimate by an international majority, to respond to an earlier comment by @Greg Pandatshang. With these RS, I would also venture to question whether the term "dispute" is appropriate in this case - which is described as a kidnapping and forced disappearance of spiritual leader held as a political prisoner; The choice of "dispute" somehow gives weighted credibility to child abductions and forced disappearances, and another descriptive word is needed. (Of note, the phrase "Chinese government-appointed" is seen in RS as early as 2016 [9], while "proxy" is another word used in RS by 2016 [10][11] and in many NGO sources including [12][13]). Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Panchen Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116104548/http://www.savetibet.org:80/documents/pdfs/2004ReligionReport.pdf to http://www.savetibet.org/documents/pdfs/2004ReligionReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Panchen Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308132201/http://tibetoffice.org:80/en/index.php?url_channel_id=8&url_publish_channel_id=786&url_subchannel_id=13&well_id=2 to http://tibetoffice.org/en/index.php?url_channel_id=8&url_publish_channel_id=786&url_subchannel_id=13&well_id=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

John Oliver Interview Dalai Lama Over Reincarnation Controversy

Maybe an "in the media" section should be added about some of the press coverage this has gotten. The John Oliver interview from last night (March 2016) was funny but covered the situation fairly well.Jeffery Thomas 16:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Leading section

The previous leading section, written by User:Freetibet1 lacks even the most basic information on the subject. Please stop reverting it back. Esiymbro (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)