Jump to content

Talk:11th Panchen Lama controversy

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

Selection of the 11th Panchen Lama

[edit]

This should be more than a simple disambiguation page. It is the natural place for material that would otherwise have to be repeated in both of the "target" pages, e.g. the entire story of how we wound up with two purported rival Panchen Lamas. Bertport (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 1 which claims that the Panchen Lama stated support for the chinese process before he died is a blog post and is blatant propaganda. It offers no substance or evidence to back up the claim that the Panchen Lama gave authority to the Chinese government to choose his reincarnation on his deathbed other than to reiterate the statement in Chinese. Please investigate this citation and remove the statement if necessary. (google translation of the citation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.wenxuecity.com%2Fblog%2Ffrontend.php%3Fact%3DarticlePrint%26blogId%3D29089%26date%3D200711%26postId%3D13943&edit-text=&act=url ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.204.177 (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be written in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy by presenting both viewpoints in the introduction. RandomGamer123 Disc (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith revert, guidelines for controversial page not being followed

[edit]

@CaradhrasAiguo, the reasons for the revert are listed as WP:RS, WP:V. The RS problems: Goldstein's page belies a bias - his current membership in a large Chinese advocacy group. Jamyang Norbu's review criticizes Goldstein's work in detail, while Goldstein's own professor Hugh Richardson also spoke to the bias in his review for the Tibetan Review, … all Goldstein has to say about events after 1951 is that ‘a series of complicated events’ led to the flight into India of the Dalai Lama and 80,000 Tibetans. His eyes are closed to the Tibetan rising in 1959 and the accompanying bloodshed and atrocities, to the imposition of a total military and civil imperialistic dictatorship, and to the savage destruction of the Cultural Revolution. Norbu also states, The lasting impression that this huge compilation of highly selective narratives and information leaves us (although Goldstein is careful not to say it outright) is that China’s conquest of Tibet was inevitable, that Tibet died of its own inherent contradictions (as a Marxist historian might put it) and China’s invasion of Tibet and the subsequent death and destruction in that country was merely incidental and not any fault of China’s.

The WP:V is a big issue: none of the notes are verifiable; no quotations are provided from the sources; one of the sources needs a translated quotation. Quotations are needed for readers and editors to verify the text, especially since the sources are books. Policy for verification is especially important for pages about controversies. About the Kuzmin reference, it's unclear where it's noted in the text but it's an interesting view of China's codified policy to attempt to control reincarnated tulkus, which were largely developed after the kidnapping of the Panchen Lama. It would be best to arrive at consensus, but your preferred version of the page currently does not meet WP standards and policy. It also deleted multiple RS and supporting text including from the BBC, The Statesman, The Tibet Post, Tibet Post International as well as from other sources. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reasons for the page not meeting WP standards includes inaccurate information, and mischaracterizations, which begin with the statement the Panchen Lama is a "political and spiritual leadership position", which it is not. The separation of the Gelug lineage from Tibetan politics began in the 1960's, and was finalized by the 14th Dalai Lama and the CTA in 2011 +/-. The Panchen Lama is a spiritual leader. There were not "two competing candidates" since the Chinese reacted after Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was recognized to install their own candidate. The Dalai Lama did not act "unilaterally" but was interacting with Chadrel Rinpoche in the traditional esoteric process of locating the reincarnation. The text "taken into custody" does not match RS which use the various words "abducted", "kidnapped", "forcibly disappeared". The controversy in its present form further misstates facts and rewrites history.Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued
  1. Unsourced assaults on Goldstein
  2. undue reliance on the activist Jamyang Norbu (who isn't even remotely comparable a scholar), as well as
  3. the ad hominem reference to his membership of the National_Committee_on_United_States–China_Relations, the members of which include former U.S. secretaries of State Kissinger, Albright, and Rice
make it next to impossible to see your Tibetan editing in any light other than WP:ADVOCACY. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements don't address the serious issues. Goldstein's bias diff [1] ; Rice, Kissinger, and Albright do not change the issues.
Also in the first paragraph are non-standard references to the Chinese government, as in "Chinese leadership" and "leadership in China". Twice. Hum.

Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Norbu's WP:BLOG-published word on face value is a thorough trashing of WP:RS that you claim to extol. In addition, you are banned from any WP:BLP editing until 29 Sep, period. The conduct here is a strong case for making that topic ban indefinite. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Norbu's criticism is notable and included on Goldstein's page. Hugh Richardson's criticism of Goldstein is also notable, especially coming from a previous professor of an academic source with undue source weight on a page. The page doesn't use Norbu as a reference presently, so his blog isn't the issue. My interests are insuring WP:RS and WP:V and quality encyclopedic content. These are the issues we're trying to address. (And, this page isn't BLP.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) Hugh Edward Richardson did not teach at the University of Michigan (Goldstein's MA institution) or the University of Washington (Goldstein's PhD institution); neither Wikipedia's articles on Richardson nor Goldstein mention that. Describing him as Goldstein's own professor is next-level making shite up. 2) Don't conflate the "notability" of someone's criticism with taking someone's criticism at their word is the sign of someone. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few other notes for the thread, copied from another talk:

Goldstein heavy

[edit]

Weight on Goldstein as source is very heavy. Some of his opinions are contrary to history, RS, customs. I see he's often pushed on other pages, but I added an "According to..." caveat to a questionable interpretation. Tibetologist? Like Radiologist or Cardiologist? Author is the term. Will edit for consistency with his page. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His page states he is a Cultural Anthropologist. His degree is in anthropology, and he's an author most recently of articles or book chapters. The page stats also state Cultural Anthropologist.
He's also authored lots of books especially on the history of modern Tibet after his membership in the National Committee on United States-China Relations, which began in 1997. Before that, his last book was dated 1989.
The NCUSCR reaches out to academics in its programs,[2] and has an interesting outreach program for "public intellectuals" to gain more media coverage, etc: Fellows will gain access to senior policymakers and experts in both the United States and China, and to individuals and fields they would not typically be exposed to, such as the business, arts, health, and civil society sectors in China, as well as to the media in both countries. Fellows will also have access to media coaches to help edit and place op-eds and develop a social media presence. Further, successful applicants will become part of an accomplished community of PIP Fellows who have formed a strong network of mutual support and academic collaboration.[3]. Placing op-eds with the aid of vested interests is an interesting focus. The membership in NCUSCR might or might not be a contributing factor to some of the questionable opinions, while his titles on modern history of Tibet are often used as academic RS in pages on Tibetan Buddhism.
A link to his book, where the understanding of Tibetan and buddhist culture is strangely lacking [4] and where many opinions about historical events and characterizations of people are not sourced but are bantered about like irresponsible gossip, imo. Also imo, it's curious. Other thoughts besides bringing concerns to RSN? Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

move and rewrite

[edit]

Hey, Pasdecomplot, I'm concerned about that move and now rewrite. The move that you're saying lacked consensus seems to have been ten years ago from a DAB. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did the research, no records of request or CON so reverted to original name, per policy. (FYI, found another mass rewrite on related pages by same editor.) Undid the editor's work per instructions and CON. There's a formal request at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima for a move if you're interested.
Here's text from there:
Based on original page title: In WP:TITLECHANGES, policy states If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. As diffs [5][6] and research evidences, the earlier move was made without CON or request. Since that move made it unstable, the default policy is to return to the original name, and remove the redirect. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pasdecomplot, but it's been stable at that name for ten years. That's stable. It's like, the very definition of stable: hasn't changed in ten years. Hasn't been even questioned in all that time, as far as I can tell. The idea that there has to be a discussion in order to prove consensus is incorrect. There's WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. If no one has changed something, we assume there's consensus among those editing. That doesn't mean you can't question it -- consensus can change -- but moving this because there was no discussion at the time and calling it 'no consensus' is just wrong. Please go ask any experienced editor you trust; I will not consider it canvassing. —valereee (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logic says it was stable in its original form. The redirect changed its stability to instability, thus policy gives direction on resolving the issue. The move today has CON, unlike the move before which was unilateral. Also, simply because a POV move was made and no one noticed does not mean the move was NPOV, especially since the subject has been abducted and the subject's personal identity doesn't change because they've been abducted. Please see the formal request for move at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pasdecomplot, I've asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there already is a third opinion. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pasdecomplot, where's that? —valereee (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a third opinion [7]; the move today has CON. Past involvements on the page [8] have supported another editor's very serious POV problems [9] on the subject, today's efforts likewise. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, 1. that's not a third opinion, and doesn't provide consensus. 2. You had two people discussing a possible move at one of their user pages, which doesn't qualify as an RfC. 3. Their opinion seems to be Given that the move wasn't disputed or reverted, the editors back then probably didn't consider it very controversial ("WP:implicit consensus"). You could move it back boldly, or it might be best to settle it with a formal requested move which is absolutely not even support of the move. Pinging BegbertBiggs for comment. 4. Not sure what 'today's efforts likewise' means, please elucidate. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm neutral about the title, though I must agree with valereee that "11th Panchen Lama controversy" was the most recent stable title for this article. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: The Third Opinion request made about this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined). Disputes over page moves have their own resolution process which can be found at WP:RM#CM. Please use that process to resolve disputes over contested moves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, thank you! —valereee (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Transporter Man, and @BegbertBiggs sorry for the quagmire. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to 11th Panchen Lama controversy per nom. I acknowledge the request to keep this open by Pasdecomplot, but honestly, I don't see the point. Apart from them, support for the move is unanimous, and it just restores the long-standing title. It is up to them to propose a policy-based rationale for the move. No such user (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11th Panchen Lama → 11th Panchen Lama controversy – This move was predicated on the idea that the original move, ten years ago from a DAB and during an apparent DAB/redirect drive, was made without discussion and therefore didn't have consensus. The mover's argument is that because the move in 2010 didn't have a discussion, it made the article inherently unstable at the title 11th Panchen Lama controversy, which is where it was at the past ten years. There has been no apparent pushback to the move in the past ten years. My argument is that this article was stable at the previous title. Leaving this page where it is now requires merge with another page, the biography of the person who was abducted and whose abduction/controversy over the abduction this article described until this morning's move. See discussion above; further discussion at Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#Requested_move_24_October_2020. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A page move today reverted a redirect made without CON as research indicates, thus the earlier lack of CON is not "an idea". The page was stable before the move, since it didn't move. After the move, it inherently became unstable, while this request further indicates its instability. (The page was '11th Panchen Lama' at creation, moved without CON but with heavy POV to '11th Panchen Lama controversy', then returned to its original name today.) What's avoided in the request's text but proposed by the request is to add the term 'controversy' to the subject's abduction as a child and 'controversy' to his personal identity. The abduction didn't change the personal identity of the living subject, a very important Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader. His identity isn't a controversy outside the project, as Tibetan and international opinion indicates (see request for move at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima). As such, the earlier nonCON move nine years ago wrongly reinterpreted with POV the subject's identity, regardless of the time lag between then and today's correction. Furthermore, the time lag doesn't alter the earlier move's heavy POV. The move also subtly changed the page's Bio, that includes a case of child abduction and forced disappearance, into a simpler 'controversy', a misinterpretation which would benefit the abductors and the current hostages of the subject. Thus, the request is effectively also to continue misinterpreting the personal identity of the subject, which benefits his abductors and not our readers which deserve an article based on international consensus of the identity of the Panchen Lama. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to added text in request after it was posted, the request for change at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has already been made, and complies with an international common understanding of his identity. His page would follow a similar format with the 10th Panchen Lama Afterwards, this page should be merged there for obvious reasons. There's a misstatement in request suggesting whose abduction/controversy over the abduction this article described until this morning's move. No such changes in deleting this page's content was made today. Only slight maintenance after the move, as edit history indicates and as is requested. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer that this is a double !vote. —valereee (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Striking as other editor has removed their second !vote. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. Responding to four additional edits within the request after a response was posted to original request does not constitue a double vote. It only indicates why editing text[10][11][12][13] after responses are posted to texts is discouraged. Cheers! Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does "plump for it" mean @Elnon? Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's informal British English for "to vote or opt for someone or something". See Learner's Dictionaries. What on earth did you think that word meant? --Elnon (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE to closer The issue here is beyond STABLE policies, furthermore indicated by diffs which illustrate that editor's pattern of deleting information per TEND and DONTLIKE: At Samye Monastery where edit summary is fictitious [14] at Kirti Monastery with misleading edit summary [15]. A delete and smear job [16], and others. That editor's contributions include untold numbers of redirects [17]; and, diffs for the nonCON move/addition of "controversy" to this page title, here [18][19] . Thanks for the attention. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move back not only as being the most recent stable title, but also neutral RS (CNN, SCMP, The Hindu, QZ) not only note the difference between 14th Dalai Lama's 1995 pick (Nyima) and the PRC's designee (Norbu), but also, one way or the other, hint at controversy over the discrepancy, with The Hindu being explicit: However, Norbu’s appointment has not been accepted by many Tibetans in China, who recognise Nyima. Per WP:PRECISE, "controversy" must be incorporated in the title to reflect RS. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struggle session? A personal attack (including "you are not permitted" and "obnoxious" and "despicable") above this edit was deleted as per WP policies on ETIQUETTE and WP:PA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interpretation of the diffs on Rigley's comparable edits as "deplorable filibustering" is a personal opinion not supported by the content of the diffs. The diffs indicate a pattern of extreme pro-China POV, which is on-topic to the real subject here - the revert of Rigley's previous nonCON move, which is being challenged by the editor of this request. Since Rigley's move gives rise to questions as to the identity of a living person, BLP and Bio policies on living persons outweigh the concern with stability: The identity of the living person did not change after their abduction, and did not suddenly change 9 years ago when Rigley made the nonCON move. Furthermore, the description of "obnoxious caps" is a curious personal interpretation of standard formating used in the project. Addressing the POV editing patterns, as illustrated by the content of the diffs, instead of attacking the sharing of this notable on-topic information as deplorable filibustering would be more appropriate and more helpful. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring on talk

[edit]

Pasdecomplot, CaradhrasAiguo, both of you stop edit warring and not AGFing now. I recommend both of you refactor YOUR OWN posts; PDC, please stop refactoring others' posts. Best practice is to request they refactor themselves. —valereee (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but deleting PA is NOT edit waring. Nowhere in the above message is reference to PA - from an involved admin, again. Additionally, WP does not condone Struggle sessions . Maybe the other editor would be happier at Chinese Wikipedia - maybe blatant PA's are encouraged and overlooked there as contemporary Struggle sessions.
Here's the deleted record of the deleted PA: A personal attack (including "you are not permitted" and "obnoxious" and "despicable") above this edit was deleted as per WP policies on ETIQUETTE and WP:PA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks anyways. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm working here as an editor. I just want both of you to start working together as colleagues and stop saying things like despicable, obnoxious, misleading, and smear. You're both equally guilty, and I've warned both of you at user talk. Also again, best practices is to request the other editor refactor rather than to edit war. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to read a warning was posted. "Equally guilty"? Not per policy at WP:PA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

major revisions

[edit]

Hey, MarkH21, I actually think this article probably needs to be completely rewritten. There was a move request a few weeks back, and major revisions were made that reflected that move (from 11th Panchen Lama controversy to 11th Panchen Lama), so this article is currently more about the person Tibet recognizes rather than about the controversy. I've hated to just move it completely back to that earlier version as it would remove a ton of various edits. What do you think? The move was done Oct 11, and the changes were made subsequently during the move discussion. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Which version where you thinking of? The October version immediately pre-move here or the August version before the continuous chain of edits here? I haven't seen the controversial discussions and edits here (besides being aware of the two moves), so I might need some more filling in on the article issues. — MarkH21talk 16:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, well, certainly at least as far as the October version. Taking it back to the August version might be seen as a bit aggressive? Although there are some questionable things -- I don't like calling someone "the incarnate" or "incarnation of" in Wikivoice. But maybe could be handled with an edit instead of a revert? And "mysterious death" isn't explained, the sentence doesn't include a source. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I parsed through most of the diff from October 11 to now and it seems that besides the lead, the rest of the changes are mostly minor. It actually wouldn't be too much work to start with the October 11 lead and add any useful well-referenced content from the new lead back into the October 11 lead.
Outside of the changes since the move though, there are other issues as you rightly point out. A lot of statements need to be WP:INTEXT attributed and/or sourced to better refs. For example, the statements solely referenced to the Central Tibetan Administration via tibet.net and the unreferenced claims need to be addessed. But these are all edits that need to be done independently of the October 11 differences. — MarkH21talk 17:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, okay, so revert to Oct 11 version? —valereee (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: The Oct 11 version of just the lead, and then work from there. Most of the new non-lead changes seem fine. — MarkH21talk 19:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see what you think! —valereee (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Looks much better! There's still some work to be done on the article and sourcing, but definitely an improvement. — MarkH21talk 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:11th_Panchen_Lama_controversy&oldid=1212205853"