Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 1

message: * The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know...
Does anybody else think the external link above would be helpful?  I have posted it to this article, but it was removed by Hottentot.  Please give an opinion.  I personally, believe that the link is extremely relavent to the article.--FT in Leeds 02:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is a good one, but it belongs on  the Panchen Lama page as it concerns the 11th Panchen Lama controversy.  technopilgrim 01:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link : The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know 

message: I noted a disagreement between user 207.74.176.221 and Fuzheado about the use of the title "His Holiness". The fact is that the Government of Tibet in Exile uses this title when refering to the Dalai Lama. However, articles about people in encyclopedias should not use people titles without referencing it. I would suggest to rephrase the intro as the following:
The Dalai Lama (also known as "His Holiness The Dalai Lama" according to buddhists) belongs to the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism.
Waiting for your feedback and comments. Svest 13:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 That's tough. Your wording is certainly more NPOV. OTOH, as often in such cases, it is more complicated, and the information gained per word is very little. It seems that people who deny the epiteth tend to generally not believe in religious concepts, so it has less meaning for them anyway. 
We have several precedents where Wikipedia or even most of the world adopts the terms used by followers or those close to the subject:
* Holy See 
* Church of Scientology – not everyone agrees that this even is a church; yet, in the article it is commonly referred to as "the church" or "The Church".
* the title The Honourable does not mean that Wikipedia endorses the honour of a thus labelled person.
* Democratic People's Republic of Korea
On the other hand, assume a dictator calls himself "benefactor of mankind" and kills everyone who doesn't pay him this honour then i would strongly oppose this here. 
So I guess you can find arguments for both sides. Personally, i'd prefer the direct title in this case because most people in the free world would agree that the Dalai Lama is closer to a holy person than to a malevolent dictator. 
— Sebastian (T) 02:21, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC) 
:I totally agree with your comment Sebastian.  - Svest 18:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
: Not one of those examples serves as a precedent that could parallel the proposed use in this article of "HH" before "DL" (other than in quotes to show how those who use it do so):
:* Holy See is a short article principally about the distinctions between the RC Archdiocese of Rome and the state of the Vatican City; while it could be argued that it should be moved to Archdiocese of Rome (leaving the current title as a redirect), it combines the virtues of brevity and clarity, and is not so prominent an article (less so than Vatican City, let alone Pope) as to motivate many of us to worry long about it.
:* Church of Scientology is an article about the organization with (not that it matters much) that legal name, separate from the article on Scientology, the belief system that it promotes. The "Church" name is more widely recognized than any other for the organization, and it conforms to the policy that disambiguation of names without using  such parenthetic suffixes as (in this case) "(organization)" and "(belief system)" is preferred.  (BTW, modern usage is pretty loose about accepting things as churches; the Universal Life Church ordained the Rev. Jefferson F**** Poland of Sexual Freedom League fame, and included the Shiva Fellowship, whose sole sacrament, in honor of Shiva the Destroyer, was the destruction of cannabis in burnt sacrifices.)
:* The Honourable is an article that reports on the use of that expression in various settings; it no more advocates anyone by it than the article F*** advocates use of that term in place of sexual intercourse.  (IIRC, there are plenty of articles that do apply titles that are at least similar to "The Honourable", to individuals within the British nobility and officialdom. But the persistence of most of them may well reflect giving lower priority to fixing articles on people less prominent than the DL.)
:* Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a redirect to North Korea, an article that mentions that long name but always refers to the country by the article's (two-word) title.
:And tho it shouldn't need to be said, neither the extremely valid opinion expressed above (viz., that the DL deserves an honorific  more than would the hypothetical brutal egomaniacal dictator), nor that opinion's prevalence, is of any interest whatsoever to this discussion. 
:--Jerzy (t) 04:06, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
(still on topic within the same section:)
...Let me count the ways: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's rv of the insertion of His Holiness obviated that item on my to-do list, but more could be said about the insertion's unsuitability. Not only was the reverted edit in violation of NPoV, it also violates the rules of context that apply to such titles.  Have you ever heard the expression "Their Majesties, the 98 Kings of England" or "Their Holinesses, the Popes"? Such titles are applied only to a single person (and if i am not mistaken, only to a living person -- you can't libel a dead person, nor perhaps honor anything but the memory of them), or in a borderline case, to a very specific and small group (i would imagine "Would Your Majesties like a cuppa?" is appropriate to a king and queen) and never to a class of people or to the office itself: e.g. not "and on Tuesday he was crowned His Majesty King of England".  
This talk page's article is not about the current DL, whom some refer to (in PoV fashion) as HH or HH the DL.  It is about the office and all those who have held it.  (-- a fact that i will make less obscure than even the current text does, in the lead 'graph in a moment.)
--Jerzy (t) 04:06, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
:::See the article on His Holiness to understand why its use does not violate NPOV. It is always proper etiquette to refer to the Pope, the Dalai Lama, various patriarchs, etc., as "His Holiness".  This usage in no way implies an endorsement of the respective religion or that particular person's claim to his position. It is merely a term of respect and should be used when refering to the person in a formal context.  technopilgrim 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not uncommon for a leader of people or the head of a religious organization, to dictate how they are best addressed. Even among the English peerage there is some lattitude as to how they style their name and form of addresss. Though usually, once decided it's a done deal. I have no difficulty with the inclusiion of HH for the Dalai Lama.Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalai Lama and the HH title

message: I deleted "Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have postponed their own nirvana and chosen to take rebirth to serve humanity" and linked the previous sentence to "Bodhisattva" instead. Quite apart from the contradiction (surely enlightened beings are those who have attained nirvana?) the whole idea of postponement is fraught with problems. See e.g. Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, pp.52-3 Shantavira 08:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ocean. Markalexander100 08:09, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Dalai in Mongolian.  Gyato in Tibetan.  Different languages, different words. ;-) Markalexander100 01:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense! --Menchi 01:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Enlightenment