Talk:11th Panchen Lama controversy: Difference between revisions

Selection of the 11th Panchen Lama

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)

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)

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)

Bad faith revert, guidelines for controversial page not being followed

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)