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)

move and rewrite

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)

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 [2][3] 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)

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)

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)

Pasdecomplot, I've asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

there already is a third opinion. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, where's that? —valereee (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There already is a third opinion [4]; the move today has CON. Past involvements on the page [5] have supported another editor's very serious POV problems [6] on the subject, today's efforts likewise. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

TransporterMan, thank you! —valereee (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Transporter Man, and @BegbertBiggs sorry for the quagmire. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2020

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 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. Further discussion at Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#Requested_move_24_October_2020. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• 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. 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. It 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)