Talk:14th Dalai Lama

Born place

It says: Taktser, Amdo, Tibet. The main problem is: in Wikipedia we say either the region/state which controlled the town/city/settlement at the moment, or the present day state/country which does it now. In this case, Tibet didn't control the region in 1935, and neither does it today. Someone could say "but it was inside the historical region of Tibet called Amdo", which is true, but it isn't sufficient. The correct form should be "Taktser, Qinghai, China", or "Taktser, Amdo Region, Qinghai, China", or even also without mentioning China itself. Because les't be real, the main reason for someone to have put Amdo, Tibet is to hid that the Dalai Lama was born outside Tibet or tibetan-controlled territories.

Other examples: Murat Karayılan, one of the leaders of the PKK, has in its page "Birecik, Şanlıurfa, Turkey", not saying West Kurdistan. Abdul Haq, from the Turkestan Islamic Party, has "Hotan Prefecture, Xinjiang, China".

And so, as the page said "Do not change without consensus", I'm asking so we can come to one. Wario2 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"in Wikipedia we say either the region/state which controlled the town/city/settlement at the moment" ... Can you cite the rule that requires this? Currently the article cites 2 official sources listing Tibet as the country of his birthplace. Can you provide sources which state he was born in China, or that Amdo was part of China at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:897F:8C40:1169:C757:A266:89D8 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The border between Tibet and China was ill defined at the time of his birth. I don't dispute it's outside the current autonomous province of Tibet, but at the time things were less clear. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Child 'tongue sucking'/'mouth kissing' incident (April 2023)

There is discussion happening in the edits that may be better suited for this talk page regarding what article heading best describes the incident. There have also been comments in the edits expressing disagreement over what may be the proper tone for this subsection, given its serious and controversial subject nature. I hope discussion can happen here instead, as it will make the conversation easier to follow and any consensus reached will then be easily available for review by any who are interested. Let's remember to discuss in good faith, guys! RebelliousBees (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit by @Petrarchan47 is quite correct. The heading should be “Asking a child to suck his tongue” as that is the main focus of the sources rather than the Dalai Lama’s kissing the child’s mouth. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the headlines in the British papers just now, they seem to weight both equally. The kiss is what actually happened. It seems extremely obvious, and common sense, to me that the tongue part was "teasing" or a joke, unless you seriously think the Dalai Lama expected the child to suck his tongue. The child did what you'd expect. It does need that qualification. (in the edit history, an editor said that it's the Dalai Lama who said this, but the statement doesn't single out the tongue part specifically).

It may be useful to add more context. E.g. The child requested a hug; tongue greeting is a thing in Tibetan society.

Unfortunately, someone has already restored that heading, before there was consensus, and despite the very good faith act by RebelliousBees of starting a discussion on this talk page. Meerta (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism and headlines are pretty balanced between whether the kissing or the tongue was the issue. My original heading read "sexual misconduct," and while I don't think that heading is accurate anymore, maybe something more general like that would fit best (since we can't agree on mouth kissing or tongue sucking)? Even something simple like "Behavior towards child" would be better than the heading changing every 5 seconds. Anastasius4441 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Behavior toward child is too euphemistic. It is better to use concrete statements of what indisputably occurred.

I would actually favor "Kissing a child on the mouth and asking him to suck his tongue" to address both factual points, but if that's too long the latter is the more salient element. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also prefer a title that addresses the tongue. While headlines and criticism are more balanced quantity-wise, I think people are more upset about the tongue than the kissing. A majority of people can understand that mouth kissing is common in other cultures, but pretty much everybody is questioning rather than understanding the tongue thing. Anastasius4441 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a general Wikipedia policy that section headings must avoid "euphemism". A more generalized heading might be a good solution, otherwise it's a longer more unwieldly heading to address these two aspects of what happened. What happened is covered (albeit in a very bare bones way) in the section. This seems common enough.

If the editors here think that most people understand mouth kissing is common in other cultures, that's interesting. For me (while I want to avoid commenting on this personally), that would leave very little to be concerned about, because of the absurdity of thinking he really wanted him to suck his tongue. The child recoiled and (apparently) stuck his own tongue out, and the Dalai Lama laughed. The way he asked - and stuck his tongue out - was of a piece with this.Meerta (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking of WP:NOTCENSORED, and the necessity of avoiding WP:SYNTH in headings through the way we summarize. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We're certainly not censoring if it's fully laid out in the section, and not synthesizing to a conclusion in the heading if the heading is a neutral nature. (Not implying some conclusion.) "Behaviour towards child" (for example) certainly wouldn't be trying to minimize anything."*name of place* incident" would be more neutral still. Meerta (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Dharamshala Temple Student/Child Incident, perhaps? Covers location, subject, and nature of concern (incident regarding a child). Anastasius4441 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems appropriate to me, anyway. Meerta (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not adequate. Based on this heading - what happened with the child? Did the Dalai Lama yell at him? Push him down? Did the child do something? This avoids reckoning with the actual substance of what occurred. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Said substance is found underneath in the actual text describing the incident, no? Anastasius4441 (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot have everything in a heading. Meerta (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It is true he kissed the child on the mouth. But he also asked the child to suck his tongue. Asking a child to suck his tongue is also what actually happened.

Tongue greeting is a cultural practice, but sucking another's tongue, or requesting that one's tongue be sucked, is not. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm not suggesting it is, but clearly the greeting is relevant context here, enough for the BBC to put out an article about it.Meerta (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I added some links/information about Langdarma and the tongue gesture. I hope this helps in someway to expand this section. I don't really want to defend or excuse it, but honestly, I thought it was fascinating to find out and read about the background of the gesture and figured I should include it. conman33 (. . .talk) 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The section does not seem balanced on the whole. While the controversy centers around the tongue request and kiss, they appear under weight. I still want to include some background and cultural aspects, but not to the extent that they overshadow the main point. Vacosea (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it seems pretty unbalanced between discussion of the actual controversy with background and such. If nobody else does, I will try to balance out background with criticism/discussion so that it's more neutral and informative later tonight. Anastasius4441 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed up some balancing and moved some info around and I think the text is pretty much good at the moment, unless some new develops arise in the coming days. Only thing that maybe could be fixed (that I can't do any time soon as I'm on a trip) is the abundance of sources used for the same thing. The opening paragraph for the incident has like 5 of pretty much the same source. If someone wants to fix that that'd be great and we can be done with this incident! Anastasius4441 (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is ‘sucking’ involved in Tibetan tradition of sticking out tongue in greeting? Respect for children's rights is universal! Cannot be justified by cultural or religious differences. Any act of indecency and obscenity against a child is a serious crime that must be reported to the authorities, regardless of the social or religious status of the perpetrator. Hugs are fine not this. Don’t normalise molestation of children! --87.170.205.121 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion to suck the tongue was certainly not literal, and has been well explained by now by the Tibetan community, who can see the obvious political dimension to this. The greeting is obviously worthwhile context. Don't normalize making anonymous defamatory accusations against other Wikipedia editors, and perhaps try to avoid turning this into a discussion forum on the topic. Meerta (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No. There is no ‘sucking’ involved in Tibetan tradition of sticking out tongue in greeting. A "suggestion"? No, it was a demand in Imperative mood! And he literally said it, no need for an exegesis for that. --91.54.22.149 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody in this entire discussion has implied that the tongue sucking is part of the culture, and nobody in their right mind would think that. What we're saying is that he stuck his tongue out as part of a common cultural gesture in Tibet, and said "now suck my tongue" as a joke. Everybody in the room laughed, and everybody clearly understood that it was a joke. Plus there's the fact that "now suck my tongue" isn't even an accurate translation according to an edit from yesterday.

You're using this talk page to argue with people who know how to use and edit wikipedia to its most accurate and informative, which means including all angles, perspectives, and nuances. Anastasius4441 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

And, as it turns out, even the saying "suck my tongue" is part of the culture, especially in Amdo where the Dalai Lama is from. It doesn't actually happen. It's something that is said playfully. But, again, this talk page isn't really meant to be a discussion forum about it. Meerta (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

An other attempt is made to defend the indefensible? And that argument doesn’t even hold water. Tibetans in exile don’t use this way of greeting each other, they also don’t tend to greet each other through kissing each other on the cheek or on the mouth, not to mention sucking their tongues. The DL didn’t greet the boy in ancient Tibetan fashion (lce bsnar/rkyang): "According to Tibetan folklore, a cruel ninth-century Tibetan king had a black tongue, so people stick out their tongues to show that they are not like him (and aren't his reincarnation)"! (source) He didn't want to show that he has no black tongue. Like that anti-Buddhist king.

Nor did he ask the boy to eat his tongue (lce bza’), for lack of giving a candy or anything else to “eat”, he asked him to suck his tongue (lce gzhib). The DL is not the boy’s elder or family and the scene does not take place in a modest Tibetan home, but in the DL’s rich temple complex in Dharamsala! In Tibetan — as in any other language — "suck", "eat" and "lick" has the same sexual connotations! Tenzin Gyatso is well read and versed in the study of tantric practice.

Tricycle : "In the video, a young boy approaches the microphone and asks if can hug the Dalai Lama. The 87-year-old points to his cheek, saying “First here,” after which the child kisses his cheek and hugs him. The Dalai Lama then points to his lips and says, “I think here also” and pulls the boy’s chin and kisses him on the mouth. He then tells the boy “And suck my tongue,” sticking his tongue out, forehead to forehead with the boy. The Dalai Lama then laughs and pulls the boy in for another hug. ... The statement did not mention the kiss or extended tongue, only that the boy asked the Dalai Lama for a hug."

For worshipers the DL is a holy man with blessings, transmittable through hearing, touching, taste, Darshan (Indian religions), an embrace, prasada, “liberation through seeing”, etc. Whatever way a holy man chooses to pass on his blessing is acceptable for the faithful, including jokes, teasing and crazy wisdom.

Child rights activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu said we should not normalise child molestation under the garb of playful behaviour with children. This is NOT playful banter & so inappropriate to use ‘affectionately plants kiss’ alongside ‘suck my tongue’. Hugs are fine not this. Don’t normalise molestation of kids Don’t care how revered the Dalai Lama is I’m not OK with a child sucking a grown man/woman/anyone’s tongue,” (The Independent, 13/04/2023)

The embarrassed laughter, the collective humiliation and the total subjugation of all those present, it's traumatic. All those present are "unmasked", as we say in crazy wisdom jargon. He does it because he can, because he has a hold on people. Who says nothing consents. It may take you a long time to be able to recognise it, but it was abuse.--91.54.18.20 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Although I understand the nature of your view and the counterarguments both, it is important to remember the policy guideline that Wikipedia is WP:Notaforum. The most useful comments are the ones that raise additional sources to consider or important material from a source that has not been included, as you did here with The Independent article we already cite but the missing perspective of the independently wiki notable Mos-Shogbamimu. I added it as you suggested. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Shola Mos-Shogbamimu's comment is opinion (of course she's right, but suggestion it applies to the Dalai Lama is a very controversial opinion. The section is now very heavy with different opinions, including ones that seem to completely ignore some of the Tibetan perspectives. ('Indian journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick said that sticking out one's tongue is different from "asking a minor to suck it."' Yes - we know, and that had already been fully addressed.) How many missing perspectives are we going to include? Many comments by Tibetans are missing. I think we should be careful about bowing to politically motivated rants here. Meerta (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

He touched Lady Gaga's leg

As my colleagues here can observe, the title heading for Lady Gaga "incident" is in line with policy. However the continued whitewashing and editorializing over the child tongue sucking "incident" will likely end up with an RfC, which I'm happy to initiate should this continue. We follow sources. petrarchan47คุก 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am among those in agreement with your construction of the heading. Perhaps now that the heat of the breaking news cycle has worn off, it will be easier to keep this heading in line with policies.

An additional observation I would add is that the construct of "Dharamshala Temple child incident" is not repeated in sources. Indeed, a google search for that phrase yields more naturally titled results like:

Dalai Lama apologizes after video asking child to ‘suck’ his tongue sparks outcry

Dalai Lama apologises after kissing boy and asking him to ‘suck my tongue’

Dalai Lama shown in video kissing boy, asking child to ‘suck’ his tongue

What Full Video of Dalai Lama Kissing Boy Reveals

And many more. While a Wikipedia heading is not the same as a newspaper headline, these examples show us that "Dharamshala Temple child incident" is not a natural or clear phrasing, but that a heading addressing the Dalai Lama kissing the child on the mouth and asking him to suck his tongue would be. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The RfC will be necessary. I like your idea and encourage you to initiate it. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Late reply, but I do agree. Not a single source currently used in that sections calls this the "Dharamshala Temple child incident". Instead, virtually all sources use "child kissing"/"tongue sucking" or some similar wording, and the section should be titled accordingly. I personally think "scandal" rather than "incident" is appropriate here, though that can be discussed. Cortador (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you have the wherewithal to initiate the RfC? It has been a long time since anyone contributed to the talk page discussion.

I see potential options as:

A. Dharamshala Temple child incident (current wording)

B. Kissing and asking child to suck his tongue (I favor this this as it describes what everyone agrees occurs, but implies no stance on whether it was a normal joke/teasing, abnormal joke/teasing, or some form of abuse - interpretations should be handled in body).

How would you suggest? And what else is reasonable? JArthur1984 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Tongue sucking incident" sounds quite colloquial to me, even though it's widely reported as such. Vacosea (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole section has been removed twice by JRDkg due to a complaint about the sources.[1][2] I still think it should be mentioned, if not by itself then at least in the Dharamshala temple/tongue sucking section. Vacosea (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Following the temple child incident in 2023, video footage from 2016 showing the Dalai Lama touching Lady Gaga's leg caused further controversy. The event occurred during a compassion conference in Indiana about individuals experiencing physical and psychological difficulties and how to support them. In the video, the religious leader is seen hardly paying any attention to the speaker. He looked down at Lady Gaga's leg, where the skin is exposed from her torn trousers, and touched it with his fingers. Lady Gaga looked back at the Dalai Lama, shook her head, and smiled awkwardly. When he attempted the same action on her other leg, she grabbed his hand and stopped him from following through.

References

Re RfC

Touching base after a long, site-wide block due to IP-range block... Checking to see if there is still an appetite for this change? I'm not sure why but the subtitle heading was switched back to 'Dharamsala young boy incident'. Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The initial reaction to this topic may have cooled off now that it is long out of the news cycle, as only proponents of a non-euphemistic title have commented on talk recently. Nonetheless, It is possible we will still need an RfC. I will make a change now, and ask that anyone who disagrees to please come to talk to raise proposed alternative headings so that an RfC can be properly formatted and the possible approaches discussed. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. petrarchan47คุก 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vacosea You were also someone who recently expressed a preference here. See if you find the current formulation ("Kissing child") to be acceptable from your perspective. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not in keeping with RS. For instance this from NPR: The Dalai Lama apologizes for asking a young boy to suck his tongue. The controversy was not regarding the kiss according to sources, so we simply need to follow their language on WP, in my understannding. petrarchan47คุก 15:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

References to him

In the cartoon series Avatar: The Last Airbender and its sequel, Legend of Korra; there are 2 characters named after him https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Tenzin https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Gyatso which has been confirmed. I am throwing in the idea to put it somewhere but I don't know if you consider that an honour, or "in media" or even if its worth mentioning Voball the wiki man (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion attempt ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

This deletion attempt may be of interest to editors and readers of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)