Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Wikiproject_Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Copied from WP:RM. Dragons flight 05:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Since the page for the Chinese version of the Panchen Lama, Erdini Qoigyijabu has no "11th Panchen Lama" suffix to his name, we should remove it from Gedhun Choekyi Nyima's name because two different people think they are the Panchen Lama. --Hottentot

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support --Hottentot 06:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Reserved, I would also have no prob with adding "11th Panchen Lama" suffix to Erdini Qoigyijabu, as both are claimed to be that incarnation.Alf 12:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I dont believe just because their is a dispute that it should be removed (though I favor this canidate to be the true panchen lama). I think until proof might one day be given, they both be marked the "11th Panchen Lama", especially in the case that it starts a devision on the line of reincarnations. Midusunknown 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Since the other Panchen Lama also now has the title in his name, and none of the discussions on the matter seem to have attracted much attention, I'm going to close this as no consensus and go with the apparent convention to let them keep the title. Dragons flight 05:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Discusion requested to be centralised at Panchen Lama. Alf 01:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Link : 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 02:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the news article is fine, but I must admit the above titlte is very POV, I'm fine with how I left it as I see no problem refering to it by the same name as the BBC uses for the article. I personally do not mind discussing these three articles on individual pages, but I genuinely think we'd be better talking about them together, on one page. Alf 12:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Wait until the BBC reporter becomes a Tibetan Buddhist, or live in Tibet for a while (10 years let's say), maybe I will start to believe the report.

In political term it's called "propaganda", every country is the same, the government uses the technique to make the rivals look evil, so the government can step further to control the general public. It's not a matter of communism or capitalism or democracy or whatever; propaganda is used EVERYWHERE and used by every government.
So, in conclusion of the report, every Chinese is stupid, they have no ideas about the country and the world???
No matter what type of government in China will claim the integrity of the country. The living standards of the people need to be improved or the government will be overthrown. --61.30.72.148 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

The reuters link (hosted by yahoo) is broken. I can't find it on Reuters now. 24.18.128.228 03:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I removed it and replaced it with a {{fact}} tag. Perhaps someone could find a source that works. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Urn?

Just came to read this article, not edit. Wondered what 'the Golden Urn is'? Could it be wikilinked or explained? 89.240.15.94 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and User:Blnguyen (cross posted to Qoigyijabu‎)

User:Blnguyen is actively pursuing a POV representation on the issue of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima versus Qoigyijabu‎. That WP:NPOV dictates that neither should be identified as the Panchen Lama seems trite policy to me.

It is telling that User:Blnguyen signs off with an edit summary of "POV", for indeed that is the best description for his reversions. Please keep to NPOV. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries correctly if you're going to do reverts. A revert is never a minor edit, and your edit summary should state that the edit in question is a revert.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To me, a repeated revert where the other side has not given a sensible reason is a trivial revert, and is thus a minor edit. However, I will keep your view in mind for the future. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, your version is based on moral relativism. The subject of this article was indeed installed by the PRC, and then they removed the original Panchen Lama. The PRC is avowedly athestic, and speaks against religion; they are definitely not a religious authority and communist doctrine is avowedly against religion. Your versions (and in the corresponding article) assume that both the Tibetan monastic community and Chinese Communist Party are of the same genre, ie, competing Buddhist organistations, which is misleading. A search on news sites etc, shows that the CCP is taken as a political org and call him "China's Panchen Lama" and note that he was "installed" and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Moral relativism?? You can't be serious. Wikipedia is about attribution to verifiable sources, not your own moral judgments! Keep your ideology out of Wikipedia, please, and stick to reporting the facts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"My" version is based on the agreed NPOV version which had been stable for a long time. The reality of the situation is that there are two views as to who the Panchen Lama is. The PRC government has one view, and that view is, at least nominally, accepted by religious leaders in Tibet. The government in exile has another view, and that view is, at least nominally, accepted by religious leaders outside Tibet. As I said before, it is trite policy that both views should be presented and neither should be presented as the Panchen Lama.
Seriously, I can't believe Blnguyen, an experienced administrator of excellent standing, is proposing such an extremist and POV verison. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard, I appreciate that your goal here is to seek NPOV. I have to admit that I don't really know what the NPOV solution is. The problem is not so much "moral relativity" as Blnguyen puts it, but of balancing competing claims. We don't describe Benedict XVI in the same terms that we use for Michael I or Pius XIII, even though each claims to be the Pope. This is not completely analogous to the Panchen situation, since both contenders presumably have more supporters than any of the fringe soi disant popes. However, it's very difficult to judge the extent of support for Qoigyijabu, since there is political repression of public support for the other candidate.
With regard to Qoigyijabu, it is probably sufficient to say that he is supported by the People's Republic of China. However, it is misleading to say simply that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is supported by the exile government. More importantly, he is supported by the Dalai Lama and also by the Ganden Tripa (the formal head of the Gelug sect); and, crucially, by Chadrel Rinpoche, a thoroughly nonpolitical figure who was abbot of the Panchen Lama's monastery, Tashilhunpo, and the head of the government-sponsored search committee for the new Panchen Lama; and, also by the authorities at the exile campus of Tashilhunpo in Bylakuppe. Riots at Tashilhunpo (in Shigatse) after the selection of Qoigyijabu seem to imply that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima had significant support among the rank-and-file of Tashilhunpo as well. Would it be fair to say that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is the current Panchen Lama "according to religious authorities"?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Nat, I am okay with your proposal. There are several difficulties I see with this situation, and which I think means Wikipedia should tread carefully in this instace. I don't know whether you will agree with any or all of them, so here they are:
First, the actual level of support among Tibetans in Tibet for either candidate is difficult to guage. We have evidence towards the one side or the other from different sources, and the persuasiveness of those sources is debatable and would vary from person to person according to ideology.
Secondly, as you say, it's inaccurate to say that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is supported by the government in exile, as that implies that he is supported only by the government in exile. At the same time, given point one, I think it is also inaccurate to say that Qoigyijabu is supported by the PRC government, as that implies that he is supported only by the PRC government - we simply don't know with any level of certainty the level of acceptance for him on the ground in Tibet.
Thirdly, one issue I had with simply descripting Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as "the Panchen Lama" is that he hasn't actually been officially recognised as the Panchen Lama. He was the favoured candidate according to the original selection committee, a view supported by the Dalai Lama, but the rites confirming him as the Panchen Lama were never performed.
In any case, your proposal is an improvement on the current version, and I would support it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the relevant difference between the situation of Gendün Chökyi Nyima and that of Qögyijabu is that the People's Republic of China government seems to be his most important and relevant supporter. Do we have any concrete examples of anybody outside the government who is known to really support Qögyijabu? On the other hand, Gendün Chökyi Nyima's supporters are the various religious leaders of the Gelug sect, of which the Panchen is a member. So, it's not clear to me that the evidence warrants treating them equally.
Also, FYI, the enthronement ceremonies for Gendün Chökyi Nyima have never been carried out in his presence, but they were held on his behalf in March, 1996 at the Bylakuppe campus of Tashilhünpo.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, remote enthronement has about as much practical legitimacy as the Jacobite succession.
I mean, the situation is that, within the PRC, for all practical purposes, Qögyijabu is the Panchen Lama. Now, the religious legitimacy of that situation might well be doubted, but that is the reality. Remember that most of Tibet is in the PRC and most Tibetans live in the PRC. Even if they do not accept him, he is the only Panchen Lama that they see. There are probably also Tibetans who do not accept the PRC government in Tibet, but it is nevertheless governing Tibet.
Here on Wikipedia, we should report what is disclosed by reliable sources, and what is disclosed by reliable sources is this: Qögyijabu is supported by the PRC, and Gendün Chökyi Nyima is supported by the exiled government and/or community. The actual level of support for either amongst ordinary Tibetans is unknown and unverifiable, because there has not been, nor is there likely to be, a poll amongst ordinary Tibetans in Tibet. Unless and until the repressive communist regime gets overthrown or reforms of its own accord, any evidence about Tibetans supporting the one or the other is inherently anecdotal or propagandist in nature - and we have such evidence from both sides of the debate.
You ask if there is any evidence that anybody outside the government is known to "really" support Qögyijabu? There is no way for us to know that. All the principal lamas in Tibet appears to support him. Are they doing this genuinely or out of fear of the government? We can all guess what the answer is, but it would be irresponsible to present guesswork and speculation as fact on Wikipedia.
And once you start delving into who really supports who, it all gets postmodernist and you may as well start asking "does anybody in China really support the PRC government? and if not, does that make the PRC not the government of China?"
The thing is, Gendün Chökyi Nyima enjoys a much wider celebrity outside China than he does inside. Given the unpopularity of the communist government and the popularity of the Dalai Lama, it is easy to condemn everything associated with the PRC government and present it as fake, illegitimate, or part of a campaign of oppression. It is harder, but in better accordance with Wikipedia's principles, to be neutral and stick to reporting the facts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


If 10th Panchen died on Jan. 28 1989, how could Nyima born on Apr. 25 1989 be his next reincarnation? As you can see from the list of every Dalai and Panchen, they often followed the previous ones with an interval of a year or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialsz (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no "rules" for reincarnation as we know it, lol. People are so funny trying to add legality and regulations to the wheel of life and death! The communist party: "You're not allowed to reincarnate without our permission!" To them I would say, try and stop me. What, you gonna kill me for reincarnating? What do you think will happen when I die?Dragonnas (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compassion

Please see Talk:Panchen Lama for some remarks about the two articles on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu. Mesopelagicity (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I've added a POV tag to this article for reasons explained in Talk:Panchen Lama, in particular the link to "forced disappearance" from the text that currently reads "his whereabouts are kept undisclosed to protect him". Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)