Talk:Kelsang Gyatso

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation needed for Geshe degree[edit]

In the section "Life and education in Tibet" a good verifiable independent citation is needed for the statement: "Kelsang Gyatso passed two examinations at Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse, and received his Geshe degree". A problem with the last part of that statement is that Tashilhunpo Monastery did not confer Geshe degrees - they did have a degrees called "Kachu" and "Kachen" - which, while being pretty much the same thing as different levels of the Geshe degree (in the Gelukpa tradition at that time only conferred by Sera, Drepung and Gaden), but these are not precisely equivalent. (See: Tarab Tulku (2000) A Brief History of Tibetan Academic Degrees in Buddhist Philosophy (NIAS Reports). NIAS Press. ISBN: 8787062852).

"Geshe" is of course also frequently used in Tibetan as a respectful title for learned monks, whether or not they actually formally hold a "Geshe degree". So the problem is not with the appellation, just with the statement that the subject of the article received a Geshe degree at Tashilhunpo.

If a reliable and verifiable citation cannot be found for that statement it should be removed.

Chris Fynn (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To sort this out, I changed "Geshe degree" to "higher degree" — but it still requires a proper, verifiable citation. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why Kelsang Gyatso can't be referred to as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, since that is his commonly known name. It's not as if he's some Western charlatan who hasn't studied and practiced relevantly. And as I'#m sure we all know, his title has been used by both Trijang Rinpoche and the 14th Dalai Lama. The removal of "Geshe" in the name of this article appears motivated by a partisan position towards him. Many sources referred to by Wikipedia articles (including this very one) use the title, showing that it is his common name. And as you say above, Chris, if there is doubt about the formal conferring of the title it is sensible to omit any formal claim to it but use it informally as his commonly known name. I am concerned that Wikipedia doesn't allow this partisan editing to prevail. I wouldn't want to see the 14th Dalai Lama's article renamed "False Dalai Lama" for the same reason - his commonly known name is HH The (Fourteenth) Dalai Lama and people have every right to find him in Wikipedia under that name.Beeflin (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Formal or informal titles need only be mentioned once in an article, they do not need to be repeated. If you think geshe should be in the title of this article maybe the article could be moved to Kelsang Gyatso (geshe) - but I suspect that would only lead to further disagreement. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) —innotata 04:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kelsang Gyatso to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso – Please see Talk Page section on use of Geshe as being Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's given name in general use and in academic articles, BBC, and quality newspaper articles. That there are many examples of the title being used for other Tibetan Geshe monks throughout Wikipedia, along with other given Tibetan titles such as Dalai Lama. HighWindows (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this a bit... Its a tough call because of the example with things like "Doctor" and other titles being avoided at all costs. It does seem like it fits a subsection of exceptions where he is almost exclusively referred to as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in academic pieces. I know @Cullen328: was the primary person who was not interested in this initially, so its pretty important to get his point of view on the issue before we make any big changes. Cullen- if the individual is almost always referred to in that way in the way that it becomes part of their name, does this qualify as something similar to the "Dalai Lama"? I guess to establish this the user HighWindows would need to provide a handful of citations of proving this. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reliable source has been furnished that says that "Geshe" is part of his given name. Everything I have read including in our article Geshe and its references, is that it is an academic honorific like "professor" or "doctor". According to the Manual of Style, we do not use such honorifics in article titles or when referring to them. If other articles use "geshe" contrary to the MOS, fix those articles. Please do not perpetuate the problem in this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen, I am sorry but I think this may be about cultural differences, I feel that the use of these "titles" is different in Tibetan culture. I also feel that this is how Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is referred to in all the academic articles I have looked at, why should Wikipedia be any different? You said that the title Dalai Lama was different because he is always referred to in this way, "Consensus for "Dalai Lama" is very clear as that is indisputably what all reliable sources call him." I feel I have given a number of clear examples that clearly indicate this is the name used for Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, it is what "all reliable sources call him." You seem to feel this is an acceptable reason for the Dalai Lama's title to be used, he also has a name, Tenzin Gyatso, why should this not also apply to him? I am very concerned that removing the name Geshe across all articles in Wikipedia is going to cause offence, it would surely then be necessary to remove all such names, including Dalai Lama as I am not sure "a reliable source can be furnished to say that this is part of Tenzin Gyatso's name." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighWindows (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC) HighWindows (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Cullen328 rightfully explained a million times on this talk page, Wikipedia has certain policies. Geshe is not part of Kelsang Gyatso's name. Its an honorific. VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: is also knowledgeable about such things.VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone explain clearly, what is the difference between this title and the Dalai Lama's title? Also please could the people who feel so strongly about this explain if they are now going to remove ALL honorific titles from all the other pages as it is not right that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's page should be singled out? If this is going to be classified as an honorific title, which I feel is only a conventional western interpretation of this,then does not the following rule now apply:"Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (currently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorific_prefixes. Enough academic articles have been and can be provided to show that indeed Geshe is so commonly attached to Kelsang Gyatso that it should be included. Why would Wikipedia wish to be the only academic article that does not use this name? I am new to Wikipedia and I am rather taken aback at the lack of real discussion, it seems statements are made and actions taken without any real engagement in explanation or discourse. It may be that some of you have been discussing this for a while but I haven't and I am genuinely confused about why there is a problem with the use of this name.HighWindows (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The primary reason is WP:HONORIFIC, see, e.g. Elizabeth II whose article is not "Queen Elizabeth II". "Geshe" is a title. The exceptions appear to exist for a very few people, the current Pope and Dalai Lama among them. Dalai Lama is an article about the office. 14th Dalai Lama is about the current office holder, whose birth name was Tenzin Gyatso. I believe that a similar pattern is followed with the Pope, where Pope Francis was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but that is not the title of the article about him now. Geshes, in contrast, are numerous, rather like Catholic Cardinals, (see List_of_living_cardinals, where "Cardinal" or "Bishop" is not added to their article title)) and by and large do not do a name change with their titles, one Geshe example being Tashi Tsering, where there are two men with a Geshe title (plus a soccer player and a couple other folks). Montanabw(talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response but for me this does not address this point: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (currently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorific_prefixes. Because all reliable sources use the title Geshe, for Kelsang Gyatso, it should be included here. It also does not address the point of who is going to remove the title Geshe from all the other Wikipedia pages if it is going to be removed from this one because otherwise there is an inferred inferiority to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's position? This would suggest bias on the part of Wkipedia. HighWindows (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO. What part of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT did you not get? If there are other articles titled "Geshe" - they should be moved to the name without the honorific. We don't title Barack Obama's article "President Barack Obama", and so on. There are some exceptions (Chief Joseph, for complicated reasons, but not, for example Sitting Bull) Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improper referencing[edit]

HighWindows inserted improper references such as:

  • Geshe Kelsang Gyatso "Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain Transplantation, Development and Adaptation" David N Kay978-0-415-75397-5
  • Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, New Religions By Carol S. Matthews
  • Geshe Gyatso, 'British Buddhism'Teachings, Practice and Development.'Robert BluckVictoriaGraysonTalk 03:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen this has been added as improper referencing. I do not understand why? Is this really the way people are treated on here, I hoped as someone new that if I made a mistake it would be pointed out to me, not just labelled "improper" without any explanation. I apologise if it was done wrongly, I am new and am doing my best. I was trying to show that the name Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is used in the article and therefore it was appropriate to include it in the body of the text, like a quote almost. I thought this was helpful. I am not at all happy with the way this discussion in general has been handled and will seek out some advice on whether this is how all discussions are handled. I have found people to be unhelpful and their actions aggressive, such as removing my hard work and labelling it "improper" with no explanation.HighWindows (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SELFPUB; As a general rule, people's self-published works about themselves are not good sources for themselves. The others are problematic due to being from in-house publication presses that are affiliated with Gyatso. Montanabw(talk) 18:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for your response Montana. I thought the references I used showed a wide range of reliable sources, BBC, Independent, scholarly books and articles that are used as references elsewhere, to be honest I spent a long time looking for a range of sources because I believe I have to have good references before editing.I did not use any quotes that I felt might come from a biased source. I would like to know which sources were inappropriate or "in-house" (I am not sure what that means I am sorry) so that I can find other appropriate sources? Are you saying that Kay, Matthews and Bluck are not reliable sources and if so why? I am sorry to ask but if I am going to learn about references I need to understand what is wrong with the references I use. I actually think it would have been much more helpful if this had been explained to me before I found myself put in this section "inappropriate references" without any attempt to explain this to me.HighWindows (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)HighWindows (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ascertain where the BBC and other sources got their information from. Is that mentioned in those sources? They may be have just used information from NKT publications and websites, or interviews with NKT members, and not checked and verified the information elsewhere. Sera Monastery apparently say they never awarded Kelsang Gyatso a Geshe degree. Anyway the title Geshe is rather like that of "Professor" or "Dr." for a PhD we never use "Professor" or "Dr." in an article title or in citations nor repeat those titles in the body of an article. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kelsang Gyatso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

Normally when there is a wiki about a person it gives their date of birth. This isnt a Tibetan website Its a website for the whole world to learn about this person. So I think it should be stated what his date of birth in within the world calendar system- it could be put alongside the Tibetan calendar information.

Thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelsang_Gyatso&oldid=1207945277"