Talk:Kelsang Gyatso/Archive 3

Character and lifestyle

Hey folks, just a side-note that the article ends rather abruptly with the phrase "His lifestyle and character [72]." You might want to fix that.  :-) Best, --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the bottom section on character reads like a Press release and sounds like a mea culpa. I think it is denigrating to have to state exactly how he lives as a monk should. Why is it neccesary to include this at all? I think you should seriously consider deleting it as it seems "he doth protest too much." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.106.117 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the unsourced info has since been removed and new, sourced info found. Hopefully, this section reads a lot better now. I would personally appreciate discussing (beforehand) the removal of info that is cited by third-party, independent sources that have no connection to the subject. Emptymountains (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden is not on those who remove it, but rather on those who can prove its inclusion to Wikipedia. Removal of unverifiable or controversial material, especially of living persons requires no prior "beforehand" discussion whatsoever. Bold, revert, discuss is a decent way of looking at it, I think... Doc9871 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What "material added to Wikipedia [that] has already been published by a reliable source" is unverifiable? I was of course talking about verifiable, non-controversial material that is removed repeatedly with the claim that it is self-published and non-independent. Emptymountains (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, what's wrong with the Waterhouse quote? I know you said it's "gushing," but how is it much different in nature from the Spanswick quote, which you yourself put back? Emptymountains (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, saying it's "undue weight" is a better explanation than "gushing," but having another reference besides Spanswick actually helps to show that it's not undue weight, no? If yet a third source is found, does it become even more "undue"? Emptymountains (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic to extol a living person's virtues as perceived by his disciples. Mitsube (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is suitable: [1]. I thought it easier to just show you what I had in mind rather than try to describe it here. Emptymountains (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Mitsube, it's pointless to have a section in GWB with a stack of endorsements from his wife, Rove, Cheney etc etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed the "Character and Lifestyle" section to "Retirement," focusing on GKG no longer being the Spiritual Director of the NKT-IKBU, and what his actitivities are since then. The 'character' material has been worked into the other relevant sections of the article (e.g., his journey to the west, and his teachings). Emptymountains (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Buddhism: The Path of Wisdom and Compassion

Modern Buddhism: The Path of Wisdom and Compassion is already out. Perhaps someone with more time than I have might want to update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymm (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Query concerning dates

The article currently says that Kelsang Gyatso left the monastery at Buxa for Mussoorie when separate monasteries were established in South India. All sources place the date for this event as 1971-1972. The article currently says Geshe taught and engaged in intensive meditation retreat at Mussoorie for 18 years. But the article then goes on to say that in 1976 Geshe was invited by Lama Thubten Yeshe to his centre in Cumbria. Something doesn't add up here - this leaves a gap of only 4-5 years - not 18. Either Geshe left Buxa much earlier than stated or he spent only about 4 years teaching and meditating at Mussoorie. Can someone provide verifiable sources for the correct dates. Otherwise I'll have to remove the part about 18 years. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To solve this apparent discrepancy, I changed "18 years" to "several years". Chris Fynn (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Gelug

Truthsayer, i didn't remove "Gelug" in front of "teacher", because he isn't Gelug, of course he is, but because 1)it is mentioned twice in the same sentence. and 2)the word Gelug alone doesn't mean much to the uninformed reader without saying the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. Also: You might as well put the Gelug in front of "Buddhist monk" then as well. Maybe you have a better solution? Andi 3ö (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to see at first that it's redundant, but it is. This way, he is a "monk of the Gelug school," a "teacher of the Gelug school," a "scholar of the Gelug school," etc. Might I suggest adding translator, since the 22nd book is merely a translation, not a commentary. Also, he has translated dozens of sadhanas. Emptymountains (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it again: maybe there is another reason why i intuitively didn't like it there. Saying he is a "Gelug teacher" may imply that he is not only trained in the Gelugpa tradition and not only teaches Gelug teachings, but also is still associated with the Gelugpa "establishment/mainstream", which he isn't (see NKT article). He also doesn't teach in Gelug centres other than NKT afaik, so saying he is a Gelug teacher might be misleading in that regard. Any suggestions? Andi 3ö (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I added "or New Kadampa" to show that it is synonymous with "Gelug," and so people can make the connection that way. Emptymountains (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

EM, you know (or should know) that a synonym of 'Gelug' is indeed 'New Kadampa', but neither of them are synonymous with the 'New Kadampa Tradition', which KG is the head of. It is pretty disingenuous to conflate these terms, especially as the Gelug is a Tibetan tradition, whereas the NKT/IKBU is not: "The NKT is a Mahayana Buddhist tradition with historical connections with Tibet, rather than a Tibetan tradition". This is noted as a point of fact, not as any objection to the edit. (20040302 (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

I went back and re-read the sentence in the article, and I think it reads correctly, i.e. his books are indeed "based on the teachings of the Gelug, or New Kadampa, school of Tibetan Buddhism." There's no conflating going on there.

(I, myself, personally object to labels such as "Tibetan Buddhism" or "Japanese Buddhism." Buddha himself never used these terms but rather Hinayana/Shravakayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhism. I noticed in the movie Words of My Perfect Teacher that Khyentse Norbu, a Bhutanese lama, never says Tibetan Buddhism or Bhutanese Buddhism, but rather Varjayana Buddhism. I think it's time to let go of the strong associations--probably created by Western scholars in the late 19th / early 20th century--between certain schools of Buddhism and a particular cultures/ethnicities... not very "universal" if you ask me.)

Emptymountains (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very disturbing that someone editing this encyclopedia actually believes that the (historical) Buddha used the terms "Hinayana/Shravakayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana". Mitsube (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on if you're a Mahayanist or not... Emptymountains (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no verifiable proof of this, such statements really shouldn't be included. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: The term "Tibetan Buddhism" - whatever its merits and demerits, this is the most widely used and understood term, so best to leave it. You can't really substitute "Vajarayana Buddhism" for "Tibetan Buddhism" because the Buddhism of Tibet contains the three yanas (Shravakayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) - not just Vajrayana. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Place of Birth

The Life and education in Tibet section currently states that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was born in Yangcho Tang, eastern Tibet. However I've read elsewhere that he was born in western Tibet, southern Tibet, or in Tsang province (south west Tibet). The latter makes sense as he was at Tsangpa Khangtsen ("Tsang House") while at Sera Je. Does anybody have a reliable reference for Geshe Kelsang's place of birth? Geo co-ordinates? Chris Fynn (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo at top of article

I was wondering about adding a picture of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso at the top of the page. Does anyone have a suitable image (i.e. one that doesn't infringe copyright)?

Kjangdom (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one of his student's could contribute a good quality picture they took of their teacher to Wikimedia Commons. 07:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated use of "Geshe"

It is against Wikipedia's Manual of Style to prefix every occurence of a name with a credential. We do not refer to holders of Western academic titles as Dr. such-and-such or Professor so-and-so every time we mention them. This applies to the degrees and titles of Eastern countries as well. "Geshe" should not be placed before Kelsang Gyatso's name anywhere in the article except in quotations which refer to him as such. Thanks for you attention to this matter. Yworo (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "President Obama", "Queen Elizabeth", "Princess Diana", etc. You may say that those are "high-level" titles, but then it becomes a cultural issue. And that's exactly what the term "Geshe" is, as well as "Rinpoche" after someone's name, like "Trijang Rinpoche". IOW, in the Tibetan culture, there is a strong, in fact universal tradition of using these particular terms as an integral part of a person's name. In fact, in the Tibetan culture, especially the monkhood, names change, have lots of parts, and are a much more complex issue than in the modern west. "Kelsang" or "Gyatso" or even "Kelsang Gyatso" really grates on the ears of Tibetans and those associated with them, just as "Elizabeth Windsor" Elizabeth_II would sound really odd, even disrespectful to a Brit, or frankly to most anybody. So I think that "Geshe Kelsang", "Geshe Gyatso" or "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" usage is quite acceptable in Wikipedia as conforming to the norms of the culture in question. djlewis (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "Geshe" is more like "Prof." than "President", "Queen" or "Princess". :-) Anyway you often do see those figures simply referred to as Obama, Elizabeth, or Diana; or as the Queen, the President or the Princess after the first instance in an article. After the first instance in this article you could ether refer to him as Kelsang Gyatso, or simply as "Geshe" or "the Geshe" - which is actually what is usually done in Tibetan culture. Chris Fynn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the article itself should probably be moved to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as that is the name by which he is most commonly known and the name under which all his books are published. Plain Kelsang Gyatso is ambiguous - the TBRC database lists 17 significant figures with that name. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFynn that the article should be moved to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to avoid confusion. Moreover Geshe Kelsang Gyatso seems to be the most correct way to refer to him, (I believe all of the books he has written have used this name). Does anyone know how to do this? Kjangdom (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. With very rare exceptions, we do not include titles and honorifics, either in article titles or in the article itself. So, Barack Obama does not use "President" in the article title. Of course, it mentions that he is president, but calls him "Obama", not "President Obama". The same principle should apply here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Yworo, Djlewis, and CFynn: I still think this article should be moved to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, for the reasons mentioned above. So to briefly summarize:

• Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is simply the name he is most commonly known.
• AS djlewis says "As There is a strong, in fact universal tradition of using these particular terms as an integral part of a person's name."
• He uses the name Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for his books.
• To avoid confusion. As CFynn says "Plain Kelsang Gyatso is ambiguous - the TBRC database lists 17 significant figures with that name". And the way to avoid confusion is by using Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the article title (in my opinion subsequent references to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso could just use Kelsang Gyatso, as Yworo indicates).

President Barack Obama is only the President while he is in office, i.e. this is temporary. As soon as he is out of office, he will no longer be called President Barack Obama. Whereas Geshe Kelsang Gyatso won't lose his title, in the same way that profs don't lose their title. I take on board Cullen328's point that honorifics are rarely used in article titles, but I would argue that this article would be worthwhile exception. Kjangdom (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose move On the minor point regarding Obama's title, you are incorrect, Kjangdom. Former U.S. presidents are routinely called "president" after leaving office, so we discuss President Lincoln and introduce President Clinton even today. But we do not use that title in a Wikipedia article name. How the person's name is listed as a book author is of no significance. That argument was tried in the enormous debate about the alternate titles Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and gained no widespread support. The fact that there are other people with the same name is unsurprising and unpersuasive. This person is the best known among them and if we ever have biography of another of them, standard practice is to deal with the disambiguation parenthetically, such as "Kelsang Gyatso (poet)" or whatever. There is no possibility of confusion if the first sentence of the article indicates clearly who the person is, and hat notes point to any future article about other people with the same name. These are the tried and true methods used in thousands of other biographies for dealing with such issues, and I see no reason for a special exception for this biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:HONORIFIC for the applicable sections of the Manual of Style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

While there is some dispute as to whether Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was ever properly and officially awarded the monastic/academic title "Geshe" - it is also certainly the name by which he is commonly known as in western countries, and the name under which all his books in English have been published. In my experience it is not uncommon for Tibetans to respectfully but informally simply address any learned monk as either "Geshe", "Geshe-la" or "Genla". But of course just because someone is commonly addressed as "Geshe" it doesn't necessarily mean they actually hold a Geshe degree. The term was a originally a shortened translation of the Sanskrit Kalayanamitra ("spiritual freind" or "virtuous freind") = Tibetan "Gewashenyen" > contracted to "Geshe" - and was used in Tibet long before any formal degree was instituted. The title Geshe is probably meaningless to the majority of English readers and I suspect most people simply assume it is part of his name. (I wonder what is the full name he actually uses on his UK passport? I've seen other Tibetan monks with Lama or even Rinpoche as part of the name on their passport - something like that would be evidence that it is now his legal name.) I have no strong opinion on whether the article should be be moved or not - but it might be less confusing. Somewhat ironically the most well known Tibetan figure called Kelsang Gyatso was actually a Dalai Lama of that name. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And that is exactly why we have a hat note at the top of this article directing people to 7th Dalai Lama. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and CFynn:Hi there! Thanks for the links to WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:HONORIFIC. I'll have a read now! Kjangdom (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and CFynn: In the section WP:CREDENTIAL it says: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known..." As already agreed upon, the subject is most commonly known by the name Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, so this indicates what the title of the article should be.

In the section Honorific prefixes it says "There are some exceptions: 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." In these five reliable sources I found the following:

• In Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain (2004) David Kay uses Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Geshe Kelsang
• In British Buddhism, Teachings, Practice and Development, Robert Bluck uses Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Geshe Kelsang.
• In Representing western Buddhism: a United Kingdom focus (2001) Helen Waterhouse uses Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Geshe Kelsang.
• In The Making of the Western Lama (2003) Daniel Cozort uses Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
• In The New Believers by David Barett (2001), he uses Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Geshe Kelsang.

For as long as the article title remains simply Kelsang Gyatso, confusion will still be an issue because of the large number of different Kelsang Gyatsos. Moreover the article title is so much more eye catching than the first mention of his name simply because it is so much larger, so the confusion is by no means eliminated simply by using Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the intro. In the past I have honestly wondered if I have arrived at the right article when I landed at the page entitled Kelsang Gyatso, and I wanted to read about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. I expect that others have experienced similar confusion too.

Therefore I maintain that this article should be moved to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and I am happy to do this.

Btw - thanks for the clarification regarding President - as you can probably tell American politics is not my strong point! Kjangdom (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that he is most commonly known by a three word name. His name is Kelsang Gyatso, and his honorific or title is Geshe. Compare the current queen of the United Kingdom, almost universally known as "Queen Elizabeth" or occasionally "Queen Elizabeth II", but our article is at Elizabeth II without "Queen" in the title. Back to the Obama example, his father had the same name, and we resolve that issue by titling his biography Barack Obama, Sr. rather than his son's as "President Barack Obama". This Kelsang Gyatso is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and we have many tried and true methods to a reduce confusion between articles with the same or similar names. The solution used for Elizabeth II and Barack Obama ought to be perfectly adequate for Kelsang Gyatso. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And if anyone types "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" into the search box, we have a handy redirect that brings them straight to this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Our general article Geshe describes it as an academic degree and offers no hint of it being part of a person's name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When I did a quick search I found that the British Library OPAC has: 30 records for "Kelsang Gyatso, Geshe", 13 records for "Kelsang Gyatso" and 2 records for "Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang" (all the same person). The Library of Congress: 25 records for "Kelsang Gyatso, Geshe"; 44 records for "Kelsang Gyatso" and 26 records for "Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang". (The Library of Congress Authorities database seems to have the main listing as Kelsang Gyatso, 1931-; with Geshe Kelsang, 1931-; Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, 1931-; and, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rinpoche, 1931- as the alternates). Chris Fynn (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and CFynn: Chris - do all the records you mention above refer to the same person? I.e. the subject of this article. I presume they do, so are you saying that for the records of "Kelsang Gyatso", that the subject is not referred to in the first instance (which is what we are debating) as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso? If you are then I would be happy to leave it how is, despite the fact that in every article I've come across so far, the ***first reference*** of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has unanimously been in a form that has included "Geshe". There seems to be some variation regarding the subsequent references, but like I said, every article and book I've come across starts with "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso". Kjangdom (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much every article and book reference you can find about Elizabeth II calls her the "Queen". So what? We minimize the use of terms such as "Queen" and "King" and "Geshe" and "President" and "Professor" and "Doctor" in article titles. No compelling case has been made to override our usual standard. Time to move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: Yes all the author records refer to the same person - some of his publications (even different editions of the dame publication) are catalouged under one name variant and some under another. I'd say that that im common speech, in both English and Tibetan, he is usualy referred to as "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" or just "Geshe Kelsang" - but that is just a personal observation, and I have no hard evidence for that. Kelsang Gyatso is a pretty common name in Tibetan - add "Geshe" and people usually know who you are talking about. But, yes this is no big deal and not one worth spending any more time on. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it just make sense to identify this person by his common and unique name? The balance of clarity should be on giving this article a distinguishing and hopefully unique title. The discussion as to whether he is or is not a Geshe does not cover substantial fraud or misrepresentation and seems more of a technicality. Beeflin (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328, CFynn, John Carter, Prasangika37, and Beeflin: Hi all, I still think that this page should be called Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, for all the points made above. The only person who appears to object this is Cullen328, so I am pinging other editors to try and get to the bottom of this once and for all.

Next, please look at this page which is correctly called Geshe Gendün Rinchen. What exactly is the difference here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geshe_Gend%C3%BCn_Rinchen

And this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geshe_Thupten_Jinpa for Geshe Thupten Jinpa

Even the Dalai Lama's page uses a title: "Dalai Lama", quite simply because that is the name by which he is most commonly known. Kjangdom (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out two other articles that had incorrect titles. I have moved them to the correct titles. Consensus for "Dalai Lama" is very clear as that is indisputably what all reliable sources call him and his predecessors. My position on "Geshe" is based on the Manual of Style, and well-established practice across thousands of articles. I will continue to oppose any move of this article on that basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen:Hi Jim. Is the Manual of Style a kind of Holy Bible of Wikipedia, or a useful guide to be used with consideration? Different cultures have very different concepts of name and titles - and I think these should into account before blindly applying such "rules". Different names may be used at different times in a person's life or in different circumstances. Anyway for people who lived in a culture where there were no birth certificates or records etc and children were often given several different names at birth (as was the case in Tibet and Bhutan), just how do you determine a name other than what that person eventually best becomes known as? In Bhutan "Geshe" is not even a title or degree - merely a name (and often people who are never monks get called Geshe) - so for an article about Bhutanese person your move of Geshe Gendün Rinchen → Gendun Rinchen makes no sense for the reason you stated for the move. (Would you move Mickey Rooney to Joseph Yule, Jr because the former was not his "real" name?) Anyway in the case of Geshe Gendün Rinchen just what was his "real" name? He undoubtedly never had a birth certificate and if he never travelled out of Bhutan, or neighbouring India, Nepal and Tibet he would never have needed a passport - so it's quite likely a "legal" name was never recorded. As a child he was apparently simply called Japu (bird child), when he went to a monastery he would have been given another name, another when he took formal novice ordination, another when he took full monks vows, and another when he took Bodhisattva vows, etc. Unless it is recorded in a biography we don't even know which amonst those names was Gendün Rinchen. Any of the several names he undoubtedly received as a monk could have been the one that stuck or he may have just picked up that name. People could have simply just started calling him Geshe Gendun Rinchen because he was clever ("Geshe") and a good monk (Gendun Rinchen - "jewel of the sangha"). The name he is most commonly referred to in Bhutan is actually "Geshe Draphu" (Cave Geshe) because he was born in a cave and meditated in caves, and he is also known as Geshe Chargö (Raincoat Geshe) - and he signed several of the books he authored with those names. But if you say Geshe Gendun Rinchen in Bhutan people will also know exactly who you mean - but just plain Gendun Rinchen might be any one of quite a number of notable Bhutanese - and even more so Tibetans. Anyway I wonder if you made that move not knowing about the Bhutanese use of Geshe (or more to prove a point to Kjangdom)? If you are going to stick to the Manual of Style then I guess you should change all the articles on various Tibetan Lamas that have "Khenpo" in the article title since Khenpo is the equivalent degree to Geshe awarded by monastic colleges in the other Tibetan Buddhist sects (though in the Gelug sect it means abbot). And in Bhutan Khenpo, but not Geshe, is legally recognised as equivalent to a PhD. After that you can go on to move all the all the articles with Tulku and Rinpoche in the names - since those are even more clearly titles - as is Tai Situ (a Chinese title). I see we have also a few Venerable's and Khyabje's ("Lord of Fefuge") as well - so you may be pretty busy now that I've pointed all these out to you if it really matters that much to you. Cheers. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello CFynn. No, I do not consider the excellent advice in the Manual of Style to be "biblical" in significance, and in any event, I am not a biblical literalist. There are accepted exceptions to the Manual of Style, but they really need to have obtained broad consensus. For example, we include "Pope" in the title of such biographies as an exception to the MOS. I dissent from that point and believe that "John XXIII" is an acceptable title, but the consensus is clear. I accept that clearcut, established consensus, though I disagree. I see no such broad based consensus here. Do you?

As I have pointed out previously, the issue of disambiguating between people with similar names is something that affects probably ten of thousands of biographies, and we have well-established ways of doing so other that adding an academic title or honorific to an article title. In the case of the current Dalai Lama, it is clear that the office is notable, and the current person in that office is titled 14th Dalai Lama, and Dalai Lama is the article about the office rather than the current holder of that office.

I happen to be Jewish. We do not have a biography of the most recent holder of the title at Lubavitcher Rebbe. That is an article about the office. Instead, we have the biography of the most recent holder of the office at Menachem Mendel Schneerson, which calls him neither "rebbe" or "rabbi" in its title. I have personally written two biographies about rabbis: Joseph Asher and Lee Bycel. Neither includes "rabbi" in its title for exactly the same reason that I oppose including "geshe" in article titles. Why include "geshe" in article titles but not "rabbi"?

As for Gendün Rinchen, we have only one Wikipedia article about a person of that name. so there is no chance for confusion at this time. If you, or anyone else, writes a biography about a second Gendün Rinchen, or even a third, we have well-established ways to disambiguate as opposed to adding an honorific to the article title.

I am not interested in going on a campaign to move articles that have "Tulku and Rinpoche" in their titles, as I haven't looked at those titles, haven't looked at those articles and have no interest in doing so. I am interested at this time only in the term "geshe" which my reading has shown to be an honorific as opposed to a proper name. If you are aware of reliable sources (as opposed to your personal, informed opinion) that say that "geshe" is a proper name rather than an honorific, whether in Tibet or Bhutan, then please mention them here and add them to our article Geshe. Accordingly, I will oppose use of "geshe" in any article title unless there is a broad based consensus that this particular honorific belongs in article titles. If such a clear-cut consensus emerges across a group of biographies, then I will drop my objection and move on. Until then, I will oppose use of "geshe" in article titles. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still unclear, after reading this talk page, why using Geshe in this situation is any different to using Dalai Lama? It has been said that using Dalai Lama is appropriate because "Consensus for "Dalai Lama" is very clear as that is indisputably what all reliable sources call him." (Cullen) Based on this then I feel Geshe should be reinstated, as all reliable sources I have seen refer to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with this full name; this includes books, academic articles, newspaper articles, the BBC and so on. Is there a set number of "reliable sources" needed and if so who sets this number? The title may be an academic one but there are many levels and centres associated with this title, so it might be true to say that 'Geshe' is not specific but refers to someone with academic excellence and degree of training in the Buddhist philosophical texts. Culturally once someone reaches that level then the "title" becomes part of their name, who they are. This is clear when observing Tibetan Buddhists conversing with each other or about each other. I would suggest that if we are not going to accept this cultural use of such 'titles' then we will, as was suggested above, have to remove all such titles from Wikipedia, including Dalai Lama, and I have a feeling this may cause some considerable offence.HighWindows (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, as so many people agree that it is appropriate to call Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by this name, I have changed the name in the text back to this. I have added a reference on several of these changes to show there are many reliable, unbiased academic sources using this name. I have also found many examples of other Tibetan scholars being given this name on Wikipedia which I can provide should this be needed. I did try and change the title of the article, but instead have had to make this a request, this request can be seen further down the talk page. I am very inexperienced so I am not sure if I have made this request correctly, if I haven't I would be grateful if someone could correct this for me. I obviously wish to change the title to read Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in keeping with the rest of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighWindows (talk • contribs) 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)