If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Joshua Dugdale, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Accurizer (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dugdale was born in Birmingham in 1974. He studied economics at Manchester University attaining a 2:1. Following Manchester, he quickly established a career in documentaries, travelling across the world, making films on drug barons, gangsters, police forces and revolutionaries. His 2002 film for the BBC, 'LAPD Blues' won some of the highest ratings of that year for any documentary. Following 'LAPD Blues', he made a three year biopic of the Dalai Lama, 'The Unwinking Gaze', which has won plaudits around the world for his gentle portrayal of the Tibetan spiritual leader. Some critics believe that it is one of the rare films that has the potential of making real change within China's Tibet policy, whilst others have criticised it for not having enough mainstream appeal to be a commercial success. Joshua Dugdale (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Unwinking Gaze has been a labour of love for the filmmaker Joshua Dugdale. Shot over three years, it has followed the patient efforts of the Dalai Lama in seeking a peaceful reconciliation between those exiled Tibetans and the Chinese. The access is extraordinary and has never been replicated and it is unlikely that it will be again.

An access based film of a spiritual leader of the Dalai Lama’s stature is extremely rare but the Unwinking Gaze, is nothing if not that. It is a piece of work which examines in a very subtle and delicate way, the relationship and challenge of a spiritual leader who also has to be a political leader. Can that relationship be reconciled? Does the purity of Buddhist principals have a role in the dirty world of realpolitik? The answer is nuanced: Yes and No. Yes, in terms of allowing the hope that one day a world will exist where non-violence can be a successful strategy. No, in the barefaced reality of where the lack of success of the Dalai Lama’s strategy is depressing in extreme. It is a film of great complexity in challenging the Dalai Lama in a way that is unprecedented but it does not (and cannot) seek to judge the Dalai Lama. That is beyond the role of the filmmaker. Whilst not using a voice over, he has attempted to simply let the actuality do the talking, it is a very subtle device for allowing the viewer to make up his or her own mind – a sensible choice when faced with a political battle as epic (especially in terms of propaganda) as this 58 year issue.

The film concentrates on the Dalai Lama’s struggle and not on the Chinese response. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly anything other than the party line from China on this issue is nigh on impossible, and secondly that the Dalai Lama’s role as theocrat is in essence an extraordinary role. Anyone who has an interest in the leadership of the Dalai Lama’s non-violent strategy, or the principals of peace, must be able to see how the Dalai Lama acts as a human (not as a deity) in dealing with the Chinese. How human is the man? What sort of example can he be to the rest of us? Can non-violence have a role today? Is peace a principal worth following/pursuing?

The second element to the film is that it provides real insight into the negotiations between the Chinese and the exiled Tibetans. For the first time, we are witness to the real thinking of the Chinese government and the internal musings of the exiled Tibetan envoys. For instance we discover the revelation that the Chinese have admitted that they mistranslated the word ‘freedom’ for ‘independence’. Could there be a more dramatic error in international relations? Or are they just playing for time? Whatever it is, the viewer is given an extraordinary insight into the desperate negotiations of the world’s longest foreign policy dispute. Again, films like this are extremely rare and historically important. So, for the first time, the much-maligned Dalai Lama (by the Chinese government), is scrutinised. Is he a splittist? Is he insincere? Does he want independence?

If this film were to achieve success in China, the government may well need to think carefully about its policy on Tibet. The question of how the Chinese people of which at least 200m are Buddhist will view their government’s misinformation of the man many in the West view as a Saint, is one that will need answering. This is the power of this documentary. China is a country of 1.4bn people. This film has the potential of changing more minds on one issue than any other. Whatever revisionism takes place in the future, the character of the Dalai Lama is so well illustrated in this documentary, that any effort to trample on his reputation will be futile. A Chinese translated version of the film would be an enormous challenge to the megalith of the PRC. It should be supported for doing so.

The Unwinking Gaze lays the intricacy of a modern-day political saint at the door of the viewer.

What people have said:

'The documentary lays bare the simplicity of Dalai Lama's intentions and the paranoia and closed obstinacy of the Chinese government - it is so plain that China would find it difficult to find menace or continue their claims of duplicity in the face of it. Dugdale's documentary therefore achieves its goal...Lets hope this documentary sets tangible progress in motion.' Claudia Gonella, Remote Goat

'...It could force China into a more civil, humanitarian stance towards Tibet. How wonderful to think that a mere movie could once again help make a difference.' Paul Tatara, THE GUARDIAN

'This will probably be the most influential and inspiring film you will see all year.' Laura Taylor, REAL.COM

'A very impartial film...fascinating insight into the court of the Dalai Lama' Mark Kermode Show, BBC

‘The Dalai Lama may well qualify for sainthood. An argument exists for his being all too human. What better praise of a film than to say it puts this complexity at our door?’ Bryan Newbury, Documentary Films Joshua Dugdale (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Joshua Dugdale. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Abhishek ^Talk 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Unwinking Gaze, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Joshua Dugdale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 12:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joshua Dugdale, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Maethordaer (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]