Talk:14th Dalai Lama/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

About reliable sources and foreign-language sources

Coming from the page Nyima Gyaincain where I removed some unsourced / wrongly sourced information added by Eipviongll (this user had also removed the admissibility template on an article he had created), I have observed the highly aggressive and disruptive editing pattern of Eipviongll on the articles 14th Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama and their respective talk pages. The issue of using People's Republic of China official documents (in any language) and Chinese language sources in those articles is often at the heart of the heated debates. I just would like to remind all editors about some fundamental rules which are part of Wikipedia editing policies:

1. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source (WP:V)
2. any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. (WP:V)
3. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution (WP:BURDEN)
4. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. (WP:BURDEN)
5. Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:SOURCE)
6. academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history (WP:SOURCE)
7. Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest (WP:NOTRELIABLE)
8. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others (WP:NOTRELIABLE)
9. because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance (WP:NONENG)
10. if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page (WP:NONENG)
11. If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. (...) Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people (WP:NONENG)
12. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page. (WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION)
13. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources (WP:EXTRAORDINARY)
14. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include (...) challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest (WP:EXTRAORDINARY)
15. contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable (WP:BLPSOURCE)
16. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). (...) Sources by involved family members, employees, and officers of organizations are not independent. (...) Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. (Wikipedia:IS)
17. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (WP:UNDUE)

Considering the points mentioned above, here are some examples of sources that shall not be used this article and edits that should be reverted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, mainly because a) the source is not reliable; b) the source is not independent; c) there are sufficient English language sources for the same information; d) failure to provide high quality and reliable English translation; e) misquoting; f) the source/quote is not verifiable; g) an exceptional claim is not confirmed by multiple high-quality sources; h) inclusion of highly controversial fringe assertions presented as facts; h) addition of elements not relevant to the topic of the article; i) removal of relevant information; j) controversial edits/additions against previously prevailing consensus and opinions expressed on the talk page; k) a combination of the previous points.
I can only support the conclusions made by User:Farang Rak Tham, TV Guy, as well as User:Dereck Camacho and User:MacPraughan in the ongoing parallel discussion at Talk:Dalai Lama. The fact that User:Eipviongll has immediately restarted with his highly disruptive editing pattern just after the end of his block shows that this contributor is not willing to respect Wikipedia editing policies, and rather seems to be here to game the system. --Tiger Chair (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "I removed some unsourced / wrongly sourced information added by Eipviongll", in fact, you removed sourced material: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nyima_Gyaincain&diff=next&oldid=803488318

I've requested you on the Talk page to add it back. Eipviongll (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Eipviongll: Regarding your reinsertion of the Worldcat reference, haven't you noticed that your insertion is a circular reference to Wikipedia/Wikidata?

The primary source about a lama at the Tibetan Buddhist university born on 5th August 1980 named Nyima Gyaincain is a user profile on the microblogging website Sina Weibo.

I am not disputing the fact that such Weibo profile does exist (either as a fake or a genuine account, but this is not the question), but this does not qualify as a source for a Wikipedia article. What I have repeatedly tried to explain in the French and English Wikipedia articles about Nyima Gyaincain, is that this Weibo profile is not linked to the name of Nyima Gyaincain that has coauthored the book "The Historical Status of China's Tibet". There are dozens if not hundreds of homonyms for this extremely common name. You have removed the birth date (the boy would only have been 14-15 year old at the time the book was published, what a genius!), but you have reinserted the claim that his is a lama at the Tibetan Buddhism Institute, a claim that appears in the same non-source (a Weibo user profile). So please refrain from inserting and reinserting such material in Wikipedia articles. --Tiger Chair (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Similar to TV Guy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Tiger Chair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appeared from nowhere, based on your edits with only a few edits. There was already discussion on this, more info can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dalai_Lama/Archive_7#Source_should_be_published_in_English_language.3F

All your allegations are false, if you think you have enough data to support you, let's discuss. Eipviongll (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue here is, what can we do? It's obvious that a vast majority, basically all editors but one, agree in the basic but Eipviongll doesn't, and he uses sockpuppetry when he is blocked. And he doesn't seem like is going to change his mind whether for having a political agenda behind or not. So, the question is, do we vote? do we declare that consensus was reached (I think consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees, just that the majority does), do we request arbitration? do we request the intervention of an admin? what's next? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, your sockpuppetry allegation is baseless. I've also filed sock puppet investigation here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/O1lI0

Dereck, vote doesn't work in this, waking up meat puppets, sock puppets doesn't work. We will need follow Wikipedia policy and rules, you can't reject reliable sources. Eipviongll (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough policy overview, Tiger Chair. Perhaps we can continue this discussion at User talk:Eipviongll#October 2017, since it is more about Eipviongll than the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything not related to the content of the page, come to me talk page. Eipviongll (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

He already erased from his talk page. --TV Guy (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tiger Chair for your thorough exposure of all the relevant WP rules and guidelines regarding this editing dispute caused by Eipviongll's disruptive, aggressive edits, arguments and accusations that arose from Eipviongll's edits based on unreliable non-English sources, and against the consensus of all the other editors involved in this discussion who have been working on these articles over the years, like myself. I found it very helpful in understanding how to approach the problem of how to deal with an editor like Eipviongll. It is therefore very much appreciated and informative and I have learned a lot from your list of seventeen good and relevant points.

Eipviongll has often cautioned his many critics by simply quoting various inappropriate general guidelines such as "assume good faith" in an attempt to dismiss their points. In my opinion, (if I may point it out without being accused of another of his one-size-fits-all defenses, "avoid personal criticism"), if Eipviongll were working in good faith himself, I would have expected that he would also express his appreciation of Tiger Chair's excellent advice and respected guidance in this matter, rather than reverting to dimissing his entire, well-moderated message by simply accusing him of making "false allegations". His failure to react better to Tiger Chair's references to 17 important WP guidelines only serves as confirmation of Eipviongll's own lack of good faith in this entire discussion from the very beginning.

In conclusion, and this is my main point, it would seem to me that the 17 points and other advice listed by Tiger Chair serves as sufficient cause for the removal of all Eipviongll's remaining edits made by Eipviongll on these Dalai Lama articles, and blocking him from making any more in future. MacPraughan (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sufficient cause? I don't think it's sufficient at all. In fact, as I said, those allegations are false. Eipviongll (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Eipviongll, it is not very clever to state "those allegation are false" in response to a well-argued and well-documented post, and leave it at that; it makes you sound like a person who does not have any defence. If you genuinely think they are "false allegations", and wish to accuse another editor (who has provided readers with good arguments in support of his conclusions) of making them, the onus is entirely upon on you to kindly explain why and how they are false, giving better and more cohesive arguments to support your case. I for one am very interested to hear more from you on these points laid out by Tiger Chair, which personally I find very convincing. But I am most willing to give you benefit of the doubt until we hear your reasoned explanations to back up your accusations. MacPraughan (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Eipviongll, please do not insert your rude and insulting comments, which not only lack assumption of good faith but also appear to be personal attacks, in the middle of my comment here and there. I have deleted them. Please put them back in a more appropriate place than inserted rudely in the middle of my comment! I find it somewhat inconsiderate and impolite behaviour on your part. Thank you very much for your consideration and respect. I have also tried to put some other comments in a more logical sequence as some continuity was lost due to multiple comments being posted around the same time. MacPraughan (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree 100% with MacPraughan, especially regarding Eipviongll's attitud. I'm really sorry but your behavior and the way how you have treated other users among other things is something that can't be overlook. PD: And I support MacPraughan's suggestion about Eipviongll's remanining edits, I also think there's more than sufficient cause. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dereck Camacho, your comment is much appreciated and I am happy that you agree with me on this. MacPraughan (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the book written by scholar in Tibetology, Chen Qingying 陈庆英, here's the link: Eipviongll (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dalai_Lama#Scholar_in_Tibetology:_Chen_Qingying_.E9.99.88.E5.BA.86.E8.8B.B1

Thanks, Eipviongll, but no thanks. You have not indicated any need for others to discuss this book. If any of it is relevant to the discussion concerning this article you are very welcome to quote from it, if you like, and please don't forget to point out the relevance. Thanks for the suggestion, anyway, it must be a very interesting book if you recommend it. MacPraughan (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The book The Historical Status of China's Tibet is described by this NY Times article as a "government-published book". Therefore, independence has NOT been established. As a government source, it is therefore a primary source with regard to the subject of this article, not secondary.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Dalai Lama a refugee?

Why is the 14th Dalai Lama a refugee? The area where he now resides was a part of Old Tibet, and not a part of India. He should formally declare its independence and have it revert back to Tibet, so that he could live in his own homeland once again and not be a refugee in his own homeland. 86.182.43.181 (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

When was Himachal Pradesh a part of Tibet? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It certainly was not a part of India. The aboriginal peoples there are Mongoloid and not Indic. The area where the Dalai Lama now reside is a part of Tibet. 109.155.164.110 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wiki article on Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:4A2:85AF:34B1:B61F (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexuality

"the Dalai Lama has said that sex offers fleeting satisfaction and leads to trouble later"

Hope dl understands that but for this fleeting satisfaction, there'll be no one to follow his religion in the future that cause trouble later, as with many religions. 109.156.38.206 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

People awarded the Nobel Peace Prize normally have the medal image displayed at the top of their Wikipedia article. Dalai Lama has many awards, but no award in the world is outranking the Nobel Peace Prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:464A:FF3C:0:A0AB:3B3C:2458:8740 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and there is no medal image at the top of his article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela, no medal image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer, no medal image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Anwar Sadat, no medal image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr., no medal image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Exemption of Golden Urn

I'm adding this to the text, any comments? Toto11zi (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

On January 26, 1940, the Regent Reting Rinpoche requested the Central Government to exempt Tenzin Gyatso from the lot-drawing process of the Golden Urn to become the 14th Dalai Lama. The request was approved by the Central Government.

This is what the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said:

"The institution of reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has been in existence for several hundred years," Geng added. "The 14th Dalai Lama himself was found and recognized following religious rituals and historical conventions, and his enthronement was approved by the then-central government. Therefore, reincarnation of living Buddhas, including the Dalai Lama, must comply with Chinese laws and regulations and follow religious rituals and historical conventions."

Toto11zi (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I object, as explained in Talk:Succession of the 14th Dalai Lama this golden urn thin doesn't have to be everywhere and is a clear case of Spam. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The original text was about exemption of using Golden Urn to pick the Dalai Lama, there're multiple sources. What's your reason of not allowing this information to be presented? Toto11zi (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disallowing anything, but I object the adding of spam, the information seems absolutely irrelevant for the content of the article. In any case, let's see what other users think. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the quote in The Diplomat source is relevant and useful, but the rest of the text you propose lacks context and shows only one side of the story. You might have noticed that I tagged it with lack of neutrality and clarity before when you added it in the article Succession of the 14th Dalai Lama. Toto11zi, please summarize my response before responding, so I know you understand the language used.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I am all in favour of retaining the passage about the DL's being exempted from the lot-drawing process. A reminder of what the Golden Urn is, may not go amiss either. --Elnon (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Elnon, please also acquaint yourself with the arguments against the On January 26, 1940 passage given by several editors at Talk:Succession of the 14th Dalai Lama.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with Dereck's argument "spam", also I don't agree with Farang's argument "lacks context". From here I can see Elnon agrees to add this info to the page, this info is related to the 14th Dalai Lama only, and this info is not on the page. I would like to request comments from experienced Wikipedia editors who are not biased, again, here's the text I would like to include in this Wikipedia page: Toto11zi (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

On January 26, 1940, the Regent Reting Rinpoche requested the Central Government to exempt Tenzin Gyatso from the lot-drawing process of the Golden Urn to become the 14th Dalai Lama. The request was approved by the Central Government.

Toto11zi, please also provide reasons when you express disagreement with other editors, for the sake of clarity in discussion and for the purpose of reaching consensus. You have not explained why you disagree with me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Toto11zi you can't choose which editors you interact with, you need to reach consensus with all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Wasn't the 14th Dalai Lama born in the Republic of China (1912-1949) I would like to reach a new consensus

Right now, it says that the Dalai Lama was born in an "independent" Tibet. Legally, he was born in Tibet, Republic of China. Tibet at the time was a highly autonomous territory of the Republic of China. I would like to argue that he was born in the Republic of China. Please post your arguments below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwikisz (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Adamwikisz, what do RS say?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

In 1935, Taktser, the Dalai Lama's birthplace, was part of the Republic of China. See Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, Grove/Atlantic, Inc., 2007, 496 p., p. 262: "In the 1930s, the Muslim warlord Ma Pu-fang seized the northeast corner of Amdo in the name of Chiang Kai-shek's weak central government and incorporated it into the Chinese province of Qinghai. He ruled the area from the town now called Xining (pronounced shi-ning), capital of Qinhai Province. Tibetans in Amdo ordinarily spoke Tibetan, so it was a surprise to hear the Dalai Lama say that in Taktser (nominally under Ma Pu-fang's control in 1935), although only two of the seventeen households were Chinese, his family did not speak Tibetan as its first language." Will that be enough in the way of RS? --Elnon (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what's the point in mentioned it anyway. Is not established anywhere in the policies about living people that the exact political entity of where they were born has to be mentioned. I think mentioning the region is more than enough, if someone is interested can check such article and read about it. Unnecesary specification of the area of living is an invitation for future edit wars specially under such controversial matter and in such an area of the world were borders were constantly changing and claim by different powers. But I'm also curious if there's any other source aside from Laird's book for that claim? Otherwise basing such assestment in one single source is kind of trikcy. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The statement "Taktser, Amdo, Tibet" is wrong and misleading as it implies there exists a political entity "Tibet" that covers all the way to eastern Qinghai. The fact is that Haidong region have been never ruled from Lhasa since 10th century and Amdo is solely a cultural term. Just look at the demographics: Ping'an County is 4% Tibetan while Han+Hui make up 93%. The village is not part of that "Tibet" in any meaningful way, not even Amdo unless very loose definitions are used.

Either the birth place should be stated as it is – Hongya, Ping'an, Qinghai, or it can be not mentioned in the article at all. Esiymbro (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support your claim? (that he was born in Hongya, Ping'an, Qinghai) --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say, Esiymbro. So, please furnish links to reliable sources other than the Laird source that report that the 14th Dalai Lama was born in the Republic of China. Even more importantly, what do the full range of reliable sources say? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho:: See the Taktser article. A small inaccuracy is that Ping'an was not established yet back then, instead it should be Xining County.

@Cullen328:: "Now he [Reting] announced that the letter a that he had seen stood for Amdo, a part of China's Tsinghai Province with many ethnic Tibetans." "Moreover, these officials did not like the idea of focusing the search for the new Dalai Lama in Chinese controlled territory, since this could give the Chinese a lever to increase their influence in Tibet." "In July 1937, after the entire team went to Sining to pay a courtesy visit and present gifts to Ma Pu-fang, the semi-independent Moslem warlord in control of the area, the search continued for stories of remarkable births of male children." - pp.315-316, A History of Modern Tibet by Melvyn Goldstein.

"Keutsang Rimpoche's search party encountered some difficulty in bringing its candidate to Lhasa from Taktser in the Kokonor [ie. Qinghai] region, which formerly was a Tibetan territory and now under Chinese administration. The representatives of the Kumbum monastery and the Muslim Governor of Ch'inghai, Ma Pu-fang, demanded proof that the Taktser candidate was the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama." - p.284, Tibet, a Political History by Shakabpa.

These are not only reliable, but probably the best sources on modern Tibetan history. Esiymbro (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

One more reference:

Gyalo Thondup and Anne F. Thurston, The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of the Dalai Lama and the Secret Struggle for Tibet, PublicAffairs, 2015, 384 p.

P. 25: « A few days after the search party departed, some fifteen soldiers from the army of Qinghai's governor-general, Ma Bufang, suddenly arrived at our house. Ma Bufang was a Hui, a Muslim, from a powerful military family. In 1928, After Chiang Kai-Shek became president of the Chinese Republic, Qinghai (Amdo) had been officially designated a province, and Ma had assumed the post of governor-general. » --Elnon (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok let me see if I get it; the article currently says he was born in Taktser but according to Embryo should be Hongya, Ping'an, so which one is it? Or are the same place with different names? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Esiymbro and Elnon, those are excellent sources. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

They are the same place. Taktser is more commonly used in the sources, so I see no problem with this. The real issue is the second half of the address, though. Esiymbro (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean...? Esiymbro (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

More about the Dalai Lama's birthplace. In her book Le vieux Tibet face à la Chine nouvelle originally published in 1953 (and republished in 1999 in Grand Tibet et Vaste Chine, Plon, 1999, p. 979), French Tibetan Buddhist Alexandra David-Néel ventures that the young boy is perhaps "half Chinese" (« peut-être à moitié Chinois »), being "a native of Amdo, a territory administered by China" (« natif de l'Amdo, un territoire administré par la Chine »). --Elnon (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the "second half" that you oppose. I don't follow. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Mongolian (Mongour). The DL looks Chinese. 109.157.169.205 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, when Scotland gets its independence, then those born in Scotland will no longer be born in Britain (and notice I said Britain and not England). People often choose to ignore and "forget" that the term China includes Tibet, in exactly the same way that the polity called the United Kingdom includes the lands of England, Scotland and Wales. 109.157.169.205 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Enthronement

The date of 22 February 1940 as his enthronement ceremony is only mentioned in the lead and in the infobox. The "Life as Dalai Lama" section goes on to say On 17 November 1950, at the age of 15, the 14th Dalai Lama was enthroned formally as the temporal ruler of Tibet. So this is a little confusing. The source for these dates says he was enthroned in 1940 and assumed full political power in 1950, so this should be cleared up. —howcheng {chat} 17:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsuitable external link

In this edit: [1], IP 2001:818:e8f1:2a00:f4f4:ec22:9412:d190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added an external link to an essay on a personal website. This type of link is not allowed, according to the content guidelines at WP:ELNO#blog, number 11: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.). The author of the essay (who is not the same person as Ricardo Costa) does not appear to be a recognized authority, nor to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I removed the link.

Newly-registered user Wikstroler (talk · contribs) has re-added the link, without giving any explanation. I have again removed it, for the reason above, and ask that it not be re-added a third time unless some valid reason is provided for contravening the guidelines. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep the link

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Costa_(r%C3%A9alisateur) French

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Costa_(cineasta) Portuguese

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Costa_(cineasta) Spanish

The article is certainly an important contribution to understanding Dalai Lama’s role and thought. Please keep the link.

Thanks,

--User:WikstrolerIWikstroler (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove the link

• Not WP:RS, since there is little indication of peer review or editorial control, nor expertise. For every pro-Dalai Lama primary source inserted in this article, we'll get 10 pro-Chinese primary sources in return, so no thank you. Let's stick to journalists and scholars, and we won't have to mediate any further conflict about this article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"14th" vs. "fourteenth"

As far as I can see, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style in MOS:ORDINAL (which refers to MOS:NUMERAL), Wikipedia spells out numbers from zero to nine in words, in article text. This also applies to titles, according to MOS:AT. That means we should have article titles "First Dalai Lama", "Second Dalai Lama" and so on. Numbers greater than nine, which require two words or less, can also be spelled out, and this should be done for consistency. That means the title of this article should be "Fourteenth Dalai Lama", not "14th Dalai Lama", and this style should be followed throughout the article, and all other "Nth Dalai Lama" articles. "Fourteenth Dalai Lama" is also used by many reliable sources, as cited in the article. Unless someone has another explanation, I would like to propose that this change be made. --IamNotU (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Your reasoning seems sound, and agrees with the guidelines.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No objection on my behalf. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU, Agree but should be at Tenzin Gyatso. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree While NUMERAL says numerals greater than nine and expressible in two or less words can go either way, it is specific that zero to nine should always be spelled out, and that comparable values should follow suit. Thus, in my view, "First Dalai Lama" would be mandated by "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." and "Fourteenth Dalai Lama" would be mandated by "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7 and 32, but not ages were five, seven and 32." This also seems like an uncontroversial change, and I see no reason not to make it. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Numbering Question

Technically, it would not be right to say that he is the "14th Dalai Lama" because in Tibetian Buddhist tradition, there is only one Dalai Lama that continues to be reincarnated. I would change the title to just Tenzin Gyatso, or 14th Reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. KingWither (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, that's how is done in Spanish in fact. See es:Tenzin Gyatso. However the Common Name argument is valid. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see the comments in WP:COMMONNAME, but people usually refer to him as "The Dalai Lama," or something similar. They never refer to him as "14th Dalai Lama". As per COMMONNAME, we are supposed to name pages based on regularly used names. "Dalai Lama" or "Tenzin Gyatso" beats "14th Dalai Lama" there. It is not supposed to be specific. KingWither (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose There's already a general article: Dalai Lama. So we need to disambiguate this one somehow. The title of his official website is "The 14th Dalai Lama". Encyclopedia Britannica's article on him is titled "14th Dalai Lama". The New York Times [2] and the BBC [3] both describe him as being "the 14th Dalai Lama". A Google Books search seems to indicate there are more books with "14th Dalai Lama" in the title than with "Tenzin Gyatso", and a general Google search (for what it's worth) gives significantly more hits for the former than the latter. So the arguments They never refer to him as "14th Dalai Lama". ... "Tenzin Gyatso" beats "14th Dalai Lama", according to my brief research, don't seem to hold up. I would also say, with all due respect, that the initial argument given for the change may be an oversimplification of the concept of reincarnation, particularly its relationship with anatta, in Buddhism. --IamNotU (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Lot-drawing process was used for the 14th Dalai Lama

This information is important and related to the topic, I plan to include:

To eliminate doubt from the Kashag after the death of the Regent Reting Rinpoche, lot-drawing process was used to confirm that Lhamo Thondup was the 14th Dalai Lama.

Details:

After death of Reting Rinpoche, since Golden Urn was not used in the lot-drawing selection process, there was speculation that a relative of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, Ditru Rinpoche was the real 14th Dalai Lama, to eliminate doubt from the Kashag, it was decided to use lot-drawing process by placing both names in an urn, and shake the urn, and the name Lhamo Thondup fell out.

Note that based on Diki's book, the 14th (Lhamo Dhondup) was aware of the speculation, and he cried when people said Lhamo Dhondup was not the real Dalai Lama. The real Dalai Lama was from a boy from Lopon.

Toto11zi (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to add this information here, it should go to the Golden Urn article, adding this information in every single article about the Dalai Lama and similar is Wikipedia:Spam, the only reason I see is the Chinese government insistence in claiming the ability to name future Dalai Lamas as they intend to for political reasons. In any case according to this source the famous urn was not use in the last two Dalai Lamas. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-cant-xi-shake-the-monks-hand/20151119.htm --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nor the book by Tsering, nor the Rediff website is sufficiently reliable to include information that respectively confirms or denies the usage of the urn. Toto11zi, if you wish to better put Chinese history and culture on the map, there are many articles you could spend time on, such as Confucianism, Communism in China, Filial piety. The urn discussion has already been addressed, debated and discussed to death on this talk page. Let's not run around in circles.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

First sentence of the article

The first sentence, with parentheses removed, is just "The 14th Dalai Lama is the Dalai Lama." This doesn't really make sense - maybe change it so that it's "current Dalai Lama"? GenericName784 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)GenericUsername784

Dalai Lama was born in Taktser, Qinghai, China, and not the De Facto independent Tibet which was De Jure part of the Republic of China

The 14th Dalai Lama was born in July 6, 1935 at the town of Taktser. The Wikipedia article inaccurately says that Taktser was a part of the region Amdo of Tibet. At the time of his birth, Taktser was in Qinghai province which was part of the Republic of China. Taktser is still in Qinghai to this day. I believe that the correct information for his birth place should be Taktser, Qinghai, Republic of China. Not Taktser, Amdo, Tibet. According to the history part of the Qinghai article in Wikipedia, "In 1928, Qinghai province was created. Previously, it was part of Gansu, as the "Tibetan frontier district".[16][17] The Muslim warlord and General Ma Qi became military governor of Qinghai, followed by his brother Ma Lin (warlord) and then Ma Qi's son Ma Bufang. In 1932 Tibet invaded Qinghai, attempting to capture southern parts of Qinghai province, following contention in Yushu, Qinghai, over a monastery in 1932. The army of Ma Bufang defeated the Tibetan armies." As you can see from above, this article recognizes that Qinghai was part of the Republic of China. Thus, the Dalai Lama was born in Qinghai, Republic of China. Also, Qinghai was never considered a part of the De Facto independent Tibet. To add on, the Dalai Lama was born in the North-East Part of Qinghai which is the farthest part of the province from Tibet. The De Facto Self-Ruling Tibet never even claimed Qinghai as part of their territory.

To summarize, the Dalai Lama was born in Qinghai, Republic of China and I request that the information be changed and agreed upon. Taktser was a part of Qinghai in 1935 and Qinghai was a part of the Republic of China. Thus, the Dalai Lama was born in Taktser, Qinghai, Republic of China. I wish to change the current consensus.

Adamwikisz (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The information above is the historical truth. That the Dalai Lama was born in the Chinese province of Qinghai is corroborated by Thomas Laird's book, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (Grove/Atlantic, Inc., 2007, 496 p., p. 262): "In the 1930s, the Muslim warlord Ma Pu-fang seized the northeast corner of Amdo in the name of Chiang Kai-shek's weak central government and incorporated it into the Chinese province of Qinghai. He ruled the area from the town now called Xining (pronounced shi-ning), capital of Qinhai Province. Tibetans in Amdo ordinarily spoke Tibetan, so it was a surprise to hear the Dalai Lama say that in Taktser (nominally under Ma Pu-fang's control in 1935), although only two of the seventeen households were Chinese, his family did not speak Tibetan as its first language." --Elnon (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

To add on, after the Qinghai revolution. The newly established Republic of China legally inherited all of the Qing's dynasties land. Since there are no objections to my statements, I believe a new consensus has been established on this debate. Adamwikisz (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that any consensus was established to make this change which you have arbitrarily as a new editor have foisted on the article. It is you who have to establish consensus for this change, which has not been done, therefore I am reverting the article to the birthplace which was (and remains) the actual consensus before you arrived on the scene and started falsely bleating 'consensus' for your opinion. Skyerise (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

For it to be a "consensus", you have to point to a talk page discussion, previous to this one, in which the current editors at the time of the change agreed in the majority to do so. There is no such discussion, so the consensus has not yet change from the consensus held up to February 25, 2019. You can't just change the article, supported by other new editors who are most likely sockpuppets, and then cry "consensus." Again, if you want to show a new consensus, you must show the discussion in which it was agreed on. This is not that discussion, it's only a bald assertion on your part with no other editors supporting it on this talk page. Skyerise (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Consensus page, including the previous consensus page is not required and it isn't even mentioned on the page. Also, Elnon has also supported the consensus change and provided a source from an author that specializes in Tibet according to Wikipedia. The source you choose from the Dalai lama's website is a biased source because this is about a topic concerning him and China. To add on, there are multiple ways to establish a consensus. Two people have agreed on this decision and if you disagree please make a NEW talk page saying you want to revert to the previous consensus. Adamwikisz (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources which specifically state that the Dalai Lama was born in China. What you are doing here is synthesis, which is a disallowed form of original research. We don't get to correct what we think are "mistakes" in the sources: we report what the majority of reliable sources state. I've never seen even a single reliable source specifically stating that the Dalai Lama was born in China. Certainly the majority state that he was born in Tibet. We have to go with the sources, so please list whatever sources you have for your preferred version so we can see if they are in the majority or not. Otherwise this non-consensus runs afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" guideline. Skyerise (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll look for some reliable sources but the Dalai Lama's website is the least reliable and most biased source for this topic. Adamwikisz (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but birth dates and places are two things that are allowed to be taken from the subject's website. Skyerise (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What you are actually saying is that the mention of the Dalai Lama's birthplace is allowed to be erroneous or misleading as long as it comes from his website (a primary source by the way). I wonder where that specific rule you are referring to is found in Wikipedia. If it does exist, it can only apply when there is no other source than the subject's website. Which is not the case here. That the birthplace of the dalai Lama was in the Chinese province of Qinghai is a well-established fact. See Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, Grove/Atlantic, Inc., 2007, 496 p., p. 262: "In the 1930s, the Muslim warlord Ma Pu-fang seized the northeast corner of Amdo in the name of Chiang Kai-shek's weak central government and incorporated it into the Chinese province of Qinghai. He ruled the area from the town now called Xining (pronounced shi-ning), capital of Qinhai Province. Tibetans in Amdo ordinarily spoke Tibetan, so it was a surprise to hear the Dalai Lama say that in Taktser (nominally under Ma Pu-fang's control in 1935), although only two of the seventeen households were Chinese, his family did not speak Tibetan as its first language."--Elnon (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Skyerise isn't arguing against this anymore and no one disputed the edit from 9/17 so we have a new consensus that he was born in Qinghai, Republic of China. Adamwikisz (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not the way it works. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus § What does not constitute silence. In order to state something like "the Dalai Lama was born in China", or that he is Chinese, as an unequivocal fact, in Wikipedia's voice, you'll need to demonstrate that a significant majority of reliable sources state that, such that viewpoints to the contrary are only WP:FRINGE. The same goes on the other hand for a statment that it was Tibet. Otherwise, WP:NPOV requires explaining all significant viewpoints in the proportion to which they are held by reliable sources. The recent edit just tacked "China" on the end of "Tibet", without citing any source. I've reverted it. --IamNotU (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Adamwikisz, no, I'm still here. And still waiting for you to show that a majority of the reliable sources say that the Dalai Lama was born in China. You have not yet done so. Skyerise (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Skyerise, the Dalai Lama's website may be an acceptable primary source for the fact that he was born in Taktser, which is not controversial, though a reliable secondary source would be better. His website is not a reliable source for determining whether Taktser is generally considered by scholarly sources to have been part of Tibet or of China (or something else). --IamNotU (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Elnon provided a source from Thomas Lairds book. Like you said, The Dalai Lama's website is a terrible source for which country Taktser was a part of. According to that book, Taktser was a part of Qinghai which was administered by the Republic of China. The unrecognized Tibet (1912-1951) article on Wikipedia doesn't even show Qinghai as a part of Tibet if you look on the picture. Also, the Sino-Tibetan war took place in 1930-1932 which was before the Dalai Lama was born. If you look at that article it says, "the Tibetan government in principle claiming areas inhabited by Tibetans in neighboring Chinese provinces (Qinghai, Sichuan) which were in fact ruled by Chinese warlords." The Dalai Lama's birthplace should be "Taktser, Qinghai, China (ROC)" Adamwikisz (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm going to be blunt here because your push for this point has been going on for a year and a half now [4] without success: you have requested not only that Wikipedia make a statement that the Dalai Lama was born in China, but that it is an undisputed fact. I would say that this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, given the multitude of reliable sources that say he is a native of Tibet. For example: Encyclopedia Britannica: [5], the Nobel Prize organization: [6], ABC News: [7], the Wall Street Journal: [8]. You have noted that another editor has provided one source supporting your claim. Beyond that, your arguments seem to amount to little more than long-term and inept wikilaywering about what constitutes consensus, and your own analysis based on reading other Wikipedia articles. The current version is admittedly not perfect, and if you were to provide a concrete proposal as to how the article could more accurately explain the opposing viewpoints, perhaps through explanatory footnotes, it might help to move things forward. Otherwise, continuing to insist on one particular interpretation, when there is clear disagreement from sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, as well as from numerous other editors, is a waste of your time and ours. --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-addWylie

Noticed Wylie is reduced to a note, which isn't standard on leads within Tibetan Buddhist pages. There's not a current discussion on the topic. Reasons for the change? If not, I'd like to propose re-adding them to the lead. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits in lead

A couple of minor edits to lead were made before noticing language for CON:

• Common practice in RS is to use the term of 'spiritual' not 'religious' to note the Dalai Lama, as in "most important spiritual leader of Tibet" . Thus, changed 'religious name'. Also shifted spiritual name position to front.
• Replaced 'shortened to' with 'known as', a standard used in pages.
• Corrected 'monk' since he's a lama.
• Added mention he's a living Buddha, from RS. Since refs on leads aren't common, didn't add a ref, but can if necessary.
• Not sure the note on Gelug school as 'newest' is necessary in lead. Would prefer to edit to " the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism ", which is the standard form on most pages.
• Added the full romanized title to the picture caption, since it was not included in lead. It should be in lead, after his name, as in, "He is formally called His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama".

Give a ping if there are issues. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bio

This is a BLP. At present, it's more about quibbling views than a bio on his life; views should be elsewhere than in the opening. Will get info and propose changes in openings, sections. Thanks.Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)