Talk:Dalai Lama

His holiness loves India and refers often to India as Aryatara (The Star of the Aryans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.243.96 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research in the introduction

The present introduction appears to be in a terrible state and makes a lot of very dubious claims. Here are some of them

• 1. The introduction claims that "lama" is a cognate of "rabbi". Given that Tibetan and Hebrew are completely unrelated languages, it seems highly improbable that there are common cognates in the two languages.

• 2. The article goes on to talk about word order in "European" languages. Which languages are these? The word order in English is different from German, both of them are different from French etc.

• 3. The claim that the title should be "Lama Dalai" could be correct, as opposed to the two previous claims, but needs to be sourced.

• 4. For some reason I fail to understand, the article claims that there is such a title as "rabbi sea" in Judaism. I'm not Jewish, but to the best of my knowledge no such term exists.

• 5. The claim that the Dalai Lama should be "correctly addressed" as "The Right Reverend Sea" also appears to be homespun orginal research.

In short, the introduction reads as one of the worst examples of OR I've seen for a long time.Jeppiz (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what research or OR is; you are confusing your own lack of knowledge and careless reading of the article with research. Just because you did not know something and someone else did, does not make the other person's statement original research. Are you dyslexic by any chance?

• 1 Both mean "teacher"
• 2 Word order of Title + Name is same in all 3 languages you mentioned.
• 3 Teacher Sea, cf Mr Sea
• 4 "Sea" is not a title but a name. For example a certain Mr Billy Ocean.
• 5 Article stated "could" and not "should".86.178.78.174 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees with you about this, except for the IP editor who added the material. It's just that no one has taken steps to keep him from reverting it back in yet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you done a piece of OR to verify that's what "everyone"agrees with? 86.178.78.174 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look at the history and I saw that. I also saw you've been trying to keep this article clean from OR. If the IP vandalises the article again (I cannot call edits of that kind anything but vandalism), I'll suggest it becomes semi-protected.Jeppiz (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To clean the article, then you need to remove it completely. 86.178.78.174 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly ignore your ignorance, arrogance, unpoliteness and lack of decency and simply say this: Wikipedia is about sources. You have been vandalizing this article over and over again, against the will of all others. It's not about what I, you or anyone else know, it's about what can be sourced. Provide sources for your claims, or they will be ignored. What is more, stop changing other user's entries here on the talk page. Reply after and entry, not inside it.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I have replied to the many points you made immediately after where you have made them so that it is easier to follow. If you read articles in Wiki, it is an established practice. I have therefore restored what you so arrogantly removed. I have shown what you have written to be false. I have not vandalised this article, I have made clarifications and therefore improvements to it which you see as vandalism. The two views are not equivalent. If you read the above section, it is plainly stated by GP that not all writings without reliable reference are removed, otherwise the whole article will probably have to removed. You clearly come across as someone who suffers from dyslexia as you certainly have not read what was written but what you thought was written. Furthermore your language abilities appear to be very small (as shown by not knowing the word order for title + name are the same in the 3 languages you quoted). If you wish to edit here you really should improve your intellect and communication skills, and further more learn to read. Throwing tantrums like you do and react in a knee-jerk way will only backfire on you in all aspects of your life. 86.176.49.36 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Either you just don't get it or you are deliberately trolling. You keep on deleting or changing my comments here and to go on about me as a person. I am not the issue here, we're discussing edits to an article about Dalai Lama. You seem to think you need to reply to my five points above. You don't. What you have to do is to provide sources for your claims. You have to link to sources that support your claims. You say that you have made "improvements" to the article. All other users feel the opposite, we feel that you are vandalising it. However, that is not the issue here. Even if your claims were all 100% correct, you would still have to provide sources for them. Wikipedia does not care about WP:TRUTH, only about what can be sourced. (Luckily enough, those two coincide in this case). I recommend you to stop your edit warring and personal insults and start editing responsibly. And that means providing external sources.Jeppiz (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeppiz, as you have said sorry, you have accepted that you are wrong. Deleting my replies to your points will not help you. Your ability and knowledge has not reached a level where you can edit an encyclopaedia competently. First go and improve yourself. It is not whether if my claims are 100% correct, they are; nobody has put forward any credible claims to the contrary, and your claims have been proved to be false. It is obviously hard for you to accept that you are wrong, and that truth plays a part in Wikipedia, but there is no need for you to vandalise the discussion or the article by removing others' contributions. You only want to use Wikipedia for your own propaganda purposes, and that is not acceptable to a vast number of netizens. This is tantamount to violence in a face-to-face. Jeppiz, please grow up and use this wonderful resource responsibly and sensibly. 86.176.49.36 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not deleted your replies, I have simply moved them to the appropriate place. As for all your other tirades, I repeat what I have said several times already. Provide reliable sources for your claims, otherwise they will not make it into the article. If you continue to troll this page (as it looks as if you're doing, since you refuse to provide any sources and only continue with the same kind of behavior) I will ask that this talk-page become semi-protected as well. The aim here is to discuss how to improve the article, nothing else.Jeppiz (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you simply deleted my replies to your contribution the first time round and it was only moved the second time round after I rightfully restored it. There is no need to provide other references as they are already in the article. Lama = Guru = Teacher = Rabbi. That is simple. Dalai = Ocean = Sea used as a surname and not figuratively as verified by the current dl. Mr Smith (in English) = Herr Smith (in German) = Monsieur Smith (in French), ie same word order of Title + Name. In other word Jeppiz, you don't know what you are talking about, and have been caught out. You are simply someone who is a bully and possibly a dyslexic. In a classroom, you are most likely a person who is told to shut up by a teacher for causing disruption to the class by shouting garbage. Jeppiz, you should grow up and contribute to society in a meaningful way instead of repeating rubbish. 81.159.179.181 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say "references are already in the article." What are the specific references that you are citing for these statements. Please provide quotations.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur fully with Greg Pandatshang. Untill the IP bothers to present any sources for his immaginative interpretations, we won't get any further. For my part, the discussion is over untill sources are presented. This is not a discussion forum, it's a talk page for how to improve an article.Jeppiz (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dalai Lama: no government in exile!

according to this interview, dalai lama clarify that there is no 'government in exile'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XlgfSgIeI so should the term be drop in the article and only the term CTA be used to match his official stance? Akinkhoo (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only mentioned twice in this article as it is. The first mention should inform readers that it is informally known as the Tibetan government-in-exile, since that is a very common expression.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It should not be mentioned at all, let alone twice. 86.176.191.162 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)