Talk:Dalai Lama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

5th Dalai Lama[edit]

Dear friends, the article about the fifth Dalai Lama and the mongol invasion is completely partial. The 5th Dalai Lama f.e. admits in his own autobiography that he did NOT object against the mongol attacks. "The Dalai Lama then ordered that Beri should be destroyed and that strife (that is, opposition) would not be tolerated", Elliot Sperling resumes the autobiography in: „Orientalism« and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition“, in: Dodin, Thierry & Raether Heinz (Hrsg.), Imagining Tibet - Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies, Boston, 2001. Read the whole article, its very interesting : http://info-buddhism.com/Orientalism_Violence_Tibetan_Buddhism_Elliot_Sperling.html If you just relay on Shabakas work you get of course another picture, as he was pro-Gelukpa and a minsiter of the Dalai Lama' governemnt in Tibet. Best wishes Gerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagyü Biography (talkcontribs) 10:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Gerd, the article you mention by Elliot Sperling has been dicredited due to a serious misreading on his part, please read the section on the Fifth Dalai Lama's own article entitled "Controversy", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Dalai_Lama#Controversy. Elliot has kindly acknowledged his mistake, see the reference. As regards your other point about the attack on Beri, thanks for that, I will check it out and correct it if necessary. MacPraughan (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You were right, I have corrected it. Please let me know if you find anything else that needs improvement. MacPraughan (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Source should be published in English language?[edit]

MacPraughan reverted my changes a few times, and he said "The source should be pubished in English language", first my source is in English language from Google books, second, non-English language can also be used as a source. Eipviongll (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

MacPraughan is incorrect. Non-English language sources can be used per WP:NOENG --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The following reliable source is in English language, there's no way to prove it "Chinese source" as MacPraughan emphasized: https://books.google.com/books?id=haMIsdC3iZwC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false Eipviongll (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the publication is in English, Eipviongll. The title you had given for it looks exactly like Chinese to me, not English!
Anyway, I have looked at it now but I have to say that at first glance it does not seem to come within the definition of "a reliable, authentic, independent and recognised source". It appears to be just a kind of childish pamphlet written by a completely unknown author. I searched for the stated author, Chen Chingying, by Google search but there was nothing whatsoever, no information at all about him or her to be found anywhere on the internet. Normally, full details about a recognised, qualified and reliable author can be found on the internet, and usually a reliable and recognised author has an article about them on Wikipedia but of course there is nothing whatsoever. Authors of reliable books normally have a track record of study and publications including qualifications, professional accreditations, good reputation and background, but this author appears to be completely unknown and unaccredited.
I also tried to find the ISBN for this supposed book but there is no record of one. It does not have an ISBN, therefore it is not a recognised or reliable book. It does not even say anywhere where is was published, it does not even have an index, it does not even have a bibliography, it does even not have any review of it, it does not even have any kind of introduction, foreword or acknowledgements, nor i there any mention or recommendation by any third party in support.
In addition, the English it is written in is very poor quality, as if it is written for small children by someone who does not know how to speak good English. Example: the title of chapter 8 talks about how "To Determine the Soul Boys of Late Living". This is just nonsense, it can hardly be meant to be serious English, it seems to be written by a child, or for small children.
Further, the supposed 'book' is not listed under the Sources to the article (since it has no ISBN number or other authentication), and neither does it even appear in the list of books for Further Reading.
All these things and more make it very clear that this is not a recognised or reliable author, and this so-called book which is otherwise unknown and unquoted anywhere (except by yourself) does not reach the standards required of Wikipedia sources. (May I ask, btw, are you by chance the author of this publication yourself?)
If Wikipedia is to allow this kind of publication to be accepted as a recognised, authentic, reliable and independent source for promoting serious allegations about historical matters in Wikipedia then I will be very much surprised. Compared to all the other history books listed as sources to this article, which are all by well-known authors with a well known scholastic and academic track record in the subject, this publication is a mere pamphlet which carries no weight. Anybody can write something like this, saying whatever they want, and can pay to have it published, but this does not make it a reliable, authentic, recognised and independent source of information able to be used to make contentiou and questionable suppositions about Tibetan hitory on Wikipedia.
But please let me know what proofs you can produce to show this source is reliable, etcetera, up to Wikipedia standards, and please address all my concerns and respond satisfactorily to all the comments I have made that disqualify ths book as an acceptable source, otherwise I regret that we shall have to go back and delete as soon as possible all the entries you have made on the basis of the strange and rather bizarre allegations that you have picked out from this publication and posted them here as if they are reliable facts, which readers might think are true 'because they are in Wikipedia'. Thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
ISBN 978-7-5085-0745-3, this book can be purchased from many stores including Amazon. This is English language source, not Chinese language source. Please don't skip the important word Buddhas from "Late Living". The author seems to be a scholar in Tibetan history, he wrote at least 72 papers and at least 14 books related to Tibet, more info can be found here: http://people.tibetcul.com/zrzy/xs/201311/32461.html Eipviongll (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry Eipviongll, but the website link you sent is all in Chinese, there is no English translation, so it is not a valid verification of anything for the English Wikipedia unless you give a full translation. This person is unknown and when one googles his name there is zero result, sorry! Perhaps on Chinese google he can be found, but in English this person is unknown. Also in any case as you must know, websites are not considered good sources for verification, even if it was translated or in English language.
I checked the pamphlet's Contents again and in the link you sent for the book the work "Buddhas" does Not appear in the title of Chapter 8, I quoted it correctly, what are you referring to here, I do not follow your comment. MacPraughan (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you use translate.google.com? I don't know how you searched information, anyway, some links from academic institutes are here:
http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~li11/research/cv.txt
http://www.ethnos.nccu.edu.tw/e-teacher-4.asp
https://www2.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/file/1385BfBfEki.pdf
Eipviongll (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source[edit]

I'm afraid Eipviongll is providing a very questionable source which is a Chinese government propaganda channel that gives information that I havn't find no where else. For example, that the 14th Dalai Lama's family had 6000 serfs. No where have I found any source to confirm this. Disregarding how the source do not fulfills Wikipedia's standards as neutral source, for such a notorious claim will be a good idea to have at least secondary sources to confirm it. Recently there was a similar polemic with MacPraughan for what I think is a similar issue. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You cannot remove reliable sources. If you think information from China should be removed, then all the false information from the so called Tibetan exile government should also be removed. By the way, for this particular statement related to 6000 serfs, a lot of information can be found in both English and Chinese sources. Have you even searched? A few sources with published years are listed, again you cannot remove reliable sources.
Tibet: The End of Sefdom Part1 By CCTV English, Published in 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUcoZPOK1Y0&feature=youtu.be&t=16m27s
Tibetan people suffered from feudal serfdom, darker than medieval Europe, by State Council Information Office, published in 2009, http://www.bjreview.com/Tibet_in_50_Years/2009-03/05/content_182622.htm
Human Rights Annual Report 2007: Ninth Report of Session 2007-08, published by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee, published on 25 Sep 2008. Quote: "The Dalai Lama's parents owned over 6,000 serfs.", link: https://books.google.com/books?id=b7dJbld9PzQC&pg=PA124
中國西藏, https://books.google.com/books?id=06dKAQAAIAAJ, book published in 2009, quote: Page 4:他的家族当时在西藏拥有 27 个庄园、 30 个牧场, 6000 多农奴。

Eipviongll (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove a reliable source, that's why I open this topic, because is unreliable. And yes, Chinese government propaganda is not neutral, if you consider that CTA's sources are unreliable you can argue the same here. Now on the other hand no one is saying that there was no serfdome in pro-Chinese invasion Tibet, because there was, that's a well known fact. What is questionable is how a peasent has 6000 serfs. And about the sources; the first is the same video that I questioned to begin with, the second is Beijing Review (again, doesn't sound neutral), the third is pretty interesting; is a Human Rights repport to the British parliament that denounces a lot of Human Rights violations from the Chinese government against the Tibetans including the sending of troops to repress oposition (thank you for the source I'll use for other article) and the part that mentions the 6000 serfs is quoting the Chinese government, and the one in Chinese is the same problem that before, most of us can't read it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please provide reliable source that says the documentary "Tibet: The End of Sefdom Part1" is not reliable? Can you please provide reliable source that says the statistics found in the document published by "State Council Information Office" is not reliable? Here I've just tried to calculate the number 6000 serfs. Based on the following books, the first book has detailed description of famous 色兴庄园 which was belonged to Dalai, the second book was published in 1977, written by 2 Tibetan authors, there's description of another manor:
https://books.google.com/books?id=o-OPDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA54
色兴庄园∶全庄园20户农奴约113人
https://books.google.com/books?id=etOVRV2Lr6oC&pg=PA23
拉萨西北50公里处的堆龙德庆县色村,民主改革前是十四世达赖喇嘛家的庄园。当时庄囩里20户差巴(农奴)。
One manor contained roughly 110 people, the 14th Dalai Lama owned 27 manors and 30 pastures, so 6000 serfs seems to be right number, i.e. statement is correct. Unless you have different source suggesting something else.Again, when we discuss, please provide reliable sources. The other thing is the Tibetan word "差巴" means serf in general.Eipviongll (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
More description of 色兴庄园 (Shexing manor, now called Shexing Village) can be found here: http://english.sina.com/china/2009/0315/226015.html Eipviongll (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Is not reliable because is not neutral, is from the Chinese government. On the other are we talking of the Tenzin Gyatso's family or the Dalai Lama office when you speak of manors and serfs? Because your edition was saying that Tenzin Gyatso's family owned 6000 serfs, the Dalai Lama as a title is another issue, most likely own even more once he was entitled as the 14th Dalai Lama especially as a kid as it would be long before the social reforms that Gyatso made turing his reign. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Is not reliable because is not neutral? What's your point? Have you even read the "neutral" link you provided? Have you read the section "Reliable sources are never neutral"? You're saying the statement "the 14th Dalai Lama's family had 6000 serfs" is not neutral? Then do you have source that says otherwise? Again, can you please provide reliable source that says the documentary "Tibet: The End of Sefdom Part1" is not reliable? Can you please provide reliable source that says the statistics found in the document published by "State Council Information Office" is not reliable? Here's the paragraph from the white paper:
Before 1959, the family of the 14th Dalai Lama possessed 27 manors, 30 pastures and more than 6,000 serfs, and annually squeezed about 33,000 ke (one ke equals 14 kilograms) of qingke (highland barley), 2,500 ke of butter, and 2 million liang of silver (15 liang of silver equaled 1 silver dollar of the time) out of its serfs.
Again, when we discuss, please provide reliable sources. Eipviongll (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The link I provide says that if a source is considered biased (like the Chinese government) than a source with the opposite point of view should be provide, in this case I guess one from th CTA. Examples of sources that deny the claim of Gyatso was born in a humble farming family are these: Jeanne Nagle: The Dalai Lama: Spiritual Leader of the Tibetan People
That the documentary is made as propaganda, you have these sources: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2017/0109/The-TV-network-at-the-forefront-of-Beijing-s-foreign-propaganda-offensive and https://cpianalysis.org/2017/05/01/cgtn-chinas-latest-attempt-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/
But it ok, for now I would make more neutral the text by adding other sources to the claim and let the reader judge by themselves. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Dereck Camacho, you wrote "The link I provide says that if a source is considered biased (like the Chinese government) than a source with the opposite point of view should be provide, in this case I guess one from th CTA.". Obviously you lied. Here's the relevant text: "The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide." The important part is POV, we use different POVs to make text neutral, not sources, that's why I asked "do you have source that says otherwise?" . If you still stand with your statements, can you please post the relevant text from that Wikipedia guideline essay here to support your statement. Eipviongll (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You wrote "That the documentary is made as propaganda, you have these sources", do you think 2 pieces of news are reliable sources? Eipviongll (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You wrote "But it ok, for now I would make more neutral the text by adding other sources to the claim and let the reader judge by themselves.". You made wrong edits, have you even read my sources and most importantly, years of publications? Eipviongll (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, do you still stand with your false statement "Is not reliable because is not neutral"? At least, the Wikipedia guideline doesn't agree with you. Eipviongll (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho, you wrote "The link I provide says that if a source is considered biased (like the Chinese government) than a source with the opposite point of view should be provide, in this case I guess one from th CTA.". Obviously you lied.

Accusing me of lying is not the way to refer to someone according to the etiquette rules and I will report you.

Here's the relevant text: "The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide."

You seem to be kind of selective when reading or choosing relevant part. How about this:

A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.

It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem.

This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right.

Then clearly in this case if you present as source something from the Chinese government official channel then the right thing is to present another source from the CTA. But I also included sources from Western channels that are neither and can be considered a neutral partner like NBC and The Guardian.

The important part is POV, we use different POVs to make text neutral, not sources,

That’s not what it says above:

The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view.

that's why I asked "do you have source that says otherwise?" .

Yes, I do, I already provide them and added them to the article, but you remove them.

If you still stand with your statements, can you please post the relevant text from that Wikipedia guideline essay here to support your statement.

Yes,

The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view.

You wrote "That the documentary is made as propaganda, you have these sources", do you think 2 pieces of news are reliable sources?

Yes, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

You wrote "But it ok, for now I would make more neutral the text by adding other sources to the claim and let the reader judge by themselves.". You made wrong edits, have you even read my sources and most importantly, years of publications?

My edits were not wrong and I would gladly look forward to bring this issue to an mediation from a admin as I’m pretty confident in the reliability of my sources which are several recognized news agencies, one book from a recognized author and the official biographies of the Dalai Lama, all of them are considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia’s reference guidelines.


Again, do you still stand with your false statement "Is not reliable because is not neutral"? At least, the Wikipedia guideline doesn't agree with you


Well, I do admit that I was wrong about the non-neutral source not to be reliable (in Spanish Wikipedia we do use only neutral sources) so yes, a non-neutral source can be reliable. But, that doesn’t change that accoriding to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.

As you can see, it is a Wikipedia guideline to include the different points of views when there’s disagreement about an issue, like in this case. Therefore my edit that you reverted was in accordance to that guideline.

Also you should take into account this: according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

And:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

The idea expressed in Wikipedia:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see #Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that 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, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Which by the way I think I’m going to apply in this case.

So first to all you have to remember, the Dalai Lama is a living person, therefore the rules for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply and I will gladdly brought the issue to the noticeboard if I have to. If the editings are reverted again I will use the {{db-attack}} tag. Other than that, the current text is in accordance to Wikipedias guidelines that clearly establish that all different points of views about a controversy should be presented. I hope this settles it, in case it doesn't I would like to go to a mediation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)