Talk:14th Dalai Lama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Tenzin Gyatso)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 14th Dalai Lama was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 17, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
February 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for 14th Dalai Lama:
  • Add information about religious role and policies.
  • Add note on correct pronunciation of "Dalai"

Lhamo Thondup was born in Qinghai, China[edit]

If there's dispute, include both, China Tibet. Eipviongll (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The following reference has been removed from the article although it should help settle the current dispute about whether Tgagtser is in Qinghai. See The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of the Dalai Lama and the Secret Struggle for Tibet], by Gyalo Thondup, Anne F. Thurston, 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."
The Dalai Lama's other brother, Thubten Dschigme Norbu, said more or less the same thing in his autobiography published in German in the early 1960s (I have only the French edition): "Tagtser était un pauvre petit village sur la route des caravanes menant de Sining, siège de nos autorités chinoises, au Labrang de Trashi Kkjii." (Thubten Dschigme Norbu, Tibet patrie perdue, raconté par Heinrich Harrer, éditions Alain Michel, 1983, (pp. 17-18)).
It's no secret that the dalai Lama's family had to pay taxes to Qinghai's governor general Ma Bu Fang. : --Elnon (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the article Taktser it is obvious that Taktser belong to Qinghai Province, regardless of ROC / PRC. Please also refer to the following two references [1][2], Taiwan China --暖城2016-02-05 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • ^ 中国藏学研究中心当代研究所副研究员王小彬 (2013). "十四世达赖的政治生命与西藏的和平解放". 七百多年来,众多民族在这里往来迁徙,逐渐成为藏、汉、回等民族混居地区。清代以来,回族人逐渐成为这条山沟的居民。 
    • ^ The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of the Dalai Lama and the Secret Struggle for Tibet, by Gyalo Thondup, Anne F. Thurston, 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."
    There seems to be only one way to settle this dispute: mentioning both Amdo, the cultural Tibetan region, and Qinghai, the administrative location. --Elnon (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Though Tibet was de facto independent in the period of Republic of China, it was never recognized by any nations, so I do not think it appropriate to list Tibet in the end. --暖城2016-02-05 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think Elnon suggestion is a good solution. Though I would like to see Farang's and TaerkastUA's opinion too. --TV Guy (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Elnon and 暖城2016-02-05, your sources help a lot, please help to improve this 14th Dalai Lama page. From the comment from the other page "Dalai Lama", it seems it was discussed before, "for See discussion, June 27 edit request, 2013, archive 10.", and this was specified: Taktser, Qinghai. I think we have the following choices:
    1. Taktser, Qinghai
    2. Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省
    3. Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省, China
    #3 seems to be the best. I think 暖城2016-02-05 prefers #3, I also prefer #3. Any comments? Eipviongll (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

    Why so much fuss about this? The talkpage archives are already full of discussions related to the birthplace of the XIV dalai lama. Taktser was in 1935 under the control of the Ma Clique warlords, who were aligned with the Republic of China. It would be a daring shortcut to simply mention Taktser, Qinghai, Republic of China without mentioning that this area was effectively under the control of the warlords. At the same time, Taktser was definitely not part of "political Tibet" (and had not been taken from this entity by the warlords), so it is definitely not incorrect to write that Taktser was in Qinghai, a province that was nominally created in 1928. On the other side, Taktser does belong to Amdo in Tibet (in 1935 as in 2017), as these two terms are unequivocally defined. Most non-Chinese academic and encyclopedic (for example Britannica) publications will associate the name of Taktser with Amdo and Tibet, this would be a gross POV-pushing to delete this information from the infobox. I believe the best option is to mention both Amdo/Tibet (the description usually found in non-Chinese English publications) and Qinghai/Ma warlords/ROC (the official administrative divisions and controlling powers at that time). I urge everyone to refrain from manipulating comments that are the result of previous lengthy discussions, such as these editions by 暖城2016-02-05. Thanks, --Tiger Chair (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

    Agreed with mentioning both Amdo and Qinghai: If the current description has no consensus yet, we could list what independent sources say. It seems to me that Elnon's suggestion is a good compromise.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Tiger Chair, Qinghai was not created in 1928, check Qing Dynasty map and you will see Qinghai. Amdo is just a a cultural region, there's no clear boundary, i.e. no clear definition on where's where. Taktser 当才村 was/is a village, there's boundary. Eipviongll (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    We probably all agree that Kokonor / Amdo / Qinghai had unclear and varying boundaries throughout most of their history, but this is off-topic. As I wrote, the province of Qinghai was established in 1928 ("During the Qing period immigrants from the east settled in Qinghai, and Chinese political and cultural influence in the region increased. Qinghai was made a province of China in 1928. The Ma clan governed the region during the Republican period"). I hope this helps. --Tiger Chair (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    You wrote "it is definitely not incorrect to write that Taktser was in Qinghai", before 1928, there was called Qinghai, see Eipviongll (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    @ Eipviongll: back to my proposal, can you agree with the mention of both Amdo/Tibet (the description usually found in non-Chinese English publications) and Qinghai/Ma warlords/ROC (the official administrative divisions and controlling powers at that time)?--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    Since it was discussed before in the past, the last concensus was "Taktser, Qinghai", adding Chinese words seem to be more appropriate "Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省". Problem with Amdo is it's cultural concept, there's no boundary. Problem with Tibet is, the 14th Dalai Lama was not born in Tibet, check your link and you will see why. Eipviongll (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    Let's keep the previous consensus, but add some Chinese characters "Taktser 当才村, Qinghai 青海省". Any objections? Eipviongll (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    The previous consensus was "Taktser, Amdo, Tibet", until User:暖城2016-02-05 changed it twice on 29 September and 30 September. I however propose to include Ma warlords/Qinghai/ROC, as this reflect the official administrative divisions and controlling powers at that time. Once again, it is meaningless to oppose Amdo/Tibet to Qinghai/ROC, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide what is right or wrong, but what the majority of reliable sources are saying on the topic. It would be awkward not to mention Amdo/Tibet, as this is how most English-language source locate his birth place, for example the Nobel Committee says "He was born in a small village called Taktser in northeastern Tibet". --Tiger Chair (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    All these names exist and are traditionally and currently used; every part of the world has different names according to who is talking about them, in what period in history and all borders are constantly changing as countries and empires arise, expand, contract and disappear over the centuries and millennia. The place I happen to live has at least six different names, both historical and current, which are all currently used by everyone who live here, depending on the context; many Indians still refer to England as "Britannia", for example.
    For centuries Amdo, also more recently called Qinghai, has been a "grey area" as regards political control. Until about the 16th century it was mostly inhabited by Tibetan nomads. In the 17th century, Mongols moved there, stayed and eventually became completely Tibetanised. In the 18th century the Qing dynasty first took an interest in the Amdo region in their wars against the Mongols and their armies appeared in what had always been called Amdo for the first time. [I can provide reliable sources for all this if required] However, for all ethnic Tibetans that I have ever met over the last 42 years (including in 5 extensive trips around "China's" Tibet), and I have met many, the place is always referred to as 'Amdo', even though the ethnic Chinese now always refer to it as 'Qinghai'. These are the facts of the matter. Is there any problem with saying the birthplace is "known to Tibetans as 'Amdo' and to Chinese as 'Qinghai'"? MacPraughan (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

    About reliable sources and foreign-language sources[edit]

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

    Tibet Buddhist Theological Institute fake?[edit]

    The Tibet Buddhist Theological Institute in Lhasa, in some sources also referred to as the Tibetan Buddhism University, appears to be fake, or a propaganda mouth piece. I have done some research on it here. This is important to know, as many edits on this WP article have referred to The historical status of China's Tibet, purportedly published by this Institute.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks very much Farang Rak Tham. I very much appreciate your research into this supposed 'institute' or 'fake university'. I have read the results of your work on the links you have kindly provided and find them very interesting. I wonder if Epiviongll is a part of this project? According to my knowledge of Tibet going back to 1975 it is in accordance with my experience of Chinese interference in Tibetan culture and its attempts to nullify it and assert a possession and control that never existed through fake research by tame propagandists, including Tibetan collaborators who are given a sinecure and told exactly what to write so the Chinese can then say "Oh, look, here is an independent Tibetan scholar and researcher who agrees with our propaganda! Therefore it must be true." MacPraughan (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think it will be a good idea to check all the Tibet-related articles that are controversial in order to purge a little, if is not been done right now, once we end with the DL articles. --TV Guy (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

    Farang, people are very happy to see this fake public school, with fake scholarship? But, can people trust your words? Eipviongll (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

    Eipviongll, please assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. If you have any factual evidence to show that your source is not a fake university, as shown by Farang Rak Tham with evidence provided for his statement, the correct response from you here, instead questioning his trustworthyness sarcastically, would be to provide that evidence in support of your claims and your source - if any. The fact that you have not done so, and made a personal attack on his sincerity, indicates that you have no such evidence. MacPraughan (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    New update over here. Apparently, the institute was founded to deal with the "Dalai Lama clique". It just keeps on getting better.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

    Deletion discussions[edit]

    There are deletion discussions pertaining to sources that have been used in this article here and here. Your input is welcome, whether pro or con.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)