Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Farang Rak Tham (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 14 November 2017 (→Title in Chinese: warranted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalai Lama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tibet Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalai Lama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

How do other buddhist countries view Dalai Lama

Do other buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, and so on see the Dalai Lama as a buddhist teacher? 2A00:23C5:C101:5800:C17D:948C:B624:5096 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as a teacher, but not as a pope, as many westerners understand him to be.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dalai Lama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721213614/http://worldheritage.routes.travel/world-heritage-site/the-potala-palace-jokhang-temple-and-norbulingka-tibet/ to http://worldheritage.routes.travel/world-heritage-site/the-potala-palace-jokhang-temple-and-norbulingka-tibet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll's edits

Eipviongll don't you think we don't realize that your disruptive edits violate several WP policies.

You reverted the page 4 times, it's obvious violation of Misplaced Pages 3RR rule. Eipviongll (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I check several of your sources in mandarin and they don't say what you claim they say. For example this one at no point says that the 14th DL was elected using the Golden Urn: http://www.360doc.com/content/14/0121/10/69860_346835745.shtml which you use it as a source to claim that. If you think that we were not going to notice because they were in mandarin, think again. I doubt of all the mandarin sources which should be at the very least confirm by second sources in English. I'm requestiing right now a friend who speaks mandarin to check all the sources.

Assume good faith please. Here's the statement "The 14th Dalai Lama was approved by the Chinese government to be exempted from the lot-drawing ceremony of using Chinese Golden Urn", here's the source "吴忠信将查看转世灵童经过情形及噶厦请求免于掣签报告中央。2月5日，国民政府特准拉木登珠免于掣签" Eipviongll (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Second, you blanked information and change redaction that was already agreed without the consent of other editors, specially in the sections of the 14th DL birth and family, blanking parts like the ones that mentioned the sources as been from Western journalist or the Chinese government. I never consented to those changes. Among other things. So any further change should be at the very least discussed here. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You will need to specify which particular change was involved, or change that particular statement, and we can discuss. You cannot revert all the different changes including other users' changes at once. Eipviongll (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I warn you that reverting my first edit was near the breaking of the 3RR rule, don't place it on me. Besides, may I remind you that one of the exceptions for the 3RR rule is when "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Remember, the DL is included in the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policies.

You broke the Misplaced Pages rule. Eipviongll (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no way to know that your translation is correct, should I just trust you? Why is so hard for you to provide sources in English. Accoring to google translate this is what is says there: "Wu Zhongxin will see the reincarnation of the soul through the situation and the Gaxagian request to avoid the lottery report from the central. February 5, the National Government special drawing Lam Teng beads from the lottery"

Assume good faith please, if you have questions, ask. Quotes are put in links. Eipviongll (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert edits of other users, only yours and it was because I revert to the last stable version, the last version were consensus was reached. I do not oppose all of your edits but is almost impossible to revert some without reverting all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you lied, here's the change from "Trappist the monk" and that's also reverted by you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&type=revision&diff=802161667&oldid=802138762

and some of my changes were related to his request as well. Please don't do big revert like this. Eipviongll (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Eipviongll is obviously trying to use Chinese Communist Government propaganda material published by Chinese Communist Government-controlled press in order to give the impression that Tibet was always part of China and try to prove Dalai Lamas were under Chinese control etc etc. It is just unreliable to use such insincere and made-up sources that were created to propagate and promote these false stories for propaganda purposes, this is clear to all. His edits are disruptive of the correct accounts drawn from reputable and independent scholars of Tibetan history and other reliable western academic sources. Please check and see for yourself.MacPraughan (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Assume good faith please, please be specific, vague statements don't work. We should include all reliable sources, and that's what Misplaced Pages is. Eipviongll (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether I broke the rules or not would be define by admins, unlike Beijing here we don't have sentences without trial. I already ask a friend who speaks Mandarin to review the sources, but truth is we non-mandarin speakers have no way to really know if your sources are biased or not, if they really say what you claim and/or if they acomplish WP's standards. Why not use English sources? You yourself ask us to use Google Translate, which doesn't work on Google Books as it is made of pictures, and in those sources where it does work doesn't say what you claim.

If I reverted an edit from Trappist the monk was by mistake, but I said it's almost impossible to revert some of your edits without reverting all as WP does not allow to do some reversions if it has others in the middle.

And no one is doing vague statements, I think we are been very clear. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I must say that I see Eipviongll and came here after checking his contributions and yes, he seem incredibly biased in a pro-Beijing way. He has clearly a political agenda behind. In any case the Chinese government is clearly not the best of sources. Maybe we should vote whether the mandarin sources should be admited or not. I personally vote no.--TV Guy (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you want, you're violating the Misplaced Pages policy. Eipviongll (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policies also speak about reliable sources and we can infere that Chinese government sources are not. I also think you are a Single-purpose account as you only edit in Tibet-related articles promoting Beijing-endorsed positions which is also against Wikipedias policies on advocacy and neutrality. --TV Guy (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack. Eipviongll (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In any case, you seem to eager to add that information in the article. Yes, we know the Chinese government claims that they can choose the DL and that they did all the 14 times, can you wait? The DL is not going to die soon and Beijing still don't need this for choosing the next one (or claiming to). Can you just wait a few days until we can reach some consensus on the matter and/or find English references? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you assume good faith? concentrate on the topic? and no personal attack? Eipviongll (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep repeting that but no one is attacking you nor disconcentring the topic, so again, can you wait until we reach a consensus before doing any changes? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus of what? You first read each change, and if you don't agree with any change, then discuss each change explicitly here, but you're not doing this, you're blocking. I've already requested to protect the page, I think that's what you want.. Eipviongll (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the only user that questions your edits. You should be respectful and try to find consensus from MacPraughan, TV Guy and Edler von Udinium among others. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Out of those 25+ edits by multiple users, you want consensus of which edits? Can you list? Eipviongll (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think that information from websites of mainland China suffice for inclusion in this article, as the government is too much involved. Instead, if you want to add any statements from the Chinese government, you need independent, reliable sources which mention and critically evaluate such statements, such as scholarly articles, books, or news articles from independent journalists. See also WP:RS.

Secondly, it is true that consensus must be reached about the content of the article, but failing to do this, it is not always a good thing to revert straight away. Tagging maybe a better option. Whatever the case, when discussing the controversial edits, we should try to refer to reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, rather than making speculative attacks. See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus, especially WP:TALKDONTREVERT.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I apologize if indeed my reversions were too agressive.

Answering Eipviongll question, i guess we can see case by case, the three main topics IMO are:

• The phrasing in the 14th DL's birth section (which I personally think is fine, explaining the origin of the different sources is better).
• Whether there's a second impartial source from scholars that corroborates that the PRC/ROC had involvement in the election of 13th and 14th DL, which at the moment only Chinese sources say so.
• Whether mandarin based sources are valid.

For your 2nd and 3rd points, please don't be vague, be very specific. Eipviongll (talk)

I also think the issue about Tibet's 1912–1951 sovereignty (which was also rephrased) should be revewed. Maybe choosing a middle point showing both sizes (that was a de facto and rejected by ROC and RPC governments but recognized by international community). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the change "(cur | prev) 15:39, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,647 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Better description. See description in the source.)", can you open a new discussion topic for this change if you don't agree with the change? Eipviongll (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dereck and those NEW editors (welcome) to this complex Dalai Lama topic, please don't be vague, be very specific, check the following changes, and let's start new topic discussion for each change/edit which needs consensus, otherwise, those will become part of the text. Again, assume good faith, no personal attack and concentrate on the topic, Misplaced Pages should contain all views, and that's what Misplaced Pages is. Eipviongll (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 06:08, 28 September 2017‎ Dereck Camacho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,955 bytes) (-4,084)‎ . . (The issue is still under discussion on the talk page) (thank)

(cur | prev) 06:06, 28 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,039 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: fixed year typo, the year should be 1940, not 1941)

(cur | prev) 06:04, 28 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,039 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: minor format change for the quote)

(cur | prev) 06:01, 28 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (144,029 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: rearrange links)

(cur | prev) 05:56, 28 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,032 bytes) (+1,963)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: order issued by the Chinese government)

(cur | prev) 05:51, 28 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (142,069 bytes) (+2,114)‎ . . (Removed disruption caused by Dereck Camacho only. This preserves all

the work from editors Trappist the monk, 2602:306:37f5:18e0:d973:6a4d:e422:b2aa and myself.)

(cur | prev) 00:43, 28 September 2017‎ 2602:306:37f5:18e0:d973:6a4d:e422:b2aa (talk)‎ . . (139,955 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 00:30, 28 September 2017‎ 2602:306:37f5:18e0:d973:6a4d:e422:b2aa (talk)‎ . . (139,956 bytes) (+510)‎ . . (Added more detail about Dalai Lama currently and the

Exile) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 18:14, 27 September 2017‎ Dereck Camacho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,446 bytes) (-2,113)‎ . . (Undid revision 802668554 by Eipviongll (talk) Reporting for 3RR,

sorry) (thank)

(cur | prev) 17:51, 27 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,559 bytes) (+2,113)‎ . . (Undid revision 802665008 by Dereck Camacho (talk), removing all

others' changes without discussion is not acceptable)

(cur | prev) 17:25, 27 September 2017‎ Dereck Camacho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,446 bytes) (-2,113)‎ . . (Undid revision 802646637 by Eipviongll (talk)Budyd you're too

close to break the 3 reversion rule, one more time and I will report you. Again, discus the changes in the talk page) (thank)

(cur | prev) 14:59, 27 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,559 bytes) (+2,113)‎ . . (Undid revision 802595755 by Dereck Camacho (talk) a vague statement

doesn't work)

(cur | prev) 05:21, 27 September 2017‎ Dereck Camacho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,446 bytes) (-2,113)‎ . . (Undid revision 802593100 by Eipviongll (talk) The changes were not agreed on the talk page on the first place) (thank)

(cur | prev) 04:46, 27 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,559 bytes) (+2,113)‎ . . (Undid revision 802562746 by Dereck Camacho (talk) each change has

explanation and source, if you don't agree with any change, go to talk page.)

(cur | prev) 00:00, 27 September 2017‎ Dereck Camacho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,446 bytes) (-2,113)‎ . . (Reverting to last stable version. Most of these edits change the

content deeply and should be agreed before in the talk page before) (thank)

(cur | prev) 20:36, 26 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,559 bytes) (+340)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: correct statement with quote)

(cur | prev) 21:19, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,219 bytes) (+823)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: added Golden urn info)

(cur | prev) 20:58, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,396 bytes) (-1,268)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: only one source contains the right data: 16

children)

(cur | prev) 19:29, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,664 bytes) (+358)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: exact date with source)

(cur | prev) 18:55, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,306 bytes) (+702)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: ransom to release the 14th Dalai Lama)

(cur | prev) 18:46, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (140,604 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: fixed again)

(cur | prev) 18:45, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,598 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: quote fix)

(cur | prev) 18:42, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,596 bytes) (+575)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: sitting bed (坐床典礼))

(cur | prev) 18:19, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,021 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: timeline)

(cur | prev) 16:04, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,019 bytes) (+372)‎ . . (→‎11th Dalai Lama: added the urn process)

(cur | prev) 15:39, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,647 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Better description. See description in the source.)

(cur | prev) 15:12, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,644 bytes) (+335)‎ . . (added quote)

(cur | prev) 15:03, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,309 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (added time info)

(cur | prev) 14:57, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,281 bytes) (-57)‎ . . (Sanskrit is not relevant in this)

(cur | prev) 14:55, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (139,338 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (missing ref)

(cur | prev) 14:51, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,335 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (links fixed)

(cur | prev) 10:57, 24 September 2017‎ Trappist the monk (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (139,305 bytes) (+213)‎ . . (→‎top: cite repair;) (thank)

(cur | prev) 06:36, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,092 bytes) (+316)‎ . . (added quote)

(cur | prev) 06:25, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (138,776 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (→‎3rd Dalai Lama: minor fix)

(cur | prev) 06:16, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,781 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎3rd Dalai Lama: Arranged so years are in sequential order)

(cur | prev) 06:04, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,767 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎3rd Dalai Lama: The source says China(中國) --> 世世衣食中國)

(cur | prev) 05:59, 24 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,766 bytes) (-680)‎ . . (→‎14th Dalai Lama: This book https://books.google.com/books?

id=etOVRV2Lr6oC&pg=PA23 was written by Tibetan Chinese historian and it was published in 1977, so fixed the statement.)

No one is been vague and the observations are specific enough. There's no need to see the "25 edits", Dereck already gave for point that we can discuss. And starting wich such I would say that I agree with other users that Chinese government sources are not impartial enough to be reliable, I will suggest to try find third party source otherwise the declaration should be excluded. --TV Guy (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You just appeared from nowhere, and you're not an editor for this Dalai Lama page. My only comment for you is "Assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack" Eipviongll (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether I edit before or not is not enough for you for not trying to reach consensus with me and that can be sancionated if reported. --TV Guy (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I second TV Guy's suggestion about searching for third party sources. Let's see what other editors think about it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, obviously you're not working on those 25+ edits. If you want to discuss something else, please open new topic and make sure you understand Misplaced Pages policies. Eipviongll (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, now I see, you joined later!! this was already discussed. Don't waste our time please, go to archive, read, and understand what we (editors before you joined) discussed and agreed. Eipviongll (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll I don't have to follow your orders, in case you didn't knew that. Maybe you can point out which Misplaced Pages policy I'm not understanding, because remember: Assume good faith, please be specific, vague statements don't work.

In the meantime, again, I already gave four specific topics that we should discuss and reach a consensus (and no, I'm not going to refer to the "25 edits" because, as I said, I don't have to follow your commands). And I want to emphazise that I would like to know the opinions of other editors before any futher editing. Is not only you and me who are speaking here, I want to know what Tv Guy, MacPraughan and Farang Rak Tham think. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You reverted those 25+ edits, and you want to discuss something other than those 25+ edits? You're blocking the page. Simple answer for you: non-English based sources are allowed in English Misplaced Pages. So go and read those Misplaced Pages guidelines and don't block please. Eipviongll (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, I ask you to read Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines specified by Farang. Please read Farang's words: "Whatever the case, when discussing the controversial edits, we should try to refer to reliable sources and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, rather than making speculative attacks." Eipviongll (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The one who requested the block was you my friend. And the reason for the revert of the "25 edits" are all included in the four topics I already said we should reach an agreement of. So, if there's no further delay, let's reach an agreement on those four topics ok? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked to admin to "protect" the page from diverging because of your behavior of reverting those 25+ edits, you're blocking. You also apologized for your behavior. Eipviongll (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and you didn't by the way.

Oh, and by the way, even if we agree that non-English sources are allow, we havn't agree that Chinese government sources are reliable, are you ignoring that part? several editors here are questioning whether we should allow Chinese sources whatever the language they are and I suggested to find third party sources or otherwise exclude the information. That's very different from whether non-English sources are allow. So again, please assume good faith, please be specific, vague statements don't work. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We discussed before before you joined. Don't waste time please. Read Farang's words please! Eipviongll (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You should read his words too, I quote: " I don't think that information from websites of mainland China suffice for inclusion in this article, as the government is too much involved. Instead, if you want to add any statements from the Chinese government, you need independent, reliable sources which mention and critically evaluate such statements, such as scholarly articles, books, or news articles from independent journalists."

And just one more thing, I wanted to discuss the issues in a broad sense by discussing the four topics, but if you want me to discuss each of the 25 edits I have no problem with that. I'll do it gladly, it will take longer, much longer and we won't reach a consensus (and thus won't be able to edit the page on nothing regarding does 25 edits) in the meantime but if you prefer that I express my position on each of the 25 edits you signal, it will be my pleasure. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Concentrate on those 25+ edits. As I said, open new topic to discuss if you don't agree with each/any change, you can change the main text, or keep the change with a tag, it really doesn't matter. That's the procedure you need to follow. Don't revert all the edits like you did, you admitted there're good edits right?. Eipviongll (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are good edits save for some exceptions. Speaking of Farang's words: "Secondly, it is true that consensus must be reached about the content of the article, but failing to do this, it is not always a good thing to revert straight away." If I'm not wrong "not always" means that there are cases where reverting stragiht away is valid.

But it's OK, if you want me to refer to each of the 25 edits one by one I'll do it starting by the first. When we reach a consensus we pass to the second, and so for. Should we begin? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You said "When we reach a consensus we pass to the second", no! You will need to complete all 25+ edits in one shot. Start from the first edit/change, if you don't agree, create a new topic and we can discuss. Very important: as I said, you can update the main text to keep the one old or new one, it doesn't matter. For those good edits, you will need to keep those there. Once you're done, you request to remove the protection,update text to include good edits and other editors can still work to improve the main text. Eipviongll (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"You said "When we reach a consensus we pass to the second", no! You will need to complete all 25+ edits in one shot." No, I don't accept that. We should discuss each of the edits, reach consensus and then pass to the next one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol Eipviongll you can't tell Dereck or any other user what they have to do, that's not how it works. --TV Guy (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, if you want to work sequentially, you will be blocking people from editing the page. Most editors don't care. Eipviongll (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not blocking people from editing the page, I did not oppose 2602:306:37f5:18e0:d973:6a4d:e422:b2aa edits, for example. You can see that in the page's history. I do object your edits and I already argue why. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems you object all my edits? Make sure you have valid sources to support you. Here's one of my edits to change the timeline, you have issue with this edit? Do you really want to do this sequentially? If it's the case, let me get feedback from other editors and decide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802136320

Eipviongll (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll be glad to see what other editors think about the issue. But I do want to point out that I did propose to discuss the issues in block, or "sequentially" if you want and I post four issues that I think encompasses my (and other users') objections. You are the one who rejected that and wanted me to refer to each of the 25 edits one by one. So make up your mind. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And you have nothing to decide because, again, you can not order other users around. Every decision including how the discussion is going to be has to be reach via consensus, that mean you and I have to agree in what we are going to do, you seem to think that you can give orders, it's time for you to realize that you don't. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the order issued by the Chinese Central Government(国民政府) on 2/5/1940

Somehow I don't see this particular order in English language sources, a few English language sources should contain this, but those pages are not visible in google books. I think this order is very important, it has the same meaning like "golden sheets" for previous Dalai Lamas. Here's the order

2月5日，国民政府发布命令：“青海灵童拉木登珠，慧性湛深，灵异特著，查系第十三辈达赖喇嘛转世，应即免予抽签，特准继任为第十四辈达赖喇嘛。此令。拉木登珠业经明令特准继任为第十四辈达赖喇嘛，其坐床大典所需经费，着由行政院转饬财政部拨发四十万元，以示优异。此令。”

I will try to translate this, and let's work together in this translation if you're willing to joint. Eipviongll (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the original order: http://i31.tinypic.com/vwwlxd.jpg Eipviongll (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Translation here, feel free to improve:

Soul boy Lhamo Thondup from Qinghai is intelligent, extraordinary, has been verified to be reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, is exempted from the lot-drawing ceremony of using Chinese Golden Urn, is approved to be the 14th Dalai Lama, this is order. Lhamo Thondup is ordered to be the 14th Dalai Lama, his expense of enthronement ceremony will be paid by the Central Government, 400,000 dollars to show the excellence, this is order.

Eipviongll (talk)

Well, according to you we should listen to Farang, and he agrees with Dereck, MacPraughan and me that sources from the Chinese government are unreliable alone, so unless there's a third party confirmation of this that was critically analyzed and confirmed then this should not go in the text. --TV Guy (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we reach our first consensus. Eipviongll says that we should listen to Farang and I totally agree with him that the Chinese government is too involved and we need third party sources. And as I see that TV Guy agrees and I think MacPraughan also agreed on that on the past, the fact that Eipviongll agrees with us means consensus. So no source that comes exclusively from the Chinese government and had no third party confirmation should go on the text. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Order issued by the Emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama

This Dalai Lama page lacks a lot of basic information, a lot of work needs to be done. Can someone search how the order was issued and announced for the 13th Dalai Lama in English language sources? Also what's the actual order? Eipviongll (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have deeply researched in all reliable and authentic English language sources from scholars and experts going back to Bell and before, very carefully, but I could not find any evidence of any order issued by the emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama. What are you talking about, exactly? And if you are interested why don't you try doing the search yourself instead of asking others to do it for you? MacPraughan (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This means lack of basic information in English language sources, and there won't be any meaning outcome deduced, otherwise, English language source can be used. Eipviongll (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha. Very good! Chinese are very good inventors, they invented gunpowder and some other things before the Europeans. They are also adept at inventing a lot of false information about history to suit their wishes and to pretend that what are in fact, occupied foreign countries, instead 'always belonged to China'. The world laughs at them for this but like you they diligently stick to their invented story of history - and if there is no other historical evidence, in any non-Chinese source, because it is all invented by Chinese, they just say all those sources by world-respected scholars and researchers are "lacking information". It is quite amusing to see such an argument coming up, in practice, right here. Very good! And ha,ha.

However, seriously, to pretend that lack of evidence about a supposed Chinese order to the 13th Dalai Lama in the entire body of non-Chinese historical research, as you are alleging here, means that the entire body of non-Chinese research is "lacking information", is frankly an absurdly convoluted, arrogant and self-serving logic which nobody except a Chinese person will take seriously, and even then, only a certain type of Chinese person, probably paid by the Chinese Government to promote these ridiculous claims, even in Misplaced Pages - like you.

Face it: all it means in the real world of academic historical research is that Chinese revisionist historians invented the story, and this fits in perfectly with their long and infamous record of Chinese inventions about Tibet by which they consistently try to pretend that it was always part of China. But go ahead and write more of these things - they only serve to ridicule your own arguments - even more than at present.MacPraughan (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not allowed to erase comments from other users or yourself located in the talk pages. That can be reported as vandalism. --TV Guy (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's not relevant to the topic, it's considered as vandalism. The topic here is related to "Order issued by the Emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama", please don't diverge topic, no personal attack. Concentrate on the topic. Eipviongll (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not the one who decides if it's relevant for the topic or not. But you were warn, I'll make the report. --TV Guy (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack Eipviongll (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning you that you did something not allowed is not attacking you. --TV Guy (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Details and analysis of the request being sent to the Chinese Central Government for approval for the 13th Dalai Lama and exemption can be found in the following book, starting from page 116:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_NYY36cUr9EC&pg=PA110&dq=%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E4%B8%96%E8%BE%BE%E8%B5%96&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2hfrHsMjWAhXEylQKHUntA48Q6AEIVDAH#v=onepage&q=%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E4%B8%96%E8%BE%BE%E8%B5%96&f=false

Approval of exemption: page 119 of the source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_NYY36cUr9EC&pg=PA119&dq=%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E4%B8%96%E8%BE%BE%E8%B5%96&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2hfrHsMjWAhXEylQKHUntA48Q6AEIVDAH#v=onepage&q=%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E4%B8%96%E8%BE%BE%E8%B5%96&f=false

The order from the Chinese Central Government regarding the official approval for the 13th Dalai Lama and the exemption of using Chinese Golden urn was issued on 6/29/1877, the order reads:

6月29日驻藏大臣松桂就接到谕旬∶“工噶仁表之子罗布藏塔布克甲木错即作为达赖喇嘛之呼毕勒罕，毌庸掣瓶。”

This order needs translation. Anyone can help? Eipviongll (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As with the previous case, are there any third-party accounts on this? any scholar or historian that is not Chinese or Tibetan? If not then can't go. --TV Guy (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to request temporary page protection, a lot of changes have been made to the page, but this User:Dereck Camacho is reverting all those changes and even violating the bright-line Misplaced Pages rule, report was filed here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dereck_Camacho_reported_by_User:Eipviongll_.28Result:_.29

Since no admin was able to handle that obvious violation, I would like to request temporary protection of the page so edits won't diverge too much. If it's possible, please revert to the latest version (the version before Dereck's last revert). Eipviongll (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is just an attempt from Eipviongll to avoid reaching a consensus with other users in order to push his political agenda. --TV Guy (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours so you can all come to an agreement. Play nice. Ritchie333 10:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333. I hope Dereck can review those 25+ changes within 24 hours and let us know what's wrong with those changes. Eipviongll (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll you are not been constructive on the discussion and also don't think that after the 24 hours period you'll be able to edit whatever you want, the idea of the block is for users to reach a consensus before editing again, besides you should not only look forward for Dereck's opinion but from other users too, like me and MacPraughan. --TV Guy (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

My only comment for you is "Assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack" Eipviongll (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Great I will, as I been doing that all this time. But I really hope is clear for you that you can not do edits that can cause a new edit war and you should try to get consensus first. Are we clear on that? --TV Guy (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I already specify my objections upwards. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems more discussion is needed. Please extend, for 1 day? 1 week? Eipviongll (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Can admin help? Protection will help. Eipviongll (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Two edit warriors have now been blocked, so hopefully protection is not needed now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin, page protection was not done, please protect the page since there's still no response from Dereck. Eipviongll (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Rfc on reverts, gaming the system, vandalism

I would like to request feedback regarding how this can be resolved. Dereck Camacho did aggressvie reversions to the page. 25+ edits from multiple editors were reverted. I filed report for his violation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dereck_Camacho_reported_by_User:Eipviongll_.28Result:_.29

and asked admin to protect the page so edits won't diverge too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dalai_Lama#Page_protection

From the discussion on this page. I asked Dereck to review those 25+ edits and exclude those he doesn't like from the main page and open new topics for those edits he doesn't agree, but he said "We should discuss each of the edits, reach consensus and then pass to the next one". What's better way to handle this? Basically, can someone revert many edits and ask people to work with that person on each edit sequentially? Is this gaming the system? or vandaliam? Eipviongll (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to say that Eipviongll statements are missleading at best. First, not only Dereck Camacho is questioning his edits, several editors do. Second Dereck did presented a global discussion for all the controversial edits as can be seen in one of the first threads in this talk page but Eipviongll ignore them. He insistid in the thing of the edits as a delay strategy that backfires and now he's trying to point the problem into others. Truth is, he is not showing any effort to reach consensus with any user and has been disrepectful several times. --TV Guy (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You are new to this page. Only Dereck reverted the page and he's the main person arguing for consensus, and asking edits to be resolved one by one sequentially. I would consider this gaming the system, or just vandalism Eipviongll (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether I'm new or not has nothing to do. You are asking for other users to give their feedback, most of them, if not all, are going to be new. Or you expect imput from only people that agree with you? --TV Guy (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking experienced editors from outside. You're not such editor Eipviongll (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that I should not give my opinion on this issue. Is that right? --TV Guy (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"I would consider this gaming the system, or vandalism" Harsh words from someone who said several times "assume good faith". I just want to point out two things: Yes, I argue for consensus, that's how things should be done in Misplaced Pages. And two, as a matter of fact I want the disagreement to be discussed globally in three to four main points. Eipviongll is the one insisting in discussing "the 25 edits", probably because he knows that most of us users disagree with him on those points. As I realize that I told him that if he wanted we can discuss each of the edits, but it will take longer. Is his suggestion, not mine. And curious stuff is that he not only choses how the discussion should go but also how should I answer with no regard on my opinion or time for that matter in an authoritarian and disrespectful way. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eipviongll: The thing about requests for comment is that it is an open invitation for anybody to drop by and comment. You can't be selective about who sees lists like Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which is how I arrived here) - indeed, at the top of that list it says "the following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention". Then there is the feedback request service which sends invitations to randomly-selected people who have opted-in (similarly, this says "you are free to participate in any RFC without receiving an invitation"). Being "experienced" simply isn't a factor. TV Guy (talk · contribs) is within their rights to comment here; it might be different if they were under a topic ban, but they're not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please use "According To"

I think adding "According to" to statements with reliable sources should resolve disputes. Please discuss if you don't agreeEipviongll (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't bring back the edits that are still under dispute without at the very least see what the user that dispute them thinks. You have to reach a consensus first or call for mediation. --TV Guy (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. What do you thing about the phase "According to" solution? Example: According to person A, x=0, according to person B, x=1, according to person C, x=2 Eipviongll (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally choose that option as a compromise because I knew it would be too confrontational to eliminate the Chinese sources causing most likely the same long discussion than here. But I think is the lesser evil, as other users I believe that Chinese government sources should not be included at all. Nothing personal, is just they are obviously too involved. Making mine Farang's word in the summary of one of his edits: " article relies heavily on primary sources, even for politically controversial information, pertaining to political legitimacy, the same holds for sources from Mainland China: all of this content should be deleted or moved to talk page" --TV Guy (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, I think whatever we choose here, should apply to the other articles as well. Problem is, if as Farang Rak Tham says (and I think he's right) this sources (both Tibetan and Chinese) are primary sources, then if we include them here we will be bringing here the same problems that other articles have. We will be just spreading the deficiency instead of correcting it. --TV Guy (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources or sources that are not independent should not be used in high-profile, politically highly sensitive article like this. Interviews with Tibetans or or opinions of any sources from mainland China can only be included if they are critically evaluated by independent scholars or journalists. I understand that there may be Chinese or Tibetan scholars and journalists than are not influenced by political interests, but such an independent reputation should be proven by independent sources, acceptance by notable independent publishers, or independent reviews.

This is vague, China? no China? Chinese language? English language? Tibetan Chinese? place of birth? or citizen? Race? Eipviongll (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources may only be used for information that is not controversial and very basic in nature, but there does not seem to be any of that with regard to this subject.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In an article such as this, inline attribution of opinions (according to...) is only acceptable in my own opinion when independent, notable sources differ in opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Farang, I agree with you on this. Eipviongll (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the sources and how unreliable they are is what brought us here in the first place. Adding "according with" solves nothing, except show how primary the sources are, which is as pointed by Farang not only something problematic with political articles but also with biographies of living people which in this case are both. I myself suggested the use of third party sources to at the very least support the claims of the primary sources but was rejected by Eipviongll. The best thing to do is remove all the text that comes from primary sources whether Chinese or Tibetan and base the article only in scholary and academic third party sources. And I think we should vote on this already. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

When you use the word Chinese, do you refer to the language? place of birth of an author? or race? Tibetan Chinese included? When you refer to academic third party source, what do you mean by "third party source"? Eipviongll (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Chinese would be; any source that comes from the Chinese government (whether Qing Dinasy, ROC or PRC) as they are primary sources and obvioulsy partialized. This include quoting those sources.

I don't agree with you. Eipviongll (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Tibetan, the same; any source that comes from the Tibetan government whether during Tibet's de facto independence or the government in exile.

I don't agree with you. Eipviongll (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How can you don't agree with me and at the same time agree with Farlang if we are saying the same? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Third party will be a party that is not the Tibetan government in exile/during de facto rule nor is the Chinese government in any of its incarnation nor institutions directly related to them. An example of a third party would be scholars from the Oxford or Harvard universities, or channels like BBC, History Channel, etc. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Vague, do you refer to nationality of an author? or race of an author? or government involved to support an institute, do you know the UK government supports Oxford with actual money? Eipviongll (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the UK government is still a third party on this issue as is not China's govenrment nor Tibet government, for God sake we're not discussing whether governments should be considered primary sources or not, we're just saying that TWO governments in the entire world that are involved in this issue should not. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you're not able to answer my "author" nationality questions. But are you really sure the British government is third party? It has nothing to do with Tibet in history? Eipviongll (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did answer your "author" nationality questions when I said that we refer to governments (and people link to them) as primary sources that means we don't refer to nationalities as such, isn't that hard to understand. I don't want to be rude I think the problem here is that your dominion of the English language is a barrier. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You better know what you're talking about. You refer to connection, and no one will agree with you. Don't waste our time please. Eipviongll (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And for governments I mean Tibet's and China's, not every government in the world, just in case. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And I would like to insist in that whatever we decide here should apply to 13th Dalai Lama and 14th Dalai Lama which have more or less same sources. --TV Guy (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You're setting policy for Misplaced Pages then? Eipviongll (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to have the same debate on those pages, be my guest. We are more or less the same users and most likely the decision will be similar (whatever that decision is). I just wanted to save time. --TV Guy (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Let's debate and set up new policy for Misplaced Pages, what do you think? Eipviongll (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And that is because most of the information that Eipviongll couldn't put in here he put it in those two articles disregarding the fact that the information was under escrutiny and disputed, as usual. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If as I see Eipviongll agrees with Farang, as I think we all do, can we say we reach a consensus finally? Summary: All controversial information that relies only in primary sources should go (can be re-located if secondary sources appear) and we will only accept third party sources (that is, that they are not from any of the two governments involved). --TV Guy (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Vague. Did I agree? What did I agree? What is primary source? have we ever used primary source on this page? make sure you understand. Eipviongll (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You said a couple of paragraphs above "Farang, I agree with you on this. Eipviongll (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)", primary sources are already define by Misplaced Pages, read Misplaced Pages:Primary sources, yes we have lots of primary sources (esentially all those who come from the Chinese and Tibetan govs), and yes I understand perfectly, are you? --TV Guy (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What is that "this"? We have lots of primary sources? So you don't know what primary sources mean Eipviongll (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with "this". Answering your other question, nor Farang, nor Dereck, nor me, want to use primary sources in the article. --TV Guy (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Search for what I agreed. You even don't know the meaning of primary sources! One example, do you know what is the primary source for the "order issued by the Emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama"? Eipviongll (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So tell us what did you agree exactly? --TV Guy (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The word "this" means the statement made by Farang right above my response, got it? Do you understand primary source now? Eipviongll (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll calm down, this kind of comments: "You even don't know the meaning of primary sources!" are in violation of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and you can get sanctioned. You should apologize. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And it should be "you don't even know" just in case. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? tell us what is the primary source for the "order issued by the Emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama"? Eipviongll (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll I'm also having a hard time understanding you and I also think there's a language barrier here. So this discussion is going anywhere. How about this; tell us exactly what do you agree ok? --TV Guy (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In an article such as this, inline attribution of opinions (according to...) is only acceptable in my own opinion when independent, notable sources differ in opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Farang, I agree with you on this. Eipviongll (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And are you aware that that means every part of text with contradictory information that is not supported by non-primary sources should go? --TV Guy (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand what Farang said? Eipviongll (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and if I'm wrong Farang Rak Tham can correct me. --TV Guy (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang, please correct this TV Guy, obvious he has problem understanding your statement. Eipviongll (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The correct form is "obviously he has problems understanding your statement." --TV Guy (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to propose something. I think we all trust Farang Rak Tham, how about we make some sort of informal mediation and let him modify the article at will, handling the issue of the references and sources as he prefer, and the text too. Afterwards if we have any observation or disagreement with his edits we can have further discussion about it here. If he accepts of course. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your first constructive move, basically, we switch to the latest version "19:41, 30 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎" as a base, then Farang will evaluate and make changes. We can discuss afterward. Eipviongll (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, this kind of wording "I agree with your first constructive move" is very unpolite and breaking of the Misplaced Pages:Etiquette norms. And no, there's no need to revert the article if is going to be change anyway. Good try though. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You're asking Fareng to add in those 25+ edits, don't waste our time please. Eipviongll (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't know if he will add those "25+" edits. He could choose not to or just add some of them. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Again you're blocking. If he could choose not to, then your suggestion is just meaningless, you even don't know the problem is your revert action, and you're not able to evaluate those 25+ edits. Let's wait for Fareng's comment. Fareng, what's your comment? Eipviongll (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course he can choose not to, that's part you don't get. The only way this is going to be over is if you compromise and left some of your edits go. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you're giving very BAD advice, adding those 25+ edits takes a lot more time than fixing the latest version "19:41, 30 September 2017‎ Eipviongll (talk | contribs)‎". I would ask your be constructive. Fareng, what's your take? Eipviongll (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with "I would ask your be constructive". --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't give BAD advice. Eipviongll (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well whether is good or bad advice I guess we'll have to wait to see what he thinks. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

He meant "I ask you to be constructive". --TV Guy (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

salut, i looking the page. i want edit the latest version. how is that i do? -- Fransois

There now, happy editing!

Question re. Possible conflict of interest by "Eipviongll"

Having perused many of the numerous edits made by the above editor, which seem to follow a certain pattern, I am now just beginning to wonder whether he/she is employed by a Chinese Government body with instructions to insert edits into articles about Tibet and the Dalai Lamas in order to promote Chinese Government propaganda about these issues.

"Eipviongll" also seems to be using not exactly "Mao's Red Book" as his/her main source but similar books published by the same Chinese Government's official publishing company whose purpose it is to flood the Chinese (and world) market with propagandistic publications designed to saturate the populace with their own particular revisionist view of history, especially regarding all matters Tibetan.

It seems from "Eipviongll"'s comment above that the intention also includes blanking out the versions of the same events as researched and compiled by bona-fide, non-Chinese scholars and academics and witnesses, who have made a life-long study of these subjects over the years, going back to Bell, Richardson and their predecessors so forth, not to mention the huge volume of primary sources written by Tibetan historians over the centuries prior to the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950.

Of course "Eipviongll" would presumably be paid a salary for carrying out these duties. What is the procedure in such a case, can anyone please advise? Would "Eipviongll" be obliged to make a statement about his/her potential conflict of interest on this basis? What would such a conflict of interest extend to? Just wondering. Thanks, and personally feeling a little relieved that "Eipviongll" has now been blocked for edit-warring - at least for 24 hours! MacPraughan (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion does not pertain to the article, and should be held at Eipviongll's talk page. From what I can gather, Eipviongll's contributions tend to be pro-Chinese, but unless Eipviongll shows inside-knowledge in his edits, there is no way to tell if he works for anyone. You can ask him after he is unblocked, but he is not obliged to reply per Misplaced Pages policy. Personally, I think the situation could get better if all parties involved would only use independent, secondary sources. Perhaps better to focus on that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang, I agree that's just personal attack, it shouldn't be here at all. By the way, I don't agree with the dualistic view. Eipviongll (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether Eipviongll works for the Chinese government or not it doesn't really matter. Truth is his attitud is a problem as he has been unpolite, disrepectful and stuborn especally regarding his edits, and show no interest in consensus. Although I think Dereck also acted wrong while partaking in edit warring, at least he tries to abide to WP's policies to some extent. Eipviongll has clearly a particular purpose. Anyway, now that both edit warriors are under a temporary block and both were requested not to edit the article for a while, maybe we can work on the article more calmly and improve it.

I also requested an investigation for a Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eipviongll‎ for what I think is obviusly sockpuppetry on his behalf. --TV Guy (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:MacPraughan, assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack please. Eipviongll (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho's agreesive reversion, we need consensus

Dereck, if you can't evaluate those 25+ edits from multiple editors, why did you revert in the first place? Do you disagree with all those 25+ edits, or some of them? Can we discuss those edits you don't agree? Tell us Eipviongll (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be specific.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I already explain my opposition to those edits (all of them from you) and all other editors understand it to the point that some of my observations have already been apply to the article. If you havn't understand my reasons (or you claim so) sorry but I can't do more. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You only represent yourself. Let's discuss each edit. Eipviongll (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As the representative of myself, I repeat: I already express my disagreement globally and not going to repeat it. Have a nice day. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that we were both requested by admins to refrain from editing the article until consensus is reach in the talk page, as part of our block, wich you havn't fulfil. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. READ this on your talk page: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions." Can you be constructive? Since you reverted 25+ edits without giving explanation, now go to sections below and defend yourself. Eipviongll (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Continue reading "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection." --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, yes, can you discuss those controversial changes? See below, one section for each edit, so far, you haven't discussed any, please, go to those sections and explain. Eipviongll (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I already told you, for the third time, that I already manifest my position globallly and not going to repeat it. Whether you accept or not. And I won't answer anymore about it. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior is not constructive at all. So the consensus is you have no objections for those specific changes. But you have your global position which is not related to those specific changes. I would ask you not to do this kind of aggressive and irresponsible revert again, imagine, everyone does things like you did, what would happen? Eipviongll (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll you are, as usual, been disrespectul. I have mentioned you many times that you have to follow Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, I haven't report you out of incredible patience and to avoid more problems, but the way you are talking to me and accusing me of different stuffs is not allowed in Misplaced Pages and you can get sancioned for it. Are we clear? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you can even tell if your own behavior is constructive or not. I would ask again editors here to be constructive. I don't mind removing anything or adding anything, but we need to follow Misplaced Pages rules. I also asked you to discuss those specific edits your reverted from the beginning. Eipviongll (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wel I would appreciate if you remove all your personal attacks on my persona. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's all be constructive, agree? Asking editors to be constructive is not personal attack. Eipviongll (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You did other many personal attacks, but never mind. One of us has to be the bigger man. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: book was written by Tibetan Chinese historian and it was published in 1977, so fixed the statement.

Dereck doesn't agree with this change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&type=revision&diff=802135835&oldid=801850786

The number of serfs 6,000 was mentioned by historian in 1970s, and this data was reported in different media including reports, tv, newspaper. the "According to" shouldn't be specific to one media which reported this piece of info after 2000. Dereck, tell us, why did you revert?Eipviongll (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The documentary here is from CCTV, which is not independent from the Chinese government, and thus not independent of the subject. It is a notable television station, however, and its opinion can be included provided other, contrasting opinions are also added in and online attribution is done. As for the human rights report from the Chinese ambassador, this is a notable opinion, but it was published without much editorial oversight, merely as a collection of letters. His opinion can be included as well, provided other, contrasting opinions are also added in. The unified forum publication is in Chinese language, and it is unclear whether this is a notable publication and whether it is secondary. Thus, normally the opinion on the serfs could be included, but I still object to it for another reason, and that is it is an account without context and it is ambiguous. If it is included, however, it should be secondary to mainstream opinion, supported by secondary, reliable sources, whatever these say about the matter.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang has clearly more patience than me, but out of respect from him I would comment on each case. Nevertheless I do think the easiest way was let him edit the article in his own opinion and then make observation on what we agree or not of his edits.

In this particular case Eipviongll disregarded what was already discusse before, that the source was from the Chinese government and thus as unreliable it was agreed to mentioned it as such. He unilaterally change the already agreed redaction. But in any case, the source is unreliable, is primary sourcing, and should not be included at all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting your confirmation of your statement "Is not reliable because is not neutral". The change here is because data was published before 1980, the "according to" statement is simply false. Eipviongll (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The real problem to me is that no effort has been done yet to find what secondary sources say about the matter of the serfs. This would probably also clarify things—indeed, monastery servants were widespread in pre-modern Buddhism, but this was not exactly a feudal relation as in the western Middle Ages. Gregory Schopen and Richard Gombrich have written about this, but I am not sure if this also includes Tibet.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use this term "secondary source", it causes confusion. Eipviongll (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources does not cause confusion to me. --TV Guy (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: The source says China(中國), not Ming

Dereck doesn't agree with this change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802135835

The source says China (中國), not Ming, Dereck, tell us, why did you revert? Eipviongll (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

According to Google Books, the source cited is a work of fiction. Is this correct, Eipviongll?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the edits that were just part of the general reversion without me opposing the edit directly, I have no opposition on using either Ming or China. But thanks to Eipviongll now we now something knew; that the source seems to be fiction, and thus absolutly unreliable. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The question here is whether to use the word China, or Ming. If we want to discuss specifics of the book itself, like it's author, when the book was composed, or genre, it's another topic. Based on my assessment, it's not fiction. Eipviongll (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Books of fiction can't be use as source in any way, has to be excluded from the article. Sorry. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, books of fiction can't be use as source. The question here is this statement is not fiction. The author wrote fictions, but he also wrote history books, he's historian. Eipviongll (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes but this particular book is clasified under "fiction", so whether you provide a secondary source that says that the book is non-fiction or we can't use it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, can this be google books problem? The author wrote fiction books, also history books.Eipviongll (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And yes indeed, this "source" is a history fiction novel entitled: "Cai Dongfan 's Historical Romance - The Ming Dynasty" and thus is not a valid source by any mean. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A historical novel as source? be serious. --TV Guy (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding improperly cited content, Eipviongll.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang, I would ask you not to blame editors, can you assume good faith? I know you like the word "proof", have you proven the data to be false? have your proven this book to be fiction? The edit here is the change China vs. Ming, you're talking something else. Eipviongll (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The weight of the proof lies on the afirmation, not in the negation. --TV Guy (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: Arranged so years are in sequential order

Dereck doesn't agree with this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802136320

My explanation was clear: events are rearranged in sequential order, information before a year should be described first. Dereck, tell us why did you revert?

Another timeline case here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802193865

Eipviongll (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of the groupal edits that were part of the whole. I withdraw my objection to these particular edits. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Can you revert back later? Eipviongll (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you, I prefer not to touch the article until consensus is reached. Ask another user. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: added quote

Dereck doesn't agree with this edit, but there's no explanation from him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802137898

also this

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802186286

I included quote for the English language source. Dereck, why did you revert? Eipviongll (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Please provide evidence of the source, the author or the publisher being reliable and notable. If not, all content supported by it should be deleted.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed, can you go to "Archive 7" section "Source should be published in English language?"? Eipviongll (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed in both cases the information seems questionable at best. We need to see the reliability of the source, the curriculum of the author and if possible to see other sources that support both claims. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The archive discussion was whether non-English sources are allowed AFAIK, not whether the sources themselves were valid, which in many cases they aren't. --TV Guy (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Chinese language sources are okay in itself, but the problem we are dealing with is whether sources are primary or secondary, and whether they are reliable enough to include in such a high-profile article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Primary or secondary? Why is it important? I think it's just irrelevant. Can you explain first? This book is definitely more reliable than all other books found on the page. Have you read the discussion in section "Source should be published in English language?"? Eipviongll (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll can you please provide this to demostrate that your source is reliable: evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Same book, Chen Qingying published at least 72 academic papers and at least 14 books related to Tibet. That's reliability/reputation. Agree? Eipviongll (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We need more than your word for it; links, other academics quoting him, him been use as part of other book's bibliographies, and so on. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have just created one discussion section for him. Let's use that discussion section for anything related to him. Eipviongll (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: cite repair

Editor Trappist the monk fixed many links, and put a tag there saying English language should be used for English language books, that's google books issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802138762

Dareck, you reverted this? Can you put it back if you don't reject? Eipviongll (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: seems legitimate to me.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Publisher is China Intercontinental Press, we have already talk about how these cases would be considered to be too involved. If at least a third party account could confirm it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, the author is Chinese race, is this also a problem? Please, if you think all books published by the publisher are not reliable, provide a reliable source (again reliable source using the same standard) that says this. Eipviongll (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If is China Intercontinental Press then is clearly biased. --TV Guy (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Guy, can you write something meaningful? Eipviongll (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes: If is China Intercontinental Press then is clearly biased. --TV Guy (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: links fixed

I fixed links according to Trappist the monk's request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802161667

Dereck, why did you revert? Eipviongll (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: this edit seems legitimate.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This one in particular was made by mistake, I have no objection in re-include it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your mistake, you go and fix it. Eipviongll (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, once the lock ends. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: Sanskrit is not relevant in this

Dereck reverted this without explanation, Sanskrit name is not relevant at all in this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802185404

Dereck, why did you revert? Eipviongll (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, I think you should let it go. Your edits were reverted too long ago, other editors already made changes to the article in the meantime, even if anyone were paying attetion (and seems like no one is) we really can't bring your edits back as the article is different now. The best thing you can do is to argue one by one what you want to add to the article and, I remember you, they can't be primary sources. --TV Guy (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In this edit, he reverted, then he would need to explain. You better understand what primary source means first. Again, concentrate on the topic Eipviongll (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I agree that the Sanskrit is a bit odd. It seems that despite Eipviongll's insistence on the usage of government report and other fringe sources, he is not a bad copy-editor, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, any comments? can you revert back later? Eipviongll (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: miscellaneous fixes

The following contains list of miscellaneous fixes, Dereck reverted without explanation, Derec, why did you revert?

Dispute: added time info

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=prev&oldid=802186286

Eipviongll (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, the source seems fringe. Please prove otherwise. (see Dispute: added quote)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Source is reliable, again, concentrate on content, you're concentrating on publisher, race. That's fine, provide Misplaced Pages policy links please. Eipviongll (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Farang, unreliable source. Unless there's a third party that confirm it, the reversion should mantain. --TV Guy (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please write something meaningful. If your statement is right, do you think third party can be found to confirm all the sources in this Dalai Lama page? Again, write something meaningful please. Eipviongll (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think third parties can be found that confirm your fringe source, but feel free to look for them and place it here. --TV Guy (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll can you please provide this to demostrate that your source is reliable: evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Chen Qingying published at least 72 academic papers and at least 14 books related to Tibet. That's reliability. Agree? Eipviongll (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We need proof of that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

To assume good faith, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dalai_Lama#Scholar_in_Tibetology:_Chen_Qingying_.E9.99.88.E5.BA.86.E8.8B.B1 Eipviongll (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: Better description. See description in the source.

Here I rephrased what's in the source, Dereck, you reverted without explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802187406

Tell us why?

Also here author Tsering Shakya's book with quote is used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802237465

Eipviongll (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, you also deleted "up to complete sovereignty". Is this not supported by the book of Bell cited?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

After having checked the source myself, it seems you were right to delete "up to complete sovereignty". It is not supported by Bell, or at least not on the page cited. However, the text you added is out of place and does not fit well into the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's fix the incorrect statement with a correct statement first. Eipviongll (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to rephrase it to "up to de facto sovereignty", which is the case, but the source should be clean-up. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Also remember, reliable source, you can't write things up. Eipviongll (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Shakya (1999) p.4 "independent state", 90 "international legal status" was "independent state". Feigon (1996) p.119 "border between the two countries" of China and Tibet in 1917. Goldstein (1997) pp.30-37 Chapter titled "Interlude: De Facto Independence". Latourette (1964) pp.333 "practically independent" from 1912, 419 "accepted the suzerainity of the Communists" in 1951. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Are they books? do you need to provide proof for reliability? Can you provide google books links so we can read? Eipviongll (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Use google, as with the soul boy. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "de facto" works better than complete too. --TV Guy (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

De facto agrees with sources, don't forget to also add in the sources you just quoted, Dereck Camacho. Use the most recent ones.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, it's confirmed the original description was not correct, and my edit was correct based on what's in reliable source. To improve further if you like, , I would ask editor include reliable sources with quotes as well. Eipviongll (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: 11th Dalai Lama: added the urn process

Here I added the Chinese Golden Urn process for the 11th Lama, one source from John Powers was included included, from google books. Dereck you reverted this without explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=prev&oldid=802193865

Seems a legitimate edit, but you need to explain what the significance of this ceremony was.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you want me to explain in the main text with source right? This ceremony was required by law specified in 欽定藏內善後章程 Eipviongll (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also here, reliable source with quote for the urn process:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802232420

Please prove reliability of author or publisher, as stated above. The China Tibetology Research Center is government-established according to this source, so you need a source with more distance instead.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you need? Editors need to do that? Can you provide Misplaced Pages policy link please. Eipviongll (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Dereck is right in his interpretation. The Chinese government is a primary source in this issue by definition, I support the positions of Farang and Dereck on this. --TV Guy (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Guy, if you want be constructive, write something meaningful. Eipviongll (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll: assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack please. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, why did you revert?

Another case here, source added for the ceremony:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=prev&oldid=802214003

Publisher of this source is real, but it is hard to find any information on the reliability of either the publisher or the author.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

THIS: isbn=978-7-80113-303-8 Eipviongll (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Another reliable source added with actual quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802215513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eipviongll (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Government-established publishing house. Primary source.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by Primary source? Eipviongll (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We already explain you several times what primary sources are. But anyway; any source from the Chinese government or an organization linked or financiated by it is primary source in this case. Are we clear? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, please read Misplaced Pages policy and understand what primary source means. First, primary sources are allowed on Misplaced Pages, second, "primary source" refers to the original source that contains the original data. Any source can contain the "primary source data", but source cannot be claimed to be primary source if it doesn't contain the original data. Clear? Please get the unnecessary concept "government" out of discussion please, it won't produce anything. Eipviongll (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, why did you revert?

Eipviongll (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources all IMO, that information can't go on the article unless second hand accounts are provided. --TV Guy (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Guy, please don't waste our time. If you want to be constructive, write something meaningful. Eipviongll (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think TV Guy's participation was meaningful and I also suport what he said. The sources are unreliable. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, reliability is something we're currently discussing, people need to provide relevant, meaningful, or thoughtful feedback, shouting slogan or repeating something again and again won't change anything, it's also not constructive. Eipviongll (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine. In order to be constructive, Eipviongll can you please provide this to demostrate that your source is reliable: evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

All these books including John Powers' book are reliable, if you find something false from any of those books, then those books will become unreliable, in general, we study history right, reliability of an author depends on reputation, 2 authors can really be compared, you can also compare citation indexes, but for Tibetology, there are really not a lot of researchers if you compare with other fields. From here I would say if you compare reliability/reputation of an author, 2 indexes, number of published papers, and number of written books. I take Chen Qingying as one example, at least 72 papers and at least 14 books related to Tibet, here: Eipviongll (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

We'll check each and every one of your sources, one by one, don't worry. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: ransom to release soul boy (14th Dalai Lama)

Dereck reverted this without explanation. Here I put statement regarding ransom which was paid to release the soul boy (14th Dalai Lam) in Qinghai with reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802214463

Google search returns a lot of books for this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ma+Bufang+ransom+dalai+lama&spell=1&sa=X&bih=1194

Dereck, why did you revert? Eipviongll (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: reliability of this source is yet to be established.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "established"? Are editors required to provide such thing? Eipviongll (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You didn't ask me, but yes. You should provide reliability for the source. By the way I'm dubious whether "soul boy" is an official term or translation. As I understand is Eipviongll's personal translation of a mandarin word. Does anyone knows if we can find if the term exists or is there an official translation? because it sound weird. All boys have souls,and also the concept of "soul" is very different in Buddhism, is more related to mind, so it indeed sounds like a deficient translation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Really? Please provide Misplaced Pages policy link. You don't know what "soul boy" means for this Dala Lama page, can you google? Eipviongll (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. And the only thing that appears in google when searching for Soul boy is a movie of 2010. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where's the line that says "editors need to provide proof to establish reliability"? Adding another word "Dalai", you will get the right info. Eipviongll (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Other: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And this one: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your copy and paste material has nothing to do with this statement "editors need to provide proof to establish reliability", as a matter of fact, if editors need to provide proof, this Dalai Lama will be blank. Eipviongll (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, if you want a literal quotation, not that doesn't exist is just what Farang and I interpret from that policy. But then don't worry, just stick to the literal quotation of the policy and please for your sources provide: evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. can you do that? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am just assuming that you are not getting paid extra for these extensive discussions, but here goes: Eipviongll, you need to do more to prove your sources are reliable, because

• most of the sources you have used before were primary sources;
• the sources are in Chinese, which in itself is fine, but it makes it hard for others editors to check their reliability and independence from the government.

Reliability can be proven by showing its is a publisher or author widely quoted by scholars or journalists. In English language, Google Scholar would be used for that, for example. Independence from the government can be proven by providing us with more background of the publisher, or evidence that they have published different opinions than those of the government of Mainland China.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang, your first line is personal attack, you ruin your reputation. Do you know what "primary source" means? Primary sources are allowed on Misplaced Pages, this particurmar source contains "primary source data", again I ask you, do you know what "primary source data" means? I think this particular discuss is same as the following: Eipviongll (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama#Enthronement_controversy

As Farang already explained, Primary sources are allowed but should be avoided especially in biographies of living people and controversial subjects. I'm sorry Eipviongll but as you can see most of us considered these sources to be unreliable. Whether you comply or you request an arbitrarion. --TV Guy (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Guy, can you read and understand the discussion first? You even don't know what the main point is. Eipviongll (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll: assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack please. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, that's no personal attack. Farang's statement was simply wrong, and he was no able to provide anything to support himself. If you follow that discussion, you will see this TV Guy didn't even read the discussion. Eipviongll (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll: assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack please, be constructive. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like everytime someone disagrees with you don't know what you're talking about. Problem is, we all do. We all disagree with you. So again, your sources can't be use. Deal with it. --TV Guy (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your slogan. Eipviongll (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll: assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack please, be constructive. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: 14th Dalai Lama: only one source contains the right data: 16 children)

Dereck reverted the following edit without explanation. Here based on the sources, only one source confirmed the number (16) of children, all the other sources are not related.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=802219943

Dereck, why did you revert? can you explain? Eipviongll (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Seems a legitimate edit to me, that shouldn't have been reverted. However, you could have moved to references to the talk page for later usage.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dereck, any feedback? If you agree, can you revert back later? Eipviongll (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't revert it back because the article is lock. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: rejected by both China and Republic of China

Farang, you reverted this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&type=revision&diff=803396715&oldid=803393641

Here's my change:

Revision as of 05:03, 2 October 2017 (view source) Eipviongll (talk | contribs) (I don't agree with this recent "China" change, China refers to ROC in the current world map, we can discuss on talk page if it's needed to reach consensus) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&type=revision&diff=803382640&oldid=803382282

The dispute should be between Eipviongll and the other editor, he changed originally without much description.

Revision as of 14:32, 1 October 2017 (view source) (thank) (correct sentence.) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=next&oldid=803259656

Now there's dispute, he should explain first for his change, but not the other way around. The right procedure is we should discuss after my change, your reversion (3d changed for this) can cause editing warring. We don't use reversion to discuss, but discussion page, agree? but now you tell me, the original editor or you needs to explain to reach consensus? Eipviongll (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of any previous reverts, and considering the numerous edits that preceded my revert, this would have been difficult to notice. Regardless, the source cited does state that there was no fundamental difference between the Republic of China (1912-49) and People's Republic of China (PRC) in not recognizing Tibet's sovereignty. Thus, Taerkast's edit was justified and should not have been reverted per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. One mistake that was made, however was the wikilink: Republic of China must of course be Republic of China (1912-49).--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang, you said you were not aware of any previous reverts, in my comment, I said explicitly "I don't agree with this recent China change, the word "recent" means there was previous revert. Eipviongll (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The source says China, stick to what's in source: China, not PRC. There's typo in my comment, it should be "China refers to PRC in the current world map". Eipviongll (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Farang, we should stick to what the sources say explicitly. And by the way in those places were I didn't commented was because I just support Farang's opinion. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you see my comment? The source says China, not PRC, stick to the source. Eipviongll (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, I think we should do what Farang suggests. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think we should go for Farang redaction. --TV Guy (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, currently, many editors consider "People's Republic of China" synonymous with China, as can be observed from this redirect. This is currently the official name of China,a s translated from 中华人民共和国. Perhaps you would care to explain what you think is wrong with this name? I don't quite understand your point.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Does source use China? or PRC? Stick to the source. Eipviongll (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Very well, if you want to use China, that is fine with me, as it links to the same article as the People's Republic of China. I don't understand the difference though. Isn't China and the People's Republic of China the same country? Taiwan is called the Republic of China, there is no people's in there. Perhaps you are confusing the two?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

October, 3, edit request

This edit request to Dalai Lama and ] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the wikilink in the lead of the article that refers to Republic of China to Republic of China (1912-49) per source cited. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which source are your talking about? Eipviongll (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Does source contain this "(1912-49)"? Eipviongll (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha, you can actually be quite funny, you know. Republic of China refers to Taiwan, Republic of China (1912-49) refers to China under Mao.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha Farang, you're wrong, your statement shows you don't know history of China. Eipviongll (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll: assume good faith, concentrate on the topic, no personal attack please. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks anyway for taking a look, MSGJ. I had not expected it was controversial whether Tibet's sovereignty was related to China or Taiwan.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's Misplaced Pages for you. If it is clear cut then it should be no problem to get confirmation from another couple of editors. (I stay strictly neutral in admin capacity.) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is primary source?

I would ask editors understand meaning of primary source first before using this term again and again. Please read Misplaced Pages policy and understand what primary source means. First, primary sources are allowed on Misplaced Pages, second, "primary source" refers to the original source that contains the original data. Any source can contain the "primary source data", but source cannot be claimed to be primary source if it doesn't contain the original data. Clear? Please get the unnecessary concept out of discussion please, it won't produce anything. Also, don't confuse primary source with "original search". Again, assume good faith, concentrate on the content, no personal attack. Personal attack only ruins one's reputation. Eipviongll (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we all are clear on what primary sources means, but you pal. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope we're on the same page, here's old discussion Eipviongll (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

tell us what is the primary source for the "order issued by the Emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama"? Eipviongll (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The "I have no idea" is regarding your question, I didn't get it due to your lacking English grammar. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My question was clear: what is the primary source for the "order issued by the Emperor of China for the 13th Dalai Lama"? Eipviongll (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't understand what you mean. Maybe if other editor get it he/she might tell me. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To assume good faith, let me explain, the order itself reads "噶仁青之子罗布桑塔布克甲木错即作为达赖喇嘛之呼毕勒罕，勿庸掣瓶", this is "primary source data", now this "primary source data" can appear in many other sources,you can google and will see many books, and web sites. My question now is, is there original source (primary source) for this data? What is it? If that can't be located, is there a replica of original source? and is this replica found easily? let's say can this be found in a UK library? (my answer for this is YES). Eipviongll (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Answering your question, yes this order is primary source. That's why we can't use it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are the one interested on this source why don't you search the answer for all those questions? Make your homework, don't make me do the jobn for you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Scholar in Tibetology: Chen Qingying 陈庆英

To assume good faith, for this Dalai Lama page, I think the best book that contains the most complete information is this book:

The System of the Dalai Lama Reincarnation, Chen Qingying 陈庆英 (Author)

Both English version and Chinese version are available on Google Books, unfortunately many pages are not visible. You will need to buy from amazon.com.

English language, 2005: https://books.google.com/books?id=haMIsdC3iZwC&pg=PA1

Chinese language, 2003: https://books.google.com/books?id=_NYY36cUr9EC&pg=PA1

This should be Chen Qingying's quote: (you can google)

"It is not so easy for Tibetan people to survive and thrive under such harsh natural conditions on the plateau. This might be difficult for people from the outside to understand. The Tibetan people have also developed a unique culture, which has made great contributions to humankind's social and cultural development. I believe such an influence will continue long into the future."

Some discussion of Chen Qingyin can be found here:

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

External links related to him:

http://people.tibetcul.com/zrzy/xs/201311/32461.html (Chinese language)

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%99%88%E5%BA%86%E8%8B%B1 (This is Chinese version of Misplaced Pages, list of his papers/books can be found)

English language academic references to Chen Qingying

China's Elite Politics: Governance and Democratization, By Zhiyue Bo, 2010

Buddhism Between Tibet and China, edited by Matthew Kapstein, 2014

A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 3: The Storm Clouds Descend, 1955Ð1957 By Melvyn C. Goldstein, 2013

etc...

He published at least 72 academic papers and at least 14 books related to Tibet, I will try to find out the exact numbers. I believe he's now too old and retired.

If you have better books written by academic professors, please share and discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eipviongll (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read Chinese. Can you provide Englishe sources? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

See above Academic references. I will update. Eipviongll (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you place the references and not just a google search link? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This will be updated again, future editors can come and check info. Eipviongll (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, not bad for notability. Now let's check neutrality. We need to know that the author does not have direct involvement with the subject matter and is fully independent. That doesn't work for the Chinese government or any organization financed by it and that is considered impartial by the academic community. Can you give us evidence of that? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell us public universities in the US are funded by the government? Does US government branches finance university projects? Can you give us evident of that? Also Misplaced Pages links please. Eipviongll (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not American, so I can't really say. But you are the one pushing for your sources to be place on the article, thus is up to you to convince us that those are reliable sources. But if you can't or don't want to, don't worry, it's ok. We just move forward and let the issue here. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eipviongll, can you provide us here with more information on this Wuzhou Communication Publishing House (五洲传播出版社), for which Chen Qingying (陈庆英) has been publishing? Can be in either English or Chinese. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the discussion on Chen Qingying, please note he now has his own article, completely by coincidence of course. His book The System of the Dalai Lama Reincarnation has already been tagged for notability, and probably someone will come along to tag Chen Qingying's article, so this discussion may prove useful to many articles at once.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

After having taken a look at the English work of Chen Qingying, it seems to me it is popular in nature, rather than scholarly. It refers to a handful of primary sources, but there is no list of footnotes with references, or literature used. Three citations on Google Scholar (and not a single citation for the Chinese version) does not really prove any notability. If there is evidence of an independent publisher, Eipviongll, The System of the Dalia Lama Reincarnation might be used as a minority opinion, but not in a an article like this with many reliable sources available, and also not in an article about living people. There are, however, many other, more widely quoted works out there about the Dalai Lama, including works by Chinese authors. You can find these by services like Google Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A few years ago, an English-language biography of prof. Chen Qingying was available on the website of the College for Tibetan Studies at the Minzu University of China but the page doesn't seem to exist any more as Chen Qingying is now retired (He was a professor at the Minzu University of China and the Southwest Minzu University.) I have just managed to retrieve the original page from the hard disk one of my computers. Here are a few excerpts.

"From Oct. 1981 to Mar. 1984, he was an assistant researcher in the Tibetology Institute of the Central College for Nationalities to study Tibetology, and the history of Sa-skya Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and the history between Mongolia and Tibet. He wrote The Brief History between Mongolia and Tibetan People in co-operation with Prof. Wang Furen. He translated Prof. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang vphrin-las’On Tibetan Theocracy, and co-translated A Mirror of Genealogy of Tibetan Kings, Red Annals, The Sa-skya Chronicles, Tibetan Memoir of New and Old Tang Books(in Tibetan), and edited Anthology of Tibetology Research (2 volumes), Collection of Translate Version of Tibetology Research (2 volumes). In Mar. 1984, he moved to the Tibetan Institute of Qinghai Academy of Social Sciences, taking charge of compiling Sku-vbum Monastery Tibetan Catalog, and the history cultural relic of Sku-vbum Monastery. He became an associated researcher and deputy superintendent in 1986."

"He became a superintendent of Tibetology Institute of Qinghai Academy of Social Sciences in 1987，and became a research fellow from 1988, taking charge of research task on the history of Tibetan society in Qinghai Province. He edited in chief Tibetan Tribes of China, Research on the System of Tibetan Tribes, General Situation of Sku-vbum Monastery, etc. He translated Analects on the Historical Relation between the Hans and Tibetans, co-translated The Biography of Imperial Master Lcang-skya Rol-pavi Rdo-rje, The Biography of the 3rd and 4th Dalai Lama, The Biography of the 5th Dalai Lama, The History of Mongolian Buddhism, etc."

"In Aug. 1993, he moved to the China Tibetology Research Center, and became a superintendent and a research fellow of the History and Religion Institute, joining the work of writing The History between Tibetan Region and Central Government since Yuan Dynasty, General history of Tibet—Series History of Chinese Border Area. He co-edited in chief with Prof. Wang Yao Dictionary of Tibetan History and Culture. He wrote The Imperial Master Vphags-pa in Yuan Dynasty, The Whole History between Mongolia and Tibet: Politics Volume, etc. He edited in chief The Research on the Lives of the Past Dynasties of Dalai Lamas, and co-translated The General History of Tibet: Gyu-yi Phreng-ba, etc."

"From Oct. 1995 to Feb. 2004, he was a visiting professor at Department of Ethnology of National Chengchi University (Taiwan) and Department of Religions of Fo Guang University (Taiwan) one term for each. From Apr. to Dec. in 1999, he was a visiting scholar at Yenching Institute of Harvard University, and did co-operational research there."

I hope this information will help skeptics to form a more favourable opinion of prof. Chen Qingying's notability. --Elnon (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Elnon. If you have a link of the web page before it was removed, we might be able to trace the old web page through archive services such as http://www.archive.org.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Zhiyue Bo (2010). China's Elite Politics: Governance and Democratization. World Scientific. pp. 259–. ISBN 978-981-283-672-4.
2. Matthew Kapstein (1 May 2014). Buddhism Between Tibet and China. Wisdom Publications. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-0-86171-806-1. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |date= at position 7 (help)
3. Melvyn C. Goldstein (7 December 2013). A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 3: The Storm Clouds Descend, 1955Ð1957. Univ of California Press. pp. 520–. ISBN 978-0-520-27651-2.

Unfortunately, Farang Rak Tham, I have been unable to recover the page's full address. All I have is the host address: http://zt.tibet.cn/ and the filename: 2009020097293406.htm

However, I can provide you with the content of the first paragraph:

"Chen Qingying, male, Han nationality; ancestral home: Taishan County, Shandong Province; Birthday: 21, Oct. 1941; Birthplace: Nanchong City, Sichuan Province. In 1958, he moved to Qinghai with his parents. In 1960, he graduated from The Affiliated High School of Qinghai Normal College, and entered into The Department of Physics of Qinghai College for Nationalities to study physics and Tibetan language. In 1963, the Department of Physics of Qinghai College for Nationalities merged into Qinghai Normal College, so he graduated from The Department of Physics of Qinghai Normal College in 1965. From 1967 to 1978, he was a teacher of Delingha Middle School at Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Regions of Western area, and the Normal School for Nationalities of Western area in Qinghai Province. In 1978, he entered the Department of Language of National Minorities of Central College for Nationalities to study the ancient Tibetan language and literature of Dunhuang. In Oct. 1981, he gained the Master Degree for literature."

and the last but one paragraph:

"He is a research fellow of the China Tibetology Research Center, and a professor and a doctoral tutor at Minzu University of China, and Southwest Minzu University."

I hope this helps. --Elnon (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally already thought that he had notability. What I'm still not convince is that he is neutral enough to be considered an non-biased source as he works for an institute that, if exists, is clearly meant to be an ideological spearhead of the Chinese government and he himself seem to follow many official views. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't wait for Eipviongll, he was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, as I suspected. --TV Guy (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I will miss his enlightening comments about Taiwan controlling Tibet. RIP, Eipviongll, it just wasn't meant to be.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

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) 08:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that our friend Eipviongll has been blocked indefinitely for having multiple accounts, and thus discredited, and his article on Nyima Gyancain deleted, dare I suggest that all his edits on Tibetan affairs incuding the Dalai Lamas, many if not all of which appear to me to be based on highly suspect and unreliable sources such as Chinese government propaganda publications, ought to be reviewed and deleted as appropriate? MacPraughan (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I second that, it was clearly a vandalic account that used several puppet to vandalize on purpose. We should at the very least make a review of all his editions. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but some sources related to the Chinese government can be included as primary sources, if their relevance can be proven by secondary sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously. The idea is not to make the article biased to the other side either. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course. I only suggested his edits should be reviewed, with a view to deleting anything that might be considered inappropriate, bearing in mind that he has been found out, discredited and therefore blocked indefinitely. His first argument in defence of any criticism or even questioning of his edits was always "Assume good faith." Now that his own 'good faith' has been shown to be so severely lacking, a strict review of all his work here, in my opinion, is in order. MacPraughan (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. In reflection, I haven't seen a single pro-Chinese source being used which was notable enough to include as a primary source, except for the CCTV report and the lecture of the Chinese ambassador cited in the section above. (see Dispute: book was written by Tibetan Chinese historian and it was published in 1977, so fixed the statement.)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham would you do the honors? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho, you mean clean up unreliable sources? Okay, but that sword is likely to cut on both sides, though a little more on the pro-Chinese side, I presume.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Title in Chinese

Is there a particular reason for why the Dalai Lama title is included in its Chinese versions? I get using Tibetan, Sanscrit and Mongol but two Chinese languages seem odd. Why not use German and Hungarian too then? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems warranted, because the subject is widely discussed in these languages, especially Mandarin, though I prefer to have these transliterations listed in some sort of infobox format rather than inline.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Tibet articles
• Top-importance Tibet articles
• WikiProject Tibet articles
• B-Class Buddhism articles
• High-importance Buddhism articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles