Jump to content

Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Unreliable source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s not what it says above:

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

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

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

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

Yes,

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

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

Yes, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

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

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

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

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)

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:

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies.
You broke the Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. Eipviongll (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than making speculative attacks. See also Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia should contain all views, and that's what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. So go and read those Wikipedia guidelines and don't block please. Eipviongll (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Dereck, I ask you to read Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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)

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/wiki/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/wiki/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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalai_Lama/Archive_8&oldid=817529678"