Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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: "[The] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, read Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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!

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 Wikipedia - 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

Page protection

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 Wikipedia rule, report was filed here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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)

Dispute: links fixed

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: 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/w/index.php?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: Better description. See description in the source.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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: 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)

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/w/index.php?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: 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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: 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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/wiki/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: added quote

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

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

also this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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: 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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)