Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 02:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Nominator is currently blocked, and the block will not expire before WP:DYKTIMEOUT applies.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tukdam
- ... that the Dalai Lama persuaded scientists to study a Buddhist tradition?
- Source: * Lott, Dylan T.; Yeshi, Tenzin; Norchung, N.; Dolma, Sonam; et al. (2021-01-28). "No Detectable Electroencephalographic Activity After Clinical Declaration of Death Among Tibetan Buddhist Meditators in Apparent Tukdam, a Putative Postmortem Meditation State". Frontiers in Psychology. 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.599190. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 7876463. PMID 33584435.
Tukdam Project, developed in conversations between Dr. Richard J. Davidson and His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the XIV Dalai Lama ... Dalai Lama regularly speaks of the importance of scientific research on tukdam in his public talks to the Tibetan community
- Reviewed:
- Comment: This looks like my last free QpQ ticket
5x expanded by Skyerise (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Викидим (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC).
i'm sorry to say you've wasted your ticket.
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
- "other studies" empty section tag
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral: - article often promotes the idea of tukdam. the "reports of attainment" section is especially egregious. you can't verify after-death consciousness, but the article lists 8 people who have attained tukdam, including someone who died in 1865.
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems: - the article presents the topic as if it wasn't a fringe topic. also, the "cultural and religious significance", "scientific research", and "documentary film" sections read like an large language model wrote it. also, why is there an entire section on a documentary film?
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - the quote you provided doesn't support the hook. in addition, it says that
This Tukdam Project, developed in conversations between Dr. Richard J. Davidson and His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the XIV Dalai Lama, is a collaborative long-term empirical research effort of the Center for Healthy Minds in partnership with Men-Tsee-Khang (Sowa-Rigpa, Dharamsala, India), Delek Hospital (Dharamsala, India), and the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
he didn't just "persuade" them. - Interesting:
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
this isn't exactly relevant, but frontiers media is noted in User:JzG/Predatory for promoting fringe theories. ltbdl☃ (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Replacing a rejection notice with a maybe notice. The nomination is still eligible and should not be immediately rejected. Flibirigit (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- it really isn't. ltbdl☃ (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:RS characterize this as a religious concept within Tibetan Buddhist. The original version of the article included a lot of content about scientists proving life after death, which has since been removed. There are still some lines that are taking life after death as a settled thing like, "
The practice of tukdam involves the practitioner's consciousness remaining in a meditative state known as the "Clear Light Stage" after death
" The National Geographic source cited does not present it as settled, "“If I had just casually walked into the room, I would have thought he was sitting in deep meditation,” Davidson says, his voice on the phone still a little awestruck. “His skin looked totally fresh and viable, no decomposition whatsoever.” The sense of the dead man’s presence, even at close range, helped inspire Davidson to study thukdam scientifically. He has assembled some basic medical equipment, such as EEGs and stethoscopes, at two field stations in India and has trained an on-site team of 12 Tibetan physicians to test these monks—preferably beginning while they’re still alive—to see whether any brain activity continues after their death.
"[1] Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:RS characterize this as a religious concept within Tibetan Buddhist. The original version of the article included a lot of content about scientists proving life after death, which has since been removed. There are still some lines that are taking life after death as a settled thing like, "
- it really isn't. ltbdl☃ (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
while i wasn't looking, a huge chunk of the article was removed. this also means the hook is no longer mentioned in the article. any alts?
also, the "cultural and religious significance" is still written horribly, and there's a citation needed tag. ltbdl☃ (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I yeeted a chunk of this article to assuage concerns by @Chipmunkdavis: at WT:DYK. @Викидим and Skyerise:, please address the above.--Launchballer 07:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd restored the material removed without good reason. Use tags and the talk page of the article to discuss article content, please. It's totally bad form to remove 9,000 bytes of cited material without discussion on the article talk page. I didn't nominate this and I am not following the discussion here. Skyerise (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The nominator apparently isn't responding, the article main author isn't following the discussion (as commented above), and this nom is getting old. I suggest we close this. BorgQueen (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- to be fair, the main author isn't responding because she's blocked. ltbdl☃ (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Still no reason for @Викидим: to have not responded.--Launchballer 17:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding earlier and thank you for the ping. I did not think that my response was needed as there is a clear consensus against the nomination. IMHO the only way to allay the objections here is to shrink the article down to the brass tacks, somewhere around my last edit (Old revision of Tukdam). However, based on my experience and the discussion here, this trimming is currently impossible due to the position of the main author. I had therefore decided not to fight for the nomination - fighting the main author seems pointless. If the participants of this discussion would agree that (1) the said revision has some promise as a DYK candidate and (2) there is a chance of keeping the article in its shorter form, I am ready to put effort into trimming the article. Викидим (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The main author is welcome to chip in when their block expires, which given WP:DYKTIMEOUT won't be before this runs. I will say that the shorter rendition you link to is not 1500 characters and would deserve a lot of tags. This isn't irreparable, it just needs work.--Launchballer 18:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting topic and I learnt while reading it. I do think it would be possible to clean up the article without too much editorial work, however whether the consensus work is worth it is up to you. CMD (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Her talk page access isn't revoked right? Maybe we can ask her to respond on her talk page regarding the nomination. Though given the issues and consensus is leaning against this, perhaps it's for the best to just close the nomination, without prejudice against renominating if the issues are addressed and the article is brought to GA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good idea. The last thing I want is trying to get article into shape for DYK while getting "the article stays as it was", "Don't need "friends" like that", "I won't be taken to task by a Russian" in place of a "thank you" (see Talk:Tukdam/Archive 1). Can you ask Skyerise if she is OK with the plan listed here? Викидим (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will say that you shouldn't have got any of those per WP:CIVIL. If she violates that policy again when she's unblocked, you should report her to WP:ANI. This nomination will close one way or another before she can return and the shorter version can't run, so up to you.--Launchballer 08:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Her talk page access isn't revoked right? Maybe we can ask her to respond on her talk page regarding the nomination. Though given the issues and consensus is leaning against this, perhaps it's for the best to just close the nomination, without prejudice against renominating if the issues are addressed and the article is brought to GA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Still no reason for @Викидим: to have not responded.--Launchballer 17:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going ahead and closing this as unsuccessful. With the nominator currently blocked and unable to address any concerns, along with the multiple issues raised above, running on DYK does not appear feasible at this time. If the article can be brought to GA status then perhaps this can be revisited down the road. Putting the nomination out of its misery now rather than waiting two more weeks for WP:DYKTIMEOUT to apply. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)