Content deleted Content added
Line 94: Line 94:
:I don't see the reason to add this information here, it should go to the Golden Urn article, adding this information in every single article about the Dalai Lama and similar is [[Wikipedia:Spam]], the only reason I see is the Chinese government insistence in claiming the ability to name future Dalai Lamas as they intend to for political reasons. In any case according to this source the famous urn was not use in the last two Dalai Lamas. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-cant-xi-shake-the-monks-hand/20151119.htm --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:I don't see the reason to add this information here, it should go to the Golden Urn article, adding this information in every single article about the Dalai Lama and similar is [[Wikipedia:Spam]], the only reason I see is the Chinese government insistence in claiming the ability to name future Dalai Lamas as they intend to for political reasons. In any case according to this source the famous urn was not use in the last two Dalai Lamas. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-cant-xi-shake-the-monks-hand/20151119.htm --[[User:Dereck Camacho|Dereck Camacho]] ([[User talk:Dereck Camacho|talk]]) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
:: Nor the book by Tsering, nor the Rediff website is sufficiently reliable to include information that respectively confirms or denies the usage of the urn. {{u|Toto11zi}}, if you wish to better put Chinese history and culture on the map, there are many articles you could spend time on, such as [[Confucianism]], [[Communism in China]], [[Filial piety]]. The urn discussion has already been addressed, debated and discussed to death on this talk page. Let's not run around in circles.--<span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC">[[User:Farang Rak Tham|<span style="color:blue;font-weight:900">Farang Rak Tham</span>]] [[User talk:Farang Rak Tham|(Talk)]]</span> 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:: Nor the book by Tsering, nor the Rediff website is sufficiently reliable to include information that respectively confirms or denies the usage of the urn. {{u|Toto11zi}}, if you wish to better put Chinese history and culture on the map, there are many articles you could spend time on, such as [[Confucianism]], [[Communism in China]], [[Filial piety]]. The urn discussion has already been addressed, debated and discussed to death on this talk page. Let's not run around in circles.--<span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC">[[User:Farang Rak Tham|<span style="color:blue;font-weight:900">Farang Rak Tham</span>]] [[User talk:Farang Rak Tham|(Talk)]]</span> 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}

Revision as of 09:42, 6 January 2020

Former good article nominee14th Dalai Lama was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 24, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwang2037, Eboskovski, Lin1248, ShengO (article contribs).

"14th" vs. "fourteenth"

As far as I can see, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style in MOS:ORDINAL (which refers to MOS:NUMERAL), Wikipedia spells out numbers from zero to nine in words, in article text. This also applies to titles, according to MOS:AT. That means we should have article titles "First Dalai Lama", "Second Dalai Lama" and so on. Numbers greater than nine, which require two words or less, can also be spelled out, and this should be done for consistency. That means the title of this article should be "Fourteenth Dalai Lama", not "14th Dalai Lama", and this style should be followed throughout the article, and all other "Nth Dalai Lama" articles. "Fourteenth Dalai Lama" is also used by many reliable sources, as cited in the article. Unless someone has another explanation, I would like to propose that this change be made. --IamNotU (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Your reasoning seems sound, and agrees with the guidelines.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection on my behalf. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IamNotU, Agree but should be at Tenzin Gyatso. ―Justin (koavf)T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree While NUMERAL says numerals greater than nine and expressible in two or less words can go either way, it is specific that zero to nine should always be spelled out, and that comparable values should follow suit. Thus, in my view, "First Dalai Lama" would be mandated by "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." and "Fourteenth Dalai Lama" would be mandated by "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7 and 32, but not ages were five, seven and 32." This also seems like an uncontroversial change, and I see no reason not to make it. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering Question

Technically, it would not be right to say that he is the "14th Dalai Lama" because in Tibetian Buddhist tradition, there is only one Dalai Lama that continues to be reincarnated. I would change the title to just Tenzin Gyatso, or 14th Reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. KingWither (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, that's how is done in Spanish in fact. See es:Tenzin Gyatso. However the Common Name argument is valid. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the comments in WP:COMMONNAME, but people usually refer to him as "The Dalai Lama," or something similar. They never refer to him as "14th Dalai Lama". As per COMMONNAME, we are supposed to name pages based on regularly used names. "Dalai Lama" or "Tenzin Gyatso" beats "14th Dalai Lama" there. It is not supposed to be specific. KingWither (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's already a general article: Dalai Lama. So we need to disambiguate this one somehow. The title of his official website is "The 14th Dalai Lama". Encyclopedia Britannica's article on him is titled "14th Dalai Lama". The New York Times [1] and the BBC [2] both describe him as being "the 14th Dalai Lama". A Google Books search seems to indicate there are more books with "14th Dalai Lama" in the title than with "Tenzin Gyatso", and a general Google search (for what it's worth) gives significantly more hits for the former than the latter. So the arguments They never refer to him as "14th Dalai Lama". ... "Tenzin Gyatso" beats "14th Dalai Lama", according to my brief research, don't seem to hold up. I would also say, with all due respect, that the initial argument given for the change may be an oversimplification of the concept of reincarnation, particularly its relationship with anatta, in Buddhism. --IamNotU (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit: [3], IP 2001:818:e8f1:2a00:f4f4:ec22:9412:d190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added an external link to an essay on a personal website. This type of link is not allowed, according to the content guidelines at WP:ELNO#blog, number 11: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.). The author of the essay (who is not the same person as Ricardo Costa) does not appear to be a recognized authority, nor to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I removed the link.

Newly-registered user Wikstroler (talk · contribs) has re-added the link, without giving any explanation. I have again removed it, for the reason above, and ask that it not be re-added a third time unless some valid reason is provided for contravening the guidelines. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Costa_(r%C3%A9alisateur) French

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Costa_(cineasta) Portuguese

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Costa_(cineasta) Spanish


The article is certainly an important contribution to understanding Dalai Lama’s role and thought. Please keep the link.

Thanks,

--User:WikstrolerIWikstroler (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not WP:RS, since there is little indication of peer review or editorial control, nor expertise. For every pro-Dalai Lama primary source inserted in this article, we'll get 10 pro-Chinese primary sources in return, so no thank you. Let's stick to journalists and scholars, and we won't have to mediate any further conflict about this article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lot-drawing process was used for the 14th Dalai Lama

This information is important and related to the topic, I plan to include:

To eliminate doubt from the Kashag after the death of the Regent Reting Rinpoche, lot-drawing process was used to confirm that Lhamo Thondup was the 14th Dalai Lama.[1]

Details:

After death of Reting Rinpoche, since Golden Urn was not used in the lot-drawing selection process, there was speculation that a relative of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, Ditru Rinpoche was the real 14th Dalai Lama, to eliminate doubt from the Kashag, it was decided to use lot-drawing process by placing both names in an urn, and shake the urn, and the name Lhamo Thondup fell out. [1]

Note that based on Diki's book, the 14th (Lhamo Dhondup) was aware of the speculation, and he cried when people said Lhamo Dhondup was not the real Dalai Lama. The real Dalai Lama was from a boy from Lopon.

Toto11zi (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason to add this information here, it should go to the Golden Urn article, adding this information in every single article about the Dalai Lama and similar is Wikipedia:Spam, the only reason I see is the Chinese government insistence in claiming the ability to name future Dalai Lamas as they intend to for political reasons. In any case according to this source the famous urn was not use in the last two Dalai Lamas. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-cant-xi-shake-the-monks-hand/20151119.htm --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor the book by Tsering, nor the Rediff website is sufficiently reliable to include information that respectively confirms or denies the usage of the urn. Toto11zi, if you wish to better put Chinese history and culture on the map, there are many articles you could spend time on, such as Confucianism, Communism in China, Filial piety. The urn discussion has already been addressed, debated and discussed to death on this talk page. Let's not run around in circles.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Diki Tsering (1 May 2001). Dalai Lama, My Son: A Mother's Story. Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-101-19943-5.
No tags for this post.