Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

What is primary source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute: 11th Dalai Lama: added the urn process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dereck, why did you revert?

Another case here, source added for the ceremony:

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

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

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

Another reliable source added with actual quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Dereck, why did you revert?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October, 3, edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholar in Tibetology: Chen Qingying 陈庆英

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some discussion of Chen Qingyin can be found here:

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

External links related to him:

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

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

English language academic references to Chen Qingying

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

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

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

etc...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

and the last but one paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

There are deletion discussions pertaining to sources that have been used in this article here and here. Your input is welcome, whether pro or con.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I trust your criteria, but if you prefer just make a check and bring here what you discovered to be discussed before removing or remaining. Except for too obvious cases of unreliable sources of course. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust, I'll see what can do.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have worked on the lead quite a bit. As you can see, there may be quite some things that need editing. Feel free to help out.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, if you want to do this right, just nominate the article for a GA review. I will then help evaluate the article, and we can work on it together. You can find instructions on WP:GA. I have already done a number of reviews, including 2 GAs. People find me rather fuzzy, but I do get the job done. If you get GA it will also help you to attract more senior editors to help protect the article against vandalism and disruptive editing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Title in Chinese

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

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

Yes, it's kind of invasive. Could be a good idea to limit them to maybe the original Mongol and put the rest in a note or something. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In Buddhist doctrine articles, there is an infobox format with translations in multiple languages. See for example the article on Sthavira Maudgalyayana.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho, if you are deleting something from the talk page without there being consensus for that yet, that may at times be allowable, but don't say "as talked in the talk page" when in fact no such conclusion was reached.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, if there are no objections here that I can see, then how is not consensus? Unlss you were against the idea, but if that's the case I'm sorry but I did not get it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems warranted, because the subject is widely discussed in these languages (above) seems pretty clear to me. Look, I am not making a big issue out of this minor edit, but you shouldn't refer to me when I did not express any approval, that's all.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't clear to me, maybe because English is not my first language. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Allright.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind and Life Institute?

I came across Mind and Life Institute, which claims to be the organization responsible for convening conferences and dialogues with the Dalia Lama. I went through and marked some dead links, but it stuck me how much of the notability of the institute is based on the Dalai Lama. WP:INHERITED aside, the fact that the Institute isn't mentioned in the Dalai Lama article seems odd. Anyone have any thoughts on whether a) the info should be linked to somewhere in the Dalai Lama article, or b) is it really that notable an organization? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 12thDalai Lama.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Dalai Lama title

I am surprised that no one points out the term Dalai Lama was given by Altan Khan, the leader of Tumet Mongol to the third Dalai Lama Sonam Gyatso (Tib: bsod nams rgya mtsho) in 1578.

Please feel free to add it here if you feel it is appropriate, whoever you are (anonymous?), plus this is mentioned under the article on the Third Dalai Lama who was the one to receive it. Cheers, MacPraughan (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

References

It was there at one time. 109.156.38.206 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it was taken away once there was a massive edit from Chinese account that wanted to make the Dalai Lama title something made up and control by China, thus taken away mentions of other countries' involvement. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not really an excuse to justify a serious omission of facts. What did the chinese write? Was it inacurrate? Regardless, the accurate info that shouldn't be left out, was that Dalai lamas only existed after Tibet was Colonised. There used to be tibetan kings prior. What changed was the mongols. They took over and created the dai lai lamas and got rid of the tibetan kings's total rule. The first dalai lama was ultimately politically powerless and served the mongols as its class superior. The very name, “dalai” is indeed of mongol origin. Not tibetan deprivation. They did not freely adopt the mongol word for the novelty of it, but the title itself was created by the mongols and not tibetans. That is not written clearly in the article anywhere.

″The political or secular authority of the Dalai Lamas over Tibet was a mechanism of non-Tibetan origin, and the name Dalai is of Mongol, not Tibetan, derivation. Since the 18th century Chinese authorities assumed the right to supervise the choice of new Dalai and Panchen Lamas, and the Tibetans have had to turn to China for protection against foreign invasions."

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/01/opinion/l-tibet-couldn-t-lose-what-it-never-had-332046.html 14.202.177.65 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 10thDalaiLama.jpg
• 11thDalaiLama.jpg
• 1stDalaiLama.jpg
• 2ndDalaiLama.jpg
• 3rdDalaiLama2.jpg
• 4thDalaiLama.jpg
• 5thDalaiLama.jpg
• 6thDalaiLama.jpg
• 7thDalaiLama.jpg
• 8thDalaiLama.jpg
• 9thDalaiLama.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)