Talk:Tukdam/Archive 1

Selection of external sources
Dear colleague: The topic of this article is quite well studied and commented upon, by the religious authorities, religious scholars, and scientists. There are literally thousands (most likely, millions) pages on the Web that discuss tukdam. With this flood of sources, some of them very authoritative (Dalai Lama), why do we need the three particular links to the blog entries and videos by non-experts, non-well-known-religious-leaders? The article should not become a WP:LINKFARM, so we only should add links that provide value for the reader. Can we discuss here what need of our readers is fulfilled by the three links that you have restored? Sincerely, Викидим (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The film titled Tukdam is a professional production. Presence in Death is a professional art show hosted at The Rubin, a museum specializing in the art and cultures of the Himalayas, among other parts of Asia. None of the links are "blog posts". The only qualification for external links is that they provide something that the article is unable to. There is no requirement that they be expert or authoritative. Unless you can explain exactly which element of WP:ELNO a link violates, it should remain. Five links is by no means a link farm. I wrote the article, and by WP:BRD, if I revert your bold change, you may not implement your change unless you can show a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Skyerise (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have asked very specific question, while not questioning at all your ability to put in whatever links you want. I do not want to sound adversarial (I am truly not attached to any of the topics I am writing about here ), and I did follow WP:BRD to a tee. So, I would be even more specific now:
 * Regarding : how can you describe the value of this discussion to our readers beyond WP:LINKSTOAVOID #1? Who is Beri Sonam Wangchuk and why his opinion on tukdam is important?
 * Regarding and : Who is Donagh Coleman and why his video about tukdam is important? Why do we have two out of five external links promoting the works of this particular non-expert?
 * What I am looking for is some justification about your choice of these three links. Ideally, these explanations should be added to the items in the "External links" section in order to prevent this list (in a potentially very popular article) from overflowing by other links. After all, content creators definitely would like to (and try to) use an opportunity to promote their wares in Wikipedia, and the search for "tukdam" on YouTube reveals a lot of existing content. Викидим (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be getting it. I don't have to justify them to you. Rather, if you want to remove them, you must find a consensus of other editors to support the removal (without canvassing them). This is clearly stated in WP:BRD. If you make a change that is then reverted, you must establish a consensus for the change on the talk page. I am not obligated to help you do so in any way. I am busy with other projects, and the issue you raise is nearly completely unimportant in the larger scheme of things. You are also extremely overestimating the potential popularity of the article. Why not do something more useful, like expand the content significantly? I provided a list of reliable sources with significant content on the topic for just that purpose. A few links will fade into insignificance when the article is three, four, or ten times longer. Ten days ago there was no article at all, it was a redirect to Tibetan Buddhism. So instead of arguing with me, why don't you thank me for what I did do. Skyerise (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) It appears to me that I am actually trying on this page to establish the consensus. In particular, I am trying to understand, why two out of five links are leading to the works of a video creator that does not seem to be notable at all . As your part of seeking consensus, could you spare few minutes of your time and answer my questions above, please? (2) This article so far demonstrates fairly high traffic (3) I would appreciate a little bit more of common WP:civility: "You don't seem to be getting it" and "Why not do something more useful" is not the best way to promote cooperation between two colleagues. (4) Incidentally, I did put some work into this article (cf. ) . Викидим (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I disagree with you, so there is no consensus. I'm not going to change my mind by being pestered. So wait for other editors to join the conversation. You keep addressing me like I 'm somehow obligated to explain myself or help you find a consensus. I'm not obligated to do either. Until other editors join the discussion of their own accord and form a consensus, the article stays as it was. You've clearly come here from another language Wikipedia: we don't do things however you were used to at Russian Wikipedia. I am not obligated to justify myself to you, and I find it rude that you think it's okay for you to be so demanding. Skyerise (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat puzzled. So far at least a part of the discussion can be summed up as:
 * (me) why do we need the three particular links
 * (you) Unless you can explain exactly which element of WP:ELNO a link violates, it should remain
 * (me) Regarding In depth discussion with Beri Sonam Wangchuk about meditative state of Thugdam on YouTube: how can you describe the value of this discussion to our readers beyond WP:LINKSTOAVOID #1? [exactly what you have asked for, IMHO]
 * (you) obviously I disagree with you, so there is no consensus
 * I am not reverting your reversal, as you can notice, so yet another remainder "the article stays as it was" is not useful or friendly. By the way, did you actually mean that the three external links should stay? or do you suggest, literally, that I should not edit this article at all anymore? Викидим (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And demanding answers from someone is friendly? Don't need "friends" like that. Feel free to add to the article. Just don't remove any of my work without a consensus. And don't try to argue me into agreeing to let you remove content after I've reverted you. Then we'll get along just fine. Skyerise (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Asking questions is not an unfriendly move in my book, and I did not demand you to do anything. On the contrary, I have used the word "please" (twice), explicitly said that "I do not want to sound adversarial", and explained how your answers can be used to make the article better (Ideally, these explanations should be added to the items in the "External links" section in order to prevent this list (in a potentially very popular article) from overflowing [with] other links). I do not happen to know Beri Sonam Wangchuk or Donagh Coleman (and did not know their names before, this total lack of name recognition actually triggered my actions, I would not had questioned a movie made by James Cameron on the list). All that said, I understand that our dialog has played out and needs more eyes to look at it, so I do not expect a response (for the avoidance of doubt, this is not a demand, feel free to respond). Викидим (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * People only say "I do not want to sound adversarial" when they are actually being adversarial! Lol! Skyerise (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, do your own research. I'm sorry you don't know the significance of The Rubin in Himalayan art in the US. It's perfectly normal on English wikipedia to link to related media, and I won't be taken to task by a Russian for doing what is completely normal here, as if I were doing something wrong. These are perfectly normal links by English Wikipedia standards. And if you don't like that, see figure 1. Skyerise (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please in the future discuss the article text, not my background (you have used "Russian" on this page for the second time now, while the fact of my knowledge of Russian language is 100% disconnected from the subject at hand, cf. the first bullet items of WP:NOPA). Викидим (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please in the future do some due diligence before you start deleting links. Like scroll to the bottom of a page to see the qualifications of its author? Or figure out that a YouTube video is actually a news channel production interviewing a monk who is actually a subject-matter expert and not some random dude on YouTube then. Skyerise (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think that degrees in music, or being a monk (or an author of handful of videos) are qualifications worthy being linked to from the encyclopedia. I did do my research, BTW, and thought that maybe you knew something more about these people. Now I will simply add their qualifications to the article and let time and other eyes figure the things out. The expansion would satisfy my immediate concern: avoiding a long line of wannabe content creators from TikTok adding their links here, as it would establish at least some threshold for the entries. Викидим (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "I do not think that degrees in music, or being a monk [...] are qualifications worthy being linked to from the encyclopedia." I find that an absolutely despicable prejudicial attitude. The humanities and religions are their own fields of study and have every right to bestow their own honors, degrees and other recognitions, and these are every bit as valuable to humanity and an encyclopedia as science. You, sir are an . Skyerise (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that Jupiter is angry, alas. Викидим (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (worded as suggested by you!) to the article speaks volumes. Bowing out now, it was very educational to meet you. Викидим (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? That's not a "reaction". It's a simple edit. Your reaction to being told "no" is way more telling. And Jupiter may not be a woman, but I am. Skyerise (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently needed a qualification to avoid the misunderstanding. A degree in music certainly is associated with knowledge about music. But this article is not about music at all. Викидим (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Best if you actually click the links and read the linked material. For example, you mentioned the Dalai Lama as a reliable source, but were apparently unaware that he is featured in the film, which you couldn't have missed if you'd clicked the link. I don't think you even needed to scroll down to see that!
 * And you left the link about the academic Tukdam Project, but couldn't be bothered to actually read the page by Donagh Coleman which explains that the documentary is about that very project, much less scroll to the bottom to read the author and filmmaker's qualifications!
 * Since when is blindly deleting material without bothering to examine it first acceptable behavior on Wikipedia? Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop WP:PA ("couldn't be bothered to actually read") and WP:AGF. I will yet again re-state a complete absence of my WP:COI here: I do not know Donagh Coleman and have only good-faith reasons to oppose clear over-representation of his works here. I sincerely hope that you can match this declaration. Викидим (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So now you are going to cast aspersions? I am done with you. Don't expect any further responses to your implied accusations and unreasonably demanding attitude. If you persist in this type of bullying which seems to come naturally to you, I will seek an interaction ban. Then you'll be prohibited from editing this article, since I wrote it. At least one other editor who has approached me like this is under such a ban. That will be all, thank you. Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)