Talk:Yi Yungao

WP:BLP and sourcing.
From Biographies of living persons: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Many of the claims made in this article are entirely lacking the sources required. As a courtesy, I am going to wait 24 hours before removing all the unsourced guff about how much the subject's artworks sold for, the praise from 'prominent officeholders' etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and unless such claims can be backed up by the third party reliable sources that Wikipedia requires, they will be deleted. 86.128.242.23 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the statements in the article are in the sources referenced. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies: I was just in the process of retracting the above comments (got edit conflicted), since I'd clearly got the sources mixed up somehow. It might be worth making the citations for some of the claims more explicit though. 86.128.242.23 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What Buddhist think
So why is the fact this claim is not accepted by all Buddhists not relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording you gave was not NPOV and wasn't sourced. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If poorly worded, reword, and it was sourced. The source for it was already in the article .Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I added that book. It just says some believe that he is Dorje Chang, some don't believe he is. I don't think adding that adds to the article, really. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Err if we make a claim ("some think he is)" we are honour bound to include anyone who disagrees. In addition at least one other source implies his status was purchased from a Buddha mill. So yes I think it is very relevant (especially given this line from at least one other source "Charles Prebish, a Buddhism expert at Utah State University and director of the school's Religious Studies Program, has never heard of Dorje Change Buddha III, nor, he says, have any of his Buddhist studies colleagues.".Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the article is well sourced and neutral in tone. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)