Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet/Archive 2

WikiProject Religion
The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

expansion proposal
It has been a couple of months since there was movement at this project, would it be out of line to propose the expansion of this project into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet to make it more accessible to a wider interest base to those of us who are interested in Tibet itself? Chris 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tibet
Hi I am fascinated in Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism and have adde dmany new articles on buddhist monasteries such as Ramoche Temple and Shalu Monastery. Would it be possible to merge your project into WikiProject Tibet -after all much of the traditional culture and biographies etc are Tibetan buddhism anyway, I feel it could create abetter coordination. PLease see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. If it became WikiiPorject Tibet the Tibetan Buddhism would be an intergral part of it of course. What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that I have added a gallery of Dalai Lamas !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact it could be moved to WikiProject Tibet/Tibetan Buddhism so it would be a suborganization of Tibet? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC) THis way your project can remain as a religious one but also be part of the Tibet project which will also covers villages/towns etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tibet discussion from WikiProject Council/Proposals

 * Description : expansion or sister project to the now inactive WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism

With the proliferation of national WikiProjects, even one for Austria-Hungary, 90 years gone, would there be enough interest to justify such a project as this? Chris 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
 * 1) Chris 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nat Krause, but without, I'm afraid, much enthusiasm. 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sir Blofeld Then I'll make up for any lack of enthusiasm I love!!!! Tibet ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * You might want to check with the WikiProject Central Asia to see if they would be willing to set one up as a task force/work group of their project. Badbilltucker 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am thinking about setting up WikiProject Tibet to focus and cordinate Tibetan article more efficiently. Please see the discussion on the main wikiproject China talk page. I have sent this message to the Tibetan Buddhism project:


 * Hi I am fascinated in Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism and have adde dmany new articles on buddhist monasteries such as Ramoche Temple and Shalu Monastery. Would it be possible to merge your project into WikiProject Tibet -after all much of the traditional culture and biographies etc are Tibetan buddhism anyway, I feel it could create abetter coordination . PLease see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. If it became WikiiPorject Tibet the Tibetan Buddhism would be an intergral part of it of course . What do you think?  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also be interested to know that I have added a gallery of Dalai Lamas !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact it could be moved to WikiProject Tibet/Tibetan Buddhism so it would be a suborganization of Tibet? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * THis way your project can remain as a religious one but also be part of the Tibet project which will also covers villages/towns etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

part of WP China?
This project does not outwardly seem to be a subproject of WP China, is it so? If it is its own project, it needs its own tags and templates. I have created WikiProject Tibet for this purpose. Chris 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Making it a part of WP China is a political statement of the kind we shouldn't be making on Wikipedia. Not making it a part of WP China is also a political statement, but a weaker and more vague one, since the noninclusion could be due to many reasons. deeptrivia (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

language request template
Is there a Tibetan language request template, similar to Burmese? Chris 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Tibet
Having had a cursory glance over the History of Tibet page, much of it seems very biased. In addition, there are sections that seem out of sequence, it is very poorly written at various points, and some of it just reads like an advert for the PRC Government view of Tibet. I was just wondering if the page could be included in the projects core priorities (if that is in order?) and also looked at to try and make it as much as possible a NPOV article. Thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

merger of WikiProject Tibet and WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism
I tend to think this was not a good idea. "Tibetan Buddhism" is not a phenomenon limited to Tibet itself. It has been the national religion of Mongolia, Buryatia, and Kalmykia for centuries, and, in modern times, it is now found throughout the world. It would make more sense for Tibetan Buddhism to become a subproject of WikiProject Buddhism; not all Tibetan Buddhists are Tibetan, but they are all Buddhists.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So, are there any objections at this point if we get started on moving the Tibetan Buddhism project over to WikiProject Buddhism.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Tibetan Buddhism belongs here at all. Secretlondon 03:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. TB is also the traditional religion of much of northern Nepal, Lahoul & Spiti in H.P., Ladakh in Jamu & Kashmir, much of Sikkim, several districts of Arunachal Pradesh, Bhutan, and many parts of China which the Chinese do not consider "Tibet" (ie outside the TAR). Not to speak of the TB groups around the world. Also many of the most significant TB figures live outside of Tibet and have done so for more than 50 years. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that "WikiProject Tibet" includes Tibetan regions outside of the TAR and the Tibetan diaspora in India &c. Whether or not it also includes the various other Himalayan regions that speak a language descended from classical Tibetan (Ladakh, Bhutan, Mustang, etc.), is a question I don't know the answer to. However, the point stands that not all Tibetan Buddhists are Tibetans. I had been going to separate the two projects back in April of last year, but I realised that a) I don't know how to do that; and b) at the time, apparently, nobody else cared.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes more sense for Tibetan Buddhism to be under the Buddhism project. Does anyone know how to actually do that? I guess we should also have a discussion at Project Buddhism first Dakinijones (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think that it makes more sense for Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism should be two seprate projects, ideally with Tibetan Buddhism being under Buddhism. No to the merge.--Keithonearth (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

South Tibet
Please help with the article on South Tibet and have a look at its talk page. —Babelfisch 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Move of List of Tibet-related topics
Hello. The article List of Tibet-related topics was recently nominated for deletion here. The closing decision was to delete some lists and projectify those with corresponding WikiProjects. For that reason, I am moving the article to a subpage of this project: WikiProject Tibet/List of Tibet-related topics. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts on article Tibet
This is a duplicate of my message on the talk page of the above article as I thought I should also explain on this project why I reverted these edits and then to ask a question.

"Further to the six edits on the article by the anonymous User:128.91.41.29 which were reverted by User:CredoFromStart, I have reverted a further three edits by the same anonymous user, 128.91.41.29, as even though it is clear that they were at least in part trying to perhaps replace some words that might appear to be POV from a Tibetan POV, they only replaced those words with similar POV words just from a different POV. In addition, changing the name Francis Younghusband to Francis Youngwife was clearly vandalism. Unfortunately I have reverted three times as I forgot to do it in one go, but this was to revert clear POV and vandalism edits. For the user who did these edits though, there is no point, in editing the article and replacing what you believe to be POV by simply replacing those words with others that are just as much, if not more so, a POV."

Now my question, it appears that a number of anonymous users are vandalising this article as has happened a few times today, including changing Francis Younghusbands name to Youngwife plus another anonymous user who changed part of the article to read, "Tibetans call their homeland The fucking place". It always seems to be unregistered users who vandalise the article, add nonsense etc. Would it be an idea to restrict editing even if for a short period, so that unregistered and newly registered users can't then vandalise the article? I have no wish to prevent anyone from editing the article fairly, however surely if someone feels so strongly about it then they would register anyway. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Help please with the Tibet article
User Zakuragi today made the same (good faith) edit on three Tibet related pages - Tibet, Geography of Tibet and the TAR. On each page they have added a map of the TAR, specifically in the geography section. Whilst I agree that it is relevant to the TAR article, and I am assuming them to be good faith edits, the map is not relevant to the other two articles in my opinion. I therefore reverted the two edits on Tibet and Geography of Tibet. The initial edit Zakuragi made on the Tibet article, they removed the previous neutral map which is perfectly relevant and is of course neutral. When I then reverted it to the original neutral map, they added it again, but this time in addition to the original map rather than instead of it, meaning there were two maps on the article - which is pointless and serves no purpose. I reverted it for a second time as it is clearly a POV map when taken into the context of the specific article, and two maps are not needed, especially a clearly POV map. But Zakuragi has added it back in again, saying that it is still a map of Tibet - when it clearly is not, as it is a map of the TAR. Revertng it again is clearly not the way forward, so I decided to bring this here to see what the members of this project think? I can understand why the map would be included on the TAR article, it is perfectly relevant on there. But the initial edit on the Tibet article could be deemed to be a POV edit as the original, neutral map was removed and replaced with a map of the TAR rather than the Tibetan plateau. As I said, I assume good faith, but removing a neutral map and replacing it with what in the context of the article is a highly POV map could be taken as being POV. Now the article has two maps which makes no sense, and a previous image has been removed. thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is Tibet? As you can see from this map, there is no single definition. It can be the TAR; it can be the so-called "Greater Tibet"; it can also include areas like "South Tibet". There is clearly no single Tibet, or a single way to define it. So, in my opinion, the map I put in the article is very relevant. Sure, the map states that it is specifically about the TAR but we have to remember that the TAR is practically the same thing as Tibet, and therefore it should belong to the article. It is also very detailed, as you could see if you clicked the link, and thus a good and informative addition, which shows the casual browser that Tibet can be defined in many ways.
 * Also, I don't understand why Tangerines thinks it is "pointless" to have two maps in the article; it would be so if both the images resembled each other more or less closely, but since both are clearly different, it makes a lot of sense to have them there. As for the removal of the other map, just take a look at its details and you can clearly see that it's tagged as POV and has several inaccuracies (e.g. some of the borders are way off or not there and traditional characters are used instead of the simplified ones). -- ざくら 木 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly contest the notion that the TAR and Tibet are "practically the same thing." It is not only outrageous and highly inflammatory, it's also incorrect. The TAR is an administrative region with China, with a name given to it by the Chinese after they took control of that country. The Government of Tibet in Exile doesn't recognize that control as legitimate, nor do they see it as autonomous. Placing that map in that article, either as an addition or a substition to current maps is as useless as it is biased. As I've said before, it's fine for explaining the boundaries of the TAR within the article about the TAR because it elaborates on the concepts presented in that article and pertains closely to the subject matter of the same. It does not and can not fill the same role in the article about historical and cultural Tibet because it simply doesn't add to anything in that article and can be viewed by many people as POV. If you were truly concerned about expanding the level of detail on the existing maps, remove all references to the TAR from the map and reupload it for consideration. Cumulus Clouds 01:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions
Please see the new proposal I've proposed at Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2 and discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2. I also added a brief introduction here &mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bayi/Bayo
An article for "Bayi" was recently added to Wikitravel as the capital of Nyingchi Prefecture. This appears to correspond to the Chinese 八一, but the Nyingchi Pref article refers to "Bayo Town". Is this a typo or the actual Tibetan name? 8.1. (八一) is the founding day of the PLA, so was the town actually founded by the Chinese, or just renamed? Jpatokal 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha -- there appears to be a (minimal) article for it after all under the name Bayizhen, or "Bayi Town". Jpatokal 11:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions
{{#if: {{{to|}}} | {{#if: {{{thdl|}}} | I want to raise a few questions about this future template. A template of some kind would be good, but it has to be possible to integrate it with the rest of Wikipedia.
 * Title: What is a “Tibetan settlement”? A place inhabited by a majority of Tibetan people? Does it have to be in the Tibet Autonomous Region? Could it also be a place in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan or Yunnan, or even in Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal or India? This raises political problems that could be pre-determined by a template in a way that is not desirable.
 * External structure: How does this template fit in with other templates like Template:Infobox PRC province and/or Template:Tibetan-Chinese-box? It might also be useful to look for example at the box created in the article on Harbin (which is not a template!), and at other templates like Template:Infobox Indian Jurisdiction etc.
 * The infobox in this form only makes sense if it follows official administrative divisions, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to them, nor would it possible to get figures like area and population or postal codes etc.

A few concrete questions about the proposal posted by Ernst Stavro Blofeld on my talk page (see copy on the right): Unfortunately, I'm no good at creating templates myself. —Babelfisch 02:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Population: Why “Approx. in a 7 km radius”? There's no way to get reliable figures for such an arbitrary circle. The basis has to be the administrative division.
 * “Tournadre Phonetic”: Is that really used anywhere else except in the English version of Tournadre's textbook? (I'd rather have the THDL Simplified Phonetic System.)
 * The "official spelling (PRC)" has been adopted by the United Nations as well, so it has official character beyond China.
 * Major Nationalities: Figures (proportions) would make sense.

Wikinews Interview with the Dalai Lama's representative
I will be conducting an interview with the Dalai Lama's Representative to the Americas, Tashi Wangdi. If you have a question you would like me to consider asking, please leave it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone/Tibet -- David  Shankbone  19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche needs your help
IMHO the article Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche is quite good but can be improved to "even better".


 * 1) Article needs specific cites for various statements.
 * 2) We could use stub articles for many redlinks relating to Tibetan Buddhism.
 * 3) Article contains various "peacock terms" which need to be made NPOV.
 * 4) Article contains several assertions of more-or-less miraculous events which need to be carefully cited and phrased in a NPOV style.
 * 5) Article may be slightly more detailed than is necessary / appropriate for Wikipedia.

Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 00:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Empowerment in Tibetan Buddhism
I recently edited the article Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche and I see that we need an article on the concept of "empowerment" in Tibetan Buddhism. (E.g., "he received the Rinchen Tangyud empowerments", "Jangchub Dorje gave him empowerments for the Red Tara cycle".) I personally have no idea what this term means, and would like very much to know. The existing article Empowerment is no help at all. I don't even know what would be the best title for our new article. Can anybody start a stub on this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wang (Tibetan Buddhism)??? -- Writtenonsand 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, but is is a bit difficult subject as it is all about tantra. Equally, or more popular is the expression 'initiation'. The description should not only explain the purpose of an initiation in tantra (perhaps not simple), and perhaps also eg. the difference between a wang and a jenang etc. Big subject to cover, really. In very short, an initiation or empowerment is a permission from a guru to a disciple to do a certain practice. rudy (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - "Big subject to cover, really." -- Well then IMHO we need to get started on it. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem in Mount Kailash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kailash#In_Buddhism has an account of Mount Kailash in Tibetan Buddhist mythology, followed by a note: "There appears to be some confusion in the account above between the stories of Milarepa (Great Tibetan Yogi) and Padmasambahava (also known as Guru Rinpoche, or Precious Guru by the Tibetans), who is said to have brought Tantric Buddhism to Tibet." --- (cf Padmasambhava) Can anybody sort this out? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just done some work on this section and believe I have fixed the problem of confusion between Milarepa and Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava). Please do have a look at it though to see if you think it is O.K. and whether you think more needs to be done or can add anything to it. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)