Talk:Golden Urn

Delete?

I see no reason for this article. It provides unverified, uncited information. If the 10, 11, and 12th dalai lamas were selected using this method, why doesn't it state this on their articles?

I call bullshit. Dragonnas (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One reason to have this article is that at least six other Wikipedia articles refer to the Golden Urn, but none of those articles gives a comprehensive description of it. The article History of Tibet says, "In this lottery the names of the competing candidates were written on folded slips of paper which were placed in a golden urn.[80] The tenth, eleventh and twelfth Dalai Lamas were selected by the golden urn method.[81]" It gives two references, the footnotes being numbered 80 and 81. The article for Palden Tenpai Nyima says, "... finally Palden Tenpai Nyima intervened and used the Golden Urn ...", and a reference is given for that sentence (footnote 6); a similar statement occurs in the article for Tsultrim Gyatso. The articles for Qoigyijabu and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and for Tibetan sovereignty debate also refer to the Golden Urn. A Time Magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983834,00.html) is titled " TEMPEST IN A GOLDEN URN". The Golden Urn is discussed on the website for the Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre (http://www.tpprc.org/abt_latehistory.php). Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another reference: "As the Chinese have alleged, if the system of drawing lots from the golden urn bestows legitimacy on ether the Dalai Lama or the Panchen Lama, then it must be pointed out that only in the recognition of the three of the fourteen Dalai Lamas and two of the ten Panchen Lamas has this system been used." (Tempa Tsering evidently representing the Government of Tibet in Exile -- http://www.tibet.com/pl/nov29c.html) The "three" Dalai Lamas are presumably the 10th, 11th, and 12th. Does anybody know who the two Panchen Lamas were (maybe not including Qoigyijabu)?

A free online article by Derek F. Maher (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2007.00018.x) includes these statements about the 10th, 11th, and 12th Dalai Lamas: (10th:) "It appears that the ambans were able to force the Tibetans to employ the golden urn in the selection of the tenth Dalai Lama Tshul khrims rgya mtsho (1816–1837), although Tsepön Shakabpa disputes this." (11th:) "The eleventh Dalai Lama mKhas grub rgya mtsho (1838–1855) was confirmed through the use of the Golden Urn, but it is not evident in the biographies if any other candidates were in competition." (12th:) "The public became convinced that a child from ’Ol dga’ was the true incarnation of the Dalai Lama, and so they were relieved when the golden urn ceremony resulted in his name being drawn. The twelfth Dalai Lama ’Phrin las rgya mtsho (1856–1875) briefly assumed political authority after the regent died in 1872..." Mesopelagicity (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another reference: "The inability of the Tibetans to expel the Nepalese forces without an army from China, coupled with charges of poor leadership and organization in the Tibetan government, prompted yet another Qing reorganization of the Tibetan government, this time through a written plan called the "Twenty-Nine Regulations for Better Government in Tibet." This reform package included the selection of top incarnations (hutuktus ) like the Dalai and Panchen Lamas through a lottery conducted in a golden urn, the aim being to prevent the selection of incarnations being manipulated to fall in politically powerful lay families." Goldstein, Melvyn C. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1997. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft2199n7f4/ Mesopelagicity (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalai gets to choose next Panchen and vice verca?

I went through zh:欽定藏內善後章程. It only states that

達賴喇嘛和班禪額爾德尼像父子一樣，認定他們的靈童時，亦須將他們的名字用滿漢藏三種文字寫在籤牌上，同樣進行

It said Dalai and Panchen were like father and son, but not like 'mentor' as in the article. And no words about who gets to choose who?--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources, so it would be ill advised to change one article based on another without going to the sources first. I'm not sure what your concern is here. If you'd like more material about the selection process, you should first find reliable sources, preferably in English, about it.--Gimme danger (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could use input from an experienced author

I came across this article while reading up on Panchen Lama selection. I was a little surprised to see some text (about the purpose of the golden urn selection process being to prevent cheating) had been replicated verbatim in this and a couple related articles. I notice the user responsible for that text has made substantial contributions to multiple related pages, including deleting Golden Urn's "controversy" section wholesale. I'm not familiar with the subject matter or Wikipedia's policies (or, on a meta level, whether this is the right way to ask for help) but it seems like they might benefit from a set of eyeballs familiar with the neutral point of view policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.215.157.199 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping: @Toto11zi. ––FormalDude talk 08:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• RfC is not well-formed. Suggesting a procedural close which hopefully the nomintator is up for as this is not the right way to ask for help about neutrality concerns. We should start broader discussions like this without an RfC first. ––FormalDude talk 08:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Agreed, WP:RFCBEFORE does not seem to have been observed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Original poster of the comment here. Feel free to close this if this isn't the right way to raise a concern, but it feels like a shame that there's no way for a newcomer to raise a concern about quality that can get triaged by someone more familiar with Wikipedia's standards and processes. In a hypothetical situation where there _is_ some kind of non-neutral authorial behavior or content manipulation, a newcomer to the site won't have enough knowledge of the process to be able to go through the multiple steps to raise an issue and get it addressed. Case in point: I don't have the time or interest to learn enough about the editorial process to pursue this any further. 2601:241:8D00:B300:0:0:0:69B1 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You've done your part by raising the issue on the talk page here for familiar editors to see and review. I appreciate your attempt to follow Wikipedia's procedures, which can certainly be vast and confusing. Obviously no harm was done by your opening an RfC here, it's just that that is typically done in the later stages of a dispute. ––FormalDude talk 01:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Central Government?

I noticed multiple times the intro refers to "the Central Government". What does this refer to specifically? The Republic of China? Independent Tibet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flameperson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)