Talk:Succession of the 14th Dalai Lama

Sources

Additional sources:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/world/asia/07lama.html
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/15/china-dalai-lama-exile-tibetans
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-13/special-report/28685724_1_temporal-head-tibetan-government-tibetan-spiritual-leaders
• http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/01/beijing_and_the_next_dalai_lama.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/dalai-lama-steps-back-to-push-tibetans-forward-2238596.html ("Two years ago, he stressed that whoever became the 15th Dalai Lama need not hold both a political and religious function.")
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/galleries/the_dalai_lama/the_dalai_lama.html (see image 24)

Feel free to add more. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This one was no longer in use, but could be relevant: O'Brien, Barbara (March 11, 2011). "The Dalai Lama steps back, but not down". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved March 15, 2011. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

One more, courtesy to JimRenge: Management as a Tool of Destruction: Reincarnation of “Living Buddhas” in Modern Chinese Legislation--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

To be added when appropriate: Template:Infobox Dalai Lama. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep this article?

I believe that it is important to keep this article as it is. I did a search after I watched the film 7 Years in Tibet. I found this article because of its current title, and it provided me with very valuable information in a clear and concise way. That is why I have supported Wikipedia financially over the years. Personally, I do not like the very long articles such as 14th Dalai Lama. They are very old fashioned and can be a waste of viewers' time as they often fail to provide the specific information wanted.

I fail to see the point of many of these stubs. If I knew how I would suggest this one be deleted. Can anyone tell me the point of keeping the stubs and not deleting them. Expanding them, adding references etc. seems ridiculous when starting over from scratch <ARRust (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)>

I agree that this article should not exist yet. Anything we write on the 15th Dalai Lama would be totally speculative. We don't even know if there is going to be a 15th Dalai Lama. We could just merge this into the Dalai Lama article. Quigley (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep, but rename, as the article deals more with a political process and controversy than a person. It is basically about a future transfer of power, which could significantly affect geo-political relations. It has been widely covered in secondary sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the rename. Maybe "Sucession of the 14th Dalai Lama"? --TV Guy (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, TV Guy, provided we spell it correctly of course: Succession of the 14th Dalai Lama.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As a solution which will hopefully satisfy most people why not rename the article "The 15th Dalai Lama to be" instead to make it clear that the article is about a post or position, and not about an actual person. In that way it can still be found by the people seeking the information which the article contains, but will not breach any rules or conventions on articles about actual people who may or not exist.165.120.32.117 (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that title is even worst, and I'm not sure is even gramatically correct. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

As a native English speaker I can assure you that the above proposed name of "15th Dalai Lama to be" is grammatically correct. Just Google "Bride to be" and you will see that this form is in common usage by English speaking people. I think that it is the best idea yet.EricMarlow (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Terrible idea. "The" should not be on an title and the problem is still the same as others point out, the article is not about the 15th Dalai Lama as we don't even know if there's going to be one. Any title that uses "15th Dalai Lama" is too speculative. --TV Guy (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of tag re: excessive quotations

I went ahead and removed the tag re: excessive quotations. The article had two longer quotes, but didn't seem excessive to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the quotes are still too long for high Wikipedia standards. The quotes are matter-of-fact information, and can easily be paraphrased. And as a general rule, paraphrasing is better than quoting on Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could just use a piece of the quote, and integrate it in the text, as has been nicely done in the paragraph that starts with The Dalai Lama stated in 2007 that the next Dalai Lama could possibly be a woman....--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unsourced content

Currently, the article's second paragraph (starting "Following the Buddhist belief...") is mostly unsourced. There is an inline citation at the end of the long paragraph, but I'm not sure if the article verifies all information presented in the paragraph. Should additional inline citations be added, or should some of the content be trimmed or removed altogether? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph seem to be accurate from a Buddhist point of view, I will look for sources on the Boddhisattva article in the meantime. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but just a reminder, the content needs to be more than "accurate from a Buddhist point of view", it needs to be verified by reliable sourcing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, unless there's a way to verify if Boddhisattvas exist and how they re-incarnate and that re-incarnation do happen, I think a Buddhist concept has to be accurate from a Buddhist perspective. But if you have any suggestions on how can we verify that what Buddhists believe is true, I'm all ears. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Organization?

What are some ways we can organize this article? How section headings are appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Have given it a try. Feel free to adjust.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

History of Golden Urn

I would like to add this history with reliable source, comments?

In 1792, after the victory in the Second Invasion of the Sino-Nepalese War, Qianlong Emperor issued decree The 29-Article Imperial Decree for Better Governing in Tibet, Article One of the decree was designed to be used in the selection of rinpoches, lamas and other high offices within Tibetan Buddhism, including the Dalai Lamas, Panchen Lamas and Mongolian lamas. In Qianlong Emperor's essay “Speech on the Lamas” (喇嘛说)which was published also in 1792, he explained the history of lamas and the reincarnation system, he inferred that the reincarnation system is only man-made (盖佛本无生，岂有转世？), and creating rules is only to facilitate those monks (但使今无转世之呼图克图，则数万番僧，无所皈依，不得不如此耳。)，and to eliminate drawbacks associated with the man-made reincarnation (虽不能尽除其弊，较之从前各任私意指定者，大有间矣。) . Golden Urn was invented and institutionalized (兹余制一金瓶，送往西藏，于凡转世之呼必勒罕，众所举数人，各书其名置瓶中，掣签以定)，Emperor wrote that this can't eliminate all the drawbacks, but this is a fairer mechanism than previous method of deciding with one person. (虽不能尽去其弊，较之从前一人之授意者，或略公矣。).

Toto11zi (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

@Dereck Camacho: Making you aware of this comment, since you reverted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Another Believer, I'm not againts the info there but I certainly don't see why to use Chinese to write a comment, and shpuld be notica that some of the sources are actually Chinese Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia can't be use to source itself. So for now, re-reverting. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues fixed. please talk first before reverting. Toto11zi (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

PD: Also I think the paragraph nees a very big grammar check. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the above sources are RS, these are mainly blogs. Reverting.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Toto11zi (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am removing this content from the article, because there is no connection with the 14th Dalai Lama mentioned in the sources, thus violating SYNTH:

In 1792, after the victory in the Second Invasion of the Sino-Nepalese War, Qianlong Emperor issued decree The 29-Article Imperial Decree for Better Governing in Tibet, Article One of the decree was designed to be used in the selection of rinpoches, lamas and other high offices within Tibetan Buddhism, including the Dalai Lamas, Panchen Lamas and Mongolian lamas. In Qianlong Emperor's article The Discourse of Lama《喇嘛说》 which was published also in 1792, he explained the history of lamas and the reincarnation system, he inferred that the reincarnation system is only man-made, and creating rules is only to facilitate those monks,and to eliminate drawbacks associated with the man-made reincarnation, . Golden Urn was invented and institutionalized,Emperor wrote that this can't eliminate all the drawbacks, but this is a fairer mechanism than previous method of deciding with one person. .

Other sources are simply not sufficiently reliable. E.g. this article cited contains a passage: In 1959, Tibet implemented democratic reforms, abolished the feudal serf system of the integration of politics and religion, and created a new era in which the Tibetan people are the masters of their own affairs. The democratic reform abolished all the feudal privilege of the temple in economic and political, the separation of administrative teaching and freedom of religious belief, the democratic management of the temple, and the historical change of the status and function of the living Buddha, from the upper level of the temple of one of the "three major lords" An important member of the monk becomes an ordinary citizen and religious faculty member. In the historical torrent of great change, some living Buddhas are not willing to give up their privilege and status, and embark on the road of splitting the motherland and restoring feudal serfdom. That is not the analytical tone required for a secondary source, it is simply a propaganda piece. It will not do for Wikipedia. The same holds for the China News article.

I have also removed less relevant information, such as the Dalai Lama's joke. The Huffington Post article is also not reliable enough and it had to go as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed SYNTH issues. Toto11zi (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References

If you want to make this work, Toto11zi, you should describe the golden urn process in more detail, and why it is so important for the Chinese government. Just throwing many historical terms at the reader isn't going to help to clarify the Chinese government's opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the current version, comments? : Toto11zi (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

In 1792, after the victory in the Second Invasion of the Sino-Nepalese War, Emperor Qianlong issued decree The 29-Article Ordinance for the More Effective Governing of Tibet, Article One of the decree was designed to be used in the selection of rinpoches, lamas and other high offices within Tibetan Buddhism, including the Dalai Lamas, Panchen Lamas and Mongolian lamas. In Qianlong's article The Discourse of Lama《喇嘛说》 which was published also in 1792, the emperor wrote about the Golden Urn method. In 1936, Golden Urn was also institutionalized in the Method of Reincarnation of Lamas《喇嘛轉世辦法》 by Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission of the Chinese Central Government. Based on history, on January 26, 1940, the Regent Reting Rinpoche requested the Central Government to exempt Tenzin Gyatso from the lot-drawing process of the Golden Urn to become the 14th Dalai Lama. The request was approved by the Central Government.

References

@Dereck Camacho: Making you aware of this comment, since you reverted. Toto11zi (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Toto11zi, your grammar and way of editing remembers me a lot of certain user name Eipviongll who was blocked for using suckpupetry among other things, I probably would request a verification. But in the meantime, some aspects:

• You're close to break the 3R rule, careful.
• You don't have to add the famous "golden urn" thing in every single article about the Dalai Lama or any other Lama as you are doing. It seems like an effort from the Chinese government to insist on it to support is claims that can choose the next Dalai Lama, which they don't (I mean, they can try but certainly no one is going to accept whoever is appointed by China as the real Dalai Lama anyway).
• Reach consensus before you make controversial edits.

That said, the entire upper paragraph apart from a terrible grammar has no relationship with the current topic and you put it more or less worded differently in four different articles, so I'm calling Wikipedia:Spam on this one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The text in the "Background section describes the identification of the Dalai Lamas successor: "They assess the candidate against a set of criteria, and will present the child with various objects to see if they can identify those which belonged to the previous Dalai Lama. If a single candidate has been identified, the High Lamas will report their findings to eminent individuals and then to the Government. If more than one candidate is identified, the true successor is found by officials and monks drawing lots in a public ceremony." (link added) Toto11zi, your proposed text appears to give undue weight to drawing lots. JimRenge (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want to add the opinion of the Chinese government, then write so. Make a section about the opinion of the Chinese government, and write it as an opinion, rather than uncontested historical facts.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed to add link for "drawing lots". Toto11zi (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

All personal attacks are ignored. I think ordinances should be mentioned for this page, i.e. these 2:

1. 29-Article Ordinance for the More Effective Governing of Tibet (I didn't write the paragraph, it's from another Wikipedia page) 2. The Method of Reincarnation of Lamas《喇嘛轉世辦法》

Also exemption of the lot-drawing process should be mentioned, they are related directly to the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, comments? Toto11zi (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"all personal attacks are ignored" is exactly a phrase that Eipviongll use to say, no doubt in my mind who Toto is, I will request a user verification. Btw, no one has made a personal attack. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Toto11zi, you have not responded to JimRenge's comment that your proposed text appears to give undue weight to drawing lots. Your interpretation that Agreed to add link for "drawing lots" is not relevant for that matter, and is exactly the opposite of what JimRenge requests.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

About the role assigned to drawing lots in a golden urn in the selection of Dalai Lamas, historian Melvyn C. Goldstein, in The Snow Lion and the Dragon, explains that it was "to prevent the selection of incarnations being manipulated to fall in politically powerful lay families" (p.19) (full quotation: "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.") ; the phrase "This reform package" refers to the "Twenty-Nine Regulations for Better Government in Tibet." --Elnon (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, maybe can be mention that the golden urn funcion was to avoid political manipulation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please remember that the article's scope is restricted to the 14th Dalai Lama and his succession, and that all content must be clearly connected with this. If the Chinese government thinks the Golden urn process should be used for the 15th Dalai Lama, then for crying out loud just please write that the Chinese government thinks this. Attribute it to the Chinese government and keep it to one section "Statements by Chinese government" and you're done. There's no need to come up with historical connections and insinuate this and that, which is just abracadabra for the uninitiated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary from source

The first line of this Article is from the web site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matteo-pistono/beijing-and-the-next-dala_b_833278.html

This is wrong summary, not from the source:

The question of the succession of 14th Dalai Lama in a lineage of Dalai Lamas will be decided by Tibetan Buddhist hierarchs based on the doctrine of reincarnation.

This is right summary, from the source:

The 14th Dalai Lama has suggested different possibilities to identify the next (15th) Dalai Lama, but he has not publicly specified how the reincarnation would occur.

Toto11zi (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Statements by Chinese Government section.

I have removed the sentence "Choling's statement disregards the belief that the Dalai Lama can decide whether to reincarnate or not, an essential part of the Tulku concept." which was cited to a self published source from 1999 (16 years before Choling's statement). The reason I have done this is that any statement contradicting what Choling said must be cited to a source that specifically refutes what he said. This is clearly laid out in the policies on Original Research and Synthesis. In reply to the edit summary "what that means is that the sentence mentioning Cholin should be rephrase, not that the source is bad. The source should stay as it validates the statement about Tulkus. The user can, if he wants, to rephrase the sentence for the Cholin matter. Unless of course there's a political intetion behind." I would first remind the editor to Assume Good Faith and not cast aspersions about the political motivations for edits. This is not about politics, it's about Wikipedia policy. You cannot use a source from 1999 to refute a statement made by someone in 2015. You cannot use a source that does not mention the statement to refute the statement. The source must make the connection and the refutation. To do otherwise is clearly a violation of the policy of Original Research. Unless the source mentions Choling's statement and directly refutes it, you cannot add material refuting it regardless of whether or not you mention Choling in the refutation. You cannot simply remove mention of Choling in the refutation but still refute what he said. Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH before re-adding this material. If you can find a source that directly says "Choling was wrong and here is why:" go ahead and add that. But adding definitions about rebirth from self published sources that do not mention the statement they are being used to refute is unacceptable, whether or not you mention Choling directly in the refutation. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that sources such as "Statement by H.H. Penor Rinpoche Regarding the Recognition of Steven Seagal as a Reincarnation of the Treasure Revealer Chungdrag Dorje of Palyul Monastery (http://www.palyul.org/docs/statement.html)" are not good quality reliable sources for stuff like this. Self Published sources are only reliable in rare cases and always with attribution, they are not RS for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice, especially when they have only a very tangential relationship to the article in which they are used AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Unilaterally removing content without consensus is not a good thing to do. Discuss the issue first, find consesus and then edit accordingly to what was agreed upon. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

When it violates policy, which in this case it does, it actually is mandated that the material be removed. Unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person is to be immediately removed per WP:BLP "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." The source you are using currently is a self published source used to refute a statement by a living person, and the policy is very clear on this "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Additionally, per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." So really you have to achieve consensus to include it, not the other way around. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about a living person. And you yourself requested the quotation, I tried my best to give you two, and both were rejected. It sounds more like you didn't want an answer. In any case, again, this is not an article about a living person so your argument is invalid. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to all material about living people, regardless of whether the page itself is about them, in this case the living person in Choling. The BLP policy is very clear on this "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:[...] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Neither of your sources were acceptable for the statement they were being used to substantiate. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, at a certain point it really becomes an issue of WP:COMPETENCE if you really cannot understand the underlying policies. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but, Cholin did said "Whether [the Dalai Lama] wants to cease reincarnation or not ... this decision is not up to him. When he became the 14th Dalai Lama, it was not his decision. He was chosen following a strict system dictated by religious rules and historical tradition and also with the approval of the central government. Can he decide when to stop reincarnating? That is impossible." There are several news report quoting him saying it, I can provide you of plenty more if ABC.net is not considered a reliable source for you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What he said is not what is being debated. Refuting what he said, saying "He is wrong and here is why" is what needs a strong citation that actually mentions him being wrong. None of the sources you added meet that criteria. If you have a source that says "Choling was wrong about this" feel free to add it, but you cannot use a source that does not mention his statement to refute his statement. That is original research. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are further sources that support Cholin's statement as quoted by ABC:

• https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-cant-xi-shake-the-monks-hand/20151119.htm
• https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59an55/china-decries-the-dalai-lamas-double-betrayal-and-demands-he-reincarnate
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/who-will-control-tibetan-reincarnation

Would those be enough for you? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I will look through them and let you know forthwith. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to friendly warn you both that edit warring and 3 reversion rule are serious issues. I suggest you both calm down, talk thing through and/or wait till other users give their opinions before further warring ot it can be reported. --TV Guy (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to kindly remind you that BLP issues are exempt from 3RR restrictions, and the policy is clear that the material is to be removed immediately. Feel free to participate in the discussion, but please understand the policies at play. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I already answer your BLP issued, Cholin did made the statement quoted, check this sources:https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-cant-xi-shake-the-monks-hand/20151119.htm, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59an55/china-decries-the-dalai-lamas-double-betrayal-and-demands-he-reincarnate, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/who-will-control-tibetan-reincarnation, all of them confirm the quote made by ABC. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Having looked through these sources I do not see anything in the that would lend support to the sentence "Choling's statement disregards the belief that the Dalai Lama can decide whether to reincarnate or not, an essential part of the Tulku concept." Did I miss something? The issue is not whether or not he said what he said, which is all these seem to support AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality Please correct me if I’m wrong but it doesn’t seem, at least at first, that you’re disputing Padma Cholin’s quote, it seems more that you’re disputing that the text rebuts Cholin’s quote. Which is perfectly valid, but then is not a BLP issue. Rebutting Cholin’s statement without sources may be a problem (original research for example) but is not affecting Cholin’s image in anyway whatsoever thus is not a BLP policy breaking. --TV Guy (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that I am not disputing Choling's quote, but I disagree with you about the other sentence "not affecting Cholin’s image in anyway whatsoever". Saying unequivocally that what he said is wrong is absolutely something that would affect his image. You cannot call someone ignorant of the truth or a liar without doing so, and the sentence does at least one of those things.AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you requested quotations instead of erasing it at all at first according to this edit? --TV Guy (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I had (naively it seems) thought a reliable source making that statement would be easily found, and I had forgotten how strict the policy was regarding material about living people until I re-read the BLP page to make sure I was correct about self published sources being unacceptable for such material. Once I was on the policy page, I realized my mistake and corrected it. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with your interpretation that the current wording affect Cholin's reputation, I think you should ask the intervetion of admins to see what they think before making more edit warring.

In any case, my suggestion for the article will be as follow. Mentioning that tulkus can choose to rebirth or not is important for the main topic and it should be mentioned, but may be not as a direct answer to Cholin statement. It can be mentioned somewhere else on the text. The reference is, IMO, reliable for the issue as is the opinion of a rimpoche (a very high level office in Tibetan Buddhism) so is obviously an authority over the issue. If the statement of Cholin wishes to be directly address, it can be made by using a “counterquote” from any of the othter articles provided by Dereck which some of them do address or counterargument Cholin’s statement. --TV Guy (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can agree to that suggestion ^. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest re-reading the policies on original research and synthesis. Placing an explanation that "tulkus can choose to rebirth or not" immediately following the quote, even without mentioning Choling, is a violation of those policies. It may deserve mention somewhere on the page, but not directly following a quote so as to give the impression that it refutes it. Also, none of those sources actually say that they can choose not to rebirth, they state that they may choose the time, place, or parents when they are reborn, but none of them say that they can choose not to be reborn at all. There may be sources that do state this, but none of the ones given so far do. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That is untrue, the Palyul.org quote those explicitly say that Tulkus do not need to reincarnate always. I quote "As for how these gaps come about, while tulkus are understood to have vowed to be continually reborn to help beings, it is not necessary for them to take rebirth in a continuous sequence of lives in this world." http://www.palyul.org/docs/statement.html --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The material you quoted just says that there may be a gap (in fact it directly is talking about "these gaps", not that there may be a permanent cessation of reincarnation. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact is specifically states that they may not choose to permanently cease being reborn, as it says "tulkus are understood to have vowed to be continually reborn to help beings". It literally says that there may be gaps, but eventually they will be reborn.AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we have reach an agreement. I will change the text by adding what the sourc says exactly, and would change it from where is now as to be not an "answer" to an specific person's statement. I hope this sets the issue for now. --TV Guy (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That would seem to me to be an adequate solution. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Having seen the edit I can say that I find it completely satisfactory as per the concerns I had. Thank you for helping reach a common ground. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --TV Guy (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)