Talk:Ramoche Temple

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ramoche Temple article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Buddhism Mid‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tibet Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Coodinates

please see http://www.thdl.org/xml/show.php?xml=collections/history/hsct/sites/hsctregions.xml&div=hsct5705&m=hp, (Latitude 29°39.517', Longitude 91°07.833' ) quite reasonable. Could someone more intelligent enter them please. Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)--[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ramoche Temple/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have upgraded this article from "Stub" class to "Start" class because I have added some more text, two references, and a couple of external links. It could certainly do with more work, though. I will try to get back to it again soon. John Hill 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Corrected edits again inaccurate

Qiushufang, you deleted hours of solid editorial work with sources. Your only reason is that Treasury of Lives "Ramoche" entry does not mention Ramoche...

It's entitled Ramoche, and has solid information with sources, dates, and names. Yes. The other sources which you also deleted are also solid and reliable. Yes. Maybe you are confused about reliable sources, or maybe you prefer fabricated narratives that do not have sources?

Neither are good positions since you are writing on Wikipedia. What is the objective?

I've spent hours correcting misinformation, including typographic errors, with the reading public in mind - they deserve correct information based on scholarly works.

Thus, I discovered there are interrelated subjects whose information was very inaccurate : On this page here, and on Jokhang, on Jowo statues, on Bhrikuti, and, frankly, I couldn't navigate through all of the disinformation on Wencheng. Maybe you can focus your efforts there, where they are needed, and try to hone a proper encyclopaedic entry on the deserving subject.

Please undo your re-introduction of inaccurate information on this page, and do not reintroduce inaccurate information again.

Take an hour to read my edits and their sources in order to learn about the factual history of the interrelated subjects. Factual history is much more interesting than inaccurate history, or disinformation.

Furthermore, it's rather shameful for an encyclopedia to carry what you just reintroduced here, on Ramoche. 49.126.88.34 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant source is not Treasure of Lives, it is Poonam Rana, which makes no mention of Ramoche Temple at all. Qiushufang (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources you've provided are often shoddy or completely non-existent or unsearchable. Eg. The source provided here is completely un-usable. A title in "brackets" with an author that doesn't turn up anything in search with a vague title that also doesn't turn up anything. Search both turns up nothing. There are no page numbers or urls. Many times you've also edited existing content that is clearly has no basis in existing citations because after checking them [1] I realized that not even the pre-existing content was supported. So you were just modifying unsupported content to begin with and obviously did not bother to check. AKA WP:OR. Qiushufang (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. The hyperbole is extreme, and the motivation to keep fictional narratives is absurd.

Your accusations apply only to your preferred fictional narrative.

The interrelated subjects are these: two Jowo statues, two temples, two princesses that each brought statues to Tibet before they became queens, and the temples independently built for each statue under the apparent patronage of each queen. The statues are still very important to Tibet, to Tibetans, to its factual history, to the spread of Buddhism in Tibet, and to China's history. Do you understand?

All of my sources are reliable. I do not edit without reliable sources. Spoon feeding sources is not required nor advisable since good sources on Tibet seem to disappear - search for them on a search engine. That's how I found them.

So, try paying attention to the sentences and their subjects : Scholars Dr. Poonam Rana and those at UVa write about queen Bhrikuti from Nepal, her temple Jokhang, and her statue of Buddha Akshobhya named the Jowo Mikyo Dorje. Scholars at Treasury of Lives, Himalayan Library, and UVa write about the Ramoche where queen Wencheng from Tang China housed her statue of Buddha Shakyamuni named the Jowo Shakyamuni Rinpoche. Scholarly research on Wencheng is difficult to locate, since so much disinformation has been published about her. For example the "legend"s on her page belong in a children's book; the repeated mistaken attribution of the Jokhang to her on multiple pages; the pretense there was only one Jowo statue - hers; etc.

Why don't you do something positive like edit her page properly, instead of re-introducing fictional narratives on Ramoche that are not supported by scholarly research?

I had almost completed correcting the fictional fabricated narratives in the related pages, which were tagged repeatedly for missing citations. And you reposted these tagged and flagged narratives?

What's the excuse? 49.126.21.71 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merely saying your sources are reliable while others that are unreliable despite being easily locatable directly quotable does not make what you say true. Changing content with citations needed tags to WP:OR is not an improvement. I urge you to stop thinking in terms of "fictional fabricated narratives" and check WP:RS before continuing to edit. Qiushufang (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone of my sources is written by reliable scholars.

Scholars, not editors on Wikipedia free-associating morsels of random information to fabricate narratives.

Multiple tags on Ramoche stating "Citations needed, since 2019" are not sources that are "locatable" (to use your 'word').

I fixed that information with scholarly researched information and sources. And you deleted the edits. For no logical reason except that you seem to prefer fabricated narratives, like those "legends" on Wencheng's bio.

Then you went to multiple pages and did the same thing.

I have to ask, in all seriousness, if you think that fabricating reasons for your decisions on Talk clears you of pushing fabricated narratives on multiple pages ?

Please UNDO your re-introduction of fabricated narratives on the pages I recently repaired, and reinstate the scholarly reliable sources and their vetted information which I had provided. 103.146.218.84 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you denied the cited content despite having a direct quotation supporting it cited here. Citations needed does not mean providing false citations or unverifiable citations. You edited content that wasn't even originally supported by their sources per deletion. Here you provided a shoddy citation sourced to "Tsadra Tsumo" which could not be verified with the available information. Given that you have not done the due diligence of checking theses sources before you modified them, how can you accuse others of preferring "legends"? Please be reasonable. Qiushufang (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]