Talk:Tenzin Ösel Rinpoche
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Whereabouts
The lukewarm-dishwater statement
- Lama Osel's precise current whereabouts are less well-known.
should be replaced, but only with a sentence that is not cryptic in its meaning.
- The only logical reading for "less well-known" that is supported by its context is "less well-known than it was when it was relatively well known that he was at the high school." If that's what's meant, say it more directly. If it means something else, say what else.
- What about his whereabouts is verifiable? Is the intimation that he is reasonably verifiably still in Canada (e.g. bcz he keeps renewing his visa)? That he is reasonably verifiably still in BC, bcz he keeps using his provincial medical benefits?
- What is meant by "well known"? (BTW, "well-known" is used only when nothing but other adjectives intervene after it and before the noun it modifies.) Is it verifiable that anyone else knows his current residence? That he didn't go off in retreat to a cave, and get stabbed to death by the confused hooker his compassion led him to try to enlighten, or have carnal knowledge of, and that no one who knows who he was knows he's dead? Or no one realizes that he and the hooker gave up their respective callings & are living in Pago Pago?
- Is it verifiable who else knows his current residence?
- I've no direct knowledge of how well known his whereabouts are, so my saying on my own authority "his current whereabouts are less well-known" (than whatever) is not credible. Is anyone verifiably, or even plausibly, qualified to say he's not living in a specific monastery in Dharamsala, or in a specific Chinese prison, and that those who say so don't know what they're talking about? If so, who?
- Why is whatever is being conveyed encyclopedic? Is this usual or unusual for such figures? (It should be indicated which.) Is there evidence anyone cares if journalists wanting to interview him can't confirm that it he, and not his handlers, who don't want him interviewed? Is there any appearance that his accessibility by would-be disciples is less than is typical?
In short, what is the removed material supposed to mean, literally and substantively?
--Jerzy•t 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, Jerzy, I get the impression that that one sentence is a big issue for you. I thought it was a good sentence in the circumstances. Wish you had opened the discussion before you deleted it. Johnfos 07:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reincarnation
Regarding the change around the use of the term reincarnation, I would suggest that the original wording was fine. There is actually considerable scientific research supporting the idea of reincarnation. Please see Reincarnation research. Again, I think it would have been better if there had been some discussion before the change was made. Johnfos 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link
This is now a [1] standing by itself in the Links section, with no description. Surely we can do better than this. If no one objects, I will add a description, so the item can be sensibly included in the list of Links. Johnfos 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have made this change now. Johnfos 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
