Talk:Gyaincain Norbu

For real

Redwolf24 00:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Erdini Qoigyijabu? Is this name for real?

Yes. It's spelled according to the Chinese system for spe Tibetan, which looks weird to English-speakers. I think the pronunciation of Qoigyijabu is something like "choo-gee jah-bu", where the "g" is a hard g, and the "oo" is sort of like the ö in German phrases like "bitte schön". It would be cool if someone knowledgeable would add a IPA pronunciation guide. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

This guy is the fake Panchen Lama chosen by the government of mainland China. The official Panchen Lama chosen by Tibet is someone else entirely!--Biff Dong 00:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise to an apparent edit war, I am including the BBC News article link, with a suitably NPOV title on the Panchem Lama article's external links section, as I feel it is relevant there, and not relevant here. Please sort it out on the talk pages before any further revert war. Alf 01:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Now then, Ideally I think it is better placed at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, 11th Panchen Lama. Discussion requested to be centralised at Talk:Panchen Lama. Alf 01:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

External Link : The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know

• The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know...

Does anybody else think the external link above would be helpful? I have posted it to this article, but it was removed by Hottentot. Please give an opinion. I personally, believe that the link is extremely relavent to the article.--FT in Leeds 02:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the news article is fine, but I must admit the above titlte is very POV, I'm fine with how I left it as I see no problem refering to it by the same name as the BBC uses for the article. I personally do not mind discussing these three articles on individual pages, but I genuinely think we'd be better talking about them together, on one page. Alf 10:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Title change?

I think the title of this article is wrong. I suspect that the actual name of this person is Qoigyijabu, and that the "Erdini" is part of the title "Panchen Erdini". One often sees it written "11th Panchen [or Bainqen] Erdini Qoigyijabu", but this (I think) means "the 11th Panchen Erdini, who is named Qoigyijabu" rather than "the 11th Panchen, who is named Erdini Qoigyijabu. This view is also supported by this article, which says "Gyaencaen Norbu was selected as the reincarnate of the Tenth Panchen Erdeni" and says that his (full) religious name is "Jizun Losang Qamba Lhunzhub Qoigyijabu Baisangbu". We should probably move it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it. -- ran (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was fast! Ran fixed the major redirects here, and I fixed some of the minor ones. Thanks, Ran! - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for Mediation

I would like to resolve this revert conflict over the wording of the opening paragraph. I am strongly in favour of removing text that skews the article towards a POV, where others disagree on this issue. Since you guys are "obviously" far more familar with Wikipedia than I am, I call upon you to deal with it. (This comment added by Phanatical · Demi ^T/_C 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Before requesting mediation (which you can do at WP:MEDCAB if you'd like), you may try an article RFC: WP:RFC, which can attract the opinions of others. I encourage you to discuss objections on this page, keeping in mind such principles as WP:NPOV and good editing practices like teaching the controversy and the three-revert rule. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I am a Buddhist outside of China that recognises Queji Jiebu as the legitimate Panchen Lama. The article is skewed by implicitly suggesting that only the People's Republic recognises Queji Jiebu, and that nobody else does. Perhaps the phrasing in both This article, and that on the fake Panchen Lama should be reconsidered as to appease both sides.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phanatical (talk • contribs) .

It seems to me that the clause in question, or something to similar effect, is necessary in order to maintain NPOV. To say that "Qoigyijabu is the 11th Panchen Lama" is a deeply controversial statement, because many people believe that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is the 11th Panchen Lama. How would you like to change the wording? I don't think the current phrasing is meant to imply that only the People's Republic of China believes Qoigyijabu is the Panchen Lama. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I think there's an NPOV problem with the opening. The opening claims that he is the Panchen Lama by virtue only of the PRC government's choice. While I can't speak for the lamas in Tibet, they at least nominally accept him as the Panchen Lama. While it may be difficult to say whether this is genuine acceptance, it is certainly POV to presume that it is not genuine.

I don't know how to rephrase it so as to eliminate this, which is why I'm putting it on the talk page for experts to consider. --Sumple (Talk) 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the opening sentence, taken directly, presents an NPOV problem. It says, "Qoigyijabu ... is, according to the government of the People's Republic of China, the eleventh incarnation of the Panchen Lama of Tibet." It doesn't say that only the PRC calls him Panchen Lama. However, now that two editors have stated the opinion that it implies a biased position, we should take that seriously. However, I'm not sure either how best to rewrite it. It's worth noting that the wording in this article is quite equivalent to that at the beginning of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima: "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima ... is, according to the Government of Tibet in Exile, the eleventh reincarnation of the Panchen Lama." Neither article gives the hopeful's religious endorsements in the first sentence (although the GCN article does mention the Dalai Lama in the second article). On the other hand, the difficult thing is that it is unclear exactly what Qoigyijabu's religious bona fides really are, because the identity of the Panchen Lama is such a sensitive subject inside the PRC that anyone of any relevance there is effectively under duress. Moreover, I imagine the large majority of relevant people (lamas and other influential Gelukpas) in the PRC go out of their way to avoid expressing any opinion on the matter. The way I see it, they have nothing to gain: even if a given lama is convinced in his heart that Qoigyijabu is the real Panchen Lama, he's better off keeping a low profile unless he wants to be seen as someone closely tied to the government.

I suppose we could point out more prominently the fact that Qoigyijabu was identified (or, rather, he was placed on a shortlist which was later narrowed down by lot) by a search party more-or-less representing the labrang of Drashilhünbo monastery. On the other hand, where we mention that, we should also mention the fact that Chadrel Rinpoche, the leader of the search party and the abbot of the monastery, went to prison specifically for supporting the other candidate.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here is the first sentence of this article in the Chinese language version, which one might expect to have a slightly different POV balance: "確吉杰布（ཆོས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ Chos kyi rgyal-po 1990年2月13日生于西藏自治区那曲地区嘉黎县），原名（俗名）坚赞诺布，是中國政府1995年11月29日在西藏拉萨大昭寺释迦牟尼佛像前经金瓶挚签仪式確認的藏传佛教十一世班禪喇嘛，取法名吉尊·洛桑强巴伦珠确吉杰布·白桑布，繼承確吉堅贊班禪之位。"

This (being a typical run-on sentence) means roughly: "Qoigyijabu (etc. etc., born Tibet Autonomous Region, Nagchu Prefecture, Lhari County), original name Gyaincain Norbu, is the {by the Chinese government confirmed on November 29, 1995 before Lhasa, Tibet's Jokhang Temple's Shakyamuni Buddha statue following the lottery of the Golden Urn as} Tibetan Buddhism's eleventh Panchen Lama, taking the dharma name Jizün Losang Qamba Lhünzhub Qoigyijabu Baisangbu and inheriting the place of Panchen Choekyi Gyaltsen." I put a clause in {} brackets in order to roughly preserve the order of the original.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(comment) Well, the Chinese article does not necessarily represent a pro-Chinese-government POV. The fact that this article was written in Traditional seems to indicate that it is more likely to have been written by a Hong Kong/Taiwan/overseas author, whom you wouldn't expect to have pro-PRC-government biases. --Sumple (Talk) 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. It's not so much that I thought it would be neutral as I thought it might present a different POV which we can compare. Chinese material on the Panchen Lama, at least, is likely to derive from Chinese-language sources, whereas most other versions are likely to be translated from the English. Unfortunately, when I checked the Chinese article on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, I found it to be significantly less NPOV than the English version, so it appears the comparison is not really of much value.

That said, if no one has any constructive suggestions on how to improve this article, I don't think we should leave the NPOV tag on indefinitely.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

during his childhood to be educated in a Chinese way

The major courses he studied were Tibetan Buddism classics.
He speaks Tibetan much better than Chinese mandarin, however, if you insist to use this sentence it is correct, too.
Tibetan are Chinese as well.--61.30.72.148 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask the Dalai Lama if he's chinese.Dragonnas (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama has already answered that question: "I am not seeking separation from China. I am committed to my middle-way approach whereby Tibet remains within the People’s Republic of China enjoying a high degree of self-rule or autonomy." (http://dalailama.com/page.54.htm) You might be confusing nationality with ethnicity. By the way, please remember to capitalize the word "Chinese". Mesopelagicity (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't capitalize american either =) Dragonnas (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

is almost never seen in public

GEEZ! Does anyone here really have any idea about Buddism?? In meditation, it is possible you don't see any people in years, and why the Panchen Lama needs to report his status to the media and the public? Also, the Panchen Lama just visits the space museum, April 2007. --61.30.72.148 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and User:Blnguyen (cross posted to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima‎)

User:Blnguyen is actively pursuing a POV representation on the issue of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima versus Qoigyijabu‎. That WP:NPOV dictates that neither should be identified as the Panchen Lama seems trite policy to me.

It is telling that User:Blnguyen signs off with an edit summary of "POV", for indeed that is the best description for his reversions. Please keep to NPOV. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries correctly if you're going to do reverts. A revert is never a minor edit, and your edit summary should state that the edit in question is a revert.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, your version is based on moral relativism. The subject of this article was indeed installed by the PRC, and then they removed the original Panchen Lama. The PRC is avowedly athestic, and speaks against religion; they are definitely not a religious authority and communist doctrine is avowedly against religion. Your versions (and in the corresponding article) assume that both the Tibetan monastic community and Chinese Communist Party are of the same genre, ie, competing Buddhist organistations, which is misleading. A search on news sites etc, shows that the CCP is taken as a political org and call him "China's Panchen Lama" and note that he was "installed" and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

further comments are posted at Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I thought it was necessary to revert back to PalaceGuard's version. We don't really have sources which would establish a basis on which we can take a side between the two claimants to the position of Panchen Lama. I did change the wording to he "is, according to the government of the People's Republic of China, the eleventh Panchen Lama of Tibet" with the the "according to ..." clause first. Hopefully, this will lead the reader to understand that Qoigyijabu is not simply "the Panchen Lama" but someone who is supported by someone.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war?

I had no intention of starting an edit war when I made several changes March 27, 2008 to this article, intending to improve its legibility, style, grammar, and neutrality. Some of my changes were reverted within three minutes. Did anybody really have the opportunity to evaluate my changes in three minutes? According to the edit summaries, the people who have repeatedly reverted all of my changes think that anyone who tries to make the article more NPOV is a "Nazi" and "spreading communist party lies". If you believe a change I made was not NPOV, why don't you explain your reasoning? As it stands, the article is very badly written even without considering the bias problem. Do you have any idea what a "run-on sentence" is? This is a run-on sentence: "He is the son of two members of the Communist party[1] and was installed under the instruction of the Chinese government, instead of seven year old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima who had been identified as the Panchen Lama by the Dalai Lama, the traditional revealer of the reincarnated tulku, placing the young boy into secret custody outside of Tibet." Do you disagree? I split it into two sentences to make it more legible. Was that a mistake? If so, please explain why. I also fixed grammatical errors, such as this one: "This tradition had been introduced in the 1792 by ..." In standard English, we don't say "in the 1792", so I deleted "the". If your English isn't so good, that's nothing to be ashamed of, but you need to recognize your limitations and refrain from reverting my grammatical corrections. Instead of reverting wholesale, how about if you examine my changes one by one? Let stand the ones that are good. Revise the ones that in your opinion are bad, and provide some explanation. I have no axe to grind about Qoigyijabu, one way or another. I simply consulted the article because I was interested, and saw that it was clearly biased as well as badly written, so I tried to improve it in ways which I believe any neutral and educated person would agree are reasonable. Just one more example, what does it mean to say that a particular human being is "not genuine"? Does it mean not human? I changed the wording from "not genuine" to "not the Panchen Lama". That's the intended meaning, isn't it? So why revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.45.238 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that User:Blnguyen, that shining beacon of impartiality, who reverted you? That's what it looks like in the page history. If that is so, then good luck trying to reason with the Great Font of Truth who knows better than everyone else in the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Compassion

Please see Talk:Panchen Lama for some remarks about the two articles on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Gyancain Norbu. Mesopelagicity (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Atheist CPC and theocratic CIA

As long as we're educating the reader that the CPC is an "atheist organization", how about balancing the picture with the following: "The Government of Tibet in Exile is a theocracy. It conducted guerrilla operations against the Chinese and was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, as the Dalai Lama later acknowledged. The Constitution of the United States mandates the separation of church and state." Here's the New York Times reference for the CIA funding:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E958260

It says "The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said in a statement." Not that this necessarily justifies anything, but it provides a more well-rounded perspective on PRC involvement in what might otherwise appear to be a purely religious issue. Mesopelagicity (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: "... WAS a theocracy." The Dalai Lama now says the following: "Personally, I feel the institution of the Dalai Lama has served its purpose. More recently, since 2001 we now have a democratically elected head of our administration, the Kalon Tripa. The Kalon Tripa runs the daily affairs of our administration and is in charge of our political establishment. Half jokingly and half seriously, I state that I am now in semi-retirement." (http://dalailama.com/page.54.htm) Mesopelagicity (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"... along with the majority of the Panchen Lama's followers ..."

Which of the two alleged Panchen Lamas does this statement refer to? And where is the verifiable reference? The reference provided (an article written by Jonathan Watts for the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/08/china.worlddispatch) says something about "most Tibetans"; it doesn't say anything about "the majority of the Panchen Lama's followers." It would be more NPOV and verifiable to say, "According to Jonathan Watts, Qoigyijabu is not recognised as the Panchen Lama by most Tibetans." Otherwise the statement appears to be original research. Mesopelagicity (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason for removing Nyima from consideration.

I cleaned up this sentence because it has too much speculation in it. "Because the Dalai Lama had personally selected Nyima for the position, the Chinese authorities removed him from the possible choices to avoid any chance of fulfilling that prophecy." I personally agree with the logic of it, but it is speculation. Hopefully someone can dig up a well-known source for this speculation so we can provide a citation and put the sentence back in.

Role in National People's Congress

"On February 13, 2008, Qoigyijabu turned 18 years old. At about the same time, reports indicated that the Chinese government had decided that he would be elected to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, a high-ranking position in the national communist government unrelated to the affairs of a Panchen Lama. "

This is obviously wrong because both the current Dalai Lama and 10th Panchen Lama had been elected to be high rank officiers in National People's Congress of China. They both conducted many activities in public in such a role. Refer to this documentary vedio: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rghy1FREq8M&feature=related

10th Panchen Lama has been in this role for about 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.192.235 (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gyaincain Norbu?

Gyaincain Norbu is the english name right? so why is it not the title? 218.186.8.10 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Gyaincain Norbu is the name he was given when he was born (his "secular" name), and Qoigyijabu is the name he was given for religious purposes. Mesopelagicity (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "this was not the same boy who was selected using religious Buddhist means" is misleading

This phrase is wrong. The selection of the current CPC-backed Pachen Lama was also done using religious Buddhist means, albeit with secular intervention. Stating that the original boy was selected using Buddhist means suggests that the current one was not. Ether change the above to "selected by the current Dali Lama", or keep the "religious means part" and ALSO state that the current CPC-backed Pachen Lama is selected ALSO via "religious Buddhist means, with secular intervention", namely the support of the CPC and the revoking of selection rights of the Dali Lama-chosen candidate. (User talk: Children of the Dragon) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Religious buddhist means" refers to the traditional recognition of the reincarnation by his former friends and compatriots. This is a stark contrast to the method of selecting a name out of an urn, after the person who HAD been selected by the "method of recognition" has been disqualified. I believe buddhists frown upon gambling, which seems a good description for how Q was selected (e.g, by a combination of chance and [atheist]government intervention).Dragonnas (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Gyaincain Norbu -- Aervanath (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I noticed some recent news articles mentioning this person, both from the Chinese state media and from dissident sources, and they all seem to refer to him by his secular name, Gyaincain Norbu. This name also gets a lot more hits on Google. I wonder if it would be appropriate to move this article to Gyaincain Norbu.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Gyaincain Norbu sounds right to me. Bertport (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed recently that the article at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is using his secular name—I had always assumed it was his religious name, but it's not. The name the Dalai Lama gave him is something like Trinley Püntsog, but I doubt anyone would suggest moving that article to that title.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There also seem to be a lot of hits for "Gyaltsen Norbu" referring to this person—"Gyaltsen" and "Gyaincain" are alternate spellings of the same name.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The two contenders for Panchen Lama

I made some changes to the text of this article yesterday to correct some mistakes but I note that today they have been reversed. I take the editor's point that both contenders should have a qualifier added to the caption on their photo, not just on one, and I have done this. But it is not correct to state that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the other contender, was picked by the "Tibetan Government in exile" - this is just not true - he was picked by Tibetan Buddhist Church authorities. Gyaincain Norbu was picked by appointees of the Chinese Government using the so-called "Golden Urn" method of drawing a name out of an urn under the supervision of Chinese government authorities. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tashi Wangdi Interview - makes no sense

"However, Tashi Wangdi, an exile government figure and representative to the Dalai Lama said of Norbu, "I think if he wants to pursue religious leadership, in Tibetan customs we have more than one reincarnation. If he proves himself to be a good practitioner and religious leader, people will treat him as a reincarnation."[20] This is disputed by Tashi Wangdi, the Representative to the Dalai Lama, who said that Gyaincain Norbu lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the Tibetan people, who are forced to attend his ceremonies. "They can’t keep their Panchen Lama in Tibet. They tried to bring him to his monastery many times but people would not see him. How can you have a religious leader like that?"[21]"

So is Wangdi disputing himself here or is someone else meant to have been quoted there?

Plutonium27 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious. It looks like this was added by an overzealous IP editor a few months ago. It is all from one interview with Tashi Wangdi. Basically, he's not really disputing himself, he's just being equivocal. First, he emphasizes that Gyaincain Norbu is unpopular and has no legitimacy. Then, he starts to hedge and implies that Gyaincain Norbu could earn some legitimacy in the future through good behaviour, and he even implies that there might sort of be two Panchen Lamas. One could speculate that, in his mind, he started out expressing strongly anti-Chinese-government sentiments, but then he remembered that the exile establishment is supposed to be seeking compromise with the Chinese government, so he switched to a more conciliatory tack. This opinion can't go in the article, obviously, but Tashi Wangdi tends to give his talking points hamfistedly.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Urn used once or three times?

If you read the article here, the Golden urn has been used three times to select the Dalai Lama. If you read the article on the Golden Urn, it has only been used once. Following the two sources, the article cited here does not actually state how many times it was used in the past (but it is a Chinese source so it is possible this information is missing in the translation). The article cited in the golden urn article states it was used twice in the past to select the Dalai Lama, but one of those was to endorse a candidate already selected. I suggest someone who is familiar with the topic reviews the sources and clarifies this. As one article is by the Tibetan govt. in exile and the other by the PRC govt, I suggest neither is really a suitable reference without heavy rephrasing: "the golden urn has been used at least once and possibly on other occasions", but I will leave this to the experts as I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to start a fight. 110.171.37.24 (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Dalai Lamas (1-3 times), some other Tibetan figures such as the 8th Panchen Lama were also selected by the Golden Urn. It was never meant to be Dalai Lama only. --Cartakes (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gyaincain Norbu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522114721/http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/stories/stories_09.htm to http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/stories/stories_09.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522130118/http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/background/back_01.htm to http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/background/back_01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522125822/http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/background/back_04.htm to http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/background/back_04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927221954/http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/banchan.html to http://zt.tibet.cn/tibetzt/panchen/banchan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gyaincain Norbu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428202329/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-04/26/c_131552598.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-04/26/c_131552598.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)