Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

recent edits

I have reverted a number of Sildroad's recent edits. Many of them were not as well sourced as they should be: see WP:SPS, a criterion that www.german-foreign-policy.com or an atimes article by a guy from AFI research hardly fulfill.

Some were misrepresentations. For example german-foreign-policy.com talks a lot about the FDP foundation's involvement with the torch relay protests around the world, but not at all (or at least I could not find anything) about said foundation's involvement with protests and riots within China.

One edit removed valid and relevant material from one of the few western reporters who managed to talk to Tibetans in Lhasa.

A lot of material was simply irrelevant for this article. This article is not titled "Why Tibet was always part of China", but "2008 Tibetan unrest". For the purposes of this article it seems enough to simply state that many Chinese people feel that Tibet is rightfully part of China, not to repeat every little piece of evidence from the Ming dynasty of all times.

Another example seemed to be the bit about the PRC accusing VOA of something. I did not feel like doing a machine translation of the whole article, but to me it looked very generic, about VOA spreading rumours and providing a platform for Tibetan independence activists, nothing substantial that would warrant mentioning them in the "background" section. Maybe I was just missing something. Yaan (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1)Yaan's deletion of my post has blocked the information neccesary to see the complete picture on this issue and made this article heavily to one side of the game, or more exactly, to those who most-likely planned and instigated the riot for following reasons.

2)Concerning the history part, My original post is "it is generally believed in China that Tibet has been peaceful a part of China for hundred years", to balance the statement that China invaded Tibet in 1950s in previous version. However, this statement was removed and described as misconception without citation and intentionally incorrect information. For the demanding to present citation, I add cite more reference for further evidence. The processure was shown in the earlier part of discussion. However, it is removed again under the excuse that they irrelevant, which implies there is no way at all to present the fact not favored by the previous editor. Should I understand that Yaan removing implies the Yaan for blocking the information that he does not want to reader to see?

3)The global torch-relay-protests is against the alleged bloody crackdown of PRC on the "peaceful protest" Tibetans. The report from German Foreign Policies indicated "Tibetan Independace Movement" in advance this protest, riot and alleged bloody crackdown would happen. Without their planning, wow come they knew the bloody crackdown before it happened? How come Yaan does not see any relation to the riot? It was alleged that the in previous contribution that broke out not because of planned, but because of angers for the so-called Chinese crack down, the German Foreign Policy report apparent gives readers another option to understand the background. Why does not Yaan want to reader to have this option?

4)Yaan also did not explain why the report about CIA involvement of Tibet Independence Movement and the Tibetan riot can not fulfilled Wiki standard. Yet similar report did not only come from AFI research but also from other sources, such as former CIA senior officers, report from Wall Street, the Austria media derStandard etc about roles CIA or US government in this riot. Yet there are even information from the public webpage post by the organizers of the “Uprising Movement” and the report about the preparation of the roit from media controlled by the Tibetan in exile. Yaan deleted all the information only under an excuse AFI is not reliable. Is it an indication that Yaan does not want to page to be neutral and balanced by information from both side of the conflicts?

5) I did not remove any material from one of the few western reporters who managed to talk to Tibetans in Lhasa, at least not intentionally. If the material is missing, it should be put back instead of deleting the information sources I presented. I will never remove them.

6) My contribution present the roles of Radio Free Asia for their propaganda of “Tibetan Peoples uprising movement” before the roit. But Yaan claim I blame VOA, which indicates he/she even did not read my contribution careful before removing them. It also suggested his edition is likely to remove the information that he does not want the readers to see, rather than to improve the quality of this article.

For the above reasons, I consider Yaan’s removing as a mistake, if not vandalism, and feel it necessary to put back my contribution in order to present the necessary information, without removing any information presented before me, so that readers from both the West and China could have a much better chance to find the fact in a neutral, balanced and undistorted introduction.Sildroad (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Removing off-topic content is not vandalism. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a monography. I am sure the picture of the annual Mayday riots in Berlin could be made more complete by discussing Germany's industrialization and the architecture of that era, Bismarck's social policy, Albert Speer's plans for Germania, strategies of the Allied Bomber command in WWII, or the social structure of southeast anatolia. But that does not mean any of this belongs into an encyclopedia article about Mayday riots, nor does omitting all this indirectly related stuff an article one-sided.

2. I did not remove it because I don't want to know people about Tibetan history (btw. the PRC version is not necessarily the version adopted by scientists outside the PRC), but because I think most of this is irrelevant and only indirectly related.

3. www.german-foreign-policy.com is a conspirationist website that routinely ascribes almost mythical powers to German party-affiliated foundations. It is most certainly not a reliable source. But even German-Foreign-Policy text did not say the Konrad Naumann foundation can make people at the other side of the Eurasian continent, people who cannoty even speak German, start an rioting.

But the only important thing here is even the german-foreign-policy.com text did not indicate that the people at that conference in Brussels did plan anything inside the PRC. Period. Anything else is just jour private interpretation and does not belong into Wikipedia. I also don't see that the text alleges the people of the conference knew beforehand what would happen in Lhasa. They knew that there would be a torch relay, but this is no proof for any quasi-demonical powers.

4. If you can find a reliable or relevant (PRC state media=relevant, random guy with website=irrelevant) source that claims CIA involvement contributed to the riots, I am all for including this. If you can only find a commentary complaining about the low standard of reporting AFTER these event in the western media like this one, then it belongs in the "Media coverage", not the "Background" section. If you can only find some random guy posting vague speculations, it does not belong into this article at all.

5. You removed material from Georg Blume about young Tibetans feeling discriminated against in eductaion and the job market.

6. If you think VOA does not share part of the responsibility for the revolt, why do they need to be mentioned?

And, partially in reply to your kind words in the section above:

7. Please try to be a bit more on-topic in your edits. This article is about "2008 Tibetan unrest", not about "Whether Tibet is rightfully part of China or not". I am all for including the different relevant POVs about why the unrest happened - because of separatism (PRC), because of social issues and because (some?) Tibetans don't really like Chinese (western Media), because the Dalai Lama wanted it (again PRC), probably in connection to the 49th anniversary of the Dalai Lama's escape from Tibet (western Media again) etc. But Wikipedia is not a place for random conspirationist theories, it is especially not a place for your private pet theory.

Wikipedia is also not a place for page-long rambling about only vaguely related topics. Unless ypu can show any connection to the riots, talking about post-1911 ROC suzerainty or the Ming dynasty is utterly redundant here. If you think you need, at all cost, to mention why the PRC is the legitimate ruler of Tibet, I think it can be done in no more than three sentences: According to the PRC, "Tibet has always been part of China", "The rule of the Dalai Lamas was a brutal feudalistic regime" (even if it was tolerated by the Chinese until 1959?), and "Tibet is better off for being ruled by the Chinese". John K. Fairbank once even managed to put all this into one half-sentence, but the version above probably is a bit clearer. If you feel you need t write much more, why don't you just start a separate article that can then be linked to?

8. Please try not to misrepresent what I or others write. As pointed out above, even german-foreign-policy.com does not claim the Konrad-Naumann-Stiftung can, or tried to, make Tibetans riot. I did not write footbinding is related to the 2008 riots in Tibet, but that it is to the opium wars what skull cups are to the 2008 riots in Tibet. Actually, if we can show that footbinding contributed to the contempt 19th century Europe had for a society they had admired just 100 years before, the relevance of footbinding to the opium wars is much greater than the relevance of skull cups to the 2008 Tibetan unrest. Yaan (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I talking to a employee of Tibetan Independence Movement who is trying to do brainwash here? It does not matter that matter you allege every news that opposite your political faith is unreliable, but it matters you try to block all the information to public. You allege Asia Time and German-Foreign-Policy are unreliable, but you wash away the information from former CIA senor officer, and press conference web page of those Tibetan exile who announced they were preparing for this riot. Are you really worrying public to see incorrect information in wikipedia or you are worrying they see the truth without your custody? Who need you to hide report of German Foreign Policy from them. If it is unreliable, can't they judge themselves? Can’t you somehow comment it is a conspiracy media that never tell the truth, instead your wash away those "false information" for them like all the dictators and liars in this world?

You even did not finish reading my edition before you remove them. The Asia Time report talked about the active role of Radio Free Asia in this event, not Voice of America. But VOA became your excuse to remove the information. I did not blame Radio Free Asia, but just forward the information what they did. There are citations and the readers can check themselves whether RFA made those broadcast. Apparently you don’t want to reader to access any information that might let them doubt all the information you provide is reliable or not. In your contribution, you repeatedly mentioned Chinese block the information that they don’t favor, but this is exactly what you did yourself.

"If you can find a reliable or relevant (PRC state media=relevant, random guy with website=irrelevant) source that claims CIA involvement contributed to the riots, I am all for including this.” This really funny. You appoint yourself in charge of news examination and judge what is reliable. In this world any report against a certain dictator is unreliable. There are plenty report from PRC that blame the riot was a continuation of the secret war. I don’t trust everything they said and I always cross check with western sources, yet I did not make conclusion but, instead, quote the report and leave the read to conclude and pick up those I found valuable. Since the information are not supporting your political stand, of course you have to claim they not reliable. Then former CIA officer wrote a book who introduce the secrete war. The Free Tibet Movement hold press conference and make web site for preparing the riot, and even report in their own media, You don’t dare say they are reliable, but you delete them together with German-Foreign-Police and Asia-Time under the excuse they are not reliable. Why you do delete the book about CIA secret war in Tibet? Do you think the author are not real CIA officer but fake ? Who can expect you to be for the news you don't like if you work this way?

German-Foreign-Policy cited more than 10 reports from different sources to elucidate their point. Readers can cross check them and compare to the reports which you claim is reliable and find out if these “conspiracy hobbyist” tell the truth or not. I don’t believe they are too stupid for recognizing false report and need your protection like protect people from swine-flu-virus. Also a major part of this report talked about the cruel violence in Lhasa which they think closely related to the FDP foundation funded conference. If you can’t see the relation, you can’t just delete them to block others seeing it. If this report is fake, the others would find it as well as you, because they are not more stupid than you.

” You removed material from Georg Blume about young Tibetans feeling discriminated against in eductaion and the job market.”. No you made it wrong, (if you were not lie). I kept the statement there, but just add a sentence that “According to Tibetans in exile and some western media”. No matter how well the statement fit the fact, The PRC sent the ethnic Tibetan communist to TV saying they are happy after the communists freed them from their slave masters. In a neutral point of view, one can’t say Tibetans said they are happy under PRC, but can only say according to THE Tibetans (perhaps actors), they are happy. So is the alleged complaining. It is true that Tibetan exiles say ethnic Tibetans were discriminated and perhaps find a few guys as evidence, then it should be added “according to Tibetan exile…..”. Other than that I did not changed anything on this issue.

It seems for me you are using WikiPedia for propagandizing your own TI political stand. Can you show me a single sign that you are willing to let this topic to be in neutral point of view, which implies information of both sides should be presented with balance and the readers would be able find truth without any one washing their brain?

I hope Yaan could kindly give more consideration before he dicede to ruin my contribution. What I did is not forcing any one to believe any thing but just cite about 10 more references to give readers a wider clue to find the truth. I could accept revise, shortening, or reformulated a certain issue to other part such as media coverage, but I will not accept to block these references. I hope Yaan can give some space for the report that your political stand does not favor. I hope this article would not end up with protection or a tag for disputed nitration. If all these information is blocked away from this topic, I will set up a new with better balanced material any way.Sildroad (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So you have found me out. Too bad for me.

But apparently you are still suffering from bad reading skills. Because what happened in Lhasa and elsewhere around march 14th 2008 was not a torch relay protest (this is what german-foreign-policy writes about) or a the arrival of a group of pedestrians that had started their march in Dharamsala just 4 days before (this is what phayul's Tibetan uprising report writes about). I don't think I need to protect any of those websites, and my main point is not that they are reporting rubbish. My point is they are just not saying what you say they say. Kind of ironic, then, that you like to talk about "truth" so much.

Citing one random's guy obscure rambling about CIA involvement as source seems to be against WP:UNDUE. Again, if PRC state media claimed the CIA, or RFE, or VOA or whatever contributed to the riots, I am all for adding this info. Why don't you just try to find a source instead of writing pages and pages of irrelevant essays.

The diff about you removing material from Georg Blume is here, between line 145 and line 158.

I don't think you are in position to instruct me to provide credentials.

Yaan (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

’’My point is they are just not saying what you say they say. Kind of ironic, then, that you like to talk about "truth" so much’’ --------- What did I said? I said “The protest is reportedly planned and organized ….”, The protest referred to the global wild protest with the riot in Tibet included. Other than Gernman foreign policy, it was also reported by “Tibetan People’s Uprising Movement”, Media owned by the Titan exile, Radio Free Asia, Asia Times, Chinese government, and ngo-online. The Chinese government even allege that they received a deadline. In my contribution and previous discussion, I already pointed out all the reports together give the clue for that the conference coordinate the global protests, including the protest inside China, not the G-F-P report itself. GFP did not exclude the possibility the riot was included in the global protest. They don’t have evidence, but if you read the Chinese source by translation machine, the Chinese authority claimed they found the project of “Tibetan People’s Uprising Movement” was named according to the strategic plan made in the conference. The press conference hold in India by the exiles also support this theory.

Under an excuse that G-F-P did not gave direct evidence the Brussels meeting plan the riot, you delete all the another 18 references listed bellow. Why don’t you want to readers to see these relevant reports to judge by themselves? This kind of inforamtion filter only exist in brainwash procedure.

• ^ a b "« The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign »" (in English). German Foreign policy. 26 March 2008. http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145. Retrieved on 2008-03-26.

• ^ "« THE SPECIAL MEETING”- A TURNING POINT FOR TIBET?»" (in English). tibetanuprising.org. 01 Dec 2007. http://tibetanuprising.org/. Retrieved on 2007-12-01. • ^ "«Tibetan People’s Uprising Movement calling»" (in English). Tibet News and Views]]. 14 January 2007.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=19115&article=Tibetan+People%E2%80%99s+Uprising+Movement+calling&t=1&c=1. Retrieved on 2008-01-25.

• ^ a b "« 達賴集團組織策劃實施"西藏人民大起義運動"內幕(Inside information that the Dalai clique mastermind and organize the “Tibetan People’s Uprising Movement”)»" (in Chinese). Official Web Site of Chinese Government. 2 April 2008. http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=17656. Retrieved on 2008-04-02.

• ^ "Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet". CNN. 20 March 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/. Retrieved on 2008-04-09.

• ^ "Pressed Over Tibet, China Berates Foreign Media". The New York Times. 2008-03-25. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/world/asia/25tibet.html?fta=y. Retrieved on 2008-04-23.

• ^ "« FDP-nahe Stiftung soll Tibet-Proteste mit-initiiert haben (FDP-affiliated foundation aims Tibet-protest with initial fund »" (in German). Internet Zeitung für Deutschland. 8 April 2008. http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=17656. Retrieved on 2008-04-08.

• ^ a b c d "«Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA.»" (in English). Asia Time. 26 March 2008. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC26Ad02.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-26. • ^ "«Oh my God, someone has a gun ...»" (in Chinese). The Guardian (UK). 15 March 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.

• ^ "« 西藏拉萨“3•14”打砸抢烧严重暴力犯罪事件真相 (The truth about the severe criminal violence of attacking, destroying, robbery and burning events in March 14th, Lhasa, Tibet )»" (in Chinese). [[>. Chinese Ministry for Public Security]]. 15 March 2008. http://app.mps.gov.cn:9080/cenweb/brjlCenweb/jsp/common/article.jsp?infoid=ABC00000000000043861. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.

• ^ "«Tibet Reports by U.S.-Funded Radio Anger China.»" (in English). The Wall Street Journal. 29 April 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120943421014951627.html. Retrieved on 2008-04-29.

• ^ "«“自由亚洲电台”为“藏独”分子大做宣传 (Radio Free Asia engaged in propaganda for advocates of Tibetan Independence Movement)»" (in Chinese). 环球时报（Global Times）. 26 May 2008. http://world.people.com.cn/GB/7299712.html. Retrieved on 2008-05-26.

• ^ "«Tibet und das Elend des Secondhand-Journalismus (Tibet and the distress of second-hand journalism)»" (in German). derStandard. 23. April 2008. http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3277927%26sap=2%26_pid=9064827. Retrieved on 2008-04-23.

• ^ "« 中国公布部分涉藏历史档案证明西藏自古属于中国(China republish the relevant part of historical archives that prove Tibet belongs to China since ancient times»" (in Chinese). China News. 08 Apr 2008. http://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/news/2008/04-08/1214707.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-05-08.

• ^ "«辛亥革命后英国分裂中国西藏的“新政策” The UK’s new policy for separating Tibet from China after the Xin-Hai revolution)»" (in Chinese). Tibet Daily & China Tibet News. 20 June 2008.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/3385803/UK-recognises-Chinas-direct-rule-over-Tibet.html. Retrieved on 2008-06-20.

• ^ "«UK recognises China's direct rule over Tibet»" (in English). Daily Telegraph. 05 Nov 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/3385803/UK-recognises-Chinas-direct-rule-over-Tibet.html. Retrieved on 2008-11-05.

• ^ "«”The CIA's Secret War in Tibet” by Kenneth Conboy, James Morrison»" (in English). The University Press of Kansas. 05 Nov 2008. http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241905830&sr=8-1. Retrieved on 2008-11-05.

You also delete the Asia Time that report weapon smuggling. I am going to present the PRC report which claim their police officer was shoot death by auto rifles in Gansu when they were trying to arrest the rioters. The PRC source is not neutral so the Asia Time that you deleted somehow suggest the PRC report did not lie.

In your new version of edit, you make such allegation ‘’“The uprising coincided with demonstrations to comemorate the 49th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising in other countries.”’’. This was the same allegation made by the prime minister of the government in exile, who claimed they have nothing to do with the violence. There are so many information against them, I have read much more from PRC sides but did not present to prevent unbalanced. But you only allow readers to access information from the Tibetan exiles and those westerns who support exiles and the former slave master. Isn’t it clear your political stand and effort to control public opinion is exactly same to the Free Tibet Movement? It does not matter you have a political stand and it is not a bad thing at all that you present information from their source. However, you don’t allow the information from any other side, including neutral side to access the public in wiki.

As I said, if Wiki is owned by you or any other one who want filter the information like in a propaganda war, there is no point to discuss with you. However, Wiki official, if their claiming for NPOV is serious, might be different. So I would insist the information would be added, with willing to accept suggestion of reformulation. Ruining my contribution for blocking the information is not acceptable for me, so later, if I find you delete my contribution without .reasonable argument, I would recover, until one of us apply a protection and let the wiki administrator to judge who is the vandals. I would wait sometime to improve the formulation then, will apply protection if your instant vandalism sill continue. If you want to keep out the information I provided forever, you should apply protection before I do.

Finally, the diff you present did not indicate I remove the part you claimed. I think you misunderstand. If you look the lower part of that page, the information are still there. Only red text in diff page indicate changes, the diff page did not show any red among the lines. But I don’t know why wiki present something which make comparison in two column different.Sildroad (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

cont.

German-Foreign-Policy

The reason I removed your full "contribution" is still the same as above: some misrepresentations, a lot of irrelevant material, altogether poorly sourced. Let's go through some of your references.

You seem to be using the FPO article as reference for the following claims: "According to various reports[19][20][21], the unrest was announced in advance [22]”[23] and seems to be a part of the global anti-China campaign that was reportedly planned and organized at “the fifth International Tibet Support Groups Conference”", "The conference was funded by the German FDP-affiliated Friedrich Naumann Foundation and hold at the Brussels in May 2007" and "However, some Canadian journalists revealed that the anti-Chinese Tibet campaign may be planned in the Brussels conference and orchestrated from a Washington based headquarters with financially support from Friedrich Naumann Foundation according to foundation report". The second claim is uncontroversial, the first is a misrepresentation and the third one is too vague to be relevant here (which campaign exactly?) I will go through this fpo "article" paragraph by paragraph:

• The title is "The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign". There was no Olympic torch in Lhasa on March 14th.
• The first paragraph says that those sinister plans that were developed in Brussels "call for high profile actions along the route of the Olympic Torch Relay and are supposed to reach a climax in August during the games in Beijing." Again, there was no Olympic torch in Lhasa on March 14th, and also the climax of the unrest in Lhasa was not during the olympics, but 5 months before. Either something went wrong, or fpo is just talking about a different event. In fact, the following sentence gives the impression that the torch relay protests (which were planned in Brussels) and the unrest are really separate events: "The campaign began already last summer and is now profiting from the current uprising in the west of the People's Republic of China."
• The second paragraph gives some data on the conference and says that the campaign planned at said conference "violently forced the interruption of the Olympian Torch Relay in Paris last Monday." But it again does not say the campaign caused the riots in Tibet, which were arguably much worse than what happened in Paris.
• The third paragraph lists the results of the conference and says again that its members think the Olympic games are an excellent opportunity to make their demands known. Once again nothing about rioting in Tibet.
• The fourth paragraph just gives some namedropping. Neocons, exiled Tibetans etc.
• The fifth paragraph gives some successes of the torch-relay campaign: some woman organized something at the Great Wall, several people managed to be on TV for disturbing the torch relay in Greece. And they are planning to organize even more spectacular stuff in Beijing during the Olympics. But no word on the unrest in Lhasa on March 14th!
• The sixth paragraph says that the torch relay campaign is becoming even more efficient after he unrest in Tibet. It also gives a short account of what happened. Once again, it does not say the unrest is part of the campaign.
• The seventh paragraph ("Manipulations") criticizes the reporting of the German media. No word on the torch relay campaign.
• The last paragraph says that the unrest in Tibet "created the necessary media profile for the current Tibet campaign", but not that the unrest was part of campaign. The paragraph also criticizes the Tibetan Government in Exile and says that its plans for an independent Tibet were anticipated by the rioters attacks on non Tibetans (but not that the Tibetan Government in Exile anticipated such attacks).

I short, as mentioned above, the "article" does not say that the unrest in Lhasa was planned in Brussels. It says that the protests at the olympic torch relay were planned in Brussels. The unrest in Lhasa was on march 14th, the torch relay started on march 24th. I admit the article is somewhat hard to parse, but I think even you should be able to understand that the unrest in Lhasa and the protests at the Olympic torch relay are two separate events. Even if the latter was obviously influenced by the former.

Yaan (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard M. Bennett

For the article by Richard M. Bennett. It is used as reference for the statements "According to various reports[19][20][21], the unrest was announced in advance [22]”[23] and seems to be a part of the global anti-China campaign that was reportedly planned and organized at “the fifth International Tibet Support Groups Conference”." (same as before), "It was also reported that weapons were smuggled into Tibet for preparation of the uprising[21].", "The Tibetan Independence Movement (or Free Tibet Movement) had been encouraged, in fact substantially organized, by CIA, as a part of cold war at least since 1959 with their financial support and weapon supplies for guerilla war of many years against CCP[21]", "Although military activities have been closed since 1976, their Psyop continue till now, according to RM Bennett, intelligence and security consultant, AFI Research. [21].", "As noted by Bennett, “with the CIA's deep involvement with the Free Tibet Movement and its funding of the suspiciously well-informed Radio Free Asia, it would seem somewhat unlikely that any revolt could have been planned or occurred without the prior knowledge, and even perhaps the agreement, of the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) at CIA headquarters in Langley” [21]".

The first statement is once again a misrepresentation (turning speculation into fact), the second one is turning a claim into a fact, the third one seems not directly relevant here and in any case better sources could probably be found, the fourth and fifth ones are obviously correct (near-verbatim quotes with attribution), but their relevance seems completly unclear. My uninformed guess is Bennett has never been to Tibet. He runs a website that looks like a linkfarm and is currently hosted by some guy who loves aerial images. As mentioned above, he is on the record for claiming Iraq may have trained up to 200 al Qaida members on weapons of mass destruction. The article in question is from a website that will post articles from almost anyone.

Given all this, I don't think his article is a very good source. If you really feel he is a relevant source for an encyclopedia article on the 2008 unrest in Tibet, please give at least some justification. And don't turn his speculations ("there is reason to believe", "has also been linked to", "it would seem somewhat unlikely that", "perhaps", "with a reasonable measure of conviction" [this one is actually someone else's speculation], "a distinct possibility" etc.) into facts.

Yaan (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tibetanuprising.org

This page is used as reference for "According to various reports[19][20][21], the unrest was announced in advance " and "A strategy for the global protest against PRC was studied and approved in the conference. The strategy was announced later as “Tibetan People's Uprising Movement”, with a web site built by the organizers [22].". I don't see anything about an announced uprising on that page. The oldest article is from August 13th, 2008, several months after March 14th. I am also not able to find any alleged articles from 2007. So this page is not a useful source for the first statement. The second statement seems again of unclear relevance - because it is not clear whether it is related to the events in Lhasa on March 14th, or only to the torch relay protests. Yaan (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

phayul.com: Tibetan uprising calling

This page is used as reference for "According to various reports[19][20][21], the unrest was announced in advance [22]”[23] " and "The project was described as “a turning point for Tibet”. The uprising movement was summoned publically at in a press conference in New Deli, India by several government-in-exile-affiliated organizations[23]."

Again, the first statement is a misrepresentation, while the second one is of unclear relevance. Because the article deals with the announcement of a pedestrian march from Dharamsala to Lhasa, not with rioting and unrest. Five organizations are "calling on exile Tibetans to take a protest march to Tibet". Participants are required to "to uphold firm commitments to be part of the indefinite “non-violent peaceful movement”". "The march will commence from Dharmsala, the home of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, on March 10, 2008". "They then plan to march through India to Tibet’s border with determination to walk to Lhasa, Tibet’s capital." "Besides, exile Tibetans and their supporters are also planning a series of global “non-violent direct actions and mass protests”". "The “return march to Tibet” would cover some 4000 kms to reach Tibet’s border and would last no less than seven months".

I am quite puzzled how this can be used as reference for any of the statements mentioned above. Yes, they have references to the 1959 uprising, they call for protests and struggle. But the text most definitely does not say they are planning riots and unrest along the way, let alone in Lhasa. In fact, the article says they are planning to reach Lhasa by about October, not a mere four days after setting out.

Yaan (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to other stuff above above

• "I am going to present the PRC report which claim their police officer was shoot death by auto rifles in Gansu when they were trying to arrest the rioters."

Just do so, if you can find a relevant source.

• "The PRC source is not neutral so the Asia Time that you deleted somehow suggest the PRC report did not lie."

I am afraid I don't really see your logic here. Apart from that, Wikipedia is not so much about neutral than about reliable sources. PRC state media might not always be a reliable source for facts, but at least they are almost always a reliable source for what exactly the PRC claims. Some random guy who mails some stuff to the asia times, on the other hand, is a reliable source for nothing.

• "In your new version of edit, you make such allegation ‘’“The uprising coincided with demonstrations to comemorate the 49th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising in other countries.”’’. This was the same allegation made by the prime minister of the government in exile, who claimed they have nothing to do with the violence. There are so many information against them, I have read much more from PRC sides but did not present to prevent unbalanced. But you only allow readers to access information from the Tibetan exiles and those westerns who support exiles and the former slave master. Isn’t it clear your political stand and effort to control public opinion is exactly same to the Free Tibet Movement? It does not matter you have a political stand and it is not a bad thing at all that you present information from their source. However, you don’t allow the information from any other side, including neutral side to access the public in wiki."

What I meant to write was that they happened at (roughly) the same time. Not that they were necessarily unrelated. My dictionary says that "to coincide" means "to 1 occur at the same time or place. 2 correspond in nature; tally. 3 be in agreement." I think my usage of the word "to coincide" is in line with no.1, and completely unbiased. Of course if you'd tell me that for you, as a native speaker of English, usage of the verb "to coincide" has strong anti-Chinese, pro-Dalai-Lama connotations, I could look out for a synonym. Or maybe I just once again do not get your point.

• "As I said, if Wiki is owned by you or any other one who want filter the information like in a propaganda war, there is no point to discuss with you. However, Wiki official, if their claiming for NPOV is serious, might be different. So I would insist the information would be added, with willing to accept suggestion of reformulation. Ruining my contribution for blocking the information is not acceptable for me, so later, if I find you delete my contribution without .reasonable argument, I would recover, until one of us apply a protection and let the wiki administrator to judge who is the vandals. I would wait sometime to improve the formulation then, will apply protection if your instant vandalism sill continue. If you want to keep out the information I provided forever, you should apply protection before I do."

I propose you file a complaint with the Wikipedia police.

• "Finally, the diff you present did not indicate I remove the part you claimed. I think you misunderstand. If you look the lower part of that page, the information are still there. Only red text in diff page indicate changes, the diff page did not show any red among the lines. But I don’t know why wiki present something which make comparison in two column different."

The statement you removed is "The Tibetan youth complain about not having equal access to jobs and education." It was present before you started editing, and missing afterwards. If you look at the diff carefully enough, you will probably see that a lot of your changes are actually in black text. But all in all not bad for a person who likes to throw around words like "liar".

Yaan (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yaan, all your above arguments are something like "I don't see the relevance" or "I don't see the logic". Your logic is "If Free Tibet Mov. did not publicly announce the plan and organized the violence, no report should be presented, if CIA did not publicly present all the document of current secret war in Tibet, the violence have nothing to do with the unrest". Well No one publicly announce the plan they don't want others to know.CIA did not publicly announce their secret war in 50s and 60s, but they did. If other people in those years can still accurately report US involved in the "uprising" no matter they have the official admission of US or not. It is not only you block the information of the reports about how CIA might involved at this time, but also block their official admission of their involvement in the past, under an excuse of irrelevance. Why don't you let the reader to find out if they are relevant or not? Their mind must be cleaned under your custody, right?

I don't see the logic you block the information too. However, neither you or me are supervisors of Wiki and your personal comprehension should not be the reason to block the information. Especially, as I said, if you are a part of the propaganda war, it is so natural "you don't see the logic" not to block any information against your side. What you are doing is not to improve the article with balanced information, but just to present and block the information for propaganda purpose.

Among other things, I still don't understand what I have removed. But if you find I deleted any information, you are welcome to add back and I will accept without any objection (not matter they are truth or lies). However, if you remove all the related information under an excuses of irrelevance, I will not accept. My contribution is far from finish; there will be much more about what really happened during the unrest itself. I am sure you will be busy to remove them later. I am lack of time to have pointless discussion with you or file a complaint. By doing the lengthy discussion everyday, I cann't have any progress, so I just put my version back. I will do it every time I come unless 1) I find you are improving but not destroying, 2) you present a real reason, better than "I don't see the relevance". The relevance is for those who are interested in the fact, but not necessarily for someone fight for "Free Tibet".

After I finish all the complementary material, I will apply the protection. If you are tired of this editing every day, you are welcome to complain to the official administrators.Sildroad (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sildroad, you are over the line of acceptable behavior. In this post you have accused an excellent editor of bad-faith editing and made it clear that you have no interest in discussion or consensus. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. --Gimme danger (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[Gimme danger], so-called "excellent editor", "bad-faith editing" are all your subjective name calling. Wikipedia does not need this kind of stuff here. What we need is reliable source, objective description(no matter how bad in nature). Again, personal attacks are not tolerated here and will be reported. Xingdong (talk)

Just for the record, I don't think interpreting phrases like "Am I talking to a employee of Tibetan Independence Movement", "Their mind must be cleaned under your custody, right?" or "What you are doing is not to improve the article with balanced information, but just to present and block the information for propaganda purpose." as accusations of bad-faith editing is subjective name calling. I agree we need reliable sources, objective descriptions and no personal attacks. Unfortunately, I got the impression that sildroad was more interested in writing long essays about topics that seemed not very relevant (say, pre-Qing Tibetan history), and that he used quite dubious sources, including sources that he grossly misinterpreted. Yaan (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another interpretaton of background for riots

In case someone hasn't noticed, some Chinese academics have come up with yet another version of what caused the riots, see for example here. But I am not sure how reliable or otherwise important their statements are. Yaan (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

Here are the contents I put in under "Media Coverage" section of this entry "2008 Tibetan unrest":

In March 17, 2008, The Toronto Star reported details from Canadians caught in the violent riots in Tibet. 19-year-old John Kenwood of Victoria B.C. was witnessing a Chinese motorcyclist being pummelled unconscious by a Tibetan mob hurling chunks of pavement as big as bricks. "He may have died," Kenwood said last night(March 16). "I can't be certain." "He didn't seem to understand what was going on," said Kenwood. "He was wearing a gold helmet and he got off his bike and raised his arms. He didn't know what to do." Also the report cited Canadians eye-witnessed how the riots turned violent and how some of them escaped with help from taxi drivers and guides. Another report described in detail how Canadian traveller Justin Winfield from Toronto helped to save a Han Chinese from mobs and took him to local hospital along with two women.

The contents came from reliable source The Toronto Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingdong (talk • contribs)

I don't know what YellowMonkey's motives are. In any case, I think "Media coverage" may not be the right section: this looks more like a description of what happened during the riots rather than like a description of the media response to the riots. Maybe it is more relevant in the "Violence and protests in Lhasa" section, which currently reduces the riots to overturning some cars.

Even then, I wonder if creating a whole paragraph about what one newspaper wrote is a very good idea. It's probably better to condense what is currently at 2008 Lhasa violence, or just cull that other orticle and move everything back into this one. Yaan (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User YellowMoney seems to be politically motivated, rather than making constructive contribution to Wikipedia. He removed my contribution again WITHOUT explanation.

Extracts from newspaper of course is part of media coverage. And Canadian eye-witness' account is certainly very important, as they are very few westerners that witnessed the event. As China imposed media ban, these first-hand descriptions are very valuable. Without these, talking about the media coverage is meaningless. Xingdong (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression was that the Media Coverage section was for stuff like western media used images from nepal and other places, china banned foreign reporters, ccp was not happy about the way this was portrayed in non-chinese media etc. Not so much for discussing what actually happened. If you look at the article, I think most of the content is derived from some kind of media coverage, so if we start to file things like what you wrote above under the "Media Coverage" header, we won't need any other headers anymore!

I am not saying those Canadians accounts are not valuable. What I mean is that the usual WP rules like style, undue weight etc. should apply. It is not like these Canadians were the only witnesses cited by non-Chinese media. Why cite them, but not James Miles or Georg Blume?

Have you tried to contact YellowMonkey at his talk page over this? Not sure it will help to sort this out, just think it might be a start. Yaan (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama: Violence was started by Exile-Tibetans from abroad

This might be interesting: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200908a.brief.htm#012 original text: http://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/news/newsticker/schweiz/Tibetisches_Oberhaupt_fordert_unabhaengige_Berichte_aus_dem_Tibet.html?siteSect=113&sid=11037092&cKey=1249393575000&ty=ti&positionT=1

the source is ATS /SDA

"The outbreak of violence during the demonstrations of March 2008 was caused by "agents provocateurs," declared the the Dalai Lama during his press conference in Lausanne, Switzerland.

The first demonstrations were held on March 10 in a peaceful manner. The Chinese authorities initially only observed the demonstrations. It was only on March 14 that the capital Lhasa went up in flames.

According to reliable sources -- including from the BBC reporter who was right on the spot (translator's note: this is probably James Miles for The Econonmist) -- the Dalai Lama learned that exile Tibetans went to Lhasa between March 10 and 13. They were the ones responsible for the outbreak of violence. The Chinese authorities then brutally suppressed the violence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.104.230 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 80.108.104.230 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that someone has misunderstood the Dalai Lama's comments. Tibetan exiles have alleged that the violence was committed or incited by agents provocateurs in the employ of the Chinese government.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the story last year. But this year he says "habe er erfahren, dass zwischen dem 10. und 13. März Tibeter aus dem Ausland nach Lhasa gelangt seien" = he is clearly speaking of tibetans coming from abroad. Even the Austrian quality paper derstandard is reporting it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.104.230 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Violence against Muslims

There is something I am missing here. Once more all mention about violence against Muslims was removed. How can that be considered a detail? From the very first Western reports from the riots, the violence against Muslims was mentioned.

The Economist 19 March 2008: "Many of these streets are lined with small shops, mostly owned by Hans or Huis, a Muslim ethnic group that controls much of Lhasa's meat trade. Crowds formed, seemingly spontaneously, in numerous parts of the district. They smashed into non-Tibetan shops, pulled merchandise onto the streets, piled it up and set fire to it."

The Economist 10 July 2008: "The officials who decided to stand back during Lhasa’s riots may well have gambled—correctly as it turned out—that the violence would be directed mainly at businesses run by Hans and Huis (members of a Muslim minority) rather than at symbols of party power."

SCMP 6 April 2008: "young men and women forced police to retreat behind shields, pelted black government cars with rocks and beat Han Chinese and Hui Muslims with fists, sticks and shoes."

From the source that was removed in the recent edits: "Muslim shopkeepers and their families were badly hurt and some were killed when fires set in their shops spread to upstairs apartments."

Don't we own it to the Muslims who were hurt and killed in the riots to at least mention it in the article? --Mlewan (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

a) write Hui and link it

b) make it shorter; when the paragraph about Hui is longer than the rest of the section, that's what raises undue weight concerns. One sentence should suffice.

PS:thanks for starting this section.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The violence that a specific community was sujected to during the March 2008 Lhassa riots is fully documented. There is no reason why it should be restricted to just one line in the 2008 Tibetan unrest page. Talk of "undue weight" is just an excuse. "Weight" should be considered in terms of the whole page and not one particular section.--Christian Lassure (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

anti-Hui paragraph

I removed a paragraph from the Violence and protests in Lhasa section on anti-Hui riots. For one thing, the whole thing seems to be a digest of one source, a New York Times article, which basically gives undue weight to this aspect. Moreover, very little in that article even talks about the Spring 2008 riots specifically, so the connection to this article is tenuous (also, not everything in the article is talking about Lhasa, so its placement in that section is questionable). Furthermore, the way the paragraph was written included some tendentious readings of the source. Basically, I think the mention of attacks on Hui people given in the previous paragraph is sufficient.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Johovishta, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please delete the sentence in the introduction "Dozens of Chinese embassies and consulates were attacked " and the corresponding citation. I read the cited article and it made no mention of such attacks - hence the statement seems unverified.

Johovishta (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Johovishta, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please delete (again) from the introduction " 18 Chinese embassies and consulates were attacked.[3]" The stated reference is from the Chinese embasssy; this is not an appropriate published source further it is not a neutral source.

This is a better reference (neutral and published) http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKKRA73981720080317 In it states that embassies in London, Paris and New York were attaked. However this is redundant to the previous sentence in the article. I would just add this as a reference to the previous sentence and delete the requested sentence

Johovishta (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The Reuters article does not contradict the Xinhau article and the Xinhau article is dated two weeks later as well. WP:BRD applies here; your bold removal was reverted and now is the time to discuss and reach consensus on how to present the information. Atrributing the detail to the source would be one possibility. Celestra (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro is unbalanced and inaccurate

This article's lede is in bad shape. Specifically:

The 2008 Tibetan unrest, also known in China as the 3•14 Riots, was a series of riots and demonstrations in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa and also Tibetan Buddhist monasteries outside the Tibet Autonomous Region.

The article in general places too much emphasis on "riots". There were chaotic and violent riots in a few places at certain times, but protests happened first, continued later, and were much more widespread. As far as I know, there's no reason to say that the demonstrations outside of Lhasa occurred at "monasteries". Of course, everything that happens in Tibet is near a monastery.

What originally began as an annual observance of Tibetan Uprising Day degenerated into rioting, burning, looting, and killing by March 14.

It didn't just "degenerate". The riots were a response to police suppression of peaceful protests. Activities other than beating, smashing, looting, and burning continued well after March 14.

The violence was mostly directed at Han and Hui civilians by Tibetan mobs.

No, it wasn't. Violence was mostly directed by the police at protesters and rioters. I suppose non-state violence was directed mostly at Han and Hui Chinese civilians.

At the same time but also in response, protests mostly supporting the Tibetans erupted in cities in North America and Europe. 18 Chinese embassies and consulates were attacked.

This is citing the Chinese embassy in Washington as its source. Can we find a more neutral source regarding embassy protests? This Tucson Citizen article mentions protests-turned-violent in a few locations worldwide. I'm not sure how important the overseas protests were that they should be mentioned in the first paragraph, anyway.

During the riots, Chinese authorities would not allow foreign and Hong Kong media to enter the region.

When did the ban on foreign media begin and end? The Economist article clearly says that it began before the riots did (the government was expecting protests on March 10). Didn't it last after the riots had been suppressed?

Domestic media downplayed the riots. Only James Miles, a correspondent from The Economist, gained approval for a week-long trip which happened to coincide with the increase in tensions.. According to Miles, the riot police response was tame, but Tibetan exile groups claim a brutal crackdown.

That's not quite what Miles actually said. He alleges that the authorities did nothing at first, "what they did was sacrifice the livelihoods of many, many ethnic Han Chinese in the city for the sake of letting the rioters vent their anger". He also points out that he was only one person covering the entire city, so "it was impossible to get a total picture".

Let's work on improving the lede for accuracy and balance.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought about the issue of balancing the coverage of violent and non-violent actions here while reading the featured 2009 Urumqi riots article. The title of that article more accurately reflects that the lion's share of the media (and other coverage) coverage went to the most prurient aspects of unrest; in both cases the riots. The initial demonstrations are described as background, because that is what they are to the politically significant incident, which are not whatever nonviolent demonstrations happened after the rioting started. The advantage of anchoring the demonstrations on the riots is that it maintains a clear scope. You say that the ban on foreign media may have continued beyond the suppression of the riots. It may have lasted until 2009 or 2010, exceeding the "2008" in the title. But though 2008 superficially seems to encompass everything in the year, it refers specifically to the demonstrations connected to Tibetan Uprising Day and the subsequent violence. To go beyond this would be to arbitrarily group this with protests, though by Tibetans, that did not have the same organization and goals.

The same overextension of scope happens when one tries to quantify the violence with an a priori framework. The only calculation that leads to higher "protester" than civilian deaths is to count the deaths of tangentially related people since the riots, including dubious deaths like the case of a person who died after being treated in hospital for injuries supposedly from prison mistreatment. Numbers for the deaths during the riots proper and the official crackdown period, for which the ethnic breakdown can be taken as a neat cipher for protester/civilian, show more civilian deaths. As for the embassy protests, they should be included in the context of general protests "against the crackdown"/international reaction that overlaps with the Olympics somewhat. Expanding Miles's statement to include all of the caveats he gives to his coverage is a good idea. Quigley (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we are supposed to determine what the "politically significant" part of the story is. To me, the whole series of disturbances throughout the Tibetan region that lasted until May seems very significant. I don't think we can go by media coverage. As you know, outside of China, the rioting during the 2008 unrest was dramatically underreported.

I don't think the grouping is at all arbitrary. There was a distinct period, lasting from March 10, 2008 through May, when there was a much higher than usual occurrence of protests, uprisings, and riots across the Tibetan region. They were clearly loosely inspired by each other, beginning with the March 10 monks' demonstrations in Lhasa.

I was going to suggest splitting the article out into a specific article about the 3·14 riots in Lhasa, but I see now that that's already been done: 2008 Lhasa violence. That being the case, I don't see any reason to limit the focus of this article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the separate article has been created, many of the links to this article should then be changed (because they really refer) to the 2008 Lhasa violence article. Also, there seems to be nothing in this article about any protests in April or May; do you have credible sources that attest to their existence and connect them with the riots in March? Quigley (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"As you know, outside of China, the rioting during the 2008 unrest was dramatically underreported."

You must be joking. Thousands of people were killed just this year in riots all over the world, I would say that the riots in Tibet(~20 killed) were dramatically over-reported in western media compared with other riots(such as this).

"To me, the whole series of disturbances throughout the Tibetan region that lasted until May seems very significant. I don't think we can go by media coverage."

Yes, it is very significant to you, but you also have the Tibetan flag on your user page. Please read Wikipedia NPOV tutorial Wipedw (talk). 07:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Quigley: sure, this article says there were 76 incidents in April, 42 in May, 37 in June, and 8 in July. The current version of the Wikipedia article gives very poor coverage.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Just look at their map of Tibet. Wipedw (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The map tells us the website's political stance (as do many other things, like its refusal to call the Hui by their endonym), but not necessarily that they are unreliable. TIN's lack of fact checking (they seem to want to be a comprehensive database, allowing anyone to submit pictures, taking information straight from CTA, "activists") may do that. But in the cases where an "incident" is confirmed by Xinhua, for example, in TIN's list of 2008 "unrest and related incidents" the deadly explosion at Gonchen monastery on 12 July 2008 which got mainstream media attention, are good candidates for reportage on Wikipedia. I'm still not convinced that these events can claim any continuity with the March riots, however. TIN's own analysis in the article you linked to, Greg, says that the events in 2008 are "far less homogenous in character and intent" than analogous ones in decades past, and that "no blanket term can fully characterise the events in Tibet during spring 2008". If we are going to cover the latest incidents, maybe they should be under an article like "List of unrest incidents in Tibet in 2008". Quigley (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article that should satisfy Greg's concerns without tilting the lead too far into either POV. In short, by mentioning that the unrest did involve protests (which later turned violent), and softening some of the original word choices. --SGCM (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Johovishta, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Again more inaccuracies in referencing (Lord help someone checks the whole article ....

[8] According to Miles, the riot police response was tame,[9] but Tibetan exile groups claim a brutal crackdown

- If you read the Economist article Miles never uses the word tame. Infact it is clearly stated that tear gas was used to disperse the monks. Reference 8 was published on 15th March not 13th.

I would to do the following According to Miles, the riot police response used tear gas to disperse the monks (8,9).

Johovishta (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I think they just used the wrong CNN reference. Reference 11 is a CNN transcript and "tame" seems to be a good one word summary of the events he describes in that interview. "Riot police used tear gas to disperse the monks", while accurate about a small detail, leaves an impression of a much more active response than that which he describes. I'll correct the reference. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Tame" is an "editorializing" word that's subjective and not appropriate for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:EDITORIALIZING. Mistakefinder (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

fix map and text overlap

The orange Tibet region map overlaps text in intro section. Mistakefinder (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Media section bias

It seems to be entirely about how evil the "western media" is for reporting what happened. I improved it slightly, but it needs more work. As is, it's totally bias towards the Chinese Government, which is obviously not the best source about suppression by said government. Joesolo13 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence

However, skeptics have pointed out that forced confessions were not banned (again) until 2012.

My reasons:

• "were not banned (again)" is too confusing to appear in an encyclopic text.
• The reference actually states China had law against forced confessions, but this law was not well executed, and they are trying to "reiterate" this law. The removed sentence does not reflect this fact clearly.
• The reference is not directly related to this unrest. The author is implying forced confessions is used, which is not supported by the reference, and may constitute original research. Just like one should not quote Guantanamo in an article about another U.S. military prison because doing so implies this other prison also has abuses, which may not be the truth.

I admit I have a moderately pro-China POV. However, I believe this sentence does more harm than good from a neutral POV too. --Ahyangyi (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal: 314 Taipei protest

The article in question is a functional orphan (being only linked from Categories and a user page), and the merge will enable Taiwan and Hong Kong protests to be properly listed in this article (2008 Tibetan unrest). I thus propose that:

1. Section 2008 Tibetan unrest#International protests is renamed to "Related protests"
2. Article 314 Taipei protest is merged into section "Related protests" since neither belong in the International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest article due to timing and/or location.

^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I do agree (into some certain extent) about the merger of 314 Taipei protest into the 2008 Tibetan unrest due to the very small size and relatively insignificant scale of the 314 Taipei protest (besides, we all know that there are "hundreds" of protests everyday in Taiwan). But the 2008 Tibetan unrest happened in 2008 while 314 Taipei protest happened in 2010. Do those two events were directly inter-related to each other (one directly caused by the other)? And also I'm questioning on the 314 Taipei protest, in which the article also contains vigil in Hong Kong. Should a renaming be considered first before merging? And also after renaming, a connection with 2008 Tibetan unrest should be found first, to make it a more "chronological story" of an event article. Chongkian (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not even see why the page 314 Taipei protest exists in the first place. One demonstration one day with a thousand people, out of which many apparently foreigners, in a city with six million inhabitants does not seem very notable. Do we have pages for all demonstrations with more than 1000 participants? Besides, two of the reference links do not work for me. In addition, it was to celebrate the 1959 uprising, not the 2008 unrest.

I do not suggest that 314 Taipei protest should be deleted, but it is not an article that is significant enough to promote with links from this page. Mlewan (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Tibetan unrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080412060301/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5h5Z6bJwtN_roGSIUQiQnfbf2NkhgD8VP4ITG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5Z6bJwtN_roGSIUQiQnfbf2NkhgD8VP4ITG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Tibetan unrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604100131/http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080318/ten-china-unrest-tibet-rights-dalai-oly-1dc2b55.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080318/ten-china-unrest-tibet-rights-dalai-oly-1dc2b55.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Media coverage section

The "Media coverage" section is now seriously POV. The biggest problem is that news from China is repeatedly ascribed to "Chinese state", "Chinese media" and "the Communist Party", while sensationalist papers from rivaling countries like Taiwan and the United States are shown as fact. Now I know that we can't accept Chinese (especially state) media as fact, but this is quite ridiculous. Fox News and Yahoo News should not be used as high-authority sources, and not everything from China should be ascribed to a state conspiracy. Furthermore, the section is full of scarequotes and original research done by studying and noting things in sources. All in all it's a poor quality section. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)