Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in Tibet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources and research

[edit]

I think Zujine has a good array of sources for modern Western point of view.

Quigley please could you supply sources/editors for the points of view you are close to, tell if I am wrong but it seems to be a current PRC and possibly historical western perspectives. Gardner may or may not be reliable, but if a party wants to use him then refferences to the rulings referenced in this talk article should would be valid.

That would leave:

  • Tibetain point of view for current and past PRC (I could ask a Tibetain organisation to do thses sections.
  • The western pre PRC view is huge the amount of information could do with being reduced I would put it here or in a new article about pre nation state cultures and take a proportionate amount from it for a new article.
  • Some one willing to write PRC point of view post chinese occuption following the failed Tibetain attempted occupation (this comes from reading the wikipedia article on china) of mixed sino/tibetian regions of china, we could contact the Chinese embassy and ask them to recommend an editor plus sources, ideally that we could access.
  • Can we get a pre chinese ocupation chinese view or has it been distroyed in the Communist/Waring Clique period of China?

The current difficulties section would seem a good introduction before going into points of view if we can't get a PRC contributor.

Charles46.208.39.53 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will present here the sources that can be used to make this article, for my reference and that of other contributors. Zujine (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental/UN reports


Human rights NGO reports


Tibetan NGO reports (potentially partisan sources, reliability would need further vetting)


Journal articles


Books


News articles
Press releases

American English

[edit]

Since many of the sources are in American English, I've taken the liberty of adding an American English flag at the beginning of this talk page, to recommend continuing the article that way. As the article is still getting off the ground, if anyone has a reason to change that to another form of English, fine by me. Moonsell (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Autonomous Region (Tibet)

[edit]

I've removed the word "Tibet" in brackets. As the article goes on to mention, there are other areas of China that are Tibetan. These areas are not only ethnically so. There is dispute by the Tibetan Government in Exile that they are also parts of traditional Tibet and so the word "Tibet" should apply to them too. Moonsell (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

As far as I can tell the list of references on this page was a resource for editors. I think it looks a bit messy to paste them all into the article, although I know the intention was good. When the piece is actually written, they will all be in citations. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted them in but it doesn't worry me if they are removed. There is an advantage to listing them separately, however: it allows notes to cite them multiple times in brief. Moonsell (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with The Sound. There are other ways to cite them in brief without repeating the full citation. When I get seriously writing the article, you'll know what I mean. Zujine (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-centric sources

[edit]

Something I have noticed is how the sources I listed above and included in the article are mostly based in the U.S.; this is mainly referring to Human Rights Watch, the US State Department, and the CECC; Amnesty is London, but still. If anyone knows of other reputable sources beyond this sphere they would be welcome additions.

I'm confident that these sources are reputable, and for example the CECC is very citation heavy - so it may be fine to base the article solely on what they say. But if there are other investigations or a wider variety of sources, perhaps note them.Zujine (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a note on the reliance on a few sources, for example, CECC, to advance whole sets of arguments. The reason I believe these reports can be referenced so much in one section, and even make the basis of the whole section, is that the reports themselves explicitly draw from hundreds of other sources. They have basically just summarised what researchers found in many other places. Another way to do this such that there was a far greater variety of sources would be to go and directly cite what the CECC cites. But it would be time consuming to do that, and they've already presented and summarised it all. —Zujine|talk 03:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CECC draws heavily from what you called "potentially partisan sources", such as Tibetan NGOs and Chinese state media. I have pulled out some of these sources and used them directly, since they are more rich in matters of fact, such as a party member's speech or some NGO's testimony from the latest escaped monk. Citing them directly also allows the reader to assess the biases and the validity of the sources. The CECC should only be used for its arguments based on those sources, not for its summaries of them. Quigley (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can abide by this; strikes me as a sensible approach. —Zujine|talk 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background material

[edit]

I have added background material in relation to both the pre-1950 serfdom in Tibet, and immediate aftermath of the Chinese invasion in 1950, as such provide a historical context to the human rights issues in Tibet.--PCPP (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair addition, I would say. —Zujine|talk 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights pre-1950

[edit]

Tidied up a little the references to human rights pre-1950. This article original started when human rights pre-50 compared with post 1950 started to take over the serfdom in tibet controversy article... so intention was to cover whole period. I don't have the knowledge for that but assume that would raise some questions about human rights standards during history. What would be seen as abuse now maybe wouldn't be so a hundred years ago? I noticed when I rephrased it to "human rights abuses have been documented" that there should be a citation for that. As not my field, unsure what would be appropriate but there is material on serfdom in Tibet controversy that might be helpful for documented human rights abuses cases pre-1950. Great to see both articles doing so well a couple of years on from all the heated debates when I was working on them. --Dakinijones (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see these remarks; thanks a lot. I will look into the above.—Zujine|talk 17:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it absolutely bizarre that the article would start by saying: "Human rights in Tibet have become a contentious issue, both prior to and after the Chinese takeover in 1950. Human rights abuses have been documented pre-1950, lending weight to the Chinese Communist position in the Serfdom in Tibet controversy." Why would an article start by saying that, immediately exculpating the PRC government? It makes no sense. I'm changing it, and I'm restoring a lot of the information that was deleted from the article for no apparent reason. —Zujine|talk 18:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not at all an exculpation; it's an acknowledgment that human rights abuses have been documented (and have been politicized) by more groups than the TGIE and Amnesty. Also, instead of assuming that the text was changed for "no apparent reason" and hastily re-adding them, I suggest you review the article history to see peoples' rationales for changing the article since you last edited it. As the contributor of some of the text that you are scoffing at, I am willing to discuss. Quigley (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this is funny: "Until the People's Republic of China's (PRC) reform and opening up, foreigners could not freely travel in and report from China, including Tibet." Deleted. I have also changed reference to "Tibetan government" in the lead (who put that there?) There is no Tibetan government, because the CCP controls the country. —Zujine|talk 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's funny about it? The paragraph was discussing the difficulties of reporting on human rights in Tibet; the fact that journalists were for a long time barred (and still, that most allegations come from personal testimony from exiles) is certainly salient, and mentioned by some of the human rights reports. And Tibet does have an autonomous region-level government, with its own parliament, governor, and Communist Party secretary. It's not like Tibet was subsumed into other provinces. Quigley (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's funny is that the CCP has kicked out journalists and done show tours, etc. It's also entirely irrelevant in the lead. It sounds like Liberation propaganda, to be honest. And I don't even know what you're saying with your last comments, as though Tibet is self-governing? Is that what you are saying? Hmmm... to put it mildly, this does not square with the research. It is controlled by the CCP, and all the people you linked there are CCP stooges. So yes, it is very funny when this information is put in in a serious tone. I will wait until the basis of the article is established before moving on. But any article shouldn't start with an exculpation on some tangential issue, at the very least. —Zujine|talk 15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely relevant because most of the allegations of human rights abuses in Tibet come from politicized asylum seekers in India, whose stories diverge remarkably from what laypeople and researchers see when they actually go to Tibet. Further, the source of the allegations is important because the given testimony of certain procedures (i.e. "forced abortions") contradict each other, lending credence to the idea that people are repeating secondhand stories, exaggerating, or at the very least not telling the full truth. This is not my opinion, but that of the well-respected Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein in a paper studying rural family planning policy, for which he actually went to Tibet. I had put this in the article, but User:Actoreng1 reversed it to present the reports that Goldstein challenges as fact. (And to preempt a common exile technique to discredit research done from Tibet, Goldstein did not tell the authorities what he was doing, nor did he give them any input into what he was writing). Quigley (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quigley, I must ask you: if they did not come from asylum seekers in India (forget the "politicised" for a moment) from whom would they come? Are you saying that individuals on the receiving end of human rights abuses are not reliable sources for those human rights abuses? Should we ask the guards who beat and tortured them? Indeed, there could be all that you claim--I would like to find out more on that--but witness testimony is a basic point of all reportage on any topic related to human activities, isn't it? Archival research is another, but obviously that is not going to happen anytime soon in Tibet. Our rule here should be to take as reliable what other organisations have. This includes what AI, HRW, and the CECC have taken as reliable. And the narrative they present differs markedly from the one you are offering up. —Zujine|talk 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure testimony could come from conscientious guards, or by official investigations into the prisons. There is not necessarily a conflict of interest in the latter case, as there is tension between the central government and local officials: the former loves public crackdowns on the corruption of the latter, for example. These alternative and more credible types of reports are what moved the Guantanamo Bay case. Archival research is already happening in Tibet. "Politicized" is a key word: if you have people who are arrested for protesting for, say, secession, then they have an obvious interest (besides the universal human self-interest) to shout from the rooftops the brutality of the multiethnic state. AI and HRW (CECC just compiles several sources, mostly AI and HRW) have an obvious agenda also. Quigley (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question I have is: isn't it obvious that the stories of asylum seekers who have been tortured will differ markedly from what researchers and lay people could find out? If they have been held in prisons and tortured, of course ordinary tourists and book academics are not going to see those conditions. I don't see the conflict here. Anyway, let's talk sources. I made a list of sources above. It would be great if you could add to that, and I can take a look later. —Zujine|talk 17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the stories that the asylum seekers say about Tibet in general; i.e. that every Tibetan lives their daily lives in fear and terror, that the police pervades every aspect of life, etc. I will make a list of sources at some point, but we should address your aversion to some sources (in the discussions below) first. Quigley (talk)
Indeed, clearly if such claims are being made, their inaccurate and propagandistic nature should be pointed out by some reliable source. I don't think we disagree. Once the scope of the article is defined, that will be great. I think the key difference of opinion there is how much of a role pre-modern (what would be now called) "human rights abuses" should play in the article. As with Greg, my suggestion is that they should only appear as background and for contrast. The 'measuring stick', so to speak, is not the same, so they cannot be spoken of in the same manner or as the same category of activity or abuse. Thus, the lead and the article generally should reflect the contemporary situation. Let's see whether you agree to that, and then we can move forward. —Zujine|talk 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the emphasis should be background and contrast, but this does not mean that the section should be greatly reduced, because of the amount of effort that has gone into studying and debating the nature of the past because of the politics of the present. Anyway, the section blew up in size because people who were offended by what were brief descriptions of abuse added long quotes by the Dalai Lama trying to explain them away, and added counter-messages about how he abolished the death penalty (as if that is unambiguously a human rights abuse, actually that question is very controversial among democracies). The bit in the lead that dedicates a full sentence to it instead of a brief background was a reaction to an editor who removed all mentions of the past. You will have to clarify the notion of the different 'measuring stick', because remember we are not only talking about the most extreme early example, but even 1940s stuff. Does the switch to "human rights" language come only with administration from Beijing? Quigley (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It comes when people start using the term, and the term is used in reliable sources, to describe the activities. If the activities that took place in the 12th century are called "human rights abuses," then no one could object to their inclusion here. Do your 1940s sources use the language of human rights? Keep in mind that we are not jamming in here every act of violence that is now called a human rights abuse, if it is not identified as such in a reliable source--we agree on this, surely. I'll look at the sources closely later. —Zujine|talk 04:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The language of human rights was created in the late 1940s, so I would not expect sources from the 1940s to use it. And if we are stripping away retroactive applications of the term "human rights", you might have to throw away all information on 1950s-1970s Tibet, because it was the 1980s, or somewhere around that time that the Tibetan independence people and their sympathizers really started using the language of human rights for their cause. Quigley (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And saying that the HR abuses of the 50s-70s were "human rights abuses"? Do you not agree with this concept, that what should appear on this page as "human rights abuses" should only be what are called "human rights abuses," and not what appear to be human rights abuses but are not designated as such? —Zujine|talk 06:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I interpreted your saying "1940s sources" as "sources published in the 1940s" rather than "sources referring to abuses in the 1940s". We are in general agreement. Quigley (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the pictures deleted?

[edit]

Would whoever deleted the pictures like to explain themselves? Thanks. —Zujine|talk 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also please note that the article primarily relates to the contemporary status of human rights abuses in Tibet. So at some stage I'm going to slim down the information about human rights abuses in traditional Tibetan society. That's not what the article is about. —Zujine|talk 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree; "Human rights in Tibet" means human rights before and after what arbitrary date you choose (and there are many) to claim Chinese control over the region. Human rights in "old Tibet" is a significant topic and has implications for today. Quigley (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question of Human rights did not just appear out of thin air in Tibet when the Chinese government decided to reassert its sovereignty over the land. There is no valid reason why the subject should be expanded post 1950 while being thinned down pre-1950 unless one wanted to exonerate the pre-1950 theocractic government from its failings in that matter and at the same time paint an even blacker picture of the present Tibetan regional government's performance than is already the case in the page.--Elnon (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pandatshang. Here are some more examples: [1], [2], [3]; these are not all about things that happened hundreds of years ago (I think on this page was quoted even something from the 13th century!) They are clearly about the modern period, because that is what people expect to read about in articles with this title. Does anyone disagree with this sentiment? Quigley and Elnon, what is your input? Would you like me to make another article for you two, so you can fill it with imprecations against feudal Tibetan monsters? That would be fine by me. Please advise. We can always go to a third opinion until this is resolved. I'll not edit this article further until its basis is established. —Zujine|talk 15:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To address Pandatshang, what "most discussions" of human rights in Tibet consists of entirely depends on who you have those discussions with. Among the Free Tibet orthodoxy, discussion of the worst 1950s abuses are encouraged, but those just a decade back in the 1940s are verboten. Reverse this for PRC orthodoxy; they're both arbitrary distinctions for political expediency. As was mentioned before, the issue of human rights in Old Tibet have led to an important narrative of humanitarian intervention that is essential to understanding the PRC's motives. And as for your bad faith accusations, this article was never close to an "imprecation against feudal Tibetan monsters"; most of the article was lifted straight from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China report. There are even more pro-Dharamsala POV forks of this issue on Wikipedia. Seriously consider some dissenting opinions from the Amnesty International narrative. It's well known that only listening to opinions with which you already agree radicalizes people. Quigley (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what I want to know is the scope of the present article. I am saying that an article on "Human Rights in Tibet" should be focused on modern history, specifically, primarily, post 1950, but with perhaps some basic background before then from non-CCP sources about human rights conditions in Tibet. But I want independent sources, not Party propaganda. Also, I would add that the humanitarian intervention angle is relevant for understanding the PRC's professed motives--that is an important word to insert in between. Finally, I will certainly, and gladly consider opinions that don't come from AI: but I need good sources; and I am primarily not interested in opinion, but well-documented research and fact. But let us first resolve the scope of the article: I have given my suggestion, and given examples of other articles which also are mainly concerned with the modern period and the current government--not previous systems of government (for e.g., the US article does not talk about the human rights conditions of Indians, does it?)--What are your thoughts? —Zujine|talk 16:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Human rights in the United States article actually does discuss African slavery, and 18th century restrictions on free speech like the Alien and Sedition Acts. It doesn't discuss American Indians at all (who still exist, and not in the best conditions, by the way) but that's a shortcoming of that article. It's too bad that there isn't a featured or good "Human rights in" article we could use as a model. Now, there are non-CCP sources about human rights conditions in Tibet before 1950, however, to not use sources from China for this article obviously skews it in one direction. Chinese sources should be used: when there is an opposing outside source, that should be considered to be placed against it side-by-side, but in many cases, they can provide valuable insights into subjects which Tibetan exile sources will not cover. While we are on the topic of scope, I was planning to add some information on some of the less glamorous aspects of human rights, such as the right to healthcare, right to basic education, and right to employment and subsistence. Any comments about that? Quigley (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quigley, when I said, "most discussions of human rights", I wasn't referring to discussions about Tibet specifically. I think "human rights" is implicitly treated as a category which isn't relevant to pre-modern history. The examples you give from Human rights in the United States are somewhat atypical in this regard, but they do concern almost exclusively actions of the current regime. They also probably tend to be there for the purpose of giving context for the present human rights situation. I think we should provide some information on human rights in Tibet before 1950 for the same reason: to give the background for what's going on now.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as the right idea. The notion of "human rights" is not relevant except as a modern construction. For the other matter, if we have sources which discuss education, employment, etc., as human rights in the Tibet context, then they would be relevant (my view). And even if it is CCP propaganda, it is still relevant to state the government's position. Quigley, what do you think of these two thoughts? —Zujine|talk 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights is a modern construction, but frankly so are the concepts of genocide and feudalism, and both concepts are also applied retroactively, and are controversial when done so, as defining human rights and human rights abuses today are controversial. Because of the politics, and the academic study that the politics have spurred, the question of human rights in Old Tibet cannot be ignored. Regarding the education, employment, etc, of course there are sources that discuss them in the Tibet context, and it would be unsurprising to you from which viewpoint they come considering the relevant facts on the ground, but I do remind you that including these concepts as human rights is not novel to Tibet (see Three generations of human rights). It is good that we agree on the applicability of PRC sources; but they should also be treated fairly. This means not repeating TGIE/TCHRD/RFA interviews as fact but then treating counterclaims as opinion with "The PRC claims" prefixed all over them. Quigley (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Party propagandists are not reliable sources on Hr in Tibet, whereas HR organisations are. Further, I conclude from this that the scope of this article should be mostly about the modern situation, but provide some brief background to begin with as a matter of preface. —Zujine|talk 04:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I question who you consider "party propagandists", who to you is every academic in China it seems (I address CASS below). Actually, there is more reason to believe that Tibetologists in China are much more reliable sources on Hr (or any aspect of life, really) in Tibet than some London-based group that uncritically publishes the inconsistent rantings of political refugees. Quigley (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't regard every Chinese academic as a Party propagandist--certainly not, and even many CASS fellows are not. There is still some spirit of justice in China, it has not been entirely crushed by that government. But we're now no longer talking about concrete issues that relate to this page, so let us resume a discussion when we have something specific to dispose of. —Zujine|talk 06:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I've surggested a partial layout for a new article under bias, please comment on it. 91.125.89.131 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Colin Goldner's input

[edit]

Regarding this, can we understand more fully what it's for? For example, some specific cases would be good. The article here should be fact-based and veracious. This fellow's input seems like a series of vague talking points. Is he arguing that torture is not used in Tibet (when did he write that? 1999?)? Well, that does not match with HR organizations and the testimony of those tortured. He also says "the accusations of forced abortions and blanket area sterilizations of Tibetan women, of a flooding of the land by Chinese colonists, of systematic destruction of the Tibetan cultural heritage do not agree with the facts"; but aren't these precisely the things that are happening (without the exaggerated language of "blanket area" and "flooding." I suggest that this be counterposed with some actually factual statements. —Zujine|talk 14:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, repeating that in reverse is not "fact-based and veracious". But it's not possible to speak in absolute terms about such things because of the complexities involved. I have the least familiarity with the family planning measures, but this usually goes back to unscrupulous local officials breaching PRC policy to reach quotas in Qinghai or Sichuan (where Tibetan people live but are not political Tibet). Both words, "Colonist" and "Chinese" are completely POV, because you have to accept without clear facts that ethnic Tibetans are not Chinese, that Tibet is a "colony", and that minorities in Tibet are there in order to further this control. The allegations of the "destruction of the Tibetan cultural heritage" are the furthest down the rabbit hole, considering all that the PRC has done (that the Lamas have not when they had their opportunity) to further Tibetan-language education, sponsor Tibetan art, renovate monasteries, etc. I agree that this article needs to include more facts and veracity, but the deception does not only come from one side. Quigley (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think the remedy to our dispute is solid research. Can you please provide references that substantiate what you are saying about how the CCP has helped Tibetan-language education, art, and monasteries? I would be very interested to see such research. Of course, I mean independent researchers, not CASS fellows on the Party payroll. I await the sources. I will read them. I think we should stay away from a politically tainted discussion (as much as possible) and instead talk about specific sources--the best sources, preferably--and how to incorporate them into which articles as appropriate. —Zujine|talk 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to exclude citing CASS fellows, except in cases where we can prove that they are obviously wrong or lying. To start, here's an independent journal article about rural education in Tibet, and here's an official source about preservation of historical sites and relics which serves as a good overview. If you don't want to use that source, then you can look at each specific claim (e.g. the renovation and placement of the Potala Palace on the UNESCO world heritage list) and find alternative sources. Quigley (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an additional trickiness in using Chinese sources, because en.wikipedia editors can't be assumed to read Chinese, which makes it harder for us to come to a consensus on the quality of a given source. Even if the source itself is in English, if the author is someone who is mostly active in the world of Chinese-language Tibetology, we would still have a hard time getting a sense of what that person's background and reputation are like. However, we should work around that problem rather than banning a big category of sources. The ideal source is an independent scholar who is not affiliated with the Tibetan government-in-exile or with the Chinese government. Actually, I don't think we should ever be citing TGIE a source for facts (we can certainly cite the fact that they claim something), since factual rigor does not seem to be one of their main concerns, and there are plenty of independent English-language sources available that are basically sympathetic to their side. I'm not sure to what extent there is Tibetological work produced in mainland China which is really independent of the government.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CASS is subservient to the Party. I am unsure if this makes the source unreliable on this topic, but I would have suspected so. The reason is, CASS researchers are not independent. They are funded by the government and cannot publish reports which contradict the government's views in this sensitive political area. If I am wrong, I would be pleased to see the evidence; or if there are counterarguments, please raise them, too. This is an interesting question. Perhaps, if such sources were used for non-controversial statements, with the qualification of their origin, we would not have any problems. Thoughts? —Zujine|talk 21:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the extent to which CASS fellows cannot contradict the government's views, and which views specifically those are. However, it is not unknown for negative reports to come from the government on its own policies in Tibet. The most famous examples are Hu Yaobang's report, which was the impetus for many liberal reforms in Tibet, and the 10th Panchen Lama's report, which was a bit too strident and got him censured. Remember of course, that the position of the Chinese government is not that the human rights situation is perfect and that everybody is happy, but that the human rights situation is constantly improving, and that more urgent needs such as stability and basic living standards need to be tended to first. Quigley (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But none of this makes CASS an independent research institution. Particularly on a sensitive issue like this, they are obviously not independent. And we still don't know who Colin Goldner is. Please show how he is a reliable source. —Zujine|talk 04:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you have not established that CASS is "subservient to the party"; you have simply asserted it. And I agree with Greg that independent scholars should be preferred. Since we are using substandard sources in terms of political independence in the form of AI and HRW, I could tolerate it if CASS had (and this has not yet been established) some affiliation with the government of China, which by the way, also happens also to be the government of Tibet. Quigley (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you are saying that AI and HRW are not independent? What do you mean? When I say CASS is not independent, I mean that it is funded by the CCP for the CCP's outcomes. Allow me to find a source for that later. Tell me how AI and HRW are not independent (and, of course, provide a source). —Zujine|talk 06:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that they are not politically independent; they are political groups with agendas and not academes dedicated to impartial observation. Surely the supposed political bias is why you want to exclude Chinese government-connected sources, and not because they are simply a government or something?

Well then nothing is independent in that definition; they are HR orgs, that's their angle, but they are reliable sources nevertheless, for all their failings--that doesn't mean they have to be perfect. But HR in Tibet is an issue that is politically sensitive to the Party, who controls CASS, which discounts them from being a reliable source on the matter. They have a conflict of interest, so to speak. I copy some passages below on the Party/CASS connection. I want not to exclude CASS info, but merely to limit its scope and signpost it for what it is, as is done with all self-published sources. —Zujine|talk 06:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are independent sources; people whose focus is not on human rights, but Tibetologists and anthropologists who publish reports on religious practices or things like that. I don't know what your definition of "reliable source" is now: I assume one that does fact-checking and investigation, something that the government has the resources to and does do, and that the HR orgs cannot and conveniently do not do. Also, in such cases of controversy, all disputable sources should be limited in scope and signposted, and not just CASS. Quigley (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Colin Goldner?

[edit]

I don't have a problem with including material that is critical of the government-in-exile, but who is Colin Goldner and why are we citing him? Based on the article we are linking to, he sounds like a sensationalistic anti-religion activist, not any kind of expert on Tibet. Anyone can write an article giving an opinion about Tibet and post it on the internet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm also curious. —Zujine|talk 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least this man has a name; most of the "sources" cited in reports by organizations such as Amnesty don't. His material is included because the opinions are significant and widely held among certain groups. These opinions in the quote include that (1) that much of the death and destruction happened in early Revolutionary China and does not reflect today's relatively liberal China; (2) that the TGIE uses the issue of human rights for ulterior motives; (3) that life in Tibet [and critics are increasingly saying this about China also] is not really totalitarian; repression is restricted to political activists; and (4) certain claims such as Tibetans being a "minority in their own land" and their culture being completely destroyed obviously contradict the facts. In general, it is not good to include a string of opinions or allegations because that is closer to propaganda; better to break them up and deal with them separately, which inshallah someone if not I will do. However, this material serves as a stand-in for that better prose until it is written, and is well at home with the many more numerous similar uninterrupted assertions from the "other side". Quigley (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the fact that his opinions are "widely held among certain groups" make him a reliable source? It's also simply untrue that repression is restricted to political activists... unless you adopt the same definition of "political activist" as that taken by the regime, which includes anyone who seeks justice, or even holds certain 'restricted' beliefs. —Zujine|talk 04:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make him a reliable source; I was just pointing out that as an unsourced statement of a position held by some groups, it is not controversial enough [that the opinions are held] not to wait for proper sourcing. As for who is considered a "political activist", many commentators have noted, in relation to the recent Chinese Catholic dispute, that the government tolerates and encourages expressions of religious belief that does not threaten its power.
You write paragraphs upon paragraphs denouncing the directives against public veneration of the Dalai Lama as some inherent offense against the essence of Buddhism, but the Dalai Lama is obviously a political figure representing independence (and that's what the Chinese government has said it cares about, not esoterica), and the Dalai Lama said himself in regard to his succession that he is not essential to Buddhism. Of course not allowing for sedition is an abuse of political and free speech rights, but the connection to normal religious freedom is tenuous and disingenuous, and it is fair to include that criticism when notable people make it. Quigley (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how is Goldner a reliable source? —Zujine|talk 06:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my post; I addressed your question. Quigley (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. Then you agree he isn't a reliable source. Fine. See below for response on CASS. It's longish. [update: let me take a minor rain check on that, will give you something] —Zujine|talk 06:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a section by the highly controversial German Colin Goldner in this article? This man is not accepted by researchers, and neither historians nor Tibetologists take his claims seriously. He puts a spin on the facts and has not any acadmic reputation with respect to Tibet. In no way he fulfills the critera of a WP:RS. There is not any academic review which proofs his assertions or give his accounts anz credit. The few academic reviews which exist about him make clear that he cannot be taken seriously and that he also misrepresents sources etc. Among the few English papers dealing with Goldner, on can find in the footnotes of Imaging Tibet by Dodin & Raether (see Footnote 38 in Imagining Tibet: Between Shangri-la and Feudal Oppression)-a highly respected and reliable academic source: "There are, however, a few dissenting voices who contest the dominance of the positive image of Tibet and, instead, continue to spread the old cliches of the "feudal-hell syndrome" via the internet and some scattered publications. But the heavily dogmatic character of these circles, their marginality and the poor quality of their arguments make them negligible (see for instance: Ditfurth and Goldner, 1996, Ditfurth, 1997, Goldner, 1999, and Trimondi, 1999)." If Wikipedia wants to fulfill his own standards, this man cannot be quoted. But if Wikipedia wishes to includes dubious sources, just go ahead and quote Colin Goldner. --79.4.150.9 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For qualified WP:RS questioining claims by the TGIE see Huber's paper Shangri-la in Exile Representations of Tibetan Identity and Transnational Culture or Barnett's paper "Violated Specialness": Western Political Representations of Tibet in the same book: Imagining Tibet - Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies. Both papers can be read online too. --82.89.211.157 (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

factual accuracy of Goldner disputed

[edit]

I’ve marked the Colin Goldner section with the factual accuracy template. The reasons are among others mainly:

1) the content of what he states is not differentiated and misleading. there were/are forced sterilisations in Tibet by the Chinese but it is contented if this is a general Chinese oppression policy or not. For instance Tibet scholar Robert Barnett (Columbia University NY) states in the above mentioned paper:

“This totalizing tendency appeared most prominently in discussions of the issue of forced abortions among Tibetan women, where occasional or unclear reports of the practice were presented as if the incidents were rampant throughout Tibet.[42] This in turn led to the re-emergence in some Tibet-related political discourse in the West of the term “genocide,” apparently on the assumption that the birth control policy was intended to wipe out Tibetans.[43]  The allegation  was unsustainable, since evidence of a forced sterilization policy in Tibet was still inconclusive, such a policy would not have eradicated the Tibetan people (the abortions or sterilizations took place only after a certain number of births), and the much stricter policy applied to the Chinese people has come nowhere near to wiping them out.“

and

“The forced abortion claims, in the totalized form that they assumed in some quarters, had another inherent weakness: they provoked independent scholars, obliged by academic conventions to contest evident inaccuracies, to disprove the claims. This was childishly easy to do when campaigners had described abuses as occurring systematically  throughout Tibet. Thus when two leading scholars published data on increasing family sizes in the community where they had worked in Central Tibet, allegations of forced birth control became unsustainable in their overstated form and even more measured claims were seen as suspect.“[46]

2) Goldner is no Tibet scholar nor is he an acknowledged Human Rights Activist. He is clearly not neutral or unbiased but sees things through the lenses of his dogmatic ideological belief, e.g. he calls Tibetan Buddhism a „fascism compatible psychopathic system“ and states „that the monastic system systematically bred mind- and soul-crippled human beings“, the Dalai Lama is for him a „figure of fun“ who is the „highest representative of ‚old Tibet‘ one of the most blutsuggerious sovereign systems that has ever existed on this planet“; he also suggests that the Dalai Lama had sex with Indira Gandhi, and he claims without any proof that Tibetans force woman and little girls to have sex with Lamas while ordinary monks are forced by tantric rituals to masturbate because for them it is not allowed to have sex with real woman. He claims too that Vajrayana allows to force woman to have sex even against their will and that even girls from the ages of 8 years are forced to have sex….;

3)the High Court of Vienna (Austria) stated in a verdict with respect to the quoted book that it is acceptable to compare passages of Goldner’s descriptions of the Tibetans as being similar to the way of how the Nazis depicted the Jews. The judge also agreed with a reviewer of the quoted book that Goldner can be called a "deluded fanatic" (see http://de.nntp2http.com/soc/menschenrechte/2002/10/b7b58a11e78ee71d062eab7312f1d978.html ) This should be enough to justify the template. I think this source should be deleted because of 1) being inaccurate and 2) stemming from a dubious source. It does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. --82.89.211.157 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biasm?

[edit]

"Pre-1950 Tibet was certainly not an embodiment of perfect human society. But it was a peaceful state, and by no means, nearly as tyrannical as it is today under Chinese rule."

This seems to be written as an opinion. I wanted to see what anyone else thought.

222.152.173.46 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and subjective. Written with clear double-standard and political agenda.110.174.12.47 (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is a poorly structured article. The reason that human rights in tibet is contentious is because it is a current issue, therefore the article sould start with why it is a contentous issue now before delving into the history. relaiable current sourses should be gien prominance such as amnisty international and human right groups since this is what the article is about a brief history of is relevant but if any body want more it should be put in a serperate article. I would not right an article about human rights in germany now and spend so much space discussing second would war. I would propose a structure such as: Summary of neutral human rights groups statements as are currently happening: Tibetian claims. Communist china's claims. Then more details for each of the sides kept roughly in proportion.

Then possibly a historical section in roughtly the same format as above but smaller as it is not the focus of this article. 84.93.67.246 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was first published in 1793, it asserts that the rights of man are valid at all times and in every place, so claiming that "human rights in Tibet is a current issue" is patently false. Serfdom was abolished in "political Tibet" only in 1959, marking the end of a period of several centuries during which the majority of Tibetans were deprived of basic human rights. Should the issue of human rights be raised only for the period beginning in 1959, I dont't think so.
The statements of human rights groups are not automatically neutral by virtue of these groups being human rights groups. In the case of Tibet, Western human rights groups usually base their reports on such sources as the Central Tibetan administration, an internationally unrecognized government, and its various support groups. For a neutral point of view, it would be best to look to academic sources. --Elnon (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is conflicting reports about what is happening in Tibeten China or Tibet. On one side with the most extreme interest are the Chinese Empire (land occupied by people from a different ethic/cultural/governance system when the orginal inhabits don't want it is called an empire in English) supporters on the other side are Tibetian nationalists (who probably over state the case) regarding abuse. In between are the human rights activists who have an interest in remaining impartial in order to retain their credability which they have built up over a long time.

Academics should be basing their information on second part sources (reuters, bloomenburg or national reporters from third parties who have investigative journalists) or interviews with first parties. Any academic that is refferenced should be serperated into the area that corresponds to their interest (so to give an example in an unrelated area; if reseach into nutrition is funded by a food multinational it's research would but be listed under one section, a drugs company under anouther and by government under a third and private donations a fourth).

Enclopedia articles used to be based on historic sources, as wikipedia has more current articles they need to be seperated out by the interest of the parties because the insight that time provides is't present and it is confussing for readers who don't have any idea of who is saying what. If you can think of additional parties with vested interests in the matter please right what those possible interests are. The three groups I surggested are obvious to me but if you can think of more please mention them.

I would take your point on academics being included but I think their interest in the matter should be declared.

On that point I have an interest in chinese culture haing studed with two different chinese teachers, had a half chinese girl friend and have spent time with tibetian buddhists. I have an interest in Liberal representive states and consider myself secular with a cristian heritage (I'm a Brit), I would probably be biased towards freedom of information, the rule of law and freedom to worship as long as human rights are maintained, I am also very concerned about the ability of the earth to suport the population that it has so although I don't like the way it came about I respect the chinese states policy on child birth.91.125.89.131 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Freedom of conscience

[edit]

This paragraph is based mostly on one source. When reading this source, one can read positive points which do not appear in the section. Example: "But at different stages of Tibetan history secular rulers and religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama have been eager to protect Western missionaries and their tasks of preaching Christian beliefs to the local Tibetans." On the other hand, the section pretends Christians were imprisoned in 1630. But reading the source, one can read that it only concerned "The king, the queen, and other high royals" and not the Jesuit priests. Concerning the attack of priests, it is not specified that they were attacked at the border; the source does not specify who conducted the attack. Concerning the murders or injuries of 11 priests (which are named in the section "fathers", whereas the source mentions "at least ten other lower-ranking priests"): it is not specified that "tribal peoples in eastern Tibet" would be responsible. The section (and the source), gives only the foretold story of the Qing (Manchu dynasty), claiming that the murders would have been orchestrated by the "lamaseries and their patrons". The following paragraph fail to explain the reason of the 1905 revolt, and give no detail about the fact that Zhao Erfeng, an antireligious Warlord, was sent by the Qing, and killed hundred of Tibetan monks by decapitation, and burned Tibetan monasteries. Two references are given at the end, but it is unclear which was used, as far as I can see, most can be found in the publication of Hsiao-ting Lin. To neutralize this paragraph, one should use unbiased accademics sources on this subject. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns with this section, and then some. My issue here is mainly that the content dealing with pre-Communist era (and extending hundreds of years back, apparently), projects modern conceptions of human rights and freedom of conscience onto a pre-modern society. Unfortunately I do not have any constructive suggestions on improving this, short of deleting a good deal of this content.—Zujine|talk 05:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dearth of testimonies from Western explorers, travellers, trade agents, temporary residents in old Tibet (Alexandra David-Néel, Heinrich Harrer, Robert W. Ford, to name only a few) about the theocratic nature of its government, the existence of serfdom and a form of slavery, the fate of Christian communities, etc. Theses witnesses were not projecting modern conceptions of human rights anfd freedom of conscience on what they saw. They were content with just reporting about the pre-1951 state of things.--Elnon (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, according to the lead in the Human Rights page, "Human rights [...] are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal." --Elnon (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can such subjective sites be used as reference?

[edit]

I am not familiar with what wikipedia is supposed to cite, but I assume not any sites with clear political agendas. friendsoftibet.com, for one. Containing no acknowledgement of information sources in itself, and clear bias towards the TGIE, how can it be used as citation of supposedly neutral ,objective and verifiable works? I was told not to do so in High School, so I believe ignorance is not the problem here, which leads me to believe none other than that the author(s) must have an agenda. 110.174.12.47 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible errors

[edit]

The TCHRD has claimed that Chinese authorities in 2003 threatened residents of a Tibetan-inhabited county with expropriation if they did not hand over portraits of the Dalai Lama within a month.[84] In context it sounds like it sould be extradition not expropriation will some one who knows the source material correct it. 84.93.67.246 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of article sources discussion

[edit]

How is Green Left Weekly and a 1946 British Orientalist source, Portrait of the Dalai Lama, RS? The whole article is full of nonreliable or primary sources. Pinging @CFynn, Cullen328, Montanabw, Joshua Jonathan, AndyTheGrump, and Ogress:VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reader can sense some gross exaggeration in your claim: a couple of sources you find fault with doesn't make an article "full of nonreliable or primary sources". From the number of editors that have been pinged and the copying of the article to your sandbox, it seems we are in for a new crusade... --Elnon (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to know that Charles Bell is considered the father of British tibetology. His Portrait of the Dalai Lama, first published in 1946, had a second edition in 1987 under the Title Portrait of a Dalai Lama: the life and times of the Great Thirteenth, (Wisdom Publications). How could an authority on the 13th Dalai Lama possibly be an unreliable source? --Elnon (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Bell was a British colonial administrator.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My take is it depends on what the source is being used for. Some sources are RS for their context, you can't say automatically not RS solely due to age or ideology. For example, footnote 46 sources a direct quote from Ball. I'd say for that one, given that the point was that capital punishment was abolished by the 13th Dalai Lama, to supplement Ball's quote, it would be useful to know what was the punishment for murder. Absent that, Ball's quote doesn't enlighten the reader. But if the sentence read something like, "noting that the punishment for murder was foo, Ball said..." It might also be useful to know what Ball's own views on the death penalty were. WP:PRIMARY does not way we cannot use primary sources, just that we have to be careful how they are used. So, here we need to probably go through the article point by point to figure out what is used appropriately and what is not. No simple one size fits all solution. Montanabw(talk) 01:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also renamed this section, and am going to comment that the article does look like it was written by the Chinese government in some sections. It perpetuates a number of myths and inaccuracies. But again, this has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a definitive book written by scholars on this subject called "Authenticating Tibet". Yet it is barely cited in the article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elnon continues to insert primary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you just don't have the slightest idea what a primary source is. By the way, have you created a single page in the Encyclopedia? --Elnon (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elnon, don't engage in personal attacks. The problem here is that the source material is biased and presents only one view; this article reads like it was approved by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. While a primary source can be used sometimes, here they are used to present a cherry-picked, anti Dalai-Lama view that is simply inaccurate. Everyone here needs to stop edit-warring and actually start writing a more balance article. (I'd be interested, but I'm having more fun writing about race horses and their crazy owners right now) Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montana, do not engage into personal attacks yourself. Not content with previously writing "the article does look like it was written by the Chinese government in some sections," you have just added "this article reads like it was approved by the Central Committee of the Chinese Party" ("the Chinese Party"? Are you sure a word has not been left out here?). Well, this is like calling this contributor an agent of the CCP, how is that for a personal attack? The chief sources of the page are Western academics, scholars ot travellers: Melvyn Goldstein, Samten G. Karmay, Robert W. Ford, Heidi Fjeld, Sir Charles Bell, Heinrich Harrer, Alex McKay, Dorothy Stein, Colin P. Mackerras, A. Tom Grunfeld, etc. Do you mean to say these are CCP-vetted sources? --Elnon (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The typo is fixed, don't use a red herring to distract from the point that someone - and I am not attacking anyone personally - has allowed this article to be very one-sided and in violation of NPOV. Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you understand that autobiographies and first hand accounts are primary sources?VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert W. Ford's and Heinrich Harrer's books can be counted as autobiographies but what about the other authors?
I am apprised of Barnet's contribution to Authenticating Tibet but he is no specialist of serfdom. The main authority on serfdom in ancient Tibet is American anthropologist Melvyn Goldstein, here is a list of his works on the subject:

Bottom line is that the article has a clear anti-Tibet bias, however it got there.

  • Freedom, Servitude and the "Servant-serf" Nyima: a re-rejoinder to Miller, The Tibet Journal, Vol. XIV, 1989, No 2, pp. 56-60 (no link available, unfortunately).
As you certainly know, Authenticating Tibet is a scholarly answer to a Chinese official document, Le Tibet, cent questions et réponses, published in 1988 et revised in 2001. As the Chinese document wasn't authored by scholars, it is of little value and relevance and would have been best ignored. Barnett's contribution may denounce the use of serfdom by the Chinese government for its propaganda but it fails to say much about Goldstein' investigation and description of that aspect of the pre-1959 social system of Tibet.--Elnon (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to recommend, {[u|VictoriaGrayson}}, that you use better sources, draft appropriate content and actually insert them into the article. Arguing here just wastes bandwidth. Elnon, you are using too many biased and outdated sources and you need to start looking at stuff written in the 21st century. Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Tibet. 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:

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

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) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in Tibet. 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:

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) 12:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Tibet. 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:

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) 16:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Residential Schools

[edit]

I've read a number of sources recently that use the term "residential schools" to describe the system of education in Tibet in which children are forced or coerced away from family to attend a boarding school run by the government. I think it deserves attention on the page, and I'll start adding it. If anyone has any thoughts, concerns, or good sources, please share here. Zujine (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no opposition, I'm going to move forward with this. I want to be respectful of people concerned with human rights violations in the North American residential school systems, which have their own distinct issues, so I didn't want to just appropriate the term. I've seen it used more and more though, so it doesn't seem to be a problem. —Zujine|talk 16:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Tibet&oldid=1244017957"