Jump to content

Talk:Tibet/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

lead section

I now restored an (my) older version of the lead section once again. I see it has often been reverted by one particulatr user, but I don't know what exactly is wrong with it. The main differences, as far as I can see, to the previous version are:

  • "ethnic Mongol Chinese state" is replaced by Mongol empire, then Yuan dynasty: more exact, no weaseling around, facts instaed of interpretations. (with a source that probably trumps Tom Grunfelds short discussion(?) paper)
  • "four hundred years later, Tibet was further incorporated into China"-like stuff omitted: Seems to imply some kind of historical law that Tibet becomes ever more integrated with China, which is at least doubtful. Plus the Mongols in the 13th/14th centuries had no plans for Tibet in the 17th and 18th centuries.
  • "with the support of Mongol/Oirad factions"-like statement added: not really necessary, although not insignificant. But IMO the Oirad stuff helps to understand what the Qing were doing in Lhasa in 1720.
  • info on 1720, ambans etc added: No idea what could be wrong with this.

I would really like to discuss these changes bit by bit. I have never seen a meaningful discussion of the previous reverts beyond "Yuan dynasty was a Chinese dynasty", which is not contrary to my version of the intro at all. Yaan (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Yuan Dynasty statement in the present version is fine. However, I think lets not get into the definition of these terms (Yuan Dynasty, Chinese dynasty or not, blah blah), and just stick to the statement that are referenced by the sources. I understand that since many users edits this article, many want to use their preferred sources. I think without too much conflict, we should accommodate as much as possible. That is why I did not revert you adding statements about "Dalai Lama both times with support from different Mongol and Oirad factions" or change the statement you changed about the Mongol Empire and Yuan Dynasty. I removed the last few statements you added to the article using citation from Sigfried J. de Laet, History of Humanity because (I already responded this to user Littlebutterfly before hand) that the source didn't directly mention these statements.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, all this makes sense, but why are we keeping "Tibet was further incorporated into China"? I don't know what that means, but if it means that Tibet became more "Chinese" during the Qing, or that China extended its control over Tibet during the Qing, then it's false as well as confusingly written. I really think it should come out. Yunfeng (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yunfeng, the main reason is because it is cited with a source by Tibetologist Tom Grunfeld. Yaan added a few more statement with sources by Tom Grunfeld (about Mongols), that is why I don't see why not other statements cited by him has to go.
Second, I don't want to get into political reasoning about your above statement ("I don't know what that means, but if it means that Tibet became more "Chinese" during the Qing, or that China extended its control over Tibet during the Qing, then it's false as well as confusingly written"). I understand that there are various interpretations of history, especially heated and politically controversial one like this. That is why I respect your opinion and don't want to turn this into a debate over it. The best thing I can offer is that we can also use archived references (such as old Catholic Encyclopedia and Western encyclopedias and sources that are published during the Qing Dynasty) to help cite things concerning the Qing Dynasty. One thing about modern interpretaions of history I'm sure you understand is that is comes in variety of opinions. I'm sure you also know that the Qing Dynasty wasn't called "Qing Dynasty" in English during its lifetime, rather it was called Chinese Empire. I think the majority of the newspapers, encyclopedias, maps and books published in the 19th century can help clarify on that one.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But that's exactly my point. It is not written clearly but seems to be a very POV sentence. Why do we need it at all?
Also, not that this matters, during its "lifetime" the Qing Dynasty was in fact called 大清国, or Great Qing Empire. Yunfeng (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this sentence seems unnecessary and it presents a potential POV problem. That is, it is unnecessary in the intro. If the same idea is presented elsewhere in the text, we will have room to describe it clearly.
Is Grunfeld really taken seriously as a Tibetologist by other Tibetologists?
I don't think it makes sense to rely particularly on 19th century accounts. Was the situation free of political controversy at that time? I doubt it. Beyond the POV issues, we wouldn't normally rely on a 19th century study of any given subject, because science has tended to learn a lot more about various subjects since then. I see no reason to trust that Western sources at the time knew or understood very much about Tibet.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think mis-understood the original statement. 19th century was during the Qing Dynasty, obviously any sources written was about Qing during its time. It is contemporaneous of the period we're talking about.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Intro

The introduction to this article has developed a distinct bias in favour of a certain view of Tibet's history. "In the 17th century, Tibet was further incorporated into China in the Qing Dynasty" has the ring of a non sequitur, since it says "further", but the preceding sentence doesn't have anything to do with integration with China—more to the point, neither did the preceding phase of Tibetan history. The effect of the phrasing, as Yaan has pointed out, seems to be to imply that Tibetan history is a story in which it inevitably becomes more closely integrated with China. In case this is not yet clear enough, the next sentence hits you over the head with it: "In 1653, the 'Dalai Lama' became an official title, as it was recognized by the Qing government." "Dalai Lama" was a title of enormous importance before that, so this sentence has very marginal relevance. The next paragraph begins, "In 1912 the 13th Dalai Lama unilaterally declared separation from China. but two years later the 13th Dalai Lama expressed the willingness of accepting subordination to China." (note the odd punctuation, a common tell for sloppy editing). The first part of the sentence is slightly wrong: the declaration does not declare separation from China, it says "During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming Dynasty of the Chinese, and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China co-operated on the basis of a benefactor and priest relationship". In other words, this was a declaration that Tibet and China had been separate all along. The second part of the sentence, "but two years later the 13th Dalai Lama expressed the willingness of accepting subordination to China", is quite misleading. At the Simla convention, the Dalai Lama's representative was willing to concede Chinese suzerainty in return for something; the deal was quite favourable to Tibet, considering its precarious position at the time, as evidenced by the fact that the Tibetan government accepted it while the Chinese government completely refused (the Chinese government would certainly have accepted a simple acceptance of subordination). Then it says, "From 1912 to 1950, Tibet possessed the so-call "de facto independence'." How about we come up with a description of events which does not necessitate that we call our own description "so-called" (or "so-call", either). The statement that "No nation has ever recognized Tibet as independent", is presumably referring to modern times, but cannot be bothered to say that. It is also not true, but saying, "No nation other than Mongolia has ever recognised Tibet as independent during modern times" lacks a certain flair. The intro then says, "In the failure of a CIA funded rebellion in 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama fled into exile in India.". In fact, the rebellion began a long time before 1956. There are a lot of things one could say about the rebellion, so why does the article single out the fact that the CIA eventually became involved in it, except to try to give a biased impression to the reader? Also, the Dalai Lama left for India before the rebellion had failed; what's more, the way this is phrased implies that the Dalai Lama supported the rebellion, which is not true as far as I know. The next sentence points out that "He and the Tibetan Government in Exile have received millions from the CIA since the 60’s.'' What justifies putting this fact in the intro? This article is not the article on the current Dalai Lama, nor is it about the Central Tibetan Administration. The intro closes with "The Dalai Lama believes that in order for it to modernize, Tibet must remain within the People's Republic of China, although he also wants China to give 'a full guarantee of preservation of Tibetan culture. ' ". It can hardly be claimed that the importance of remaining within China is the main thing, or the most frequent thing, that the Dalai Lama has to say about Tibet ... so why are we making that the focus of the sentence?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That "Dalai Lama became official title in 1653" is indeed given by the source mentioned- the question is how reliable a general global history is. The citation also was not entirely correct last time I checked it: the volume number was not given, and while de Laet is the editor of these volumes, the actual statement is from an article written by, IIRC, Wang Sizhi. Yaan (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CIA backing unsupported

In the article on Tibet there is mention that the 1959 uprising was supported by the CIA. Yet the statement itself is not supported. The footnote (#12) leads to a title, but it does not indicate [1]Authorship, [2]Date of Publication, or [3]whether the title refers to an article or a book. It is the most ridiculous footnote that I have seen. I would imagine even an elementary school teacher would have serious issues with that footnote. An allegation as serious as that needs proof. Please remove that comment. And, if it were written in a book, that does not make it a true statement. The book's footnote needs to be traced. You can't use a books offhand, unsupported comments as a serious proof. I don't know how Wikipedia works, I am just a casual reader, but this place needs more control. 75.16.48.145 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can just google CIA, tibet and 1959, and then you can easily find many information. Actually CIA recognized this part of history. There is a book called something like: CIA's secret war in tibet. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple88 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is non-contentious: See "The CIA in TIBET 1-6" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY for first hand accounts by the CIA people involved as well as Tibetan insurgents and the Dalai Lama's brother Gyalo Thondup. The CIA head of operation Knaus wrote a book: " Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival". The DL himself, with Mikel Dunham wrote a book "Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed Tibetan Freedom Fighters, the Chinese Communist Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet"; The extent of the operation - c. $2.5 million per year, including the $ 180 K for the office of the DL was released under the Freedom of information Act in 1999.--Jomellon (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Littlebutterfly

Yesterday I spent quite a lot of time checking some statements which appeared to me biased and/or very selective misuse of sources (leading to biased POVs). I even found a reference to an article by Parenti (but his name was not given - and there was no way of checking the reference if one did not happen to know the name of the article). I have repeatedly pointed out that he is a very unreliable source and there are gross historical errors in his article. I carefully said this when I removed the reference and told people to "see Discussion page of Tibet history for reasons" in case they wanted to know why I had removed it.

Although I have given good reasons for all my changes, "Littlebutterfly" has taken it upon him or herself to remove all the material I had added, even including direct well-referenced quotes and he /she even reinstated grammatical and spelling mistakes. His/her only excuse for this drastic action was only to say: "Restore some sourced material to provde balance."

This is not only misleading, but a clear case of vandalism. If User:Littlebutterfly does not agree with me on these issues he/she should make his or her positions clear on this page before deleting my well-referenced material and corrections again.John Hill (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Chibimaru8

Today I undid changes to some of the Chinese characters in this article made by Chibimaru8. Names for Tibet and Tibetans had been replaced by ethnic slurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusk (talk • contribs) 15:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Urgent. Would someone please merge the History section here with the History of Tibet article?

It was suggested last December that the History section here be merged with the History of Tibet article (see the "Merge to" box). This has become a matter of urgency as the History section is not only extremely long and dominates the whole article, but has made this article (which should be just a factual, general article on Tibet) into another forum for the pros and cons of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Further, most of the "history" here duplicates material already handled in History of Tibet article.

I know it will be a difficult and thankless job, but it should be done soon. I would attempt it myself but am about to leave on a very busy two month trip and just don't have the time to do it properly.

If no one else will take this task on I propose to just delete the whole section and refer those who are unhappy about it to transfer sections that are unique or would improve the "History of Tibet" article to that page. Whatever the case, please add your suggestions here - or, better still, start making the transfer of data. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the "Prehistory" section as it is already dealt with in the History of Tibet article and was better referenced there.John Hill (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Tibet entitled to self-determination?

Is Tibet entitled to self-determination? This is the article by Senior Counsel Paul Harris originally commissioned by Hong Kong Lawyer, the journal of the Law Society, the Editorial Board of which approved, but then U-turned and decided not to publish. In the interests of freedom of speech and debate that are cornerstones of HK's success, Webb-site.com is publishing it instead. (26-Apr-08)


Is Tibet entitled to self-determination? http://webb-site.com/articles/tibetharris.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by LEARNMYHISTORY (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


History of Tibet

I have just deleted the very long and unnecessarily repetitious section on the history of Tibet here and will now attempt to merge the info into the article History of Tibet removing duplication while trying to retain all properly referenced information not already in the History of Tibet article. This merging process has been recommended since December 2007.

I will do my best to be fair and thorough but, unfortunately, I am very pressed for time so I would be very grateful if knowledgeable persons would check the changes and excuse me for any oversights or mistakes. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good edit. I'm sure it's up to your usual high standards but I'll take a look all the same. Yunfeng (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks User:MainBody for your work on the history section of Tibet article

Thanks so much for filling in the blank I left in the article. I was planning to get back to it sometime but I first had to remove all the clutter and merge what I could into the History of Tibet article. I think you have done a fabulous job of summarizing it all. Now, I had better get back to work completing the merger. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for limited Protection on All WIKI Pages on Tibet

Note:This is not my opinion, I just reaaded it after someone removed it. Do not rush to my talk page complaing Formerly 82.46.93.158 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC) *In reference to what has turned into the "Main Arguments" and "Editing War" on Tibet Autonomy and Recognition, I submit the entry quoted below be ""removed"" and ""=Limited Protection imposed for 60 Days.=""

"In 1912 the 13th Dalai Lama unilaterally declared independence from China and returned to Lhasa in 1913[18], but two years later the Tibetans signed a treaty whose original text claims Tibet as "part of Chinese territory"[19], although China refused to ratify such document.[20] No country has ever recognized Tibet as independent.[21][22] However, Tibet possessed "de facto independence"[23] from 1912 to 1951 when, under Chinese military pressure, Beijing and Lhasa signed an agreement reintegrating Tibet.[24] The 14th Dalai Lama has said that: "in order to develop Tibet materially as a modern nation, Tibet must remain within the People's Republic of China. Provided Chinese give us a full guarantee of preservation of Tibetan culture, Tibetan environment, Tibetan spirituality, then it is of mutual benefit. [Besides] foreign affairs [and] defense [are] all the things which Tibetans can manage by themselves. Tibetans should have the full autonomy."[25]"

(1) Recognition that "under Chinese military pressure" is a farce. It is quite evident due to the Documentation in Print, Tape and on Film of the "People's Republic of China" Army attacked Tibet. Chairman Mao Zedong Chinese radio announcements were made about the imminent "liberation of Tibet".

On 7 October 1950, 40,000 Chinese troops under Political Commissar, Wang Qiemi, attacked Eastern Tibet's provincial capital of Chamdo, from eight directions. The small Tibetan force, consisting of 8,000 troops and militia, were defeated. After two days, Chamdo was taken and Kalon (Minister) Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, the Regional Governor, was captured. Over 4,000 Tibetan fighters were killed. I don't care how you dice or slice it, that is not "under Chinese military pressure". That's an invasion.

The Chinese aggression came as a shock to India. In a sharp note to Beijing on 26 October 1950, the Indian Foreign Ministry, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote:

"Now that the invasion of Tibet has been ordered by Chinese government, peaceful negotiations can hardly be synchronized with it and there naturally will be fear on the part of Tibetans that negotiations will be under duress. In the present context of world events, invasion by Chinese troops of Tibet cannot but be regarded as deplorable and in the considered judgement of the Government of India, not in the interest of China or peace."

(2) The statement, "No country has ever recognized Tibet as independent", is totaly false! There are Maps, Treaties, Travel Visas, even the China Empire itself recognized Tibet as independent. Remember the China of today has only been inpower sence 1949.

All in all, I "CAN NOT" state the existence of Tibet better then this; "TIBET is TIBET"

Where is your source, looks like purely personal opinon. 129.59.8.10 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The China of today has only been in power since 1949. The claim should be corrected to: No country has ever recognised Tibet as independent since 1949, and the United Nations have declared that Tibet is a part of China (The PRC). 81.159.87.54 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


'Tibetan Society' Section Needed

Here, we can discuss traditional social structure/organization, marriage customs, impact of land distribution, etc. Kelsangk (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibet history edits

Dear User:Blofeld of SPECTRE Thank you for your comments on my Talk page. I am so sorry that I have upset you with my edits on Tibet. I knew this was going to be a most difficult (and controversial) job and that I had very limited time to do it in. I was so upset that having the two articles each with very large sections on Tibetan history was leading to contradictions, confusion and far too much duplication leading to an inability for readers to follow all the additions and POV aguments which were being added to each. It really was a confusing jumble and, I judged, made it impossible for ordinary readers to get any sort of coherent picture of Tibetan history. It seemed important to me to have the vast bulk of the historical discussions available in one place where the contradictions and unnecessarily long-winded duplications would become more immediately obvious and, therefore, more easily corrected.

One of the main problems has been that it all has taken much longer than I thought - so I hadn't got back to rewriting a much more concise history section before others started working on it.

When I first copied out the history section alone of the Tibet article it filled 15 full A4 pages in Word and was a tangled mess of some excellent material mixed up with numerous contradictions and repetitions and poorly referenced POVs. I tried unsuccessfully to straighten it out and then decided the only thing to do was to remove it entirely and try my best to merge it into the History of Tibet article before coming back to write an historical précis for the main Tibet page (something I never got back to do).

I am very sorry it has not worked out as well as I had hoped and now I have to ask others to help get both articles back up to speed again. I hope, though, that the exercise has not been totally in vain. It should, at least, be easier now to see what needs to be done. I hope so.

BTW I haven't (recently anyway) edited any other sections of the Tibet article - so I'm not responsible for the state of the Intro or other sections. I agree they need a lot more work. Apologies for all the hassles. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of references below for the history of Tibet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJY1eK9jQ28&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruuxoDQpSc&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.234.106 (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

citation needed

Dear User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, Hi, Thank you for your attention in consideration, and Have a Better Day.

"This was never recognized by the Chinese who claim that Tibet never had a rigid territorial border or political authority." citation needed and a selection of a China referance, Empire, ROC or PRC ??? ***There are Empire and other sorce referances to border markers. UBUIBIOK@GMAIL.com Ubuibiok (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

citi added

Lhasa, holest city, First Buddhist Temple, Jokhang Temple, The Tsulag Khang or 'House of Wisdom'but it is now known as the Jokhang which means the 'House of the Lord'. For most Tibetans it is the most sacred and important temple in Tibet http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jokhang - 1st Buddest Temple http://www.samsays.com/Lhasa.htm -Jokhang Temple is the spiritual center of Tibet http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-tibetmain19aug19 -Lhasa's holiest shrine http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Lhasa+holiest+city&spell=1 - Google Search, "Lhasa holiest city" Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 24,200 for Lhasa holiest city. (0.41 seconds) http://www.railsnw.com/tours/china/shangri_la/shangri-la-express-lhasa--3-gorges-hong-kong-tour01.htm - traditional seat of the Dalai Lama and the holiest centre of Tibet Ubuibiok (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Feudalism and Slavery, NPOV is not presented in this article

Before Chinese Government crackdown, occupy, reclaim, invade (which ever you prefer), Tibet was ruled by feudalism and with slavery in practice. Religion conflict was commonplace. The old Tibet was more like Europe during the religious wars of Counterreformation.[1]

This article so far has not been able to provide a NPOV, no slavery usage has been mentioned at all, and the rather feudalism rule by the Lamas are not mentioned either. I will contest the NPOV of this article until sections of such topics are added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunt99 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you signed your comments.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For fairness, I propose you also tag China, as it seems to lack any mention of footbinding. Yaan (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
How can we talk about Tibet history without even mentioning what system it used? Not mentioning slavery is like teaching American hisotry and skipping the slavery part. Foxhunt99 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't have bound feet, have you? More seriously, I think many articles on European countries don't mention serfdom either. But generally I think it's more useful to simply add what you think is missing, instead of just putting up tags. And for history, check History of Tibet. Regards, Yaan (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Simply add what I think is missing doesn't work, other people will just revert it. There are people on wiki who are willing to overlook history. Foxhunt99 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please add information that is presented in an NPOV fashion, is either noncontroversial or well-sourced, and does not give undue weight to a particular set of facts. If, after you have done so, editors still revert those changes, let's have a discussion on the talk page. Yaan is correct in pointing out that, of the many articles about countries which have previously practised slavery and feudalism, few discuss that subject in detail in the main article (most neglect to mention it at all).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by Blofeld

User:Blofeld has deleted the whole 'human rights' section of this article WITHOUT DISCUSSING it first. Blofeld, please explain why you did that, and why it should not be considered vandalism. A number of editors had contributed to that section, and it was backed up by many references.

How can you possibly have an article on Tibet without a section on human rights? Especially as it is not covered by a separate article. If you don't like what was there, then add to it or edit it, don't just delete the whole thing. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Blofeld of SPECTRE restored an old version of the article and, in the process, removed hundreds of edits that had been made. He then attempted to edit that version and reconstruct the article to reflect the latest versions (without the vandalism and POV), but failed to catch some of the deleted sections. I had to re-remove several duplicate pictures and redo edits I had just made. This is probably what happened to the human rights section. I would advise you propose a change here and let the community discuss it before it's put back in. I'm sure that Blofeld of SPECTRE didn't purposely try to remove this section, it was just an oversight that we can now discuss. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1954 Chinese Census Report

Someone kept adding the unreferenced claim "questioned by the Chinese (communist) Government" onto the demographics section. In order to support it, you will need the DIRECT reference that shows "Chinese government questioned the demographics research done by Tibetan exile government". The census report published in 1954 is before the Tibetan exile government's research, which was after 1959, hence cannot be used to support the claim "questioned by the Chinese government". --chenyangw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing "has been questioned by the Chinese government." To "is questionable" Seems no major difference. Foxhunt99 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

it's not major difference, but if someone wants to claim that Chinese government indeed questioned the Tibetan exile government, they need to show the reference. chenyangw (talk)
it is probably in the best interest of Chinese government to question it. Foxhunt99 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. but looks like they have not done it yet.chenyangw (talk)

more about human right section

This section is completely presented on one side view. Many of the sources are from pro Tibet website. There needs to be some other NPOV as well. I am sure if you check other non pro Tibet website, you will find different answers. If you want to keep that section present the other side of views. Foxhunt99 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is very biased indeed, needs to be rewritten or removed. Guox0032 (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record I fully agree and think it should be completely removed until it is written properly. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Several things to point out, human right is better than fedual society before 1950s. But not denying there are still problems. However many of the human right problems like freedom of speech does not only exist in Tibet. They can be applied to whole China. Chinese government have a minority policy much like the affirmative action here. For example, the one child policy does not apply to Tibetan, they can have 1-3 children, when Han Chinese can only have 1. The requirement for Tibetan's student's college admission test score is much lower than Han Chinese, the cutoff line for Han Chinese is around 700 but for Tibetans it is 100-150 points lower. Also, the tuition fees for Tibetan students is much less than the Han Chineses', some cases only 1/10 what Han Chinese pay. Furthermore, for some crimes, Tibetan will get lesser sentence compare to Chinese. None of those is pointed out in the human right section. There are probably still plenty things that can be improved, specially in the freedom of speech department.Guox0032 (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

These things should only be pointed out if properly referenced. But I've reinserted references to pre-communist serfdom and slavery, I'd appreciate it if no one removed it without discussing it first. Rsazevedo msg 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
People who are removing it, either trying to deny the existence of serfdom or slavery or trying to hide it. One person who removed it (Blnguyen) claims they are "communist book spruiking", that alone shows how narrow minded he is. First of all, there are many historians documented slavery in Tibet, not just communists. Even if some communist authors documented slavery, you can not claim they are fake just becuase they are communist. This is a discrimination just like discrimination against people based on skin color. Guox0032 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. Whereas one can adopt and shift through political ideologies in their lifetime, one can never change the color of their skin (unless of course they ink and tattoo it, lol). Slavery or serfdom in Tibet really doesn't surprise me; Buddhist monasteries in premodern China engaged in the same activities. Look to my edits in the "Religion" section of Tang Dynasty.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Serfdom and slavery is part of progression in all societies. Serfdom and Slavery existed in old Tibet shouldn't suprise anyone. What suprising is that the lack of mention, even sometimes deny the existence of it. The Tibetan independents tends to deny the existence of slavery, and protrait Tibet as a heavenly land before Chinese government took over, the Chinese government tends to protrait old Tibet as a feudal society, where people suffer from serfdom and slavery. Both sides are wrong and right, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Foxhunt99 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't take any notice of Blnguyen as he is just a vietnamese crook. Blnguyen even tried to deny that vietnamese people are just a bunch of unlawful cannabis farmers and criminals in the UK, Canada and other places, when all reports had been referenced. There is really no need to take notice of someone who is clearly sympathetic to evil criminals just because they are vietnamese and he is vietnamese. Blnguyen is incapable of taking a NPOV, and is probably a part of the vietnamese criminal network anyway. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Foxhunt99, from what you say, is it not the case that the Tibetan's denial of the existence of slavery and that it was a heavenly land, wrong; and that the PRC Government's portrait of Old Tibet as a feudal society, correct? There is really nothing in the middle as far as the truth is concerned. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between slavery and serfdom, although a serf doesn't have much more rights than a slave does. If Tibet had serfs before 1959, what percentage of the population was serf and what percentage was fief lord? Surely there was a significant percentage of itinerant salesmen, traveling musicians, lower monks, soldiers, navvies, blacksmiths, artisans, etc. To call it a "serf society" might be misleading if it was a small percentage. I don't doubt that things could be very primitive there even by the 1950s; most people in Bhutan hadn't even seen what a car looked like until the 1970s.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Serfdom and some slavery was documented by historians and westerners who travel through Tibet. Chinese government usually tried to protrait old Tibet has a brutal serfdom society, but it may not be as brutal as the Chinese government claim. The condition of serfs really varies based on location, landlord etc. As for how many percentage of the population were serfs, Chinese government claimed 90%, but others have claimed 20%, there is no solid data to support either claim.Guox0032 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact that it is hard to distinguish anything about the exact level of serfdom in Tibet seems pretty significant for this article. I think the article should mention that there is very little that can be done to assess the shape and scope of serfdom in Tibet before the 1950s, if that truly is the case and verified by credible scholarly sources.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It just seems self-defeating to me to try to justify inserting this content by adding the caveat that "we have no way of knowing if this is true or not." If we can't determine accurately the disposition of the serfdom in Tibet, why bother putting that material in? Saying something like "In his book, so-and-so wrote that they encountered a serfdom in Tibet, and that the feif lord was such-and-such and had this many serfs on the land" is fine because it doesn't attempt to assert anything beyond what the author saw in the first person. The alternative is to say "Tibet was a serfdom and there were this many serfs per lord and this is the extent to which it was seen in the country" and then try to source that with the same anecdotal evidence. This would be extrapolating far beyond the original narrative in that source and would probably require multiple, reliable and established publications to back it up. At present, we only have the former so we should refrain from putting in anything beyond what we have absolute references for. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't disagree that there should be included a variety of sources used in order to gain a more pluralistic perspective on the case of Tibetan serfdom. That will take quite a while though, since it seems to me (from what I've seen) that many scholars focus almost entirely on Tibetan Buddhism and Sino-Tibetan relations in regards to Tibetology.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are plenty sources by historian indicating serfdom, even slavery. Look up books or writing by those historians or travellers: Tom Grunfeld,

Melvyn Goldstien, Michael Parenti, Gelder, Charles Bell, Tomas Laird. Bell was a traveller to Tibet and friend of 13th Dalai Lama, he recorded some evidence of slavery in Tibet. Also for Tomas Laird, who was in Tibet in the 1950s, he interviewed the 14th Dalai Lama, even the 14th Dalai Lama used the word "serf" sometimes. I can point you to the exact page of the book if you want. Foxhunt99 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here is about current Human Rights in Tibet, not about historical serfdom. As I mentioned a while ago, I am the person who created the Human Rights section in this article. Yes I knew that it would be controversial, but it's essential that the subject be covered. We cannot avoid it just because it's difficult to do. I tried to use a variety of sources, all of which say essentially the same thing. It is WRONG to say that the section was biased or one-sided. Human rights abuses in Tibet are a fact, and the supporting evidence is irrefutable. I will repeat my challenge to everybody - if you can find any reliable sources that contradict the statements made in the section then add them, otherwise quit whining about bias. The whole section was recently deleted (by accident) by Blofeld, I will clean it up a bit and then re-insert it into the article. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


The beginning of the Article states: "This article is about historical/cultural Tibet." It is therefore appropriate to bring historical and cultural Tibet into the section you created for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.87.54 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


I think you have only tried pro-Tibet independent websites.

http://www.xzmy.edu.cn/ http://www.xizang.gov.cn http://www.tibettour.org/ You might want to take a look at some other websites, I am sure there are some. www.anti-cnn.com has some information, hard evidence on how biased western media reported on the Tibet riot earlier this year. One of the most disturbing things was using a picture where a Nepal police beating up a Lama to report Chinese crack down on Tibetan riot. It doesn't directly show how good or bad the human rights in Tibet is, however, it does show plenty bias within the western media. Many of what your sources say could be true, there is really no way to disprove it. However, I do question if there is any fictional or exaggerated parts. Plus human rights problem has been a problem for the whole China, many of the human rights violation mentioned here, can be applied to other parts of China as well, but this article is making it sounds like only Tibet is suffering from human rights problems.

You should really look up China's minority affirmative action. Being a minority actually post great advantages. Like other people have pointed out, many times, even being half or 1/4 minority, will grant you amazing advantages over Han Chinese. Many people actually seeking minority status for those benefits, such as right to have more than 1 child, lower tuition fees, etc.

I have personally lived among Tibetans for four years, I can honestly say, if I was a Tibetan, or even half Tibetan, I would have went to a better school and saved thousands on tuition. And another thing I would like to say, you might not want to believe me, majority of the Tibetan people, at least from the Tibetan people I have met and talked to, they don't want independence or just don't care. Most of them are just like average citizens, who wants a peaceful life. I really hope many people can travel to Tibet to see Tibet in person. It is a great land with great people and culture. Easymem (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This article isn't about Chinese Affirmative Action or about human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. It's about the country of Tibet and the section about human rights abuses should only details those suffered by those living in Tibet. This is also not the forum for you to complain about the bias of Western media towards the Chinese government. If you attempt to insert any of that into the article I will revert it immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If we want to talk about human rights, when is affirmative action not about human rights. American's affirmative action is about human rights, so is the Chinese one. Easymem (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok let me make it clear. One Child Policy in China has been attacked by human rights group for awhile. But Tibetan is exempted from it. This is definitely about human rights. As for other parts of China's affirmative action/minority policy, like education and employment, they can be considered more like civil rights maybe. The United Nations Human Rights Committee states, "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. Easymem (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Then this section should be named as Human Rights Problems, instead just Human Rights. Easymem (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No it shouldn't, since China's affirmative action policy isn't a problem in Tibet. Also it would be very helpful if you would quit shifting between your accounts so the discussion doesn't appear so incohesive. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not talking about affirmative action policy anymore, I was talking about a more appropriated title. And stop your baseless personal attacks.Easymem (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Will contributors please not use the term "Pro-Tibet". The Chinese government is very "pro-Tibet". There are really 2 sides in this play, the Chinese Government and the Lamaists, and they both claim to be pro-Tibet. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, and the Japanese were pro-China in World War II. Bertport (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the japanese were anti-China in WW2. What people refer to as pro-tibet here is in fact lamaist or pro-lama. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese were pro-China. They liberated their little brothers, the Chinese, from the Chinesists. But seriously, your term "lamaists" is basically a Chinese pejorative for Tibetan Buddhists. Who are the Tibetan Buddhists? Nearly all the Tibetans are Tibetan Buddhists, or "lamaists" as you put it. Bertport (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The japanese were anti-China. They did not liberate the Chinese. The Chinese, Han and others, fought the japanese in WW2. The whole world, including the japanese (but perhaps not you) say the japanese were in the wrong in WW2. The PRC Government is pro-Tibet, after all, Tibet is a part of The PRC. Your argument is equivalent to saying the UK Government is anti-Northern Ireland, or the Canadian Government is anti-Quebec. The UK Government is pro-Northern Ireland, the Canadian Government is pro-Quebec, and The PRC Goverment is pro-Tibet. Most Tibetans do not want the lamaists to rule over them, as they had suffered enough torture under the lamaist theocracy. My original point was both the PRC Government and the lamaists are pro-Tibet, and so the pro-Tibet label should not be used in these discussions as an equivalent to pro-lama. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The term pro-lama is not a perjorative term for Tibetan Buddists. Lama mean a teacher of religion in Tibetan. The same title occurs in Judaism and English as 'Rabbi'. In English the word 'Rabbi' is preserved when refering to the teacher of Jewish religion, it is not changed to the English word teacher. Thus the term pro-lama is a term of respect reserved for being pro- teacher of tibetan religion. In the West and the developed countries, Church and State had long been separated. For the Tibetans to be modern, the same has to occur. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A person whose religion is Tibetan Buddhism does not necessary have to be pro-lama, after all, a person whose religion is Anglicanism does not have to be pro-Anglican Arch-bishop or pro-Anglican priest. Why don't you look at news about how Anglicans disagree with their Arch-bishop of Canterbury. The role of a religion is guide its believers' "spiritual" welfare, not to rule over them. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And a pro-lama person does not have to be in religion a tibetan buddhist. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going out from the main point. Japanese pro or not pro discussion (or pro-Tibet or pro-lama) will never end because it is a matter of who or where to refer the information. Same to above, no article can be totally neutral for this section, so I think this section can be constructed by 2 side of view. Also for the further conversation, I would suggest that instead of deviating based on your opinion, we should simply debate using the following information: 1. An article (or a part of article) should be added 2. An article (or a part of article) should be removed / amended + Suggest above change based on which source. SSANight (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

I think the Chinese 'Xi Zang' could be better translated as 'The Hidden West'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.63.38 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:DalaiLama-13 lg.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Chenyangw, please do not use terms such as "questionable" in the text; it assumes an opinion, and Wikipedia should be neutral. When you say something is questionable, you are inserting your point of view in the article. Questioned by whom?

And please do not engage in more edit wars, you have already been blocked once for this reason, and have been investigated on the suspicion of being someone else's sock puppet. Please behave yourself, be civil. Rsazevedo msg 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)\

  • First, do you read Chinese at all? If you are able to read the 1954 census report, it is obvious the Tibetan exile government misquoted, if not lied deliberately, on their tibet.com website. The number of Tibetans they claimed to be living in Tibet and Kham are EXACTLY the same, not one more, not one less, as the total number of people living in Tibet and Khan as in 1954 census report. For the case of Qinghai, 1954 census report said the total population of Qinghai was 1,675,534 and the total population of Gansu was 12,928,102; and tibet.com claimed there were 1,675,534 Tibetans in Qinghai and Gansu altogether. If tibet.com played the #tibetan = total population trick on Gansu again, they will find that the total number of Tibetans will be 19M, why too high. It is then quite obvious why you do not see Qinghai and Gansu numbers separately. The word 'questionable' is already being mild. This cook-up demographics data from tibet.com should be removed entirely. BTW, Rsazevedo, do I need to remind you that you were blocked for 3RR as well in that 'block' incidence you mentioned, in which you kept on adding the unreferenced claim? You promised not to did the undiscussed edit and yet you did it again right here! chenyangw
  • Sorry, but we're not going to take you at your word for the literal translation of the Chinese census report. If you find an english language equivalent (and reliable) source which says what you're saying now, it can be included, otherwise it's your own subjective original research and will not be included. 3RR is not a hard and fast rule and if you continue to game the system by undoing those changes 2 and 3 times just under the 24 hour limit, you will be blocked again, but for longer. My recommendation is that you stop trying to insert your bias into this article and find something more constructive to spend your time on. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Cumulus Clouds, this article is about Tibet, a part of China. A lot of its direct online reference are in Chinese. If you don't read Chinese, don't mess with it, there are plenty of people that do read Chinese. Regarding the English reference, go to your regional library to find the paper edition. For example, Ohio library has it: The Population of Communist China: 1953 A report presenting population of Communist China, by major administrative areas (provinces, independent cities, other areas) as of June 30, 1953. Limited information on age distribution, sex composition, ethnic composition, and urban-rural distribution. 4 pages. http://library.osu.edu/sites/reference/govdocs/CPR/cprP90.php chenyangw
  • Unfortunately, this is the English Wikipedia, so we require our sources to be in english or to be easily translated into english. Again, nobody's going to give any real weight to your claims, since you're obviously pushing a POV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • go to check the paper edition of the English version in library. I've already given the English reference. chenyangw
"this is the English Wikipedia, so we require our sources to be in english or to be easily translated into english" - no, we do not. refer to WP:RSUE. Yaan (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, well the heart of this debate is whether or not Chenyangsw can insert his POV into the article by generalizing whether or not the Tibetan population figures are questionable by everyone or questionable by one other report. There are no sources to back up the former (and hardly a source for the latter), so there should be no reason to reinsert the phrase "is questionable" without a modifier. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"figures are questionable by everyone or questionable by one other report" it is questionable by every one with the most basic common sense. of course, he has to understand the reference first.chenyangw 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you read the 1953 census report at all? since you refuse to look back, I'll post my reply here again. "If you are able to read the 1954 census report, it is obvious the Tibetan exile government misquoted, if not lied deliberately, on their tibet.com website. The number of Tibetans they claimed to be living in Tibet and Kham are EXACTLY the same, not one more, not one less, as the total number of people living in Tibet and Khan as in 1954 census report. For the case of Qinghai, 1954 census report said the total population of Qinghai was 1,675,534 and the total population of Gansu was 12,928,102; and tibet.com claimed there were 1,675,534 Tibetans in Qinghai and Gansu altogether. If tibet.com played the #tibetan = total population trick on Gansu again, they will find that the total number of Tibetans will be 19M, why too high. It is then quite obvious why you do not see Qinghai and Gansu numbers separately. The word 'questionable' is already being mild." chenyangw 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, but none of that matters because the substance of this debate is who questions the report and the answer is the 1954 Chinese census. They will be the only entity cited in the article as questioning the report without additional reliable sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The tibet.com used the exact numbers in the 1954 Chinese census report, with the additional # of tibetans = # of total population trick. If you claim the tibet.com is correct while 1954 Chinese census report is incorrect, the only possibility will be that after see tibet.com's claim (which is after 1959), the Chinese changed their 1954 census report to contradict the tibet.com. This is simply not possible because the 1954 census report has already been published by then! chenyangw 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyangw (talk • contribs)
  • Right, but again, the only thing that stands in contradiction to the earlier report is the 1954 Chinese census. Changing the text of the article to indicate anything else would be nonneutral and original research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • the tibet.com USED the number in 1954 census report. Do you agree on this? chenyangw 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyangw (talk • contribs)
  • Those concerns are immaterial to the nature of the discussion. The only source cited that disputes the findings of the Tibetan report is the 1954 Chinese census. They are the only group that has a sourced objection to that report and are the only ones who may be included in the article as having objected to it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely material. Answer the question please. "the tibet.com USED the number in 1954 census report. Do you agree on this?".chenyangw 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are the only one who is trying to make fuss out of this very simple common sense claim of "questionable". By these questions I'm just helping you work out this simple common sense. Now answer me, please, "the tibet.com USED the number in 1954 census report. Do you agree on this?" chenyangw 22:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a productive discussion and this will be my last comment on it. My lack of response to any further comments should not be taken as assent or agreement in any form. My objections to your revisions will remain until you satisfy the requirements for further sourcing on this issue. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Chinese census report itself is already enough for this 'questionable' claim, to anyone with a little common sense. I offered to walk you through this common sense and you refused. Let me just point out the very simple logic: 1. tibet.com used the number in 1954 census report; 2. tibet.com played the # of tibetans = total population trick; 3. therefore tibet.com is questionable. chenyangw 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyangw (talk • contribs)


Explanation of my reversion Chenyangw, your wording makes a judgment on which set of statistics is "questionable". Cumulus's wording is a statement of fact and makes no judgments. Wikipedia cannot take a stand, per our neutrality policy. This article can only report facts; making value judgments about those facts constitutes original research. It can also be determined from your reasoning, but with an opposing bias, that the PRC census is "questionable". Arguments like this are pointless and unnecessary. Unless you can explain why your version is better than a neutral statement of facts, I doubt anyone here will be convinced to keep it. Gimme danger (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The time stamp of the two reports can already put this 'questionable' mark on tibet.com. Do you mind answer this very simple question: "tibet.com used the number in 1954 census report, do you agree?" 24.0.153.87 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
None of this matters. The simple fact is that the word "questionable" used without attribution to a source outside of Wikipedia is inappropriate in an article. Wikipedia cannot take a position here. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Serfdom in Tibet at AFD

Editors are needed to help salvage this article. It's being nominated for deletion as a supposed fringe theory. Please help add sources and improve the article and weigh in at the deletion discussion.--Gimme danger (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • In Lhasa The Open City Published in 1977, printed in Great Britain by the Trinity Press, Worcester, and London, on page 51 "Freehold land to individual farmers was almost unheard of; everyone belonged to 'a master', and cultivated land held from 'a master'. It did happen that serfs ran away and became 'black people' - duichuns - to escape debt and being sold as slaves, and settled on unused land, but pretty soon they would again fall under a 'master' who could sell them, use their service, exact corvee..." ISBN 30081001265309. Or check your University Asia history text books. Centrallib (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did oppressive “feudal serfdom” exist in Tibet before the Chinese arrived?

This is a very controversial and complex subject so I have rewritten the section on it in the article itself. However, because some readers will likely be unsatisfied with my brief summary, I thought I should give more evidence here and have, therefore, decided to quote fairly extensively from Robert Barnett’s careful and (I believe) balanced examination of the evidence:

“Melvyn Goldstein, an American anthropologist who carried out research within Tibet into pre-1959 social relations, concluded that most Tibetans before 1959 were bound by written documents to the land on which they were based and to the lord who owned that land, and so he argued that they could be described as “serfs” (Goldstein 1986, 1988). Most Western scholars accept that this was broadly the case, but query the extensiveness of the practice and the politics behind the terms used to describe it. . . . W. M. Coleman (1998) has pointed out that in practice the Tibetans had more autonomy than appears in the written documents, and that Tibetans could equally well be described simply as peasants with particular kinds of debts and taxation responsibilities, rather than using a politically and morally loaded term such as “serf.” Other scholars have noted that such social categories, Marxist or otherwise, are in any case rooted in European history and do not match the social system of pre-1951 Tibet, let alone the very different arrangements found among the people of eastern Tibet.
These scholars do not disagree with the Chinese claims that Tibet had a particular form of social relations that differed from those later found in democratic and Communist countries. What is contested is whether later scholars or politicians should use terms that imply a value judgement about the moral qualities of these relations. This is a matter of intense dispute because the Chinese claim about serfdom, on the surface a factual account of social relations, in fact depends for its effects on its linkage to two other elements which are highly contestable–feudalism and extreme oppression. It is taken for granted that these are inseparable from serfdom. A conscious effort of the intellect is required to recall that one does not follow from the other.
There is no question that Tibet was an extremely poor society for most of its members, or that the poorest were the most likely to exploitation and abuse. This was true of most sectors of any society in Asia and elsewhere until recently, including China, and is still true today in many areas. So even if it was agreed that serfdom and feudalism existed in Tibet, this would be little different except in technicalities from conditions in any other “premodern” peasant society, including most of China at that time. The power of the Chinese argument therefore lies in its implication that serfdom, and with it feudalism, is inseparable from extreme abuse.
Evidence to support this linkage has not been found by scholars other than those close to Chinese government circles. Goldstein, for example, notes that although the system was based on serfdom, it was not necessarily feudal, and he refutes any automatic link with extreme abuse. “I have tried to indicate that the use of the term ‘serfdom’ for Tibet does not imply that lords tortured and otherwise grossly mistreated their serfs. . . . There is no theoretical reason why serfdom should be inexorably linked to such abuses,” he writes, noting that extreme maltreatment was unlikely since it would have been against the interests of the landowners, who needed the peasants to provide labor (1988: 64-65).
There seems to be limited evidence of the systematic savagery described by Chinese writers, at least since the late nineteenth century. There was a famous case of mutilation as a punishment in 1924, but the officials involved were themselves punished by the 13th Dalai Lama for this action, he had banned all such punishments in a proclamation in 1913 (Goldstein 1989: 123-26, 61). A case of judicial eye gouging in 1934 as a punishment for treason was clearly exceptional, since no one living knew how to carry it out (Goldstein 1989: 208-9). On the other hand, there are hundreds of reports, many of them firsthand accounts of Tibetan political prisoners being severely tortured in Chinese prisons during the early 1990s, as well as almost ninety cases of suspicious deaths in custody (see, e.g. TCHRD 2005), none of which have been independently investigated.” From: ”What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform?” By Robert Barnett in: Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, pp. 81-83. Eds. Anne-Marie Blondeau and Katia Buffetrille. (2008). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-520-24928-8 (paper). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Parenti - an unreliable source

I have just removed a reference to Parenti's article as it is an unreliable source which I have pointed out previously on the Talk:History of Tibet page. Here is what I said then:

Parenti is not only biased but is a completely unreliable historian. For just one example of his woeful lack of knowledge of Tibetan history, Parenti claims in his article that: "In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops." This is, predictably, totally confused - he has not only given an incorrect date (some 300 years out!) but mistakes Kublai Khan for Altun Khan. In fact, the title "Dalai Lama" was first used by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan for Sonam Gyatso in 1578. I could go on and on - but there seems little point. Two such gross errors of fact in one sentence should make it very clear just how unreliable he is. John Hill (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there an agreement in academia society that Michael_Parenti "is a completely unreliable historian"? chenyangw 21:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that you're picking up this debate right where Centrallib left off. Also, you've complained in the edit summary about the revisions you keep making to this article. Well, to answer your question (for the third or fourth time) the phrasing you're using is nonneutral and inaccurate. It has nothing to do with nonenglish sources, but rather with a bias that emerges when you remove the modifiers on "questionable" because it does not identify who questions it. Please stop reverting this edit. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
reply after reading the comment please.chenyangw 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No you don't. And you used a wrong thread. chenyangw 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi John Hill. I believe Parenti is not suggesting Kublai Khan established the "Dalai Lama Vajradhara", but in a grossly-simplified description of the role of the Sakya lama in Tibet under the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, is rather describing Kublai Khan's guru Drogön Chögyal Phagpa, who could be compared to the Catholic Pope in the way that both had secular and religious authority (although the pope's secular authority ended at the boundaries of Rome while the Sakya lama's authority was over a fairly-sized chunk of what is considered Tibet). However, by saying "all the other lamas", Parenti is completely ignoring other sects such as Karma Kagyu which had nothing to do with the Sakya sect. In that sense I believe Parenti uses a poor parallel with Western Christendom (if we're talking about Western Christendom before the Reformation and splintering off of various Protestant sects).--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This along with the Ming Dynasty's failed attempt to establish a similar institution and relationship with a leading Tibetan lama is covered in my article Tibet during the Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The great changes to the main article led me to this page and then the following question: Who is entitled to judge the reliability of sources? Neutrality lies in objectiveness in the text and the sources they cite. Failure to give objective descriptions, as has given rise to heated debates above, compromises neutrality, but is easy to identify. Subjective selection of sources and subjective judgment on the reliability of sources also cast doubt on neutrality, and, even worse, it is hidden here and nobody is aware of it.

Back to my question: who is entitled to judge the reliability of sources?

- schpnhr (EDT 14:36, June 14 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schpnhr (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case the problem is that Parenti makes some unusual claims when discussing older Tibetan history (like the third Dalai Lama was installed by the Chinese, he was 25 years old when this happened, the fourth Dalai Lama enjoyed parties and mistresses) without giving sufficient justification. Yaan (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What about in general cases? Is there a rule? What if there is an argument? (EDT 15:24, June 14 2008)Schpnhr (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The rules are under WP:RS (more formally, Parenti's website also seems to fail WP:SPS). In case of an argument, try WP:DISPUTE. Don't forget WP:IGNORE, though. Yaan (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Education

Would there be a way to give some words on education in the article? What is the status of primary, secondary, tertiary education, esp. in Tibetan, why is illiteracy (acc. to official numbers) still so rampant after 50 years of socialism, etc? I don't have the sources, but it sure should be worth a closer look. Yaan (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a necessary section. See Minnesota or Libya for examples of education sections in featured geography articles. Probably a subsection under culture for now would be the place to put this sort of discussion. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tax exemption

NPR article already provided as citation. If any editor believe that China's claim of tax exemption in Tibet is inaccurate, to reach NPOV please feel free to provide rebutting source showing any one single case in which Beijing collects tax from the TAR, or any source showing there are people disputing such claim. Wikipedia is sources-oriented and we the editors ourselves are not "sources".

Please also note that neither PRC's nor Central Tibetan Administration's source is regarded as NPOV. Let's not have double standards.MainBody (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxation is a slippery issue, since so many forms of tax can and are typically levied, and many administrations include only what they traditionally think of as tax. That is why the statement needs to be questioned: the devil is in the detail in this matter.

More generally, it's up to writers and editors to justify existing claims, not the other way around. If an existing claim comes under contention, an authoritative source or two need to be found, or, eventually, the claim should be either modified or removed. It's not up to critics to do the research. So I take it that you'd like to retain the claim that there's no taxation in Tibet? Up to you to justify. Given the record of the Chinese government in terms of "spin", especially when it comes to Tibet, I'd want to see good evidence of such an extreme claim. (Must be the only place on the planet without tax if it's true.) TONY (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it must be paradise on Earth! What an irony, the place has really become Shangrila without the dalai lama. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, of the two sources, [72] is from 1994, 14 years ago, and [73], from 2006, while from NPR, makes sweeping unreferenced claims such as "Beijing pumps billions of dollars into Tibet each year, an infusion that's partly intended to stabilize the Himalayan region". Sounds like a handy Chinese-government line to me. One of the people quoted, both with Chinese Han surnames, morphs from "Zhang" to "Wang" further down in the article.

And the NPR author's name is not even in the ref list.

Does this 90% claim include all of the infrastructure expenditure by the Chinese government, say, on the train line and mining projects? Does it include the costs of relocating the Han Chinese who are swamping Tibetan culture? WP should not be mouthing uncritical reportage that may well be massively wrong through inattention to detail.

Mainbody, I must ask whether you're in the employment of the Chinese government or are in some other way affiliated with it. I intend no offence by the question, but it's necessary in this context. TONY (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one final question: if there's no tax imposed on Tibet, where does the other 10% come from? TONY (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably from a bigger pot in Beijing. Its like saying where does Israel get its money from, and the answer is, a lot of it from the US tax-payers. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mainbody's edit

I see this removal of an unsourced statement. But the previous statement in that para is retained without source. I'm confused as to why the distinction has been made, and wonder why the statement was so suspicious that it needed to be removed rather than a citation added; now no one will ever investigate the citation possibilities. You could be right, but perhaps justify this here? TONY (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that my questions at the bottom of the previous section remain unanswered.

"Tibetologists further comments on Amdo and Kham's status"—Why plural of this rather ugly word "Tibetologist"? Only one author is cited. The clause is, in any case, ungrammatical.

If these questions are not going to answered, I will propose here that all of Mainbody's edits be reverted. TONY (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I can not see any problem about this particular edit. I can see your point re. taxes (no VAT in Tibet? What about companies that make part of their prfit inside and another part outside of Tibet? What about local "fees"?), but you seem bit too inclined to reject Mainbody's edits without checking if they might have some merit. Yaan (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If we can deal with the tax thing first, in which there are internal anomalies ...? And such a statement on tax carries significant potential for POV. My view is that if the Chinese government doesn't publish open, verifiable figures, WP shouldn't be trying to guess, and certainly not in ways that are prima face ludicrous. TONY (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They would just leave it to the accountants. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Proclaiming independence

The gist of the "Proclaiming independence" (sic) section seems to be that Mongolians and Britons sometimes mistakenly believed Tibet to be independent, but Tibetans themselves were always eager to point out that they were in fact Chinese. This is such a ridiculous interpretation of history, I don't know where to begin. "Tibet and [imperial] China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship," according to the Dalai Lama's 1913 proclaimation of indepedence.[1] This proclaimation is a widely published document, yet it is inexcusably not mentioned in the current version of the article. Also, "We are a small, religious, and independent nation." Melvyn Goldstein's book has many examples of Tibetan officials asserting Tibet's independence. Finally: Two full-length paragraphs on the Mongolia-Tibet treaty? The treaty is pretty small beer historically. I suggest just cutting this part out and not mentioning the treaty at all. Kauffner (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree on last two sentences. Although it is an interesting little detail. Yaan (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"We are a small, religious, and independent nation." This just sums it up. These people do not claim the whole of Tibet is independent, because the land area of Tibet is not small, being about half the total size of western Europe. They claim a small part of it is independent. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This presumably means that Tibet is small in population compared to China, since the Tibetan government at the time most certainly claimed that at least the region of the TAR was their territory.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 12:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Tibetan population is small compared to everywhere except for places like Singapore. Why presume, when it was clearly quoted? 86.161.56.118 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, "clearly quoted"? What's clearly quoted is that the Tibetan government stated that it was independent.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What was clearly stated was that they said they were a SMALL nation. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is the main point of the declaration? That they were small, or that they were independent? Was it a declaration of smallness?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The person made a declaration of "small" and "independent". So the NPOV is that the "main point" (as you put it Nat) or "points" (plural) are both "small" and "independent". Who are you to try to change what the person said? Nat, in Wiki you must show NPOV, and not your own POV with regard to what others say. Nat, please in future show a bit more NPOV instead of functioning as a part of machinery for spreading lamaist propaganda. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can find widely distributed Spanish and Native American independence proclamation in North American. Can anybody post their findings here so to enlighten how should human rights work, including self criticizing? (beancube2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.51.247 (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Russell Means issued a proclamation of indepedence for the "Republic of Lakotah" back in December.[2] It got a lot of publicity considering that Means isn't the head of any tribe and basically just represents himself. I've noticed that the usual Chinese response to a comment about Tibet is talk about American Indians, Hawaii, Corisca -- pretty much anything except Tibet. Tibetans just want to have democracy and free elections, and say goodbye to unelected communist leaders -- not so different than most Chinese. But somehow Chinese can't see it that way. Kauffner (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Tibetans want democracy and free elections, then why would they want the dalai lama, who is not democratically nor freely elected? Kauffner you just don't know what you are talking about, the Tibetans want an undemocratic lamaist theocracy!!!! Tibetans have to understand if they want freedom they must first rid themselves of dalai and the corrupt theocratic regime dalai represent. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tibetan Government in Exile adopted a democratic constitution back in the early 1960s. The Dalai Lama would be a ceremonial head of state, like the queen in Britain. No one is proposing a return to theocracy. Kauffner (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner, where's your proof then? The vast majority of information relates the return of a theocracy and lamaist rule. Just look at the theocracy in Iran. And who's to say your 'Tibetan Government in Exile' is the only group that want to grab power? Look at the history of the RoC and The PRC itself, Chiang with US help fought the Japanese, and yet it was Mao who came to power. If indeed dl is just a symbol, then may I remind you that symbols are oftened hijacked, and their final outcome could be very far from their intended outcome. And as with all symbols, one has to ask who is the power behind the symbol. According to you then, the dl has no power, but is being used by a more powerful group. Who knows what the dl will end up as, but yes the lamaists do want a life of privileges, like kings and queens, as you suggest. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the comparison to Native Americans, Corsicans, Hawaiians is not a perfect comparison. A better comparison of the position of Tibet in the People's Republic of China (not simply China) for English speakers, is the position of Wales in the sovereign state known as The United Kingdom (which many foreign people simply refer to as England). Wales is in the west of the UK, as is Tibet in The PRC; Welsh people is vastly out-numbered by the English people, as the Han people is in the Han-Tibetan argument; Wales forms a significant land area of the UK, as is Tibet in the PRC; there is a general view and acceptance (perhaps begrudgingly) by the Welsh that the English rule Wales, as is the position that the Han Chinese rule The PRC of which Tibet is a part; there is a hardcore of Welsh nationalists as there is a hardcore of Tibetan nationists. So please contributers, think about Wales when you think about Tibet. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan fell under chinese control by force and not by the will of the people. There is a huge difference. The welsh believe they are British and they are there by their own free choice. Yet here we are with the Tibetans protesting and rioting violently sometimes in order to protect their culture and people.99.238.165.168 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are still Welsh people who set fire to the houses of the English in Wales. The Welsh in Patagonia certainly don't count themselves as British. The Welsh in the UK now of course are happy to be British, because after several hundred years, the present population only know of this system. What you say amounts to, in a few hundred years time, the Tibetans will believe they are Chinese and they are there by their own free choice. The dl and his cronies left China of their own will as they wanted to maintain slavery in tibet against the wills of the tibetans and The PRC. The vast majority of Tibetan people in Tibet support being a part of China; but as with anythng political, there are elements in tibet which are pro-lama and will use violence and murder against Chinese, Tibetans and Huis. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing data

Would somebody please provide the most basic information about Tibet: its population, and its surface area. Thank you.--Toddboyle (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's really a cultural area than a political entity, which means it doesn't have clearly-defined boundaries. Also, the census data for that area is controversial. So, I'm not sure that land area and population are meaningful basic facts. Maybe they are; I'm not sure. It's not clear-cut.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan language

This section says both that the different dialects are generally mutually comprehensible - and also 2 sentences later that they're usually not. Which is it? Does anybody know? Dakinijones (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this sort of thing is hard to quantify, and I don't recall seeing a very specific statement one way or the other, but my impression is that each of the major dialect clusters (Central, Kham, and Amdo) contains various dialects which are often mutually inteligible with each other, but I would be surprised to learn that most Amdo dialects, for instance, are mutually intelligible with most Central Tibetan dialects.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
On the page we have: "The Tibetan language is spoken in various dialects which are usually, but not always, mutually comprehensible. The language is spoken throughout the Tibetan plateau, Bhutan, and in parts of Nepal and northern India (such as Sikkim). It is generally classified as a Tibeto-Burman language of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Spoken Tibetan includes numerous regional dialects which, in many cases, are not mutually intelligible." I think the last sentence just repeats the first from the opposite point of view - which is just confusing. Or am I missing some subtle point of dialect? I think it should be removed. As far as I can tell, that wouldn't actually alter the meaning since it already says the languages aren't always mutually understandable. Or perhaps just almagamate the two sentences for something like: "The Tibetan language is spoken in numerous regional dialects which are often, but not always, mutually comprehensible". Any objections to me substituting the two sentences with that one? Dakinijones (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's not true that Tibetan dialects are usually mutually comprehensible. It's harder to say whether they are often mutually comprehensible, but I don't think we have evidence to support that claim. So, I think that the part we should keep should be "numerous regional dialects which, in many cases, are not mutually intelligible."—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot for clarifying that for me. I really didn't want to edit it and go for the wrong emphasis but I know nothing about Tibetan language at all, so your help's been invaluable. Dakinijones (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

This article really needs an Infobox because people keep asking where the information that should be in it is. Signsolid (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Which infobox would you suggest?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Forced sterilization and other abuses

  • There was a 2002 UN report on the forced sterilization, forced abortions and monitoring of menstrual cycles of ethnic Tibetans, despite China's claims that the One Child policy doesn't apply in Tibet.
  • Business cannot legally be conducted in Tibetan, putting ethnic Tibetans at a disadvantage.
  • Flooding of homes for hydro electricity without warning citizens.
  • Security officers interrogate monks regularly, and arrest anyone found with writing of the dalai lama.
  • Citizens are be given 3 years of imprisonment for having a "Free Tibet" booklet.

These are some of the things that are well documented and aren't currently mentioned in the article under the human rights abuses.

Video with interviews of Tibetans on these issues: Undercover in Tibet

—Pengo 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And you believe that? 86.161.56.118 (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, There are first hand accounts in the program. The reports are wide spread. Do you believe everything the Chinese govt says? It seems clear to me that without freedom of speech, all other freedoms are lost. —Pengo 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Firstly, if the PRC Government does not allow freedom of speech, then how did the programme get made? The video just could not be made, if there is no freedom. Secondly, the PRC Government has not actually said anything except Tibet is an inseparable part of China, and that they mind their own internal affairs and do not interfer with the internal affairs of other countries, implying they expect other countries not to interfer with The PRC's internal affairs. Thirdly, if bad things happened to the people in the programme were true, then these were inflicted against the laws of The PRC, and , and against the policies of the PRC Government. Under the laws of The PRC, the Tibetans are a special people and given privileges. The actions reported in the programme occur all over the Western countries; take for example the shooting dead of the Brazilian in London. The shooting does not equate to any UK Government policy to shoot dead all Brazilians in The UK. Furthermore, the Court of Law found that the Metropolitan Police had done nothing wrong in shooting dead the Brazilian apart from the fact that management had broken Health and Safety Laws. Another example is the forced sterilisation of Aboriginal women and the removal of their children in Australia. There, that was the Australian Government's policy. In China, the sterilisation guidelines should only be applied to the Hans and not the Tibetans. Whether it is right to force sterilisation on Han people is another matter. If what was in the programme were true, then the sufferings caused were wrong and should be reported to the PRC Government through the proper channels. Fourthly, if some of what was in the programme is true, it cannot be equated to claiming that return to rule by the lamas would be better, because the Tibetan people had suffered prolong torture and human right abuses in the old days, and that should never be allowed to happen again. 81.159.87.54 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If you watched the program you'd see it was made secretly, and the problems are systemic. How can you possibly suggest the PRC allows freedom of speech? —Pengo 11:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the point I am making, if the PRC Government is so powerful, how was it possible to make it secretly, at least the bits that were supposed to be in the PRC and not India? Where is the proof to the claim you made about it being systemic? It's like saying the British has a systemic programme of shooting dead Irish people in Northern Ireland, something that the British Government alway denied. The concept of "Freedom of Speech" means different things to different people. Should The Freedom of Speech be allowed to include slander? In the Eastern and Middle Eastern cultures, no. And should 'Freedom of Speech' be allowed for speeches made to mislead? In the USA, pornography is allowed under so called 'Freedom of Speech and Expression'. Pornography is banned in many countries, including The PRC, so are these countries, including The PRC supressing the 'Freedom of Speech', or are they just protecting their citizens from 'evil' people such as pornographers? What about the right to receive honest information and not be deceived? 81.159.87.54 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


    • First, the actual UN report would be nice. Second, I would doubt the veracity of report which insinuates that the Tibetan people are unable to notice the construction of the massive dams needed for hydroelectricity on the scale capable of flooding their houses. 69.233.203.139 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't be daft. Construction is one thing. The date flooding is to occur another. —Pengo 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
But where would you get flooding in such a high place? 81.159.87.54 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can watch the video from Channel 4 (British public-service TV) if you'd like more specific details. —Pengo 15:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, if people believe everything they see on the TV, then Superman, Spiderman and Batman are just round the corner. How many times have newspapers and TV companies had to issue retractions after the damages done by sensational journalism putting forth untrue information? 81.159.87.54 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Propagandist,

Release of propaganda is not freedom of speech. Having things published doesn't constitute freedom of speech.Tibetans dont consider themselves Chinese. Also China gained control by force not by consensus.I fail to see the point in reporting forced sterilizations to the PRC govt when it was them who did it.Tibetans adore and love their Lama. Its not for you to say what they feel of him nor is it in your position to speak for the Tibetans.99.238.165.168 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the West, propaganda is freedom of speech. They just call it marketing. Every major country in the world today gained control of their present territory by the use of force at some point in their history: USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan, and The People's Republic of China is no exception. Of course exile tibetan propaganda will say tibetans love lama. Why would they admit they did all those horrible things to people? There are plenty of tibetans who love Chinese, and not the lama for the torture and sufferings the lamas caused them. I love Tibetans and do not want to see them living in the past and in squalor. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

move

Can anybody please explain the point point behind the (reverted) recent move of this article to Tibet (Xizang)? As much as I hate to say it, this is English Wikipedia, and the common English name for the region is "Tibet", not "Tibet (Xizang)". We don't have an article on "China (Zhongguo)", do we? I also don't think we need a disambiguation to avoid confusion with some other, equally/more notable Tibet. Besides, if I am not mistaken what the Chinese call Xizang is actually just a part of what this article deals with. Finally, I didn't know people in the ROC use Hanyu Pinyin Romanization. So what is this about? Yaan (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Xizang more accurately refers to Tibet Autonomous Region, not Tibet, and the move was completely unhelpful and contrary to WP naming conventions. Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese name for the region is Xizang. The European, including English, name, is Tibet or Thibet. The native (Tibetan) name is Bod. If you speak to a native Tibetan who has never heard of English, they would not known Tibet refers to their place. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag

I think the caption below the PRC flag ("Definitions") might be incorrect. I suspect that the TAR simply does not have any official flag. In any case, the statement "Tibet's flag is the same as that of the PRC" is unsourced. Yaan (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Erik D. Curren, Buddha's Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today (Alaya Press 2005), 41.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibet/Archive_8&oldid=1141484747"