Talk:Sanggyai Yexe

Untitled

I'm strongly against the tone of original article, and changed invaded and occupied Tibet to liberated Tibet. If you say CPC or PRC invaded and occupied Tibet, you may also wanna say United States invaded and occupied vast western part of the continent in its history of expanding. In deed, American Indians were conquered and persecuted by the whites, just like Tibetans were conquered by CPC as you may argue. If you write American history using the tone of dominant whites, you should write Tibetan history using the tone of ruling CPC, ie, liberation or liberate. Ramtears (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the original article only quoted the unique source, an article by AP, which could be probably biased. Ramtears (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Using western sources or asking a non-Chinese to write articles about Chinese politicians is like asking an Iraqi to write article on George Bush, who'll probably describe the president as a war criminal. The fact is CPC and PRC have controlled Tibet region for many years and this situation will unlikely change in the near future. And this person was loyal to CPC. Thus, we should show respects to CPC and this politician himself, and describe him based on China's official documents. I guess this is the way he himself would like to be remembered and recorded in history if he were still alive. Plus, it's not very reasonable to list a title called Communism. Thousands of past and current Chinese officials were or are Communists. If we listed their major activities under the tag Communism, that will be ridiculous. Ramtears (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

I understand your main points and passion on the subject. However, people write about countries, regions, etc. in which they are not originially from all the time: academics, journalists, consultants, historians, bloggers, intellectuals...the list of examples goes on and on. An Iraqi or a Chinese citizen writing a fair article/book/journal about an American politician or subject is nothing unusual, nor should it be, and vice-versa.

Back to the article. The subject of the article, Tian Bao, was loyal to the CPR, which is a fact. He was, probably, one of the first ethnic Tibetans who were loyal to the Chinese army and Mao at the time, which is historically significant. However, simply because because he was loyal to the CPR does not mean that an article should be written from his point of view. Encyclopedias, even online ones, are not meant to be written from the point of view of the subject. They are meant to give on overview of the topic or subject. Autobiographies give the point of view of the subject or author, but encyclopedias are not intended for that purpose. i.e. liberation or liberate as opposed to Invade and occupation

As for the "Communism" heading: True, most Chinese politicians do not have "Communism" as one of their headings in their Wikipedia articles. However, since the Communist Party of China is the only legal political party in which an active politician can join, being a member of the Communist Party is not an unusual point. All career PRC officials and politicians are members of the Communist Party of China, (and there is virtually no alternative to this) so there is no need to point this out in most articles. It's usually common knowledge. However, Tian Bao was one of the first ethnic Tibetans to join the Chinese Communist Party, which makes him, and his membership in the party, historically significant for the article.

See also: People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951), which is another hotly debated article.

Enjoy the rest of your day. Scanlan (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time writing this detail response. I totally respect your efforts as the creator of this article, which means you really cared about this issue concerning China or PRC controlled Tibet. However, I'm still against your wording of this article, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't feel comfortable, and I probably represented the majority, if we talk about 1.3 billion population of PRC.

Actually, I saw the invasion of Tibet article and even read its discussion page before seeing your article. The first striking banner on that page indicated it's in dispute currently. And the discussion page told people couldn't even arrive at a consensus of the article title. Then I accidently saw your article and disliked its tone. The problem is different people have different points of view. The author of your quoted article certainly has his point of view, and I'm sure you can find other sources to support your idea of "invasion and occupation". But equally, I could find thousands of sources to support my argument of using "liberate or liberation". Then this's gonna be endless debate. Thus, I suggest we shouldn't mention the formation of Tibet Autonomous Region at all. This article is about a person who was the governor of Tibet when PRC and CPC were in control of this region. That's the fact and that's enough. You can add also see section to list invasion of Tibet or whatever you like, but the word invasion or occupation ought not to appear in the main content, because as we can see, this issue is largely in debate.

If we following your way to edit Wiki, then please note the fact that before the formation of People's Republic of China, the majority of Chinese territories were controlled by Kuomintang. And CPC and PRC invaded and occupied those Kuomingtang controlled areas, according to your logic. If today, Kuomintang members come to Wiki and edit every Chinese official's page, saying "CPC and PRC invaded and occupied this territory", it would be ridiculous.

I welcome warm-heartedly any non-Chinese editors to contribute to China-related articles, as long as, as you mentioned, they write fine stuff. However, to my knowledge, your edition didn't meet this criterion because of inserting debatable statements into the article. It's not like because you're the creator, then you can dominate the article. Wiki is for everyone. I could've ditched your original source and completely rewrite this article, but I won't do that in order to respect you as the creator. But unless you bring up an acceptable version, I'm afraid I have to revert your edition again and again and again.

Please enjoy the rest of your night while I'm going to press the button. Regards. Ramtears (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Invasion and occupation may be POV, but liberation is also POV. If we should avoid using invasion and occupation, we should also avoid using liberation. Currently I temporarily changed it to entered. Hope we can find a better solution. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)