Talk:Sinicization of Tibet

NPOV

This seems to me to be written from a pro-tibetan stance. Please try to make it more neutral. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Very biased and with a lot of factual errors. 71.224.195.139 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even read the article, since within one minute you had tagged it yet. It's well founded and scrutinized. YakLee (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I balanced the article now with a contemporary poster, as you wish. YakLee (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you accuse User:Soaringgoldeneagle of not reading the article? If it is because he or she tagged the article and made the comment here within one minute, it does not mean he/she did not read the article. If your idea of making the article balanced is by adding a contemporary poster, then I suggest you re-read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . Towerinf (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues

There are a number of issues here that are presented exclusively from the Tibetan standpoint and are thus NPOV:

• It claims that it's an active policy of the government to Sinicize Tibet, and yet all official government sources from China claim the opposite, and that they protect the Tibetan culture, and preserve epics like Epic of King Gesar, and so on. I notice all the cites for this claim are Tibetan-authored. It would be more accurate to call it an "alleged policy of the Chinese government"
• That Tibet consisted of three provinces that the Chinese took over in 1950 is not entirely true. Portions of Amdo and Kham fell outside of Tibetan control for hundreds of years; Amdo was under direct administration under the Qing Dynasty, and Kham and Amdo were controlled by Ma Bufang of the Xibei San Ma warlords after the collapse of the dynasty. Modern Tibetan claims also include Xining, which is part of Qinghai but was never part of Tibet
• It's debatable that no Tibetan asked for the change of power. This isn't entirely true either. The Seventeen Point Agreement was signed by the Dalai Lama's delegates, headed by Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme, and approved by the Dalai Lama later, who actively cooperated with the Chinese government until the 1959 revolt. Jigme would go on to be the first governor of Tibet under PRC rule
• There's nothing in the text which ties the Cultural Revolution with Sinicization, either. The Cultural Revolution was a general attack against all manifestations of "traditional" or "fuedal" culture, and the text says nothing about doing this with the goal of forcing Tibetans to be Chinese (which itself would be paradoxical to the goal of simultaneously destroying traditional Chinese culture)
• Population statistics: This is misleading. First of all missing is the entire debate on what "Tibet" consists of in the first place. The exile Tibetans claim a much larger Tibet than what the central government actually controlled in 1950, and include in their claims areas that were/are multi-ethnic. The article Tibet deals with the definitions, and also includes county-by-county statistics of Han and Tibetan populations for comparison. Even when added up, it falls short of the 7 million non-Tibetans claimed here.
• Every source I've read about the One child policy states that it applies only to Han Chinese and that ethnic minorities are allowed more than one child. The article claims the exact opposite, and states it as fact instead of allegations by the Tibetan exile community —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.34.54 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article "Sinicization of Tibet" is itself biased and not npov, in addition to all the points raised above. 81.131.27.15 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well well, the Chinese propaganda machine is everywhere. I cannot but notice that the two anonymous editors are one and the same. Do you want to push your crooked POV into Wikipedia so that no-one can see what really happens in Tibet. Don't cover up the truth; Reliable sources don't exist in China propper. You'd better mind that Kelly stays American. YakLee (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On what evidence did you come to the conclusion that "two anonymous editors are one and the same"? If you had checked the IP addresses of the two editors, you would have found out that the first one (67.101.34.54) is from the U.S. and the second (81.131.27.15) is from the UK. I wrote the second comment, without first creating an account, using the IP address of 81.131.27.15, I did not write the first comment. I am sure you are aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . As Wikipedia has an international readership, I suppose there are many people, including me, who do not understand your last sentence. Towerinf (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is perfectly in balance. When the facts are so clear, I can understand that it hurts. It's a well known psychological reaction. British still have a head today that they are not a influential colonial power anymore. YakLee (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, YakLee just ignored all NPOV and factual disputes made and instead chose to insult two people. --67.101.34.54 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose this article be deleted. 81.155.103.167 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

POV fork, needs deletion

A balanced and well sourced discussion of the matters covered by this article already exists at Tibet and related articles. Delete please. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No valid reason. Next to that, the article on Tibet is on Tibet; this article is on the sinicization of Tibet. YakLee (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So-called "sinicization of Tibet" is a POV fork on History of Tibet. POV forks warrant deletion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008, I am in agreement with YakLee. I think that your accusation of the article of POV tells more about your own personal biases than the article's biases. There is no valid reason for deletion. As stated, the Tibet article is to discuss the geographical region of Tibet, while this is for the Snicization of Tibet. There is no NPOV problem with this article, as it cites many well-known and reputable sources. Further, it would be actually be POV to delete the article since "Sinicization of Tibet" and "cultural genocide in Tibet are an accurate terms that are applied to an actual, ongoing phenomenon in the nation of Tibet. As such, this article presents a very clear picture of that phenomenon and its effects, and can be considered neutral. Furthermore The Chinese have paid propaganda agents that browse the internet, possibly including Wikipedia to sway people to believe in Chinese side of the story. It's conceivable that those who want to get this page deleted are of that organization. This page should not only be kept, but protected so that it won't be deleted or otherwise vandalized by the pro-Chinese denialist POV-pushers. JewishLeftist (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that someone with a username like yours is making ad hominim attacks. Oh wait, that's not irony at all! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell on are you on about mate? The Chinese government pays people to spread their online views? That is clearly a false dichotomy and you have very little if not any insight into Chinese people worldwide. Does that mean I can just accuse you of being funded by anti-Chinese media? Cultural genocide means complete destruction of culture and language, and yet Tibetans still exist as a unique and officially recognised ethnic minority with their language and culture. Don't tell me I got my views from the Chinese government because I didn't, simple facts from books in your library will tell you, I have seen many books relating to China and there is no mention of cultural genocide against Tibetans. And those books were not funded by the Chinese government, many westerners write about China too. Sorry if I offended you, but your words are clearly hypocritical. ChineseMan26 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Any reader with some knowledge of modern Tibet's demography can tell this page is far from reflecting reality. It states as established fact the point of view of one side. It should be deleted.--Christian Lassure (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

As has been noted repeatedly above, this article suffers from serious NPOV problems, given that it substantively relies entirely upon pro-independence and anti-integration sources. If no adequate responses are forthcoming within the next week, I will take the initiative to balance the POV in this article. Ultimately, if that is not possible, I will nominate the article for deletion, since an article that cannot be made NPOV is by definition a POV fork. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the same thing be done here as (theoretically) has been done in the Allegations of serfdom in Tibet article; that is, we should document the use of this meme in the Tibetan independence movement and responses to that, rather than trying to make any factual claims about any Sinicization. Thank you for taking the initiative on this. --Gimme danger (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion - it is an excellent one. I will post a more detailed post below on my edit so far and planned edits going forward. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel sad about Wikipedia

Just compare this :

Anno 2008 in the capital Lhasa live 400,000 people, mainly Chinese. In 1959 only 5,000 inhabitants were living there.

to this:

Major ethnic groups in Lhasa Prefecture-level City by district or county, 2000 census

Total Tibetans Han Chinese others 

Lhasa Prefecture-level City 474,499 387,124 81.6% 80,584 17.0% 6,791 1.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa

81.6% of the population are Tibetans

How bias it can be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralisation scheme

As has been suggested above, this article can best be neutralised as an article focussing on the arguments on both sides of the debate, as well as the uses to which these allegations have been put. I have added a lead in which I have endeavoured to tease out the different strands in the debate. Going forward, I hope to deal with the following major topics:

• Key allegations (already adequately dealt with in the existing material)
• Rebuttals to these allegations (can be drawn from the "PRC view" section in the main Tibet article, and others like it)
• Uses to which the allegations are put (e.g. to argue for independence; explaining that leap in logic will be key)
• A small section on historical background, focussing on mutual influences between Tibetan and Han Chinese culture (e.g. Lamaism in "China Proper", influence of Han architecture on Tibetan palatial architecture, etc).

Your help in editing is welcome. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Change of power" --> "Political and administrative"

Starting from the "Change of power" section, I have re-organised it into "political and administrative", becuase the key allegation that is directly relevant to Sinicization in that section seems to me to be that China divided up the "traditional" provinces of Tibet.

The material about the legality of the invasion, and the legal status of Tibet pre-1950, is not relevant to Sinicization. The generally understood meaning of that term does not encompass Conquest, and in any case the assertion of control is well dealt with in Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951). I have preserved a small amount of background information to establish context, but have restricted it to uncontroversial and agreed facts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural

"The economy of Tibet is dominated by subsistence agriculture, that is agriculture with a destination to provide for one's family proper only. For this reason the entrance of 35.000 Chinese troops in the 1950s weighted heavily on the food supplies in Tibet. At Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama's visit to Mao Zedong in Beijing in 1954, Mao informed that he would migrate 40.000 Chinese farmers to Tibet.[4][5]

"In the 1960s Chinese authorities forced Tibetan farmers to cultivate corn, in stead of barley which originally is the crop of the Himalaya region, resulting in the first famine in Tibetan history. The harvests failed as the farmers had predicted and thousands of Tibetans starved from hunger.[6][7]"

I'm not sure how these are related to allegations of Sinicization. The comment about Mao wanting to move 40(? or is it 40,000) Chinese farmers into Titbet is relevant to the demographic point, but that's dealt with in another section further down. As to the failure of the agricultural policy -- I'm not sure how that is Sinicization. Corn is not an essentially traditionally Han-Chinese food. Unless the point is that the government tried to starve lots of Tibetans to death by making them grow corn? If that is the case, it needs to be argued fully. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

corn is imported from the america. under mao's rule, he was trying to follow a soviet model of centralization and fast economic development and his programs have no traditional chinese origins.

great-leap forward did not just occured in tibet. the program that was mentioned above was the great leap forward and it was a national disaster for the whole china. tibet was not the only area that had to suffer and many other areas had more deaths than tibet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.194.53 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Singular point of view of Palace PalaceGuard008 without references

moved from article to here - YakLee (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The debate over allegations of Sinicization of Tibet is one plank in the wider debate about the history and future of Tibet. The debate is largely a political one, and centres around two issues. The first is the extent to which Han Chinese culture or population has gained ascendancy in Tibet. The second is whether any such process has been supported, tacitly or explicitly, by the government of China.

Sinicization generally refers to a process by which a culture or people become more similar to that of China. In the Tibetan context, it refers to a process by which Tibetan culture may have become more simimlar to that of the Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, and also to a process by which, it is alleged, the population makeup in traditionally Tibetan areas have shifted in favour of the non-Tibetan Chinese, and especially the Mongolss, the Hui and the Han ethnic groups. Because Sinicization refers to a process of "becoming similar to China", and there is a significant view that Tibet currently is or historically has been a part of China, the use of the term "Sinicization" itself is not unproblematic.

Politically, there are broadly two camps to this debate. On the one hand, supporters of Tibetan independence and critics of the policies of the People's Republic of China in Tibet generally support the view that Tibetan culture has shifted towards Han and other non-Tibetan Chinese cultures. A controversial allegation supported by this camp is that this shift is due to active or at least indifferent government policies. A more controverisal allegation supported by this side of the debate is that the number of non-Tibetan Chinese people who have migrated into traditionally Tibetan-dominated areas is significant, or is so large that it is in danger of outnumbering, or already has outnumbered, the ethnically Tibetan population in some areas. Some participants on this side of the debate use these allegations to argue for the poor human rights record of China and especially in Tibet, for the need for greater autonomy for Tibet within China, and more controversially, for the independence of Tibet from China.

On the other side of the debate, supporters of the People's Republic of China government policies in Tibet and opponents of Tibetan independence advocate that government policy has generally been protective of Tibetan culture. This camp argues that there has been no deliberate policy to promote Han Chinese culture in Tibet over Tibetan culture. Further, this side of the debate argues that Tibetans remain the majority population in almost all traditionally Tibetan areas. Finally, some participants in the debate argue that allegations of the Sinicization of Tibet is an attack on Chinese sovereignty disguised as a criticism of Chinese government policy.

While the history of interaction between Tibetans and Han Chinese stretch back centuries, and is characterised by mutual cultural and religious influences, as well as intermarriage and the movement of people, the contemporary political debate almost exclusively focusses on the nature and extent of the interaction in the half century since the government of the People's Republic of China asserted control over Tibet between 1951 and 1959.

@PalaceGuard008:STOP YOUR PROPAGANDA ACTIONS !!!!
You're attacking the article which has been refenreced very carefully. On the basis of this article lay very reliable sources. You cannot place your own point of view, which in my view is pure propaganda in the article!! You may believe what you dream, but facts prove otherwise. If you are so sure about what the content of your enduring attacks are, you should be able to come up with reliable sources as well. But you can't: until now that is a fact!! YakLee (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested user comments

User:YakLee, based on your responses to the above threads where other users and I have raised concern about the NPOV problems with this article, I conclude that you are not willing to discuss these problems.

As a result, I have requested user comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet and Wikipedia:WikiProject China. This is just a courtsey notice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You cannot put your unrefenrenced material in the article on Wikipedia. Please stop attact the truth with your point of view. YakLee (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Above user is has had talk with a lot of contributors yet that have tried to convince him not to use his POV in the article and on the talk page. He added a mayor one-hand piece with no references in the article and he places {fact}-templates, where text has been referenced by respected sources. Next to that he doesn't recoil - (in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet) - to even make personal attacks on my address. I am NOT jealously guarding the article: the contrary is true: see the facts for your self. This games is really beyond every limit. I suspect political motivation with this user. YakLee (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reconfiguring the talk page without discussion. My post there was not a reply to your personal attacks, so please do not misrepresent it as such.

The problems with this article as it stood, and the problems with these so-called "respected" sources, have been raised many times, as seen on this talk page, but you refuse to even discuss in good faith. I will not revert, but I will escalate this dispute in accordance with the dispute resolution process unless and until you are prepared to engage in good faith discussion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

PalaceGuard, would you like to initiate an RfC from around Wikipedia? I would suggest doing this since Wikiproject China is largely inactive, as is Wikiproject Tibet. It may be helpful to other editors to summarize the talk page discussion in a new section. I've been following the discussion and I can't make heads or tails of what's being argued about here, though that may be a comment on my own stupidity rather than the clarity of the conversation. --Gimme danger (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea Gimme danger. I'll make a start on that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Under the Change of Power heading, the "citation" following the phrase "most historians claim" leads to the Tibetan Government-in-Exile main page. I seriously doubt the government-in-exile is (1) a group of historians or (2) a neutral source. This paragraph also employs the use of weasel words, citing broad consensus on a subject and then citing one source ("Most historians" "Many socialists"). Something should be done about this obviously POV article.

While we're at it, Tibet may have been an independent government in the decades preceding the Chinese invasion in 1950, but this curious omission fails to note that Tibet was under the control of Qing Dynasty regents or else being invaded by Britain for most of the second millenium. Tibet was only homeruled after the Chinese Revolution of 1912, when, due to internal conflict, they expelled the Chinese forces. While this point may be contentious, the Chinese side of the argument needs to be presented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Destroy old world.jpg

The image File:Destroy old world.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. --04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

remove this article because it is pure propaganda

since when did wiki became student for free tibet .com?

the title is hugely ironic because china is adapting to a more more westernized country instead of returning to old chinese traditions. the opening sentence makes the accusation of tibet be sinicized by chinese culture. however it has no way of proving its argument. some very tradition cultures that have existed for thousands of years are foot binding, munuchs and royal familes, but all of these cultures are pratically none-existent in tibet or in china. currently, chinese would much rather wear dkny(jeans and t shirt) than mao suits in the culture revolution

the so call political changes are not originated from china because communism is pure karl marx. if china wishes tibet to adapt to chinese-like politcal system, then it should restore the traditional dalai lama system that was implented in tibet for centuries, but it was abolished and replaced by a communist system.

certain culture changes is not culture genocide! changes in culture occur due to many different reasons, but it does not always mean the end. culture genocide means completely erasing the existence of a culture. currently, tibetan culture in china is still alive but different from the cultures of 1950s. howeverm it is sure from tibetan cultures of other regions (India, or America). being different does not equal extinction because culture is changing constantly. for example, stage shows were popular before invention of film. once film was invented, stage shows were pratically extinct. however the culture of acting still exist and just survive through a different format. Just because the format of presentation is changed, you can not accuse film invention has killed stage acting.

china has opened up tibetants to the outside world. china is opened and the world loves to get a piece of the pie. china is no longer a country of mao's era and it is open to the world. once it is opened, its cultures are forever changed by internet, tv and many other things. Being open does not mean china is forcing its people to accept the new changes. currently, tibet is experiencing the exact same changes with china and its citizens can either embrace the new changes or simply just go back and live in the stone ages

do we need an article about everything in tibet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.194.53 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of assertion that Han Chinese, "as a rule", do not like living in Tibet, and cannot acclimate to the altitude.

I find this statement particularly dubious. Per my edit comment, "Low pressure and thin oxygen make it very difficult for people outside Tibet to stay there for long periods" directly contradicts Effects of high altitude on humans: "for example, to adapt to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) of altitude would require 45.6 days." Based on the scientific literature, there seems to be agreement that humans can acclimate to high altitudes within days or weeks. The reports of pulmonary edema make sense given the altitude, but the analysis is pure speculation on the part of the author of the source: "The high [population] figure appears absurd" (emphasis mine), and fails to cite a source for the speculative argument. The book cites "Chinese authorities", but does not provide a source.

Furthermore, "As a rule, the Han themselves are not keen on settling in Tibet" directly contradicts the quoted testimony of Han migrants found in news articles such as [1] and [2].

The problem with the two sources cited is that the date from before the current wave of migration, and are not applicable. Until more modern sources are found, there seems to be evidence that Han attitudes toward migrating to Tibet have changed significantly, and the paragraph no longer is current. Richard Ye^talk 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be so. Yet, in the first article you mention, one finds this testimony from a Han security guard in Lhasa: "My wife Yao Wuqiong had to return to my hometown [in Sichuan] to give birth to our daughter. Otherwise we worry that it could be easy for a child of a Han family to be born with a heart problem at such high altitudes." Could it be that for Hans living at Tibetan plateau altitudes a little more that just a 45.6-day acclimatization period is needed? The matter could certainly be delved deeper into. --Christian Lassure (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly you could be correct, but I couldn't find any sources to back the general assertion that the statement implied. Unless some verifiable sources, like a survey of Han Chinese in Tibet, are found to back it, we can hardly say that Han Chinese, as a rule, don't like living in Tibet. Thanks, Richard Ye^talk 05:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello. As mentioned above this article is not factual accurate, non-neutral and even misleading. For instance the line: Tibetans have become a minority in Greater Tibet. In so called Greater Tibet (which is erroneously linked to Tibet article) the tibetans were never a majority. Leave alone that the notion of Greater Tibet, wich includes the Tibetan Plateau and 3 chinese provinces, is a questionable notion. The ideea of the sinicization of Tibet is totally obsolete. --Daduxing (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

POV category

Given there is recent scholarly opinion (Robert Barnett) under "Debate on the intention of the PRC" refuting the unfounded cultural genocide claims, adding the category Category:Human rights abuses in China is spurious at best. And, @Amigao:, it is time you abide by WP:BRD and talk page use: you have not even made 50 talk-space edits since 2011. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely one can ascertain that there have been human rights abuses in Tibet regardless of whether there is a cultural genocide. Doanri (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Doanri: A bad strawman, as this article is meant to focus on culture and demographics, not human rights. That is the purpose of Human rights in Tibet. And parts of urban Lhasa turning into "Little Sichuan" due to migration is not by itself a human rights abuse. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Attacks on 'Culture' and forced changing of 'Demographics' are obvious weapons in China's arsenal of destroying and subjugating Tibet. @Doanri is definitely correct. To believe they are separate from human rights, or not used to culturally cleanse Tibet is incredibly naive. @CaradhrasAiguo, Robert Barnett has retired, and is obviously out of touch with modern Chinese state craft. Read Antireligious campaigns in China#2012-Present: Xi Jinping. I agree with many others, and second and third the motion to remove the nearly frothingly pro-China apologetic p.o.s. article. Pasdecomplot 23:52 08 September 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) and Doanri (talk) : Just opened a discussion on deleting text/subsections or massively reediting page. Thanks. Pasdecomplot 18:08 09 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete text/sections or massively reedit CCP-apologist text?

The page is seriously wrong: The first sentence states clearly that Sinicization of Tibet is a term used by critics of China; then, the rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases. Thus, the subject - a term used by critics - has been subverted, possibly vandalized (if the page was originally created by editors adhering to the subject - still checking versions), and redirected to another subject : China defends sinicization. And a reminder: sinicization cannot be separated from acts of human rights abuses since human rights abuses are inherent in sinicization; and, to eradicate a culture and replace it is cultural cleansing. So, we have a few options:

• Keep the title, and begin again with the subject. Delete text and subsections. Build consensus but counter swarms of pro-China/pro-cultural cleansing editors and give them a 'controversy' section, since the subject is about critics of China's policies in Tibet.
• Reedit, as-is. But, reediting such a large amount of China-POV lets the POV run the page, in effect. By default, as-is structure will also run page. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot:: It is difficult to discern whether rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases is reactionary trolling, given the Religion section as a whole is mostly critical of PRC actions, and even includes a citation each from Radio Free Asia (dubious) and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. In the "Education, employment, and language" section, previously, not one but three citations to Adrian Zenz (currently based at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation) were found in the first paragraph. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CaradhrasAiguo thank for replying. But, gosh, there are 80 refs at this moment, and the 4 mentioned do not create a numerical balance, at minimum, obviously. Not sure what is meant by 'trolling'. I read thoroughly to the end of history section before forming the educated opinion it is 'apparatchik goobolee-gook'. The uninformed religion section needs lessons from Antireligious campaigns in China. In regards to nuanced and overt POV China-apologist editing, shall I paste every example? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I read thoroughly to the end of history section before forming the educated opinion—Therein lies the problem, it is anything but educated because the opinion is based on a section giving historical context. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No, please read the talk again @CaradhrasAiguo, it was read through to the end of the history section, "thoroughly" signifying from the beginning. Where's the response to the religion section? Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo caption changes

Let's discuss the issue @CaradhrasAiguo : the caption as recently reverted and presently reads is factually incorrect, and a big controversy in Lhasa, for Tibetans, and for architects and urbanists, among others internationally.

• Here are the opposing versions:

Monument to the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Potala Square, Lhasa in 2009. (not disputed) Then: Built on celebrating the demolition People's site Liberation of Army an entering occupied Tibet, historic built neighborhood just at outside the base protective of zone Potala and Palace, buffer a zone UNESCO of the World Heritage Site

• To demolish the site, about 140 families (and their commercial enterprises assumedly) were forcibly displaced from their architecturally significant 16th century Shol Village. They were allegedly relocated to the suburbs, but several other reports state displaced Tibetans usually don't receive the promised exchanges. Before and after photos here : The image with the palace, square and Budweiser sign is more appropriate for the page's subject - cultural cleansing as sinicization. What do you think?
• Here's more info on the continuing controversy of demolishing cultural identify in Lhasa
• So, the text at present has POV which glorifies China; is historically inaccurate since the invasion was not peaceful; and attempts to reframe the contention that the square is massively disruptive to and disrespectful of a World Heritage Site. For these reasons, I corrected the photo's caption.
• Is there any defense of the current inaccurate caption?

Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no "glorification", the caption accurately describes that the PLA entered the present-day Tibet Autonomous Region. It does not describe the military campaign as a peaceful liberation (that is merely the name of the monument).

Again, any advocacy campaign ("Save" Tibet) is by definition not a WP:RS except for claims about themselves, and any factual claims sourced to them will be disregarded. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, but the points still stand @CaradhrasAiguo.

• Here's UNESCO's position, which renders caption incorrect; UNESCO states in 2005 the work in the groupings of buildings adjacent to sites is "incompatible" and "inappropriate"; in 1996 it says "deliberate destruction of heritage".
• PLA did not "enter occupied Tibet". That's incorrect as well.
• The text on the demolition of the neighborhood (an administrative center) by China is deleted, but the movements of the PLA are reinserted - an unnecessary choice which again glorifies China. The subject is sinicization, not the historic invasion of Tibet, and thus the caption needs to address the subject. Has the French Wikipedia source been reviewed, or "disregard"?
• Whether or not the words "...Peaceful Liberation" are included in the monument's name, they themselves are also incorrect since, again, it wasn't peaceful. Even though including the name of the monument isn't disputed, the editing choice of including the name together with the deletion of accurate facts about the photo which address the page's subject, together with the movements of the PLA, together with the bit about "occupied Tibet" renders the incorrect caption also a glorification of China and it's policies and laws regarding sinicization. And, on this page, that equates to a glorification of cultural cleansing. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked the UNESCO source twice, and this is a WP:SYNTH violation. The two quotations on the Shol administrative area are as follows:

Similarly, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the rehabilitation work being carried out involves the demolition of post-1959 adjunctions to the traditional houses, their reconstruction and the widening of the streets

Furthermore, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the works undertaken on the historic buildings and the widening of the streets risk causing irreversible changes to the historic character of this area

This is unequivocally describing rehabilitation / renovation work, not demolition. The other problem is that none of the year tabs at the same UNESCO link mention the monument having any connection to Shol, nor does our article on the monument. In fact, regarding the monument's location in relation to the World Heritage Site's protective zone, Concernant la tour de 35 m de haut commémorant « la libération paisible du Tibet », la mission UNESCO a vérifié que cette nouvelle construction était bien située à l'extérieur des zones de protection du site du patrimoine mondial, du côté sud de la Nouvelle Place du Potala. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References