This is an archive of past discussions about Tibet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Tibet has more controversies than their self proclaimed independence their is also religious persecution of shugdenites too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.122.58 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
But Tibet does not proclaim self independence. Dalai lama followers have always engaged in ethnic cleansing with the approval of dl, a fact which they have always tried to silence. 86.180.53.230 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we keep the propaganda out of this article, please? This discussion does not belong on this talk page. Moonsell (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article in the New York Times today[1] uncritically identifies Namgyal Wangchuk Lhagyari Trichen as "King of Tibet." Frankly, I'm surprised that such an egregiously misleading claim would be published in the Times. But for the benefit of readers coming to this article expecting some information about the supposed "King of Tibet," it would be good if the article could say a little something about the House of lha rgya ri and what role they've played in Tibetan history. From what I can gather, he is actually merely the aristocratic scion of the family descended from Tibet's three great kings, which hasn't actually produced a ruling sovereign in 1200 years.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is very sloppy reporting. However, it does appear that the Dalai Lama was involved with this putative boy king a few years ago, per this report in Phayul. That article stops short of calling him a king, but it does say that the Dalai Lama presided over an "enthronement" and "coronation" for him. It also doesn't provide any direct quotes from the Dalai Lama, so it's possible that he might not have characterised it in those terms. Also, note that the Lhagyaris seem to have traditionally been some sort of regional governors under the Ganden Phodrang, so an enthronement might not have been intended to recognise him as the "king of Tibet" but perhaps as a duke or baron of some local fief. This "king of Tibet" business looks like an effective marketing maneuver for the documentary about him. The claim that he's the only living descendant of Songtsen Gampo is bizarre: kings usually have many descendants, if they make it past the first few generations.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it seemed to me that the last paragraph of that Phayul article was salient: According to a statement issued to the media later after the enthrone ceremony, His Holiness the Dalai Lama had advised the family to hold an enthronement ceremony to preserve the lineage of Tibet’s great religious Kings who would remain ever grateful to the Tibetans. It seems to me that the intention was to "preserve the lineage of Tibet’s great religious Kings," not recognize someone as the "King of Tibet." I've added a section to the article - I'm not sure if it is in the ideal place, or if it is giving the whole thing undue weight, but I figured it was a good basis for discussion at least. It may be playing into the marketing effort, however.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
I've added it. I also changed "Bhö or Phö" to "Bhö or Pö". "Phö" is neither very common nor very useful. I think "ph" is [f] in every language that uses the Roman alphabet where it occurs (even in Vietnamese), whereas this is [pʰ].—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
POV
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
in the human rights section, if you are going to comment on post-1949/1950 human rights in Tibet, it is only fair that you comment on human rights in the past in this region. Why? Because this article is about historical/cultural Tibet, NOT the current AR as we know it. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 06:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
in the paragraph "...generally claim progress towards a prosperous and free society in Tibet...", some of the editors are attempting to FAKE a NPOV by just including opinions from both sides. The truth is, the paragraph seems to swamp the anti-separatist arguments by failing to include Western scholars who criticise the "Free" Tibet movement and including the opinions of exiled Tibetans, not the ones that are living there who are free of any incarceration. Ok. very simply put, that's TWO pro-secessionist opinions to ZERO anti-secessionist. is this balanced? meanwhile, the opinion of Warren Smith is bogus. It states very clearly that he spent 5 months in Tibet IN 1982. to assume that Tibet and the rest of mainland China have not changed since then is an unspeakable crime of idiocy and ignorance. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 06:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that that paragraph wasn't very well-written or balanced, although it was like a lot of paragraphs in Wikipedia that are trying to be balanced but end up with a format like, "The Chinese government says X, but [longer passage on why that opinion is wrong]." I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "TWO pro-secessionist opinions to ZERO anti-secessionist" — it actually had two opinions from the Chinese government or official ideology contrasted with one opinion from "the government-in-exile and some indigenous Tibetans" and one opinion from Warren Smith.
We could probably find a better source to cite than Warren Smith, since, as the source we're citing says (Powers, Propaganda as History), Smith "takes a strongly polemical tone and uses highly emotive language in his denunciations of Chinese actions in Tibet" (pg. 23). But your denunciation of Smith is way over the top. What Powers says is that Smith started writing about Tibet after spending time there in 1982. I have no idea whether Smith has been back to Tibet since then, but I'm sure he has continued to learn about and study Tibet.
It seems like including "Western scholars who criticise the 'Free' Tibet movement" in a brief overview would cause undue weight concerns, because as far as I can tell, very few Western scholars find the current political arrangements very agreeable. As for Tibetans living in Tibet, we are already citing the official Chinese view of things. Which Tibetan writers in Tibet should we cite whose opinions are independent of that? We could cite Woeser, but even she doesn't really come right out and say what she thinks of the TAR government in so many words.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Those living inside Tibet are well aware that if they criticize Chinese rule, they will be severely punished. That makes it difficult to find out what they really think. Bertport (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Bertport, that is true (and this is coming from a Chinese nationalist). however, why are opinions of ethnic Tibetans currently residing in a Tibetan-designated region who choose to stay in such areas and who shortly venture out of the mainland never heard? you and I both know that the opinion heard from most ethnic Tibetans is that of a relatively outdated one.
Greg Pandatshang, yes it is true that there already are two facets of the opinion from the "official ideology". I intended to convey a different complaint, but the fact is, the paragraph is o_O I thought that Smith was continually basing his reporting on his 1986 experience, which is not accurate. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Mathpianist/华钢琴/Huagangqin, you're suggesting that we should try to quote Tibetans who live in Tibet but are making short visits to the exile community in India? I think that would have the same problems as interviewing Tibetans in Tibet. I don't think the problem with interviewing Tibetans in Tibet is getting access to them for a quiet conversation, but rather that they fear retribution later on. Tibetans visiting India temporarily face the same dangers, since they are going to be returning to the PRC.
It did occur to me that if we want the voices of Tibetans in Tibet, we might want to include some quotations from the film Leaving Fear Behind. This documentary was made by a Tibetan inside Tibet. It consists of short interviews with or statements from other Tibetans.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Reorganisation
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I will not provide differences for now, but I wish to explain my rationale for reorganisation once more.
The massive amount of "human rights" debate in the second-to-last sub-section in History is unwarranted. Keep it about history and minimise the amount of debating. See Urumqi for an example. Editors there have agreed to insert a notice discouraging "overly detailed analysis, unfolding news" in either the intro or history sections. As it is a notice, it is commented out and you will need to open the edit to view it.
Bertport, please be more discerning in your reverts. Why scatter information on what the CPG claims? Previously the paragraph of such claims in the Human Rights section was rather short. Rewording (apart from my two POV insertions, which I have since commented out) is not malevolent in any way. Cutting and pasting information is not to be deemed a "mass change".
Mathpianist, there is an established WP:BRD pattern which we appear to be following. You Boldly made changes; I Reverted them; now we Discuss. If you are discerning in your edits, then others can be discerning in their reverts. Your last edit was still more than a simple reorganization of text. Bertport (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
in your first revert, you were blind. Facts are facts. the uprising in 1959 failed, and the history section lacks any mention of this. how you interpret the event is up to you. The claim as to the Tibetan majority population is true and was meant to counteract the "swamping" allegations. But I will comment it out for now. Claims is far more specific than says, and if you believe that is POV... Failure to cooperate with me could lead to your entrance into RTL if ever you enter any of our territory.
yes, re-wording to make a better flow does not constitute reorganisation, but it shows a major attitude problem on your part to react in such a way. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Disputed territory in Intro
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a major grievance against the current wording: "...and a disputed territory..." it is implying that the entire area is in active, meaningful dispute, which we all know is false. yes, the ROC claims the PRC to be illegitimate and declares all of what the PRC currently controls + Outer Mongolia as its territory. yes, parts of the Central Tibetan Administration as well as exiled (reason set aside) Tibetans decry the PRC's legitimacy in the region. but firstly, this is not the Generalissimo Chiang era, and the CTA, and much less scattered exiles, is not a state. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 06:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello everyone. Am I right in thinking that, before the Communist party came to power in Beijing, the party offered the people of Tibet (and some other territories) the option of choosing whether or not they wished to belong to the PRC when it was established? I think I read of such an offer in an online translation of a speech or article by Chairman Mao or one of the other early leaders, but - impressively - I can't find it now.
If I'm right about this, would it be worth including in the article? Reference to a primary source would be very important, obviously.
I believe that Mao wrote things in the 1930s that strongly implied that minority areas such as Tibet should be given a free choice about whether to continue in a political union with China. I don't know whether he ever quite said that in so many words. As he got closer to power, those ideas were phased out. If he said it at all, I'm pretty sure it would have been a long time prior to the establishment of the PRC. Also note that "choice" is a fuzzy concept in Leninist/Maoist regimes (remember that the republics of the Soviet Union all had the legal right to secede at any time, although this was far from the case in practice). Overall, it doesn't seem all that relevant for this article. If we can determine that this is the case, we should include it in one of the more specific articles.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Lead section/too much sovereignty
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Out of four paragraphs in the lead section, the latter three deal exclusively with sovereignty issues, or rather, with defending the partisan proposition that Tibet was historically independent and its current independence is a serious controversy. At the same time, the geography, economy, religion, etc. which make up the bulk of the article is neglected in the lead to make room for these polemics.
Especially because this is an article about the ethno-cultural region, and not about a political state or an independence movement, I move that the information on the sovereignty dispute (this includes the summary of the history that emphasizes periods of relative independence instead of periods more important to Tibet's development) be reduced to one paragraph, perhaps two to be generous. At the same time, geography, art, etc. will supplant the excess politics; maybe eventually the lead will conform to the manual of style. Splittist (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
do it. to avoid POV, there should be much less talk about the political situation on an article that really should be describing an ethno-cultural area. Thanks --HXL何献龙01:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposed naming conventions
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I believe the main level section titled Human rights is totally WP:UNDUE here. We do not have a section on politics, international status, or the government in exile. Whatever is now said or pictured in the section only reflects the views of Western pressure groups working for separatist causes to challenge the international status. If this content is appropriate, it should go into some other article on these more specific topics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ganga river starts in Tibet?
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The section on the geography of Tibet states that the river Ganga (called Ganges in the article) starts in Tibet. I thought the root of Ganga was in Gomukh in Uttarakhand in the Indian Himalayas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.47.66 (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Improving neutrality for section "Economy"
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I believe that the section on the economy is slanted in favor of the Chinese government. Discussion on whether or not the government costs are carried by the Cemtral Government does not belong in this section as it is only remotely related to the Tibetan economy as such. It would be fine to include such facts in a section on the politics of Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region.
On the whole it seems to me that the aim of the economy section is to promote actions of the Chinese government. Statements about China affirming its commitment to improving Tibetan standards of living sound more like campaign ads than content in an encyclopedia and neglect the need for unbiased, neutral discussion of the controversy and effictiveness of China's economic strategy in the region, which would be possible to describe without taling sides. This pointed silence detracts from the quality of the article. Erget2005 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree with nearly everything you wrote. the taxation sentence is not entirely inappropriate: taxes are applied on the economy. if you think otherwise...I have no words for you. It is an important "demystifying" fact to know to prevent lies from the West and the CTA clique from appearing here on WIKI, and moreover, it is cited by four sources, and even the Daliar Lama corroborates that claim.
it seems as if you, by providing counterarguments to noble intentions, will [unavailingly or intentionally] worsen the POV weight problem that is inherent in this section, as I see it. don't include the noble intentions (economic development) or the false accusations (from the separatists) in the first place, and there won't be a rebuttal. --HXL何献龙21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Chinese Tibet is officially an autonomous region. One can argue as to whether the Chinese legal definition or practice of "autonomous region" correlates to what one might reasonably expect of true autonomy. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK02:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
that is certainly valid but you are bordering on SOAP-ing here. Now let's discuss the real topic at hand, the one that Erget2005 raised issues over. Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record02:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Early 20th century
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tibet and Mongols
I changed quotation from Laird because it was done in biased manner. On the next page Laird wrote that it is impossible to describe Tibet's status under Mongols as a simple submission. This is important change because otherwise the phrase creates impression that Tibet has become another province of the Mongol state. The term 'viceroy' here is not correct: such post did not exist in the Mongol empire and prince Godan could not grant it. This post may be termed in English as 'ruler approved by the Mongols'.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.18.196 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Mongols
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
While the article discusses the cultural relationship with the Yuan dynasty accurately, it does not discuss the political and administrative realities under Mongolian rule, and makes a misleading implication that the cultural and political relationships were the same, which is a huge historical oversimplification. I've added a mention of the dpon-chen and Sakya lamas, and plan to expand on what their roles were.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Qing
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Goldstein never says "Qing authority became merely symbolic by the beginning of the 19th century". Instead, he says that in the years immedicately following the 1792 regulations, the Qing imperial commissioners exercised their greatest authority over Tibet. The Qing authority over Tibet gradually weakened as Qing Dynasty weakened, and it was only by the end of the 19th century or the turn of the 20th century that Qing authority has became "more symbolic than real" (see also Goldstein's "The snow lion and the dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama", pg 22). But of course Qing enforced their power over Tibet soon afterwards. --64.56.229.20 (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a quote. Goldstein did say "minuscule", but someone else objected to using that word. I'm fine with removing "merely" and putting "minuscule" back. Bertport (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments11 people in discussion
There is lots of room for improvement in WP coverage of Tibetan history. This article, Tibet, is already large, and its history section is already long. The way the history section is organized, and what material we have in it, is definitely subject to discussion and improvement. But let's avoid making it much longer than it already is. Bertport (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I can repeat the same as already wrote: I changed quotation from Laird because it was done in biased manner. On the next page Laird wrote that it is impossible to describe Tibet's status under Mongols as a simple submission. This is important change because otherwise the phrase creates impression that Tibet has become another province of the Mongol state. This view is not shared by many scientists. The term 'viceroy' here is not correct: such title did not exist in the Mongol empire and prince Godan could not grant it. Relevant title may be termed in English as 'ruler approved by the Mongols'.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.18.196 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we agree to use the following for the "13th, 14th and 15th centuries" section, for the time being?
Tibetan lamas and Mongol lords participated in a priest-patron style relationship of mutual and flexible influence.
Mongolian prince Khuden gained temporal power in Tibet in the 1240s and sponsored Sakya Pandita, whose seat became the capital of Tibet.
The priest-patron relationship continued to characterize Mongol-Tibetan relations into the Yuan Dynasty and beyond.
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Between 1346 and 1354, Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen toppled the Sakya and founded the Phagmodrupa dynasty.
The following 80 years saw the founding of the Gelugpa school (also known as Yellow Hats) by the disciples of Tsongkhapa Lobsang Dragpa,
and the founding of the important Ganden, Drepung, and Sera monasteries near Lhasa.
Yes, I fully agree with revision you proposed. Please, include it into the article on Tibet as you indicated. Probably, it is better to use more flexible term 'rule' instead of 'dynasty' for Phagmodrupa.---SK91.76.18.196 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
To HXL49. Not exact and POV.
During Tibet's history, starting from the 7th century, it has existed as a unified empire and as a region of separate self-governing territories, vassal states, and Chinese provinces.---------Actually, there were independent states along with others: a large principality with center in Lanzhou in late 10th Century; Tibetan state in the area of Kukunor in the 11 Century; Guge kingdom etc. (e.g. Kychanov, E.I. and Melnichenko, B.N. 2005. The History of Tibet from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura).
Tibet is now inhabited by considerable numbers of Han and Hui people – but they have really immigrated there mainly in the 20th Century. It is well-known that Han-Chinese lived in Tibet in small and not considerable numbers till the peaceful liberation" and that Hui people only after that time have become so numerous that now they compete in Lhasa with Tibetan Muslims. Check published evidences from the 19th-early 20th centuries.
ascendancy of the Dalai Lamas to power in western Tibet------Not correct. U-Tsang, including Lhasa, is central but not western Tibet.
though his rule was often merely nominal with real power resting in the hands of various regents and viceroys.-------Not confirmed by references. Which regents and 'viceroys'? You think that the 5th and the 13th Dalai Lamas also had nominal power with real power of 'regents and viceroys'?
Today, most of cultural Tibet is ruled as autonomous areas in the People's Republic of China.------I met the term 'cultural Tibet' in the PRC sources. It should be replaced to more neutral term.
Ethymology of the Russian word for 'Tibet (Тибет) derived from Mongolian 'Tuvd' ('Төвд').------It is exact and generally accepted in Russia (see Kychanov & Melnichenko, above; also Kuzmin, S.L. Hidden Tibet. St.Petersburg: Narthang, 2011). These sources say that the word 'Tibet' first appear in Orkhon Turkic inscriptions in Mongolia as 'Tyobyot'. Arabic ethymology is not the only ethymology in the world.
The Kingdom of Nanzhao (in present-day Yunnan and neighbouring regions) remained under Tibetan control from 750 to 794-------You removed 'present day' because you think that Yunnan province in the current margins existed from 750 to 794?
"In 1910, the Qing government sent a military expedition of its own to establish direct Chinese rule and "deposed" the Dalai Lama in an imperial edict, who fled to British India (although this contradicts Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation)."------------You removed about the reincarnation. You may check any reliable source to know that any Dalai Lama is incarnation of his forerunner and, if the incarnation was already recognized as real, it can not be 'deposed'. What was done by the Qixi regime contradicts Buddhism. It is also clear.
In regard to census of Tibetans and other peoples in Tibet, you quote only the PRC sources which are biased. Opposite view: namely that a significant proportion of the Han are seasonal workers, tourists and the military are not taken into account by this statistics (e.g.: Strangers in their own country: Chinese population transfer in Tibet and its impacts. Dharamsala, 1997) is prohibited here?---SK91.76.12.183 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you can call Nanzhao or any other polity in the 11th century a "state", because statehood is a modern European construct.
As is so common with historical population transfers, each side picks a selective time and place in history to maximize their victimhood and exemplify the barbarity of their enemies. The early 20th century, the benchmark against which you want to measure the amount of Hans in Tibet today, is when the Dalai Lama expelled all the Hans in his territory.
The other issue is that Hans and Hui have a comparably longer history in the plateau region—which is what this article is about—than in Tibet proper. The first paragraph deals with the situation in Tibet today, and not disputed historical narratives, which are better covered in the body paragraphs.
"Central Tibet" is an unclear Lhasa-centric term.
We already mention the Turkic Töbäd, just not the modern Russian word. So the definitions section isn't bloated with every language, only the Standard Tibetan, Chinese, and English etymologies are covered.
Yunnan Province probably did not exist from 750 to 794, but giving the modern-day region that Nanzhao occupied is useful for readers who would have no idea where Nanzhao existed without a map.
Wikipedia strives to be written from the point of view of observable reality, and not according to supernatural ideas like reincarnation. "Depose" only means to remove from political office, and does not have bearing on the religious aspect.
The Chinese census numbers are generally considered reliable and transparent. Counting temporary undocumented workers is difficult for every census, the military omitted by many, and I don't know of any census that counts tourists. If you can find a reliable source with a transparent methodology that attempts to count them, that would be great, but the CTA is well known to falsify statistics, and the Tibetan Youth Congress (which authored the work you suggest)... god forbid we should use them as a source for anything except their own opinions. Quigley (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right. In this sense of modern European construct, we can not consider any empire in China (Ming, Qing etc.) as state.
Regarding the past number of Han-Chinese in Tibet, you are not right. In U-Tseng there were few Han and Manchu in few large cities. Overall, the same concerned Kham and Amdo but there were more Hans in cities and settlements (refer to reports from Kozlov, Przewalsky etc.).
"Central Tibet" is an unclear Lhasa-centric term."-----Not correct. Central or western are geographical terms. Lhasa is not in western Tibet.
I can not find where I wrote that Töbäd is a modern Russian word...
As Yunnan Province did not exist from 750 to 794, it should be mentioned as "present-day Yunnan province" in that context.
"Depose" only means to remove from political office, and does not have bearing on the religious aspect. - That meant "deposed from the position" without explaining whether political or religious. So it was not legitimate.
Regarding PRC 2000 statistics. I didn't met any reliable source but I meant only the fact these the abovementioned groups have fallen from census. You confirmed this but did not include in the article. Then, quoted Chinese data concern TAR. What about other Tibetan territories? Your article there accuses CTA in politicization. What about proportion of Tibetans in Tibetan autonomies outside TAR? It is concealed. Again pro-CPC bias.---SK91.76.20.199 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Bias again
After the fall of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, in 1911, Tibetans were one of the five major ethnic groups represented in the first flag of the Republic of China (ROC) -- along with the Han (red stripe), the Manchus (yellow), the Mongols (blue), and the primarily Turkic Muslims (white). The Tibetans were represented by the black stripe. --------Again, biased view approved by editors. This insertion should be deleted: it is history of ROC but not Tibet as such. It aims at 'confirming' Han nationalist claims to Tibet which was that time independent.---SK91.76.14.23 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, the flag is not "Han nationalist" as it is aspiringly multi-ethnic if it puts its diversity at such the forefront. China's unbroken claim to Tibet is important to understand, because if China lapsed its claim during a period of no control, then Tibet would have actually become independent. Quigley (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not write that sentence (check the page's history), and in fact removed it. As Quigley says, if the flag aims to highlight the main ethnic groups of China, then it clearly isn't Han nationalist. What fallacy from you. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Pre-Buddhist Tibet
I don't agree with reducing the size of the history section, there should be more content, not less. The article glances over the history of pre-Buddhist Tibet and focuses too much on Mongol, Manchu, and Chinese rule of the region.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
See WP:SIZE. There may be sections that should be elaborated somewhat; there are certainly sections that should be condensed somewhat; and it is always important to strive for giving the reader an accurate general impression. But this is a huge topic, so details, nuance, justification of points of view, etc. have to be delegated to more specialized articles. Generally speaking, I think most people are more interested in the Buddhist and modern periods than in pre-Buddhist Tibet. Bertport (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what people are interested in, pre-Buddhist Tibet is a huge part of Tibetan history and it's unfair to skip so much of it. We could reduce the size of the other sections if article size is a concern, but I don't think two or three more paragraphs will make too much of a difference.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No idea on 'condensation' of sections.
I support suggestions done by one under nickname SakyaTrizin.
Again, the article is BIASED to the ROC/PRC profit.
As earlier, I suggest to delete everything about all flags. Or, to avoid bias, also to mention the flag of the independent Tibet State not mentioned in this section.---SK91.76.20.199 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is an unfortunate Chinese bias in this article. In the last few months, there have been a few editors who stridently believe the PRC and ROC propaganda, working on this and other Tibet-related articles. There just don't seem to be enough other editors with the will, energy and time to deal with it properly. Bertport (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that historical revisionism by the PRC is a problem on topics related to Tibet. We should not let modern political debates affect our accurate reporting of the past. So I take this as a support for adding more content on pre-Buddhist Tibet?--SakyaTrizin (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just try to keep it proportionate and avoid undue bloat, and keep in mind that we provide links to subtopic articles where more information can be found. Bertport (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Across the range of Tibet articles, there is on the contrary a Tibetan nationalist bias, that one may not see because it is his or her own bias. You need only look at the reference list for the Tibetan history articles, which acknowledge loads of information from such reputable scholars of history as the Central Tibetan Administration, Chushi Gangdruk, savetibet.org, friendsoftibet.org, ad nauseam. Should an editor try to replace some of these sources with still exile-sympathetic but actual Tibetologists with names, there is no scarcity of new editors who have just read the The Truth and need to insert this into a Wikipedia article right away. If our aim is to improve the class of Tibet articles to the point that any of them can pass peerreview, and not just to advance our own viewpoints, then that entails respecting each others' viewpoints and contributions; i.e. not throwing around accusations of "shill" or "propagandist", and aiming to use the most rigorous and skeptical, if not the most politically potent, sources and text. Quigley (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Bertport, that's false. Read what Quigley writes. On the other hand, I don't oppose including the phrase "Han and Hui people, who began to come in larger numbers after the PRC took control" within the whole article, but I strongly oppose its prominent inclusion in the introduction. Before you added that sentence, the only remotely political tidbit that was in the lead was the fact about control. You made it worse by following the suggestion by this IP, who I have already warned for adding POV. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should not be influenced by the PRC propagandists or the pro-Tibet movement. Everything should be based on scholarly sources, and not on historical revisionism from a modern political debate.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I advise you not to use the wording "pro-Tibet" to refer to those who advocate for independence: what does that make the anti-independence people? anti-Tibet? nonsense. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record20:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I see that my posts in this discussions are not appearing. If this means ban, it is stupid because I can find many other IPs. The most important thing is that "HXL49|'s Roundtable" prevents well-known others' views and makes article on Tibet clearly Han-Chinese nationalist biased. Again, editors should consider this.---SK91.76.20.199 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And for good reason. After his long post, his comments consisted only of ranting and laughable demonstration of his poor English (he evidently doesn't know what "roundtable") means.
"it is stupid because I can find many other IPs". Once we get a long-lasting IP range-block on him, he won't be talking with such arrogance any more. He is lucky for me not to report him to WP:ANI for his repeated personal attacks. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
He has a point though. This article focuses too much on the Chinese, who's brutal rule is historically illegitimate and only a small portion of Tibetan history.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I see how it is, Sakya. You once wrote "focuses too much on the Chinese 'invasion'", which implies only the events from 1950-1959. That is obviously false as it is only briefly mentioned under History. And regarding the second point, though yes, I do agree that the Economy section has a bit too much focus on statistics given by the Central People's Government, the Economy section is but
one section of the entire article. Furthermore, you have not proposed any specific changes...
I'm not going to debate the (it's not only your) ridiculous assertion of "historically illegitimate". We, more like especially you, can stop soaping here, so I ask that you withdraw that comment on legitimacy and in response, I will withdraw this comment. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless it is obvious spam or intentionally disruptive - for example, if someone comes to this page and inserts "Guns 'N' Roses rocks!!" we can erase that (usually done by grade school kids). HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
It is, in a way, intentionally disruptive. Comments such as this are not un-constructive. But seething rants are no better than forum material and are entirely personal attacks. Clearly someone who is commenting only on my "roundtable", which is my talk page is not talking about the article. And the fucking idiot troll should not talk about something he has not even bothered to look at (my talk page) and therefore knows nothing about. --HXL's RoundtableandRecord00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Regents and viceroys of the Dalai Lamas
"though his rule was often merely nominal with real power resting in the hands of various regents and viceroys.-------Not confirmed by references. Which regents and 'viceroys'? You think that the 5th and the 13th Dalai Lamas also had nominal power with real power of 'regents and viceroys'?"
The politics of Tibet article contains a list of regents of Tibet. With "viceroy" I assume we mean the term desi’. Notable regents and desis of Tibet include Sangye Gyatso, Pholhanä’, and Shatra. The 5th and the 13th Dalai Lamas are the main exception to this trend (the wording says "often", not "at all times"), although early in the 5th Dalai Lama's reign his minister Sönam Raptän was extremely influential.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
small tags on map legend
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please remove, the text is unreadable. FF 3.6.15, XP SP3, 15 inch LCD.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think some information maybe just a sentence, should be added about the self immolations in protest to the Chinese rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.182 (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Mistakes and simplification on Tibet at Mongol Yuan dynasty
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This part needs revision.
1) 宣政院 should be translated exactly, not as a "ministry of Tibetan governance".
2) It's function was not "ruling Tibet as a top-level administrative department, in a manner similar to the British Empire and the Raj in India". It is better to omit this phrase: it's not correct, otherwise it should be explained which will take much space.
3) "Mongol rule of Tibet remained separate from the main provinces of China" - not only China but also 'Mongolia proper' and all other lands.
"Mongol domination over Tibet remained separate from all other territories controlled by the Yuan" - this is more exact.
Formally Kublai Khan proclaimed the Yuan era for the whole Mongol empire (see 元史 vol. 5, 4: 6-7). In this way all lands: including Russia, Central Asia etc. become parts of the Yuan which meant formally whole the Great Mongol Empire (e.g. Bor Kh.J. Mongol khijged evrazijn diplomat shastir v.2, Ulaanbaatar, 2005). However, similarly to Tibet, they were not listed in these borders.
4)Incorrect statement: "dpon-chen had the authority to send Chinese troops into the region". Dpon-chen requested troops from the Mongols and they sent Mongolian but not Chinese troops - this happened twice (e.g. Kychanov EI & Melnichenko BN. Istoriya Tibeta s drevnishikh vremen do nashikh dnei. Moscow, Acad.Sci.publ., 2005, p.56)
6) Incorrect statement: "In cultural and spiritual affairs, this rule is characterized as a priest-patron relationship." I never heard that 'cho-youn' relationships were 'in cultural and spiritual affairs'. Moreover, none of the quoted seven authors wrote that! They all consider that priest-patron relationships were religious and political and meant assistance of priest in religious affairs and patron in political affairs.
7) These authors wrote also that Tibet was at least not a common part of Yuan. E.g. Van Walt (p.6-13) and Kuzmin SL (Skrytyi Tibet. Moscow, KMK Sci. press, 2010) considered Tibet a dependent state. Kolmas J (Tibet imperial China. Kanberra, 1967, p.18) considered Tibet as vassal state for Mongols. 14:10, 28 March 2011 ~~Mongolist
1) I'm not Chinese, so I'm not sure what the correct translation should be, and took one randomly off a textbook. Norbu uses the "Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs".
2) This is a comparison made by Dawa Norbu, one of the leading intellectuals among Tibetan exiles, and highly revered by members of the Central Tibetan Administration. He is considered an authoritative voice on the subject, and I think his comparison ("at Peking an autonomous office was set up in 1264 might have been analagous to the India Office in London during the British Raj") is accurate. You argue it's not correct, but you'll need reliable sources to defend that position.
3) Yuan control over Russia and the rest of the Mongol Empire was only nominal. Actual Yuan control was limited to only China, Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet, with Tibet under a separate administrative structure.
5 (4?) ) Again, this statement is made by Norbu, p. 139, who characterizes the troops as Chinese. I'm guessing it was likely a mixture of Chinese and Mongolian troops under Mongol command. The Mongols lacked manpower, and troops often consisted of conquered peoples, including the Chinese. I'll have to look at the Russian sources you've provided to see why they characterize it differently.
6) According to Norbu, in religious and regional political affairs, Tibet remained autonomous (hence the "priest-patron" relationship), while the Mongols maintained control of administrative and structural affairs. This point should be clearer, and I thank you for pointing it out.
7) I am for this, but asserting that would anger some of the pro-China propagandists lurking around here. So, in the spirit of neutrality, it would be better to characterize as a "diarchy" balanced in favor of the Mongolians. This is how Norbu defines it, and in my opinion it's a neutral middle ground.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
1) "Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs" is quoted also in some other sources. My Chinese-speaking colleague confirmed that it is correct. So we can use this term.
2) It will be OK if we will use the word "analogy" to clarify the meaning.
3) Yes, there was nominal control for Russia etc. But it is too rough to subdivide the whole Yuan administrative system in only two types: "nominal" and "actual". There was no "actual control" over Tibet but also not nominal; in general, there were a variety of administrative organs for different lands (e.g. see Farquhar). The term "domination" is more precise as it cover all types of these relations.
5) (4) Yes, please, check the quoted source. Kychanov and Melnichenko are specialists in this field and I believe them, with all respect to Norbu. I will also check other sources.
6) Thanks, please, make the changes. Anyway, wrong quotation (of several sources!) is inappropriate.
宣政院 certainly does not mean "Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs". It appears to mean "Policy Promulgation Bureau". The former might be an accurate description of what its role was in this context.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Here I have no Chinese characters on my keyboard. In general: initially a special Zongzhiyuan department was established for Tibet, with Phagpa Lama as its first head. In 1284 the Office was renamed Xyuanzhongyuan (Bureau of Buddhist Affairs). It has been equalled to the highest authorities in the Empire: civil affairs, the army and the controlling power.Bureau of Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs was created in 1329 as the result of a merger: two different bodies have joined: one for Tibet (in the hands of Sakya) with the other being the Buddhist Affairs Commission of Southern China. The former DID NOT represent direct Mongol rule over Tibet. Detailed description of history and functions see in Farquhar, D.M. 1981. Structure and function in the Yuan Imperial Government (in China under Mongol Rule, Princeton).83.149.228.70 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Mongolist
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, the edit is undid by User:Quigley and the reasons given are "lead paragraphs summarize the body paragraph, which has the references. Néel's comment is redundant". Please mention the source material that says what is marked here as [citation needed] for citations. I don't think any references mention anything about changes mentioned and why are mine edits reverted in the name of "CanadianLinuxUser" or "Néel"? Why is this snobbish behavior for no reasons? Are other editors watching this and the one topic mentioned above?Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact that parts of ethno-cultural Tibet were incorporated into the provinces of China is attested to in the references in this article's history subsection and the various history of Tibet articles. Wikipedia's manual of style states that the lead paragraphs of an article should summarize the rest of the article and not introduce new information, hence the lead does not need citations. What you wanted to add to the Names section was already present in the second paragraph (or first big one) of that section. Quigley (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed The lead "serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." though in here most the material I see is about how Chinese view Tibet in detail and the edit [|| here] removes a single line with a reference. I don't think a referenced material should be removed in this manner.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I was the one that originally removed the Alexandra David-Néel quotation in question, simply because the Tibetan name for Tibet is already discussed earlier in that section, so it seems redundant to bring it up again.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent Edits on Tibet
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I would like to know how the edits done by me were considered misplaced and PVO pushing when sources are mentioned. First edit states that Chinese had direct control over Tibet not prior to 1910 and please link any information on prior rule of Chinese kings over Tibet otherwise. The article itself says so considering history of Tibet. The other edit mentions the source and can only be mentioned in Demographics part, nowhere else. Thisthat2011 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
firstly, the POV. Only the edit to the demographics section was remotely POV, and that was because you cited a source that has a political agenda, and even if it were describing a viewpoint, it is a viewpoint by one agency. --HXL's RoundtableandRecord00:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure about correctness of agency, though I am alarmed how it is assumed that Tibetans themselves will have no political agenda in Tibet. As far as change in Demographics are concerned, please explain how changes in racial profile can not be part of Demographics and where else it could be otherwise.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Your edit here does not mention "changes in racial profile" but rather accuses China of "racist attitudes and policies". That sort of edit belongs in no section. Quigley (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion
A huge amount of undue emphasis has been given on history and cultural section while completely ignoring education, politics and ecology. I would request other editors to reduce undue weight and instead add more information on the completely ignored sections to try to make the article good article.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reduced the history section from approximately 20,000 bytes to 16,500 bytes but it still remains one of the largest history section among all main articles related to any region. I would request other editors to further reduce the history section in the main Tibet and article while moving details to articles like History of Tibet and History of European exploration in Tibet. At the same time I would request editors to concentrate on education, politics and ecology of present Tibet.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. As the hatnote (which you recently removed) said, this article is about Tibet, the ethno-cultural region. This is not about Tibet, the political entity, which is covered in various other articles like Tibet Autonomous Region. In a sense, this is like the China or the Ireland article; not the People's Republic of China or the Republic of Ireland articles.
I agree with your sentiment about wanting to get this article to good article status, but I disagree that we will get there by removing all information about Tibetan Muslims and about past Chinese dynasties' control over Tibet. Your "politics" section puts undue weight on the last 50 years, and within that puts undue weight on periods of protest and rebellion and removes information on periods of peace and reform. Also, it puts undue weight on the actions of the Tibetan government-in-exile, being so brash as to make the main article for Tibet's politics "Tibetan independence movement" (which used to be named "International Tibetan Independence Movement" for good reason: you won't find the most fervent flag-wavers in Lhasa). These actions betray a viewpoint centered in India rather in Tibet; ordinary Tibetans are more effected by the latest People's Congress decision than the Dalai Lama's latest motivational speech at some posh English university.
I second the motion to increase coverage of education and ecology, with the caveat that they not be overly politicized. Quigley (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Tibet after 1949, the Tibet region is not been considered the same as it was, with parts given to other states from Tibet, and Tibet Autonomous Region is a part of larger culture. As mentioned earlier, the absence of Ethnic Tibetans on this article is alarming by itself. In their absence here, it is difficult to judge that only Chinese sources are accurate and not others, or how much weight is to be not given to what part. As it is, I would suggest that independent sources should be mentioned here as well, while the history before 1912 or before 1950 should not have undue weight to Chinese sources as Chinese influence was minimal.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In terms of demographics, PRC sources will be the most comprehensive and accurate, because only they have the resources and ability to conduct censuses. This is not to say that they are completely honest, though. And you are degrading into a forum type of tone by commenting generally on history and demographics, not this article itself. --HXL's RoundtableandRecord17:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If you noticed comments from Quigley, there is this tone of Dalai Lama as given speeches in posh Universities and so on. I only pointed out a fact that there are hardly any Ethnic Tibetans here to edit anything which is alarming in the first place and does not justify passing comments on whether ordinary Tibetans are or are not affected by his speeches; as for people in Lhasa the Indian Govt does not restrict lifestyle and people have not protested as such. On the other hand it is a fact that there are hardly any reasons given for absence of views of ethnic Tibetans directly. For demographics, change in racial profile should be mentioned and comprehensive PRC sources perhaps have no pointer on changes in racial profile.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
What's "alarming" is not the amount of ethnic Tibetans editors writing for this article, but your emphasis on the ethnicity of editors rather than on the article's content. Perhaps you are insinuating that all ethnic Tibetan editors would be in goose-step with the Dalai Lama, and likewise Han Chinese editors with the PRC, and maybe you have this fantasy of the Tibet group of articles being a constant nationalist battleground like the India-Pakistan group of articles. However, I am happy to report that, until this recent blitzkrieg of edits that have bulldozed through years of peaceful discussion and consensus, this article has been relatively serene.
I remind you that, rather than to cast broad aspersions against the maintainers of this article, it's not too late to read the talk page archives and to browse the article history to see how the article got to where it was before this cavalcade. Failing that, at least acquaint yourself more solidly with the subject matter, on which you have made multiple basic errors of fact. For one, Tibet was not split up and distributed among the provinces after joining the PRC; Tibet Autonomous Region represents a gain in territory from the Dalai Lama's "independent" control in 1950. The Greater Tibet of the exile government's fantasy was already largely integrated into the current Chinese province system from at least the early Qing Dynasty, and remained this way throughout what is celebrated by some as a period of "Tibet's de facto independence" (and remembered by others as a time when China was invaded, raped, and besieged). This problem of defining "Tibet" brings us to the other problem of the "changes in racial profile": you cannot say that the demographics of an area have changed until you have defined the area and the time period clearly, and the exile government have placed in their fantasy state several large Han-majority cities at the edge of the plateau that have been settled by Han for centuries, to speak of dishonesty. I wonder how then, as HXL49 too easily concedes, the Chinese government can properly falsify data about the demographics of "Tibet" when the exile government claims large swathes of territory that the Chinese government (on solid historical and ethnographic footing) does not consider to be "Tibetan" at all! In any case, this business of "racial change", i.e. help we're being genocided, minority in our own country, etc. is a cynical political slogan rather than a statement on the demographics of any place, except perhaps for the small corral of Han merchants on Beijing Street in Lhasa. Quigley (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
That Hans or people any other ethnicity are editing this article is not an issue for me, and I dont think I have mentioned it as an issue, as I have already stated that as PRC sources are mentioned as accepted as reliable sources, independent reliable sources should also be considered which is a usual norm in Wikipedia I understand. Absence of ethnic Tibetans is indeed alarming and can not be ignored by this false accusation on my emphasis (where) on Ehnicity of anyone else. This is a direct accusation and such behavior should not be tolerated. Tibets "de facto independence" referenced by sources should not be confused with any claims of integration with provincial system. The understanding that Hans presence in parts directly means Chinese Provincial control does not make a lot of sense, please explain. If Chinese Govt considers territory on ethnographic footing is confusing as there are many places near and far where Ethnic Chinese are present, and rule of Mangolians can not be claimed by Ethnic Chinese as PRC as Ethnic Mangolia is Ethnic Mangolia and not Ethnic China. What is with pushing of Lhasa into this time and again? Is this not POV pushing? About claims of Genocide, minority in country, etc are not my words, and I would like to remind of various other sources too for one icj report on 24 June 1959 and I would like to know where would racial changes be included in Tibet. If there are no issues like these why not let Ethnic Tibetans enjoy freedom to express themselves and clear any misunderstanding.Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
See my reply below regarding PRC vs independent sources. In this article, PRC sources are not considered the best (but not prima facie unreliable on noncontroversial issues, like the location of towns). However, the sources you are trying to insert, while perhaps "independent" from governments, are advocacy groups, and as such are not the best type of sources for controversial issues; those best sources would be scholarly sources. The offensive sentence I was pointing to above was your saying "I only pointed out a fact that there are hardly any Ethnic Tibetans here to edit anything which is alarming in the first place", but if you say you do not mean that as an offense against the present editors, then I accept it. Regarding the "de facto independence" issue, only a certain part of Tibetan territory (smaller than present Tibet Autonomous Region) did at that time lapse from central government control. The other provinces continued to be part of Sichuan, Qinghai, etc. and did not just become that way after some invasion, although this falsehood may be repeated on advocacy websites, which goes to show why they are unreliable for matters of fact. The reason I am saying Lhasa over and over is because I am emphasizing that the focus of this article is on the territory of Tibet and not the territory of India where exiled Tibetans reside, nor the territory of the United States or the United Kingdom or wherever campaigners unfurl their snow lion flags. Quigley (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Territories occupied by different dynasties as well as modern political states throughout the history of China. from this image in China#Historical_political_divisions the time frame before British and then PRC i.e. from 1410 to 1892 does not include these provinces.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the main article about Tibet and so it should contain an overview about all aspects of Tibetan life according to wikipedia policy. I repeat that there can be and should be separate article a for Tibetan politics, history and culture as well but all of them should be mentioned here as well. I am removing politics should from history section since politics is a separate aspect of Tibetan life and not its history. I am removing hatnote, since editors cannot claim ownership of articles by placing a hat note by claiming the main article to be on solely based on history and cultural.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This article should contain an overview of all aspects of life in Tibet, though not necessarily Tibetan life, because the lives of Tibetan exiles (which is a large portion of what you are adding) are out of the purview of this article. The hatnote serves as a useful disambiguator between the different definitions of Tibet, which are not made up by Wikipedia editors on the spot but are the domain of Tibetologists. Making a section about politics in Tibet is difficult if not inappropriate when you have an article as this which describes a shifty region and not a solid administrative division. Quigley (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of reliable Tibetan sources(not Chinese sources) about lifestyle, the Tibetan lifestyle of Tibetan exiles is a good indicator of Tibetan Lifestyle say before say 1950; since in India the Indian Govt has not put religious restrictions and practices as Chinese Govt may have. In the absence of direct Tibetan sources, I would say lifestyle of exiled Tibetans is an indicator of culture and history.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The two articles on Tibet and TAR both can actually be disambiguator between the different definitions of Tibet. TAR could easily have the Chinese version and while the other article could present the version of the rest of the world.
Politics and any major aspect of a regions life can never be "out of the purview of the main article". The politics section should contain all politics in present and recent past like on articles of other regions. However, if you want to censor politics I would state you are flouting multiple wikipedia policy.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I definitely don't want to see a situation where the TAR article embodies one POV and the Tibet article embodies another (which, in Wikipedia jargon, would be called a POV fork). Generally, I agree that this article is difficult to source well, because the fact of the matter is that freedom of expression about political issues is not the rule in Tibet. We have no choice but to try to cobble together a balanced description of things by mixing mainland Chinese sources (including establishment-oriented Tibetans), Tibetan exile sources, Western Tibetologist sources, Taiwanese/HK sources, and such other voices as do make themselves heard from inside Tibet (e.g. Woeser and other blogs that appear on High Peaks Pure Earth). It's not ideal, but it's what we have to work with.
I think the layout of the China article can be a good model for this article, also about region that does not constitute a single de facto political unit. On the other hand, I think China could stand to have a bit more coverage of the political situation. In that case, I suppose that editors figure that ~99% of China is governed by the People's Republic of China, so that article is adequate to cover politics. On the other hand, I believe something like 40-50% of the Tibetans (not counting those who have migrated to places that aren't traditionally Tibetan, like Beijing or Dharamsala) live outside of the TAR. It would make sense to have an overview of the political situation in this article, then.
Everything else in discussion above I think would need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis by looking at the specifics under dispute.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
To switch coverage after 1950 from the people in Tibet to the Tibetan exiles just because you don't think that the Chinese government is as good about religion as the Indian government is (the latter does not have the best track record of religious harmony itself) is, of course, as outrageous and chauvinistic as Free Tibet campaigners claim Chinese rule to be. By definition, the article on Tibet will cover the people and politics in Tibet, until such time as the Dalai Lama's exile government declares Himachal Pradesh more "historical Tibet" to be part of an autonomy agreement, based on 7th century maps. Now for all your talk of "censor politics", there's only one user who's removing huge amounts of political history (all curiously in one direction, such as to erase the history of Muslims in Tibet, of Chinese dynasties in Tibet, of British imperialism in Tibet) in the name of "undue weight", while adding hugely disproportionate coverage of minority views (such as that Tibet was "independent" circa 1950), and of the Dharamsala-based movement that has no presence in Tibet, and you may find that user in the mirror. If you genuinely want to improve coverage of the present politics in Tibet, then there's a much-needed article about the Tibetan People's Congress in Lhasa waiting to be written. Quigley (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with this completely. Such frivolous claims can not be made and outrageous conditions can not be put forth for anything. The user himself can not talk of what Dalai Lama Govt should do, what part of India can be considered how and then only something else can be moved a little further ahead. I would like to escalate this matter, report this behavior and would want the user to desist from such behavior. I don't think that independent sources can be brushed aside and people working on Tibet can be singled out in absence of ethnic Tibetans. This behavior is discouraging and biased and should be dealt with firmly. Please mention how is the view of the mentioned editor is minority view as claimed in the absence of Ethnic Tibetans. Such wild claims should not be entertained. About religious violence in India, how is the Indian Govt come into picture, what is the connection.Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, this matter needs a de-escalation, not an escalation. First of all, please stop talking about the ethnicity of editors. Secondly, it is simply not the case that "independent sources are being brushed aside", or as you said above, that "only Chinese sources are accurate and not others". In fact, the sources that are given the most weight on this article are high-quality scholarly sources by respected historians and Tibetologists, and not advocacy material from human rights or Tibetan independence groups like the International Campaign for Tibet or the International Commission of Jurists, both of which you have tried to insert. Regarding the 1 million deaths meme inserted by UplinkAnsh, see this excursion by historian Patrick French. Quigley (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Where have I mentioned ethnicity of editors present please explain and stop accusing me. On Wikipedia is it usual for Tibet to have ethnic Tibetans absent and editing content? International Commission of Jurists where have I inserted, I was asking opinion whether it is reliable and how is this source an advocacy source? It is an independence source its independence should not be ignored.Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
First sentence of the article: "The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization." Its agenda, concomitant with other human rights organizations, is to browbeat states over alleged abuses rather than to meticulously document history; this organization with a legal stick. The article reveals other problematic details, like its CIA funding and anti-Soviet founding purpose. I addressed which sources are the best in multiple posts above, and the ethnicity issue in my last post. Quigley (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Let us discuss all points of contention in a systematic manner.
I have removed text from the history section because the article is the main article for Tibet and not History of Tibet. Moreover, we need to make space for sections of politics, ecology, education and life in Tibet under China as other wikipedia articles about any region contain these sections.
Don't try to retain Chinese history in this article unless Chinese actions directly affected Tibet. ie China's engagement in WW2 cannot be placed here.
The hatnote should not suggest the article can only contain economy and culture. There are separate articles for these. The world in general recognizes Tibet as Tibet and not TAR. This is therefore the primary article for Tibet and thus must constitute of an overview on Tibet. TAR could however continue to be the main administrative article.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The 1 m data is obtained form UNHCR and not form private ICJ and is thus highly reliable and neutral. It very important to present "Life in Tibet" as you say, under China. I would certainly escalate the matter if it is removed in attempts to censor it and not given due weight.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is not about "Tibet under [the People's Republic of] China"; it's about "Tibet", the historical ethno-cultural region with millenia of history. And saying that it is an ethno-cultural region (because it is; unless you are speaking about the political entity, which is TAR) does not imply that "the article can only contain economy and culture". As has been repeatedly pointed out by multiple editors, articles that discuss historical ethno-cultural regions, such as China, necessarily cover a different set of topics than a political entity like Moldova. To say that "the world in general recognizes Tibet as Tibet and not TAR" is incorrect, because Tibet is the short name for TAR and the world and some Tibetologists use "Tibet" and TAR interchangeably, as the TGIE uses "Tibet" and Greater Tibet interchangeably, and as ethnologists and some Tibetologists use "Tibet" and "the historical ethno-cultural region of Tibet" interchangeably; which, by the way, is the use of Tibet in this article.
And it doesn't matter who repeats the 1m figure; Epoch Times or UNHCR, because the figure is obtained from the exile government, which as I pointed out through the French reference above, is a fabricated figure without documentary evidence. Your threats of "escalation" and screams of censorship are uncivil and likely to backfire; for you are the one who has been makinghugechangeswithout discussion and then aggressivelyreverting other editors' attempts to restore some standards to this article. Quigley (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think if the 1 million figure has been repeated by the UN then per WP:V we have to include it. However there is no reason we cannot include a lower estimate as well. Though until such data is found I think saying "up to one million" would be reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, taking a closer look, it's not the UNHCR's material; UNHCR is just hosting the text of Minority Rights Group International (an advocacy group) on its webpage. Furthermore, the actual text from MRGI says something different from what UplinkAnsh writes; MRGI says "The Great Leap Forward period (during which anywhere between 200,000 and 1 million Tibetans may have died)". (and MGRI provides no citation, though it's reasonable to assume because of media proliferation that that is the exile government's figure). UplinkAnsh writes in contrast "It is estimated 1 million Tibetans, approximately one-fifth of the population have been killed since China invaded Tibet," which is problematic for so many reasons, not least because of the questionable figure (what is the methodology?) the assumptions about the population (what is the total "population of Tibet", how is Tibet defined, and how was this figured in the absence of a reliable census?) and the POV implications ("have been killed" by whom? the CTA figure, in addition to having huge duplication and methodological errors detailed by French (thousands added just because a refugee said it despite no proof, exaggeration of documented battle deaths, and claiming that almost no females died among the million), they include such causes as "suicide"). Total trash. Quigley (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the 1 m figure, I could place more reliable references but that would led to unnecessary citations overkill which I want to avoid.
"Tibet is the short name for TAR", this might be what your original research concludes but it is true most of the world population outside might never have heard about TAR and recognizes Tibet in order to acknowledge that region. I don't want want to present statistics but those who are not convinced can go through Google Scholar, Google search result, page views, etc and you surely would find a huge disparity in how much they are recognized.
You should also realize that the discussion is not about whether Tibet or TAR is the primary topic but rather what should the main article contain. I have already stated TAR could be the main administrative article about Tibet. However, no region can be considered pure ethno-cultural region as you are suggesting, since every region in the world consists on education, politics, ecology, etc. Even your example Moldova consists of all these sections including separate sections for Administration and Politics. If you want an article that only presents "millenia of history" of Tibet please do it on the History of Tibet article.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The 1m figure is a flawed figure and a falsehood, as has been discussed before. If you had 100 different sources, including from "reliable" newspapers, that referenced Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent study connecting vaccines to autism, then you still would not be able to present the viewpoint that vaccines cause autism as reliable because despite the facade of multiple sources, they all trace back to Wakefield, who did a flawed study.
And I didn't say that "Tibet is the short name for TAR"; I said that it is often used in this way, and this is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the region, attested to in many sources also. The only reason we have a separate article for Tibet Autonomous Region on Wikipedia is because "Tibet" also refers to the broader ethno-cultural region, and Wikipedia editors decided long ago that the ethno-cultural region would be the primary topic. Otherwise, Tibet Autonomous Region would be simply titled Tibet, exactly as Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region is simply titled Guangxi. Also, you completely misunderstood my example, because Moldova was cited as an example of a polity; a state; NOT a region. This article is more analogous to the Wikipedia article at China, which I was contrasting Moldova to, because China does not have an exact territorial extent or uncontroversial polity associated with it. Quigley (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you stating UNHCR is a very gullible organization and easily places flawed data form fraudulent organizations on it's site??? Cool.
Look, primary topic must always have all basic details about any region. In case of China "People's Republic of China" seems to be the primary article and contains history, politics, etc sections, while the article "China" is about civilisation and is a sort of subset of the former. Here Tibet being the primary article should contain overview of all sections, while TAR could concentrate on administration, history could be included in History of Tibet, etc.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
We need to have a reliable source that defines what exactly the Free Tibet movement entails. Most writers who refer to it don't define it, so I worry that it might be an amorphous political slogan. If, however, we can get a reliable source calling it an amorphous political slogan, then that's fine too! Quigley (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The definition, "the movement for for a significantly autonomous or fully independent Tibet", is spot on, and that source has an admirable historical outline and perspective that is lacking on the current Tibetan independence movement article. You can start the move request or I will. The only objection I can anticipate, in response to HXL49, is that the title "Free Tibet movement" is not neutral, but I consider that invalid for the same reasons that I don't consider the objection to the title Great Leap Forward on the grounds that the GLF is not really a "great leap forward" to be valid. Free Tibet is of course to be capitalized in its usage, because it is a proper name and not our own description. Quigley (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Free Tibet movement" implies that the Tibet of today is not free (free as in "freedom", and not "free beer"), and hence is not NPOV. "Tibetan independence movement" makes no dubious implications, as it is well-known that there are people out there that advocate independence. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail13:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
My advice to you, Benli, is not to take Reference Desker seriously, and Quigley, I probably will not get to participating in a move discussion for a while, seeing that I am involved in Township translations, and trying to avoid major discussions. --HXL's RoundtableandRecord13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
HXL you are flouting rules to civility buy stating the editors that do not agree with you need not be taken seriously. I would request you to follow Wikipedia etiquette on talk page.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
and UplinkAnsh you are flouting standards for intelligence (and civility) by assuming that I believe any editor who disagrees with me is not to be taken seriously. I doubt Greg agrees with me all the time, and he has fewer edits than ReferenceDesker, but I have far more respect for him. --–HXL's RoundtableandRecord13:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest it is better to let Wikipedia community(without majority/minority number game) decide who all are to be taken seriously.Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Inviting Wikipedia community members to give opinion about me - whether my contributions & discussions could be taken seriously and how much. Thanks.सततम् कर्यम् समकर कर्म I असक्तॊ ही अकरण कर्म 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
Hatnotes and titles
Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion
I think it would be POV to not link to the Tibetan autonomous region in China, or to refer to the Yuan and Qing dynasties as Mongol and Manchu in the section title seems rather odd - I've never seen them referred as such in museums around the world. Both of them are imperial Chinese dynasties, regardless of their roots. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Dynasties which are not of Tibetan roots should clearly be mentioned. Egypt article for example clearly states Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt and Arab and Ottoman Egypt sections to mention the time when Egypt was ruled by non-Egyptian dynasties. Also see the discussion above.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Given Tibet has been fairly well integrated with China for hundreds of years I don't think the additional qualification is needed. However if additional qualification is needed then they should be called the Chinese Qing dynasty and the Chinese Yuan dynasty. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yuan was a Mongolian dynasty and Qing dynasty was a Chinese Manchu dynasty exactly as stated before. There is a difference between Mongolia and China. Just like Egypt, Tibet was under foreign rule during certain durations of it's history, but this was for a limited amount of time and the foreign rule was not necessaryly Chinese. As shown here, Tibet was not integrated with China for hundreds of years .--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Those dynasties had those roots, but primarily they are imperial Chinese dynasties who had their capitals located in Beijing. What it looks like when you call the Yuan dynasty Mongolian and the Qing dynasty Manchu is that Tibet wasn't ruled by the Chinese when it was controlled by the Yuan and Qing dynasties, which is dishonest and incorrect.
As Tibet was definitely integrated with China during the Yuan dynasty, during the Qing dynasty and since 1950, I think it has been controlled by China for hundreds of years - admittedly not necessarily continuous as Chinese control of Tibet during the Ming dynasty is much more debatable and is less clear - there's a nice featured article on that topic - Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
During Yuan period Tibet was not integrated to China but rather China and Tibet were integrated to Mongolia. Yuan dynasty was created by Kublai Khan who was a decedent Genghis Khan and continued his Mongolian Empire in China and included Tibet. If Alexander made Babylon his capital, then this does not make him and his empire Arabian.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Also if you are implying a century of foreign rule makes a country into a different country then you are wrong. Had that been the case northern China would long have become Mongolia and India would have become Britain. Beyond a century or two Tibet has remained independent of China for 2 millenniums. The article and multiple references on Mongol Invasion article state Yuan to be Mongolian. So, I an placing Mongolian and Chinese Machu before Yuan and Qing.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Territories occupied by different dynasties as well as modern political states throughout the history of China.
The figure clearly shows Tibet was not ruled by Ming dynasty. No need to add Chinese history on Tibetan page unless it includes Tibet directly. Foreign relations should not me mentioned in history section.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If you read the Ming and Tibet article, which is an FA and thus has been extensively checked for NPOV, the exact status of Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is "uncertain", now that doesn't mean that it is necessarily incorrect that Tibet was definitely part of China during the Ming dynasty, but as its "uncertain" to maintain NPOV we have to mention the possibility - otherwise this article isn't neutral. Neutrality is a core policy, and while you are entitled to your point of view there is an alternative point of view, and that must be given due weight.
On the name it is not obvious that Tibet isn't an integral part of modern China. Adding qualifiers in front of all the Chinese dynasty names is pushing the point of view that Tibet isn't part of China, and that it was ruled by lots of different powers. If we just call them by their dynasty names then we aren't implying whether Tibet is or isn't an integral part of China, saying it was ruled by the Yuan dynasty or the Qing dynasty isn't going to confuse anyone and it doesn't push the point of view as to whether Tibet is an integral part of China or not as you could quite legitimately use just the dynasty name anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
All those maps prove is that maps (especially on Wikipedia) are deceptive and oversimplify things. While the British Empire has red all over British India on the Wikipedia map, including the princely states over which it had suzerainty, the Ming Dynasty has Tibet over which it had at least suzerainty in different colors on its Wikipedia map. The divergence is not the cause of some essential historical difference in the rules of the Raj and the Ming, but rather in attitudes towards Tibet today; i.e. the revisionism of people who believe that Tibet should not be a part of China and so deny that Tibet was ever ruled by China by applying double standards in mapmaking. Quigley (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we should say "Mongol Yuan Empire", because Tibet was conquered by Mongols before the Yuan Dynasty was declared. What's more, the period before the Yuan was a big part (about 25%) of the total period of Mongol dominance. For the Qing, I think we should just say "Qing Empire", because it was consistently called the Qing during that entire period.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that Qing Dynasty is fine, because we have the Phagmodrupa Dynasty. "Empire" in the case of the Qing would be a POV term that creates distance between China and Tibet (just as "Manchu" tries to create distance between the Qing and China). Quigley (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The relatonship of Qing to Tibet is different from that of the Phagmodrupa to Tibet, though. Phagmodru is a Tibetan dynasty that ruled a Tibetan state. Qing is a Manchu-Chinese dynasty that included Tibet as part of its empire.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think Qing Dynasty is better as well to be honest, but Qing Empire is definitely better than the current text. I'm happy to go for Mongol and Yuan Dynasty or something similar for the Yuan Dynasties title, Greg makes a good point there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Greg Pandatshang and his explanation however the origin of Qing Dynasty or Empire should be clearly states in the initial lines of the section to enable readers to know it was a non Tibetan dynasty. Presently, it is not stated anywhere in the section.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The title suggested by HXL49 could also be used, however the one by Quigley would be better.I am doubtful about the importance of the word Manchu in defining the origins of Qing. All historical sources and even the article about Qing Dynasty stress on Manchu. Should we combine them like suggested by Greg, something like "Manchu-Chinese"?--UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If you have a source calling the Qing Manchu in the title - and not talking about the origins then we could possibly include it in the title. Even then I think it would make the title too long. Including something about the Qing dynasty being Chinese and even Manchurian in the content section sounds reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought that it was accepted by all that Mongol Yuan would be used and the origins of Qing would be mentioned in the section.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Be careful in your edit summaries, lackie. My editing to Tibet-related articles mostly corrects usage of "China's" and "Chinese" and only obvious violations of NPOV. You can continue to talk about what little you know about, in effect exposing your shortcomings. –HXL's RoundtableandRecord14:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
^ Franke, H. 1981. Tibetans in Yuan China. - In: China Under Mongol Rule. Princeton.
^ Kychanov, E.I. and Melnichenko, B.N. 2005. 'Istoriya Tibeta s Drevnikh Vremen do Nashikh Dnei [The History of Tibet from Ancient Times to the Present Days]. Moscow: Russian Acad. Sci. Publ.
^Smith, W.W. 1997. 'Tibetan Nation. A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations'. Boulder: Westview.
