Talk:Tibet/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

History section

The history section is incomplete and must include Rinpungpa Dynasty and Tsangpa Dynasty which ruled considerable parts of Tibet between 1435-1642 even though the Phagmodrupa Dynasty ruled the rest of Tibet form 1354 to 17th century.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And it also needs to mention the Ming Dynasty and their possible control of Tibet at that time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not find any source Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet stating Ming directly ruled over Tibet. Rather most of the sources there state otherwise and the debate is about the amount of influence it wielded over the rest of the dynasties which directly ruled over Tibet. I find Tibet during the Ming Dynasty too complex for my understanding and I would be unable to comment on it. However from what I get there is a reason the article is titled Tibet during the Ming Dynasty and not Tibet under the Ming Dynasty.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And the British didn't rule the whole of India - the thing is they had influence, and that point of view has to be included as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if British had 'influenced' or 'Ruled' India, a fact is that Indian soldiers still fought for the British across Asia and beyond on one side and the Japanese on the other side.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And if you said Tibet under the Ming Dynasty that would be making the claim that Tibet wasn't independent, which as it was uncertain wouldn't be acceptable - during leaves it ambiguous and neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said I found no source on Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet clearly saying Ming ruled Tibet and the debate only consists of the amount of "influence it wielded over the rest of the dynasties". On the page Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet only one non-English Chinese reference remotely claim that "itinerant commanderies overseeing Tibetan administration". It must be noted even that purely non-English Chinese reference that must not have been placed on English wikipedia does not say that the Chinese commanderies administered Tibet themselves while clearly stating they were itinerant and did not possess any main HQ of administration office. All the other references counter the claim in different ways. The section goes on to state a Mongol-Tibetan alliance was formed, something that can only be formed between 2 separate nations. I don't where is the doubt except in the minds of some editors that could read Chinese sources written in Chinese on English wikipedia.

95% of the sources on Tibet_during_the_Ming_Dynasty say the same thing and ones hinting the opposite(all of which are Chinese) do not absolutely and clearly state Ming directly ruled Tibet and instead say that Ming had influence over dynasties that ruled Tibet. I would like to mention here, that even according to WP:FRINGE and administrators on WP:FTN along with my experience a fringe theory can be added if there around 4-5 highly reliable references all of whom should clearly state the fringe theory with possibly neutral descriptions of claims. I however think this is clearly a case of WP:COATRACK--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I just think this article should say the same thing that the Featured article does, but I'm prepared not to push this point too much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions, neither of you have presented a single source on here, and UplinkAsh especially is too content on touting his minimal knowledge of policy. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear before I'm content not to include this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further NPOV issues

From the lead "In 1950, the newly established Communist China led by Mao Zedong invaded independent Tibet claiming it to be a part of China.[2] Today, most of cultural Tibet is ruled as autonomous areas by the People's Republic of China, while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama represents itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet with a Tibetan independence movement active throughout the world."

Firstly given it is impossible to invade your own sovereign territory the claim that Mao invaded Tibet is POV as it strongly implies that Tibet wasn't Chinese sovereign territory. Probably saying something like "Mao's troops entered Tibet" would be better, the use of the word invaded also needs changing further down the article as well.

Secondly the exiled Central Tibetan Administrator only claims to be the only legitimate government we shouldn't take its claims too seriously which the current text appears to. I think "while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama claims itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet" is better.

Finally given the Tibetan independence movement isn't at all supported in the rest of China (which makes up a good chunk of the world's population), that it is entirely unrecognised by the world's governments and that most of the world's population probably doesn't give a damn about Tibet either way I think the statement "with a Tibetan independence movement active throughout the world." should be removed entirely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Revisions 1 and 2. Not so sure about the last one, as the movement is still significant, yet we don't want to attract WP:UNDUE weight on it. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the independence movement still significant, even outside of Tibet? I would say no, because for the last few decades, the exile government and lackey advocacy groups have been saying that it's okay for Chinese rule to continue and that they just want more autonomy. The CTA-as-government-of-Tibet is fringe beyond fringe; no government recognizes CTA rule over Tibet instead of China's. I support both changes with no prejudice towards further cleanup. Quigley (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should say "independence/autonomy" movement? Wikipedia has an article titled Tibetan independence movement, but maybe that should move, since some activists argue for independence while other pretty closely associated activists do not.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The movement seems pretty centralized around the dictates of the Dalai Lama, and the full independence people like the Tibetan Youth Congress have been marginalized and treated as radicals as of late. I was thinking of moving that article to "Free Tibet movement", which is vague enough to incorporate both independence and autonomy desires. Quigley (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made changes along the lines discussed here to Tibet Autonomous Region. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the word "invasion of Tibet" should be changed. It is exactly the word used to described by the media groups and other reliable sources to describe Chinese aggression in Tibet except Chinese media which calls it as "Liberation"

Secondly, no one is implying that China "invade it's own sovereign territory". The line states "China invaded independent Tibet claiming it to be a part of China". This was certainly the case as Tibet was independent before the Chinese aggression and is even mentioned in the article presently. I could include more reliable references if required and requested by other editors.

In the sentence "while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama claims itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet", the sentence was "while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama represents itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet" before the wording was changed and the grammatical error was introduced. I think the wording "represents itself" can be safely reintroduced since "represents itself" already means "claim" while implying that other countries may not recognize it.

Lastely, "with a Tibetan independence movement active throughout the world. should be removed entirely." I do not see why it should be removed if it is active, even if the rest of the world does not recognize it officially. It is equivalent to saying that all mention of Cuban rebels and Taiwan should be removed since the the rest of the world does not recognize them officially.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is Tibet was only de-facto independent before 1950 and as China had been chaotic since the end of the Qing dynasty there is a legitimate point of view that Tibet was actually sovereign Chinese territory at the time. You cannot invade your own sovereign territory, and thus the word invaded doesn't meet NPOV as it implies that Tibet was legitimately independent before 1950. Our sources don't have to meet neutrality criteria, so they can state that Tibet was invaded.

Secondly you realise that no country recognises the CTA? I would prefer that we say they are unrecognised too, but I feel that could be POV pushing the other way. The issue with "represents itself" is that it implies to me that Wikipedia thinks their claims have significant weight.

Finally as shown above the Tibetan independence movement is very fringe, so they shouldn't be included here - even the Dalai Lama only wants greater autonomy.

Fundamentally the thing you have to recognise is that on neutrality grounds we have to take the Chinese version of history seriously - and that states that China has ruled Tibet for 700 years - so we cannot write text that implies or states that we don't take that view of history seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are saying a country can only become independent by law if it takes permission form China before going independent otherwise it is illegal and de-facto?? This might the POV of Chinese government but the rest of the world and historical sources recognizes that Tibet was independent before Chinese invasion and continue to mention it as an invasion. Also the 700 rule statement only highlights your own bias and again only Chinese government has this POV. Reliable sources outside China do not support. You can mention the Chinese POV specifically stating as Chinese view but POV of the rest of the world should not be censored. You for example can say China calls it an liberation rather than invasion.

Regarding CTA the discussion is not about whether it is recognized whether it is active around the world or not and whether it has received due weight on the page. The article for Cuba for example still contain information about Cuban rebels even though their organization no longer exists. Completely removing any mention it is certainly against wikipedia policy.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but which foreign powers recognised Tibet as being independent between 1912 and 1950? To be independent you are required to be recognised by foreign powers. And did the Tibetan government even say they were independent of China during that period? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it is indeed strange why UN did not recognize Tibet then itself and why would British fight Tibetan forces but Chinese did not fight invading British, why would Tibetans not participated in WW2 in spite of Japanese invading Chinese, why would China invade Tibet in anyway after WW2, why would the Dalai Lama had to move out of Tibet to anywhere in spit of the fact that Ethnic Tibetans present no threat to China or PRC in any cultural way, why after more than 60 years after 1950 there is still a kind of silence of Ethnic Tibetans from Tibet here in Wikipedia the way we are discussing this. I would really like to have independent reliable sources to discuss all these.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would guess the reason the UN didn't recognise Tibet is that one of its founding members (the Republic of China) claimed Tibet, and that its other members didn't recognise it as being independent of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(out of line just commenting of behavior of UN) Yes I am amused how UN, again like war crimes in Sri Lanka, has to take this conditional approach of doing things only if members agree or veto etc. So at UN for Sri Lanka it seems silence is more convinient instead of work in spite of war crimes in Sri Lanka.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, you are bordering dangerously on WP:FORUM here. With your questions I don't think you were considering the events in the the rest of China during this period. Firstly, most Chinese were contending with a transition from monarchy to a republic/warlord state (answers Q1). About WWII, the Tibetans had, until 1950, minimum contact with any Chinese government, and since the Japanese failed at penetrating into areas like Sichuan and Gansu, Tibetans would not have been highly concerned. As far I see it, the PLA invaded Tibet as part of its greater "liberation" campaign of the mainland. --–HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just on a side note I would like to say that Tibetans and Indians were also dealing with the transitions. In fact Indians were dealing with much severe effects of partition, then later also absence of Industry and so on so I would say everyone was dealing with the same.Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not discussing whether Tibet was a part of China or not, with Chinese editors here, specially who have only provided only theories and personal analysis rather then references flouting WP:FORUM themselves. I could provide multiple reliable sources along with the one already present, defining the aggression as invasion. Other editors could provide sources where it is called liberation and both can be added. It must however be remembered that editors cannot themselves create or invent names for events around the world on wikipedia.

Regarding the attempts to completely censor the Tibetan independence movement, I would say this is the height of bias and POV pushing. On one hand an editor wants to add a whole section of data based on absolutely unconfirmed and doubtful events and sources that if wrong would have not affected Tibet at all and correct would at most have indirectly affected Tibet. He however wants a single line of mention absolutely conformed and live event that directly and presently effect Tibet and can be backed by multiple neutral sources to be removed. I don't see how a civil discussion is possible with such an editor. I would request the editor to tone down his bias and approach the article in a neutral and balanced manner.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any foreign power recognised Tibet as being independent, thus to say the Chinese invaded the territory breaks WP:NPOV. That is the point we are making here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no instances of unambiguous foreign powers unambiguously recognising Tibetan independence in the 20th century. There are plenty of examples of foreign powers treating Tibet ambiguously. Mongolia explicitly recognised Tibet's independence in 1913 in the Treaty of friendship and alliance, but Mongolia's own status as a sovereign power at the time was questionable. Another example is that in 1951, El Salvador raised Tibet's case before the United Nations using language that clearly seemed to assume that the military conflict was an international incident, which seems to mean that the government of El Salvador did believe Tibet was an independent country, despite the fact that El Salvador had never established diplomatic relations with Tibet. In general, the world treated Tibet as a special case between 1913 and 1951.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, why has the word annexation of Tibet has been used when no reliable source uses it. As already stated China calls it Liberation while the rest of the world calls it Invasion. Either one or both can be used but no original research should be done by editors. The following are reliable sources which call it Invasion.

• [1]

Also why has the 200k figure again, based on original research, have been added without sources and the "one-fifth of the population" statement been removed. I have already stated I could provide sources to back up both data.

I would also repeat again, the hat note should mention either only disambiguation or should state that the article is main article. This article is certainly not only about economy and culture of Tibet.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the UN website gives a range. So we should too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Manchu Qing" and Hatnote, revisited

UplinkAsh, I will allow you to explain yourself here. I am willing to discuss some of the minor wording and the hatnote (even again), but not the 1 million issue.

• "Manchu Qing" and "Mongol Yuan"

Is this really necessary? As I said in one edit summary, the Qing Dynasty is the Qing Dynasty, and the Yuan Dynasty is the Yuan Dynasty. Your versions of these two headers are both wordy, complicated (and thus confusing to the reader), and purely pushing POV and WP:POINT.

It was accepted by everyone except you. Read carefully.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Manchu Qing" certainly was not. And with Mongol Yuan, it could be said that Eraserhead does not agree with you. And...Yuan Dynasty is Yuan Dynasty. Surely we can mention the origins in the respective sections, but "Mongol Yuan" implies a POV and reinforces the viewpoint on Tibet (full) independence activists that the Yuan was not Chinese at all. Titling the section "Yuan Dynasty" does not imply much, and certainly does not 'comment' on whether it was Chinese or Mongol. In short, adding no qualification to the dynasties gives no implicit POV. That which you cannot (and refuse to) see.–HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well put. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hatnote

The purpose of linking to the TAR at the very top of this article is one, to serve as disambiguation (which you may or may not understand), and to make it (in my interpretation) especially clear to the reader that Wikipedia does not equate Tibet with TAR, at least when "Tibet" is not listed alongside other PRC province-level divisions. Same thing with China and the PRC articles. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the main article not an article for economy and culture. A link to disambiguation would be enough. This has also been discussed above.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussed, but only you seem to wish to simplify the hatnote.–HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it seems pretty likely that people would be confused between Tibet and the TAR, and it should be explicitly included in the hatnote here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

need editing of english grammar

did english changed in the last 10 years or so because I do not remember using words such as tibetan people seem to be correct. it should either be tibetans or indiginous people of tibet. please correct me if I am wrong. keep reading this article seeing worlds such as han people or hui people. should the correct terms be hans or hui muslims? {{unsigned|Eastern2western|09:40 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and change it :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding HXL49's note in my talk page, it is important to make some clarifications.

• An invasion is invasion, there is no need to call it "entering". We say Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, we do not say Nazi Germany entered the Soviet Union.

• "thousands of Tibetans were reportedly killed in the subsequent Chinese repression and most of its monasteries destroyed during the Cultural Revolution" - this sentence is sourced to BBC News. [2] BBC says,

Most of Tibet's monasteries were destroyed in the 1960s and 1970s during China's Cultural Revolution. Thousands of Tibetans are believed to have been killed during periods of repression and martial law.

Since it is an important part of Tibetan history, it should be mentioned in the lead.

• The very first paragraph of BBC entry on Tibet says

Beijing claims a centuries-old sovereignty over the Himalayan region. But the allegiances of many Tibetans lie with the exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, seen by his followers as a living god, but by China as a separatist threat.

This is why I clarified in the lead "Today, the PRC claims centuries-old sovereignty over the region and rules most of cultural Tibet as autonomous area, but many Tibetans are allied with the exiled spiritual leader Dalai Lama who says Tibet has been colonized by China."

• Tibetan Resistance Since 1950 and Tibetan independence movement plays pivotal role in Tibetan politics, so these should be mentioned in the lead. --Reference Desker (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• And regarding this edit summary, BBC is not part of the Tibetan independence movement and is a neutral third party observer. So calling what BBC reported as "extremist mods" is unacceptable. --Reference Desker (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your wording is extreme and thus unacceptable. "extremist mods" was referring to your modifications, not BBC. BBC was already in the text even before you had made these changes. You are confused. I will continue to reject your changes in whole until I find your wording remotely acceptable.

My view is to avoid anything of Tibetan history beyond 1950 in this article because that is the main task of the TAR article, and given that this is a high-traffic page, we want to avoid any disputes that would result with the inclusion of such material. Those disputes would involve addition of content to "balance" (this article is too long, should be an overview and not describe a debate) what is already present, irritating (often highly POV) changes to wording. This is why I trimmed down material on the Qingzang Railway to brief mentions of each side's view.

Also, another reason why I am not very willing to expand much on post-1950 history is that there is WP:UNDUE weight placed on what is a sliver of history compared to the immense amount of history before. We also have to bear WP:RECENT in mind, especially to avoid repeated insertions of the (2008) 03·14 Riots in the region into the lede. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Entered" is preferable to "invaded" because the sovereignty of the Dalai Lama's government was not internationally recognized at the time, and because "invasion" would imply that China and Tibet were two separate countries. The BBC uses "entered" in this way,[3][4][5][6][7][8] although it does not have a consistent way of telling the story, which is complex. And so more problematic than the terminology is the chronology. The way you wrote the lead, it implied that the PLA stormed Lhasa and took over the government, but the government did not change hands until the civilian agreement, which had little to do with the border skirmishes (that had also been happening throughout the Republic of China period). There's no way of quantifying how many Tibetans (and how many of them people in Tibet) have "allegiances" with the Dalai Lama. That word, "allegiance", is ambiguous because of the Dalai Lama's dual religious-and-governmental role; there was no poll conducted that asked people in Tibet whether they agreed that "Tibet has been colonized by China", and it is an inappropriate inference to make.

I would say that "were reportedly" and "are believed to have been killed" are separate things; "reportedly" is what you see but do not confirm, "believe" is a combination of hope, hearsay, and politics; meaning that the proper way to paraphrase that is that people believe that thousands of Tibetans were killed. With regard to the "Tibetans" supposedly killed; it would be helpful to be more specific about the demographics, because it would be misleading to say that simply "Tibetans" were killed if Tibetan anti-government guerrillas accounted for most of the deaths (or if the number of deaths came from the tall tales of people seeking refugee status). To so heavily emphasize the number of armed and airdropped aristocrats supposedly killed, monasteries supposedly destroyed, and minerals supposedly mined over say, the amazing economic progress or increase in living standards of laypeople is to follow a pretty hysterical and non-neutral historiography, and people heavily protest when China does it, so it's not hard to see why you (Reference Desker) are accused of adding bias here. Quigley (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How is century of humiliation related to protesting against when China does it?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The example wasn't China-specific. I was pointing out that every country has had periods of death, destruction, upheaval, and exploitation at some point in their history, but mainstream history is not built around collecting grievances and attributing fault to others. To portray Tibet's modern history as one of endless death, discrimination, and destruction at the hands of the Chinese (and Tibet's premodern history as one of endless piety, peace, and bliss at the hands of the laity) is POV pushing. If you couldn't see this because of your personal biases about Tibet, I was hoping that you could see the issue from another angle if you could imagine that Chinese history were written about in Wikipedia as a litany of complaints against foreigners. There are enough historical events unfortunate to China that it certainly could be done, but most editors will catch that bias and correct it if introduced. This reaction of catching the bias is what is happening to your (and UplinkAnsh's) proposed changes. It's not "censorship"; it's not politics; it's protection of the quality of the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia and not an advocacy website. Quigley (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your viewpoint personally only. This may go off track if you get century of humiliation here and two wrongs do not make a right. I think there are many views in different words for what I am saying, but for now let us not get carried away off track. I think I have an idea of what you mention as "another angle" because if you notice, Imperialism as a was in India too, and in the absence of ethnic Tibetans I would claim(may be erroneously) that it was in Tibet too (Chinese, and for a little while British before Independence of India). But these as I said, off the track commentary, and may fork the discussion..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And there now appears to be some further content dispute over the lead. What's wrong with the current version? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

too confusing needs simplification

In the 1950s, the People's Liberation Army of the newly established People's Republic of China (PRC), led by Mao Zedong, entered the region as part of his campaign to reunify China and negotiated an agreement to establish PRC governance in the area the statement has too much redudant information.1) there is 1 PLA in the world and there is no pt of clarifing it as pla of the newly estalished prc.2)the country was officially led by the communist party and mao was the chairman, just mentioning probably PLA was just enough 3) do not need to mention newly estalished PRC because every one in china probably (1/4 of the world's population) knows that PRC was estalished in 1949. This sentence should be simplified down to some thing like: In the 1950s, the newly estalished PRC sent its troops (was not the PLA) to Tibet, as part of its campaign to fortify its political control of Chna, and estalish administartive control of the region. However, its entrance entrance into the region eventually cause the abolisment of the previous political entities and the exit of the 14th Dalai Lama in 1959. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern2western (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

bon is the actual title for the tibetans.

the origin of the name tibet came from the original title of tubo and it means the land of the bod. the tibetans in tibet perfer to call them selfs bo ren (bod people, it does not have an english word for it because tibetans is currently used by the rest of the world). thus using the title of indiginous bons is much better title than tibetans because tibetans could also be refer to as the residents of tibet (californians) which could be any body who live in the land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern2western (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did you hear this? I'm afraid it is not correct.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead again

User:Eastern2western has made a series of changes to the intro over the last few days. I have mostly reverted them. The worst part was the second sentence of the article's first paragraph, which was changed from "It is home to the Tibetan people, and to some other ethnic groups such as Monpas and Lhobas, and is inhabited by considerable numbers of Han and Hui people to Historically speaking, it has been the traditional homeland of the indigenous Bons. However, other different ethnic groups such as Monpas, Lhoba, Han and Hui have also inhabited the region. While the native Bon religion for a time was very influential, the current dominant religion is Tibetan Lamaism."

• "Historically speaking," is unnecessary and has an unencylopedic tone.
• What heck is an indigenous Bon? This apparently attempts to refer to the Tibetan people, but I have never seen them referred to by this name.
• It doesn't make sense to put local indigenous groups such as Monpa and Lhoba on par with recent migrants such as Han and Hui when "traditional homeland" is the point of the sentence. Actually, I don't really like having "Lhoba" in this sentenc at all, since that is not a very meaningful groupings.
• I kept the change from "home" to "homeland".
• I added Qiang to the list of "such as" other indigenous groups. Tibetans and Qiang have lived cheek-to-jowl in the eastern part of the plateau for 1,000+ years.
• I don't think the mention of religion is necessary this early, and the term "lamaism" is deprecated.
• The redactor later on adds the wording "it is considered to be the highest region" instead of just "highest region", which is a redundant change.
• Finding neither version very satisfactory, I re-wrote the summary of history in the second paragraph. Here is my version:

Tibet emerged in the 7th century as a unified empire, but it soon divided into a variety of territories. The bulk of western and central Tibet were often at least nominally unified under a series of Tibetan governments in Lhasa, Shigatse, or nearby locations; these governments were at various times under Mongol and Chinese overlordship. The eastern regions of Kham and Amdo often maintained a more decentralized indigenous political structure, being divided among a number of small principalities and tribal groups, while also often falling more directly under Chinese rule; most of this area was eventually incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan and Qinghai. In 1951, following a military conflict, Tibet was incorporated into the newly established People's Republic of China and the previous Tibetan government was abolished in 1959. Today, the PRC governs western and central Tibet as the Tibet Autonomous Region while eastern areas are mostly within Sichuan and Qinghai provinces. There are tensions regarding Tibet's political status and dissident groups are active in exile..

• I didn't find it necessary to mention the Cultural Revolution, etc. in such a brief survey of history.
• Briefly describing the current tensions in a neutral fashion is very tricky. I gave it a shot.
• I moved the map higher up on the page. I think it's better if that is visible sooner.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I mentioned the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in the lede to slightly appease some of the POV pushers here; also to set a limit to the mention of modern history...I reasoned anything greater could provoke insertions of the number of deaths or stupid edit wars. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

first and host is the word tibetans because it is used as in the west as residents of tibet and that could be almost any group. in chinese articles, the older term for tibetans should be bons because the original name for tibet is derived from chinese pronounciation of tubo, which means the land of the bons. the indiginous religion of tibet is actually bon religion, which is basically referring to as religion of the bon. the term of tibetan buddhism itself has its controversy because it is a relatively new term that is created recently. the more traditional term is tibetan lamaism because tibetan lamaism has beliefs that are completely different from buddhist traditions that are practiced in countries such as japan and china.for example, the whole concept of a living god is rarely practice in traditional buddhism because a god is neither living or dead. using the term lamaism is much more pc than buddhism, even the official title of dalai lama has the word lama in it, not monk.a traditional lama temple in tibet looks very different from a traditional buddhist temple in china. 2nd problem I have with the new revision is how you mention the difference between eastern and western tibet because those areas are actually controlled by three different countries through history. in 1905, the british created the similac line which incorporated a huge region of the western tibet into indian territories and it was the major cause of the 1963 indian china conflict. another thing is when you mention the history of tibet, but some how you never even refer to the fact that the internal divisions were the results of both secular and religious groups personally, I believe this article should be completely eliminated because it carries a lot of repitive information that is already covered in other parts of wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern2western (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am not aware of any convention that "Tibetan" in context always means anyone who lives in Tibet ... of course, in could mean that if it is clear from context, but it is very often used to the ethnic Tibetan people (bhöpa, bhöpa, or bhörik in Tibetan). The connection, if any, between the terms bon, bod, and tǔfān or tǔbō is obscure and much debated, but one thing I am reasonably certain of is that bod does not derive from tǔbō. As you are perhaps not aware, according to its own traditions, Bön is itself an import to Tibet from Zhangzhung. You seem to have gotten hold of some questionable sources on this subject.

in english, adding an into the end of a regional name is referring to the residents of the region. for example, californians mean people from california. the way tibetans is use in the paragraph can mean any group who has lived in tibet. yes bon, or bod is a very term that is rarelly use by the westerners. but it is a traditional name for the tibetans. in tibet, the natives perfer to call them selfs bons instead of the chinese term zang zu and that is the major reason why wylie for tibet is bod instead of the xizang of tibetan. the religion of bon is the native religion of tibet that is completely different from the traditional buddhism from india. when buddhism was introduced into tibet, millions of bon prationers were killed to eliminate the religion.

It's not necessarily the case that the -an signifies merely a resident. The term "Hawaiian" is usually used to mean an indigenous Hawaiian, rather than a person of immigrant extraction. I wouldn't become a Korean if I lived in Korea.

The facts you present are incorrect and contradictory. If Tibetans call themselves Bons, why is it spelled Bod?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, it is very confusing because latinization of an asian language can go through numerous changes depending on the system of pronounciation. for example, the family name of liu in china can have different english spellings such as lau, lowe, low, lu etc and that is really normal.even it is much more complicated when you are talking about a language (tibetan) which has recently adapted its names to european standards. by simply just using the word tibetan, you are referring to any one who either live in tibet(residents of tibet) or who were born in tibet. the word hawaiian is only used for native hawaiians because the native hawaiians are broken into different tribe names such as samoans (do not remember the others). calling the whole tibetan plateau was the home of the tibetans was really hard to access because the areas of tibetan plateau have always been accessible to many different groups. 2nd thing is it is not necessary to mention other minority groups such as qiang, or bhopa when it is clearly stated in other article that those people are part of the so call native tibetans because those divisions were created recentlly by the communist regime. from 1911-1949, the nationalist government only regonized five nationalities in china and they are the tibetans (zang zu), hans (han zu), mongolians, manchurians and huis (not sure if I am right). it is after the communist took over, that it became like 56 minorities.

The term "Hawaiian" being (in theory) reserved for Native Hawaiians is an exception to the rule of normal English language usage. You would be a Californian if you moved to California, even if you are not of a Native American tribe of California. Debito Arudou is a Japanese even though he is not a Yamato Japanese. You would also be an American if you resided in America, even if you weren't a Native American. We may use the term Tibetan in the way of the common dictionary definition: "of or pertaining to Tibet, its inhabitants, or their language." Those people in Tibet who do not have any other overriding ethnic affiliation may be called ethnic Tibetans, which is just as precise but not so much original research as "bons". Quigley (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Naturally, Tibetan Buddhism has elements that are not found in East Asian Buddhism, just as both have elements that are not found in Thai Buddhism, which has its own unique elements. It seems quite chauvinistic to conclude that the Tibetan variant is not really Buddhism but the Chinese version is. Regardless, the term lamaism in English is definitely considered antiquated at best and offensive at worst, so I think it's use should definitely be deprecated. Naturally, the word lama is not offensive (just as Mohammedanism is an antiquated or offensive term for Islam, but this does not mean that the name Muhammad is offensive).
• So-called South Tibet (actually Monyul plus a bunch of aboriginal land that has little to do with Tibet) is not really in western Tibet, it's south of central Tibet. And it is not really a huge area; in particular, the portion of it around Tawang that is actually inhabited by people who have anything to do with Tibet is quite small.

first thing is the article is about the complete tibetan plateau, then why should you ignore the lands that are part of the plateau but it was politically incorporated into india.

It's not really about the plateau, it's about the places where Tibetans traditionally live. Ironically, the Chinese government doesn't really consider hardly any of the people of "South Tibet" to be ethnic Tibetans (藏族) — they are mostly Monpa or "Lhoba". In any event, the status of the culturally Tibetanoid areas outside of the PRC is ambiguous in this article. Almost everyone tends to arbitrarily exclude Tibetic areas which outside of the Lhasa regime's control to the south and west from the definition of Tibet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I completelly disagree with you because china consider the that area to be part of tibet and that was the reason they fough a war with india over that land and they never formally accepted the division line that was made by the british in 1905. It is all due to the fact that you made changes into th article about east and west tibet which makes it necessary for you to also include a description about the political situation in southern tibet. an introduction(a header) should be about a brief description and not necessarily have very precise (east, west tibet?) the first line of the article clearly describes tibet as referring to the tibetan plateau which requires you to describe the different political divisions in the history of tibet. another problem with your header is how you use the word chinese because chinese is a relativelly western term. historically speaking, china organized its ruling governments by dynasties (han, zhou, yuan etc). in one of the sentences, it stated like tibet was rule by yuan and chinese government. a much more correct way of saing it should be it was rule by yuan and ching dynasties. personally, this article is better off without the political parts and just concentrate on the cultural and traditions simply because there are plenty of articles that covered the historical and political developments of tibet in wiki.

• There is a serious concern for concision in the lead, which is why I took out the sentence about secular and religious leaders struggling. I'd like it to be very brisk. Currently, it doesn't even mention the Dalai Lamas!
• I certainly don't agree with deleting this article. We need a top-level Tibet survey article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

first I believe the article should simply just be about the cultures of tibet (food, religion, area etc) and leave the political and historical parts out of it because those parts have been covered into other articles in wiki. the major problem with the historical and political content is that they are too complicated and too argumentative and getting a very neutral source is relativelly impossible.

Political dispute per the lead

Quigley edited the end of the second paragraph from "There are tensions regarding Tibet's political status and dissident groups are active in exile." to "Dissident groups active in exile have agitated for a change in Tibet's political status." I have reverted this change. It is obviously not the case that there is no opposition to the current government inside Tibet, although its extent is very difficult to measure. "Tensions" is quite vague, but it was the most neutral description I thought of.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My change did not imply that there is no opposition to the current government inside Tibet, but that exile groups are the driving force behind the independence or autonomy movement, which is true. "Tensions" is vague and euphemistic, reminiscent of the use of "troubles" for Northern Ireland, implying that there is some non-stop bloody insurgency. When the Chinese government is asked to negotiate with some native leader in Tibet over Tibet's political status, rather than with the Dalai Lama in exile, then that original sentence (about native "tensions") would be a fair description. But for now, the exiles are central in not only in international pressure, but in penetration into Tibet itself (whether to stoke dissent or to provide uncensored information is dependent on your point of view). Quigley (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think exile groups are the driving force behind the independence or autonomy movement. What is your source for that? I don't think that "tensions" implies there is a non-stop bloody insurgency. "Tensions" usually means a situation where nothing active is happening. How does it matter who foreign leaders have asked Beijing to negotiate with? I'm not aware of a realistic alternative involving a resident of Tibet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tubote

Quigley also edited the end of the passage on Chinese names for Tibet from "American Tibetologist Elliot Sperling has argued in favor of a recent tendency by some authors writing in Chinese to revive the term Túbótè (simplified Chinese: 图伯特; traditional Chinese: 圖伯特) for modern use in place of Xīzàng. This usage emphasizes the sense of Tibet as including the entire Tibetan plateau rather than simply the Tibet Autonomous Region" to "American Tibetologist Elliot Sperling has argued in favor of a recent tendency by some dissidents writing in Chinese to revive the term Túbótè (simplified Chinese: 图伯特; traditional Chinese: 圖伯特) for modern use in place of Xīzàng. This usage redefines Tibet from customary Chinese language usage to encompass the entire Tibetan plateau rather than simply the Tibet Autonomous Region." I reverted the change to the first sentence and modified the second two ", on the grounds that Túbótè more clearly includes the entire Tibetan plateau rather than simply the Tibet Autonomous Region." Nothing in the source indicates that the modern use of Túbótè is limited to dissidents. For one thing, he points out that many of the writers using this term are from Taiwan, so it's not clear exactly what we are saying they are dissenting against. Regarding the second sentence, changing from one term to another does not redefine the first term. Actually, Sperling is endorsing the switch to Túbótè instead of fighting over the meaning of Xīzàng.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My use of dissidents is based on Sperling's saying "There is obviously something a bit subversive in this". The intention behind the change is definitely political; central to his argument for Tubote is that "The entire vocabulary of nationalities and nationality terms in the PRC is imbued with a conscious political element of control by definition". That the writers are from Taiwan makes it even more clear what they are dissenting against: the sovereign right of the PRC government to demarcate its own territory. Your wording that Tubote "more clearly includes the entire... plateau" implies that Xizang is ambiguous, which it is not in modern times (Sperling said it was "rigid"), and that Tubote is clearer, when Tubote is actually more vague. The aim of the linguistic campaign is, as I wrote, to redefine Tibet (English word, not Xizang) in customary Chinese language usage to encompass much more territory. Sperling affirms this by comparing the Tubote idea to "the transformation of the name for a small region... into the name for a much larger area" and not "reject[ing] the politicized Tubo, which is essentially dogma in the PRC, but... finess[ing] it". Quigley (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very important point, so it almost seems like a waste to spend time discussing it. I wouldn't mind taking the whole passage out. As for dissidents, there are lots of people in Taiwan who do support the sovereign right of China to demarcate its own territory. But I will go along with you on "dissidents". I'm not convinced that they are or are not dissidents, but Sperling does think they are doing at least one subversive thing.

I think that Xīzàng is ambiguous. I notice that the CTA's Chinese-language site is called 西藏之页 (Xīzàng zhi yè) and they certainly promote themselves as the representatives of the entire Tibetan region. Sperling's arguments that it is unambiguous don't seem to me to hold together very well. He himself points out that, in the 1930s, PLA soldiers referred to Tibetans living outside of political Tibet as Xīzàngrén, and he does not demonstrate that usage has thoroughly changed since then. However, I could be totally incorrect about this and I don't think it's a very important point. We could say something like "it refers to the entire plateau instead of simply the TAR" rather than saying "more clearly".

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the goal is to redefine an English word in its customary Chinese language usage. Naturally, customary Chinese language usage is to use Chinese words, not English words. I think the ultimate goal is to promote one idea to replace another, viz something like “藏人的传统地域是所有藏族传统住的地方。” ("the traditional land of the Tibetans is all the lands where they traditionally live") vs. “藏人的传统地域是西藏自治区。” ("the traditional land of the Tibetans is the TAR"). We're talking about two different Chinese words with two different meanings, so it's not a question of one being redefined.

The two passages you quote from Sperling ("the transformation of the name ..." and "reject[ing] the politicized Tubo ...") in context appear to have nothing to do with this topic. I think you have misunderstood them.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

border issue

It is the traditional homeland of the Tibetan people as well as some other ethnic groups such as Monpas, Qiang, and Lhobas, and is inhabited by considerable numbers of Han and Hui people

1) what is the exact definition of tibetan people? here is my first problem with this sentence. if tibetan people is defined as the indiginous population of the tibetan plateau, then should it also include other ethnic groups such as Monpas, Qiang, and Lhobas. Before PRC, the ROC defined tibetans as just the indiginous groups from the tibetan region and does not define other ethnic groups from that region with different names. the whole 56 minorities definition is a product of prc. according to the first part of the sentence, it appears to me that the original writer excluded other indiginous groups such as Monpas, Qiang and Lhobas from the indiginous populations of tibet. however, one part of wiki describes those groups as the indiginous populations of the region. for example, american english uses native americans to describe indiginous population of america but there are also different tribal groups under the title of native americans but they are not excluded from the native american group simply because they have different tribal names.

2) problem is describing the immigrant groups of the tibetan plateau. if we are talking about the whole tibetan plateau, then only god knows how many different groups have been living in this region. How come we can not include immigrant groups from other regions such as nepal, mongolia, india and china. it is obvious that these neighborring regions have been interacting with each other for centuries and those so call immigrants are also a very significant group of the population in tibet.

3) this sentence has certain level of pan-dalai lama political message with in it. one of the pts of the dalai lama middle-way plan is demanding tibetans for tibetans and all other none-tibetans should just move out. however, his definition of the tibetan region also includes many indiginous groups who have been living aroud the region for centuries, but they are unfairly targeted as none tibetans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern2western (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that the intro associate the geographic/cultural region with the Tibetan ethnic group. It doesn't need to have a firm definition; in fact, no ethnic group has a firm definition definition. Generally, "Tibetan people" are people who speak Tibetan (i.e., a language descended from Old Tibetan) and participate in Tibetan culture. I'm not sure what you mean by "the original writer", but the version of the article that you quoted does not say that Monpas, Qiang, Lhobas, etc. are not indigenous to the region.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe addressing tibetan people as the ones who only participate in the tibetan culture and speak tibetan carries certain level of racism. what about those groups who do not have access to the traditional tibetan education system and they have a dialect that is different from the popular dialect? do exclude them from being tibetans? for example, native americans represents indiginous people of america but they also have a lot of different dialects and cultures? simply because they are different, should they have a different title than native americans.

Well, I don't think it's racist. Being called "Native American" or "Tibetan" is not particularly a privilege; it's just a description (governments may or may not attach legal privileges or disadvantages in some cases, but that is a separate policy question) (in fact, the term "Native American" or "American Indian" often does exclude Eskimos and Aleuts, more or less arbitrarily). The difference between "Native American" and "Tibetan" is that "Native American" is a catch-all category, while "Tibetan" is a specific group of people.

I disagree with you completely and I believe what you said is a violation of npov of wikipedia. if you click on tibetan people, wiki defined the word as for indiginous people of the tibetan region. then it is not your job to define who the tibetans are. as long as they are indiginous, then you can not exclude them from the definition of tibetans. native american and tibetans are used to defined the native people of their land and I do not see the pt of separating the minority groups out because they do not pratice certain culture or speak a certain dialect. it is much more neutral to include them as part of the tibetan population.

As for "the popular dialect", the rule-of-thumb definition that I gave explicitly includes all Tibetan dialects (and I defined what that means). This definition makes Monpas a non-Tibetan group, although it is definitely worth noting that the Monpas are close cousins to the Tibetans both linguistically and culturally.

then what is your pt of excluding monpas from tibetans if they do speak a dialect and pratice a culture that have similarities with the traditional cultures of tibet. if wiki defines tibetan as indiginous population of the tibetan region, then it is a must to include all native groups as part of the general tibetan ethnicity.

I think people usually exclude Nepalese and Indian immigrant populations when talking about Tibet because they are only found in geographically small areas such as Sikkim and Darjeeling that are outside of the PRC and therefore are usually not thought as "Tibet" anyway.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

wow the pt is trying to address the migratory population or foreigh population of tibetan region, then all neighborring groups shoud be included or address. simply because they are not in the region of prc does not exclude them from the migratory population of the tibetan plateau.

you should include groups from different neighboring regions because tibetan plateau is a huge region and has always been historically porous which allowed a lot of freedom of immigration. the major point that I would like to address is that the tibetan plateau has always been a region of multi cultural influence and the immigrant groups are not always simply be from hans and muslims because there are other people from different regions have been living for a very long time.

Hans and Sinophone Muslims are by far the largest and most influential recent immigrant groups in Tibet. They are also by far the largest non-Tibetan-speaking population (recent or otherwise) in Tibet. I don't think they should be treated in the same terms as Indian and Nepalese immigrants, whose numbers are negligible outside of a few small, isolated areas. As for "multi-cultural influence", that is true of basically every place on Earth. I don't think it needs special emphasis in the intro.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

they should be treated as part of the migratory population of the tibetan plateau. being large in numbers does not make them the exclive migratory groups of tibet.

The version of the article that you quoted doesn't say anything about a political program to exclude people who are not ethnic Tibetans from Tibet (nor am I aware of the Dalai Lama making such a proposal), so I think you are reading the pan-Dalai perspective into it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

completely disagree with you because dalai lama's middle way approach has been asking for tibet for tibetans and removal of all none tibetans from the tibet region. judging from your photo, your opinions are obviously very pro-dalai.

I'm not interested in discussing the Dalai Lama's political proposals with you further, except insofar as they pertain directly to writing this article. As I said, I don't think this sentence has a "pan-Dalai" bias except what you have read into it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just undid this group of changes which replaced a perfectly good sentence with a vague and unclear statement: "It is the traditional homeland of a very diverse population that is a mixture of indiginous groups and residents from neighborring regions". Apart from the misspellings it is unclear whether the traditional homeland is the home of the indigenous groups only or residents from neighboring regions. More importantly the previous version contains useful information on the various peoples with links which can be used for background. Without them its unclear what diverse population or what neighboring region is referred to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

first thing is the demographic section of the article has already provided enoug details about the population makeup of tibet and I find it very strange to be repeating the exact same information with cntradictions in the header. according to the demographic section, it is very obvious that the tibetan plateau is a very huge region that a diverse population has been living in it. thus it is much more neutral to state that the indiginous population is not just excluvely from a certain group. I just think it is much better off being simplified and stating this tibetan region is very diverse and does not just belong to a certain group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastern2western (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No version of this article has ever said that the indigenous population is exclusively from a certain group.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

read the sentence in question because it excluded minority groups from the definition of tibetan simply because they do not match your definition of what a tibetan should be.

Well, I definitely think the definition of "Tibetan" I gave above is a provisional rule of thumb, not anything like a hard-and-fast standard. Wikipedia does treat Tibetans as a specific ethnic group, not as a catch-all for people who live in Tibet. For instance, the article on Tibetan people says "Tibetans speak the Tibetan language, which has many mutually unintelligible dialects."

Monpa is a language that is related to Tibetan just as Dutch is a language that is related to German. They are similar, but not the same.

The lead does not need a thorough description of migration patterns in Tibet. I think the only reason it mentions Han and Hui people at all is to point out that not just Tibetans (and minor tribal groups) live in Tibet.

Is the sentence in question, "It is the traditional homeland of the Tibetan people as well as some other ethnic groups such as Monpas, Qiang, and Lhobas"? That says specifically that not only Tibetans but also, Monpas, Qiang, Lhobas, and others are indigenous to Tibet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk)

Images

Who was the idiot who removed all of the beautiful images in this article? Tibet is one of the most scenic areas in the world, what happened to those lovely pictures of yaks grazing in pastures and mountains and images of old Tibetan ladies? Coming from the founder of WP:Tibet, this article sucks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See [9] and the rationale in the comment. NebY (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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

"Some archaeological data suggests humans may have passed through Tibet at the time India was first inhabited, half a million years ago.[12]" There were no humans 500k years ago! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulj1952 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out by this user, this statement is ludicrous: humans didn't leave Africa until <100,000 year ago. The supposed citation for this comment is also incomplete -- as are most of the citations on the page! {Author last name, date, pp.} is not a complete citation. What about the title of the work?! Please fix. thank you! Habarimbu (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the nonsensical sentence. Zanhe (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Those references are to the sources listed at the foot of the article. This is a normal way of making repeated references to the same work legible but brief. Which said, the claim was so extraordinary that it would require much clearer substantiation. NebY (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

The wording in this last change to demographics sounds like it comes straight from the PRC. Changing "a concern voiced" to "politicized". Isn't politicized what the PRC calls it? "Has stated" -> "claims"; did he not state it? As for the illiteracy rate and population I looked at the source and see this. Do you have a source, which does not come from PRC which shows this not true? Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No one should ever talk about the demographics of Tibet without being clear about what they mean by Tibet. There's no good reason to include Xining as part of Tibet, but people do sometimes, which makes a big difference to how the numbers add up. Whether or not to include Golmud makes a difference, too, and there are some other examples. Of course, PRC sources will limit Tibet to the TAR. I have no idea whether or not the source cited is credible, but we can't assume that it is just because it is from outside the PRC. I agree that the phrasing "politicized by Tibetan exile groups" is not acceptable. Everyone blames everyone else for the political problem, so we can't write the article to blame one side for it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I am not saying "the source is non PRC so it is good". I am saying why change the article saying "Undo another tendentious revert. That the statistic is wrong has already been explained. Continue the dialogue on talk to reach a consensus before insertion again" as Quigley did on October 2nd without showing that the source is no good. At the same time the wording of politicized was added, which has a bias so it leads one to think that the rest of the edit was done to be biased. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you the same person as User:Celinabluewick? Celinabluewick falsified source material to try to pass off Chinese census numbers for Xinjiang as "various independent... based outside of China" numbers for "Tibet". I told him or her about this serious error multiple times but he or she refused to listen, and now you are repeating the identical arguments and mistakes. Furthermore, I didn't add any new wording as you claim; I only reverted Celinabluewick's edits. Yes, the Dalai Lama "claims" not "states" that China has a policy to change Tibet's ethnic makeup, because he is not a representative of that government and that same government denies such a thing. To present this complex issue as simply one of whose numbers you believe is a gross misrepresentation. Considering that this article doesn't have a clear definition of "Tibet", much like China until a short while ago, I don't think it should have a demographics section. Quigley (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think demographic changes and rumours of demographic changes are a very important social and political issue in various Tibetan-inhabited regions, so they should be covered in this article. We will need to be as clear as possible which areas we are talking about when. There may be some cases where it is necessary to say "X says Y about Tibetan demographics, but X does not specify which areas X is including within 'Tibet'", if the claim itself is particularly notable, but I would tend to avoid that.

Wikipedia generally favors "state" over "claim". The latter implies an assertion is false. As for state, however, statements are made by wise men, liars, and fools alike.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am not any user other then myself. I have a few times made edits not logged in and those would be under a few IP addresses, however I do know that I have never edited the Tibet page as an IP address. With that out of the way I am not making any argument saying that the sources are correct or not; I was asking why this information was deleted when the source was cited and no source showing that it was wrong or "made up" was shown. As for the wording change I still say "politicized" is the wording of the PRC and not neutral wording same as "claims" over "states" Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But did you notice the link above that mentions the source you're citing? It implies that the source is being cited inaccurately. That would answer the question of why information was deleted.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In the third sentence of the article, "earth" ought to be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.39.210.24 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

First line of this article

I think the first line should read "Tibet is a plateau region in China", no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.23.254 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If there're no comments, let's change that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.23.254 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--88.104.110.251 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That Tibet is a region of China is a controversial claim because of a) political disputes over the current political status of Tibet as well as how to describe its historical relationship with China; and b) the extent of Tibet is ambiguous under some definitions and may extend to some areas outside of the PRC. I wouldn't suggest that the first line should be "Tibet is a plateau region not in China" or anything like that, but I don't see a need to introduce the controversy in the first sentence.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/images/map/china/china-map-2-m.gif You'll notice that Tibet is in said map. Tibet is a region in China which is a sovereign state in Asia. Politics are not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.212 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China is a political entity, so the fact that Tibet is within the sovereign territory of the PRC is itself a fact of politics. If we were trying to take politics out of the discussion entirely, I would suggest a wording along the lines of "Tibet is a cultural region in central Asia, located near India and China." However, people don't normally take a purely non-political approach to these types of questions.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is you take a political side by saying it is near China when in fact its IN China. Near would make it clear the article claims Tibet is its own entity which it is not. If we're not allowed to test political waters here, I think the most neutral ground would be to say "Tibet is a cultural region of autonomous rule within the sovereign state of China, though there are ongoing disputes as to its political status as a territory of the PRC." That acknowledges that Tibet is Chinese without getting into the political arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.212 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did try to treat "Tibet is Chinese" as a purely cultural and nonpolitical statement, then I think the bulk of the sources would find it to be simply inaccurate.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Tibet is a region, geographically. But to call a country a region is bizarre. Tibet is a country, whether it is or should be autonomous, independent, a province of the Republic of China, or a province of the People's Republic of China is a different matter. I suggest that the first sentence should describe Tibet as a country.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor sentence correction

I understand why this topic would be locked, but I'd like to make a correction that (I hope) is not at all controversial: This sentence in the "Names" section is not a well-formed sentence, "While historical linguists generally agree that "Tibet" names in European languages are loanwords from Arabic طيبة، توبات (Ṭībat or Tūbātt), itself deriving from Turkic Töbäd "The Heights" (plural of töbän)." It can be very simply corrected by removing the word "while" from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.189.179 (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)