Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources

Crossette

Crossette is quoted as if she is an NPOV: she definitely is not. 'Barbara Crossette in the New York Times summarized the use of the term serf in relation to Tibet in 1998" "Scholars of Tibet mostly agree that there has been no systematic serfdom in Tibet in centuries".

This is not a fair summary of the academic debate. The biggest body of serious recent work is Goldstein, with original research and case studies, and he very specificaly argues for the use of the term "serf" for the Tibetan class "mi ser" up to the 1950's. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-orig.pdf (this is the correct paper, sorry) --Jomellon (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The main academic debate was in the Tibet Journal with Dr. Beatrice Miller. PLease all editors read the original paper (above) and the debate available at: http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm and make up your own mind.

Miller acknowledges Goldstein's scholarship, but has 2 principle objections:

1) Tibetan Mi Ser could run away.

Goldstein points out that this was an act of desperation involving the runaway giving up all familial and economic context, if caught they would be punished, and just as 19th century US slaves could run away to Canada, this did not change the nature of slavery. He quotes a case study.

2) Lords also had obligations (to the Central Government) and to the estate.

Goldstein points out that this was also true in European serfdom, and does not change the nature of the serf/lord relationship, which was quite different to the lord/government relationship.

That's it! That is the academic debate on whether old Tibet had a serf system or not. The journalistic debate is at the non-verifiable Crossette level: "Scholars <unnamed> of Tibet mostly agree <about what precisely, where and with what data>.--Jomellon (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion of Crossette and her book "So Close to Heaven: The Vanishing Buddhist Kingdoms of the Himalayas" in Amazon. Crossette while being a NYT journalist is a friend of the Buddhist Bhutanese monarchy with its dubious record of human rights toward the Hindu minority. NPOV violated?

I don't find a particular problem with Crossette's connections to Bhutan. Nowhere do we say in this article that she is "neutral". However, there is plenty of available material that is more substantial than a newspaper article, so I have reduced the amount of verbiage devoted to that source.

It should be no surprise to find that the weight of journalistic opinion may differ from academic. Both should be covered, and we should make clear which is which. Bertport (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Laird

Laird - the source of the "many scholars dispute" and "some anthropologists question" references - is a friend of the Dalai Lama. NPOV violated? --Jomellon (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We achieve NPOV in this article by accurately representing the sources and by giving all points of view the weight they deserve. We are not restricted to neutral sources. Good luck finding neutral sources on this topic. It is useful to identify the personal backgrounds and interests of sources when it is pertinent to interpreting their bias and reliability. But, to identify Laird as a "friend of the Dalai Lama" in the article, we need a source saying so. Bertport (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In Laird's book "The Story of Tibet" the foreword opens: "Over the course of 3 years, journalist Thomas Laird spent more than 60 hours with HHDL in candid, one-on-one interviews in Dharamsala, India. ... Through these conversations, Laird and the Dalai Lama laid the cornerstones of a popular history of Tibet."

He was co-author and allowed to photograph the secret temple of the Dalai Lama for the book "The Dalai Lama’s Secret Temple : Tantric Wall Paintings from Tibet". Good enough for "close collaborator with"? --Jomellon (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it suffices to identify him as a journalist. The title of his book, ...Conversations with the Dalai Lama, already displays the influence of HHDL on it. If Laird took up a lot of text in this article, then maybe it would be worth further explicit elaboration of his background, but given what we have, more than "journalist" would overdo it. Ultimately this article will mature into something relying much more on scholars and less on journalists, so I wouldn't expect Laird's role here to grow much. Bertport (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"many scholars dispute" ... "some anthropologists question" violates Verifiability: the scholars and anthropologists aren't named and their specific views are not specified.--Jomellon (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. WP:AWW. But the source cited is very good, actually. I've rewritten to something more specific. Bertport (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

...

I would invite editors to read the discussion between Goldstein and Miller in the Tibet journal. Available on Goldstein's pages at the Case University site: http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm My impression is that Goldstein provides impressive scholarly research and clear arguments for his description of the oppressive and coercive nature of peasant/lord relations and of the validity of the use of the word 'serf'. Miller brings little substance to her rebuttal. But read it yourselves...

Asserting that there is an serious academic (as opposed to journalisitic) debate on the nature of the relations between peasants and their lords in pre-1959 Tibet, or that Goldstein has relativised his position is not a NPOV IMHO.--Jomellon (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy that Goldstein is the definitive scholar on this topic, nor that his debate with Miller is the only valid discussion. How about Geoff Childs? In 2003, he wrote for example:

“ Despite considerable speculation virtually nothing is known about the empirical relationship between traditional Tibetan administrative systems, household processes, and demographic trends in historical Tibetan populations because indigenous data sources have never been systematically analyzed. ”

He's including Goldstein's work in that summation. Goldstein only had access to refugees in Mysore, India; and he mostly interviewed people from one district when he described the social structures. To say he had a definitive understanding of the whole situation in Tibet or even that he's the foremost scholar on the topic is absurd. Childs also writes frequently about the social structures — the same ones Goldstein describes — but avoids the serf or serfdom comparisons entirely. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Parenti, et al.

This article seems to be sourced entirely from Parenti, Tom Grunfeld, and Anna Louise Strong. Of these three, only Grunfeld is a serious historian of Tibet, and his biased attitude toward the subject is well-known. Parenti and Strong should not be cited at all in an encyclopedia.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have to disagree. Parenti is a well known historian as well, and Anna Louise Strong's book give much more insight that a normal historian can't because she was there at the time when it happened. Plus she is a third party, not from Tibet or China. Foxhunt99 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Grunfeld is indeed a serious historian, but as many reviewers of his book has noted, he has not made any use of Tibetan language sources whatsoever, neither has he availed himself sufficiently of Chinese language sources. Another egregious omission is his complete failure to interview Tibetans on their own society. As for Parenti, what can I say? As far as I can tell, he has no credentials in either Chinese or Tibetan history. If no improvement of this article takes place soon, I will nominate it for deletion.--Amban (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It comes to what you are trying to dispute, the existence of serfdom and slavery, or the source? I don't think there is any doubt that serfdom or slavery existed in old Tibet. If you want to argue to what degree were the serfdom and slavery then I can understand. Most the Tibetan in exile won't talk about this, a lot of the sources about the serfdom and slavery was obtained by Chinese, but I don't think if I used any publication from the Chinese would convince you anyway. Only source would work here is from third parties like Anna Louise Strong. 129.59.8.10 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein is a serious historian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomellon (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He's an anthropologist. -Owlmonkey (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to assert that because someone's original academic discipline is one domain then they are disqualified from being an authority on others, especially closely related disciplines.

Examples are many, but for example Stephen Oppenheimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer who was is a medical doctor by training (paediatrician and tropical medicine) but is a highly regarded authority on pre-history and genetic analysis among other things.

Two of Goldstein's major works:

A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State

A History of Modern Tibet, volume 2: The Calm before the Storm: 1951-1955

I also find it remarkable that journalists (where the qualification is only that one can write!) are accepted as historical authorities, whereas an anthropologist who has widened his competence, and has written peer reviewed historical works, isn't!--Jomellon (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not assert that he's disqualified from being an authority for some reason. I just don't think he's the foremost scholar on the topic anymore, and his serf comparison did not become the mainstream view. There weren't many people looking at this in the 70's and he did ground breaking work then. It's just evolved since then. Even he tempered his usage of the term. I also have to question the conclusions he drew in the 70's based on such a small sample of data that he worked with. Granted, there isn't much to work from available and he qualifies his publications with that admonition, but after the qualification he generally launches into his characterization and presents them as definitive. That criticism aside, I appreciate the work he did and a lot of his scholarship. His understanding of family dynamics and marriage was really interesting work to me. But the serf comparison was poor in my opinion and has not been accepted by the next generation of scholars as definitive. Worse, it played into an unfortunate political dimension. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Owlmonkey, who are the current foremost scholars in your opinion? You mention Childs, and I found http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/childs.polyandry.and.population.growth.pdf on Polyandry and population growth. Have you references to papers by Childs on serfdom? Could you point me at other scholars and papers? Thank you. --Jomellon (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see Tsering Shakya's book was quoted, Tsering Shakya is a Tibetan, who escaped from communist government. His view is probably biased. If you can use a Tibetan source, there are plenty Chinese source to be found too. I think it is best we use third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.8.10 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempted relativising of Goldstein

I put "Powers characterized Goldstein as "generally pro-China"[32] but also called his History of Modern Tibet "the most balanced treatment"[33]. Goldstein describes himself as having conservative political views." after the main text. Putting it right after Goldstein's name is trying to tell the reader what she has to think before she has read anything.

Also I am not happy with: "In 1997, Goldstein invoked the term serf more cautiously, writing of "...monastic and aristocratic elites who held most of the land in Tibet in the form of feudal estates with hereditarily bound serflike peasants."["

This suggests - on minimal evidence - that Goldstein has revised his views. This was the academic controversy on Serfdom in Tibet. Professor Goldstein took a very strong clear position, the original texts of which are still published on Goldsteins web pages, and he handed his opponents their asses on a plate. So we need more evidence than this if it is to be suggested that Goldstein has relativised his views: it would need a direct statement, or more probably a published article, on the lines of "I used to assert... but...." if such exists.

I feel I have corrected 'weasel' editing around the works of Goldstein.--Jomellon (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your recent changes in this area. As for the part you aren't happy with ... the article accurately characterizes the cited source. It doesn't draw any conclusions. Yes, it raises the question, "why did Goldstein, in this instance, choose to say "serflike peasants" instead of "serfs" after the passage of time? It's certainly relevant to call attention to the passage. No doubt Goldstein was aware of the nuances of what he was writing. Personally, I suspect that he would agree with you that he, uh, cleaned his opponents' clocks, but came over time to feel some distaste, at least, for the way the Chinese government makes use of him. But I don't know, and I don't write anything like that into the article. I just present the relevant passage. Let the reader consider it at leisure, and draw conclusions or not. I'm not drawing a conclusion. Bertport (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "though he softened his position in later years." as that is not established by two words "serflike peasants". Why did he say use the word 'serflike' and not 'serf'? Well we can speculate, but we don't know. I would say in order to avoid - as in the debate with Miller - a distracting discussion around terms and what exactly was a 'serf' (French model, Russian model, does it require feature X...) which simply distracts from the actual prevalent conditions.

BTW: can you point me to where the PRC makes use of Goldstein, especially illegitimately? Also I have edited the Social Classes / Conditions page, to move it to the classifications of the Tsang law code. Maybe feedback required?--Jomellon (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the citation doesn't clearly support the phrasing "softened his position". "expressed himself more cautiously" still holds. No, I don't have a citation for PRC using Goldstein for propaganda value, but the article doesn't assert such a thing. Bertport (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My point with that addition was to not make his quote sound, in the lead, to be the overall summary view. I'd rather his view not take such a prominence, really. He's dedicated a significant portion of the article though. How about we remove the quote from the lead, and just mention that he's a proponent of using the term serf and mention others who are in opposition. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Owlmonkey - Goldstein did the work, he has written an enormous number of the excellently researched books, and articles, all of course peer reviewed, and he fought his academic fights and he won them. He is the mountain of scholarship in the field. Those disagreeing with him before 1990 - Miller, Michael, Dargyay, Aziz et al were defeated, or never showed up for the debate. There is no serious scholar disagreeing with his fundamental positions since then. So.... I'd rather his view not take such a prominence, really. Sorry, but the scholarly debate does not seem to have taken much concern for your preferences! He has and deserves prominence in this debate.

I have previously asked you to name the scholars and sources for your opinions, and you sadly overlooked that request - but I love new material, so please if you could assist us by pointing at these sources, I would be very grateful.

You need to present similar scholastic depth and success in debate, in order to remove the prominence of Goldstein. Good luck!--Jomellon (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's overdone, one sentence in the lead. Much of the article in its current state does center around Goldstein, so it's reasonable to mention him in the lead. He is pretty much the best (perhaps the only credible) western advocate for usage of the term serf. Here's an interesting discussion of his work: [1] Bertport (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "PRC is worse" edits

I really think the page has to some extent lost focus and become a broadsheet for attacking the PRCs conduct in Tibet.

Now there is a lot to criticize there, and I have no wish to suppress that debate. But the original article was about Old Tibet and the conditions there. Certainly it is relevant to note that a lot of the criticism of Old Tibet was overblown, partial and came from PRC friendly sources.

But the original discussion has been replaced by a 'the PRC is much worse' polemic, which may be true or not but is completely irrelevant to actually presenting a NPOV on conditions in Old Tibet.

I find the continual adding of 'yah boo, the PRC is worse' edits as distracting, a wee bit disingenuous and not very intellectually rigorous. (You can put that sentence thru a babblefish to find some other words!)--Jomellon (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, the content from Powers adds focus and intellectual rigor to the article. Remember (or read the history of the talk page, if you haven't), this article is meant to focus on the political controversy. There is a separate article to focus on social conditions in (Old) Tibet. Bertport (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the discussion regarding the social structure of Old Tibetan society has been split to Social classes of Tibet and this article is to focus on the political debate surrounding that. Said debate may be satirically summarized: "The Dalai Lama eats kittens", "Nu-uh, the Chinese Communists eat kittens". Material dealing with the claim that post-1950 Tibet is a worse place to live than before 1950 are very much relevant, since that is a common rejoinder of the pro-Tibet "side" re: communist kitten-eating. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with your analysis: I wish both sides could admit that they ate/eat kittens... on that basis they could move on. But, I think the problem for both in doing that, is that they would put their own legitimacy in question. That is: they are afraid of where they would have to move on to!--Jomellon (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Loss of face (faith?) and power would be their fear imho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomellon (talk • contribs) 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some of the material in here should actually move to Social classes of Tibet. Also, maybe we could use something more explicit in the intro paragraph about the scope of this article. Also, I think there must be a better title for this article. "Serfdom" is more of a codeword for signaling whose side you're taking in the debate, which is about the well-being of ordinary Tibetans before and after 1950. Bertport (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I just want an accurate and honest picture of conditions in Old Tibet. I don't know if that is this page, another page, a rename, or what...

Social Conditions in Old Tibet is

-A nice clear topic.

-There is quite a body of scholarly work on it

-It was the original topic of this page IMHO, even if the title was contentious.

The conditions in the PRC (there is a page for that already) and discussion of the political argument PRC/Lamas are irrelevant to that except to qualify POVs. The 'Social Classes' page more or less only lists the names of the classes: the conditions, human rights, legal system and punishments, role of whipping etc would not be relevant there... (?)

Wouldn't it make more sense to make a new page Arguments between the PRC and apologists for Old Tibet and put that stuff there? and change the title of this page to Serfdom in Old Tibet controversy or just Social conditions in Old Tibet.--Jomellon (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• We already have the 2 pages you suggest... they're just not called by your titles. Your "Arguments... " is this page. Your "Social conditions... " is Social classes of Tibet. This page is to discuss the nature of the controversy. If you want to describe the historical social conditions then you need to be on that page. Dakinijones (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel though the subtext to this debate is

-there was quite a bit of nasty stuff in Old Tibet (sorry but there was!)

-there is a wish to suppress that, for whatever reason (politics, cognitive dissonance with religious beliefs...)

and that is WP naughty!--Jomellon (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the subtext to this debate is that you weren't here when we created a separate page for the historical social conditions. Because that page has a lot of work needing doing (and perhaps a title change), you may not have realised that it is indeed the place for the material you - and I (and probably most of the editors here) - would like to see on WP about society in pre-Communist Tibet. This page is the page for presenting competing points of view. Whatever you post here will inevitably have its opposite viewpoint presented. Not because of any desire to suppress your material but simply because this page is for the controversy. The anthropolgy is supposed to be on the other page. Dakinijones (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well sounds grand! That page as you note is very incomplete: I have posted some suggestions to the discussion page of 'Social Classes', and would be glad of feedback. I will ask on that discussion page if everyone in up for a page on social conditions in Old Tibet, which is not narrowly defined to being only a lexicon of classes--Jomellon (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Genocide

The word 'Genocide' has been bandied about on this page: I think the topic should be properly discussed

The word 'genocide' is properly applied to what Hitler tried to do: he really did intend wiping out all Jews, and (over) 6 million were actually murdered. To use that word in the Tibetan context is demeaning and historically inaccurate.

To start the POV collecting: There were c. 1.3 million Tibetans in 1953 in the TAR (census conducted under the old regime). There are no mass graves. Best estimates of the deaths in the uprising are c. 80 K.

Deaths in the Cultural Revolution / Iron Rice Bowl / Great Leap Forward etc in the TAR were comparable with those in Inland China.

Population did drop 1953 to 1965 by about 100 - 150 K due to the above factors but there are c. 2.5 million ethnic Tibetans in the TAR now. The 'over 1 million' Tibetan dead at that time is a complete fable.

"At the end of 2000, the total population in Tibet was 2.62 million.... The population of the Tibetan nationality accounts for over 90% of the population, but that of the Han nationality and other ethnic groups is very small." UNESC-AP http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/chinadata/tibet.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomellon (talk • contribs) 13:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Tibetan population probably fell from c. 10 million in the 9th century (the time of Tibetan Empire) till the 20th century. The 'one child policy' does not apply to Tibetans. So the Tibetans are arguably having their best population expansion in a thousand years in the last 40 years, not surprising as they now have a life expectancy of over 60 as opposed to 36, and sexual diseases which limit fertility are now treated.

The word 'Genocide' is completely inappropriate!

Now... I will need find my exact sources again for those statements! Any other POVs? There is some stuff on the Tibetan GiE site. --Jomellon (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Jomellon, I thought you weren't interested in discussion of Tibet after 1950. In any case, genocide is mentioned in this article with "Tibetans say...". Likewise, the article has "Chinese say Tibet was hell on earth before they intervened." I think these are both understood in the context to be presentations of polarized rhetoric used by each side. Do either of these need big, red "THIS IS EXAGGERATED RHETORIC PRESENTED BY PARTISANS" warnings? Bertport (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't, but I kept seeing these "PRC is bad" statements being added, as I see it as a smoke screen round OT, so I became interested...

also I dislike the modern devaluation of the word 'genocide'. The word has almost lost its meaning, so it is probably not worth discussing. I really am not a PRC troll, my issue is the clear exposition of conditions in OT.--Jomellon (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of historical factuality, the International Committee of Jurists officially referred to PRC actions in Tibet as genocide. ICJ Report The claim is not thrown around randomly by pro-Tibet activists. For a compelling account by a work camp survivor, see In Exile from the Land of Snows by John Avedon. It's not a stretch to draw the line between these and concentration camps, although ethnocide may be a more appropriate term. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well on the wikipedia page for the International Committee of Jurists it says "According to ex-CIA agent Philip Agee the ICJ was "set up and controlled by the CIA for propaganda operations." " This report was published in 1960: right in the middle of the CIA's operation "ST Circus" in Tibet! It was published only months after the uprising (when presumably the 'Genocide' took place), that is months after the end of the old government of Tibet. Have a read at this report: it is cold war polemic. If the PRC managed genocide in that time, and the ICJ managed to get evidence to back up their 'findings' then both were performing surprising logistical feats! I think if you are looking for "historical factuality" [sic] then not an International Committee of Jurists report from the middle of the cold war! I just finished Phünwang's (almost auto) biography: he was the highest Tibetan PRC cadre at that time. He was later jailed for 18 years for 'nationalist separatist tendencies' and is very critical of PRC policy at that time: but no mention of 'genocide'.--Jomellon (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to use the "new section" tab to start new topics

This talk page is getting long, and it's easier to archive old stuff if it doesn't have new stuff mixed in with it. So if you aren't replying to a recent comment, consider starting a new section at the bottom. It also helps readers find recent activity. Bertport (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Powers

Having started on Powers "History As Propaganda", could I present my POV on his POV :-)

First he tries to present himself as an NPOV (aren't we all?), but I get the impression he is quite a strong POV...he is clearly a follower of Tibetan Buddhism having also written "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism", which is fair enough, but IMHO he has selected his sources, then criticises them (fair enough) and presents a synthesis: balanced eh?

But the balance he arrives at, much depends on the choice and presentation of sources, and the weighting given them. In other words Powers has given himself full freedom as to where he will find his balance: and that balance of course just happens to lie inside his comfort space as a believer in TB....

As an example: Powers presents Goldsteins view of the DL as being a "devious but inept politician" who exasperates the Chinese with "duplicity, intransigence and bungling". Now Goldstein thinks the DL made strategic mistakes in his relations with the Chinese, but has a much more qualified view, and never uses that sort of language. So Powers has used the "straw man" technique by presenting a view and language not used by Goldstein, and attacking that to provide evidence of bias. --Jomellon (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the quote on the Chinese sources from Powers irrelevant, because none of the Chinese sources criticised are presented on the page. So it a wee bit odd to find this relatively long passage which (dis)qualifies sources which are themselves not presented!

If you really want to get into the discussion of the original pre communist Chinese sources on Tibet and the quality of their translation, then Good WP practice would be (? I am a WP newbie!) presenting the sources as POVs, describe where they came from and also Powers as a POV on the sources and let the reader make up their own mind... Powers breezily disqualifies all original sources which have been translated in the PRC. Has Powers actually read the originals and in his scholarship takes issue with the translation? --Jomellon (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Most Chinese sources are of course translated by Chinese scholars, just as most old French documents are translated by French people.... But to then say that thus 90% of the original regional sources are discredited, and needn't disturb my balanced opinion is a wee bit cheap.--Jomellon (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The analysis summarized from Powers is not just about specific Chinese sources; it is also about general characteristics of the political climate in China and its impact on Chinese sources. It is absolutely relevant to this topic, which, as pointed out in the article, has its origins in Chinese sources, and still pervades Chinese discourse today. Bertport (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is weak summarizing an opinion, of views on unspecified texts, which arent quoted. If you want to start a debate on sources, and the evaluation and quality then this is not done by summarizing the conclusions of one commentator, who is firmly in one camp. Especially given the magnitude of the conclusion.

This quote goes off to a debate about the motives for allegations, instead of just keeping it simple: POV, source, other opinion, source, reader makes up their mind. It is not backed up with specifics. It is just a low quality unsupported ad hominum or ad nationium assertion.

Having started to read the PRC sources, I find there is (like the western sources) a great difference between them, and especially by era. If you had said 'Powers said Docs X,Y used by the PRC and Parenti for A,B allegations is flawed...' then grand we can work with that... What does balance to this POV look like? How about Tibetan Buddhists are all brainwashed, ignore the truth and cant criticise Lamas There is plenty of that stuff from say Parenti, Grunfeld etc. I do not think it would necessarily improve the information on the page, or the quality of the debate.

As I say: the PRC is not my issue. I want a clear honest picture of conditions in Old Tibet. Let's take an example: evidence comes out that a presidential candidate is a drunk and dishonest. The other campaign would dig for more dirt, they would present the evidence in as damaging a way as possible, and make the most they could of it. But: as a voter I would still want to know: Is the guy a drunk and dishonest? And just because the other campaign have an interest in presenting the bad news, doesn't mean that the guyb isn't a drunk, or that all their evidence is false.

I don't think anyone is going to be surprised and informed by the idea that the PRC are Marxists and maybe a bit biased.--Jomellon (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just what do you think is inaccurate in Power's summary of how Chinese sources are shaped by Chinese politics? Bertport (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say Bertport - we don't know which sources in particular are meant? For example Tashi Tsering and Phunwang are 'PRC' sources. Phunwang is also a Marxist: and criticises the PRC national policy, but from a Marxist perspective. Tashi Tsering also criticises PRC policy on education, but more from a pragmatic, and Tibetan angle... There are also some stuff on the PRC websites which might fit more into the Powers described schema... But others are fairly dry statistics eg UNESCAP. To say 'All Chinese sources are biased Marxism' is like saying 'All Western sources are shaped by capitalism (including Parenti?)' It is cheap, not scholarly, and doesnt add to a discussion of which sources deserve which credibility.

One needs to name horse and rider on specific sources or drop it. Vague musings that Marxists look at things in a Marxist way, Chinese look at things in a Chinese way, are probably true but we get into a speculation on motives on a position on a debate, which do not help evaluate a particular assertion...

For an excellent example of how to appraise Chinese sources and Western Sources critically see http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf You will note each source is appraised and critically put in context. None of the Powers style, broad brush "PRC sources are Marxist dialectic". Note also the era is vital to understanding a particular source. In simple words: just because the PRC said it, doesn't mean it isn't true, even if they are not entirely unbiased --Jomellon (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting paper. To me it shows a few things: 1) access to more data, especially internal viewpoints adds greatly to understanding an issue. in this case it happens many years later with a willingness to publish accounts publicly. if that data was not available, we just would not have new insights into the events and published scholarship - we would only have more conjecture. but how much data is enough? even this paper begins describing how little data is available and has to fill in gaps. and 2) if the views of the author are correct, the chinese leadership were wrong in gauging what was going on. One could say they completely missed Nerhu's motivations and viewpoint. So the paper critiques Chinese stated views / citations well because it has published data from the Indian side with which to contrast and critique; and find error. We unfortunately are not provided with much detailed data concerning Old Tibet with which to compare. So we're left with conjecture akin to those reporting on the 1962 war just after it occurred, only with the most surface treatment of the subject in my feeling. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

> [authors view that] the chinese leadership were wrong in gauging what was going on. The authors view was they were right about the 'Forward Policy'. Wrt the Tibet agenda partly right, partly wrong, as while the Indians had no territorial ambitions on Tibet, and recognised Chinese 'sovereignty' believed themselves to have a right inherited from the British to consultation on the government on Tibet, and that they could negociate 'buffer state' status for Tibet. This was wholely unacceptable to the Chinese.--Jomellon (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This not being able to see a source or quote with which one doesnt agree without adding a but this is clearly biased to it... or a tendencious but this debate was correctly summarised by a XXX as follows... where XXX is a TB lightweight journalist: is that good WP style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomellon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of supporting quotes for my evaluation of Goldstein: I think Powers does support the quote, and I used Powers because he is very clearly not 'in a camp' with Goldstein. If I gave you quotes from Grunfeld etc which praise Goldstein., you would say - rightly - only one camp, you have to do better. Most of the academics who disagree with some of Goldstein's opinions still express their highest admiration, as does Powers, so I took a Powers as a source, as I think you respect him. (but there are lots of heavyweights expressing admiration eg Rebecca French) So critics will still criticise: but if even the critics express admiration, then that is the real confirmation of stature. (Note also: The 'high' Tibetans - inc the DL - still meet with Goldstein for interviews)

This is what Powers said "I consider Goldstein's monumental study A history of Modern Tibet, a massive work that in my opinion is the most balanced treatment of modern Tibetan history, a richly documented study...." etc: I know you have the book. Now Powers goes on to criticise Goldstein: and as I explained already I find the criticism is a straw man arguement. For Powers, when Goldstein suggests that the DL made strategic and tactical mistakes, especially as a young man in the fifties, this is ipso facto evidence of bias. Rather as for a devout Catholic someone who criticises the Pope is probably biased.

I also used one 'neutral evaluation of books on Tibet source (Pinfold, John. Tibet World Bibliographical Series (1991), he says: "This monumental, even awe-inspiring study will questionably be the standard scholarly work on the subject for many years to come. Drawing on a wealth of sources, including oral interviews, unpublished memoirs, government documents, and Tibetan archives, many of them previously unexplored, Professor Goldstein has produced a detailed and unbiased account of modern Tibet, which, whilst recognising the importance of Buddhism, does not allow it to predominate, and which gives due weight to internal political developments as well as to international relations, thus redressing the balance of many previous works. Indispensible to a proper understanding of modern Tibet."

So: there you are the 'neutral' or 'tibet-camp' sources say: "massive", "most balanced", "richly documented", "monumental", "awe-inspiring", "wealth of sources", "Indispensible"... couldn't really be much stronger, could it?

Normally 2 sources should be enough: but if you want I can expand it to a half dozen, concentrating on 'Tibetan friendly' ones.--Jomellon (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Briefly my view of Powers is: he is very much a TB POV. The real NPOV is somewhere near Goldstein's view, and scholasticly Goldsteins view is pretty much uncontested. This is the real bad news for TBs, as Epstein, Grunfeld, Parenti etc go to far, are too polemical, and don't bring enough scholarship to the debate: they can be easily dismissed.

Epstein, Thurman, and Smith are all lightweights. Grunfeld and Richardson have more weight but are clearly in a 'camp'.

Putting Goldstein in a camp with Epstein and Grunfeld balanced by Thurman, Richardson and Smith is a "pretend" balance which actually tries to disqualify the real heavyweight scholarship which reveals truths which are uncomfortable for a TB. In particular that the Lama administration was venal and largely incompetent is probably more problematic for the TB worldview than overt cruelty or exploitation (which can be explained away as Bodhisattva 'tough love' if only one had 'pure vision'), as is shows the Lamas to be rather clueless, putting the "refuge" in question.--Jomellon (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein's book is monumental, and probably the most comprehensive collection of data so far, but that's not to say that he's right about everything. Even if he did advance things further, that says as much about how few people are in this area of study and how little data there is to work with. In my critical opinion, he took a set of interviews from early in his career, substantially about one small village and area in Tibet, and then generalized those findings as exemplary of all of Tibet. He did, to be fair, explain in the beginning of those papers the limit of his data, then after that qualification he launches into strong opinion. Now I find that pattern common in academia: the culture of academia seems to reward bold opinion in spite of one's lack of comprehensive understanding. And that's how things move forward. So I just find Goldstein to fit within that experience I have of academia. He made some interesting findings, but then he's not rewarded for or encouraged to strongly qualify that his data was so limited and constrained. He's rewarded for saying something interesting and new and if that's overgeneralized then someone down the road will fix that when better data is available. That's how I experience him as I read his papers. So to be uncontested, is that because he's right or because there just isn't more data to work with really? I ask you to consider that. I've heard of a couple more ethnographic studies done recently, but not much new data in the last 30 years. There's little government documentation there to work with, constrained access by China, no money to fund the research I suspect, and the last generation of Tibetans who lived through "old Tibet' is dying off. So will we ever know if Goldstein's characterization was true and widespread in Tibet I'm not sure. But my point here is that there is another vector to consider entirely, it's not that Goldstein is correct or not correct but that the academic community strives to obtain more data to work with and then evolves its view as that occurs. But we can only see here the publication events, which are not a measure of how much data there really is or what quality it is. And in this topic area I fear unless China opens things up for more scholarship, and more money goes toward that scholarship, we'll never have a really good academic discussion on these topics. It's not that Goldstein was right and then there was limited disagreement, it's that so little has been done. And we can't even really get a good sense of how good or bad the theocracy and taking 'refuge' in that form of government might have been — compared to other governments at that time — without real data. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Owlmonkey, nice to hear from you again, and thank you for your critical low opinion of academia, and scholarly research. Would you have those sources and scholars I asked you for on which your critical opinion is based?--Jomellon (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a low opinion of academia, it's just the reality of the situation usually. There is limited money and time and interest in a topic, and things progress step by step - not always very quickly. And the way to get noticed and rewarded is to have strong opinions. Human nature? But my point is not that the scholarship is bad as a dichotomy from bad to good, it's that there is another dimension to measure entirely and it's been something I've said all along - that there isn't much data. Goldstein's papers begin with this admonition. Childs reiterates it. Look back to my first entries in this discussion, during the delete discussion, for more citations concerning this. To say that one ethnographic study of this culture is sufficient to characterize the entire country is ridiculous. But that's all the data that we have to go on. So hey, we can be grateful for what research was supported. But to say that's a definitive picture of the entire country is silly. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, I haven't seen anything presented that challenges the accuracy of Powers' analysis. Yes, it's broad brush, but it's a strong, brief, and accurate summary. It doesn't preclude detailed, nuanced judgement of individual texts. Jomellon, you have mischaracterized Powell several times here. First of all, he clearly knows there is no neutral source or point of view, including himself, and he makes no such claim. It's one of the great lessons of the book, for readers who don't already understand that. Powell strives for honesty and insight, and his summary of how Chinese politics affects Chinese historiography is good fruit of that effort. It is true and important, and expresses itself briefly and potently. ~~

You like Powers Bertport, grand, but: he is a believing TB and a very much a POV, very definitely not the NPOV, and it is out of line to present him as such.--Jomellon (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Impressive, Jomellon, how many distortions you just packed into one sentence. 1. "he is a believing TB" - we do not know any such thing. 2. "not the NPOV" - have you been listening at all? the only one talking about him being the, or an, NPOV is you. 3. "out of line to present him as such" - see 2. Bertport (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Powers as a Tibetan Buddhist Powers wrote "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism". From the Amazon product review: 'In this concise though comprehensive work, Powers, a Tibetan Buddhist and professor of religion at Wright State University... This is a valuable work for those looking to enrich their practice of Tibetan Buddhism '

2. Presentation as an NPOV I think that reflects the edits done a few weeks ago fairly: But quoting your comment 3 paragraphs above So far, I haven't seen anything presented that challenges the accuracy of Powers' analysis. --Jomellon (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazon product review, eh? Find a reliable source (which an Amazon product review isn't) if you really want to prove that point. But what does it get you, anyway? We can then add the descriptive "Tibetan Buddhist" to the first mention of Powers in the article. And my comment you quote refers to the germane accuracy which is quite a different matter from disinterestedness. Bertport (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you have conceeded the point: Powers is a TB... but for completeness: the quote comes from "Publishers Weekly" quoted in Amazon. "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism" ISBN-13: 978-1559392822, is an introduction to TB from the point of view of a practitioner. It starts with a 'motivation' in the acknowledments (This book ... help all sentient beings); it is published by 'Snow Lion', the TB publisher; he goes into the details of the Ngondro in the different traditions, to help the starting practitioner decide if she would prefer to be a Nyingma, or a Gelug...

the germane 'accuracy' which is quite a different matter from 'disinterestedness' . Well, if I understand correctly, your position now would be that, having agreed that Powers is not 'disinterested', you would wish to claim that despite this bias, he is a Germane, Accurate POV (a GAPOV?), as a opposed to an NPOV?--Jomellon (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now if Powers 'broad brush' dismissal of Chinese sources is a valid contribution to the debate, what would a 'broad brush' critical analysis of the world view of TB sources look like? How about "Just how casual the Tibetans in exile are in dealing with scholarly works on their history and social reality in ancient Tibet is shown by an example from the Tibetan Review, the English-language mouthpiece for the exile community. In April 1991, the renowned American historian Melvyn C. Goldstein could publish an article in which he presented for discussion a picture of Tibetan history that contradicted the official line from Dharamsala. In the subsequent debate a Tibetan scholar candidly admitted that Goldstein’s investigations were so well documented „that he is probably correct in his analysis” — and then the Tibetan continues, „But his presentation has succeeded in deeply offending most Tibetans” (Tibetan Review, January 1992, p. 18)." (The Shadow of the Dalai Lama - Victor & Victoria Trimondi)

But I don't think we should go there: 'broad brush' criticisms are not helpful: they are like a drunk throwing punches in a bar, hitting the scholarly and moderate as well as the fervent fundamentalist.

I really do see Powers as an apologist, a sort of TB Jesuit, whose principle aim in "History as Propaganda" is to put the serious scholarly works which make TB look bad into a category with supposedly universally 'biased' PRC sources.--Jomellon (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I neither assert what you claim I assert, nor concede what you claim I concede. You continually mischaracterize me, Powers, and this article. And you still haven't presented any valid objection to the present usage of Powers in this article. Bertport (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you agreed that we can put 'Tibetan Buddhist' next to the first reference to Powers? What would a valid objection be? --Jomellon (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Paucity of reliable statistics

I think it will always be impossible to reliably determine the state of the Tibetan economy, population, health and educational services, etc., etc, for the period just before and after the Chinese take-over for two main reasons: First, there are very few statistics of any kind available for the period before the Chinese arrived and the ones provided by the PRC afterwards are highly suspect. The best that can be done is to make (very) rough and unreliable estimates. Secondly, Tibetan and PRC views on what constituted a happy, productive society, a good education, abuse of "serfs", religious and other freedoms, and the like, are so different that it is (to use an old saying) "like comparing chalk and cheese". The "experts" seem to either disagree with each other or have come to the same conclusion I have - so, in my humble opinion, the best policy is just to briefly state both positions and describe the uncertainty surrounding the subject, stop wasting time tying to get to the "truth" of the matter when this is clearly impossible, and get on with other things. Cheers, John Hill (talk)

Much better articulated than I, sir, and very much my sentiment as well. In my opinion, the main point a reader of this article should come away with is not that there is disagreement of views but rather that our understanding of the situation is superficial and the number of studies done and real data available very limited. So then the scholarly disagreement is framed within that. They're arguing with as much data as they have, but it's not much. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree entirely! Quite right and I have argued often for: POV - source, other POV - source, and leave it at that. My belly ache is when POVs are presented as the NPOV. The PRC sources are clearly POVs, and often naively presented propaganda at that. The 'Tibetan Buddhist' apologists however like to present their - better presented but also slanted - views as the NPOV. (aren't we all?) Powers is a believing TB and author of an 'Introduction to TB'. He is very much a (well presented) POV and not an NPOV, and should not be presented as such. We saw quite and addition/editing spate a few weeks ago of the nature of "Here is the debate. The (laughably biased) PRC view is X. Here is what the slightly biased but noble Tibetans say. But as ever we find out the truth from Powers" Hmmmm. --Jomellon (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also while the relatively light weight and 'in a camp' Powers is presented as the NPOV, the conservative, Western, non- Marxist, non-Buddhist super-heavyweight scholar, universally respected even by his critics, Professor Goldstein is presented - especially by Bertport/Powers - as a biased POV. Hmmm...--Jomellon (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jomellon, you're just repeating stuff you made up. Bertport (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan and PRC views [so different] on what constituted a happy, productive society, a good education, abuse of "serfs", religious and other freedoms

That is also very true, but presenting the PRC as the standard against which Old Tibet is to be judged is also a bit of a trick. Modern Western standards are also not 'neutral', but they are the standards that most readers will have... and against that standard, forced labour, slavery, judicial eye-gouging, common whipping, flogging to death, life expectancy < 40, 95% illiteracy, tolerated homosexual sexual abuse of teenage boys in Lhasa by monks, monk life style forced on 8 year olds. etc do not quite fit with the image the TBs try to project. And these are all uncontested facts about Old Tibet. The TBs want to supress the widespread knowledge of this for PR reasons, and WP has a duty not to let that happen: irrespective of how aweful or not the PRC was/is. The PRC should also be clearly presented for what it is, good and bad. I think the only way forward for the TBs is to deal with the truth, and move on, not to attempt to suppress it (though among the general public they have largely got away with it!). The duty for WP is to present the established facts clearly, and the disputed facts as disputed, and why, without a large smoke screen. The page is not toooo bad now, imho, though it is a bit messy and could do with a rewrite: but that would be much too controversial! --Jomellon (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein a tweasel

Clearly, Goldstein is a tweasel and therefore should be excluded from the article altogether. His claims that Tibetans were surfers are absurd. Jomellon has freely admitted as much several times already. Bertport (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Astonishingly there were people arguing for the exclusion of Goldstein (! ...not an historian! ...scholarship superceded! ) 6 weeks or so ago: which shows just what a funny place some TBs had manouvered this page into. Crossette and Laird (!) were being presented as the 'last word' opinions. IMHO Powers is a big step up from Crossette and Laird: but still very much a TB POV and not the 'last word'. --Jomellon (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you looked all the way back to the origins of this article. It was started by Chinese propagandists (no joke) as a straight presentation of their POV. Others moved quickly to delete the article altogether - they didn't want it to even exist. The present article is a fair illustration of Wikipedia policies at work -- content based on verifiable sources, resulting from the contributions of multiple editors with their own perspective. Each editor has tas own opinions as to what should be emphasized more and what is overdone or overstated, and no one gets exactly the article ta wants. In the future, this article will be the target of occasional drive-by shootings, which will be reverted; but it will also see more meaningful reshaping over the course of time, as people bring more good source material forward. There is no last word. Many articles also go through episodes of active controversy, with long stretches of relative stability between. Bertport (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok! BTW: I find Tsering Shakya very reasonable... If you look at a lecture he gave in Berkeley, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA6jlvwrtns at about 1 hr 15 mins he describes talks with publishers in the PRC where he had asked them about interactions with censors, and what they can publish. The whole lecture is very interesting, tho he is not so flowing in English.--Jomellon (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chinese" Source: Anna Louise Strong

Could I ask anyone interested in editing this page to read Anna Louise Strong "When serfs stood up"? Chapters 7 & 8: available in the comfort of your own home and free: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1959/tibet/ch07.htm

She was a Marxist, a POV, and can be regarded as a "Chinese" source. There is also a bit of Marxist polemic mixed in, but - just read these two chapters and make up your own mind as to whether she is lying. She is actually quite cautious when evaluting the truth of the peasants reports, noting for example during 'denunciation' sessions that the denouncers seemed to be following directions.

But read and decide yourself!--Jomellon (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Such claims of "moral authority for [China] governing Tibet, based on narratives that portray Tibet as a feudal serfdom" and the PRC claims of improving Tibet - seeming to imply that without them Tibet would still be in the dark ages - are rather undermined by the fact that neighbouring Bhutan, which had a similar (possibly even more "feudal") social system, has managed improve and develop very well without being "liberated", invaded or taken over by Communist China. -- Chris Fynn (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But why would we debate that on a talk page, which is for discussing improvements to the article and not rehashing the heated arguments we could be having on other parts of the internet! --Gimme danger (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Should 'controversy' be in the title?

I took a look (though not a thorough one) through the discussion archives, and cannot seem to find out why the word 'controversy' is in the title. Controversy is a very vague word which could be tacked onto nearly anything. If the intention behind it was to undermine the idea that there was really serfdom in Tibet, perhaps that would be better expressed in the lead and the body of the article - if, of course, such a view is strongly supported by reliable sources.

In any case, it's unclear to me why 'controversy' should be in the title.

Aside from that, the article reads remarkably neutrally for such a charged subject. —Zujine|talk 08:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the archive page, especially the sections "Article name", "Split", and "Name change - again?". Bertport (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the pages long enough to recognise that I probably do not want to dredge up that dispute. If this is the title chosen after long discussion - and it is supposed to be more about the contested discourse surrounding the topic than the topic itself - then I don't have more input. Thank you. —Zujine|talk 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Return of Serfdom

I also removed the insights of Frederick Hayek which, while interesting, seemed unrelated to the article. —Zujine|talk 09:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored this brief passage, which contributes to the discussion of whether the allegations that pre-1950 Tibet was a feudal serfdom gives the PRC moral justification for ruling Tibet. Bertport (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the source which mentions this, about serfdom in other places, say that it undermines the moral justification of the CCP? I can see the logic to your argument, but so far that just seems like... your logic. If a scholar had said: "The CCP's argument is weakened by the fact that serfdom was practiced in X place and Y place..." - then we could report that (though perhaps not in the lead).

To give an example, it would be the same order of logic to include information about the CCP's grotesque human rights abuses, like torture and organ harvesting of religious dissidents, to show that they have no moral justification for anything. The reason we don't include that in the lead, or anywhere in this article, is the same reason we should not include the notes about serfdom in Europe. —Zujine|talk 13:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that's valid justification for excluding it from the article. Hayek/Gorbachev is not just about Europe, but about communist claims to rescue peasants from serfdom, and includes China in that argument. How about a compromise - we move it from the lead to the "Comparison to other regions" section. Bertport (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would be slightly better. I would not be opposed to a sentence in the lead saying something like "Advocates for Tibetan freedom seek to undermine the CCP's argument for moral legitimacy in invading Tibet by pointing to other societies that practiced serfdom elsewhere in the world."

OK, so it would not be quite like that, but the point is some words that make explicit why that information is relevant. Just my view. I accept the idea of moving it, and I will do so now. —Zujine|talk 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That one tiny passage on "a return to serfdom" has no fewer than three problems with it. I think the stinker should just be deleted.

• First of all, its unsourced. We need a specific source where Gorbachev and Hayek analyze the PRC's social system as serfdom.
• Neither Hayek nor Gorbachev is an authority on China. Hayek was not exactly a Sinologist (and he is a fierce polemicist), while Gorbachev's was the leader of a regime that saw China as enemy #1-#2.
• Both Hayek and Gorbachev are likely to be using "serfdom" rhetorically here. I appreciate the idea that Communism, particularly under Stalin, had features which resembled feudalism and serfdom but that's a line of thinking that should be fleshed out and made very concrete; an article on Tibet is not the place to do it, and neither Hayek nor Gorbachev are authorities on the issue. Historically-specific words like serfdom, slavery, capitalism etc are thrown around all the time, with little scientific merit. Hayek is particularly well-known for this, and his "return to serfdom" was aimed at the emerging Welfare State more than anything else. This bit is crucial here. Such rhetorical ploys are acceptable only in articles that deal with ideology and polemics, not in historical articles.
• The link to "alleged Return to Serfdom" only links to the "Serfdom", which sensibly refrains from engaging Hayek's metaphor and sticks to actual serfdom (excepting the minor and very comical allegation about Belarus). IF hayek's concept of "serfdom" belongs here, it also belongs in Welfare State, Keynesianism, Social Democracy, Labour Party etc. ...and Ben Carson's quip that the PPACA==slavery belongs in PPACA.

So yeah, I've inserted the relevant tags and urge the regulars to delete this silliness which undermines an otherwise very commendable article.