Talk:South Tibet dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Same place?

Is it sure that South Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh are the same place? I don't think so.And South Tibet is part of Tibetan culture for long time. you can go to Tibet to clarify it.Ksyrie 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

South Tibet (藏南) is just what China calls Arunachal Pradesh, according to that article. I myself have never heard "South Tibet" used by Tibetans. Another thing, I thought that most of the ethnic groups in Arunachal Pradesh weren't Tibetans, but different tribal peoples. Correct me if I'm wrong. (for both of the things I said) --Khoikhoi 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean they are Tibetan but only they are Tibetan or of Thai-Burmese origin.And for more South Tibet has much links with Tibet as I knowKsyrie 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but did the Tibetans refer to it as South Tibet? It seems that it is just a Chinese term, and should be merged into the main article, Arunachal Pradesh. --Khoikhoi 05:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But it seems Arunachal Pradesh is a indian term,not a tibetan term.Ksyrie

Two terms for the same place... Khoikhoi 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly,South Tibet roughly corresponds the Arunachal Pradesh,but not completely--Ksyrie 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, cite sources. Khoikhoi 02:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All the sources you can find in Arunachal Pradesh--Ksyrie 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Although part of that article is sourced, the paragraph about South Tibet is not. Khoikhoi 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't make sense. It doesn't even define the concept or territory of "South Tibet". Two "definitions" are given:

• "it roughly corresponds to the presently Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh"
• and "South Tibet means Zangnan (藏南) in Chinese."

No sources are given for either definition, and there is a huge contradiction between the two: Zàngnán 藏南 is the area between the Himalaya and Gangdisê (Kailash) mountain ranges, and that's not the same as Arunachal Pradesh. I doubt that "South Tibet" is a clearly defined term in English, as Zàngnán 藏南 is in Chinese. Three "references" are given:

• "Satellite Map of Zangnan"

The title of this map is actually "Màixiàn yǐnán wèixīngtú 麦线以南卫星图", i.e. "Satellite Map [of the areas] south of the McMahon line". Not a word about "Zangnan" or "South Tibet". The translation "Satellite Map of Zangnan" is wrong and misleading.

• "Introduction to the geography and political problem in Zangnan"

This is an anonymous post to a discussion forum, probably copied from somewhere else. It is not really about "Zangnan", but about the dispute with India. "Zangnan" is not really equated with Arunachal Pradesh that post. Besides that, the title is not quoted (translated) correctly. Clearly not an appropriate reference.

• "The map of Zangnan occupied by India"

This is actually a map that shows the border dispute between India and China in the eastern sector. The title is actually "China-India Border: Eastern Sector". It doesn't contain the words "Zangnan", "South Tibet", or "occupied". —Babelfisch 03:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues I've brought up were not addressed, so I've rewritten the article. (I've found the term "South Tibet" in several English-language publications.) —Babelfisch 08:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the version history of this article. No sources had been provided for the paragraphs I removed.

Ksyrie, I understand you're not happy with what I did, but please don't insert or re-insert unsourced material. The article should indeed be expanded, but it has to be sourced properly. Two (mislabelled) maps and an anonymous contribution to a discussion board are simply not enough. Please have a look at the Wikipedia policies on verifiability, citing sources and original research. —Babelfisch 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, South Tibet doesn't cover the same district as Arunachal Pradesh

Somebody asked me for the comments to the deletion of the article. I don't care the political dispute over this area, but I'm afraid that the article Arunachal Pradesh could be renamed to be South Tibet in 50 years. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Arunachal Pradesh

Ksyrie, the AfD discussion decided not to simply delete this article. Fine; but if you disagree with merging it into Arunachal Pradesh, you need to come up with some valid sources for this article. I notice that you wrote the Chinese Wikipedia version as well.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that South Tibet is smaller than Arunachal Pradesh.I don't konw the exact difference between the overlapping place,but it seems South Tibet covered somehow 7/10 or 9/10 area of Arunachal Pradesh.You can compare them in the maps.--Ksyrie 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided any maps which show a "South Tibet".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are maps in the two articles,you can compare them yourselves.--Ksyrie 06:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There still don't seem to be any sources for this article other that mention something called "South Tibet" or "臧囊", other than the forum post.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes,the south tibet affair appears as a tatoo for chinese government,they said little,and to a certainty the indian medias wont show too much interests in the difference of indian territory.--Ksyrie 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that citations are lacking.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded images can be served as references.--Ksyrie 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But which image mentions "South Tibet" or "臧囊"?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The image in this article the azure area.and there are maps in the references column,you can check it yourself.furthermore the chinese name is 藏南，not 臧囊--Ksyrie 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I meant 藏南. The map in the article does not say "South Tibet" anywhere. The caption does, but that's because you wrote it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Check this link [1]--Ksyrie 05:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to, specifically?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont you doubt where the word South Tibet coming from,I give you the google book links,you can check them and find south tibet is name in use for many years.--Ksyrie 05:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

People are using the phrase "South Tibet" to talk about something, but how many of them are using it to refer to the subject of this article? The first book that comes up is talking about some paleontological findings; i.e.it has nothing to do with politics or political boundaries. The "Tibet Handbook" mentions Yamdrok Yumtso as "By far the largest lake in South Tibet", but Yamdrok is clearly inside the Tibet Autonomous Region, not in the disputed area.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from my recent edits, Tibet is divided into South Tibet (Zàngnán 藏南) and North Tibet (Zàngběi 藏北) by the Transhimalaya ranges (Nyainqêntanglha and Gangdisê), so South Tibet is not at all identical with the disputed territory. —Babelfisch 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material and other problems

I’ve once again removed all unsourced material. I had rewritten the article because the alternative would have been to tag each sentence as unsourced, and that would still have left the article contradictory, because one of the main issues, the territorial definition of South Tibet, would not have been solved. To avoid an edit war, I’ve moved all the problematic material to this discussion page to be discussed in detail. I’m going to deal with the external links and the so-called “references” first because they are all problematic, so that large parts of the previous version of the articles were actually not properly sourced.

1. Satellite Map of Zangnan (in Chinese) — Once again: The title of this map is actually “Màixiàn yǐnán wèixīngtú 麦线以南卫星图”, i.e. “Satellite Map [of the areas] south of the McMahon line”. It doesn’t mention “Zangnan” or “South Tibet”. The translation "Satellite Map of Zangnan" is wrong and misleading. This map thus can’t be a source for a definition of South Tibet. It is also not an ideal weblink because it’s in Chinese, not in English.
2. Introduction to the geography and political problem in Zangnan (in Chinese) — Once again: This is an anonymous post to a discussion forum, probably copied from somewhere else. It is not really about “Zangnan”, but about the dispute with India. “Zangnan” is not really equated with Arunachal Pradesh in that post. Besides that, the title is not quoted (translated) correctly. Clearly not an appropriate reference according to Wikipedia policies (WP:EL).

• Zangnan is equivalent of South Tibet,not Arunachal Pradesh--Ksyrie 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The map of Zangnan occupied by India (in English) — This is actually a map that shows the border dispute between India and China in the eastern sector. The title is actually "China-India Border: Eastern Sector". It doesn't contain the words "Zangnan", "South Tibet", or "occupied". There’s also something wrong with the website [www.tripway.com.cn]. I can’t access anything else on that site except for this map. Clearly not an appropriate reference according to Wikipedia policies.
2. North East Zone Cultural Centre (Used as information reference to all related articleson [sic] tribal groups of Arunachal Pradesh) — Sorry, this page has no information on tribal groups of Arunachal Pradesh. If you want to use material from that site as references, you have to link to individual pages that actually contain that information. As it is now, it violates Wikipedia policies.
3. Urgelling Monastery — Too specific. That site is not about South Tibet, but about a monastery. The link thus violates the Wikipedia policy.
4. Someone doubt South Tibet was a name fabricated by wikipedia editors,in fact many books refer this name[2] — Poor English, which that could be helped – I’m not a native speaker of English myself. But the link also violates Wikipedia policies (Links normally to be avoided, point 9.)
5. South Tibet found in Google Book — see above.
6. South Tibet is a geographical region encompassing a mountainous area of the Himalayas, ... — Unsourced and too vague. Which area? I’ve given a more precise definition – with sources!
7. ... controlled by Qing Dynasty of China since 1793, ... — Unsourced.
8. claimed by both the Republic of China since 1912 and the People's Republic of China since 1949 — Unsourced and misleading. Did any Chinese government give up the claim before 1912 or 1949?
9. but not administered as a sub-administration of the Tibet Autonomous Region. — Unsourced and misleading. The Chinese government claims this area and of course all relevant government documents and maps show this area as part of Chinese administrative divisions, part of the Tibet Autonomous Region.
10. After the Sino-Indian War, it roughly corresponds to the presently Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh that is disputed by and claimed by People's Republic of China. — Unsourced and wrong. This contradicts the definition of South Tibet, which is much bigger than Arunachal Pradesh. Another inaccuracy: China doesn’t claim Arunachal Pradesh as such, but most of its territory.
11. The South Tibet is relatively smaller than the Indian controlled Arunachal Pradesh. — Unsourced and wrong. South Tibet is much bigger than Arunachal Pradesh.
12. South Tibet means Zangnan (藏南) in Chinese. — Poor logic, poor English, or both. It’s sufficient to have the Chinese term in brackets at the very beginning. I’m going to insert that.
13. Historically, the area had close relationship with Tibetan people and Tibetan culture, e.g. the religious Leader of the whole Tibetan district, the sixth Dalai Lama Tsangyang Gyatso was born in Tawang. — Unsourced and Chinglish. “The whole Tibetan district” is a typical wrong translation from Chinese: A district is an administrative division, and the areas inhabited by Tibetans haven’t been politically unified for centuries. “Zàngqū 藏区” should be translated as “Tibetan areas”.
14. This region then came under the loose control of Tibet and Bhutan, especially in the Northern areas. — Unsourced, vague and misleading. When was “then”? This sentence also implies that South Tibet is just the disputed territory, which contradicts the definition of South Tibet. Otherwise, the “northern areas” would be somewhere in the Transhimalaya, deep in Tibet.
15. The remaining parts of the state, especially those bordering Myanmar, came under the control of the Ahom and the Assamese until the annexation of India by the British in 1858. — Unsourced and wrong. Which “state”? What is the difference between “Ahom and the Assamese”? India was not “annexed” by Britain in 1859.
16. Most of the people living in South Tibet are either of Tibetan or Thai-Burmese origin (see the demographics of Arunachal Pradesh for more detail). — Unsourced. “Thai-Burmese” doesn’t make sense.
17. Another 35% of the population are immigrants, including 30,000 Bangladeshi and Chakma expatriates, and immigrants from other parts of India, notably Assam and Nagaland. — Unsourced.
18. I’ve also removed the first map (Tibet-claims.jpg) because it doesn’t show South Tibet at all.

Please note that any material added to the article or restored from previous versions has to be properly sourced. According to Wikipedia policies, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and any edit lacking a source may be removed. I’ve first pointed out the problems with this article; the issues were not solved, so I rewrote the article and provided sources.

Please follow Wikipedia policies on verifiability, citing sources, external links and original research. Ksyrie, don’t just hit “revert”, insert or restore material without addressing these issues here first, or provide proper sources. And don’t accuse me of vandalism for removing improper material,[3] that’s a personal attack. —Babelfisch 08:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• you want to deleting the materials by accussing my poor english?--Ksyrie 10:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, and I've never said that!

English isn't my native language either, I guess the native speakers here can tell. I also depend on fellow Wikipedians for help with correcting my edits, and I sympathise with all my non-North-Americans, non-Europeans, non-native-speakers-of-English etc. who are working very hard to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia absolutely needs us non-native speakers, although right now there's a discussion going on to effectively ban all editors from China – including me: Blocking policy: Softblock for Tor proxies and No open proxies: Users from China are banned by this policy.

I only object to all that unsourced material you keep re-inserting, especially the parts that are overtly or implicitly contradicting the well-sourced definition of the very term "South Tibet". That's not a linguistic problem at all, and you have not addressed one single point of the issues I've raised, so I've deleted the unsourced material and inappropriate links once again. —Babelfisch 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop that edit war! Ksyrie, stop inserting unsourced material! —Babelfisch 06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Which source is it, exactly, that confirms the information in this article? There are a lot of sources given, but most of them mention nothing about "South Tibet". Others appear to contradict this article's definition: for instance, this link seems to say that Lhasa is in the South Tibet Valley. A more interesting souce is this one, but, even still, it describes "西藏南部" as located in three mountain ranges, among them the Gangdise and the Himalayas, both of which extend to an area much larger than what the article calls South Tibet. Since there don't appear to be any valid sources, I'm going to revert to Babelfisch's version.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.geoscience.cn/igba/zn.htm

RfC

I think editors coming here from the RfC would benefit from a quick rundown of the contentious issues from involved editors. So far all I can work out is that some unsourced material is being reintroduced. Is that it? Hornplease 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and some small surrounding areas are currently under Indian administration, but they are claimed by the Chinese government as part of Tibet, and, therefore, part of China ((the foregoing is not controversial)). According to the most recent stable version of this article, "South Tibet" is the name preferred by the Chinese for this area. The basis of the dispute, from my point of view, is that it has not been established that this term is actually used with this meaning outside of Wikipedia. To the best of my knowledge, the only source which has been cited showing that is one Chinese blog post. Other sources discuss the area in question or the term, "South Tibet" (or the Chinese equivalent 藏南, zangnan), but do not appear to link them.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've done some looking around, and you're right, references to a ST administrative subregion, rather than the south of Tibet SAR, are lacking. I've put the word out on a few noticeboards here, so some people might turn up in a bit who have some specialised knowledge. Failing which, we can take this to AfD. Hornplease 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Addhoc (talk · contribs)

From what I can gather this article is about two separate subjects. Firstly, there is a geographical feature called the South Tibet Valley referred to by this reference and this reference which are currently used in the article and secondly, there is a border dispute between China and India. I would suggest moving the article to South Tibet Valley and pointing the resulting redirect towards Arunachal Pradesh. Addhoc 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No,South Tibet is not only a geographic term but also a political one.--Ksyrie 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide sources for the political use of 'South Tibet'. Addhoc 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear more about Ksyrie's position, and the sources that back it up.--Danaman5 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There still aren't any reliable sources for the political defintion. If this doesn't change, I would suggest redirecting the article to Arunachal Pradesh.--Addhoc 12:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For the South Tibetan issue

It is a naming issue for a given area which is controversial.And what a pity,there is no native habitant in this page,so I have to show some secondhand references.

Firstly,this name is widely used by chinese before the foundation of Arunachal Pradesh,Arunachal Pradesh is an new invention of India which appeared after the Sino-indian war,So legitimately,South Tibet is chornological more suitable for descrbing this area at least historically,even if the Arunachal Pradesh is ceded by China to India,when we try to write the small history of this region,we may write like this 'Arunachal Pradesh,formerly called South Tibet'.

Secondly,this name did appear in many english references,check google book link [4].

Thirdly,South Tibet is a political term,which was repeatedly used,even by some indian author [5]

more links [6] ,[7]

So I am just curious why people are so sentitive about this name.Generally speaking,South Tibet is the name for this area before 1970s,and from then on the indian use the new name Arunachal Pradesh but China pesist use South Tibet.That is my stance.--Ksyrie 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled by your citations, since they do not seem to show what you suggest they do. For instance, the Google book search link you give shows references to "South Tibet" or "south Tibet", but none of them appear to be referring to the same thing that you call "South Tibet". Likewise, in your citation of Indian author, for one thing, he distinctly writes "south Tibet" rather than "South Tibet"; for another, while it's difficult to tell from this brief snippet what area he's referring to, it seems unlikely that it is anything to do with Arunachal Pradesh (since he mentions an increase of Chinese troops, which seems like an odd way to describe the quick invasion of that area during the Sino-Indian War and the quick withdrawal afterward). The third link you give is clearly referring to millions-of-years-old geological region, and the fourth link mentions Lhoka in south Tibet; Lhoka is in the southern part of the Chinese-controlled area.

You known,in modern chinese Zangnan or South Tibet is a proper name.It is clear for me the South Tibet is the indian occupied regions.And the reason why there is some chinese administrated district,the disputed region is not fully controlled by indian troops.--Ksyrie 06:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But, in English, the spelling "south Tibet" implies that it is not a proper name, which implies that these authors are not referring to the same thing you are. You can say "It is clear for me the South Tibet is the indian occupied regions" all you want, but you need to cite sources to that effect.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is particularly sensitive about the name "South Tibet", with the possible exception of yourself. I'm not sure where you got this impression, although I am starting to feel increasingly frustrated that you continue to give us irrelevant citations to justify your edits.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arunachal Pradesh article already mentions that the Chinese name for the region is South Tibet. What do you see as the benefit of having this separate article?--Danaman5 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First,the two regions didn't cover the same area,Second,historic names are often created in different wikipedia article.--Ksyrie 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you just check this page before mediating?[8]--Ksyrie 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. A line in the article was confusing and made it seem like the two regions were the same. It looks like it confused some people at that AfD too.--Danaman5 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, didn't Ksyrie just write above, "even if the Arunachal Pradesh is ceded by China to India,when we try to write the small history of this region,we may write like this 'Arunachal Pradesh,formerly called South Tibet'"?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But the article itself says "South Tibet comprises the administrative divisions Xigazê, Lhasa, Shannan and Nyingchi." I'm 99% sure that Lhasa and Xigaze at least are under Chinese control (feel free to correct me on this). The article then says "This part [the disputed part] of South Tibet roughly corresponds to what India refers to as Arunachal Pradesh." The article may be wrong or unverified, since that is the entire locus of this dispute, but based on that I don't think that Ksyrie's claim is that the two are actually the same thing.--Danaman5 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article is Babelfisch's version. Ksyrie's version is this one.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh,I found it,I know the reason why we cann't reach the agreement.I know it.Because in the modern chinese,there is two different geographic and political terms,one is South Tibet Valley（藏南谷地） and another is South Tibet（藏南），though they all comprise the same prefix South Tibet,but they are not overlapping.South Tibet Valley is in the north of South Tibet and Babelfisch's version for South Tibet is actually South Tibet Valley.So it's not surprising he or she want to change the title to South Tibet Valley,and my version is South Tibet in the narrow sense.Ok,now we can settle the problem,we split the article into two parts,one is South Tibet Valley,which Babelfisch had edited,and another is South Tibet which is the name of disputed area between China and India.--Ksyrie 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that you still haven't produced one source which shows that the second meaning, "South Tibet（藏南)", exists at all outside of Wikipedia and a blog post.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 07:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can read chinese,and type 藏南(South Tibet) in google or baidu,you will find all the page linked to 藏南(South Tibet) is the South Tibet of my version.I will try to find some english page to support it.--Ksyrie 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm about ready to stop paying attention to you. What have you been doing so far? Anyway, both Danaman and Babelfisch read Chinese well and I read it slowly, so, if you can find sources in Chinese, you might as well present those as well.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Ok, I think we all agree that there are two possible definitions of South Tibet in play here. Of course, the grand question at Wikipedia is always "What sources do we have?" According to Wikipedia policy, sources must be reliable. I think this excludes sources like Google Books searches and things like that, as they are just too imprecise to count as reliable. I can't entirely understand the Chinese sources given (lots of technical terms in there). The blog post does have elements supporting Ksyrie's definition, but I'm not sure who wrote it. Ksyrie, if you could find any other sources, preferably published in a book, newspaper, or academic journal, it would better allow for your definition to be included. Remember, just linking to a search is not enough; we need specific sources. Chinese language sources are fine, just make sure that they are reliable, and that you give us a link or reference for the specific source itself.

However, I would say that the "South Tibet Valley" definition should be better sourced as well. The map and satellite imagery don't seem to mention South Tibet by any definition, and the other sources only show a nominal distinction made by the Chinese government. We need to know if geographers and others outside of China actually use this term to talk about Tibet. Generally, I say to both parties, we need more sources, and you should work together to find them. Until we have more material to work off of, we can't contemplate a split into two different articles, as there would not be enough substance to them. Once we have sources, we can lay them out and decide which definitions of South Tibet are present in them.--Danaman5 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Darn right, neither version is well-sourced. That's why we have made attempts in the past to either delete this article or have it redirected to Arunachal Pradesh, but to no avail.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I feel that I didn't introduce myself properly above. I have volunteered to try to help mediate this case per your request. I have already asked User:Ksyrie to clarify his or her position. User:Nat Krause and User:Babelfisch have been clear on their positions on this talk page.

My goal in mediation is to get everyone talking, and to end up with an article that has material that is both satisfying to both sides and is in line with all relevant Wikipedia policy. Since Ksyrie seems to feel like he or she is on the defensive, I'd like to wait for their explanation first.

Finally, I am an intermediate to advanced student of Mandarin Chinese, so if Chinese is your native language and you would like to use it to speak more precisely, feel free to do so.--Danaman5 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

My understanding of this subject is shaky, however from what I can gather the South Tibet Valley is 150 km north and south of the Yarlung Tsangpo River (Tibet) which is marked on the map below by its Indian name of Brahmaputra River and is the thin blue line which is nearly horizontal and passes just to the south of Lhasa. The disputed region which is supposedly called South Tibet, but lacks any reliable sources for this usage is shown in azure. Accordingly, the South Tibet Valley is to the north of the area supposedly referred to as South Tibet.

In the first instance, I'm going to remove the tagged content, which ignoring content about the South Tibet Valley that has its own article, would only leave content about Arunachal Pradesh. Given there is no benefit in having multiple articles about the same subject, I would suggest this article should then be redirected towards Arunachal Pradesh.--Addhoc 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to an earlier version for the moment, but I would support such a change.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll redirect on the basis of "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it".--Addhoc 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your redirect is invalid.There's numerous sources of South Tibet.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided any reliable sources for 'South Tibet', only for the 'South Tibet Valley', which is covered by the Yarlung Tsangpo River (Tibet) article. Addhoc 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[9],[10],[11]--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The references you're quoting are trivial mentions that don't support any of the article content. Addhoc 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But why you redirect South Tibet to the indian state?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The existence of South Tibet in these links suggest the necessity of the South Tibet Ariticle.It's not a different name of the indian state,and it's not the synonym of South Tibet Valley.South Tibet Valley is the valley of South Tibet.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And I cann't find any mention of redirect in the wiki policy "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it".Have you ever changed the policy for yourself?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My involvement in this discussion has 'only' been since earlier this year, and I gather you have been arguing about South Tibet for over a year. In all of this time, you have yet to produce any content that directly relates to South Tibet (instead of the South Tibet Valley) which is supported by reliable sources. Addhoc 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The existence of last 3 links of South Tibet mentioned either in Tibetan history or natural book clearly shows the usage of South Tibet as a geographic name.It's totally verfiable and clear,and all relates to South Tibet instead of South Tibet Valley.Are you ok?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In the current version of the article, none of the content about South Tibet (as opposed to the South Tibet Valley) is supported by reliable sources. The sources you've quoted on this page also don't appear to support any of the content. Accordingly, I would suggest the article should be redirected. Addhoc 14:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally nonsense to redirect South Tibet to the Arunachal Pradesh,I had stated 1000 times,they are not covering the same place.User:Nat Krause,if you cann't understand the meaning of not covering the same area,I will present it to you,It said,South Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh are not identical synonym,So you cann't redirect South Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh,vice versa,are you clear?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating the obvious: you still have yet to produce any content that directly relates to South Tibet (instead of the South Tibet Valley) which is supported by reliable sources. Addhoc 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given your numerous links to South Tibet instead of South Tibet Valley,have you ever opened them？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. You still haven't produced any content that directly relates to South Tibet (instead of the South Tibet Valley) which is supported by reliable sources. What you have done is argue on talk pages. I suggest you either produce reliably sourced content about South Tibet (instead of the South Tibet Valley) or you accept the article should be redirected. Addhoc 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How laughable,direct evidence?Just type South Tibet in the Google book search,you can find thousands result.How can you see these links as unreliable?[12],furthermore,the name of Arunachal Pradesh appeared far later than South Tibet either in Chinese or English,So why you redirect South Tibet to the Indian State.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning of Vandal(Which I put in the talk page of Addhoc,but he or she removed it)

Dont blank the page anymore,or you behavior is regarded as Vandal.[13]--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate

It is unfortunate that India editors try to subsume much of what is Tibet into India. (They do the same with Bangladesh subjects.) When I wrote the article,Yarlung Tsangpo River there was steadfast resistance from India editors who said that the Tibet information needed no independent article as it was actually the Brahmaputra River. They attempted to deny any independent mention of the river in Tibet. However, it is not called the Brahmaputra River in Tibet, nor is it called the Brahmaputra River in the part the flows through Bangladesh. The material I put in the Yarlung Tsangpo River article clearly pertained to Tibet. None of the information I put in the article was included in the Brahmaputra River but nonetheless there were attempts to redirect the article to the Brahmaputra River. Considering the enormous number of articles on India, it is my wish that Tibet, although in a fragile and ambiguous political situation and without the enormous number of sophisticated editors and organized presence on Wikipedia that India has, be allow to struggle in the creation of its own articles. I do not know the political definition of South Tibet but it is an important area geologically. I do not understand the great hurry to subsume everything Tibet under India. Regards, Mattisse 12:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree,South Tibet is obviously different from the 1960s founded indian state,this name appeared at least in the late 19th centuary.No matter Tibet is part of China or not,South Tibet as a geograhic or political name had nothing to do with the India.What they want was to wipe out the Tibetan trace.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why India editors don't spend their time improving the thousands of sub par India articles, rather than putting all this energy into redirecting the few little articles that have the word Tibet in them? Seems rather strange. Mattisse 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Same question to raise.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think part of it is a problem of over inclusion. They think that because the territory of Arunachal Pradesh is included with South Tibet, as part of Ngari, Shannan and Nyingchi Prefectures by the Chinese authorities, that the opposite is also true. That is that South Tibet, as part of Ngari, Shannan and Nyingchi Prefectures is included in Arunachal Pradesh. Mattisse 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea which, if any, of the editors involved in editing this page are Indians. I also have no idea where you two would get the impression that anybody here is anti-Tibetan. In any event, this entire thread, full as it is of innuendo and veiled aspersions, is quite inappropriate.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am so curious about why you and another persisted in blanking South Tibet page and redirect to an indian state,which are not snynomyn.Since South Tibet and the Indian state are not same,every rational man will not redirect them more than one times,considering I had stated that enormous times.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?

The article as it stands now is extremely vague about what area it is describing. It begins by saying, "South Tibet ... refers to a geographic area that is the focus of dispute between India and China. The area, located on India's northern frontier, is also claimed by India. India currently administers the area known in India as Arunachal Pradesh." This says that South Tibet is an area claimed by India, and implies that it is administered by India as Arunachal Pradesh. The article then says, "As well as Arunachal Pradesh, the disputed area includes a section delineating a barren plateau in Ladakh called Aksai Chin". Now does "the disputed area" mean that we are still talking about "South Tibet", or is this an irrelevant digression about another disputed area? Next, the article tells us, "South Tibet includes the Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon, formed by the middle reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River in the south of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China." Is the Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon claimed by India? Of course not. So, this conflicts with the statement earlier that South Tibet is an area "claimed by India". Is Lhasa part of South Tibet? This citation says it is. If so, "South Tibet" includes the Tibetan heartland and it doesn't make much sense to focus the article on the boundary dispute.

By the way, congratulations, the Asia Times article finally constitutes some kind of external confirmation that the term "South Tibet" is used to refer to the disputed area. However, it says, "Chinese claims to what it calls Zangnan or South Tibet, the Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh on India's northeast frontier", which doesn't support the idea that South Tibet is something more than another name for Arunachal Pradesh.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tibet is much larger than Arunachal Pradesh.The whole tibetan plateau is devided into 4 part,the North Tibet,East Tibet,West Tibet and South Tibet.Arunachal is just one part of South Tibet.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you "cant find the contradict content"? The article currently says "South Tibet ... refers to a geographic area that is the focus of dispute between India and China. The area, located on India's northern frontier, is claimed by both China and India. This is a long-standing unresolved border dispute. India currently administers the area, known in India as Arunachal Pradesh." This directly contradicts your statement that South Tibet is much larger than Arunachal Pradesh. Make up your mind.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read thoroughly the whole article.South Tibet comprise the china-administrative region such as Xigazê Prefecture,Shannan Prefecture,as well as the Arunachal Pradesh--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You will respond to my comments or I will begin to ignore you and redirect this article somewhere else. The article as it stands currently contradicts what you just said.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Other than the part that is in the section that needs to be cleaned up, what part of the article is confusing to you? Please read the equivalent section in Arunachal Pradesh which is completely unsourced. Mattisse 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bother to read the article?You are the rudest editor I have ever met,Can you read the artilce?Just a few minutes doesn't take your too much time.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been quoting from the article. Why do people keep asking me if I've read it. I have read it and it contradicts itself.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me where you find the contradiction?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you ask me to show you where I find the contradiction, when I have just done so in this thread immediately above your request? In the interest of clarity, I will repeat myself again: "The article currently says South Tibet ... refers to a geographic area that is the focus of dispute between India and China. The area, located on India's northern frontier, is claimed by both China and India. This is a long-standing unresolved border dispute. India currently administers the area, known in India as Arunachal Pradesh. This directly contradicts your statement that South Tibet is much larger than Arunachal Pradesh." Now, since then, you have altered the introduction to the article so that it now no longer says; that's a good thing. However, the next section of the article still says, "India currently administers the area called South Tibet by China and Arunachal Pradesh by India." This says that South Tibet is the same thing as Arunachal Pradesh, which contradicts what you're telling me and what the rest of the article says.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tibet is much larger,some cities administrated by China such as Shigatse is also within the range of South Tibet.Check these link [14]Shigatse,a town far from the disputed land is also within the South Tibet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksyrie (talk • contribs) 18:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, you are either going to begin responding to my comments, or I will begin to ignore you and redirect the article somewhere. I wanted you to explain why your version of the article contradicted itself. You are apparently aware that there was a problem, because you have since edited the article to remove the contradiction—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The current version is not solely edited by me,I just give my version,and I found no contradicts.“India currently administers the area called South Tibet by China and Arunachal Pradesh by India.",now I added :India currently administers the area called part of South Tibet by China and Arunachal Pradesh by India."--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Nat Krause - the article should be redirected, because the current version is confused and poorly sourced. Addhoc 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to clarify

I tried to clarify the lead based on the zh.wiki article. But I can't find anything backing up this version even on official Chinese sources. I saw a couple of non-official Chinese websites talking about "Zangnan", but they seem to just equate it to Araunachal Pradesh. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this, Palace Guard. You're right that sources are still lacking, through no fault of your own. Moreover, the subject of this article still seems mixed-up. If it is correct, as the article says, that "South Tibet" refers to Shannan, Xigaze and Nyingtri Prefectures, then it seems dubious to say that a "large portion" of it is controlled by India; geographically, the area is marginally "large", but the portions under Chinese control are of much greater historical significance. What's more, the source this article gives for that claim actually includes Lhasa in "South Tibet as well. This isn't a semantic argument: my point is that, in an article about such a large and influential area of Tibet (basically the Tibetan heartland) it doesn't make any sense to focus so much attention on the border dispute. The article on Nyingtri only includes one short sentence on the dispute.

By the way, you probably noticed who it was that wrote the Chinese version of this article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The source cited seems to use "south Tibet" as opposed to "South Tibet" - a descriptive phrase and not a proper noun.

This term doesn't seem to have much reliable source reference at all. Being so imprecise, I would suggest that the article be refactored along the lines of Southern England, with appropriate references made to the conflicting territorial claims. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalaceGuard008 and Nat Krause, given the concerns noted, would it be ok to redirect this article to Arunachal Pradesh?--Addhoc 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No way--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on this talk page seems to have been to redirect to Arunachal Pradesh. That being the case, I'm not sure why the article was restored. I'm going to redirect it back to Arunachal Pradesh pending further discussion.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The concensus was only in your imaginary mind.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

unreliable sources

[15] is describing the area as 'south tibet valley' as regions currently apart of the chinese side of the border (eg Quxu-Zetang) it does not contain any information on border disputes between the two countries. [16] is dead and no archive available so it has been removed Thisglad (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Subject of article

The first source cited in the article says that "South Tibet" is the same thing as Arunachal Pradesh. Specifically, what it says is, "Two additional issues - renewed Chinese claims to what it calls Zangnan or South Tibet, the Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh on India's northeast frontier, and China's visa denial to an Arunachal Pradesh official - have added a new kink to Sino-Indian relations." This is the only mention of "South Tibet" in that article. The section called "Description" contradicts this quite significantly; however, that section is unsourced (two maps are cited at the end, but those maps do not mention a "South Tibet" or 南藏). Some editors have suggested that this page be redirected to Arunachal Pradesh, and, in fact, that change was implemented for a while before being changed back. I am going to restore the redirect again, pending further constructive discussion.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Political issue

This seems to be a political issue where those supporting India seek to claim all of what is informally called "South Tibet" is actually Indian territory. The tenacity of certain editors to redirect this article to Arunachal Pradesh supports this view. There are plenty of articles that could be redirected throughout Wikipedia, but these editors focus on this one alone. However, it is clear that China claims most of this area and India retains control of only a relatively samll part. To claim this whole area is actual formally part of an Indian state, Arunachal Pradesh, and administered as such is incorrect. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making implications that editors whose edits you disagree with are politically motivated, why not assume good faith? There has been a lot of discussion on this talk page above, which you could perhaps contribute to.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I believe the territorial dispute itself is indeed political, I think the current conflict has to do with nomenclature than anything else. As I see it, the political dispute should be explicated within the article proper, i.e. Arunachal Pradesh. The term "South Tibet", as it seems, is a politically motivated terminology, and I believe that such contested territorial dispute should be discussed within proper context, i.e. Arunachal Pradesh. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed to this discussion many moons ago. This argument has been going on at least a year. In fact, I found many references for the article from reliable sources, which have since been removed by an opposing side. I have given up on expressing a view, because politics prevent rationality in this case, in my view. I tried. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have edited this page before, but to call that a contribution is quite a stretch. You started a section in which you accuse some other editors of being Indian. I am not, and it would be an inappropriate thing to bring up regardless of accuracy.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret any Indian remark and apologize. I worked on this page at the end of my India article writing, after I was disillusioned. At the time there were several ethnic Indian arguments on Wikipedia and I was asked many, many times if I was Indian. Indian editors were open about their nationality and ethnic preferences and many assumed I was Indian and said so. Times have changed, hopefully. I know on FAC, this issue, although still alive, has toned down immensely. Please do not judge past common practices by today's cleaner, tighter standards. I have written close to a hundred articles on India, helped many Indian articles to FAC and DYK. I received many Barnstars from Indians for my work on articles on India. However, I stopped writing articles on India because of the politics. I should have stayed out of this one. I no longer even copy edit articles on India. So lets end this conversation. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not merege

I have edited the article in the past and added wording with valid references which were then removed. This is a political dispute that is unresolved so far. If you came up with a third article that explained both sides of the disputes, that would be satisfactory, but to simply #REDIRECT one whole side out of existence is not. Wikipedia allows such articles to exist. South Tibet is a term some will look up and to be redirected to an Indian state with no mention of the situation is not a satisfactory solution. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When you say that you added valid references, which edits are you referring to? I see this edit, where you added three references, but these were completely irrelevant. In the first two, it's clear from context that the articles are simply referring to the southern part of Tibet (which is why they write "south Tibet" rather than "South Tibet"). The third reference is discussing a geological region. This is not helpful.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

China's real interest

The last line in the dispute section "It has been suggested that China has no real interest in Arunachal but keeps this issue simmering as to recognize the treaty would also recognize Tibet as an independent country under Chinese occupation." It has been saying citation needed for a while, I am not sure such a strong one sided claim should stay. Is this original research? If no one provide a reference for it, it will be taken away. Chadsnook (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)