Talk:Tibet/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Five Point Peace Plan for Tibet

Any opinions on the "The informal response from some Chinese media is that Dalai Lama's Five point Peace Plan is unrealistic and that the plan was first initiated by foreigners (British) at the time when most of China was being colonized by imperialistic powers in early 1900s, for the purpose of supporting an independent Tibet from Qing China. They claim that, if carried out, it would have meant a de facto separation of China and the independence of Tibet from China." statement in Tibet under The People's Republic of China section? I ran the ref threw google-translate and while it blamed western countries influence, it didn't give examples of how that influence is employed, nothing about it being the British or it starting in the early 1900's or that it would mean a de facto separation of China. While it may be worth keeping as an example of popular media's interpretation of the Tibet Independence movement I think it needs to be edited at the very least. --Keithonearth (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Google translate is a free program, it does not have very good translating. That's probably why you missed a few important parts when translating it. You left a comment my edit was UNTRUE with NO citation based on your translation from free google translate. That's why I felt i needed to write on your talk page to express my concern about it. As what i wrote on your talk page earlier, I put the citation there when i first put the statement there. I already told you about me adding the "(British)" behind the word foreigner which was used in the article. The time of the strong British interfere of Tibet was around early 1990, that's why i added the time there. What I added was a very small part only served as to help understand which foreign interfere the Chinese media was talking about. It did not change the meaning of the article or any of it's major points. As i read through the whole article again, it actually does say in the third last paragraph that "It was another version of the British and Russian Empire's old plans aimed to separate Tibet from China at the beginning part of this century".

I did not change the meaning of that webpage article. You said your google translation said nothing about British, early 1900 and that the plan would mean a de facto separation of Tibet from China. You only have yourself to blame for that. The most important point in the article was that the Five point peach plan would mean the de facto independence of Tibet and it runs through the whole article. That is actually what the title of the article says. "Fake Autonomous, real Independent" is the exact word used in the title. The point that the plan actually is or is aimed for real independence is also mentioned on line 5, 24, 38-42, and the last paragraph. Chadsnook (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion highlights why English Wikipedia has a policy of using English-language sources. Sources in other languages are not verifiable. Translating from another language constitutes original research. Bertport (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause offence with my edit summery. A more accurate way of phrasing it would have been "reverting a statement that seems untrue to me, and is missleading at the bare minimum. I'm going be bold, edit it and see if anyone stands by it."

I'm only too happy to discuss it, but in all honesty I think I could have been more bold. I do find the statement to be more missleading it's present form. (With the inclusion of "The exact plan was first initiated by foreigners (British) at the time when most of China was being colonized by imperialistic powers in early 1900s, for the purpose of supporting an independent Tibet from Qing China." that I'd removed.) I think a more significant issue with the statement is that it seems unclear if it's talking about the popular Chinese media's interpretation of the plan, or if it's stating facts. (Is that a typo above regarding the time of British influence in Tibet? Above:1990, in article:1900.) If it is an example of the media's interpretation, would it not be appropriate to point out that the article blames the Imperial powers of making a plan that at the time didn't make sense: 1)removal of Chinese army when no Chinese army was in Tibet 2)Halt migration of Chinese to Tibet when this was negligible 3) Democracy in Tibet, The British empire wasn't known for promoting democracy 4) Banning Nuclear weapon testing in 1900? 5) Sincere discussions about the relationship between Tibet and China might actually make sense in 1900. Or am I going into too much detail here? Is the article saying: The five point plan = Independence, imperialist powers want, and for a long time have wanted, Tibet's Independence.

I didn't know about the the pollicy of not using non-en sources. Ideally we'd have a English language study of Chinese language media that would talk about how it often blames western powers influence for the Tibetan Independence movement, and influencing the government in exile, unfortunetlly this may not be possible to find.--Keithonearth (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The disputed passage really made no sense, as pointed out above; furthermore, the cited reference did not support it. It's also highly questionable whether an opinion on jinti.com is important enough to merit mention here. I think the case is pretty clear. There's no good reason to have this passage in the Tibet article.

See WP:NONENG for policy on using non-English sources. Bertport (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Keithonearth, thanks for your contribution and research on this particular subject. Since I always consider citation being very important and made sure i included them when i edit, I got upset and over reacted when i saw you stated my edit being untrue and had no citation when the reference number was just one sentence away from the part you questioned.

Even though my Chinese is not bad, I had asked some help to understand the article again. I have to apologize for not being very accurate when I translated it, especially that i created more confusion after responding to your first message. Since the the words they used were very specialized and as you can see, the whole article was about their feeling about the Five point Peace Plan, not an argument of what happened in Tibet, so it did not really include description of events and time. I must have got confused in relating some of the historical events with the specific part of the text. I apology for that.

Reference from English is preferred, but not required. 5 or 6 citations in this Tibet article is from Chinese resource. Considering very few media in China publish in English, using Chinese resource cannot be avoided as sometimes the only resource about a particular subject is in Chinese. There is relatively more description of things from the Tibetan side, especially in some sections, which is actually dispute from Chinese, English and other resources. Very often, the Chinese's side is neglected. That makes the article not very balanced. It definitely helps to incude different side of the view. Five Point Peace Plan is a very important proposed solution for the current Tibet issue. It is a proposition to the Chinese government, reaction from the Chinese therefore has significant value. I believe it is important to include Chinese's reaction about the Five Point Peace Plan. Unless you guys can find other resource more credited than this one. I am going to put it back in the article with some change which directly reflects the reference's point of view. Chadsnook (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An opinion on jinti.com is not notable enough to merit inclusion here. If the Chinese government, or a high ranking official in the Chinese government, responded, then that would merit inclusion. Bertport (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying only the government's opinion matters, how the people or media of China think about this does not matter at all? Chadsnook (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

jinti.com is no more notable than thousands of other web sites. If it goes in, then so does every other opinion piece anyone can find. Then we wind up with the main article on Tibet being drowned in dozens of opinion pieces, all concerning one relatively minor item in the big picture that the article is supposed to cover. If there were a separate article on the five point peace plan, such an approach might be reasonable, but not for Tibet. Bertport (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the reason earlier why Chinese reaction to the five point peace plan should be included. In terms of whether we should use this one or not, even though jinti.com said they are the largest global Chinese community service network, I did say if you guys can find another resource which is more credited, we can use something else. So far, this is the only opinion I could find from the Chinese side. Chadsnook (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Chinese response relevant? Yes. Is any Chinese response relevant? No. Which Chinese response is relevant? Response at a high level of government. "I can't find a relevant response, but I want something from someone in China" is not sufficient justification. Bertport (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

goes back to the same question: "Are you saying only the government's opinion matters, how the people or media of China think about this does not matter at all?" Chadsnook (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you Chadsnook for being so calm and rational to deal with, particularly in regard to my initial revert, that was done without realizing that the reference was for that sentence as well. Especially as this is a subject that is controversial. However I do still stand by taking that sentence out, or rephrasing it heavily, but I also think you and I do agree on many points. I do think that the opinion expressed in Chinese media would be good to include, but I'm not sure how to do that. I don't think referencing one article is a valid way of showing Chinese media as a whole, surely the choice of article to typify the Chinese media as a whole has to be Original Research? Unfortunately, I don't know what would be a good way. Maybe, use [1] explicitly as an example, and not a reference, and include a very brief (one sentence) statement that Chinese media often blames foreign imperialists for Tibet's Independence movement. Of course, without a solid reference, if we don't have consensus on the validity of that statement then it would need to come down. It also seems that the English Xinhua site would have a similar article, but 5 min or so of looking didn't uncover it.-- (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Keithonearth, unfortunately, not every one seem to follow rules that I assume they want others to follow. The whole part I added, not just that one sentence you took away (which I agree with your opinion now), is deleted while we are still having a discussion on it, not mentioning the summary notes that explains why I see so many former tireless contributors left Wikipedia because of things other than personal reasons of their own. (I am not like that :-) ) I wonder what triggers editing wars on Wikipedia!
Before we move on to anything else, I want give you an answer to your questions about the FPPP being initiated by foreigners where you challenged piece by piece. I am not sure if you had those questions because of what you read from your translation of the article on jinti or because of my response. If it's the later one, then as i said earlier that I apologize for making the mistakes when relating some of the historical events with the specific parts of the text of jinti's article. The article did say foreigners helped initiated the FPPP, but it did not say it's what British proposed in early 1900, that's where my mistake is. Instead, in the third last paragraph, it says, the New suggestion (seven new suggestions) is nothing new but another version of the saying under new historical conditions that imperialistic Britain and Russia created in the early 1900s that "China only has suzerainty over Tibet but not sovereignty" for the purpose of separating China. So it was a good thing you noticed the mistake in that sentence where i added British and 1900, even though the main point of the referrence i translated was correct, and did not include the harsh criticize of the Dalai Lama. As you can see now, the article's position is that the FPPP is something newly initiated under foreigners' help, but the spirit of it or the idea behind the FPPP or Seven New Suggestions is nothing new but same as what British and Russian started "the suzerainty and sovereignty question". That's how they understood the FPPP, that even though DaiLai Lama says Greater Tibet Area remains a part of China, but the conditions that "(from the details of the FPPP) all Chinese police and military must withdraw from GTA (Note: a quarter of the size of China (note added by the author)), all other ethnic groups other than Tibetans must withdraw from GTA, all Chinese military infrastructure must be removed from GTA, etc...", the seven suggestions have more conditions and is more detailed since it covers more aspects of the government functions. That's why the article argues that FPPP is really asking for independence rather than Autonomy that if carried out, it would mean China loses the sovereignty over Tibet. Now as i see it, your edit was a very good step that you took away the troubled sentence and left the main idea, which also leaves space for discussion about it.
Originally, I researched on this subject because i wanted to know what the Chinese think about Dalai Lama's middle way approach, as it is a key thing in solving the Tibet problem peacefully. Since the Chinese government has not responded to it officially, and as some key figures in the Free Tibet movement said, Tibet will not be free until China is free. That's why i also wanted to know what the people of China think about it, as they would probably be the only source that would bring democracy to China. My intention of finding a response to the middle way approach was narrowed when i saw Chinese media considered Dalai Lama is not accepting China's sovereignty over Tibet when he says he does. That's why i studied on the meaning of FPPP as they are words written down. Sovereignty and Suzerainty both have legal definitions. After understanding the FPPP and its detailed explanations on HHDL's website, it's shouldn't be hard for lawyers or legal experts to decide whether it means accepting China's sovereignty or not. That's why i don't understand why there are years of arguments on whether it is real independence or not.
I want to make it clear I agree with some claims from both side and disagree with others. However, i am in no way putting my own opinions into the article, other than to help improve its quality with resource I can find. I do believe that it best reflects the Wikipedia policy when the article is neutral. It is only fair and necessary when different sides' opinions are all presented (CTA, PRC and all other resources) when it comes to some very controversial issues. I have seen in some other Wikipedia article where some very questionable figures and statements were never challenged and left there for over a year if not longer. Of course I do a basic check of the creditability of the claims. In this case, after reading most of the treaties about Tibet made by the UK, Russia, China and Tibet from late 1800s to early 1900s, especially after comparison their differences in Tibet policy from time to time. When Chinese states that the idea of “China has suzerainty over Tibet but not sovereignty” was created by foreign powers, I understand where it comes from. There are lots of things I do not agree with them, but in this case I think it’s worth putting it down in the article.
In terms of which resource we should use, I could not find another particular response to the FPPP, except a couple less credited media. But I did found some responses to the Middle way approach. Some even from People’s daily, one from a govt. website cited reference from People’s daily. Some people would reject using those, since they consider it Chinese propaganda while some other people think it’s better credited. Right now, I am not sure whether to put a response of the FPPP or just a general response of the middle way approach. I would like to hear some opinions on which one I (or we) should work on and in which way it should be presented, so later on there’s less possibility of an edit war. Chadsnook (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the question of whether the Five Point Plan calls for expelling all non-Tibetan ethnic groups from Tibet-including-Kham-and-Amdo was discussed previously on Wikipedia here. Conclusion: it does not, although it is somewhat ambiguous as to what it does mean.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hello Nat Krause, just to keep you updated. We are not discussing what do the five points or seven suggestions really mean, i assume there must be discussion on those already. what i wrote above was just a translation of the reference we were talking about. It is not my point of view. Of course you can question their interpretations. But i don't think we should go into too much detail here or talk about them piece by piece. That's also why i did not translate the seven new suggestions, they cover even more aspects. What we are talking about is how/should we present the Chinese reaction to the Five point plan/middle way approach. Right now, this specific part of the article looks very incomplete. Chadsnook (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Allied with Arabs and Eastern Turks?

I don't know whether the Tibetans were actually allied with the Arabs and Eastern Turks or not. But I do think it's reasonable to let a fact tag remain in place for at least a month before deleting the text. I also think that sort of pace is implied by the fact that dates on fact tags only specify month and year, not day. Bertport (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestions at least one month is reasonable. We need to have a general agreement on this if there isn't one already. I added quite a few fact tag when i started editing on this article, and I noticed some very important points were not giving citations. Like this one "The Dalai Lama has stated his willingness to negotiate with the PRC government for genuine autonomy, but according to the government in exile and Tibetan independence groups, most Tibetans still call for full Tibetan independence." It is a very important statement, considering the politics, it is almost too sensitive to edit it with or without a fact tag. With a general agreement how long do we keep the text with fact tag on it, it makes it easier for everybody to work on improving the quality of the article.

In terms of whether Tibetans were allied with Arabs and Eastern Turks, I put the fact tag on 2009-02-05, it was changed by SmackBot to Feb-2009. (automatically?) I did a bit more research after I just took that sentence away. What I found is that Tibet, Uyghur (East Turks) and Tang (China) were friends at some time, the royal families were even relatives. Tang's princess married Tibet king (in 640), East Turk's princess married Tang's king, ect. They were enemies at some other time. Control of the border regions of Tibet, Tang China and East Turks which is roughly the area of Qinghai, part of Gansu and Southern Xinjiang would change hands back and forth for centuries. In 692, Tang retook their western lands from the Tibetans after defeating them at Kashgar. The Tibetan king then allied himself with the enemies of China, the Arabs and eastern Turk. The ally did not last very long, Tibetans and East Turks became enemies again, that's why East Turks fought against Tibetans and helped Tang took back Tang's capital Chang'an after it was taken over by Tibetans in 763. After the Battle of Talas,"Neither did the relations between the Chinese and Arabs worsen, as the Abbasids, like their predecessors (since 652), continued to send embassies to China uninterruptedly after the battle. Such visits had overall resulted in 13 diplomatic gifts between 752–98"

As you can see, the claim Tibet allied with Arabs and East Turks were not exactly wrong. But it was not a stable or long term ally. One can also argue East Turks were against Tibetans, depends on which period of time you are talking about. The original statement put at the beginning of the paragraph with no other descriptions of the complicated geopolitical relationships of these countries is misleading. I am not against putting that information back, but some one should at least do a little modification to better represent the complicated situation instead of simplify the whole period as an ally of Tibetans, Arabs and Turks. Chadsnook (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Zhonghua minzu

I thought Potatoswatter's edit was reasonable. Zhonghua minzu is wikilinked, so people can follow the link to get a better idea of what it's all about, but for people who just want to keep reading Tibet without major interruption, it's useful to have a brief explanatory phrase. "Umbrella Chinese nationalism" may not be perfect, but it allows the reader to keep going with a general sense of the meaning. "A national concept with a complex definition" doesn't convey anything useful. How about "multi-ethnic Chinese nation", if "umbrella Chinese nationalism" bothers you? Bertport (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an explanatory phrase is useful, probably necessary, if the term is going to be kept. Perhaps an alternative phrase would be "umbrella Chinese ethnic group"? --Gimme danger (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ROC in Lhasa

It looks like we need to discuss this passage about the establishment of an ROC presence in Lhasa following the 13th Dalai Lama's death. Today I made an edit to clarify a few things. (1)Direct communication between Tibet and China did not take place between the expulsion of the amban and DL13's death. (2) When a Chinese mission was finally established, it was interpreted by the Chinese as proof that Tibet was a province of China, but the Tibetans reject this interpretation.

Both these points are supported by the sources cited.

Also, on a technical note, the short reference style is standard bibliographical format, and is also a widely used standard in Wikipedia. If people prefer to include the title instead of (or in addition to) the year of publication, I don't mind. But simply posting the year is standard. It is also logically sufficient, because the References section provides the full details including title, publisher, ISBN, etc. Bertport (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you said in your summary "Align this passage better with the sources cited", but what you wrote is different from what the source says. I am not saying whatever the chinatibetnews says is true. That's why in just a few sentences, I said "China claims", "China argues" three times. Originally, the whole "Independence proclaimed" section did not have any description about China's position in regard of the political relationship between central govt of China and Tibet Govt in Lhasa during the period of ROC before 1950. I thought China agreed with the statement that Tibet was independent from 1911 to 1950, until I saw this article which looks like some kind of semi-official claim or at least somewhat represent the govt's point of view.

I think it would misleading to the readers if we do not at least let them know China thinks Tibet remained as one of China's provinces after Qing period. I know you are trying to make it more accurate to what you believe is the truth. But your edit completely ignored the opposite side's basic point of view, which is what this source is talking about. Aren't we suppose to at least try to make the article NPOV?

You are welcome to put down your statement "(1)Direct communication between Tibet and China did not take place between the expulsion of the amban and DL13's death." with your reference, but the referenced cited there does not support that. If you are using the second reference, you should cite it where it is needed. I am sure you can find good reference for all the things you wrote down, that does not mean other side's points are irrelevant and need to be taken away. The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission is considered important by the opposite side since that is the office that was in charge of Tibetan affairs, and it was involved in the installation of the 14th Dalai Lama. Exactly how much involvement is up to debate, but what's your reason for taking that away from the paragraph out of existence when it is obvious supported by the reference, at least it should be mentioned as a claim by the opposite side.

You can use Shakya's book to support your statement about Tibet rejected China's proposal. But why take away the other part where he confirmed there was a permanent office in Lhasa and direct radio communication? If these are two statements from two different books, isn't what you did is like taking a statement with it's reference away at the same time?

"(2) When a Chinese mission was finally established, it was interpreted by the Chinese as proof that Tibet was a province of China, but the Tibetans reject this interpretation." Again, this is up to debate as nobody can use a time machine to go back and check exactly what happened. Even if this kind of thing happens somewhere else today, the political meaning of it is probably going to be debated among scholars. You can keep your statement there as one side's view but don't take away the other's points which the source is talking about.

The reason the first sentence I put down in this paragraph starts with "China claims..." is because we don't have anything in this part that tells us what China thinks about this period. I have only put the basic claims there. What you wrote is also new information. But it's really more appropriate to add them with direct reference to support them other than just replace the opposite point of view with the same reference left there that tells us what China thinks.

About the technical one, I didn't see there's already other reference used this book. This article is very long, even though I have made probably more than a hundred edits, I have not read the whole thing over yet. Only been reading one part each time. As long as people can find the necessary information about the book from the reference list to help them find the books in the library, that's fine if you want to keep just author's last name and the year. --Chadsnook (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like we should have a summary of the claims and arguments of the Chinese source you found, without material from other sources interspersed. Then, material from Shakya, etc. can follow (or precede) it. That will make it more clear what is the source of each point, without littering the paragraph with a fireworks display of [75][76][77] etc. Shall we hash it out here on the talk page, as was done to exacting detail for the geography question? Bertport (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The chinatibetnews.com page is itself no more than a brief summary paragraph. We could just quote it from beginning to end. Shakya confirms that much of its content is known Chinese point of view, so I think it's fair to consider it representative. How about something like:

A Chinese view of Sino-Tibetan relations from 1912 to 1949 is encapsulated here:

After the founding of the Republic of China (1912-1949), Tibet remained one of China's provinces.The KMT (Kuomintang) Government established an administrative body in Tibet. Together with the Mongolian and Tibetan Committee's representative office in Tibet, it maintained direct communication with China's central Government.The National Assembly of China and both chambers of parliament included Tibetans whose names have been preserved all along on official documents. The current 14th Dalai Lama was ratified by the Kuomintang Government, and his "sitting in ceremony was presided over by a representative from the Central Government.Both the ratification order of February 1940 and a documentary film of the ceremony presided over by the Central Government's representative Wu Zhongxin still exist intact."

Followed by Tibetan GOI view of the period, and then analysis by Shakya and other third party historians as applicable. Bertport (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not say we should not have source from others interspersed. I simply said we should let the readers know that "China considers Tibet a province of ROC". In terms of other things in that source, we can interspersed it with whatever other source and try to present a neutral point of view. You are right chinatibetnews.com is just a brief summary paragraph. It looks to me like a statement that listed what they think is important. You can replace what they said about "Mongolian and Tibetan committee" with some other source and to write a point like "it's just an office on the paper" (i don't know about that, i am just guessing here). But taking it away without an explanation makes me feel you took away an important point. If you think it should not be mentioned here, you should give some good reason.

You can use what is in Shakya's book to prove your point like "in Shakya's book, although he said there was an office of the ROC and direct radio communication, but the office was not set up until after 13th Dalai Lama passed away......" I don't know why you took away his confirmation about the permanent office and direct communication part and completely replaced it with "Tibet rejected ROC's proposal". Shouldn't both material be used here? Shakya is an overseas Tibetan. His book is about this period, many points in his book is arguing against China's claims. I don't know if it's a fair representative of this period's history, but either side should be able to use his material to prove their point.

I am not sure if we should directly quote everything from chinatibetnews and list it out as a Chinese point of view. Because I don't know how widely it is accepted or represented by the Chinese side. It looks like a website set up by the government but it is not a statement released by the govt. Like it's not something we find from the associated department of the Chinese govt. I am not sure it's important enough to be directly quoted or should be used as how it is used now. --Chadsnook (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, take a look and see if all your concerns are addressed now. Bertport (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

very good. But I did find some new information, so I will have to add a few more things. I will leave whatever you have written down as it is. --Chadsnook (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bertport, I keep finding new info as I am editing, but I am afraid if I add all those stuff, this part would become too long, and also for the whole article itself for that matter. Adding info to the article is new to me, I certainly want to be a lot more well informed of different sides of view than in the past when I mostly just verify things with their reference and do small edits (well, I will still be doing small edits). Since you said you have been editing this article for a few years now, i would like to ask your advice about selecting information for the article. For example, for this section, when you find some new information that is not in the article, how do you determine which ones are important and should be put in the article, which ones are getting into too much details? --Chadsnook (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Put this article on a diet!

So, we have an overlarge article here. What are good ways to address this issue? What do people think about:

• removing the gallery
• removing most of the "see also"
• removing most of "further reading"
• removing most of "external links"
• making a separate article from the content of Demographics, and keeping two or three summary paragraphs here, with a link to the new article
• same for the content of "Tibet under the People's Republic of China"
• How is it the history section is so big, when we have a separate History of Tibet?

Bertport (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I took a step toward breaking material out into articles. Tibet and History of Tibet are both too big. When it comes to history, Tibet is, as it were, at the top of the summary chain. We now have a separate article for the period of de facto independence, which consolidates material from both Tibet and History of Tibet. These two articles can just have a paragraph or so, along with a link to History of Tibet 1912-1949. It appears that Dr. Blofeld will not accept an interim (even just an overnight interim) in which the link is there without the summary. Does anyone want to pitch in on summarizing? Bertport (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a summary that I think is fair. I hope we can fine tune it to something acceptable to everyone without unduly bloating it. Bertport (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gallery shouldn't be removed as the images are encyclopedic. The article definately needs cutting down but taking the easy way out and removing entire paragraphs isn't the way to go about it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages the use of galleries. "One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." How did the gallery "add to the reader's understanding of the subject"? Between the absence of a clear rationale for the gallery, Wikipedia's gallery-discouraging policy, and Wikipedia's nudge on the article size, removing the gallery seems an clear move towards a better article.

See Wikipedia's article on article size. "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB." This article is still 105KB and every time one edits it, one gets a prompt to reduce or split it. See also WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPLIT. Bertport (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The 30-50K guideline refers to main text, excluding footnotes. The main text of this article is 64K. I'd cut condense the material about Younghusband, demographics, and "Tibet under The People's Republic of China". Kauffner (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed". In print preview, I get 27 pages of main article, before reaching footnotes. Bertport (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that all depend on the size of the text you used? In any case, we should be aiming for 40Kb of main text, which suggests a 40 percent cut in article size. Kauffner (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I thought the lede had way too much about whether or not Tibet was a part of China, so I cut this down to just one mention. Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, I agree with you that the lede should be shorter. However I disagree the way you changed the content.

Currently, the PRC government and the Government of Tibet in Exile still disagree over when Tibet became a part of China and whether the incorporation into China of Tibet is legitimate according to international law[3] (see Tibetan sovereignty debate). Since what constitutes Tibet is a matter of much debate (see map, right) neither its size nor population are simple matters of fact, due to various entities claiming differing parts of the area as a Tibetan region.

Due to disputed nature of this entry, I would suggest we restore the old contents. Xingdong (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The length of the lede is fine the way it is. I'm fixing it so doesn't focus on the Tibet/China issue and say same thing over and over, like a a lawyer making an opening statement or a propagandist drilling in the party line. I put it in chronological order since doesn't seem to have an organizing principle. Kauffner (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have put back one sentence, which is relevent to the status of Tibet. Xingdong (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I put back some little corrections of the sentences used in the lede. Kauffner, you are welcome to edit the lede, after you rewrote it last time (probably a month ago), some little modifications were made with explanations, it looks like you put back the same old sentences you used last time. Please don't ignore the little modifications when you edit. If you disagree with any of them, please do discuss it here. Chadsnook (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, you complain about the lede having way too much about whether or not Tibet was a part of China. But I am not sure I understand your way of selecting which information to add, which information to take away from the lede. It looks to me you added information that says (implies) Tibet was not part of China, but took away information that says (claims) Tibet was a part of China.

You took away "and a part of China" from the original sentence "In the history of Tibet, it has been an independent country, divided into different kingdoms and states, and a part of China each for a certain amout of time." The original sentence was a fine summary of the political status of Tibet in the history, by taking "a part of China" away, the sentence could imply Tibet was never a part of China before 1950. You also took away Republic of China's claim over Tibet, but information like which government claims over a disputed area is always in the lede of the article of the area. I left in the editing summary yesterday that this information should not be made to disappear completely from this article. If you think there's a better place to put this information in this article, please mention it.

While you complain the lede focus too much on whether Tibet is part of China or not, you added two pieces of information to the lede last month, 1. 13th Dalai Lama's independent proclaim, 2. Chinese communist took over Tibet in 1950 and 14th Dalai lama fled to India. I don't see why these two information has more reasons to stay in the lede than the two pieces you took away. These information you added last month are also about whether Tibet was part of China too, and they both suggest Tibet was not part of China. While I agree they are important information in the article of Tibet, but are they necessarily more reasonable to appear in the lede of the article? Since the above information all talk about whether Tibet was part of China or not, if we were to make this information short, I don't see why the later two are particularly better than the first two to stay in the lede? The original lede might had focused too much on Tibet/China issue, but since we had both sides' information, I am not sure what "propagandist drilling in the party line" you are talking about. Everyone worked hard on this article, Let's just keep the discussion on editing the article. --Chadsnook (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The current lede, although only three paragraph long, says that Tibet is a part of China four times: "and a part of China each for a certain amount of time" "part of the People's Republic of China" "Both sides of Chinese government regards Tibet is part of China." "when Tibet became a part of China." An article entited "Tibet" should emphasize Tibetan view. As for the ROC constitution, readers who don't understand the China/Taiwan issue are not going to be able to figure it out from this reference. Kauffner (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, all Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view. As a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia, this policy does not change because of the title of the article. Therefore, it is wrong to say this article should emphasize Tibetan view; or Chinese view or British view or any other views for that matter. In fact, I would like to point out there is no strictly universally accepted Tibetan view on the Tibet/China issue. Tibet government in exile is not a democratically elected government by [all Tibetans]/[residences of Tibet] for whatever reason. Most Tibetans are living in China and are not exactly represented. Neither CTA's view or PRC's view should be emphasized, rather a third party's view or a well credited view should be used. Whichever view from the CTA or PRC, if controversial, should be pointed out.

An article titled "Tibet" should focus on introducing Tibet, not why it is part of China, also not why it is not part of China, although I'd say it hard to avoid writing large part of the article around the Tibet/China issue, giving the nature of the topic. I believe the previous editions maintained the neutral policy and whatever was in the lede was because the previous editors thought they were necessary to be put in the lede. If you disagree they should be in the lede, you can move them to other parts of the article, but your edit should not change the meaning of the sentences or article unless you state the reason for the change of the meaning. This is where I cannot agree with your way of editing it by breaking the sentences in half and take away only half of it and leave the other half, which often changed the meaning of the sentences.

1. As I said in my last response, by taking away "and a part of China each for a certain amount of time", you changed the meaning of the original sentence, and gave the impression Tibet was never a part of China before 1950. Is it better to play down China-Tibet relations by taking away information at the cost of misleading readers and giving wrong impressions? If you have a better way to summaries the political status of Tibet in the history, please discuss it here. 2. Have "part of the People's Republic of China" is necessary and it's the way it should be. It would be otherwise if Tibet is not part of China at the moment. 3. "Both sides of Chinese government regards Tibet is part of China." -- As I said please see "claimed by a certain island" on this page, this information together with the ROC claim can be take away from the lede, but should not be made to disappear, if you have a better idea where it should be in the article, please discuss it. 4. "when Tibet became a part of China." If you want take this part away from the lede, I don't mind, but I think many other editors would, and I think this has more reason to stay in the lede than "Communist Chinese gained control of Tibet in 1950 after a decisive military victory at Chamdo in 1950. The 14th Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959." since the former one is a better summary of the dispute. The later is getting into a lot of details, but does not bring out the the disagreement of Tibetan sovereignty. -- Chadsnook (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means that the article includes the presentation of "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It's not about balancing national viewpoints. Tibet had significant relationships with India, Britain, and Nepal, as well as internal history. A Tibetan view wouldn't get equal space in an article on China. Specifically, there is currently no mention of Buddhism or religion in the lede, and this subject is least as notable as the legal status issue. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree you introduce anything significant about Tibet to the lede as long as you solve the questions I raised above (more particularly, you raised above) and do not create new misunderstandings. To be more clearly, I don't mind you take away most of the Tibet/China relations from the lede if you at least find the right place within the article for them. Do not make viewpoints with references disappear completely from the article or take away half of a sentence and leave the other half without providing good reasons for the change of the meaning of the sentences. "All significant views that have been published by reliable sources" means "different points of views of a specific topic that have been published" eg, different points of views on the Tibet/China issue, different points of views on British expedition in Tibet, unless a viewpoint is widely accepted, then we do not need to talk about it from different sides; it does not mean we should talk about "all things about Tibet that have been published", that is simply not possible and that is a misunderstanding of NPOV. "The neutral point of view" the emphasis is on neutral, it does not matter whether the viewpoint is related to national viewpoints or not. Therefore, in regards of Tibet/China issue, NPOV is about balancing the viewpoints of CTA, PRC and others. Also, as I explained above, there is no universally accepted Tibetan national viewpoints. If you still haven't figured out why Tibet/China relation carries more weight than Tibet relation with India, Britain and Nepal. You should probably do more research on the topic. --Chadsnook (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive test

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the second and third paragraphs of the introduction to Tibet, the following portion is repeated.

"As a measure of the power that regents must have wielded, it is important to note that only three of the fourteen Dalai Lamas have actually ruled Tibet; regents ruled during 77 percent of the period from 1751 until 1960."

Also, references 4 and 5 are identitical, due to this repetition.

Softfire (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done Leujohn ^(talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

claimed by a certain island

How exactly is this relevant to the article, and why does it need to be repeated (I guess that is what is meant by "both sides of the Chinese government"?) We don't have such info on the articles on other parts of the PRC, do we? Yaan (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but from what I understand, whether Tibet was legally part of the Republic of China is probably the key foundation of the argument of the legitimacy of China's claim over Tibet as a successor state of the previous Chinese government. Republic of China is the successor state of Qing China by international Law. It is disputed, but widely accepted (by most countries and UN) that People's Republic of China is the successor state of the Republic of China. A successor state is entitled to the holdings of the previous government, unless of course, it does not have the ability to do so or have new arrangements after the establishment of the new government. Under the government of the Republic of China, Tibet was probably de facto independent from 1913 to 1949, but was probably not du jure independent over this time. Of course there's many other things to be considered in the sovereignty issue, like the self-determination rights of the people ("ethnic Tibetan people" or "all [traditional] residence" in Tibet/Tibet Autonomous Region), etc. Whether ROC was the legitimate government of Tibet is important in the argument (not sure in reality) of Tibet sovereignty, in other words, if Tibet was widely recognized as an independent country, the meetings between the govt of PRC and the CTA can be quite different today, and how foreign governments could choose to support the CTA can be quite different too (Jawaharlal Nehru said something similar to the 14th Dalai Lama in the 1950s). Since ROC was/is the successor state of Qing by international law, that makes its claims over Tibet and the rest of PRC legitimate, although any country could have recognized any part of it as independent if they wish. (eg. Soviet Union recognized Mongolian as an independent state and is accepted by PRC, but not ROC)

Therefore, it's really not simply "claimed by a certain island". Besides what I said above, if we look at other articles which introduce disputed territories, they all state different governments' claim over the area. The ones I have read all have it in the lede, very often even at the beginning of the lede. I don't disagree this information is not a very important thing in this article, but it is worth mentioning for sure. This article is very long, I did not find this information (ROC's claim over Tibet and its regard of Tibet being part of China) being repeated, in fact, after the previous editor took it away from the lede, i don't see it anywhere, so I put it back in the lede, this is not different from many other Wikipedia articles introducing disputed areas where they put the claims of different governments in the lede. If anyone think it's better to put it in some other parts of the article, you are welcome to discuss here. --Chadsnook (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yaan, I am not sure what you mean by repeat. If you were referring to "Both sides of Chinese government regards Tibet is part of China." This is somewhat a simplified way of referring to the complicated political situation of PRC and ROC and their regards of Tibet. We probably all agree with the editor who put that sentence there that we should not get into the PRC/ROC issue in an article of Tibet, but this sentence has a different political meaning than the claims from both sides, that's probably why it was there. If you click on China, it does not lead you to PRC or ROC. Both governments regards Tibet as a part of China, but whether it's PRC or ROC, depending on perspective, both claim themselves to be the real and only China while accepting the existence of each other. PRC and all countries with diplomatic relationships with PRC regards PRC as the only China and Tibet as part of China, meaning PRC. ROC and all countries with diplomatic relationships with ROC regards ROC as the only China and Tibet as part of China, meaning ROC. So the sentence is not a repeat, it's over simplified for a complicated political statement trying to avoid getting into too much things that are not closely related stuff about Tibet. It should be mentioned somewhere, probably not be in the lede. --Chadsnook (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The ROC constitution says, "The system of self-government in Tibet shall be safeguarded."[2] There are four other mentions of Tibet in the constitution, but these just specify how many delegates Tibet gets in different bodies. Overseas Chinese get delegates too, so the assignment of delegates doesn't imply that a territorial claim is being made. The Republic of China Yearbook 2008 (published: January 2009) shows only Taiwan and some surrounding islands as ROC. Ma announced in October that he now considers the mainland part of ROC, so maybe they'll be changing the maps again. But as of now, the ROC is not claiming Tibet. In any case, I would submit that this is a matter of internal Taiwanese politics and has very little relationship to Tibet. Kauffner (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The constitution of the ROC does not consider Tibet as a country to be outside of the territory of the ROC, it does not need to put a statement in their constitution like "the ROC claims Tibet to be a part of the ROC". For the record, the constitution of the ROC does not claim or/and define the name of any part of its territory. Not Tibet, not Taiwan, not Beijing, etc... The ROC considers all areas under the PRC "mainland China" (with (outer) Mongolia) a part of ROC. The republic of China Yearbook is not relevant here simply because its not important enough and it does not mention its territory claims. For administration reason, the government of ROC is not involved in areas outside of "Free China"--the island of Taiwan and a few other islands. You make it sounds like Ma changed his mind and just came up with this idea that mainland China is part of the ROC. He just did not officially claimed it until Oct 2008 since he became the President of ROC in May 2008. [Taipei Times: Ma refers to China as ROC territory in magazine interview] The Presidents of ROC might have different explanations of the administration of mainland China, but the government of ROC has not changed it's constitution in regards of its territory claim. In Chapter 1, article 4, "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."[[3]] This is their Chinese version: "中華民國領土，依其固有之疆域，非經國民大會之決議，不得變更之。" Further more, in The Seventh Revision, [[4]], 1. The territory of the Republic of China, defined by its existing national boundaries, shall not be altered unless initiated upon the proposal of one-fourth of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, passed by at least three-fourths of the members present at a meeting attended by at least three-fourths of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, and sanctioned by electors in the free area of the Republic of China at a referendum held upon expiration of a six-month period of public announcement of the proposal, wherein the number of valid votes in favor exceeds one-half of the total number of electors. Tibet with the rest of PRC all fall into ROC's existing national boundaries. They have not changed their territory claim, so the old national boundaries while the government was in mainland China is the existing (to continue to be) boundaries. That is their official claim over all of China, including Tibet. In the same interview, "Ma said under the ROC Constitution, the ROC “definitely is an independent sovereign state, and mainland [sic] China is also part of the territory of the ROC.” Tibet is part of mainland China. The "self-government in Tibet shall be safeguarded (by the ROC)" and the numbers of Delegates from Tibet in the ROC government are further explanation of Tibet being considered a part of ROC by its constitution. Not only the ROC is claiming Tibet, it's claim over Tibet has never changed in its constitution.

In regards of "both China regards Tibet as part of China", further reading can be found in 1992 Consensus. Especially this part: "The Consensus is that, on the subject of the "One China principle", both sides recognise there is only one China - both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China, but agree to differ on the definition of that one China. The PRC's position is that there is one, undivided sovereignty of China, and that the PRC is the sole legitimate representative of that sovereignty. The ROC's position is that there is one, undivided sovereignty of China, and that the ROC is the sole legitimate representative of that sovereignty. One of the intended effects of the '1992 Consensus' is that both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same country, thus making arguments of two Chinas, or one China and one Taiwan inconsistent with the Consensus." Since both agree Tibet is part of mainland China, both agree Tibet is part of China.

This is not just internal Taiwanese politics, even if it's not very much related to Tibet. The official claim of a disputed area by a particular government is always in the article, it can not be omitted. If not in the lede, in some other parts of the article. (Besides the ROC, Central Tibet Administration is another government that claims over Tibet ). --Chadsnook (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the important thing is whether or not the ROC does claim Tibet. The question is whether this important. Everyone knows that this claim has been a convenient political fiction for a long time. What is important is that the PRC is the successor state to a state which claimed Tibet. From this perspective, the ROC claim to Tibet is about as relevant as the Qing claim to Tibet. I think it's an important fact, but I don't see why it needs to be in the lede.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think whether or not ROC claims Tibet is important either, but since Kauffner disagree ROC claims Tibet, it was complicated to explain. ROC is different from Qing because ROC still exist today, Qing does not. As of today, PRC's argument of itself being a successor state of ROC is disputed by ROC and its 23 allies. No countries still recognize Qing. This information was probably first put in the lede by previous editors as a habit of Wikipedia articles on disputed areas. As I said above a few times, I don't disagree this information should be put in other parts of the article other than the lede, although I am not sure which part. --Chadsnook (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical/Cultural?

This article at the very top says it is about "historical/cultural" Tibet. Does that mean that Tibet is now relegated to a "historical/cultural" entity rather than the real living nation that it still is in 2009? How convenient for the new British imperialists, the Chinese, who have just renamed yesterday, the anniversary of their invasion of Tibet in 1959, as "Liberation Day": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7969245.stm. Barbarians, like the British before them. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is setting up a false dichotomy. To say that Tibet is historical/cultural entity certainly does not deny that it is a "real living nation", I don't think, although you may wish to speak more precisely, because "nation" is used to mean several things and your audience does not consist of psychics who automatically know which you mean. Also, please don't use the talk page for soapboxing, such as commentary on who you think is a barbarian. That has nothing to do with writing this article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Serfs Emancipation Day

This new holiday in Tibet should be added to the article, as it gives new information on the pre-PRC conditions of the Tibetan people. It may of course upset supporters of the dalai lama, but if they have any conscience, this information should put them to shame.

http://www.cctv.com/english/20090328/102619.shtml

81.156.180.208 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is all discussed here. "pre-PRC" seems a bit too exclusive, though - I thought Tibet was already peacefully liberated in 1951? Yaan (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture - religion - Tibetan Buddhism

{{editsemiprotected}}grammar error in religion section

Some of the monasteries has begun to rebuild by the Chinese government since the 1980s and greater religious freedom also granted - although it is still limited.

A few monasteries have begun to rebuild since the 1980s (with limited support from the Chinese government) and greater religious freedom has been granted - although it is still limited. Danblum (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done, and welcome to Wikipedia! fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

fahadsadah, your modification changed the meaning of the sentences. What is your rationale?? Xingdong (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Culture - religion - Tibetan Buddhism

{{editsemiprotected}}grammar error in religion section

Some of the monasteries has begun to rebuild by the Chinese government since the 1980s and greater religious freedom also granted - although it is still limited.

A few monasteries have begun to rebuild since the 1980s (with limited support from the Chinese government) and greater religious freedom has been granted - although it is still limited. Danblum (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dupe of above.  Not done fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 07:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

fahadsadah, your modification changed the meaning of the sentences. What is your rationale? Xingdong (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, you guys!

Hi all! I see above the possibility of a divisive and probably pointless argument developing which should (I think) be avoided. I don't see any way to assess whether China or India had the most influence on Tibet in the past - nor is it really important or relevant. It is enough to say that both countries have had an immense effect on the development of Tibet and its culture. China has probably made more claims (whether justified or not), over the territory of what is now known as Central Tibet than India, but India (and various states and powers in India such as Kashmir, the Dogras and the Sikhs), has for centuries asserted its control over parts of the Tibetan cultural zone, particularly in the west and south (such as Ladakh, Lahaul, Spiti, Kinnaur, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikim, etc.). I think that, if User RRAD believes the article needs more references to India's influence - s/he should add relevant, well-referenced extra text, rather than just being negative about the content of the article. I, myself, look forward to this. All of us Wikipedians have a wonderful opportunity to improve articles - I believe it is an opportunity to take up and enjoy! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if i came off as being negative. That was never my intention. All i'm saying is that this article focuses too much on Tibet's relationship with China which shouldn't be the case. I would add references but i don't see it as my place to unless i consult everyone else first. This argument was never intended.

Taiwan

I certainly don't see the need for a discussion of Taiwan in the lede of this article. Why not give Nepal's, India's, or Mongolia's position as well? "Both sides of Chinese government" is an odd, striking, and POV-laden phrase. I google it and it seems that no one else uses it. Taiwan's position is actually quite a bit more nuanced than what is stated here, although I don't think that a detailed explanation is appropriate. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. What's next, a sentence in the lead section fpr Inner Mongolia to explain that Taiwan thinks Inner Mongolia does not exist? Yaan (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to # 6 Lede and # 8 claimed by a certain island in Archive 10, we discussed this question in March. --Chadsnook (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is your position still that this does not need to be discussed in the lede? Yaan (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My position has not changed. I have mentioned it at least 5 times in those two discussions that ROC's claim does not need to be in the lede. However, "No need to be in the lede" is certainly different from "no need to be in the article at all". Since Yaan asked, I would like to mention something as well, nothing personal, but for the sake of working together on improving this article, in the previous discussions about this topic, we all agreed that "ROC's claim does not need to be in the lede", and no one opposed that "ROC's claim should not be made to disappear from the article". An attempted deletion of this information from the article was reverted months ago, then we had a few pages of discussions and came to what it looked like a conclusion that no one opposed, how come four months later, without offering new points or present new facts, some editors think they can just do the same deletion using the same reason (which does not even really reflect the edit itself) over and over, ignoring the discussions that oneself took part in? --Chadsnook (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan's claims regarding Tibet are really just a subset of Taiwan's claims regarding China. It seems odd to me to talk about Taiwan at all in this article. But, Chadsnook, since you think it's important to include it, why don't you suggest a more appropriate place to put it (not in the lead) in the article? Bertport (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles dealing with a place that is involved in a significant territory dispute by a few governments usually list all the claimants in the article, and very often in the lede. An article titled Tibet, an area being claimed by three govts, would be odd to talk about only two of these govt's claims and not mentioning even just one sentence about the third one when it comes to introducing the dispute over this area's sovereignty. That does not provide a full picture of the situation. ROC's continued claim is an important fact to mention on paper, but it's not an important thing in dealing with Tibet sovereignty in reality, that's probably why it was put in the lede with just one sentence. If the wording of the original sentence is not clear, may be we can change it to something like: ROC considers Tibet a part of mainland China, and claims all of mainland China part of the territory of the ROC in it's Constitution.

Bertport, I reverted Kauffner's edit earlier because we had a discussion on the same topic that was still listed on the talk page, and no new information was given for his edit, but since we have started another discussion about this, it would be a lot more appreciated that you do not simply just revert on this part while the new discussion is still going on.

In regards of where to put it, Gimme danger gave two advice the other day: one is to work a mention of the ROC/PRC divide into the history section and insert ROC's claim there; the other is to do a "Territorial claims" section or something like that and do a summary of the Tibet sovereignty debate article, which contains a lot of discussion of ROC claims. I think either one is fine. --Chadsnook (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone, the discussion between Chadsnook and I can be found in this section of their talk page, with the relevant discussion after the outdent. I think Chadsnook summed up my ideas for what to do about the ROC claim issue pretty well, so I don't think I need to rehash them. I don't think it's important enough to warrant more than a sentence or two, but I'm not sure that there's a place in the article as is where those sentences could live. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For those who insisted that this information does not belong in the lede, where else do you guys think it should be? --Chadsnook (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the "(see Tibetan sovereignty debate)" which is already in this article is sufficient to cover it. There is no need to explicitly mention Taiwan at all here. Bertport (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Information like which govts has made claims over a disputed territory are always in the main article introducing the place. It's rather necessary information. If the govt of Taiwan isn't a Chinese govt, would we still be arguing about this? Chadsnook (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have restored ROC's claim and put it at the end of the section "Tibet under the People's Republic of China", see if there's any other problem. Chadsnook (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll support that edit as a compromise. Bertport (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

de jure indepedence

The statement that Tibet never received "de jure independence" should be remove from the lede, or at least qualified by noting that Britain recognized Tibet as "de facto independent." Anthony Eden wrote TV Soong in 1943: Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence. She has ever since regarded herself as in practice completely autonomous and has opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control. (Goldstein, 1989, p. 401. Sourced to "Memorandum from Sir Anthony Eden to the Chinese foreign minister, T. V. Soong," 05/08/43, FO371/93001) Under the Montevideo Convention, there are four factual criteria for independence.[5] If an entity meets these criteria, then it is independent. Otherwise it is not. So there is no basis in international law for making a distinction between de facto vs. de jure independence, or at least there is no generally agreed standard for distinguishing between the two. Kauffner (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, what Eden said in 1943 was typical of British colonial thinking. By today's standard, that was not only naive and laughable, but also eccentric. The self-proclaimed independence was not recognized by any other country in the world. And in 1951 the Chinese naturally showed their ability to reassert their control over Tibet. By the four requirements from the link you provided, Tibet was not a "de jure" independent country. It was not even a "de facto" independent country, as China never formally relinquished it. Xingdong (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think de jure has anything to do with it. Under its own laws, Tibet was de jure independent, but the same is true of any breakaway independence movement in the world. I think we should drop the phrase de jure and simply say that Tibet's independence was not internationally recognised. I'm not sure it's exactly correct to say that no state ever recognised Tibetan independence; Mongolia and Nepal may have recognised it, and Britain's position was ambiguous. Also, El Salvador's complaint to the United Nations on behalf of Tibet in 1951 strongly implies a willingness to recognise Tibet, since it raised the issue on the grounds of maintaining "international peace and security".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The four legal criteria for independence are: 1. defined territory, over which the sovereign exercise control. 2. Definite population of people. 3. Under control of its own government. 4. Capacity to engage international dealing with other states. So when Eden writes the Tibet was "de facto independent", he presumably means that it met these four criteria. The current lede implies that Tibet might have been independent, but it wasn't "de jure independent". I suggest removing these words: "...nor recognized by any country as a de jure independent nation." The de facto/de jure distinction implied by this phrase is a lot hand waving, a distinction without difference, as the lawyers would say. Kauffner (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, tibet didn't meet above mentioned item 1. "defined territory, over which the sovereign exercise control." It is well known Tibet did not enjoy sovereignty during the time. Item 2 and 3 there are tons of such places in the world, yet they can't claim independent. Tibet did not meet item 4 either as it was highly depending on China for resources and dealing with other countries in the world. The Simla Convention and McMahon Line was a British colonial scheme forced on China. Under international law, unfair treaties like this were illegal. You can't say Tibet was 'de jure' independent. Tibet wasn't even 'de facto' independent either. Again, Eden's memorandum has no any legal value. My opinion is we keep the 'de jure' statement, and we should also put in Tibet wasn't even 'de facto' independent. Xingdong (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Further more, many places in the world fulfill those four requirements, yet they are not independent states. Canadian provice of Quebec is one, and for that matter, any state of the United States. Qebec is neither 'de jure' independent, nor 'de facto' independent state. Xingdong (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So now you are arguing that international law is incorrect and you know better. Quebec? You got this stuff from Grunfeld, didn't you? Only Canadians know or care what Quebec's status is. It is not for Wiki to develop a logically consistent theory of independence that applies to both Tibet and Quebec, but only to report what authorities like Eden had to say on the subject. Kauffner (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What I said was Tibet did not meet the four criteria. And even some places in this world do meet these criteria, they can not be called independent countries. And "authorities like Eden"? Are you serious? Oh come on, under Eden, India was a colony of Britain. Indians were second class citizens and were quite often called N-words. A memorandum from Eden to another country's foreign minister commentting that country's terroritory has any legal effect?? Guess what Mr. Soong would've responded? Trash can please. It was a piece of trash. If you think Eden's memorandum has any legal value, you are definitely wrong. Unbelievable even today there are some people still holding colonial view points. Is that your 'lawyery' sense? By the way, Quebec is of interest not only to Canadians, but also to French, and to other French speaking countries. Quebec is only one of countless examples. Wikipedia is a good place for entertainment, I never take it seriously. I just don't like some folks putting wrong views here poisoning people. Xingdong (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how diplomacy works. Diplomatic correspondence signed by a foreign minister is a more formal statement of a country's position than, say, one uploaded to a Web site, as David Miliband's statement about Tibet's status was. Quebec again? OK, I'll bite. Is Quebec independent or not? And just because "some people still holding colonial view points" doesn't necessarily mean that China has to retain Tibet as a colony. Kauffner (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tibet was not territory(or colony) of Britain, so it had no say on this issue. A memorandum without other party's acknowledgement, or signing is like gas in the air. Its legal status is equivalent to a "Memorandum from Saddam Hussein to George W. Bush" stating that part of U.S.A. wasn't its part any more. Xingdong (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And Tibet isn't a colony to China. It is a part of China. Period. Xingdong (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Scotland was once a de jure independent and de facto independent country. It ain't that no more. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefox

Why can I not view the article using Firefox, but can using IE? Bodrugan (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know: I use Firefox, and I can see this article just fine.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also use Firefox and have no problems. John Hill (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

add this in history section

Around 650 AD, the chinese Tang Dynasty captured Lhasa.<>[6]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.167.23 (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This comes from a single passing reference in Charles Bell's 1924 book, Tibet: Past and Present to a "tradition" that China captured Lhasa after Songtsan Gampo's death circa 650 CE. This seems extremely unlikely as there is no reference to it (as far as I know) in either the Chinese or Tibetan historical sources. It stretches credibility that Chinese histories would not have mentioned it if it were true. Further, Tibet was an extremely powerful military force by the end of Songtsan Gampo's regin, having just conquered and assimilated large swathes of territory. It would have taken a major war to have conquered Tibet at this point in history. Let's see some real evidence before this "tradition" gets a mention in the article. John Hill (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Was capturing Llasa the same as conquering Tibet? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not?

How is there no mention of Tibet's long historical history with India or the fact that as a country it could have been part of India and not China. This article is quite bias in the sense that it tries to acknowledge Tibet as part of China when this was never the case and it has more historical ties with India i.e. location, religion etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Tibet has always been politically closer to China than India. That's because of the Himalayas in the way, which religions and scripts can cross much more readily than armies can. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it "could have been part of India and not China". Geography is destiny in this case.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Physically, the barrier between China and Tibet is more significant. In the 1940s, the easiest way was the get from Tibet to China was through Calcutta and then by sea. China prepared for the 1962 war by sending supplies by sea, past clueless Indian customs agents in Calcutta. The Dalai Lama's religious influence in Mongolia meant that Tibet was strategically important to China, and apparently worth the trouble of sending troops there. Kauffner (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not say the dalai lama's influence in Hollywood meant Hollywood is strategically important to China, and apparently worth the trouble of sending troops there? Kauffner, you are making up history? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Culturally, politically and psychologically Tibet is much closer to China than to any other countries including India. Buddism is near extinct in India but thrives in Tibet, Mogolia and rest of China. To say Tibet could have been part of India and not China is nonsense. Hey RRRAD your theory is a nice-try. Maybe one day we would discover that all cave men came from Tibet plateau.

Kauffner, the quickest way to reach Lahsa from New Delhi is flying from New Delhi to Beijing, then from Beijing to Lhasa. Xingdong (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense - the quickest and by far the shortest way is to fly from Delhi to Kathmandu and Kathmandu to Lhasa. John Hill (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that include flight frequencies? Shortest does not always equal quickest. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of you seem to confuse Tibet with Lhasa. Since when does "easier to get from Lhasa to a place" means "easier to get from Tibet to a place"? I thought by the definition of Tibet in this article, Tibet includes parts of China, India, Nepal, Bhutan and even part of Afghanistan, certainly not just Lhasa. Further more, is it propriety to use the difficulty level of visiting somewhere from Lhasa alone to indicate the political ties of Tibet with these places in the thousands of years of history of Tibet? We can try to use geographical location to explain what happened in the history and why it happened, but how much weight does location carry in the modern political dispute of the governing of a place? Bordering areas of a place are always geographically closer to the neighboring areas than to the center of the place, but that does not mean it is politically closer to the neighbor areas. In fact, many places in the world are not even geographically connected to the main part of their country, but that does not necessary mean it is the same politically.Chadsnook (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to bring in another point for your consideration, if I may. A big chunk of what User:Xingdong is bringin in into this discusion is higly debatable. The fact that Tibet is politically closer to China may be so, but that's a fact that stems from the recent ties [say the last 50 odd years]. Culturally and psychologically the peoples of Sikkim, big parts of Nepal, all of Baltistan and the majority of Ladakh, are one and the same as the Tibetan stock. Historically there have been ties between the Tibetans and the regions south of the watershed, longer than they've been having ties with their northern neighbours. [Check Fuhrer-Haimendorf and especially Alaistair Lamb's works on this.] Qwrk (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"at the same time as province XY"

I am not sure how many Chinese provinces declared independence in 1913. In any case I guess none of these provinces declared they were going to drive out "the Chinese", and most of them took part in the 1912/1913 national assembly elections? Yaan (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Was is really 14 provinces declaring independence in 1912-1913? There is no source for this statement, so I wonder if it isn't referring to a longer period of time. In any case, I don't think there is any question of the Dalai Lama modeling his proclamation on a proclamation issued by a Chinese province, so this just a coincidental sort of thing, and certainly not leadworthy. Kauffner (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on the Xinhai revolution states that fifteen provinces declared their independence in the course of said revolution (late 1911?), so I thought this might a confusion with 1911. Yaan (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama was once vice chairman of the NPC

This is interesting, but how is it so importnat that it needs to be mentioned in the very first section of an article about Tibet? "Tibet is the region the Dalai Lama, a former vice chairman of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, comes from"? Yaan (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please maintain vigilance regarding false claims and references

I have just removed the following claim: "Only 3 of the fourteen Dalai Lamas have actually ruled Tibet; regents ruled during 77% of the period from 1751 until 1960." [and then gave as a reference: Mullin 2001, pp. 47–49]. The reason I removed it is that this claim is completely spurious.

In fact, Glenn Mullin in his book, The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnations (2001) Clear Light Publishers. ISBN 1-57416-092-3 (which is the only book by Glenn Mullin listed in the reference section of the article), makes no such claim anywhere in his book that I can find (and certainly not on the pages given). It looks very much to me as if someone has deliberately constructed this false reference hoping no one would check it. If so, it becomes important to check out as many of the references given in the article as possible - particularly those referring to contentious issues. I can't do it all, so please help where you can. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a generally accepted fact that only the 5th, 13th, and 14th Dalai Lamas ever had much political power (and the 14th, really, only had political power in Tibet for a short transitional period) — the ones before the 5th were not even ostensible rulers; the 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Dalai Lamas died when they were still young; the 7th Dalai Lama is seen as a scholar but not much of a political figure; and I'm not sure what the story of the 8th Dalai Lama was — so the claim is not spurious, although I agree that it needs to be sourced to a bona fide source.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim may not be completely spurious, but it certainly seems to be an overstatement. While it is true that a number of the Dalai Lamas died before they could consolidate political power, the 7th Dalai Lama seems to have taken on considerable political power, (although I agree that the interpretation depends on whose version of events one believes). The Tibetan (though certainly not the Chinese) version of political events during the reign of the 7th Dalai Lama (see WP article on him) is that: "In 1751, at the age of forty-three, Kelzang Gyatso constituted the "Kashag" or council of ministers to administer the Tibetan government and the abolished the post of Regent or Desi, as it placed too much power in one man's hand and the Dalai Lama became the spiritual and political leader of Tibet." The 8th Dalai Lama, apparently, ruled on his own for only 6 years (but he did do so).

Also, it is not at all clear that it was only the regents who wielded temporal power during the times when several of the Dalai Lamas died young, as the Panchen Lamas frequently took over their roles: "During the period of the short-lived Dalai Lamas—from the Ninth to the Twelfth incarnations—the Panchen was the lama of the hour, filling the void left by the four Dalai Lamas who died in their youth." From: The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation, p. 175. Glenn H. Mullin. Clear Light Publishers. Santa Fe, New Mexico. ISBN 1-57416-092-3. Well, that's how it seems to me at the moment. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original statement was probably distinctly overstated. Personally, I know very little about the role of the regents per se. In any event, I agree that none of this should be included without a good citation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I had also been suspicious of that claim... Good work people. Himalayan 09:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This information is found in A. Tom Grunfeld's book The Making of Modern Tibet [7] ISBN 1-56324-713-5. Page 12 in the 1996 version, (page 11 in the 1987 version). As a measure of the power that regents must have wielded it is important to note that only three of the fourteen Dalai Lamas have actually ruled Tibet. From 1751 to 1960 regents ruled for 77 percent of the time (94 percent if we exclude the exceptionally long reign of the thirteenth Dalai Lama). Chadsnook (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I will restore this piece of information with the correct citation. John, while I think your analysis is reasonable, editors' original research can not be used in the article, feel free to add other scholars' opinions to the article if they disagree with Grunfeld's conclusion. Chadsnook (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

About what John said at the beginning of this discussion, I certainly agree with him that it is important to check out as many of the references given in the article as possible. When I first started editing this article a while ago, I felt exactly the same that It looks very much as if someone has deliberately constructed false references hoping no one would check it. Many statements in the article either provided wrong references or they did not correctly present their given citations' figures or meanings. While it is possible some previous editors were not careful enough, when it happened too often, it certainly makes people wonder if those were done on purpose. This could have pushed some editors to lean towards one side or the other by trying to correct the mistakes. I guess that would be fine if everyone follows Wikipedia's rules. Unfortunately, that's not always the case and we all make mistakes from time to time. Therefore, I also think it is important to check out many of the references in the article. John, thanks for brining up this issue. Chadsnook (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another false claim uncovered?

I have just removed the unreferenced claim in the article that: "The 14th Dalai Lama was elected to be the Vice Chairman of 1st National People's Congress in 1954". If you look at the title "Vice Chairman" in the coding one will see that it actually represented "Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress". Now, if you look at the article on the 1st National People's Congress you will see that the "Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress" of the 1st National People's Congress, was actually a Chinese communist cadre, Liu Shaoqi - not the Dalai Lama. So, this appears to be the second major error of fact I have managed to discover in the first few paragraphs of the article this morning. I haven't had time to do more searching yet - but I will get back to it. BY the way, if I am mistaken on any of these points, please feel free to point out my mistakes (with references if possible). Like everyone else, I am not infallible - nor do I have a large library of documents to refer to - just my own modest collection. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that, in this case, the text of the article was basically correct: he was vice-chairman, not chairman. That said, I believe there were several vice-chairmen, so it is misleading to say that he was the vice-chairman.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! Do you know if he willingly accepted this position or under what conditions and for how long he held it? Did he have any real power - and, if so, did he exercise it? In other words, was he an active Vice-President, or was it purely a ceremonial position? It would be great if we could find some other references to this position (I have been searching but unable to find any). Thanks for the clarification, John Hill (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very unlikely that he had any political power in terms of his national office. He was only 18 or 19 years old at the time. It's worth noting that the 10th Panchen Lama was also given a ceremonial national post of similar stature at the same time, and he was being cultivated as a more loyal counterweight to the Dalai Lama.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nat, for your help with these difficult issues. John Hill (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Although new to Wikipedia, I'm fairly certain that it's not a political forum and should only contain factual data. That the current Dalai Lama was a Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China is a fact in itself, regardless of whether he actually had the power as the Vice Chairman or even was put in there out of his own wish. Or am I missing anything? Tony80862 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the context of the data points we mention in the article is extremely important, especially with regard to deciding which to include and which to exclude.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede concern

About the following line:

It is home to the indigenous Tibetan people, and to some other ethnic groups such as Monpas and Lhobas.

Historically, this is most certainly the case. But no matter where we stand on the Tibet self-determination/independence debate, we should acknowledge that this area is now also inhabited by large numbers of Han Chinese people. Colipon+(Talk) 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And Hui Chinese , Monguor and Salar people.

we should acknowledge that this area is now also inhabited by large numbers of Han Chinese people.

Eastern part of Greater Tibet was inhabited by Han Chinese since the Han dynasty(over 2000 years), for example Xining 93.136.33.215 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be so - but the Tibetans have never before in their recorded history been swamped by huge migrations of people - as we are seeing at present. John Hill (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They will be OK, just like Aborigines, or you can lead by example? Remove yourself from "Occupied Australia" and sign over your house and all your assets to displaced Aborigines. 93.136.51.148 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Places that were inhabited by large numbers of Han people for thousands of years are by definition not part of Greater Tibet. I don't think the idea that Xining proper is in Tibet is tenable. It is certainly quite near some Tibetan areas.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Anonymous user No. 93.136.51.148 above: You have made a valid comparison between the sort of colonial process that happened in Australia to what is happening now in Tibet. However, you sound very critical of me personally, so I thought I should be allowed a chance to reply. If you knew anything about me, you would know that I have spent far more of my time trying to deal with (and publicise and protest about) the dispossession of Australian Aborigines and the disastrous consequences to modern Aborigines and the whole fabric of the Australian nation, than I have with Tibetans. In fact, I have worked for Aboriginal people (and I mean for Aboriginal people - not for governments) more than half my working life in a very wide variety of roles. I have lived among Aboriginal people in both rural and remote areas for many years (and still do). When I moved here I deliberately sought out and received permission from the Traditional Owner of the land to live here, and we have remained good friends ever since.

I am in no way trying to say that China is doing anything worse than Europeans did here in Australia (or other places they colonized). But two wrongs don't make a right, as the old saying goes. The big difference is that this early stage of destroying the cultures of local peoples and then swamping the survivors with massive waves of immigrants is taking place right now in Tibet. Surely by now we should all recognise this disastrous process and try to stop it before the effects are irreversible - the damage irrepairable? It is as if the human family has learnt nothing from the horrific injustices and largely unnecessary suffering of the past few centuries. I have protested for years against the unjust policies of the Australian government, and racist attitudes amongst the people, just as I have in Canada, where I was born - and as I continue to do against similar policies and attitudes in China and many other countries. Oppressed people around the world deserve and need all the understanding and support we can give them. Once we stop feeling their suffering and railing against injustice, we lose the very core of our humanity. So, please don't insinuate that I am unfairly biased in my criticisms. Thank you, John Hill (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

John, it is completely wrong to claim the Chinese or the Hans are destroying Tibetan culture. The present culture of Tibet is in fact fairly recent. The older traditional culture of the present Tibetans' ancestors was destroyed by Tibetans themselves. Tibetan culture is not closer to Indian culture because the Hindus of India despised Buddhism, and the earlier people of Tibet were not Hindus. If what John Hill say he is doing is correct, then he is doing great work. When he has convinced all white people (people whose majority ancestors were of European descent) to leave Australian, North and South America and return to Europe, then perhaps he should rejoin the debate here. In the meantime he should check that what he claims is factually correct before posting. 86.137.252.77 (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)