Talk:Tibet/Archive 5

Talk page archived

The former talk page was getting too long, so I moved it.--Niohe 12:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to have lost my additions which were both quotes:

New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1994: "Treaties (1906, 1907) between China and Great Britain recognized China's sovereignty over Tibet"

Infopedia incorporating Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia 1996: "Chinese Sovereignty. The Chinese Empire acquired sovereignty over Tibet in the 17th century but in the course of the following two centuries Chinese authority steadily diminished. Meanwhile, British colonial officials in India, initially Warren Hastings, attempted to secure a foothold in the region. These efforts were fruitless, mainly because of Tibetan resentment over a Nepalese invasion in 1790, which the British supported. In 1904 Tibet, then virtually independent of Chinese authority, was invaded by the British, who were alarmed over purported Russian influence in the country. The expedition laid the foundation for an Anglo-Chinese convention of 1906. By the terms of this agreement, the Chinese Empire acquired recognition as the sovereign power in Tibet. The agreement also provided for the payment of a large indemnity to the British, who subsequently withdrew their troops."

As Wikipedia points out, Britain violated these treaties when it signed the Simla Agreement.

Tibet flag should be removed from the Sovereignty section

If the "Tibet" flag remains in the section, a picture of the Chinese national flag flying in Tibet should also be present. Otherwise, the presence of only the Tibetan flag in the Sovereignty section of this article implies that Tibet is a sovereign state with its own "inherent" flag, which is a highly POV assertion. Mamin27 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the caption says the flag was historically used. Nowhere does this article say Tibet is a sovereign state with it's own flag today. Khoikhoi 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously are not reading the same caption I'm reading or you are just making things up. Where does the caption mention the word "historically"? This is what your caption says: Flag of Tibet used intermittently between 1912 and 1950. This version was introduced by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1912. It continues to be used by the Government of Tibet in Exile, but is outlawed in the People's Republic of China. This caption is unacceptable for NPOV in the context of this section titled "Sovereignty." I am forced to add the sentence: "No country in the world recognizes this flag as sovereign." Mamin27 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean no country in the world recognizes the PRC flag as sovereign in Tibet. --Arigato1 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the Government of Tibet in Exile is in India, and everyone knows it's not a sovereign nation anyways. That's why it has the name "in exile" in it. It's different from Tibet itself, which as we all know is in China. Tibet has historically used the flag, and now the gov. of Tibet in exile still uses it. That's not POV at all. Khoikhoi 04:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing of your caption is unacceptable. It first states that the flag was used between 1912 and 1950 (presumably the time period when Tibet was "sovereign" and had exercised political independence), and then the following sentence states "It continues to be used by the Government of Tibet in Exile." This is subtle language used to hint that the bearers of this flag holds sovereignty over Tibet, which is absolutely unacceptable for NPOV. No, it's not common knowledge that Tibet is not a sovereign nation; if it were, why do you need a section called "A sovereign nation?" Mamin27 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The section "A sovereign nation?" is about Tibet's historical, not present-day status. That's why it says, "the Chinese government and the Government of Tibet in Exile, however, disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China was legitimate." They're talking about the past. I find the caption perfectly acceptable, as it is indeed common knowledge that Tibet is part of China. I also honestly find nothing wrong with the caption at all. Khoikhoi 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A 'government in exile' is no government at all. Why not describe an object as a 'square circle' or have an organisation called 'The Confederate Government of The United States Exiled in Russia'? 19 Nov 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.68.3 (talk)

Well, there are articles about other governments in exile. See Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea for instance.--Niohe 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The adjective in the above government is 'provisional' and not 'exiled'. 20 Nov 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)

So you are reducing this to a question of semantics? How profound!--Niohe 12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Very profound indeed. Without semantics there can be no clear meaningful questions. A clear answer cannot be given for a meaningless question. I have pointed out an oxymoron. 20 Nov 06.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)

Why restrict your crusade against governments in exile to Tibet? I suggest that you make this point at Talk:Polish government in Exile as well. I'm sure that Polish Wikipedians will welcome you in helping them overcoming this semantic stumbling block. You can also try to do something about the oxymoron Category:Governments in exile, which you will find at the bottom of this article. There is a lot of rewarding work for you at Wikipedia.--Niohe 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this rewarding work to you, as you proposed it.

The Wiki article on the above on the Polish stated that it was: 'largely unrecognised and without effective power after World war II'. By definition a government governs. If it does not govern then it is not a government. 21 Nov 06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)

Weasel words are things like, "some argue..." or "it is believed that..."—things that people say to when they don't have a source to back-it up. However, the caption in the flag is very straightforward: It was introduced by Thubten Gyatso, and is still used today by the Gov't in exile. What's so POV about that? I think people are making a big deal out of something that's pretty much an accepted fact. Khoikhoi 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; I though I removed a different phrase, but it seems I made another edit. Never mind, this looks OK.--Niohe 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See the difference between yours and Mamin's version. ;-) Khoikhoi 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. I felt that saying "No country in the world today recognizes this flag as sovereign" was both superfluous and a bit "weasely". It's a bit like inserting a phrase "Mr. X is no longer the president of the US" in articles on presidents you don't like. Nothing proves nothing. Besides, flags don't need international recognition to exist.--Niohe 19:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case to call the government of Tibet in exile a government when it is in fact not a government is also superfluous and 'weasely'. 21 Nov 06.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)

I agree. I also find it unecessary to add a Chinese flag (right next to a bunch of prayer flags) below the Tibetan flag, in some attempt to "equalize" the article. As I said before, no one denies that Tibet is part of China. Khoikhoi 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, did you see my exchange with the anonymous gentleman above? Some people just dart in to a discussion as if there only was one country in the world...--Niohe 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but I see it now. At least the discussion is more on-topic this time... Khoikhoi 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

???? Who said there was only one country in the world?

You guys must have seen the 'presidential inauguration' of Obrator in Mexico: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6166908.stm

Now we have a Mickey Mouse president in the world as well as a Mickey Mouse government in 'exile'. 21 Nov 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)

Evaluation of Lamaist rule between 1913~1950

Since there is a topic on the evaluation of PRC rule in the article, shouldn't there be an evaluation of Lamaist rule that lasted between 1913~1950?Ian-- 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Write it and cite it, dont make yourself look like a pov-whore by posting this here for people to see Pirus 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a description from the newspaper Guardian (Nov 20, 2006) on Tawang (now occupied by India) under the Lamaist rule:

In the hillside village of Lhou, a group of ramshackle homes covered in orange chrysanthemums, Pema Gombu says he has lived under three flags: Tibetan, Chinese and Indian. Although his living room is decked with pictures of the current Dalai Lama, the 81-year-old says the Tibetan administration in the early 20th century was the worst.

"The [Tibetan] officials in that time were corrupt and cruel. I am sure his holiness did not know this. In those days if a Tibetan stopped you they could ask you to work for them like a slave. They forced us to pay taxes. Poor farmers like me had to give over a quarter of our crops to them. We had to carry the loads 40km [25 miles] to a Tibetan town as tribute every year."

It was this treatment that turned Tawang away from Tibet. Mr Gombu said he helped guide Indian soldiers into the town in 1950 who carried papers signed by the Tibetan government which transferred Arunachal's 35,000 square miles to India. "It was the happiest day of my life."

It seems Guardian is too biased and exaggerated the dark side of Lamaist rule.Ian-- 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"occupy"?

from your same article -

"The last time China and India clashed was in 1962. It was a short, bloody war that claimed more than 40,000 lives. China's troops scattered Indian soldiers and occupied Tawang before retreating back into Tibet."

now please stop posting your stupid propoganda here. if you have anything to add to the article, do it. otherwise, dont give half-assed quotes giving biased views from articles which are desperatly trying to be neutral

URL for your article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1952226,00.html

either way, i dont see why you cant translate this into something tangible in the article. the talk page isnt meant for debate, although thats what it sometimes boils down to around here Pirus 08:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is for serious discussion. If anyone is interested only in ranting foul languages like "whore" or "ass", then he shouldn't be here in the first place.Ian-- 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which country is occupying Tawang? Here is an article from the magazine Frontline published in India: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2117/stories/20040827000807500.htm

The note "The Northern Boundary of India", which Gopal appended to Vol. 3 of his biography of Nehru, most unusually, testifies to this ardour. "The inclination of some British officials at the end of the nineteenth century to relinquish Indian sovereignty over parts of the Aksai Chin plateau does not provide China with traditional rights to this area." So, India is bound by the situation it inherited on Independence. It can invoke "history" and - ask for more. This is utterly untenable in international law and morality. A successor state cannot claim a boundary, which its predecessor did not have. There is a name for such claims - revanchism. Sadly, Gopal misdirected himself and misadvised Nehru. But was not the McMahon Line 1914 also a British creation? India occupied Tawang only on February 12, 1951 evicting the Tibetan administration. Gopal wrote: "This traditional boundary of India... as shown by the official Indian maps of 1954, was known to the People's Republic of China when, by the treaty of 1954, they explicitly undertook to respect India's territorial integrity." Ian-- 22:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is for "serious discussion" regarding the article, not for your personal propoganda. And you are a whore, a pov whore because you keep posting BS that isnt relevent to the article. You got pwned on the last stuff you posted and now youre erecting more text for me to read over. Stop acting smart. Im NOT gonna read the wall of text you just posted up, because you obviously havent learned the first time around. You should rather respond about how you were able to put such an anti-Indian spin on the last article you edited. Either way, im about to delete this whole thing, because its basically just repetition of me refuting your idiot propoganda, and you pulling more random stuff out your back orifice. Its not helping the article; its making you feel as though Arunachal Pradesh (which isent even tibet) is a part of china. Personally, its a big enough stretch that the you feel (or atleast im pretty sure you feel) that tibet is a part of china. Anyways, let that permeate before i delete this whole ridiculous wall of text Pirus 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian's right. Be nice, everybody. Pirus, you've totally got to stop calling people whores. As for the substantive issues ... I've somewhat lost the thread of what this is about. Arunachal Pradesh was clearly once part of the Tibetan cultural sphere, but the same is also true for Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh, etc.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

arghh alright ill be nice. Anyways, dude keeps posting stuff about how india is occupying arunachal pradesh and its pretty irrelevent, and i keep responding like the genius i am, but its annoying how dude is using this as a platform for his rants rather than anything in the article Pirus 04:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I've kind of lost the thread of what this discussion was about. I'd appreciate it if Ian could say something to summarise what the point of this for the article is.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nat, I don't know what is wrong with this Pirus who is particularly interested in whore and ass. I only think that it is appropriate to discuss Tibet during the lamaist rule from 1913-50 since there is another topic of Tibet under PRC rule in the article. Just by suggesting such topic, I was cursed by Pirus as a whore. Why was Pirus so afraid of any poster suggesting the evaluation of Tibet history of certain period?

Afterwards I excerpted the Guardian article on a story of an old folk who has lived in Tawang and experienced the three administrations -- Tibet, Chinese and Indian -- respectively. And this old folk confessed that he led the Indian Army to occupy Tawang in 1950.

But Pirus badmouthed me as "ass" merely because I used the word "occupy", then I quoted the Indian magazine Frontier which article also pointed out that India did not "occupy" Tawang until 1951. Pirus got furious and ranted that he didn't want to read other source and even threatened to delete my writing.

Neither Guardian nor Frontier is propaganda machine as Pirus labelled them. And I never implied that Tawang is Chinese territory as Pirus claimed that "I made him feel so". Anyway, I agree with you that Arunachal Pradesh, like Qinghai, western Sichuan, Ladakh, Sikkim, and Bhutan, have been once cultural Tibet.Ian-- 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

translation issue

Quote from the page: "Source: Department of Population, Social, Science and Technology Statistics of the National Bureau of Statistics of China (国家统计局人口和社会科技统计司)". Isn't this a mistranslation? I think it should be something in the likings of "Department of Population and Society Scientifical Statistics of the National...". No? UncleMatt 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think 科技 is a noun here, not an adjective... it's a bit weird to say 科技统计司 for "Scientific Statistics Bureau". Third opinions? -- ran (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence, re: ROC

I have removed the following recent addition to the article:

Till today, Tibet has remained an integral part of China on the Map of Republic of China (the democratic Taiwan). See Republic of China Map here [[1]]

This is basically redundant with the following sentence: "Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence, re: Demographics of Tibet

I also removed this recently-added passage:

Following the chinese One child policy,which give the minorities about two times possibilies to reproduce,the Demographics of Tibet are changing rapidly.See Ethnic minorities in China

First of all, the One-Child Policy doesn't give anyone possibilities to reproduce; it restricts their possibilities, more so for Hans, less so for minorities. Moreover, the statement "the Demographics of Tibet are changing rapidly" seems entirely opaque. What is the nature of this change? Third, the website linked to doesn't actually say anything at all about Tibet.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical Ksyrie edit, you better invite him to a discussion here if you want to understand how he is reasoning.--Niohe 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

to Niohe,you know me very well....--Ksyrie 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean it can be seen from your point of view as a socalled chinese goverment propaganda.But it's ture that nowadays the minorities grow 7 times faster than the Han chinese.See here Ethnic minorities in China.The chinese goverment did prohibit the tibetan from claiming independence,so it give them twice possibilies to reproduce.Today,in the area called China proper,you can easily find the Tibetan who sell their artificts and Uyghur who sell their ethnic food.Maybe 100 hundred years later,tibetan or Uyghur may became the majorities in China.So sad to forsee the possible future chinese.--Ksyrie 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I were as lucky them, so that I could sell ethnic food or trinkets in China. However, you haven't responded to any of the points that I initially raised above, so I have again removed this passage.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I want to say,the chinese government really give tibetan no choice to choose their leader freely,but other ethnic including the Han chinese neither,furthure more,they give their more possibilities to reproduce.So why the guys are so interesting in the point of view that tibetan and Uyghur are the only people who suffered and implies that they are prosecuted.Just look at the after 1949 history of China,each policies of chinese communists did was the policies national applied in whenever the ethnics,the great forward or cultural revolution are most done in the regions of Han chinese than tibet or xinjiang.if we counter the suffers, the Han chinese suffered the most.So why not see the tibetan and Uyghur and other ethics as a whole who do not enjoy the human rights?--Ksyrie 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To advance my POV,in my sense of socalled ethnic presecution,the prosectued ethnics maybe regarded as inferior and treated worse than other ethnics by the government or people.But you know it's just the contrary in China,the you-imagined prosecuted ethnics received much better beneficts than others,and you call it prosecution?Did you ever hear about that in a countries where the government prosecuted one ethnic,and the intermarriaged descendents of this ethnic and another nonpresecuted ethinc always choose to be the prosecuted ethnic in order to enjoy the benefict?It's completely mad to see that you guys always see them as subjected people and give much sympathy to them,while they lived better in China that other non-prosecuted people.It's completely mad the world.--Ksyrie 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate to hear an Uighur or Tibetan tell us that they have a better life than Han Chinese in the PRC. How do you know that they suffered less during the Great Leap or the Cultural Revolution?

When I visited Xinjiang some time ago, it was patently clear who were in power and who were not, and who had the resources and who did not. I can assure you that the people with money and resources were Han Chinese. Sure, there are individual Tibetans and Uighurs who prosper under PRC rule, but it's a bit thick to expect the Tibetans and Uighurs as a group to be "grateful" to the PRC. Ever heard about national pride? At any rate, to ask them to be grateful sounds not very different from European colonialists expecting their colonial subjects to be grateful for the blessings of Western civilization. I think we can all move beyond that kind of condescending rhetoric.--Niohe 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not to say they are grateful or other thing,you have really travalled to china,you may know about the natural environment in xinjiang and tibet,it's completely different from the Eastern China,do you expect the economics in this kind of place where far from sea to grow better than the coastal cities?If you find than the rich are mostly Han chinese it's because they lived in the better natural environment not because they are favorised by government.Look at the Manchu and Ethnic Koreans in China who live in the Eastern China,they live a better live than Han Chinesesome sources in chinese.You cann't exclude the natrual factor in the economic developement.I am sure if tibetan and Uighur live in the eastern china,they may live a much more standard of living.And to say something sad,the suffering,for the great leap forward and cultrual revolution i won't know better than you do.But check the demographics statistics,if the minorities really suffered more than han chinese,their propotion will diminished before 1980.see Ethnic minorities in China.But we see the contray.--Ksyrie 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...--Niohe 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is all well and good, but ... none of this has anything to do with the flaws in the text that was initially added. I don't see that being addressed.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but Ksyrie has never been very good at taking part in a constructive discussion. He reminds me of the king in "Mencius", who when having lost an argument, turned left and right and started to talk about something else (王顾左右而言他).--Niohe 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Nat Krause was correct in removing these passages because they were badly written in English (in fact they really make no sense semantically), and it would seem that the writer's fluency in English is questionable. The passage should really read, 'The One-Child policy, which many Hans resent as prohibitive punishment, did not apply to the minority groups in China. As such the Han population sees the PRC Goverment treating its minorities more favourably than the majority Han.'

As for Niohe's point about a few prosperous Tibetans and Uighurs, it must be pointed out that there are far more poor Hans than there are wealthy Hans. There are probably not much difference in the living standards between the poor Hans and the poor ethnic minorities. The rich-poor divide is not simply a question of ethnicity. The situation is the same in the US where Blacks are on average poorer than Whites, but there are still plenty of rich Blacks and poor Whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.0.231 (talk)

I have never disputed the fact that there are more poor Han Chinese than there are minorities (in absolute numbers), so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But I guess that in both absolute and relative numbers, there are more wealthy Han Chinese in Lhasa and Ürümqi, than there are wealthy Tibetans and Uighurs in Beijing. Get the point?--Niohe 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are more poor people than wealthy people in any country in both absolute and relative terms. In the West, even people who should count themselves as wealthy will tell you that they are poor. It is no doubt true that there are more wealthy Hans in the western regions than there are wealthy Tibetans or Uighurs in the eastern region. Why? Because the Hans took their capital with them, whereas the Tibetans and Uighurs had nothing to take with them (except their labour, and any Western economist will tell you that labour is not worth very much). Don't forget both Tibet and the Tibetans were very poor to start off in economic terms; of course the Tibetans will try to convince the rest of the world that they are very wealthy spiritually. But unfortunately spiritual wealth does not feed earthly needs. Niohe should realise that the Tibetans are now a lot better off than in the times of the lamas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.0.231 (talk)

I'm not denying that some Tibetans and Uighurs are prospering under the PRC, but you can justify any colonial enterprise with that kind of argument.--Niohe 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a colonial enterprise, nor are my observations justifications as such. If the Tibetans followed the misguided ways of the lamas, they will simply go extinct, the same way as the Neanderthals; or at best there will be a few specimens left in zoos and museums, or on reservations as in the US model. The reason for this is that the rest of the world will move faster and faster relative to the Tibetans, until they will become not a recognisable part of global human society. There are Tibetans and Uighurs who prosper, not because of a colonial enterprise, but because they are smarter than others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.0.231 (talk)

Wow! So now Tibetans and Uighurs are reduced to zoological specimens; I didn't realize there were people thinking this was in the 21st century. Anyway, I'm not sure what this debate is about, so I'm going to call it a day.--Niohe 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes for many this is the 21st century both in time and space, but unfortunately many Tibetans still think they live in the past. That's is why it is important to help Tibetans catch up; the lamas are definitely not letting the Tibetans do that as it is not in their interest to.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.123.201 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

(Removed inflammatory remarks by 213.122.113.63)

Dear anonymous: I'm not sure what point this thread is debating at this point. I doubt that very many knowledgeable people would dispute that many Tibetans today are better off in many respects than they were the last time lamas ruled—although the extent of the improvement can be disputed. Clearly, this has not resulted in a condition where Tibetans are generally wealthier than the Chinese are—I don't know if anyone has suggested otherwise. Moreover, a lot of countries in Asia have experienced rising standards of living over the last 50 years, and it was not necessary for them to lose their independence in the process. The main source of improvement has been exposure to modern technology and the beginnings of integration into the international economy.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really you cann't exclude the environmental factors in the economic propertity.Check the Manchu,and Ethnic Koreans in China,they are generally healthier than the Han Chinese.The tibetan are poorer because they lived in the Tibetan Plateau,where maybe the most difficult place for transportation,not because of the exploit of chinese government.--Ksyrie 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Very profound indeed. I "cann't" find much more to say...--Niohe 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nat Krause, if you are not sure what point this thread is debating at this point, then you have a problem, because you started the thread, and Niohe took it up. Many people know that in the late 19th century and in the 20th century, there were major restructuring of what you would term China. Like any major company restructures, what was before and after the restructuring look differently to different people. For example, GM today is not the GM of 50 years ago. Yes GM still build cars, but it does other things as well, and it has other problems. Like any company restructuring, divisions may seek to break away, but the parent may reign it back in. This was the situation with the region of Tibet. Tibet has not 'lost' its independence, but has remained in the new restructured 'company'. Although the West use the same word 'China' to describe the state known as 'The Qing Empire' and the PRC, the 2 states are different. Tibet is a 'country' in the sense that Scotland is a country, that is a country under 'Great Britain'. Tibet is a 'state' in the sense that 'Texas' is a state under the entity called 'The United States of America'. Of course, just like rival companies, one will stir up trouble for their rivals to win business (slogan: Our burgers got more meat than theirs. Where's the beef?). This is exactly what you are doing, stirring.

The East Asian countries you are talking about amount to Japan, S Korea and 'Taiwan'. Japan was already an industrialised country. Are these countries independent? They are very much dependent on the USA for defence and they certainly would not openly oppose US foreign policies. In return the USA give them a market for their products. In effect these countries are not independent. Even their cultures have been Americanised (and I understand that people here oppose any changes to the Tibetan culture).

Exposure to modern technology and integration into the international economy requires capital. It is the PRC who is investing this capital, and creating these opportunities for the Tibetans. Both exposure to technology and integration into the international economy results in new information and knowledge for the Tibetans, which will make the Tibetans realise that the teachings and ways of the lamas are both untrue and false. It is not in the interest of the lamas to allow exposure of modern technology and knowledge to the Tibetan masses; this is one of the reasons why the exiled lamas make propagandas against the PRC.

Give China another 100 years, and all Tibetans will be as wealthy as any other Chinese, but you will have to accept that for this to happen, the Tibetans of 100 years from now will be different to the Tibetans of 1930. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.113.63 (talk)

I certainly did start this thread, and for the purpose of explaining the faults in a passage I removed from the article. No one has yet made a meaningful response to that, except to agree. So, the thread has strayed quite far from its original purpose. This is not such a bad thing—I tend to favour the idea that some level of extraneous dialogue can potentially benefit the article in an indirect way in the future—but I had become somewhat unclear on quite who disagrees with who and on what score.

I would like to say, before continuing, that, as far as I know, there is no one around here who opposes "any changes to the Tibetan culture". It's possible that a position like that is held by a few semi-literate hippie teenagers, but that's hardly worth paying attention to.

The comparison between Scotland and Tibet is an interesting one, although it has obvious limitations, to the effect that it is nonsensical to compare Tibet today with Scotland today. Still, it is interesting to note that recent surveys show a very high level of support among the Scottish people (in the vicinity of 50%) for independence from England. Can you imagine? This is a people which speaks English as its native language and which, despite past conflicts, has lived in peace and equality with the English for hundreds of years. Yet, they still aren't terribly comfortable with the idea of sharing a national government with their one-time conquerors.

I did not, in fact, intend to imply a comparison between Tibet's economic development and that of Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan. That would really be a silly comparison, since those countries (renegade province, etc.) are basically part of the developed world, and Tibet is far from that level currently. I wouldn't really describe South Korea as a fully independent country, although I'm sure they like their current situation a lot better than if they were a "South Korean Ethnic Autonomous Region" run by the U.S. Republican Party or somesuch. Regarding Tibet, I was thinking more of countries like India or Thailand, although it's likely that their per capita income is still considerably higher than Tibetans'.

The claim that "exposure to modern technology and integration into the international economy requires capital" is difficult to respond to. No one begins with modern capital, so everyone has to get external investment while building their own. However, there's no reason anybody's capital investment has to all come from one source, I don't see how this has any relevance at all to Tibet's political ties with China. Your statement that access to modern information "will make the Tibetans realise that the teachings and ways of the lamas are both untrue and false" is an interesting claim and I don't know if it would prove to be correct, but it doesn't seem very likely. A lot of religions do just fine in the modern world; for instance, Greece is fairly developed and has access to modern information sources, but they continue to support the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, most of the exiled Tibetan lamas' largesse comes from wealthy supporters in West and Taiwan, not from some illiterate peasantry somewhere.

Most importantly, I'd like to respond to your analysis of this conversation: "Of course, just like rival companies, one will stir up trouble for their rivals to win business ... This is exactly what you are doing, stirring." (Let's set aside the point that it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone who clearly doesn't believe I'm expressing opinions in good faith.) I've heard this sort of thing before, of course: those who criticise China's Tibet policy are all outside agitators trying to undermine China (or, even worse, if they are Chinese, they are betraying their duties to their own country and family). Let me ask you: is this position falsifiable? What would somebody have to do or say to prove that it's not true? If there's no answer to that question, then you don't really have an opinion, but an article of faith.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't realise Scotland is not a country dependent upon England, both Scotland and England are countries in the United Kingdom, which also include the Province of Northern Ireland and the Principality of Wales. Despite so many people support the break away of Scotland, it has not yet happened. Have you voiced your support for this?

Why do you want to compare Tibet to India or Thailand? There are several states in India which want to break away (or should I say that there are elements in several states who incite breaking away), for example Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Do you voice your support for those movements also? The same is true in Thailand where the south wants to break away (or again should I say certain elements want to break away). Do you voice your support for that movement also? If Scotland, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, South Thailand, or Texas are not fully independent states, then why should Tibet?

Religions in the West have evolved. The Christian Churches now believe the earth go round the sun, and not the other way round. Neither do Churches in the West profess to be political rulers, which is opposite to the lama supporters' claim that lamas are political leaders. Not even the Catholic Church could make Roman Catholics do what it teaches (for example in family planning). Yet the lamas expect the Tibetans to do everything they say, and to convince the world that they are correct. The lamas have not moved their religion like Western religions. Do Tibetans have to believe in demons and evil spirits? Would they believe in these if they had proper access to information? If they did not believe in these then by definition they do not believe in lama Buddhism. Buddha went into a life of ascetism because he wanted to answer a few questions such as why is there disease, why is there death, why is there suffering etc. He apparently became 'enlightened' ie 'buddha'ed', because he thought he found the answers. But I should think people now realise most diseases are caused by infections caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi, worms and so on. Buddha did not know about viruses or bacteria, so in one stroke, even a child in the West now is a 'buddha', ie an 'enlightened one' because he knows what cause diseases. May be everyone is now a 'supreme buddha' because everyone is now enlightened with modern knowledge to answer Buddha's questions.

So Nat Krause you justify your comments by saying you express your opinions in good faith; what exactly is your good faith based upon? Have you looked anywhere to test your good faith? It would certainly appear that you have not, as it can be so easily challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.21.240 (talk)

This talk just went down the drain. 81.131.21.240 points out that the Western religions have evolved, and fail to see that Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) is evolving as well. The Dalai Lama has constantly spoken about change and adaptation. Your attack on the "lamas" is hilarious, for that very reason. What in the world are you getting at? What exactly is the "proper access to information" that you speak of? Being an atheist, I would agree with you, but you use that to support the Chinese rule over Tibet. It's not just a matter of religion, it's also a matter of nationality and ethnicity.

Nat Krause is not "almighty". Supporting every cause in this world is impossible for a person. I don't see why Nat did not comment in good faith simply because he/she failed to include the Aboriginals around the world, the sick and hungry and diseased and raped and murdered around the entire planet, to name a few... Ugh... 74.100.236.8 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Some Atheist Non-Lama Tibetan

81.154.200.219 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I am glad you find it hilarious. So Dalai has constantly spoken about changes and adaptation, were these in the context of religious belief? Christianity no longer believe the sun goes round the earth, has Dalai told his people that demons don't exist, or that reincarnation is somewhat dubious? Hilarious isn't it to compare the evolution of western religion with the evolution of lamaism? One tries to understand nature, the other corrupts the understanding of nature. "Proper access to information"-the access to a science text book and its teaching instead of reciting mantras all day long in order to improve one's life would be an example.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet

With the proliferation of national WikiProjects, even one for Austria-Hungary, 90 years gone, would there be enough interest to justify such a project as this? Happy New Year! Chris 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea, and if such a WikiProject is started, I'll sign up as a participant and put the project page on my watchlist, etc. However, I don't see any particular need for it, or enthusiasm, so I don't think it's really necessary at this time. Some WikiProjects seem to get started needlessly. There is, by the way, already a WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism, but it is mostly inactive. Even WikiProject Buddhism is awful quiet most of the time.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created a discussion at [2], thanks! Chris 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Beauty Contest Condemned?

"The beauty contest is condemned by the Tibetan government in exile."

What is the source of this statement? From the link prior, it seems the Dalai Lama himself has no opinion one way or another, so who in particular condemns the function? -- Hidoshi 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The spam warning and chinese text message overlap

I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.1 and on this Tibet page the warning about spam links and the message about the page containing chinese characters overlap making both somewhat unreadable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.84.208.151 (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

South Asia

Thegreyanomaly, I was hoping that you could provide more academic sources (i.e. encyclopedias). The first source was the "Center for South Asia Studies", but it includes Afghanistan as well, which isn't always considered as being part of South Asia. The same applies for your second source. Your third source, the list of Summer Language Programs, says that Tibetan is offered at SASLI, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Tibet is in South Asia. Remember that many Tibetans live in India. As for the last source, I couldn't find any mention of "Tibet" or "South Asia" on it.

Now, according to Britannica:

Tibetan Bod, in full Tibet Autonomous Region, Chinese (Wade-Giles) Hsi-tsang Tzu-chih-ch'ü, (Pinyin) Xizang Zizhiqu historic region and autonomous region of China that is often called “the roof of the world.” It occupies about 471,700 square miles (1,221,600 square kilometres) of the plateaus and mountains of Central Asia, including Mount Everest (Chu-mu-lang-ma Feng). It is bordered by the Chinese provinces of Tsinghai to the northeast, Szechwan to the east, and Yunnan to the southeast; Myanmar (Burma), India, …

Khoikhoi 06:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I concede that Tibet is Central Asian geographically, but below I have made it clear that it is culturally South Asian Thegreyanomaly 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "culturally South Asian"? Isn't South Asia home to many cultures? South Asia is, according to the article, a "geopolitical region", not a cultural one. If it is, you should probably find sources for that. Khoikhoi 08:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

The first reference was from UC Berkeley, one of the few universities that offers majors in South Asian studies. And yes they do accept Afghanistan as South Asia but so does the UN and many other universities. Most academic sources I have seen at least give reference that, if not always, Afghanistan has been part of South Asia. The second reference is UW Madison, which makes identical claims to that of UC Berkeley. The last link refer states the folloiwng "Tibet occupies a strategic location in Asia and has historically played a role in maintaining peace in Central and South Asia." I'll admitt on that one the wording is a bit vague.

Tibet Environmental Watch http://www.tew.org/archived/himal.part1.html

“ South Asia and the Tibetans of Tibet

On the map, Tibet is part of Central, East and South Asia. But, even as the rest of South Asia neglects Tibet, changes are afoot in the high plateau, brought about by a surge in economic activity and demographic shifts. With upcoming rail and highway links, the knot with the Chinese mainland is set to be that much tighter. The South Asian mainland has ignored its Tibetan hinterland, if we may call it that, forgetting the close geographical proximity (the Himalayan divide is no longer the barrier it once was) and historical links of culture and economy. True, India, Nepal and Bhutan have provided refuge to Tibetan exiles, but otherwise South Asia has sacrificed Tibet to China. Even in terms of hardheaded long-term strategic, cultural and economic cost-benefit considerations, this seems foolish. When the economic exploitation of Tibet begins in earnest, will we find that a better appreciation of Tibet, even as, if necessary, a singular entity with the People's Republic, would have served 'South Asian' interests better? We tend to think of Tibet only in relation to the Himalayan rimland, but remember that it is inextricably linked to the Pakistani Punjab by the Karakoram highway, and is but a day's drive from Rangpur in north Bangladesh if you take the road up from Siliguri.

Himal has had its gaze away from the 'trans-Himalaya' since it converted from a Himalayan to a South Asian magazine in the spring of 1996. With this issue's special focus on Tibet and the Tibetans of Tibet (rather than the relatively small number living in exile), we are correcting this oversight. Himal hopes to continue to cover Tibet in the days to come, regarding it as much a part of South Asia as any other.

”

http://goasia.about.com/cs/azsiteindex/a/sasia101.htm

“

• The Northeast India states of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are culturally and geographically part of Southeast Asia. China is actually divided across four of the five geo-regions of Asia. Tibet has been governed by China since 1959, but is historically considered part of South Asia.

”

Thegreyanomaly 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Tibet Environmental Watch" quote seems quite politically POV to me. It seems to seek to establish Tibet as a part of a "South Asian" identity along with the subcontinent, and away from Central Asia or China. This seems reflective of the British colonial policy of expansion into Afghanistan and Tibet from their base in India.

I looked through their website, and couldn't find anything about what kind of organisation this is, where it is based, or who are its members. What's more, it's hopelessly POV. I therefore submit that it's not a reliable source.

As for the About.com link: with all due respect, I'm not sure that the Travel section on About.com is either an academic source or a reliable one. I don't think travel websites are usually acceptable as references for a geographical definition.

Can you suppy a reference for your claim that the UN recognises Tibet as a part of South Asia? --Sumple (Talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said the UN recognizes Tibet as South Asia. I said they recognize Afghanistan. Its not a political POV. Khoikhoi asked me for another academic source that recognizes Tibet as South Asia and I gave him on, TEW. The About.com one was just extra. I have recognition that several universities recognize Tibet as South Asian by putting them in their South Asian Studies programs Thegreyanomaly 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said TEW doesn't look exactly "academic" or even reliable.

Is inclusion in the "South Asian Studies" program an indication that they "recognise" Tibet as South Asian as a matter of geography? Perhaps it is an indication that they feel that Tibetan culture is closer to some South Asian cultures?

For example, you might study Siberia as a part of Russia in an "East European program" or a "European program". However, that does not mean that Siberia is in Europe rather than Asia. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all, kindly note that tour guides are not reliable sources according to wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#History guidelines. According to the Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Arts, cultural Tibet is "heavily influenced" by that of the [Han] Chinese. Even some anti-Chinese/proindependence Tibet experts also admit that:

• "the present civilization of Tibet is taken mainly from China and only to a lesser degree from India. The general appliances of civilization...have come from China" [Bell, Charles, Tibet Past and Present]

Culturally unrelated to East Asia? Come on! - 218.102.23.90 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I cited far more links than About.com (You should have checked the page history). No part of Asia is completely unrelated to another, but the cultures of Tibet are closest related to the cultures of Bhutan, Arunachal Pradesh Buddhists, Ladakhis, and other South Asia states/countries along the Tibetan (or Chinese, depending on POV) border Thegreyanomaly 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also choose a more reliable source. Charles Bell lived from 1774 to 1842 and wasn't a historian. He was a reverend's son and a doctor. How much do you think Europeans even knew about Asia at that point in time. Thegreyanomaly 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan writing isn't even related to Chinese writing (its a syllabic alpbhabet, a writing system primarily used by South and Southeast Asians). Their form of Buddhism evolved from a heavily Hindu-influenced Buddhism created by the Bengali Pāla Dynasty.

Bala everyone. Bengalis now believe in Allah not buddha.

The Malay language is written with the Latin alphabet, so it must be related to English? BTW, Chinese Pinyin is also written with the Latin alphabet, so by your reasoning, Chinese also must be related to English. You are just bs.

Banglapedia http://a-bangladesh.com/banglapedia/HT/P_0037.htm

“ The Buddhist Viharas in the Pala empire played a significant role in the propagation of Buddhism in the neighbouring countries of Nepal, Tibet and Sri Lanka. Buddhist pundits of Bengal contributed to the spread of Buddhist culture; among them the name of atish dipankar shrijnan stands out most prominently. ”

I also have a second reference of this from Kanai L. Hazra's Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India Thegreyanomaly 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Bell was of course Political officer, but WHO ARE YOU to deny that he studied/observed well in local History/Civilization as he has spent years living in the region? So how many years have you spent in Tibet? Claiming higher authority than him would only make me laugh!

And who the bloody hell said there should be only one writing in one nation? Have you ever heard of such thing as "Multinational state"? Well, I really doubt if you have. Factually, neither Manchu scripts nor many other minorities groups' writings was related to Chinese character (invented mainly by Han Chinese)! But, like it or not, the Manchus did refer their regime(1644-1911) to as China. As China is a well-known multiracial state, is it that difficult for you to understand? 218.102.23.126 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

218.102.23.126, you're going to have to remain civil and polite in the future, or else I will simply remove your comments from talk pages without further notice. Also, unless you have some good reason not to, please register and use an account—you edit Wikipedia plenty.

It appears there is some misunderstanding on greyanomaly's part about who Charles Bell is. Wikipedia has articles on a doctor and a surveyor by that name, neither of whom ever seem to have been to Asia. Instead, I think this would be on Charles Alfred Bell (1870-1945) who was an administrator in British India. The book 218.102.23.126 is quoting seems to be from 1924. Obviously, his Tibetology is rather out of date by now at best.

Thegreyanomaly is quite right to point out that Tibetan script is unrelated to Chinese script, because this contradicts the claim that the present civilization of Tibet is taken mainly from China and only to a lesser degree from India. The general appliances of civilization...have come from China. Isn't writing a "general appliance of civilisation"? I don't see how this has anything to do with China being a multiethnic state.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You might as well say that modern Persian (Iranian, Farsi, Parsi) are related to Arabic and not Indo-European because it is now written with a modified Arabic script and not with an Indic script. In fact Persian is related to the Indic languages and not to the Semitic languages. China is a true multiethnic state because it allows her ethnic peoples to retain their languages and cultures and provide resources for these purposes, unlike some of her European counterparts.

No, the point that's being made here is that writing is an element of Tibetan culture that originates in India. It is, of course, true that the Tibetan spoken language is very distantly related to Chinese and not at all related to any major Indian languages.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The writing you are talking about is in reality a coding of the spoken language into a written form. Granted the codes may have been borrowed from the written Indic languages, this however does not make the Tibetan language a Tibetan or Indian culture. After all, the alphabet was probably invented in ancient Sumeria, and then adopted by various other ancient peoples, so you could say that the Tibetan culture of Tibetan writing originated from Sumeria. Just because the numerals we use nowadays are said to be from the Arabs, it does not make the mathematics we study now an Arabian culture.

As for saying that spoken Tibetan is only distantly related to the Sino (Chinese) languages, why don't you just listen to the phonetics? The phonetics of Tibetan and Sino languages are very similar.

---

It should also be noted that the Tibetan script is also used by many South Asian groups. Below is the quote I spoke of

“ The reign of Mahīpāla I witnessed the development of Tantric Buddhism. Taranatha gives use the name of several ācāryas who wrote commentaries on the Guhya-samāja and other Tantras. He mentions further that these ācāryas played their prominent roles for the progress of Tantra in Magadha. V.A. Smith states that Mahīpāla I's reign witnessed the religious intercourse between Tibet and Magadha. Dharmapāla and several other monks went to Tibet from Magadha at the invitation of the former country and tried to popularise Buddhism there. Mahīpāla I showed his liberal attitude towards other religions. It is. known from two records of his reign Brahmanism prospered in his kingdom under his patronage ”

pages 236-237 Hazra, Kanai L. Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India. 1998th ed. New Delhi: Munishiram Manharlal, 1995.

The Pāla Empire was what gave Tibet its form of Buddhism. Yea the Tibetans changed it, but the Pālas gave it to em, not the Chinese. Tibetan Buddhism is probably the most wellknown cultural element of Tibet Thegreyanomaly 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So thanks to the Pala's gift, these people remain a primitive stone-age people. What a nice present; if the Palas are still around they could have their gift back, but fortunately the Palas themselves went extinct! 81.155.103.36 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, wiki-account already existed, the problem is that the passwords were lost![3] Nat, the difference between two languages is of course related to China's status as "multinational"! As China now appears as such a kind of state, we should not be surprised by the difference between the Tibetan script and the Chinese character (Hànzì, literally:"Han Character") as the languages' developers, Tibetans and Hans, are ethnically separated (As a matter of fact, Chinese governments never deny that the Tibetan writing system was developed before the region become part of the Chinese dominion and that the Tibetans form an unique ethnic group). Just like there is difference between ethnic-Russians (Slavic) and ethnic-Siberians(mainly Turkic/Mongoloid), linguists even claim that Espanol language and that of the Basques are of totally two systems.(Please also note that linguists group Hanyu(but not Indian languages) and Tibetans into one family, namely Sino-Tibetan languages).

Charles Bell lived in Tibet for years witnessing the daily life of the Tibetans and I believe that daily lives, e.g., clothing, chopsticks, style of architecture(seen the golden roof of the Potala?), 12-animal calendar) do form integral part of the Tibetan culture, and non-Han writing is only one single element, not "all", of the general appliance of civilization. Second, unquestionably Tibetan Buddhism is the main element, but who can deny that there is Chinese/Sinicized element (Han Buddhism) within the local faith? Regarding Bell's Tibetology being "outdated", Nat, kindly note that Tibetan cultures in the 1920s are still Tibetan cultures. - 210.0.204.29 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like add that, no offence, the saying of "Tibetan script is also used by many South Asian groups" is a little bit misleading. Indeed, the South Asian population who use Tibetan script only form a small part of the subcontinent (mainly Mongoloid-inhabited regions like Ladakh the Little Tibet and the Himalayas which are bordering Tibet), You found people using Tibetan in, for example, the traditional Indian states? Yes, but only in the Tibetan exiled community. Generally the developments of the Tibetan writing are independent of both Han/Chinese people and the Indians [Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Arts, p454]--219.79.164.95 11:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan script descended from Brahmi just like South Asian scripts. It is closest related to Indian scripts to say the least. Also the Bhutanese, who are undisputed as South Asians, write in the Tibetan script. Also notice Tibet fits into the Sino-Tibetan group, but it also goes deeper into the Tibeto-Burmese group. South Asian languages like Nepal Bhasa (नेपाल भाषा) are entirely South Asian yet Tibeto-Burman (which are Sino-Tibetan). Sure its called the Sino-Tibetan group, but its divided into Tibeto-Burman and Chinese groups. Tibetan, Burman languages, and some South Asian languages are fit in there. Myanmar is a country under the Indosphere don't argue about what they are; Myanmars are Southeast Asians who are culturally related to South Asia. The Tibetans are very close to an Indosphere languages like Nepal Bhasa (नेपाल भाषा), Myanmar, Ladkhi, Bodo language, etc. Thegreyanomaly 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You might as well say because Vietnamese is written with a Latin alphabet that it is a Latin language!!! Whoever say Tibetan is linguistically related to Indic (Indo-European rather than Dravidian) languages knows nothing about linguistics, and should be exposed for this bs. 3 April 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.101.15 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

'Dalai' is the Tibetan for 'Ocean'. In modern Putonghua 'ocean' could be 'Da-hai' (great sea). Is this close enough in similarity or not for your linguistic argument?

This is what's known as a total coincidence. "Dalai" is Mongolian, not Chinese or Tibetan.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

'Total coincidence' Oh really? Traditional Mongolians had never seen an ocean as their habitat was landlocked. Their word for 'ocean' was most likely borrowed from another language- perhaps dare I suggest Chinese? 81.158.47.214 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I should't intervene in this kind of fruitless debates, but I guess I can't resist it. I noticed that User:219.79.164.95 claimed that the Manchus referred to their regime as "China". Nothing can be further from the truth, as is well known, the Manchus usually referred to their regime as the Great Qing Empire (Daicing gurun, Daqing guo). "China" was only a geographical expression at the time.--Niohe 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the 'Chinese' have never called their country 'China'. 'China' is the name given by other people.

Look, that Tibetan culture/Tibetan language is "close" to South Asian "culture" or "language" does not suddenly remove Tibet into South Asia as a matter of geography. There's that great big pile of rock that we call the Himalayas for godssakes. Tibet is (generally speaking) further north than Afghanistan. Do you consider Afghanistan as part of Central Asia too?

Anyway, I think the linguistic arguments are ridiculous. There's a Sino-Tibetan language family, which, despite disputes about how internally diverse it is, still makes Tibetan close to East Asian languages than any Indian language

Your argument runs thus: Tibetan is different from Chinese. Therefore Tibetan is like Indian languages. It doesn't work like that. Even if Sino-Tibetan was to be split down the middle between Chinese and Tibetan-Burman, there is still more evidence that they are mutually related than evidence that Tibetan would be related to, say, Hindi, which is an Indo-European language.

As for writing ... yes that shows cultural affinity, but much less so than linguistic affinity. To give you an example, Manchus use Tibetan script. By your argument that makes Manchus South Asians. The reality is that the adoption of Tibetan script shows cultural and religious affinity, and goes nowhere towards "proving" that Manchuria is a part of Tibet. --Sumple (Talk) 11:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Manchus do not use the Tibetan script; the Manchus use the original Mongolian script, which was in turn from the Uyghur script. 3 April 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.101.15 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

response

No, Tibetan is closer to Indian languages and other South Asian languages than it is to Chinese

Wrong!!!! Indian languages consist broadly of 2 groups, Indo-European and Dravidian, neither of which are related to Tibetan.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.96.109 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Bhutan: Bhutanese (Dzongkha) actually makes it down into the Tibetan group

Nepal: Nepal Bhasa (नेपाल भाषा) is Tibeto-Burman. Limbu language is too, but I do not believe it is an official language (It is also spoken in Sikkim)

India: Bodo, Meitei, Garo, Mizo, Pahari, Ladakhi, and Kokborok are Tibeto-Burman. These (minus Ladakhi which I believe is a district language) are all official languages under state governments.

That should be plenty of evidence to say that there are South Asian languages that are closer to Tibetan that Chinese is.

A linguist is even advocating moving Tibeto-Burman out of of Sino-Tibetan. I am no longer trying to tag Tibet as geographically South Asian (see above Talk:Tibet#South_Asia) (it is geographically Central Asian). My argument is only that it is culturally South Asian. Thegreyanomaly 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One linguist's maverick opinion does not count very much in the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.96.109 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Thegreyanomaly, I'm honestly not entirely hostile to your position. I just don't completely understand it. What does "culturally South Asian" mean? I thought "South Asia" was basically a geographical concept. Clearly, Tibetan's closest relatives are language spoken at various points in the Himalayas, and, after that, Burmese and some of its cousins. I tend to think Ladakhi, Sikkimese, and Dzongkha should be discounted, as they result from population movements within the last 1000 years or so. Anyway, some languages related to Tibet are spoken at and around the edges of the Indian subcontinent. What does this tell us?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've taken so long to respond. What I am trying to say is that Tibetans are closer to South Asians culturally that they are to East Asians, Central Asians, or Southeast Asians. They are Central Asian in terms of their geography but in a cultural sense Tibet isn't so close to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, or Tajikistan or any other Central Asian nation. Thegreyanomaly 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan culture like any other people's culture is fairly unique. If you south Asian people don't practise polyandry and don't allow your womenfolks to have more than one husband at the same time, then at least in this respect you south Asians don't share a similar culture to the tibetan folks. So don't tell us that tibetan culture is close to south Asian culture, because it isn't. 81.155.103.36 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Just because at some point in the past the Tibetan scribes borrowed ideas from the Indians on how to record their language in written form does not mean the Tibetan language is linguistically related to Indic languages. The Navajos now write their language with the Latin alphabet,this does not show that the Navajo language is linguistically a European language. All it shows is that some peoples (Tibetans included) never spontaneously developed a method for writing down their spoken language, but rather borrowed and adopted methods developed by other peoples. Nowadays this would be called plagiarism or piracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.96.109 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Do ethnic Tibetans look like Indians, or can you tell them apart from other Chinese peoples, because they don't look like Indians to me, and I can't tell them apart from other Chinese?

If there is still no consensus in the near future, I will formally remove the Tibet entry from South Asia, where the four citations provided by User:Thegreyanomaly factually, as mentioned above, prove nothing. - 219.73.86.204 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this debate, is that terms like 'south Asian' and 'east Asian' are vague, and relatively recent coignages. In fact it seems like an entirely meaningless question to ask whether Tibetan culture is 'more' Chinese, or Indian. One cannot measure and weigh cultures or clearly see their boundries. the borders of modern India and China are historical accidents. Dzongka is a Tibetan dialect. The lingusitic position of Tibetan is controversial, it may be distantly related to Chinese, but is certainly not related to Indo-Aryan languages. Tibetologist 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Okay, I'm young, but I'm a Tibetan who studied both Tibetan and Nepali. I can also read, write and speak Hindi since it is virtually identical to Nepali. It is in the basics really. Nepali "alphabets" sound very very similar to Tibetan. Ka, Kha, Ga, Nga, are the first four Tibetan alphabets. Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, Nga are the first five Nepalese alphabets. You sirs, especially that "Tibetologist" (har har), have been "pwnt".

Now let me explain further. The Tibetan script has its roots with Sanskrit. Why? Well, our kings were obsessed with Buddhism, and brought over monks from India. And they also gave us a written script as a bonus. What a deal! But in terms of how we "speak", it's nothing like Hindi or Nepali. It would be closer to Mongol and Chinese.

If it's a matter of looks. Well, I think most Tibetans look like Inuits to me. Some look very Chinese or Japanese. Few actually look very Indian, all that sun burns a dark tan on us. Haha.74.100.236.8 07:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)SomeAtheistTibetanPunk

Map

Unsourced map and caption, removed from article on 25 April 2007 —Babelfisch 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
							Claimed by Tibetan exile groups.
							Tibetan areas designated by PRC.
							Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control).
							Claimed by India as part of Aksai Chin.
							Claimed (not controlled) by the PRC as part of the TAR.
							Other historically/culturally-Tibetan areas.

Has your map been vandalised? The colour blocks on the key are spread out in a strange way, making it impossible to understand. Bards 13:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is supposed to be like that. I'm not sure how difficult most people find it to be, but it's certainly not impossible.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, I think I get it. But it is a non-standard format, and not obvious, especially when the map is relatively small. Perhaps a bigger, more detailed map would help eg. clearly labelling the regions - Aksai Chin, Jammu, Kashmir, Sikkim, Bhutan, etc. Bards 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No sources are given for the territorial claims indicated on the map and its caption. I've pointed that out on the discussion page on Wikimedia on 18 November 2006. There has been no reply, so I've removed the map. —Babelfisch 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't re-insert the map without providing sources.[4] —Babelfisch

The map has been here for years without anyone disputing it. What parts specificly do you think are incorrect? You can add {{fact}} tags if you want. Khoikhoi 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The map that has been on this article for years seems to be to be perfectly ok to me and is definitely from a NPOV, as it shows all views. However, the map Babelfisch put in its place seem to me to be to be biased and a POV map, and should not in my opinion be the main map in the lead. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk

I' didn't insert a "POV map" - I just moved the map from the demographics section. —Babelfisch 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the links Ran has added to substantiate the claims of the captions. The problem is that at least some of them are not proper sources:

• "Claimed by Tibetan exile groups":

• Tibet at a glance (The Office of Tibet, London; 30 September 1996)
  — There's a map, but it's not very detailed. The claims east of Bhutan are not clear, for example, and you can't make out the areas marked red (█) in the caption. (I'm rather curious what the sources were for those areas. I've never read detailed descriptions of the exile community's claims there.)

• "Tibetan areas designated by PRC":

• 西藏自治区; 青海省; 四川省; 云南省; 甘肃省 (行政区划网)
  — There are no maps on these pages, only the Chinese names of the administrative divisions.

• "Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control)":

• Tibet at a glance (The Office of Tibet, London; 30 September 1996)
  — Not very useful, see above.
• Official web page of Arunachal Pradesh
  — So what? This page doesn't say anything about Tibet and actual Chinese control.
• China-India Border: Eastern Sector (map produced by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin)
  — Excellent CIA map about the border dispute, but it doesn't show all of Tibet. See below.

• "Claimed by India as part of Aksai Chin":

• China-India Border: Western Sector (map produced by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin)
  — Another CIA map, wonderful. But concerning the north of the disputed territories, this map and the map in the article do not agree at all. What has happened here?
• Official Website of Jammu and Kasmir (Directorate of Information, Jammu and Kashmir Government)
  — No maps, nothing about the territorial dispute on this page.

• "Claimed (not controlled) by the PRC as part of the TAR":

• China-India Border: Eastern Sector (map produced by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin)
  — Once again the CIA map about the border conflict in the eastern sector. Here it is really appropriate.
• China Tibet Information Center
  — Government website about Tibet. This page is useless as a source here, not a word about territorial claims. What for?

• "Other historically/culturally-Tibetan areas":

• Kingdom of Bhutan (Bhutan Tourism Corporation Limited)
  — Nice, but what for? Nothing about "Tibetan areas" on this page.
• About Sikkim (Government of Sikkim, Department of Information Technology)
  — Same as with Bhutan above.
• History of Leh (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council)
  — Same as with Bhutan and Sikkim above.

I guess at least some of these were not the sources that were used to produce the map. —Babelfisch 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think the map is quite informative and well-designed. I agree that the red sections are currently unsourced, but they are only a small part of the map, and they don't seem particularly controversial.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone please help me make some edit to the article

I am in mainland China behind the Great Firewall, so I cannot access the article directly. My proxy for accessing the page has been blocked from editing by Wikipedia.

In the third paragraph of section "Name" / "In Chinese", there might be a typo. "土番 (Tufan)" should be "土蕃 (Tubo)".

Thank you.HELLO, WORLD! 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a mistake, 吐蕃[tǔ fān] is the ancient name for Tibet. 土番 here is only the pronunciation translation of the ancient name. Please read the context. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected it. The correct Hanyu Pinyin is "Tǔbō" not "Tǔfān". The correct characters are 吐蕃, while 土番 is a variant also pronounced "Tǔbō". Although both 蕃 and 番 can be pronounced as "fān" in some other words. --72.75.55.194 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

藏

The 藏 character is pronounced "cáng" when used to mean storage (e.g. 儲藏 chǔcáng "to store"), and the "zàng" pronunciation is usually to describing Tibet or Tibetans, or in words like 寶藏 (bǎozàng) "treasure". So while the character is the one and the same, a meaning of "Western storage" for the term 西藏 would require a deliberate mispronunciation, so I added the blurb about the different pronunciations on the article. Thought I'd give a heads-up as I wade into the minefield. Kelvinc 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't Tibet have an infobox like all other disputed territories and occupied countries? I checked around other such territories and countries and they all seem to have infoboxes expect for Tibet. Is this the work of editors who favour the communist government in China and wish to suppress all things to do with Tibet? If so Wikipedia isn't very NPOV these days. Usergreatpower 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for an infobox, but the infobox must itself be NPOV. The one that had been repeatedly inserted wasn't. Again, I'd be all for an infobox on the model of the one in Western Sahara. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus that there should be an infobox on this article similar to that of Western Sahara so the next step is what should be included in the new infobox and what shouldn't to make it NPOV? A sample infobox would be good. 88.110.139.15 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very bad at designing boxes, but I'd suggest that there should not be a flag or an anthem, nor any assertion that either the PRC or the CTA is the legitimate government for Tibet. Stay with geographical and population facts. --Nlu (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just change the spelling mistake

known as the Dalai Lamas have existed in Tibet, and the fourteen --->>> Here Dali<<-- Lama's are beleived to be the incarnations of Avalokiteśvara ("Chenrezig" [spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmendarm (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Tibetan Monk Chant

After reading and re-reading this article I was discraced to find no relevance to the "Tibetan Monk Chant" I feel that this is a major factor in Tibet's culture, most young people in Tibet listen to the chant when they are young and I believe that it is this that causes them to lead such a life in exile (no source)I would greatly appreciate some mention in the article or even better an article to itself, I would volunteer to make this article being interested, since an early age, in Tibetan Monks D. BULL 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes made by User:Xiaoliang1 today

Being new to this project I am not sure yet of the policy regarding changes and what can and cannot be done to revert edits. However, some of the changes made by the above user seem to be unverified and dubious at best I wonder if someone more knowledgeable than me could look at the changes made by the user please? Thanks Tangerines 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This user asked me for help in getting his or her edits into the article. Honestly, I don't know why they asked me, as I have never worked on this article before. The information comes from the website of the central Chinese government itself, so I certainly wouldn't trust it to be unbiased on this issue. If there is a section for the official PRC viewpoint, it could go in there. Like I said, I have no experience with this, so I will leave it to others to figure it out.--Danaman5 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has again added virtually the same edits even though there is a message on his talk page saying that his source is not unbiased. Can this edit also be reverted as certainly part of it again does not appear to adhere to the NPOV policy of wikipedia? Thanks Tangerines 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Chinese government's source can be biased. However, Western and pro-Tibetan sources are much more biased than Chinese. I have evidence to prove what I said. How many big lies western media had made on Tibet related facts? If you really care about Tibetan issues, please spend more time to do more research on it before draw conclusions. Please make sure to read information from both sides. I don't judge by which sources I trust more than others. This is a lazy way. I judge only by the specific facts. The best way is to read the official websites of both chinese and Tibetans in exile. In the official website of Tibetans in exile, they strongly condemed and refuted the source I reffered to, which is a part of Chinese government white paper on Tibet issue. However, after you read Tibetan's refute, you will find they did not pointed out any major errors about the facts Chinese government pointed out. This is the best way to prove the historical facts in this chinese source is reliable. If your enemy refuted you but could not point out any major errors, that means those facts are something they can not deny, right? This method to find truth is much better than your way. Eventually you will find out that Tibetans and west media lied much more than Chinese on this issue. This is not because chinese is more honest, but because those truth is in the chinese interest, so they do not need to lie.xiaoliang1 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoliang1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

With respect what you just said more or less proves that your edits are not even slightly from a NPOV. You have even virtually admitted that the Chinese Government have lied. And why are you so fixated on someone being your enemy? For your information I merely wish to see this article to be expressed from as much as possible a NPOV and not to be bias toward one view or the other whether that be Tibetan or Chinese, so please do not presume to know what I think or believe. Tangerines 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiaoliang1, you cannot simply delete what you said above, and also remove the comment you made about your "enemy" simply because I responded to it. I have therefore reverted your removal of your comments. This is a Talk page, and what you say has to stay here, not just be removed. Tangerines 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

comment I can't really see the extent of the conflict here but please note that the Tibet page should address mostly historical and cultural aspects of the place. The seperate Tibet Autonomous Region should focuse more on current situation undr China. Hoever this of course does not mean this Tibet page is a forum for Tibetan nationalism but you cannot "censor" information providing it is reliably sourced. Also pleas edo not change anything unless you have reliable referncing to back it up . Please note that this is an encyclopedia entry so sources to back up a claim from either the Tibetan government in exile or the PRC central goverment have to be taken very carefully Please stick to fact as much as possible rather than citing the views of govermnent officials THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the part I added according to NPOV. Thank you for your help,Tangerines. By the way, I did not say the source (a book) I refered to is biased. I said it is possible that what Chinese government said can be biased. There is nothing special to this. Even President Bush lied about Iraq's mass destructive weapons. Thanks anyway.xiaoliang1 6 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoliang1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

"Tibetan government did almost nothing to modernize Tibet during its self-rule from 1913 to 1959" -- This is a formulation that unfairly blames lack of moderization on Tibetan independence. It's not like there was a pre-1913 modernization program that the Dalai Lama halted. Nor did China get busy modernizing after 1959. In fact, Tibet had to go through years of famine (unheard of pre-1959) and cultural destruction. Economic modernization didn't even begin until the 1980s. Kauffner 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'...through years of famine (unheard of pre-1959)'_ Was it unheard of because there was no one left to report it after they all starved? 'cultural destruction', so was Han culture, may be this was the fault of the form of communism that was invented in Europe, which was spread to China. But at least the Tibetans as a people have survived unchanged and are now prospering again, unlike the native peoples of the USA. Of course world culture is now being destroyed by the 'McDonald, Coca-Cola and PlayStation cultures'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.96.109 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 May 2007

Unlike the Tibetan regions in chinese provinces, TAR did not go through famine. Actually PRC did a lot to modernize Tibet during 1959 to 1980. For example, abolishing serdom, liberated a large number of people who were forced to become monks before 1959, introduction of secular and modern education, introduction of western medicines. Although no high education or big hospitals established, primary modern education and western medicines were introduced to most Tibetan during that period, whicn dramatically improved the age of life. Tibet religion instead of secular culture has been a target of destruction in that period. Thanks.xiaoliang1 5 Apr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoliang1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

xiaoliang, with regard to your first sentence - "Unlike the Tibetan regions in chinese provinces, TAR did not go through famine". This page though is about historical Tibet. The TAR is covered here - Tibet Autonomous Region which is surely where you should be discussing this and not here. ♦ BFC ♦·Talk 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In 1959-62, possessions were confiscated, everyone was enrolled into a commune, and the grain they produced was requestioned for export to the Soviet Union to pay for nuclear weapons technology. A few years later, the Cultural Revolution starts up. Meanwhile, there is also a program to destroy virtually every temple (about 6,000). I don't see any part of this that qualifies as "modernization." Kauffner 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kauffner, I don't know where you got your sources from. The USSR did not support Chinese nuclear weapons technology. Unfortunately from a social history POV, any 'modernisation' period (both in the West and the East) was inevitably preceded by a destructive period. If one were to say what history might have been, then had communism not arisen in Europe, then may be none of the events described here would have arisen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.96.109 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 May 2007

Dear Khoikhoi, You can not just delete other people's edit without giving a reasonable reason. You need to give a clear reason. thanks.>Talk

Hi. I reverted for several reasons. Firstly, Jiawei is not a neutral source, and if we're going to cite him, we're going to have to attribute him properly. That means we have to say, "according to Chinese sources" or "Chinese sources claim". It would violate WP:NPOV to state the opinion of Jiawei as an undisputed fact. A statement like "This selecting system was published as a regulation in Tibet in 1793" needs a third-party source, not one that is Chinese or Tibetan. Khoikhoi 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I will add "according to Chinese source". By the way, Some of the refs are obviously Tibetan, you should tell them to do the same, right? We should have only one standard. Thanks.xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

Tangerines, I mean within this time period (1793 to 1950), all Dalai and Panchen lamas were choosen with either of the two ways. This does not mean the first selection occured in 1793 and the last selection occured in 1950. Thanks. xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

With respect xiaoliang, you keep contradicting yourself. This is what you originally inserted:

"In 1798, Qing emperor reformed the way to select Dalai and Panchan lamas through drawing lot. Although Tibetans tried to resist this method, all the Dalai and Panchan Lamas from then until the 13th Dalai lama were choosen either with drawing lot, or using the old method but getting approvement by the Chinese emperor"

So you were saying from 1798 to the 13th Dalai Lama, who was born in 1876. Now you are saying 1793 to 1950. If you seem to be contradicting yourself, surely you can understand why your edits do seem to be dubious to others to say the least? You clearly have very strongly held views on Tibet as that is all you appear to contribute toward on wikipedia. Thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, xiaoliang1, when checking the contributions, you also appear to be this user too - User:66.38.139.36. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tangerines, Please read carefully again. When and where did I say from 1793 to 1950? The present version is from 1804 to 1877, which was the year the 9th and 13th Dalai Lama was selected. 1876 was the year the 13th Dalai lama born. From 1793 to 13th Dalai lama, this selecting system was an effective regulation. But Dalai lam did not have to die or born on the year the regulation get effective, right? There is no contradictory at all. I changed it to the present version because you opposed to my origional way of expression, although I think my origional way of expression is more clearly. Thanks. xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

xiaoliang, I don't need to check again. Where did you say from 1793 to 1950? Have a look further up this discussion and you will find that you said this

" I mean within this time period (1793 to 1950), all Dalai and Panchen lamas were choosen with either of the two ways."

With the greatest of respect that is not the same as 1798 to 1876. The point being that whether or not you are correct in the manner of the Dalai Lamas being chosen, you are contradicting yourself and therefore making it difficult to fully accept what you are saying. I am perfectly aware that the Dalai Lamas were not simply chosen in their year of birth, however I was pointing out the 13th Dalai Lamas year of birth to point out the huge difference between that and 1950. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tangerines. I am sorry I made this mistake in the above discussion. I was not careful enough in the discussion. I should be more careful and have a double check with the number I typed in the discussion. But what I wrote in the main article was until 1912, or 13th Dalai lama, or 1877, all of them are correct, and there are no contradictory within them. By the way, why do you think I am biased? I am not. What I really care is not China or Tibet, but truth. I hate lies or biased or mis-leading articles. I am a Christian. I did this after I pray in front of Lord Jesus. Thanks. xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

xiaoliang, I will answer in your talk page as this is purely for discussion of the Tibet page, thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiaoliang, this,

"By the way, why do you think I am biased? I am not. What I really care is not China or Tibet, but truth. I hate lies or biased or mis-leading articles. I am a Christian. I did this after I pray in front of Lord Jesus."

was not what you originally said which was -

"By the way, I find you are a very smart guy. Do you care about truth, the complete truth or justice? I care. I am very busy. I spend my time on this article for truth and justice"

And you are still signed in as User:66.38.139.129. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Emperors, kings

Someone (User:John Hill?) has been going around changing "Kingdom" to "Empire" and changing "Kings" to "Emperors" - see also the opening line, but not the rest of the article, of Songtsän Gampo. I thought these sovereigns are more usually called "kings". Any ideas? --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Songtsän Gampo was the king of Tibet not an Emperor. When we talk about an "empire" we usually refer to it's size, power and a centeral government with other kingdoms as vassel states, for example, the British Empire, and so on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.30.72.148 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2007

Do you have a verifiable (independent) source that shows this? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that there were no sources inserted to support the claim of an "empire" or "emperor" by whoever inserted those claims in the first place. What is really needed is a comparison of sources to determine what is the convention: King or Emperor, Kingdom or Empire. --PalaceGuard008 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Autonomous region map caption

By the way, is the caption of Image:TAR-TAP-TAC.png entirely accurate? "Ethnic Tibetan autonomous entities set up by the People's Republic of China. Opponents to the PRC dispute the actual level of autonomy." Is it only opponents to the PRC who dispute this? I would have thought that almost any neutral observer would agree to this point, if nothing else.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

The article has too many pictures. Images should be under the appropriate related sections. Reorganization is needed. ian-Kiu 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Some Wikipedia articles do tend to collect bric-a-brac of unnecessary images. I fully endorse reorganization.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

POV claim of death of Panchen Lama

The sentence " In 1989, the Panchen Lama mysteriously died, just as his open condemnation of Chinese policies intensified." has no verifiable source proving Panchen Lama's death was mysterious, and seems to hint he died because his open condemnatin of Chinese policies. I have removed these claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs) 01.02 30 April 2007

Easy enough to find sources, so I have replaced much of what was removed - whilst also taking out the word mysterious, but also adding further (verified) detail. And regardless of any supposed hint, the fact remains that he died five days after openly criticising the PRC, and it is perfectly relevant to mention so.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that truth is far too ambitious an aim! Wikipedia is a tertiary source and what is required is WP:V, as well as neutral POV. Billlion 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also easy to find sources to say Princess Diana's death was ordered by the Queen's husband. The sources being tabloid newspapers. If you look at pictures of the Panchen, you will notice he looked what in the West would be termed, unhealthy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.96.109 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2007

But there are also reputable sources which show that Princess Diana's death was not part of a conspiracy (I suspect this is true -- I'm not an expert in that case). Where are the reputable sources that show that the 10th Panchen Lama's death was not suspicious?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nat Krause: How about doctors' reports? Look at the pictures of Panchen for yourself, he looked positively unhealthy.81.157.96.109 11:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctors' reports from before he died? Did they say he was on the verge of death? Otherwise, I don't think that establishes much.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, what doctors reports and what pictures? There is no point in saying "look at the pictures for yourself" if you do no provide links to these pictures. Nor talking about doctors reports unless you provide links to these reports. Secondly, being unhealthy, or even "looking positively unhealthy" does not equate to immediate pending death, and therefore has no relevance. People can be unhealthy, have serious heart attacks, and live for many, many more years. And people can "look unhealthy" to somone but be in reasonable health. But all this discussion which for some reason, anonymous user 81.157.96.109 wishes to continue, is also irrelevant as I removed the word, mysterious, and inserted into the article verifiable, neutral and basic facts without POV.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangerines: "looking positively unhealthy" does not equate to immediate pending death.- Define pending, you said Panchen died 5 days after he addressed the Chinese Parliament. You seem to forget Panchen had a Chinese Han/Manchu wife and a daughter. If Panchen was 'done in' as you make out, it would be more likely that he was 'done in' by Tibetans, who by the way has a history of doing away with the Dalais and others. As for pictures of Panchen, you can find them easily enough on the Web or even in Wiki, so don't be so lazy. By the way where are your sources?81.157.96.109 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Firstly, perhaps you could try to be a bit more pleasant as I have been pleasant with you. I might have disagreed with some of what you have said, but that is no reason for you to reply with so much sarcasm and attempted mockery. There really is no need for it. To try and answer in a reasonable fashion - If you check back in the history of the article, I took out the word "mysterious" to describe the Panchen Lamas death and inserted how he died, by heart attack. I have not implied anywhere that he was "done in". You are the one to bring that up, not me.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk

No it wasn't. Nat Krause brought the subject up, whether he was spurred on by your presentation of subject or not, you'll have to ask him. A heart attack is due to ill health. Whether the person knew of the condition before hand or how it was finally triggered is another matter. The article was so worded that it implied the Panchen's heart attack was linked to the address he gave 5 days previously, and there is absolutely no evidence to show the two incidents were linked.81.159.85.170 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the section - "In 1989, the Panchen Lama was finally allowed to return to Shigatse, where he addressed a crowd of 30,000. He described the suffering of Tibet under the yoke of occupation in terms reminiscent of the petition he had presented to Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1962, after which he was imprisoned, in which he had documented the terrible living conditions faced by the people of Tibet, the deaths in forced labour camps, and the harm being done to his country in the name of socialist reform. Five days later, he suffered a massive heart attack and died at the age of 50, just as his open condemnation of Chinese policies intensified". I will amend it now as "under the yoke of occupation" does seem a POV. But he gave an address seemingly criticising the PRC and then died five days later and that is what is needed to be in the article, no matter if that sits comfortably with anyone or not, as it is presenting the facts of what happened. I have also removed this part of the section fo rnow "just as his open condemnation of Chinese policies intensified" as perhaps it might be seen to be POV? Perhaps someone else might like to comment on whether or not I was right to remove that part?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to mistake me for someone who want this article to be biased toward the Tibetan viewpoint, when in reality I want it to be neutral. I have removed words, and reverted edits that showed bias toward both views. With regard to this comment - "As for pictures of Panchen, you can find them easily enough on the Web or even in Wiki, so don't be so lazy." - you said that you had seen pictures of the Panchen Lama showing him to be very ill just before he died. The onus is therefore on you to state where these pictures are rather than trying to insult me by calling me lazy. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk

Oh no I did not!!! Please do not twist what I did say. I have not said I had seen pictures of the Panchen showing him to be very ill just before he died. Just take a look at the pictures of Panchen, he looked what anyone in the West would call unhealthy.81.159.85.170 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And you accuse me of twisting what you say? "very ill" = unhealthy, the English language is odd to say the least as that to me is the same thing just different words. I will repeat what I said again though, someone can look "what anyone in the West would call unhealthy" in pictures and yet still live for many years. Likewise someone can seem perfectly fit and healthy and yet die suddenly of a massive heart attack. I am not questioning how the Panchen Lama died at all, which you seem to think I am doing. He is stated to have died from a heart attack, fair enough.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tangerines: As you've taken to deleting others' remarks, let me just say that 'unhealthy' does not equate to 'very ill'. 'Unhealthy food' does not equate to 'very ill food'. 81.154.200.219 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what pictures you have personally seen and it is perfectly reasonable to ask where these pictures are, without being insulted for asking the question. And when you say "Your comments are completely irrelevant (to quote you)" - you are not quoting me at all, as I said, "all this discussion which for some reason, anonymous user 81.157.96.109 wishes to continue, is also irrelevant" - the point being that this discussion is irrelevant because the word mysterious was removed (by me), and the cause of death was inserted (by me). I did not say that your comments are completely irrelevant, nor did I imply that. There is a huge difference. If you are prepared to discuss this civilly without sarcasm, without attempts at insults and without mocking then I will discuss it with you. I more than happy to work on this article as are others to ensure the article does not show bias to either the PRC view nor the exiled Tibetan Community view. Perhaps you could bear that in mind when responding.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you call twisting what others did or did not say as being civil and without sarcasm? May be you should not be working on this article?81.159.85.170 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been, and will continue to be, civil with you. However, I also have not twisted anything you said. You do though seem determined to disagree with everything I say, but quite why I don't know, as I have tried to correct the piece about the Panchen Lamas death by removing the word mysterious - as you would I'm sure agree with my doing. Yet again I will re-iterate that my wish is for this article to be as fair as it possibly can with both points of views. It is a pity that you seem unwilling to accept that, and seem to think that anyone who doesn't full agree with you must hold an anti-Chinese, andti-PRC view.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article is, if anything, too favourable to the government's point of view. What is the source which says that he died of a heart attack? I, personally, have no idea what the cause of 10th Panchen Lama's death was (heart attack is an entirely plausible possibility, of course). Unless we can come up with a credible source that does know, the article should reflect our uncertainty.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) PS: I do, now that I think of it, have a published eye-witness source which claims that the Panchen Lama was poisoned. I'm not sure how reliable the source is, though.

The source is the BBC News article which states that he died from a heart attack. Of course it is also possible to have a compromise with regard to his death by heart attack and add something like, "according to reports from the PRC" or whatever wording would be appropriate? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article is better than nothing, but it seems like more of a human interest story than a fully serious piece of reporting. It doesn't say anything about how they know he died of a heart attack—it must come from some other source, since the BBC presumably didn't have its own team of doctors examine the body.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Did Nat Krause have a team of doctors examine his body to say that he did not die from a heart attack? 81.154.200.219 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say that he didn't die of a heart attack? I have no idea how he died.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nat Krause, do you accept he died from a heart attack, or do you have to be personally present with a team of doctors at the death of everyone on this planet? 81.154.200.219 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have said clearly twice now, I have no idea how he died—this means he might have died from a heart attack, or he might have died from something else. I don't trust the government's autopsy, but there was no other autopsy done.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nat Krause: If you have no idea how he died, then could you explain your remark from above, "The current version of the article is, if anything, too favourable to the government's point of view." 81.158.47.214 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article states that he died of a heart attack, but we don't know whether this is true or not.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether what Nat Krause says is true or not? 81.158.47.214 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If Nat Krause followed his own logic, then how does he know Panchan Lama has died at all? He did not see the body, and confirm for himself that it was the stated person. All he has to go by is that the Chinese authority stated he had died, and as Nat says, he does not trust the Chinese Government's report. 217.43.142.251 12:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you raise an interesting point: how do we know that the 10th Panchen Lama is really dead? Of course, we do not know for certain, but there are a few reasons which lead me to believe that this is very likely the case. First, if we assume for sake of argument that the Panchen Lama was the victim of foul play at the hands of the government, then it still seems quite likely that this was carried out by elements within the party acting without the agreement of the government as a whole. Consider that, if such a clique simply kidnapped and imprisoned the Panchen Lama, there would be many opportunities over the following 18 years for other factions in the party to secure his release, and this would do a lot to mitigate the outrage of the Tibetan public. On the other hand, if he were dead, there's no way to bring him back to life, so the government would have no choice but to cover the whole thing up and pretend it never happened. Moreover, suppose you were a member of this sort of radical anti-Panchen faction; why would you bother to imprison him, knowing that he might be released later and would then be an implacable enemy, instead of simply killing him, so that he would never trouble you again?

Moreover, if the 10th Panchen Lama had been hauled off somewhere and was still being held, one would expect some rumours of this to leak out at some point. It would be hard to keep a lid on such explosive news. However, I'm not aware that there have ever been rumours to this effect. On the contrary, there are rumours that he was poisoned. That said, I suspect that this was probably not the case, and that he probably did die of natural causes.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So after all this Nat Krause thinks Panchen probably did die of natural causes. But of course he can't be certain, as he did not examine the body for himself (assuming he is licensed and qualified to examine dead human bodies). It is not a question of how do we (everyone apart from Nat Krause) know, it is how do you (Nat) know. All Tibetans knew he died as they immediately looked for his rebirth (OK, so 2 candidates came up, but this showed all the Tibetans knew the previous one had died). Nat, does a heart attack count as natural causes? 81.155.103.36 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Indeed. I have searched for more articles that would confirm that he died from a massive heart attack. But so far to no avail. There does not appear to be anything further on the BBC, as every other article merely says something along the lines of "the previous Panchen Lama who died in 1989". But without further comment. The only other article I found on the BBC was an article which discussed a senior member of the Gov't of the PRC who, it said, was claimed to have had a hand in the death of the Panchen Lama by some in the exiled Tibetan community. But not sure of the validty of it nor if it is relevant.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

As for Nat Krause, have you heard of doctors' reports at autopsy? When was the last time you saw a doctor? Did he/she tell you how close you are to death? No?

Doctor says: "Nat, if you keep up with your anti-CPC postings on Wikipedia, I think you will die of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome the next time you are in China". j/k --Sumple (Talk) 07:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumple: Please see Tangerines comment on sarcasm and mockery. Please don't lie in these discussions, as lying gets nobody any where. You have just shot yourself in the foot and confirmed your postings as anti-CPC.81.159.85.170 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And that, I'm sure, is about the worst thing somebody could be accused of!—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Death of the 10th Panchen did not meet the interest of CPC

What kind of stupid would mysteriously remove his political totem? The 10th Panchen criticized CPC's rule many times before already. There was no evidence of such accuse. Further more, Panchen lived in Beijing too long, he died because of high attitude, which was pretty strait forward. The best interest for Beijing was to make the 10th Panchen live longer than the 14th Dalai, so the 10th Panchen would bear the responsibility of reincarnation of 15th Dalai; also, the 10th Panchen had more authority than the current disputed 11th Panchen. By this strategy would also void the 11th Panchen dispute as well.--61.30.72.148 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts

Further to the six edits by the anonymous User:128.91.41.29 which were reverted by User:CredoFromStart, I have reverted a further three edits by the same anonymous user, 128.91.41.29, as even though it is clear that they were at least in part trying to perhaps replace some words that might appear to be POV from a Tibetan POV, they only replaced those words with similar POV words just from a different POV. In addition, changing the name Francis Younghusband to Francis Youngwife was clearly vandalism. Unfortunately I have reverted three times as I forgot to do it in one go, but this was to revert clear POV and vandalism edits. For the user who did these edits though, there is no point, in editing the article and replacing what you believe to be POV by simply replacing those words with others that are just as much, if not more so, a POV.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Tibet are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.155.103.36"

I have received your message above and looked at the page suggested. I don't know what you are trying to say, but if you are saying what I think you are saying, then there is nothing in Wiki to back up what I think you are trying to say. If you wish to be an editor and contribute, then please refrain from making up your own Wiki policies and rules and deleting other people's contribution in the discussion part of Wikipedia. And yes, you should read the bit about deletions. If you follow your own made up rules, then you should delete a very large chunk of your own (Tangerines) and Nat Krause's discussions in the discussion section of the article. 81.155.103.36 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apple88's edits

I have removed some edits by Apple88 because they are biased and argumentative. I also removed the quotation marks from around "enemies of the people", since this is what has misled Apple; this term is Tsering Shakya's description, and he doesn't claim that he is quoting a Chinese source. Also, I don't think this account of the Panchen Lama's fall from grace is accurate (no sources are provided), and the comparison to Liu Shaoqi isn't very meaningful. Lastly, "shut its borders to all except to Chinese provinces" didn't make sense.

I have also reworded a few portions of the historical material.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually most Tibetans and Chinese did not take part in the destruction. There was absolutely no punishment for the people who did not take part in the destruction. There was only punishment for the people who tried stopping them to destruct. Please remember most Tibetans and Chinese did not take part in the destruction. Red Guards was a volunterred organization. The claim that somebody involunteerily take part in the destruction for the fearing of being punished is not true. Since there is no punishment if you merely not taking part in the destruction. You need to fear only if you try to stop them to destruct. If you search 10th panchen lama wikipedia, you will find the more detailed introduction of 10th panchen. "Shut borders to all except for chinese" is a sentence other people added. I don't mind if you delete it. You can delete the Liu Shaoqi part. I added it only because somebody tried to milead that 10th Panchen was imprisoned after the petition. Actually he was imprisioned in 1968. Apple88

I will try to find the source about 10th panchen history. I read a book about him, but forgot its name. Apple88

Tsering Shakya's point is that there were some people who feared they might become targets of persecution, and that they had a motive to participate in the Cultural Revolution in order to avoid that. Do you believe that nobody was ever targeted during the Cultural Revolution without a reason?

Actually, you have no right to remove the quotation marks from around "enemies of the people", unless that you have read the source and find that is how it is written in the source. Although I can not deny there might be any young man what opposed the red gurads, but intentionally join the redguard to protect himself, I never heard one case of it happened in any part of china, alought there are so many, so many, so many red guards regreted what they did or feel cheated after the revoluion.

I have read the source, thanks.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the Panchen Lama, he might not have been officially sentenced to prison until 1968, but it is highly misleading to imply that he was doing fine before that. He made a lot of powerful enemies with his petition in 1962, was thoroughly purged in 1964, at which point he was accused of plotting an armed rebellion, was formally removed from his leadership positions in December of 1964, and was under house arrest or in military custody from 1966 onwards.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree and support the above paragraph you wrote. I would suggest you paste them into the article. It is always better to give detailed facts than misleading general comments. Actually, if you see my origional version, I said 10th panchen lama was criticized after the sentence of losing trust.

Why do you delete my sentence? it is claimed that the less savoury aspects of PRC rule are kept hidden from visitors. Now in Tibet, foreign tourists are very welcome. They can talk freely with any Tibetans in streets and visit their homes. The hidden claim has no source too. My question is: How chinese government can hide the less savoury aspects when foreign visitors can freely talk with any Tibetans and visit their homes? This hidden claim is compeltely groundless. You are not using double standard, are you? apple88

Of course foreign tourists are welcome in Tibet: they are an important source of revenue. However, I don't know where you get the idea that foreigners can meet with Tibetans freely and without being monitored; I have heard the opposite.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

About 1 to 3 years ago, many journalists from major western medias visited Tibet. If you search on google, you will find that they all found it is free to talk with any Tibetans during their visit. They even reported some Tibetan monks told them how repressive chinese government towards Tibetans. In one case, when a Tibetan monk is telling a western journalist how repressive chinese government is, a Tibetan pilgrimer who is a middle aged lady happened walking by and heard their talk. She told the journalist that the monk said is completely untrue. Chinese really want to attract western tourists to Tibet, not only for money, but also let westerners to see with their own eyes what Tibet really is under chinese rule. As a result, Chinese government tries to please western visitors. On the other hand, there are too many western visitors to monitor. In deed, Chinese government has zero tolerence to independence activist. But is it really repressive to the common Tibetans who are not involved in the independence movement? On the other hand, Tibetans in exile tried to discourage westerners to visit Tibet. Apple88

Can you provide a link?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to find them out after such a long time. It would not be easy. But at least you can try this one: The famours journal of "National Geography". Probably in 2003 or 2004, there is a long article talked about the journalist's trip in Tibet. It seems the top cover of that issue is an young Afghnastian woman. Apple88

I found an article in the April, 2002 National Geo about Tibet, but I can't read the whole thing online. I'm not saying your sources don't exist; I'm saying I can't take them into account until I know what they are.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

81.158.47.214 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Who cares whether you can take anything into account or not? Like me, Nat Krause, you are a nobody in the grand scheme of things. What you take or not take into account counts for nothing.

It matters because I'm an editor of this article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case you should just edit the article instead of leaving your POV comments. 81.155.103.36 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help to read the wikipedia policy on no personal attacks - comment on content not the contributor. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

81.158.47.214 18:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)If I were to enter into the USA and told US Immigration that the purpose of my visit was to tell African Americans and Native Americans how badly the US government has treated them and that I came to suggest to them how to redress the balance, I doubt very much US Immigration would let me into their country. Perhaps American bloggers here don't see or hear about their CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security and so on, whereas outsiders looking in do. In the same way, the Chinese internal security services are in the background among the Chinese population, but outsiders do find their presence very conspicuous. Their job, like that of their American counterpart, is to protect the security of their country. Can you deny that the US had its witchhunts, such as the McCarthy era? Even John Lennon was treated as an enemy of the USA by the government, although not by its people.

What does this have to do with anything? If the U.S. government does it, it must be right?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

81.158.47.214 19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) It means the Chinese government is not much different from the US government. It also means the American people and the American government are 2 separate entities, as are the Chinese people and the Chinese government. It would appear here that many bloggers here interpreted the action of the Chinese government as the action of every single Chinese person.

Well, in any event, I refuse to palaver with you further until you learn how to sign your comments properly.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at links below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6918569.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6919399.stm

Australian government's approach to human rights: Lock them up first, file false charges, and then say a mistake was made. What about the poor doctor's reputation snd the effect on his health and well-being? Can a so called democratic government and system be completely trusted and not to lie about anything they wish?81.155.103.36 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Free Tibet Group Member Please Answer Me!

Tibetan Government in-exile claims that Tibet was an independent states because it was autonomous in 1912-1951.

But ridiculous that Dala Lama claims Greater Tibet, it includes Qinghai (you call Amdo). Don't forget Qinghai was under control of Nationalist China in 1911-1949. (see Ma Bufang) 198.155.145.88 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agitators deliberately confuse 'control' and 'presence' with 'govern', and 'Chinese' with 'Han'. The Chinese (but not necessarily the Hans) have 'governed' the geographical region known as Tibet for centuries. The Tibetans in China were and are Chinese in the same way the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, not just the English, are British; as are naturalised immigrants to the United Kingdom. When an American soldier wears a UN hat, he is not working as an American soldier, but as a UN soldier. Geography and ethnicity do not necessarily coincide with a polity. The USSR was often simply called Russia. Stalin as head of the USSR was thought of as a Russian, although he was a Georgian. Who knows, one day, a Tibetan may head a Chinese government. 81.155.103.36 11:40, 5 June 2007

Tibet has already been freed. If you look at the French and Russian Revolutions, you will understand why the dalai and the aristocracy left the place. Had they stayed, the peasants and the disenfranchised would have chopped the heads off these spongers of society who had mistreated and abused them for centuries. 217.43.142.251 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag/Seal and Infobox not suited for this type of article

Hi! I don't think the infobox is particularly suited for this type of article. At the top it is stated that this article is concerned with the historical and cultural region of Tibet, and that there is a separate article on the Tibet Autonomous Region for the political entity. I personally removed the flag and seal because that was blatantly POV to be included in the infobox of such an article about the historical and cultural region of Tibet. Though it was a historical political symbol, it shouldn't be included in the infobox since those political symbols no longer apply to Tibet of 2007, and of course they were (and still are for the government-in-exile) merely political symbols, not cultural. I have yet to see a flag and seal for other articles such as Palestine, Korea or China. Not to mention, if we were to include flags and seals, do we include all flags and seals used throughout history and in all regions (afterall there are Tibetan political entities in Qinghai, and India)? Now the same problem concerns the infobox, I don't know where the information were collected from, perhaps from the data gathered from the Tibetan Autonomous Region, this does not apply here, since Tibet historically and culturally is much larger than the Autonomous Region, it also includes parts of India and Qinghai, etc. I have no idea how one can calculate the HDI/GDP of the cultural Tibet, as for the historical Tibet, I don't think it's even possible. For a historical political entity such as the Soviet Union, you can use an infobox, with perhaps the ultimate statistics and flags/seals used, or perhaps at the greatest extent such as that of the Ottoman Empire or the Roman Empire, but for historical and cultural entities such as this article and Palestine, Korea and China, I don't think an infobox would be particularly well suited. I recommend taking it off. --72.75.55.194 06:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted your removal of the flag and seal as your removal of them is, in your words, blatantly POV. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the coverage of this article. It is about cultural and historical Tibet, and includes those areas which were not under the authority of Lhasa. The flag and seal posted here do not apply to those areas. Nor are they used today in the rest of Tibet (i.e. Tibet Autonomous Region). We don't display defunct symbols as if they were current on Wikipedia. --PalaceGuard008 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

'since Tibet historically and culturally is much larger than the Autonomous Region'. This is also true for all civilisations throughout the whole of human history on this planet. Historical and cultural boundaries of different peoples overlap and overspill across geographic and political frontiers in all cases of human civilisation. 81.155.103.36 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Inforbox discussion

An infobox is a useful way of summarising information, but the infobox that keeps on being inserted [5] is unsatisfactory in many (if not most) respects: Here are some key problems:

• Map: the map is POV in several ways. It presents Tibet, China, India, Sikkim, Nepal, and Bhutan with the same font (capitalised), implying that they are all of equal status.
  • Sikkim is almost invariably recognised as a part of India today.
  • There is a significant view that Tibet is part of China -- this view is recognised by almost all governments.
  • The borders of Tibet reflect one of several competing views, with no acknowledgement of those other views: for example it omits Arunachal Pradesh but includes Amdo and Kham.
• Flag, seal: these relate only to the former administration in Lhasa. As this administration did not have direct control over several areas usually regarded as Tibetan and included in the (POV) map as such, the flag and seal are inconsistent with the map and the article. Furthermore, the flag and seal are not used today in the Tibet Autonomous Region, the major part of Tibet.
• Official language and other "official" things: in the same regard, cultural and historical Tibet as dealt with in this article have no official language.

I would suggest a refactoring of the infobox, perhaps with reference to the box at Western Sahara. --PalaceGuard008 05:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, because as I've stated above, some of the statistics for the infobox were copied directly from that of the tibet Autonomous Region article. The HDI of the United Nations Organisation for example, uses that of Tibet Autonomous Region's statistics, yet the ranking have been changed to 129th, as if it was a country/territory which had its HD index calculated by the UNO, when in fact there wasn't a mention of Tibet when I clicked on the link to the HDI rankings. I don't think an infobox is suited for this article of which even the geographical boundaries have several definitions that is explained in the article itself. But if someone feels that an infobox is necessary, I would think that the only information that can be gathered here would be "Largest City - Lhasa"; There could also be some other information given in parenthesis with notes, for example:, the time zone would have to cover both Indian time and Chinese time, the currencies used, Indian rupee, Chinese yuan, and Bhutan's currency. Population would be more difficult to calculate, if simply calculating by geographical area, perhaps the sum of the several geographical regions of Tibet at its maximum geographical extent can be used, if ethnicially, one would have to take the sum of only the ethnic Tibetans in the said geographical area. Also when this is done, it would be quite POV because we would be taking a specific definition of Tibet and using that to calculate its statistics for the infobox(that is, we as Wikipedia editors chose the geographical boundaries of Tibet, whether by maximum extent, the boundaries of the Tibet Autonomous Region, its de facto boundaries, the boundaries claimed by the exile government, or some other definition; and that we used this definition to define all of Tibet in all its definition in the infobox). Unless one wants the infobox to be heavily annotated, I find it difficult to create an NPOV infobox. Well, this is only my opinion, and thanks for taking it into consideration! --72.75.55.194 18:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Xizang

Xizang redirects to Tibet Autonomous Region. Shouldn't the redirect go here instead? (Stefan2 14:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't think so, because "Xīzàng" is the short name for the transliteration of the Chinese name for the political body of the "Tibet Autonomous Region", it isn't used to refer to the other areas described in this article such as Qinghai and parts of Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan or Sikkim. --72.75.55.194 18:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

1950 invasion

Shouldn't there be an individual section within the article on the 1950 military invasion by China? Seems like perhaps the most significant recent incident in the country's... sorry, region's... recent history. At present the article provides little information about it. Garth M 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article currently says: "In 1950, the People's Liberation Army invaded the Tibetan area of Chamdo, crushing minimal resistance from the ill-equipped Tibetan army. In 1951, the Tibetan representatives, under PLA military pressure, signed a seventeen-point agreement with the PRC's Central People's Government affirming China's sovereignty over Tibet. The agreement was ratified in Lhasa a few months later". The Tibetan army pretty much gave up. The commander of Tibetan forces is still a vice president of the National Political Consultative Assembly: [6]. --PalaceGuard008 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The PLA crushed the Tibetan army and then initiated a genocide which killed 1.2 million people, according to a report done by the International Commission of Jurists and as reported by The Washington Post. That invasion was a prologue to the genocide that would follow after. The Tibetan army certainly didn't just "give up" and the Chinese were ruthless in their assassination of Tibetan culture and society. I think this section needs to be expanded, giving more detail to the brutality that was seen in that area and the reasons for the animosity felt by many Tibetans towards China today. Moreover, this demonstration of military force and presence within Tibet is why the article should reflect the country as an occupied, rather than administered state. Cumulus Clouds 07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

'in the country's... sorry, region's...'. No need to apologise. Tibet is a country within the PRC in the same way Scotland is a country within in the UK, or as Texas is a state within the USA (the S being plural). Words such as 'country' or 'state' are man-made, and have to be given meaning. Throughout Chineses history, the political geography had at much of the time fragmented into many 'Guos' which may be translated as countries or principalities or states. The geographies of the PRC and the historic China do not coincide. 81.155.103.36 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds' reference is Maura Moynihan's TWP article in 1998. The estimated 1.2 m deaths was in the article attributed to armed conflict and famine, and not to genocide. If such number of people died, it was very unfortunate and terrible, but did the lamas do anything about famines in Tibetan history or to improve the life-expectancy of Tibetans? There was also the inaccurate view that Tibetans are separate from the Chinese (who the writer presumably equate to the Hans), when Tibetans are just as Chinese as the Hans in The PRC, in the same way that the Welsh are just as British as the English in the modern UK; or that African-Americans are just as American as their fellow White or Hispanic American citizens (although of course some sections of white society don't agree with this). Had the Chinese not allowed Dalai to leave, does anyone suppose he could have 'escaped', as stated in the article and elsewhere? In contemporary Australia, the Whites were removing Aboriginal children from their families against their will who were never reunited with their natural families again. Why does anyone use 21st century standards in a time of peace and plenty to judge the 1950's and 60s in a place of hardship and backwardness?

'Assassination of Tibetan culture and society'; if this were the case, then why do you see Tibetan culture and society everywhere in Tibet? If Tibetans want to live in poverty or in the Stone Age, then they are allowed to, but the Chinese would still have to help them and have a duty to help them, even if the likes of Maura Moynihan and Cumulus Clouds want to see them live that way. If you see a Tibetan child in jeans or with an iPod, would this be described as an assassination of his culture and society? 81.155.103.36 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed territories in Asia ?

Come on this is like stealing something and saying disputed ownership! This is not PRCpedia the encyclopedia should be right before NPOV. I think to often we say oh but the Cigarette company says it's not addictive it is just a plain lie but they are powerful so we go along with it as if it had not in reality killed millions of people and if anything their opinion/Science without the scientific method should be in an article about lies .We know chinese killed Tibetans in large numbers and to bow to a country who kills steals and censors this very site is wrong. Anyone more knowledgeable about changing this tag at the bottom want to help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.189.180 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 June 2007

Well look at it this way: if somebody, hypothetically stole something from you and refused to give it back, it would be a disputed item. That doesn't mean that it's not yours and you shouldn't get it back ... but obviously there's a debate over that fact.&mash;Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

However unreasonable the claims of one side of the dispute seem to the other side, there is no doubt that it is disputed!Billlion 06:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was tibetans who killed tibetans in large numbers. And yes, historically the tibetans killed Hans too. Learn your history.81.155.103.36 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) However unreasonable the claims of one side of the dispute seem to the other side, there is no doubt that it is disputed!Billlion 06:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stealing? Tibet is a part of the PRC. The Tibetans are still there doing what they have always done and much more. They have not been moved out. I think the bloggers here think the Chinese are equivalent to the Europeans in both North and South America and Australia, who really did steal and murder. Europeans stole so much that First Nation peoples are marginalised into reservations. That is stealing. The truth is, the Chinese don't have the thiefing mentality of Europeans. 81.155.103.36 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was tibetans who killed tibetans in large numbers. And yes, historically the tibetans killed Hans too. Learn your history.81.155.103.36 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First Nat Krause you are so smart and correct I thank you for explaining it to me I was stoned and angery because I just watched a show on History International and thought man those bastards they stole the Tibetans land.81.155.103.36 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Im sure you were so happy to see some thing you could correct and be a flamer and it so stupid Nat Krause gives a great answer with a NPOV and you come along and have to add nothing but calling me stupid it's so childish I used the "Talk Page because I wanted to see what other thought but not to be called stupid so F!@#$ you. 81.155.103.36 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Im talking PRC and Tibet not Hans and all the tribes of china.The Chinese invasion in 1950 was by the PRC Army not the Hans it was people from around china and the PRC blew away the Tibetan "learn your history" or go to the main page. I'm talking only about 1900AD-2007AD thats right Anno Domini I sure some flamer will like that. Flaming is a reason people hate the internet just be nice flamers are mostly flamers in there real life and are impotent so the internet makes them seem strong like .81.155.103.36 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Please be nice why are you a flamer it boggles you use your energy to be an ass it's so dumb.

Are the editors biased or not? Incomprehensible garbage as that above is left on the page whereas factual arguments are deleted.217.43.142.251 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

About Image:Tibetmap-en.png

(First of all, see this discussion if you want to know what is going on.)

Cumulus Clouds posted the following message to my talk page: I agree that placing a map of the TAR in an article about historical and cultural Tibet is highly questionable. Tibet and the TAR are not synonymous and therefore having that map there looks like a snipe at the people of Tibet. It's inflammatory and inappropriate and I will revert it back again. If you have any questions or concerns about this issue, please address them on the talk page and not in the edit line of the article's history. Thank you.

I do not share his views about the "highly questionable" nature of placing the map of TAR in an article about Tibet, for the simple reason that TAR is as Tibetan, or actually even more Tibetan, than, say, Qinghai, which is one of the areas Tibetans claim to be theirs just because it happened to belong to them in some bygone times (Finns and Finnic peoples once ruled the areas that constitute modern Russia - does that entitle us to claim half of Eurasia back?). I also do not like the way he hints (in a not-so-implicit way) that having the map in the article is "inflammatory" and "looks like a snipe at the people of Tibet". We have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, and not having the map in the article is more POV than having it.

So, I assure you, the inclusion of the map will only improve the article. --ざくら木 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that all points about the Tibetan region need to be covered, however an article exists for the current state of administration at Tibetan Autonomous Region. This administration is under dispute by many people, including those within the historical boundaries of the former country of Tibet. Including a map of the TAR in an article about that former country and its people presupposes that its a widely accepted claim of the current state of administration on the Tibetan plateau. It is not and therefore it should not be kept in an article that isn't exclusively about the TAR. Cumulus Clouds 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• The first line on this article states, "This article is about historical/cultural Tibet. For the administrative region of the People's Republic of China, see Tibet Autonomous Region." Therefore, adding a map of the TAR, with the words "Map of Tibet Autonomous Region" is not relevant to, and will not improve, this article, and it most definitely is not NPOV, hence the reverts. It is relevant to the TAR article. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think having a map of the TAR is a big problem, because the TAR pretty much corresponds with the core of historical/cultural Tibet, being approximately the area actually controlled by Lhasa in modern history.

However, this map has a lot of NPOV problems, especially with its borders. For instance, Aranuchal Pradesh is shown as being outside the TAR, but Aksai Chin is circled out. If it is to be included, at least the borders need to be NPOV-ised.

For the same reason, the image shouldn't be used on the TAR page either until it is fixed up. --PalaceGuard008 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have no other choice but to get back to the drawing board; gotta include all biases views! --ざくら木 21:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

As there appears to be the start of an edit war over this I am hoping that those involved will discuss it in here rather than edit warring.

With regard to some of the comments in edit summaries - "For and against is the most neutral way of putting it, to do otherwise imples the article regards the current situation is illegitimate" The exact same could be said no matter which way round this is presented, as putting For and then Against could equally to some imply that the article regards the current situation to be legitimate. Of course it is the most often used format, however on the other hand, having it as Against forst is putting it in alphabetical order. And this edit summary comment, "Granted, one has to come first, however "against/for" draws the readers eyes to it as it is not the generally accepted way of presenting an argument" - the opinion that something is drawing the readers eyeys to it is not a valid reason to revert something. I am not suggesting that it should be one way or the other, however it would be better to discuss it here rather than edit warring. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as the person who made the change in the first place (I honestly didn't think it was that controversial), I'll explain. Firstly, I have no opinion as to whether the current situation is legitimate or not, that isn't my point, I'm not a card carrying Commie activist or anything silly. My point is, in everyday language, we argue "for and against" something, in this case whether the PRC should be in control of/occupying Tibet. The "Against/For" layout contained an implicit bias in favour of the Against links, not because it was first, but because the logical layout was contrary to accepted norms of language. It is exactly because of this, the unusual logical order that draws the eyes in that it implies a bias. Your average user (of any political persuasion) coming to a set of links "for and against", isn't going to think twice about the order, they are not going to read anything into it, it's only when they are forced to think of the order as unusual that they would think it implied anything. As for it being alphabetical, why is Apolitical last then? AviatonIsLife 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and can someone justify the spam flag? I see nothing. AviatonIsLife 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add - as this is in dispute, I have reverted the format back to how it was orignally as is normal in these instances, until such time as this is sorted. Please do not change this again until this is resolved on here. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And AviatonIsLife, I am not suggesting either way is correct, I was merely commenting, I agree that the apolitical links, if it was alphabetical, are in the wrong place, but I was just trying to initiate discussion by my post, to try and avoid the edit war. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair play, best it stays this way till it's hammered out. Only reason I commented was I thought it would be ruder to ignore points you made ;-) Have to admit, my knowledge of customs here is v. limited.AviatonIsLife 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Apolitical, then For and Against -- Apolitical first for NPOV; For and then Against because of English grammar or linguistic convention: "for and against", "pros and cons", etc etc. --PalaceGuard008 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While the current set-up seems fine, a "pro-PRC" and "anti-PRC might have worked as well. Tewfik^Talk 07:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

I removed the unsourced content "the Tibetans were in favour of having all of the Chinese troops return to China"

Primary sources like Sir Charles Bell's "Tibet Past and Present" provide totally different accounts:

"The Chinese officials...lessened the brides taken by the Tibetan officials from the poorer classes, and...gave straighter justice than that dealt out by the Tibetan magistry. There is no doubt the poorer classes in Tibet were in favor of China"[Bell, 1927]

"There is undoubtedly a pro-Chinese party in Tibet among the officials, the priests, and the people...[such] element in Tibet should not be underestimated"[ibid]

- 210.0.204.29 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how reliable Bell is, but only the first quotation seems to give a "totally different account". The second one presupposes that the officials, priests, and people are primarily anti-Chinese, but cautions against seeing this view as monolithic.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions

Please see the new proposal I've proposed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2 and discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2. I also added a brief introduction here —Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

POV template

I once again removed the country template which was already discussed months ago with no consensus. Most of the items on the list are blatantly POV. For example, anyone who has basic knowledge knows that the Flag of Tibet and the Seal of Tibet only represent the Tibetan exiled community instead of the geographical region. There is no official language for the Tibet region(Qinghai included, western Sichuan included?) which are officially divided by at least three administrative divisions.

And .TI is a joke! Editors or vandalists who add/support the template should go and ask ICANN whether Tibet has its own (proposed )ccTLD!

Please be serious! Do some factchecking before you make any edits on wiki.

--219.79.120.208 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have already pointed out to you in reply to your message on my talk page that I made a mistake. It is 3.30 in the morning here, I'm half alseep and I made an error. Please though refrain from attacking other users and read WP:NPA - comment on the content not the contributor. I should have checked more than I did when I reverted your edit though, more fool me for doing so when not fully awake.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To User:Tangerines: Nonsense, accusing other editors of having double standards is NOT an attack! You asked me to discuss before removing the POV template, however, editors include you said NOTHING when in the first place User:SwedishZeta added this template which has long been rejected by the earlier discussion. Isn't it obviously double standards?

To User:Zetawoof: Kindly elaborate WHAT have I done in addition to removing the template? I already clearly pointed out (see above) how most of the items are baseless POV, including the ccTLD, the socalled-"official" language, the flag and the seal.

To others: Interestingly, I see many other editors kept re-adding this POV template for the past hours while they refused to discuss on talk page. --219.79.120.208 14:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If I take it as a personal attack, then it is an attack. WP:NPA. I said nothing when User:SwedishZeta added the template as I didn't even notice it, not having looked at the article then. How many differnt times on your talk page and on here do you want me to say that I made a mistake? Apart from which you fail to point out that I actually agreed with you over the template. So no it is not double standards. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)