Talk:Arunachal Pradesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Arunachal Pradesh / States / Geography / History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arunachal Pradesh (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indian states (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Tibet (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.


I agree what you say. However, the Christians are growing fast and traditional religions are in decline, although it needs to be somewhat neutralised. Well, I think you follow up at the links stated on the links page.

I will try to neutralise the content within the next few days. However, all edits are welcome.

Mr Tan 22:43, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

About the Christian population growth, the same can be said in an encyclopedic tone rather than accusing missionaries of "killing" tribal customs. If we can obtain some images, this page migh well be a FA someday like Sikkim. Nichalp 18:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Christians are growing fast[edit]

The only reason it's growing so fast is because they're trying covert as much as possible in asia and africa. It's practically dead in europe and it will probably die in 100 years in america. too bad it'll take so long

that's because xtianity is repressive and the clergy is full of pedophiles.


To Dangerous-Boy:

I don't hate Christianity. But I cannot tolerate the way the Europeans and Americans are doing to Asians, and acculturalisation is really taking place. You said that Christianity is not dead at all is all nonsencial. In America and Europe, 90% of the population are Christians. Where the heck you said that it's dead?

To Nichalp:

I have already cleaned up slightly on the article, notably the Christians. However, in relations to the External Links in this older version, [1], I think that it should be put up, but in a different orientation. See how I did on Korean Buddhism.

Also, I hope that we can help together by cleaning up the article, making it similar to your Sikkim style in a month's time.

Mr Tan 18:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look at the external links. Most of the articles are not published by reputed media organisation. We need credible links, one that is published by established media organisations, not some shady websites having a propaganda to achieve. Next there will always be VHP rants on conversion. Everyone in India take their sayings lightly as their "proofs" are known to be dubious. References of conversions should be taken from reputed sites such as the Times of India, Indian Express etc. where a report or investigation is done by a reporter rather than publishing of sayings of an extremist member of an organisation. Nichalp 18:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • How much information you know about Arunachal Pradesh, in order to expand the article?
  • And also, how did the official tourism webstite on Arunachal said that there are around 5-10% of the population is Christian? There must be some explanation behind the growth.

Mr Tan 18:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • I'm not denying that there is a growth in Christian population in Arunachal Pradesh. What I am saying is that if anything unethical is going on, a credible media source should be cited. I have some matter on AP (a few reference books), though AP remains India's least known of state. I collect information from newspapers and add the information to Wikipedia. AP is rarely mentioned, though I have some info on the new species of monkeys recently discovered there. Nichalp 18:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

christian is dying[edit]

The xtians in america and europe are only nominal. They don't really practice true xtianity. Yes, there is some growth with evangelicals. But they mostly send there funds to convert in Asia and africa. The pope himself self even stated that soulds in asia need to harvested. In doing so, they start more wars and exploit more poor people. NicolasP is a product of such work done.--D-Boy 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To Dangerous-Boy:

  • Look at Korea. Christians and Buddhists are torn between half-half, and torn by identity! To me, I do not hate christianity, but I believe that the evangelicals have some very wicked and bad intentions among the spiritually weak Asians. Yes, they can preach and convert, but I think that that should only be done in small numbers. I also believed that they should educate the people about the differences between Christian and indigenious religions seperately, not just merely scaring people to convert and hypnotise them to convert by saying that oh, we know that we are sinners, and so on. In Singapore, many of these people has done such stupid things.

To Nichalp:

  • Ok, let's work and talk less. Nichalp, can you provide more information on Arunachal, whatever you know, please display it up there. Also, please help me to work out, using your efforts just as you have did on Sikkim, another favourite place of mine. There seems to be little work and progress from both of you.

Mr Tan 12:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, I'm afraid I cannot commit 100% of my effort on Arunachal Pradesh at this moment. I'm still going through the extremely stressful after effects of taking care of the Sikkim page when it was an FAC. I really need a wikibreak. I have cleaned up the info table if you've noticed. Please go ahead with your work on this page. I will add what I know on AP soon. Meanwhile what is really needed are pictures and references on the state. Once you fill in some more info I can start to work because as of now I am pretty busy. Nichalp 20:38, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

    • Go ahead then. I will improvise and clean up the article. However, after your wikibreak, can you please notify me that you have returned? By that time, I will tell you what and where I need your help. I will also add some pictures in it.

Good Luck.

Mr Tan 00:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

District image[edit]

Mr Tan: Is the image of the districts of AP copyright free? You would have to tag the image if it is under GFDL or in Public Domain. I've checked my references -- Manorama Year Book 2003' for Arunachal Pradesh but I have nothing much to add. I just have basic information on the districts, that 80% of the people are tribal and 2/3rd of the state is under forest cover. Not much to add I'm afraid. Nichalp 18:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

South Tibet[edit]

I am sure that South Tibet is part of Tibet Culture Area for longtime.And should not be named by others.You can go to Tibet to see it clearly. What is "Tibet Culture" Area? If you are implying an area with similar culture should be associated with another area because of those cultural similarities, then to follow your logic, an area with dissimilar culture should be disassociated with such an area. That is to say, if Arunachal Pradesh should be part of Tibet because it shares some similar cultural traits with Tibet, then an Area like Xinjiang or Tibet, that has dissimilar cultural traits to China, should not be part of China. This part of the world has seen its borders change thousands of times over the last few thousand years, and thus one can not use culture or history to try and determine the status of a political entity or country in today's world.


Ksyrie 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on Talk:South Tibet. As for the map, you'll notice that Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet is in light blue, which equals "Claimed by PRC as part of TAR" It's not in red, orange, or yellow, which signifies that it's part of Historic Tibet (as claimed by Tibetan exile groups.)
Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama was born in Tawang,South Tibet Ksyrie 03:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
When did the Tibetans call it South Tibet? --Khoikhoi 05:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
When did the Indians call it Arunachal Pradesh? After 1972? Before 1972 it was called as North East Frontier Agency (NEFA),right? Ksyrie 11:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
LOOOOOOOOOOONG before you and your chinkeymonkeys*hit-originated chinkeymonkeys*hitfaced ancestors and race and country had evolved from the monkeys that you still looks like. Sure Tibet will be independent by 2020 and then Tibet and India will talk about what to do with Arunachal. Taiwan is already independent. ALL the islands in East and South chinkeymonkey Sea belong to Japan/Vietnam/Korea/Phillipines/Cambodia/Thailand and other countries there. You chinkeys will be wiped out SOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not the point. The Tibetan's didn't call it South Tibet. --Khoikhoi 01:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Tibetan exile groups are living in India, so they're probably not going to repay India's hospitality by making claims on what India considers to be its own territory. But this wasn't the case before the move to Dharamsala:

In 1938, the Survey of India published a map of Tibet, which showed the Tawang tract as part of that country. Even the first edition of Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery Of India showed the Indo-Tibetan boundary as running at the foot of the hills. [my bold - this is in agreement with the Chinese claim line today!] The Tibetans did not accept this 'annexation' of the Tawang tract and challenged the British attempts to expand their government into this area. But they tacitly accepted the rest of the McMahon demarcation. ...
The Indian government did move into the Tawang tract in force in 1951, overriding Chinese/Tibetan protests. ... [2]

Tawang, at least, was ethnically Tibetan, and regarded as a part of Tibet by Tibetans. But obviously these claims have been dropped by the Government of Tibet in Exile. And yet Tibet in exile claim Qinghai to be part of their "Greater Tibet", and want 16 other ethnic groups to move out or subdue to their rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialsz (talkcontribs) 11:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As for what the Tibetans called / call South Tibet, I suspect that there's a name out there somewhere, but until someone who knows Tibetan shows up, this will unfortunately remain a mystery to us. -- ran (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Northern boundary[edit]

Since much of the area of this state is claimed by the PRC, it would be useful to know how the northern boundary of the state as depicted on the map relates to the various demarcation lines described in the article -- the McMahon Line, the Line of Actual Control, etc. Also, which of these lines are used as reference for the area and population stats in the infobox? --Jfruh 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

the demographic said all. i suggest south Tibet remains as an independent item, to avoid controversy.


To maintain neutral point of view, the introductory paragraph of the article should be changed to ....Tibet (currently occupied by China).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger issue[edit]

I am removing the tag "merge with South Tibet, as this is an integral part of India, recognized as per de facto principles of International law. How many persons felt that the article People's Republic of China was fit to be merged with Taiwan in Encyclopedia Britannica, as for decades the USA had not recognized Mao's China as a sovereign state? --Bhadani 12:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help me? :)[edit]

The area of Arunachal Pradesh is 83,743 sq km. I know that China accuses India of possessing some 90,000 sq km of Chinese territory, mostly in Arunachal Pradesh. 90,000 - 83,743 = 6,257 sq km... Maybe somebody knows all the states of India which are involved in dispute? Is Assam involved in it?

90,000 sq km is almost certainly a gross overestimate. The actual area in dispute doesn't include all of AP and is probably 60,000 to 70,000 sq km. -- ran (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: I have read N. Maxwell's book about the war between India and China. Quotation: "Chou En-lai replied to Nehru's letter on September 8, 1959, and reaffirmed the basic point that the Sino-Indian boundary had never been delimited, further arguing that the 56,000 square miles between the McMahon Line and the foothils had been Chinese". 1 mile = 1.6 kilometre. 56,000*1.6=89,600 sq km (~90,000 sq km). Articles about the Simla Convention mentions 90,000 sq km too. So, it cannot be a gross overestimate...

... but it has to be a gross estimate. After all, we can't fit 90,000 km² into 83,743 km², it just doesn't make sense to have the disputed area *larger* than Arunachal Pradesh when it's *inside* Arunachal Pradesh. -- ran (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1 mile=1.6 km, but 1 sq mile =2.56 sq km, by this if Lai said 56000 square miles of Chinese region, he meant more than 1,40,000 square kilometres of land. He perheps included Aksai Chin also.Samitus mallicus 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitus mallicus (talkcontribs)

[No Title][edit]

Please stop trying to cover up facts, I have been to Arunachal Pradesh myself and talked to the people there. The Baptist Church has been funding several terrorist groups, the biggest of which is the NSCN. They themselves have admitted to forceful conversions and violence.

I am concerned about this cover up and also about the fact that so many people support this violence .It seems that these tribals in Arunachal Pradesh are emphatically labelled as non Hindu, except when there is violence, when they become Hindu fanatics.

All I'm asking you to do is cite your sources. Where's your proof? Just saying something isn't good enough without anything to back it up with. --Khoikhoi 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's better to be Christian in my land then be a dirty hindu. Hindus are our oppressors. They call us tribals and treat us like untouchables. It may be acceptable behavior in India, but in my home, please keep your dirty hindu ideas to yourself.

Official Languages?[edit]

How come only Adi,Monpa and Nishi are official languages of Arunachal Pradesh. If you see the diversity of Arunachal tribes and sub-tribes you will find every district are speaking different dialects. Only Hindi and English are mostly spoken languages. I myself donot speak Adi,Monpa and Nishi dialect........ and am very much from arunachal pradesh. When you create any information about particular state it should have proper information otherwise it creates confusion for every one. Most appropriate and true information about arunachal pradesh is that every districts speaks own dialects and most importantly hindi is spoken almost every corner of arunachal pradesh.


"Arunachal Pradesh is divided into fifteen districts, each administered by a district collector, who see to the needs of the local people. Especially along the Tibetan border, the Indian army has considerable control over the territory due to the continuing concern about Chinese intentions. In the Northern areas and areas near the Indo-Burmese border and Nagaland, where Naga-Christian militant groups have been alleged of harassing the local people, special permits are needed to enter the area."

What do we mean by Indian Army has considerable control. I propose to change it "Control" to "presence". Also, a permit issued by the Secretary (political) called the Inner Line Permit(ILP) is mandatory to enter any district of the state, and not only the 'Naga-christian' dominated areas. Am changing this too. Prashanthns 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

my edits, pre-independence maps[edit]

examples here:1908 1923 1933 1933 1935 1942 -- 01:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding the dispute issue[edit]

Just mentioning that the area is disputed is enough for the lead-in paras. Information regarding the history of the dispute belongs to the History section. Thank you. -- 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please amend defects[edit]

  • Article says it was incorporated into Ahom, but not when - is it 13th century?
  • This article says it was annexed by the British in 1858, presumably referring to when the British governement took over the domains of the East India Company, but the Ahom article says 1826. Which is it, or is it both, that is the Company took it over in 1826 and the government abolished the company 32 years later. Peterkingiron 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


hi when I look at , put it into edit mode to see there is reference to the only reference I have found out is in the infobox saying something like |inset_map_marker = yes but nothing more, can somebody tell how it works? [[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Local opinions regarding the dispute[edit]

What do the residents think of this? Would they prefer staying in India, or being annexed by China? Brutannica 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question... we need to add that part in the article... I'll (try to) do it!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


whats the main food eaten here? whenever i search for it heare i never get it. Why is that so when i clearly type the topic?

Use of 'Communist China' as a pejorative to push an agenda[edit]

Bharatveer, can you please stop reverting my edits. You are getting close to 3RR. Your comparison of Communist China and Democratic India is designed to push an opinion. This is not the place - just keep it to facts. A country's name should not be preceded by an adjective unless absolute necessary and relevant. I get the feeling you are biased against China. If you want to discuss merits of so-called communism in China and so called democracy in India do it elsewhere. I have modified the section to a neutral tone and added a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakashi10 (talkcontribs) 11:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


What is the official language and/or lingua franca of Arunachal Pradesh? I can't believe it's Hindi, people in the N.E. have a particular dislike towards Hindi (personally, so do I, but that's beside the point)

Just an eg, Nagaland is a state where different districts speak different dialects. But Nagamese is the lingua franca. Similarly, Bengali works for Tripura, Assamese in Assam etc. In Meghalaya, Garo is predominant and most Khasi people are bilingual. So how does it work for AP? 13:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why South Tibet: Since 1914, the south tibet has been part of India, no doubt that it was signed between tibetan and british representatives at simla, although china also participated but not signed. by 1938, the british government had ratified the agreement and made it into a bilateral accord and was implemented. if chinese think that the agreement was not valid then, the chinese have to claim not only south tibet as arunachal but all the sister himalayan regions as their part where, the regions had been ceded to british india by tibetan or chinese (without the knowledge of tibetan). now, this south tibet or arunachal pradesh is inseperable part of india and even the local natives itself are very much satisfied with the Government of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the British did a lot bad things to China since 19 century and till 20 century, the same to India, robbed and killed local people, the worst thing was making conflict and divide, claimed Chinese Territory is Indian's, made war.

Fair use rationale for Image:ArunachalSeal.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:ArunachalSeal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


the demographics article says that 40% of the inhabitants are practicing Buddists. It is adjacent to the tag under the photo which says that 13% are practicing Buddists. So..? (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Miri Tribe Link[edit]

The link for the Miri tribe, links to the page on a city Miri in Indonesia. You need to link it to an article on the tribe itself, which currently doesn't exist. Then you should link it to the "Miri" dissambiguation page.--AaronCarson (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute[history][edit]

Discussion of a Hindu religious text and the state of Arunachal does not belong in History. Similar claim is being made regarding the history of Manipur and Nagaland, and Mahabharata. This seems the worst. Is this historical "Malinithan a small town has strong historical links with Lord Krishna"? Do we need to get into proving if God exists now? Can the historical accuracy of any of the characters in Mahabharata be proven? Rukmini, is she from Upper Assam as claimed? What ethnicity do Mahabharata ascribe to her, and does this ethnic group reside or resided in Arunachal to associate Rukmini with Arunachal? I think it is best to stay away from religious beliefs, Hindu or otherwise, when talking about the history of Arunachal. As a matter of fact, are there any ethnic group in Arunachal that are historically Hindu or have been Hindu in the distant past? Cosmicstring (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Spinach Monster shouldn't unilaterally remove the NPOV tag. The ones claiming Arunachal Pradesh is mentioned in hindu mythology need to substantiate their claim. Otherwise, reference to hindu mythology should be removed. Cosmicstring (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous tribal[edit]

I am not sure why the tag tribal is used as an ethnic identity. Tribal refers to a level of social organization. That is the meaning as can be found in say Cambridge English dictionary. As you might be aware, most Europeans lived in tribes in the past, and were tribal. Now, they have developed a more complex social structure and are not called tribal.

Just because the Indian govt assigns a ST label on some ethnic groups for govt benefit, cannot be used to change the meaning of the English word "tribe". As far as I am aware, the native ethnic groups in Arunachal are Tibeto-Brumese, and some Tai. Some of these groups are classified as ST, SC or OBC by the Indian govt for providing govt benefit.

When you write "indeginous tribe" what does it mean? Are there tribes that are not Tibeto-Burmese or Tai? Name one.

Attaching tribal tag to ethnicity doesn't make sense as there are Tibeto-Burmese groups that are tribal and then there are those that are not. Same with Tai groups. Ask yourself, does the highest traditional structure in an ethnic group is the village chief or the highest structure is a king.

As the European example shows, tribal identity can be changed which is different from ethnic identity which cannot be changed (except for inter marriage, etc., which is not what we are discussing here).Cosmicstring (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The word 'indigenous' might be a bit pov, but the term 'tribal' is fairly uncontroversial in India, it is understood as ST. The best way is if the word in the intro is linked as tribal. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
First, wikipedia is for everyone not just India. So, can't redefine the English word tribe. Second, not clear what you mean by a "tribe" in India is uncontroversial. Why should it be controversial? However, by "indigenous tribe" or "tribe" can you tell me what ethnicity am I to assign to it. Would a "tribe" in Iran, one in India and one in Palestine be of the same ethnic group? Are all the tribe in India of the same ethnic group? Cosmicstring (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The major ethnic groups would be Tai, Tani, & Mishmi. --KRajaratnam1 (talk) (Not logged in)

Why revert?[edit]

See User talk:Alokprasad#Why revert Arunachal Pradesh?--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Volcano phenomenon and related forest fires[edit]

There has been an apparent volcanic event in the predash, on Dehu Mountain, which is causing large scale forest fires. Could someone with knowledge of the area and its terrain add this to the article. I believe a volcanic eruption is very relevant. Source: Michaelh2001 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out... I'll look into it... Michael

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I found...[edit]

I found this article to be VERY neutrally written, indeed... Congratulations, all :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Are native people Chinese/Tibetan?[edit]

Here's observation, the native people living in this place look more like Chinese/Tibetan than Indian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. It's also something of a sweeping statement. However, the article does now state that the majority of the native population are of Tibeto-Burman origin. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The natives are definitely not Indic biogenetically. (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed State name in Hindi[edit]

Removed State name in Hindi, As official Language of the State is English. --Bhvintri (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Map in China's passport[edit]

The map in China's passport was changed to include Arunachal Pradesh, as explained in news articles

Is it reasonable to add a sentence about this?

A wider context is suggested in many other news articles, including the Los Angeles Times which explains, "The maritime disputes between the Chinese government and its neighbors have a decades-long history, but have greatly increased in visibility over the past year as Chinese media have cycled the public’s attention from confrontations with one neighbor to another." --Ansei (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No politics section[edit]

I was looking for some information on assembly elections in Arunachal Pradesh. Surprised to see that the article has no section on Politics.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Protest these page protections[edit]

Don't let them protect this page! Protecting these pages, like Darkness Shines wants to do, is a tactic that is being used widely over many of the Bangladeshi-Pakistani-Indian pages so that the editors who do this can game the content for their own POV biases. What they do is to semi-protect a page, finding whatever excuse they can dig up. Then they go after editors who do not agree with them. It's much easier for them to game the system once they've protected a page. Sanction lists have been abused -- that's an established fact! Other are being accused of being sock puppets in order to get their accounts blocked so that minor content disputes from those editors will disappear. Editors are being ganged up and then goaded into making more than 1 revert so that they will be blocked, especially inexperienced editors. BLP is being abused to no end in order to game content. This has got to stop! We need to protest this tactic. Wikipedia policy is being abused in order for some editors to turn pages into their POV fiefdoms. Crtew (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

See the current discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.Crtew (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


This is a state of India, per the references I added. Please explain why it is being changed to Tibet. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I would assume it's South Tibet controversy-related trolling.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary of territory dispute in lead[edit]

To User:Rao Ravindra who has repeatedly removed the summary of the territorial dispute from the lead, please read WP:Lead, which says the lead section should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The dispute has always been mentioned in the lead since the article passed the stub stage years ago. Please provide a justification for removing it. An edit summary such as "Zanhe may better direct his efforts on saving his ROC from PRC" is not a valid justification. -Zanhe (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Are Buddhist a majority?[edit]

See Religion in India#Buddhist majorities - dubious. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ethnic group[edit]

Some of these ethnic group in China? And there are considered part of the Tibetans?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)