User talk:Greg Pandatshang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Greg Pandatshang! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! —innotata 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

|}

Thanks[edit]

It's a bit late in Internet time, but I do remember your kind and wise words during my unblock request. You showed a lot of integrity there, when it would have been expedient to do nothing, and I appreciate that. Quigley (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan Unrest 2008[edit]

I've tried to address some of your concerns at Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest without tilting the lead to either POV. Hopefully, it's more neutral than it was before.--SGCM (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Areas taken from the Tibetan Government following the Invasion of Tibet (1950)?[edit]

I had mentioned loss of territory from the TAR because of vague recollections from my readings on Tibet in the past few months. I may have been confused with ethnic Tibetan regions absorbed into neighboring provinces (e.g. Xikang into Sichuan). (I’m still somewhat unclear on how the political boundaries have shifted over time.) However, if I read the Wikipedia article on Kham correctly (last paragraph), Western Kham was under the control of the Tibetan government before the PRC took control of Tibet in 1950-1951, and it was then made a separate province called Qamdo afterwards, not to be reincorporated into the TAR until 1965. (I’ve moved this portion of the discussion off the article’s discussion page because it will be a while before I plan to put this information into the article, and the discussion of my 2 proposed small changes was getting pretty long. I hope this is correct etiquette.)Wikimedes (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at this[edit]

New, *unreviewed*, article by someone whose viewpoints I cannot yet judge... Tibetan Resistance since 1950. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lobsang Sangay[edit]

Why? See kalontripa.org & Google. --77.188.131.170 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a confusion on my part. Thanks for fixing it. I have added the corrected pronunciation.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Greg. Some things just need common sense. My only interest there is to write according to RS. I'm uncomfortable with anything coming from non-academic sources or books without a strong RS imprint. Trying to restrict myself to those, I don't mind whatever is edited in, as long as it strives to ground articles in the best available sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[jy][edit]

As you told me, in Tibetan, [jy] is different to [y], but could you tell me an example syllable (in Tibetan script) that reads [jy]? Or Wylie is also ok. Many people can hardly pronounce [jy]. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute[edit]

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan languages[edit]

Thanks. Any idea what Gserpa, Zitsadegu, Drugchu are then? — kwami (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Which Tibetan language?[edit]

What do you plan to do about the 1,000 other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Tibetan language"? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ü[edit]

Is this really [wy] rather than [y], per talk at Standard Tibetan? Do we need to correct it? — kwami (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parliament of the Central Tibetan Administration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dharamsala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Uyghur history[edit]

See Talk:Uyghur_people#Most_of_the_history_section_needs_to_be_deleted. I have sources for karluk ancestry, and its not separatist related because both CCP and separatists falsely claim that modern uyghurs are linked to ancient uyghurs. In fact the falsely claimed connection between old and modern uyghurs hurts separatism since the Uyghur Khaganate did not rule over Xinjiang but Siberia and mongolia, it would be like Basques claiming they ruled over Morocco to claim independence from Spain, that wouldn't help their cause at all. Their real ancestors (karluks) established the kara khanid khanate around Kashgar. I have plenty of reliable sources and I want to see what other people say before I decide to revamp the section (replace information on the uyghur khaganate and uyghur kingdoms in turfan, with information about the Karluks and Kara Khanids)Rajmaan (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jomolhari (typeface) article[edit]

Hi, would you kindly review this new article I've created and make any changes or additions you think would be helpful. Thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Kazi Dawa Samdup[edit]

I've just started this too: Kazi Dawa Samdup - This morning I was most surprised to discover that there wasn't already an article on him, so I began one. Do you happen to know where I can find (on-line) a copy of his Tibetan-English Dictionary (Calcutta, 1919). I've searched in vain. Apparently the Preface has some interesting biographical information. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Panchen Lama[edit]

Thank you for the advice. I've started an RfC on Panchen Lama. You are welcome to participate. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Ziad Bahaa-Eldin) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Ziad Bahaa-Eldin, Greg Pandatshang!

Wikipedia editor Theodore! just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for the new article, which will be very useful given the recent circumstances in Egypt.

To reply, leave a comment on Theodore!'s talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lobsang Sangay again[edit]

Hello, you added the pronunciation [lóbsaŋ séŋɡe] for Lobsang Sangay. In the last syllable for Sangay, the written unconjoined 'g' would usually be expected to be a voiceless [kʰ] or [k] in Lhasa Tibetan. Is it a voiced [ɡ] here because of the preceding velar nasal? I'd like to know if this is a general rule. Does it apply only to homorganic nasals (e.g. 'ng' before 'g', 'm' before 'b', 'n' before 'd' or 'dz')? Or would an unconjoined grade-letter be voiced after any nasal? Or even after other voiced sounds like [r]? I'm also curious about the pronunciation of Norbu (ནོར་བུ་), where the expected pronunciation would be [nòrp(ʰ)u] based on the spelling. Iceager (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also struck by the choice of voiced [b] in [lóbsaŋ]. I would have expected a voiceless [p] based on the descriptions I've seen, since this coda seems to be unreleased and not voiced. I guess it doesn't matter that much since it wouldn't be confused with anything else, but in a pronunciation guide aimed primarily at English speakers [p] may be preferable. Iceager (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your detailed answers! Yes, I realize there are all sorts of difficulties involved in describing Standard Tibetan pronunciation, starting with what is meant by Standard Tibetan—different authors may be describing slightly different varieties (Modern Lhasa, the Central Tibetan lingua franca, etc.). I've already seen that for example some speakers voice the unaspirated low-tone stops and affricates and others don't. I can very well imagine that the various speakers of "Standard Tibetan" would produce several different realizations of the 'g' in Sangay.

It makes sense that distinctions in the manners of articulation for stops and affricates would be at least partly neutralized non-initially, and especially in a voiced environment like this. Still, if it is not an obligatory neutralization, it seems better to have the non-neutralized forms reflected in a pronunciation guide just as the pronunciations for the English words 'latter' and 'ladder' would be transcribed differently although they may be homophonous in some accents. I guess the question is what we should consider the appropriate neutralized or non-neutralized form. The written unconjoined 'g' would be a low-tone aspirated [kʰ] initially, so if it is also possible to produce this for the 'g' in Sangay in a careful pronunciation, [kʰ] would be a natural choice (I think seeing [ɡ] as the underlying form because it would have been the pronunciation in Classical Tibetan might be going too far back). If, however, it is always neutralized (to [ɡ], for example) even in careful pronunciation, then that neutralization should be reflected in our transcription. But it seems the current literature is not detailed enough to resolve this unambiguously.

Kuo-Ming Sung's sample Lhasa Tibetan lessons which can be found at http://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/sungk/ goes into vowel harmony in lesson 4, which includes the raising of [a] to [ə] in the vicinity of high vowels [i, u, y] (Sung uses [ü] for [y]). Also, the suffix 'b' causes the raising of [a] to [ə], e.g. ཁབ [kʰəp]. I'm not sure these differences should count as phonemic. There are other occurrences of [ə] which can't be explained by these rules, for example in the pronunciation given for Lhasa. I think I saw something about [ə] occurring for unstressed [a] in certain contexts, but I don't remember the details and can't find any info on this front. Iceager (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

stod sgar dpon[edit]

Stod sgar dpon(Tibetan: སྟོད་སྒར་དཔོན; THL:tögarpön ) is one of the two commissioners of Tö (the western region of Tibet, China) who supervised the four districts (rdzong,viz.sgar rdzong;ru thog rdzong;rtsa mda' rdzong and Burang ) and the numerous nomad clans of Ngari.(ref_《清史稿》卷一百一十七職官志(/ref)

Good luck. DS (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Xinjiang migration and ad hominem attacks[edit]

As a neutral editor who manages to keep your own political viewpoints out of your editing, I want to consult you about your opinion about the edits I made last year regarding this article. The discussion was illegally closed by User:Seb az86556, against the rules, since he was a participant in the discussion.

Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots

It was regarding information pertaining to this source - which explicitly says that Urumqi originated as a Han and Hui dominated city from the ouset, and didn't have any significant uyghur population or architecture, but some westerners had the misconception that Han immigration wiped out the Uyghur features in the city. The source is from a western professor of history, from a western university press, sbout the history of Xinjiang.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&q=Relatively+recent+feature#v=snippet&q=Relatively%20recent%20feature&f=false

I assume you know the background of Xinjiang and its migration history regarding Dzungharia and the Tarim Basin- that the Uyghurs are natives of the Tarim Basin and are the majority there, and Dzungharia's natives were the Dzunghar Mongols, and the Uyghurs (Taranchi) in Dzungharia are migrants brought in when the Qing conquered Dzungharia and genocided the Dzunghar population. Most Han migration to Xinjiang under the PRC has been to Dzungharia where both Uyghurs and Han colonized the native Dzunghar lands,

Considering that independence movements and struggles for secession [b]do not[/b] require large amounts of the ethnically dominant group to demographically marginalize the minority (in Chechnya, Chechens outnumber Russians, and in Kashmir, Kashmiri Muslims likewise outnumber everyone else), there are plenty of other genuine reasons for Uyghur discontent (state policies carried out in the Tarim Basin, in fact, most Uyghur separatist violence occurs not in Dzungharia or Urumqi, but around Kashgar in the Tarim, with major lack of employment, neglect of the development of the Tarim compared to Dzungharia, the fact that Mandarin is required for most high paying jobs, restrictions on gatherings, etc.).

I checked the talk page archives regarding the mudslinging over the issue of "who was in Xinjiang first" that Seb Az and OhConfucius mentioned. It was about the often repeated trope by Han nationalist chauvinists that since China ruled the Tarim Basin 2,000 years ago during the Han dynasty and also during the Tang dynasty, that Han Chinese were there before Uyghurs moved in from mongolia/siberia.

Forget about the fact that I don't suscribe to that and never made any mention about whether China deserves to rule Xinjiang because it was there before Uyghurs. (According to that logic, Italy should get the entire Europe because of the Roman Empire).

The edits I made referred only to Qing dynasty rule over Xinjiang, regarding the fact that the Qing conquered Dzungaria from the Zunghar Khanate, and opened up Dzungharia to both Uyghur, Han, Manchu, Xibe, and Hui migration. Uyghurs make up the majority of their homeland in the Tarim.

Jim101 immediately started off with a political attack against the PRC about a "migrant problem" and a "Han created city" when my User:Purblio account made no such reference to any politics regarding PRC policies or even whether of Chinese rule in Xinjiang is legitimate. I started reaponding in lind when he began his political attacks. I openly state that I believe that Jim101 has a political bias against the PRC and so does Seb Az, and they are letting it interfere with their editing.

Rajmaan (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)