Talk:Tibet

GA delist

I see this was once a Good Article, then delisted. Why was it delisted? What do we need to do to regain GA status? Bertport (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the archived notice, it was delisted due to lack of inline citations on controversial claims. Since every claim about Tibet is controversial, I suppose the way to get back to GA status is to get a good citation for every sentence. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Republic of China represention of Tibet

it has come to my knowledge that the government of the republic of china had a "Tibet area" which is consiribly smaller than the present day TAR of the people's republic of china. this is due to the fact that Xikang is now been absorbed into neighbouring Tibet and sichaun provinces. so therefore i must advice Wikipedians to change the map of tibet on the top of the article to show the KMT defination of tibet.Antalope (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC) xikang province is rel and tibet is smaller!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.175.78 (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The area ruled from Lhasa in the 1920s and 1930s was approximately the same as Tibet Autonomous Region. Xikang was a province that existed only on maps. The Tibetan name for the region is Kham. Kauffner (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kham / Xikang more or less consisted of a number of Tibetan principalities with their own rulers i.e. not really controlled by the Ganden Phodrang Govenment in Lhasa or by China. - Getting into details of that could be a whole other can of worms. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The eastern part of Khams was ruled by principalities (Derge, etc.) but the western part in the 20s and 30s was ruled from Lhasa, no? Chamdo is in Kham and the Ganden Phodrang would send a zhabpä there as governor-general.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's quite complicated - even the western part of Derge paid tax to Lhasa. Unfortunately most histories of Tibet in Western languages do not pay enough attention to the history of Kham and Amdo. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know of any that deal with that history for more than a few paragraphs. If you could recommend something with a more detailed treatment, it would be much appreciated.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

---

A BBC story below concerning Scotland, England and The United Kingdom, and Andy Murray. A reader also pointed out the terms Holland and The Netherlands. Hopefully this will clarify to the diehards the meaning of China, Tibet and The People's Republic of China. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7604057.stm 81.154.201.191 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what this comment has to do with the comments before it?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. China and Tibet are constituent parts of The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China. Tibet and other parts of China may have had various local rulers or chieftains at various times, but they were still a part of the Greater China. This draws upon the exact parallel of The United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a kingdom, as is England, and Wales is a principality, none of which are independent from each other in terms of sovereignty. Many people here do not or pretend not to understand the position of Tibet relative to China. Tibet is a part of The ROC and The PRC in the same way Scotland is a part of The UK, but it is not a part of England. 81.152.87.111 (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The position of Tibet relative to the ROC seems to be that the ROC has a Comission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. But that is not yet the same as having souvereignty over Mongolia and Tibet, IMHO. Yaan (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The ROC is in reality defunct and exist as Taiwan only. In practice the ROC was succeeded by The PRC. Tibet is a part of The PRC, in the same way that Wales is a part of a polity called The UK. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

tags on leading paragraphs

Someone just added a lot of citation tags to the leading paragraphs. Do we really need citations in the lead? Everything in the lead should be elaborated, with citations provided, in the body of the article. Bertport (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations should be included everywhere there is a statement, including the introduction, and especially on such a contentious article. "Tibet was once an independent kingdom" is a statement, and needs a citation. You can find out how to link to references already given further down the page at WP:Cite, as well as read about Wikipedia's policy requiring citing of challengable material. --Joowwww (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Joowwww: I certainly don't want to start and edit war with you - so I will add a reference as you requested. It does seem to me, however, unnecessary here as I don't think anyone, even the most ardent PRC supporter, would try to argue that Tibet has never been an independent kingdom. This is a completely untenable position considering the many wars between Tibet and China and the fact that at one point Tibet actually captured the Chinese capital of Chang'an. Anyway - enough time wasted on this - please see the reference I have added. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was or it wasn't, I only requested a reference on a statement. --Joowwww (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tibet/ Tibetans captured Chang'an. The Chinese/ Han Chinese captured Lhasa. Just like Scotland and England were once always fighting each other (and in some ways still do), the Tibetans and Han Chinese also fought. And just like Scotland and England are now parts of one country called The United Kingdom, so are Tibet and Han China now parts of one country called The People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.167 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tibet under The People's Republic of China

{{editsemiprotected}} This sentence: "Chinese sources claim rapid progress for prosperous, free, and happy Tibetans participating in democratic reforms, although nothing like a free and open election has ever occurred in Tibet under Chinese rule.

is biased in its wording. To take the point further, some people may not consider the American electoral system completely free and open considering that the president is elected by electoral college rather than directly by the voters. It should be changed to something like this:

"Although Chinese sources present rapid progress for prosperous, free, and happy Tibetans participating in democratic reforms (find a reference), these claims are highly disputed by Tibetans themselves (source 53)."

Do you mean by some Tibetans or by all Tibetans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.102.52 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording accurately characterizes the content of the source cited. Bertport (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording may accurately characterize the content of the source, but the point of the article is not to present a single source as the final word on a subject. If the sentence is to be left alone it needs to be made clear that the entire wording is paraphrased from that single source. Goldste7 05:26, 9 August 2008 (EST)

I've removed the editsemiprotected template as there doesn't seem to be consensus to make the change at this time. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

In the name section, the article states:

"PRC scholars favor the theory that "Tibet" is derived from tǔbō."

This sentence contains many implications, assumptions and may not necessarily be true. Could someone please change it to

"Some scholars favor the theory that "Tibet" is derived from tǔbō."

? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.195.218 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying the source of a theory or claim is the key to neutrality. If anything, the sentence should be more specific, rather than less. "Some scholars" is what we call a weasel word. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grunfeld as "Unreliable Source"?

I deleted the unreliable source next to the quotation from A. Tom Grunfeld's The Making of Modern Tibet. Grunfeld certainly isn't unreliable. The NY Council of Humanities describes him here: "A. Tom Grunfeld is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at Empire State College of the State University of New York. He is a historian who specializes in the teaching of modern East Asian history with an emphasis on China and Tibet. He has been traveling and living in that region since 1966. He has published several books and over 150 articles and book reviews including The Making of Modern Tibet. He has lectured and presented papers at academic conferences in numerous countries around the world." I think that means he's pretty established. And after checking Google Books, the page number is correct, and the passage is identical. I really don't know why someone tagged him as unreliable. If we start politicizing citations, we've kind of lost the war. If someone would like to challenge this, I'd be more than happy to discuss it rationally. There's so much disinformation about Tibet that scholarship is really are only hope. Let's not ruin that. Icetitan17 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd describe what Grunfeld does as a clever imitation of scholarship. I once looked up about 30 of his citations at random. I found that about 50 percent of time, he seriously misrepresented his source. His version almost always makes China look better and Tibet look worse, compared to what his "source" says. The guy gets fawning coverage in the Chinese media, so the communists seem to be in on whatever it is he's doing. Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial to find citations from notable experts saying that Grunfeld is unreliable. Can't we find some other source to include in the article instead of Grunfeld?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner you seem to be making a lot of conjectures without offering much in the way of proof. Grunfeld's book is not self-published, nor is he an acknowledged fringe source. He doesn't seem to violate any of the criteria on the Reliable Sources page, so it would seem that any conclusions drawn upon the merit of Grunfeld's scholarship are based on original research. It seems to me that in order to present a Neutral Point of View in the article, China's side of the Tibetan argument must be argued as well as the Tibetan side. If anyone feels that Grunfeld's conclusions are biased or a secret communist conspiracy (as you seem to imply), then find a source to counter the argument. We can't choose to ignore a source simply because we don't like what it says. Icetitan17 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone ought to object to including Grunfeld as an example of a particular POV. The question is (or should be) whether he is a reliable source of facts. The section of the article in question in this case has bigger problems than that, which I had been meaning to bring up on the talk page.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede my position on Grunfeld. I finally found a Historiographical study of Tibetan/Chinese modern propaganda, and Grunfeld is listed as one of the main offenders. I'm not exactly sure how to include this without making it seem like we're singling out Grunfeld. Any ideas? Icetitan17 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Powers 2004, pp. 8-12 discusses Grunfeld's strengths and weaknesses, who supports his work or objects to it and why. Throughout the rest of the book, Powers calls out specific fallacies in Grunfeld's work. This is briefly summarized in Serfdom in Tibet controversy. Basically, he's a Sinologist who has accepted the Chinese point of view and consistently ignores or rejects Tibetan sources, and has extended his publishing to include Tibetan topics, without having the same level of relevant expertise as a Tibetologist. I would qualify any Grunfeld citations in a Tibet-related topic with something like "according to Sinologist Tom Grunfeld..." He is significant as a western scholar who supports, pretty much without reservation, the Chinese point of view. Bertport (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution to me. Icetitan17 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Forced sterilization and other abuses

• There was a 2002 UN report on the forced sterilization, forced abortions and monitoring of menstrual cycles of ethnic Tibetans, despite China's claims that the One Child policy doesn't apply in Tibet.

• Business cannot legally be conducted in Tibetan, putting ethnic Tibetans at a disadvantage.

• Flooding of homes for hydro electricity without warning citizens.

• Security officers interrogate monks regularly, and arrest anyone found with writing of the dalai lama.

• Citizens are be given 3 years of imprisonment for having a "Free Tibet" booklet.

These are some of the things that are well documented and aren't currently mentioned in the article under the human rights abuses.

Channel 4 interviews of Tibetans on these issues: Undercover in Tibet

These issues are still not mentioned in the article. Does anyone have some other good sources? Of course it is difficult when the Tibetan people are literally risking their lives by talking about the issues. —Pengo 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very easy to document that these claims are made by pro-Tibet groups. Due to the nature of the press in PRC territories though, it's difficult to get sources about human rights violations that would be considered reliable by all parties here. Phayul is one such news site; I know at least one other English-language Tibetan newspaper, but its name has slipped my mind. The United Nations has published several other reports on the Tibet situation, as has the US Department of State. Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch all publish reports, as do various Tibet independence organizations, but, again, these sources will be vigorously disputed.

With respect to reproductive issues, I was unable to find the UN report you mentioned with a preliminary search; if you could give any more details it might be easier to find. Gimme danger (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it is supposed to be 'undercover', it is impossible to verify whether the claims are true or otherwise. And given all the problems with the honesty of UK made television programmes (both BBC and independents) recently, it will be below Wiki standards to include in article. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we can do better than a television program, given the amount of literature that's been written on human rights in Tibet. Each of the claims Pengo mentions have been documented elsewhere.Gimme danger (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Where? 81.159.82.167 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Google "forced sterilization" and Tibet together. Numerous organizations that even you might find credible have covered the issue. I might dig through the sources at some point for Wikipedia, but, frankly, it makes me nauseated. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But where is there a neutral source? There are likely reports to say lamas used fetuses for religious ceremonies, but should we presume they are true? 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you consider a neutral source? --Gimme danger (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A neutral source is a source that has traceabliity, proof, credibility and reproduceability. This would exclude the lamaist propaganda machinery, which churns out pulp fiction to win audience and, more importantly, money donations to live on. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you, for example, consider scholarly journals a neutral source? Would you consider the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch part of the "lamaist propaganda machine"? Are all advocacy groups a priori propaganda groups to you? Are interviews with survivors in exile considered propaganda? I'd like to get a good idea of everything that you are going to reject before I invest time in collecting resources. Gimme danger (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are TV specials not considered conducted by the BBC not considered reliable or verifiable for Wikipedia purposes? If not, that seems shocking to me. They're no much less susceptible to one person's bias than an article would be just because of the number of people associated with the project.LedRush (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The TV programme quoted is from UK Channel 4 and not BBC. If you follow UK news, you will know that recently both the BBC and the commercials have come in for big criticism for misleading viewers and dishonesty over phone-in competitions. Gimme danger is claiming facts and information, but has failed to produce them. If he feels nauseated he should take some sickness pills. Some people might feel nauseated watching horror films, but it doesn't make the content of these films real, except that it is real in the films. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading

Could the folks who are able to edit Further Reading please decide whether Tibet and the United States of America: An Annotated Chronology of Relations Since 1900 is appropriate as a new link under that section. Though my guide was originally supported in the early 1990s as an educational effort at lobbying Congress on MFN status for China, I have since created this web edition for the public at large. Thank you. Krherold (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecology

I'd like to see a section on the ecology of the region - biodiversity, climate (monsoon) and so on... but I know next to nothing about them. However, Tibet keeps cropping up in stuff I read about environmental issues and on TV programs about monsoons and so on. I'd like to understand why. So I'm hoping there's someone who could start such a section? Dakinijones (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

spelling mistake

under the section independence proclaimed privileges is spelt wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent kingdom

At the opening of the article, it is stated "Tibet was once an independent kingdom". Could it clarified that Tibet had ceased to be a kingdom for many centuries? 86.157.235.243 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that phrase is in the introduction, so it's probably better not to go into much detail.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The time range when Tibet was once an independent kingom is not stated anywhere else in the article. Since it was mentioned in the intro, it might as well carry the date ranges, since this could not be found later in the article. Tibet had ceased to be a kingdom for several centuries. 81.155.103.28 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should clarify that later in the article. The fact that it was a kingdom and that stopped being one is not very relevant to the intro. Or, maybe we should simply say "an independent state" in the intro, and not mention kingdoms..—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mention "kingdom", then you are denying that Tibet had kings. Every place on earth was once "an independent state", especially before the arrival of the human race. Given that it was stated in the intro that Tibet was once an independent kingdom, it would improve the article by stating the dates when Tibet was an independent kingdom. 86.155.215.91 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But where the problem lies is that no one really even knows how to define Tibet. I agree with specifying dates there. Colipon+(T) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be true, but surely the Tibetans are able to identify who their kings were, even if they cannot define Tibet.81.155.97.59 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

??? What ambiguity is there in the fact that the Yarlung kings (starting with Songtsän Gampo) ruled a kingdom in what is now the Tibet Autonomous Region? They certainly weren't part of the Tang Dynasty's empire, although they sometimes paid tribute to the Chinese (when the two weren't at war, which occurred often before the treaty signed in 821 AD).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So what. There wasn't a place called 'England' 1600 years ago, but there is certainly one now. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to dates, Langdarma (r. 838–841) is considered the last great secular king of a unified Tibetan kingdom. I say "secular" because the independent and unified Tibetan kingdom of the 17th century was not ruled solely by Güshi Khan, but largely by the Dalai Lama himself in a theocratic fashion.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tibet has not been a kingdom for hundreds of years. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

An excerpt from the introduction says:

A unified Tibet first came into being under Songtsän Gampo in the seventh century. From the early 1600s until the 1959 uprising, the Dalai Lamas (Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leaders) were, at least nominally,[2] heads of a centralised Tibetan administration, with political power to administer religious and administrative authority[2] over large parts of Tibet from the traditional capital Lhasa. They are believed to be the emanations of Avalokiteśvara (Tibetan:spyan ras gzigs, or 'Chenrezig'), the bodhisattva of compassion.[3]

I think this paragraph makes select emphasis on certain facts and is, whether by intention or not, not fully inclusive of Tibetan history. For example, it is without a doubt that Tibet was at least suzerain to the Qing Government, and the Dalai Lama, at one point, must be confirmed by the Qing government. You can debate whether this meant subordination, whether this meant sovereignty, or whether this was simply the political convention at the time, you can even debate whether the Qing government was truly "Chinese" in the politically-correct sense (as opposed to being "Manchu"). But you cannot debate that this was an important part of Tibetan history that is ommitted from the opening paragraph, perhaps to lessen its emphasis, or to subtly provide for the POV-inclined case of Tibetan self-determination. Colipon+(T) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it seems strange to mention the Dalai Lama's rule of Tibet without mentioning its place in the Chinese empire. Still, the trouble is, I'm not sure quite what to say about it. The fact that the Dalai Lama and his government ruled (the largest portion of) Tibet from 1642 until 1959 is disputed by no one. No one disputes, either, that it had some kind of relationship with China for most of that time. Unfortunately, there are a lot of disputes about the nature of that relationship, when it began, and whether and when it ended. This being the intro, we can't go into too much detail. What to say?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you go further down the article says there is little doubt Tibet was under "subordination" of the Manchu Qing for most of that period. The Qing government even provided Tibet with a military, very much analogous to what the PRC is doing with its PLA garrison in Hong Kong. This is not to mention that there is little doubt the Tibetan rulers paid tribute to Qing Emperors. If Tibet was independent for this entire time, even nominally, as the opening paragraph seems to imply, then why would Tibet feel the need to declare its independence when the ROC formed in 1912? "Not going into detail" is hardly enough justification to leave the opening paragraph as a misleading piece of information for the average reader, whose views have probably already been shaped by the common western media criticisms of most if not all of the Chinese government's policies. More importantly, it runs counter to the NPOV spirit of Wikipedia. Can I be bold and edit it to something more factual like "during that time period the Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Tibet, but it was subordinate to the Manchu Qing government"? (of course, I will work on the wording with strict NPOV) Or will that receive a flurry of reverts and be seen as Chinese propaganda? Colipon+(T) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't mean to suggest that we should leave the wording the way it is. I'm just not sure what to change it to. Trying to say things in a concise way often seems to be in tension with being both clear and accurate. For example, saying "during that time period the Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Tibet, but it was subordinate to the Manchu Qing government" is not inaccurate, but it makes the first clause vague: the sentence as originally written meant (I believe) that the Dalai Lama himself did not personally rule, but his ministers ruled in his name (which is true: the 6th through 12th Dalai Lamas had very little political power); the new sentence might mean that the Dalai Lama did not personally rule, but the Qing did. Also, it would be better to say "China", rather than "Manchu Qing", since many readers will not know what a Manchu or a Qing is. However, saying "China" gets to be slightly controversial. I suggest "Chinese empire"—I don't think that should be too disagreeable to very many people (as long as we are talking about the post-Yuan period, which we are). Even that is potentially a problem, though, since "Chinese empire" ends in 1912, but, according to some views, Tibet's subordination to China continues.

FYI, the Tibetan "declaration of independence" in 1912 does not declare that Tibet thereby becomes independent; it declares that Tibet is independent, with the strong implication that it has been independent all along. Quoting the translation given by Goldstein, "I [the Dalai Lama] ... [was] hoping to to clarify to the Manchu Emperor ... that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been one of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very POV interpretation by Nat Krause. There was no Tibetan "declaration of independence", as Tibetan people were never asked. There was some kind of statement from the then dalai lama, which was made without the consensus of the Tibetan people. 81.155.103.167 (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your second paragraph, I agree with you. But the very fact that this clarification was required, at least at the beginning of the ROC regime in China, is enough to suggest that the relationship had been very vaguely defined previously, and it seems implicit that Tibet was, at least at one point in time, subordinate to the Manchu Emperor. And in regards to the first paragraph of your comment, I think you are right in the sense that regardless of how to put it, this is a delicate issue that will generate controversy.

I propose: The Dalai Lama, a religious figure believed to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara, nominally ruled Tibet for [the stated period], while actual power resided with his ministers or advisers. During the Qing Dynasty, the Tibetan administration was subordinate to the Chinese Empire, with its military and foreign affairs subject to some degree of control from Beijing. This status was declared nullified in 1912 by the Dalai Lama at the time.

Of course this is only a working proposal, please tell me your thoughts. Colipon+(T) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a more minimal approach: The government of the Dalai Lamas, a line of Tibetan spiritual leaders, ruled the largest Tibetan region from the 1640s until its incorporation into the PRC in the 1950s. During most of this period, the Tibetan administration was subordinate to the Chinese empire of the Qing Dynasty. I think that it is unnecessary to add in the intro that the Dalai Lama is seen as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, especially since he is not the only Tibetan lama seen as such, so it is not a defining characteristic. It is also not entirely accurate to say that actual power resided with the Dalai Lamas ministers, since the 5th and the 13th Dalai Lamas lived for a fairly long time and had a lot of personal power. As for military and foreign affairs being subject to some control, this is no doubt true, but I'm not sure that it is accurate to single out these particular areas. Tibet did have an independent military during this time; on the other hand, the empire did involve itself in domestic and religious affairs at times. I don't think it is necessary to describe the nature of the subordination in the intro.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what you say makes sense. My only concern now is the Dalai Lama not always having the highest authority on the land. It is no doubt true that some Dalai Lamas were figureheads who only performed religious rituals and had little to do with domestic affairs. The minimal approach seems to imply that the Dalai Lama was ruling for this entire time. Also, should we mention the Panchen Lama as well? Colipon+(T) 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to hedge on implying that the Dalai Lama was actually in charge by saying "the government of the Dalai Lama". Certainly, the defining characteristic of this government—the one thing they all agreed on—is that they were ruling in the name of the Dalai Lama, even if he was really a figurehead. As for the Panchen Lama, I think that goes into a little too much detail, although the Panchen Lamas and their team were apparently one of the most important vassals of Lhasa during this period. If we are going to go into more detail, I think it would be better to mention one or more of the eastern Tibetan rulers independent of Lhasa, such as the king of Derge.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"I [the Dalai Lama] ... [was] hoping to to clarify to the Manchu Emperor ... that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been one of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."— The patron-and-priest relation simply meant the Chinese gave employment to a large number of tibetans, and the dl hoped the Emperor would not make these tibetan priests redundant, as this would cause the tibetans hardship.

There is no historical evidence that Dalai Lamas ruled Tibet, as there was never any suggestion that Tibet was a lamadom. The Dalai Lamas were spiritual rulers and not temporal rulers. Temporal rule in tibet was subordinate to the Chinese Emperor. 81.155.103.28 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Dalai Lamas were indeed the temporal rulers in Tibet for hundreds of years. This was recognised by the Manchu rulers who, ". . . formally recognized and even proclaimed the Dalai Lama as the sole temporal sovereign authority in Tibet." From: Tibetan Marches. André Migot. Translated from the French by Peter Fleming, p. 90. (1955). E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc. New York. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Manchu rulers made such a proclamation, then why would the Qing Emporers maintain that Tibet was a part of their empire? Given the dalai lamas were spiritual rulers, how would they be able to carry out efficient temporal rule? Or was it a political ploy by the Qing court to ensure Tibet had no effective temporal ruler, so that ultimately Tibet was controlled by the powers in Beijing? Alternatively the claims in "Tibetan Marches" were untrue. 86.155.215.91 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure one could find many examples where one set of rulers made territorial claims which then later rulers disagreed with, across many different countries and time periods. In other words, it does not follow that if one ruler makes a claim that others many years later would necessarily make the same claim. Then to your question of how could a spiritual leader also hold an efficient temporal rule, I'm not sure how to answer that. I haven't tried to be both myself, so I don't know. Perhaps ask the Dalai Lama how it worked for him? - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But he said it after the overthrow of the Qing. Why didn't he say it to the Qing emperor of his time? Was he afraid that since he was the emperor's subject, any such comment could result in his head being removed? 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But the present Dalai Lama does not rule Tibet and never have done, so he would not know. He also stated his position, which is that he does not want independence but autonomy for Tibet within The PRC. The trouble is Western countries are egging on a few Tibetans to be suicidal, for their own political gains. Just look at what has happened to Georgia recently. 81.155.103.167 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay can someone respond to my proposal? Colipon+(T) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tags

I see several sections have been marked with {{pov}} since April/May 2008. Is there any active discussion going on yet? If not, the tags should be removed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New article at Sinicization of Tibet

It seems a new user has decided to create a new POV fork at article Sinicization of Tibet. Compared to the information given on this page, the article is decidedly NPOV, and cites only pro-Tibetan sources, and contains some factual inaccuracies as well that I noted on the talk page, which have been ignored. Editors interested in helping create a more balanced and NPOV treatment please take a look. --67.101.34.54 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is not pro-Tibetan; it is pro-lamaist or anti-PRC, but this does not mean that it is pro-Tibet. The PRC Government is pro-Tibet. One of the things about being pro-Tibet is putting in actions to improve the living standards of Tibetans. The PRC Government is doing just that, whereas the pro-lamaists want Tibetans to return to the bad old days of slavery to serve the lamas. The pro-lamaists are anything but pro-Tibet, they are only pro-themselves. 81.155.103.167 (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For this purpose, "pro-Tibetan" is short for "pro-Tibetan independence/autonomy". Please use talk pages for discussion regarding articles and improving Wikipedia. --Gimme danger (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-lamaist is therefore a more appropriate term as it does not need to be shortened. 81.155.97.59 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a totally inappropriate term - "lamaism" (and, therefore "lamaist") are not only vague and imprecise terms, but are now considered derogatory. See the article Lama for the reasons why. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lamaist and lamaism are two different things, and don't forget there is also pro- in front which changes the context and meaning. There is no implication that a lamaist follows any particular religious belief. The term pro-lamaist is more precise than pro-tibet as the term, according to Gimme danger, is a shortened version which is used in a totally different context. The term pro-Tibet means pro as in, for the betterment of Tibet. There is no evidence the pro-lamaists have put into action plans which will make Tibet a better place, but rather they simply want power to revert Tibet to the form in the olden days, including using violent means as seen earlier this year. I propose to improve the article by making the meaning of this term clear, either by using the full term as stated by Gimme danger, or to change it pro-lamaist. 81.155.97.59 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-lamaist" is derived from "lamaist" and as such is still a derogatory slur. Like all derogatory slurs, it signals the hostility and ignorance of the person using it. Bertport (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lamaist is not a derogatory slur at all. Lama is the respectful title of a religious teacher in Tibetan. According to the Dalai Lama, it corresponds precisely to the Indian word guru, which is well known in English. Of course the word guru is also used to mean an unscrupulous person or a con-man in English, which is consider a slur. So if guru is a slur, does it also mean the word lama is also a slur, and so be banned? Lama also corresponds to the Jewish term rabbi, which is made into the English adjective rabbinical. Another well known similar term in English is pro-Ayatollah, which was used in the English language press for events in and after The Iranian Revolution. None of these were deemed derogatory. Also the term Dalai Lama corresponds to the English naming convention of fore-name followed by surname, so that Lama takes on the role of the English surname. In such circumstances -ist is often added to the end of the name, eg, Marx to Marxist, so lama becomes lamaist. There is nothing derogatory about it. The term pro-Tibet means for the the betterment of Tibet, and this is clearly not the intended meaning of the term here, as pointed out by Gimme danger above. Thus it would improve the article and in its discussions here to use another term such as pro-lamaist instead of pro-Tibet to avoid ambiguity. I can of course understand that one does not want the word lama to mean a con-man as with the word guru; but the derivation of lamaist from the word lama by established grammatical rules cannot be regarded as derogatory in any way, but of course the word lama may follow the word guru in becoming a slur. 81.155.97.59 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

cf papist. Yaan (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But that is not derived from Pope. 81.152.87.111 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"The word, dating from A.D. 1534, derives via Middle French from Latin papa, meaning "Pope"." Yaan (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Papa in the Latin languages mean 'father'. Pope does not strike an immediate meaning of father in English. There is no comparision between the words 'lamaist' and 'papist'. Lama is a respectful term, and is not shortened in 'lamaist'. Papa is a respectful term and the offending word 'papist' has the full second syllable removed. Creating a word such as 'papaist' sounds a lot less offensive then 'papist'. The corresponding offensive term from the word lama would be 'lamist' not 'lamaist'. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Those of us familiar with the English language knows that to make an insulting word from a proper word often involves shortening the proper word. For example, a Chink from a Chinese. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Remind me why this discussion is appropriate for the talk page of this article please. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. The discussion page is used to discuss improvements to the article. I believe the term pro-Tibet is ambiguous and it has been confirmed that it does not mean for the betterment of Tibet. I believe it would improve the article if the real meaning of pro-Tibet used here is changed to pro-lamaist. That is it means for the betterment of the lamaists and not Tibet. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion aside from your opinion? --Gimme danger (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "lamaist" is considered to be offensive. It has nothing to do with whether it is shortened or not. I'm not sure that "pro-lamaist" would necessarily be considered offensive, but I doubt anyone would ever describe themselves that way. "Free Tibet" activists describe themselves as supporting the Tibetan people in general, not just lamas.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nat, please see the definition of pro-Tibet as given by Gimme danger above. The term lamaist is no more offensive than a term such as marxist. The term used in this debate is 'pro-Tibet' and not 'Free Tibet'. Let's face it Nat, the Tibetan people were never very free under the Dalai Lamas. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that "pro-lamaist" is offensive, I'm just arguing against using it in the article because it is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because most of the people it would describe apparently do not see themselves as supporting lamas in particular.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So you did not. I take it that you accept pro-lamaist is not offensive. The point you raised is exactly the point I raised, and that is The PRC Government and its people also support the Tibetan people in general. So what does pro-Tibet actually mean? The meaning used here was explained by Gimme danger. So it would appear pro-Tibet can be two opposite things, thus the term needed to be avoided or to be changed to clarify its exact meaning. I do not think the so called 'Free Tibet' lot are pro-Tibet in the sense that they are pro-PRC Government. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since "pro-lamaist" is not a standard term, it is likely to be misunderstood as a reference to "lamaist", which is offensive. Assuming that it is understood correctly, it would probably not be offensive if it were accurately applied—applied to someone whose main motivation is supporting lamas. However, the simpler term "pro-lama" would preferred in that case. The term "pro-Tibet" is a bit like "pro-choice" and "pro-life"—it could be taken to mean that the other side is anti-Tibet. Generally, since "pro-Tibet" is also not a completely accepted expression, I think it would be generally better to avoid it, although I'm not sure what the best alternative would be. Anyway, I just noticed that no major articles on Wikipedia are using this phrase. So, problem solved!—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In English, shortening a term is often used as a method of poking fun. Thus papist from papa. The word Islamist is now often used, and it is not considered offensive. The term lamaist is not itself offensive, and is only considered offensive by some lamaists who use it to start secondary arguments completely unrelated to the original. Lama, lamaist, pro-lama and pro-lamaist are totally different in meaning. A comparison is that of Marx, marxist, pro-Marx and pro-marxist. A marxist claims to be a follower of Marx' ideas and ideals, a pro-marxist is someone who has a leaning towards a marxist without necessarily being a marxist. The pro-lamaists do not even necessarily follow the teachings of the lamas, they simply believe their actions are for the benefit of lamaists. Thus the term pro-Tibet used here really means pro-lamaist. I agree with Nat that the term pro-Tibet not be used, as it is unclear, thus making its clarification to pro-lamaist unnecessary. 81.155.102.122 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that in the article "International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest", the term pro-Tibet was used. Perhaps Nat Krause could edit this to more appropriate, acceptable and accurate terminology. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Tibetan Plateau

the "whole picture" with annotations.

The picture featuring the caption "Tibetan plateau" shows not much tibet at all. It's edited from the picture on the right and shows the south- respectively west-faces of Cho Oyu and Lhotse (/Nuptse). These walls fall towards Nepal, the landscape "left" (in the picture) of these walls is entirely Nepal, so the cutting is not chosen well. I think the picture should be replaced.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

done--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)