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)

I don't think it is realy ture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.2.166 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2009 (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)

The Khampas seem to have a different identity even though they are classified as Tibetans. They say they "go to Tibet" when they travel to Lhasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.237.194 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (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

Written Ministerial Statement on Tibet (29/10/2008) by British Foreign and Commonwealth Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=8299838

Should be pointed out British Government's recent change of standing on Tibet issue:

"Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuC.V (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

A neutral source does not exclude or include any particular group. All it has to be are: traceability, proof, credibility and reproduceability. Since you are making a claim, then please provide neutral sources. Put it in a simpler way perhaps even you can understand. If an Asian or African group were to put forward a report on the cruelity of Europeans or White people towards other races and even to their own race would the West take a blind bit of notice? I think not. If one were to report that the English destroyed the language of their cousins the Irish, so much so that in Eire, the majority of its population did not understand Irish, would the West say what a bad lot the English are and order punishment upon the English? Then what about the USA, the French, The Dutch, the Belgians, the list goes on and on and on. Now just for comparison, could you come up with neutral evidence that the Chinese or even the Hans treat the Tibetans worse than say the English treated the Irish, or the White American's treatment of Native and African Americans, or the White Australian treatment of Aboriginal Australians? I think you will find that the Chinese and the Hans treat Tibetans far better than White people's treatment of other peoples and each other. The Chinese treat the Tibetan Chinese not simply as equals but as more than equals. I very much doubt the aim of White people is to help Tibetans to preserve their culture. Before you know it White people will be wanting to convert Tibetans to Christianity and tell them their religion is just a part of the devil's plan. 81.154.204.122 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am just not up to your level of reasoning, but I don't think I understand what your ramblings about Irish, Africans, Christianity etc. (basically everything after "Put it in a simpler way perhaps even you can understand") have to do with the reliability (or "neutrality") of sources. In any case, I think the important points are covered at WP:RS. Yaan (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are not up to it. Gimme danger is making or trying to make a point, namely forced sterilisation and other abuses but has not backed it up with anything. He is simply repeating pro-lamaist propaganda. Why does he not go and examine all the abuses White people impose on others as a matter of policy, like forced sterilisation on Gypsies and other races? There is no policy in The PRC to abuse Tibetans, rather Tibetans are treated above the Han Chinese as a matter of policy. White people in the West are making false claims as a smoke-screen for their own policies of abuse, for example the UK's ex-government minister Kenneth Baker even claimed that the Chinese are destroying the Tibetan language. How ridiculous!!!81.154.204.122 (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't I examine all these myriad abuses? I have. These have nothing to do with anything that is up for discussion on this talk page though. As I've advised you before, if you'd simply like to spout off about your views on Tibet, China and the evils of the West, you're quite welcome to do so on your own time in your own corner of cyberspace. Here, however, we are writing an encyclopedia and are not interested in your personal opinion in the slightest.

With regards to the topic at hand, I will now spend 10 minutes gathering sources for claims of forced sterilization. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• [5]
• [6]
• Opposing view from Melvyn Goldstein
• [7]

Enjoy. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The above references link to the lamaist propaganda pages. Why don't you check for yourself. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear from your indentation what you are referring to. Are you referring to the original references from BBC posted on 11 August or the four scholarly articles that I posted on 11 November. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What reference from BBC posted on 11 Aug? It was Channel 4 and not BBC. The references you posted were not scholarly (meaning proper peer reviewed) but works of pro-lamaist propaganda. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Melvyn Goldstein's work was pro-lamaist propaganda? That the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law is the Dalai Lama's secret US propaganda fount? Remember "peer-reviewed" is not short hand for "agrees with me". I'll grant that the first link wasn't peer reviewed and that the fourth wasn't properly vetted. Is there any source that you would accept for any negative information regarding human rights in Tibet? --Gimme danger (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008

(UTC)

First of all you have not answered what and where is the BBC reference? Secondly of course I accept negative information regarding human rights in Tibet, for example I accept all the information about abuses dished out by the dalai lama and his cronies on the Tibetan people. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you payed by the Chinese goverment to wach articles on Tibet? Don't you dare reverting this edit, gimme. You are everywhere where there are Tibetan articles. But if someone would examine your edits it would reveal that you are against Tibetans, you just hide behind a neutrality mask. And one more thing. Wikipedia:Lead section The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. And you are biting the newbies, see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers to scare them away or keeping them away from editing about the Tibetan controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.150.227 (talk) 19:33, 14 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 mistakes

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)

In the first section, the phrase 'The statues of Tibet is dispute' should read 'The status of Tibet is disputed'

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)

Bear in mind that there had been no Tibetan king for more than 600 years. Many Tibetan nobels living in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces were chartered by emperors ever since Ming dynasity.

And Dalai Lama's, their power was once supported by mongol soldiers, and then by the emperors. They had no chance to act as a king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanglu115 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then this piece of information should be added to the article as that would make an improvement. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 22:55, 25 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)

The 'declaration' was made after the Manchu Empire became moribund, so yes the content is true. However, it is equivalent to saying that Sun Yat-sen declared that the ROC is independent from the Qing Dynasty or the Manchu Emperor. Of course every part of China was independent of the Qing Emperor, because after the Revolution the remaining Emperor (Pu-Yi) existed only as a puppet and had no control of any part of China, including Tibet. 81.156.180.208 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2009 (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)

Could someone actually put down exactly what that dl said because in the time of the Qing there was no such a country 'China', there was 'The Great Qing Empire'. 86.147.244.1 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 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)

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)

There is no possibilty whatsover that Dhaulagiri is visible in this image. I have again removed it from the Eight-thousander. See File_talk:Flight_over_himalaya_annotated.jpg. Viewfinder (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is now labelled correctly.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Objection against Redirect "Roof of the World" to "Tibet"

I object against the redirection of "Roof of the World" to "Tibet".
Before Tibet got into the limelight, the term "Roof of the World" was applied to the Pamirs,
see: Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th ed., 1911): "PAMIRS, a mountainous region of central Asia...the Bam-i-dunya ("The Roof of the World")
or The Columbia Encyclopedia,1942 ed., p.1335: "Pamir (Persian =roof of the world)"
- see also homepages of the Pamir area: "the Pamirs, a region they know as POMIR – “the roof of the world". Explanation added in the entry --Marschner (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Be bold and fix it. Yaan (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake Johnson8776 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sport

Nothing here about sport in the culture section, presumably there is some. There is an article called Tibet national football team which i've added to the see also section. extraordinary (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion re. quality of article

(section header added by Yaan (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

The Tibet should be re-written. The point of view is strongly biased. And finally, Tibetan-in-exiles, you can only tell lies.

Your last statement takes away credibility from your claim. I have found no "weasle words" and systemic bias and am removing the bias flag. I welcome any SPECIFIC criticism of statements or labels used, but until then.. Cuvtixo (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody add the history of conflicts with Dzungars in this article?

I see the wiki article Dzungars and find a section named "Conflicts with Tibet". Could anybody fulfill this history for Tibetan artical? The Emporer Kangxi made his efforts to stabilize Tibet. It is so much important because regulations were settled down afterwards to ensure the court's impact on Tibet and DaLai and Panchen Lamas.
And the 6th DaLai Lama, who was famous and quite controversial in the history, also lived in that period of turbulance. He wrote quite a lot of love poems, which are still popular in the folk songs. By the way this DaiLai Lama were born in India-seized Arunachal. Wanglu115 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Dzungars had any conflict with Tibet. Their conflict was with the Hoshud under Lobzang Khan. I actually had written something about these conflicts previously, but I think this has now been moved to the History of Tibet article. Yaan (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kekexili

This movie was not made by National Geographic. It was made by Chinese director Lu Chuan (陆川) and funded by "much corporate support, being funded in majority by Columbia Pictures, Warner Bros. and Canon." in addition to National Geographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.226.7 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Central or East Asia?

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on with regards to if Tibet should be considered Central or East Asia, but no discussion here. It would really help if people express their opinions here, so we can clarify the matter. Myself I do think that Tibet should be considered part of Central, as it shares much more with Central Asian regions geographically, and culturally. The only objection I can see against it is that Tibet is now a part of the Peoples Republic of China, and the PRC is normally considered an East Asian country. I think this is a week argument because it suggests that the PRC is homogeneous, and does not straddle any geographic divides. Tibet has more in common with Mongolia than with East cost China. In the case of Xinjiang it is even more clear. Crossing the border into Kazakhstan makes way less little difference culturally or geographically or linguistically than taking the long train ride to Beijing. Both Xinjiang and Tibet are part of the PRC, and part of Central Asia.--Keithonearth (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the way I see things China is considered East Asia and Tibet lies under chinese rule. But if you look at the geography Tibet would seem to lie pretty much dead center if not in western Asia. But thats just my two cents. --IvanTortuga (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, this could be the question of the century! Apparently, the debate has been going on for hundreds of years; it is an honor for us to play a role also. With Europe a distinct continent as it is recognized today, Tibet surely looks central to me. Because of the curvature of the Earth and the lay of the land, you have to go southwest to northeast to find the center axis line, especially because of how the islands are sited. The main problem seems to be two-fold: 1. China controls the territory, so there is the political map issue and 2. the accepted Asia maps on Wikipedia point to East Asia as well; take a good look at the maps on that article. There appears to be much debate on that article too, but according to the notes on that edit box, the UN calls Tibet East Asia. I can see why each of you perceive it differently. Why not a compromise: "Tibet is politically part of East Asia, since it is under the rule of China; although, the Tibetan land itself lays on the Central axis of the Asian Continent." The only alternative for it to be one or the other, would be to either convince the UN that Tibet is Central Asia and correct the maps or physically move the territory to the east somehow. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One other way to get around this is to say that "Tibet is located in East Eurasia." ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of you sound like we get to make this up off the top of our heads. Central Asia and East Asia are terms with established usage. Both Central Asia and East Asia articles identify Tibet as being in Central Asia. My Rand McNally Illustrated Atlas of the World puts Tibet on the South and Central (not East) Asia map. I just checked two maps of Southeast Asia, and they both include part of China. Are we, then, going to say that Beijing is in Southeast Asia? Of course not. Russia extends to East Asia -- are we, then, going to say that Moscow is in East Asia? Of course not. This is the silly logic that Ptr123 is using to argue for Tibet being in East Asia. Bertport (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ptr123, please stop editing the article with controversial material until the issue is resolved on here on talk. We need to build consensus on Wikipedia. Also, we should be a good example to other editors and everyone who reads the article by avoiding edit wars. After reading the articles East Asia and Central Asia again, I still see a duality there. Just because China took over the region, that does not change where Tibet is located. I call for a vote to resolve the issue; I vote that Tibet is located in Central Asia. This encyclopedia looks at the long-term picture; the UN and China can catch up to Wikipedia. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please Ptr123, please discuss your point here, editing without discussing it is of no help at all. I think you may have some validity to your point, and maybe we should try to some compromise, but I can't be bothered to do that if you don't discuss it. While I do appreciate that you have be providing some points in your edit summary sometimes, that ends up getting fragmented and lost among all the other edits, it is necessary to use the discussion page for a dialogue to develop. I'll just keep reverting your edits if you don't discuss them and make your point.--Keithonearth (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tibet is much more culturally connected to the rest of East Asia than to the relatively homogeneous culture of the stans in Central Asia. Geographically, Tibetan plateau is the continuation of the mountainous area of the neighboring area to its east. Tibetans also conduct most of its commerce with people to its east. United Nations geoscheme, like most other organizations, consider Central Asia to be the areas of the former USSR stans.--Ptr123 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

Thank you Ptr123 for making your appearance here. I must have reverted your last edit while you were making your comment, I wouldn't have done it so fast if I'd seen your comment first, my apologies. (incidentally it is normal to keep the comments in chronological order from oldest at the top to newest at the bottom, to keep things more clear, as such I moved your comment to be in order), while I'm glad you seem to be trying to compromise, with your last edit changing "Central Asia" to just "Asia", I would perfer that be something we decide to do here. And myself I perfer to not change it in the direction of more ambiguity. I'd perfer something more along the lines of "Tibet, while part of the East Asian country of the Peoples Republic of China, is geographical considered part of Central Asia. Another option I'd be totally happy with is calling it part of the Transhimalaya, though I think that term is pretty obscure (not even an article about it) and that counts against it. I would dispute that Tibet has less in common with the countries to the West than East. I'm not sure what you are thinking of, but in the case of religion you may have a point. However, both Tibet and the 'stans have low population density, with traditional economies that were based around pastoralism, with large amounts of Nomadic Pastoralism. But I'm generalizing here as the 'stans are far from homogeneous, none of what I say is true for Uzbekistan. Trade was carried out in all directions, East to Ladakh and Hotan, South to Nepal, North to Mongolia, and East to China. In terms of religion, Tibet does have more in common with other Buddhist regions, but the VajrayanaBuddhism (while isolated schools exist in China and Japan) has far more in common with the form practised historically in Northern Pakistan, and Assam, where it's now extinct. I'm concerned that your edits are done with the goal of emphasizing the similarity with China, and trying to cover up the differences. That they are POV. --Keithonearth (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the danger is more on the other side. People who don't know much of the history of the area keep quoting and mis-quoting selective materials, cover up the similarities in terms language, custums, culture etc. between the Tibetans and other ethnic groups in Southwestern China, exaggerate the differance, thus make it impossible do a balanced presentation.

It's human nature to think that those who disagree with you must be biased and/or ignorant. Wikipedia has policies about citing reliable sources to back up disputed text. Making personal accusations is not productive. Bertport (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are already sources listed in the current article that clearly consider Tibet to be part of central Asia. Also, in MacMillan's History Atlas of Asia, pg. 70, we have "...Chinese troops had withdrawn from central Asia, to be replaced by the Uighurs and the Tibetans." However, it does seem that the current government of China is having some success in redefining usage of "east Asia". How about, in the leading paragraph, we say Tibet is in Asia, north of the Himalayas; in the geography section, we can say that traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia, and Chinese sources regarded it as "the West"; but that today's maps show a trend towards considering all of China to be in east Asia? Bertport (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very intelligent to me Bertport, it's the best idea so far, and I stand behind it entirely.--Keithonearth (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very unintelligent. In the quote "...Chinese troops had withdrawn from central Asia, to be replaced by the Uighurs and the Tibetans" , central Asia means an area not including Tibet plateau, but roughly the area of the former USSR stans plus Xinjiang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.237.194 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work everyone!!! ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Kindly note that National Geographic and EB article affirm Tibet as geographically East Asian. China being politically East Asian is not the only reason. 219.79.30.145 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some researchers are free to say Tibet is part of South Asia, but this is pov to the extreme, bordering on being ridiculous.

The important thing is not whether one wikipedian personally disagrees with a statement, or even if twenty wikipedians disagree, but whether the statement is backed by citations from reliable sources. In the case of the South Asia bit, I think it should be removed. It has two references cited, but the first is a broken link, and the second one does not, so far as I can see, justify the statement. The South Asian Studies program at Emory U offers classes in the Tibetan language, but that does not amount to saying that Tibet is in South Asia. Probably they include it because there are many speakers of the Tibetan language in India. South Asia is, so far as I know, generally considered sub-Himalayan. However, the rest of the paragraph in contention is valid and should remain. Bertport (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ptr123, you claim in your edit summery "there are a lot of support for my edit in the talk page", I don't really see that here, maybe you could explain further, and explain why you are not satisfied with the edit as it stands. As I said above I don't think moving toward more ambiguity is helpful, and is not an improvement. I am increasingly disappointed in your continued disregard for discussion. You continue to edit without discussion, and revert other edits you disagree with. Please, this is a subject that is attraction allot of debate, and as such it would be appropriate to discuss here changes you would like to make before making them.--Keithonearth (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are only seeing what you want to see. Both United Nations and National Geographic say that Tibet is in East Asia. What kind of biased presentation it is to strongly insist here Tibet is in Central Asia or even South Asia! --Ptr123 —Preceding undated comment was added on 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

The whole point it that both opinions are presented in the article, and yet you Ptr123 continually insist on eliminating the opinions that differ from your own. The idea that Tibet is part of East Asia is present, as is the idea that it is part of Central Asia. Please explain why you keep reverting it to a vary ambiguous Tibet is on the Tibetan plateau, and find the idea of expressing alternative opinions to your own so objectionable. I've changed it back to the description that places Tibet in both East and Central Asia. I have also taken out the description of Tibet as part of South Asia, not because it's POV, but because it doesn't seem common enough to merit inclusion here. I would ask you to explain you reasons for your edits instead of just blaming other people. The "You are only seeing what you want to see" comment above I find necessary. I do see alternative ways of classifying Tibet geographically, as do most other editors it seems, and that's what we're trying to express in the article. --Keithonearth (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be more than even-handed in simply saying Tibet is in Asia, even though most reputable sources/organizations agree with me that it is in East Asia. Even the main article of Britannica on Central Asia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/102288/Central-Asia) clearly states that Central Asia is the area of former USSR stans, yet you chose to ignore that and insist in using another reference from Britannica. Your wording in the paragraph tried to look like "both opinions are presented in the article", yet strongly implying that Tibet had been in Central Asia and was only recently re-classified as in East Asia because of political reasons, which is unsupported by any reference. --Ptr123 —Preceding undated comment was added on 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

We can find lots of reliable sources that considered Tibet to be Central Asia. How many would it take to satisfy you? It really is a recent change, to consider Tibet as part of East Asia. Bertport (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As Bertport says, we do have references for Tibet being classified as Central Asia. You still don't say why you find a referenced fact so objectionable, that it must be purged, and hidden behind an ambiguous statement. We are expressing the idea you are promoting (that it is considered to be part of East Asia). If you feel it necessary to change the wording, that would be worth discussion but simply saying making the classification more ambiguous is not an acceptable solution to me, as it is not helpful or meaningful. You seem unable to accept that more than one idea is possible. Tibet is considered to be part of East Asia, and it is also considered to be part of Central Asia. No contradiction there. Please explain why the idea can not be expressed, or let it stand.--Keithonearth (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to give a few thoughts on this topic if you guys don't mind. I want to kindly point out a few things about the two editions you guys have been switching back and forth that I think need more work on. The shorter edition (from Ptr123) is somewhat just a repeat of the beginning of the article. It doesn't mention East Asia or Central Asia. For people who doesn't know where Tibetan Plateau is, this introduction doesn't help them to locate where Tibet is, which should be the premier reason for this introduction to exist in the first place. Ptr123 provided reference from National Geographic, Britannica, UN geoscheme. The other version should also provide their reference from UNESCO besides the one from Britannica as it has a fact tag on it right now. You might have other reference already, and we don't have to mention all of them in the introduction, but i haven't noticed any other source supporting central Asia on this talk page. "in MacMillan's History Atlas of Asia, pg. 70, we have "...Chinese troops had withdrawn from central Asia, to be replaced by the Uighurs and the Tibetans."" This cannot be used as a valid reference here. It does not talk about the topic "the location of Tibet" directly and this sentence alone only tells that Tibetan troops made into central Asia. It means Tibetans and Uighurs replaced Chinese troops in Central Asia. If and only if this place Chinese troops withdrew from includes Tibet and does not includes other parts of central Asia, then this sentence means Tibet is part of central Asia. If that's the cased, that would have meant Chinese troops occupied Tibet before this happened during this part of the history, I cannot recall this happened at the time. We can also go back to history where there was an event Chinese troops withdrew from a place to be replaced by Uighur and Tibetans. It seems to me such event only happened once. Correct me if I am wrong, it is around the area west of Xinjiang. Another thing I noticed in this version "Traditionally, western (European and American) source have regarded Tibet being in central Asia", this implies in the past, Tibet is more often regarded as central Asia in the west. This is probably true, but there need to be a reference for this as well since it's not a common knowledge.

Another solution is, we can just simply say Tibet is an area located in East and Central Asia. You guys can checked out a few other articles which also have to deal with areas could be included in several regions. Like Mongolia and Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree, Taiwan and Vietnam. I find them very useful and simple. Chadsnook (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph used to say that Tibet was in Central Asia. It was that way, without controversy, for five years (since the article was created), until last December, when Ptr123 started changing it to East Asia. Subsequent discussion and research revealed that there were (relatively recent) sources that put Tibet in East Asia. I agree with you that it would be preferable to be more specific in the lead of the article, but it seems to be too complicated to state it there. I don't think the lead paragraph is the place for a history of changing concepts of Central and East Asia. As noted in the discussion above, we hit upon the idea of avoiding the issue in the lead paragraph, and spelling it out in the Geography section. Bertport (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be in the lead of the article. By "this introduction", I meant this paragraph you guys been working on, not the introduction of the article, specifically, Ptr123's version was too simple, "to exist in the first place", I meant "to exist of primary import", not to "exist on the top of the article" :-) Chadsnook (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've added several citations. Actually, I'd say it was indeed common knowledge, or common usage, that Tibet was in central Asia. That's why you'll see text implicitly placing Tibet in central Asia all over many Wikipedia articles, atlases, and books, without citation or reference. It's actually somewhat disorienting (to those of us who have heard it associated with central Asia for decades) to hear that some are now placing it in east Asia. Bertport (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say Tibet has generally been considered to be in East Asia, ever since the term East Asia came to usage. Sometimes, European travellers say it is located in Central Asia, or more accurately, "Inner Asia". When that's the case, Inner Asia and East Asia are not two mutually exclusive areas.

I think it's fair to say that this comment is contradicted by the sources already cited. Bertport (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also quite easy to find sources that contradict what you said. A simple test would be just taking a look at Dalai Lama. Would you say he looks more like a typical East Asian, or a typical Central Asian? Ptr123 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your idea is absurd. Defining typical East Asian and typical Central Asian cannot really be done. The physical characteristics indicative of East Asians and Central Asians do have overlap; people are not biologically homogeneous. Someone's physical characteristics does not define someone's geographic region. Furthermore, one could very easily argue that his holiness looks more like a Bhutanese or Newar (both of which are South Asians). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Dalai Lama does look more like East Asian than Central Asian. Few will disagree with that. 211.40.35.105 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Basing geographic divisions on racial characteristics doesn't makes any sense or help to clarify anything. Pointing out that the Tibetans look more like Chinese than "Centeral Asian" would not be an argument for classifying Tibet as East Asia, even if it were true. But it's not true. There is no such thing as a "Central Asian" racial characteristics. In fact Tibetans look as much, or more, like Kazakhs or Kyrgyz or Ladakhis as they do like Chinese. This is going nowhere.

Tibet as South Asia

I fought this battle on South Asia. Tibet is sometimes considered South Asia by a significant number of South Asian scholars, meaning that it is a view that ought be represented. You can see the South Asia page for the references. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually here are the links [8][9][10][11][12][13]. A few of the links that were once there broken and were bot removed, a few of them on South Asia need repair. I will soon get to fixing those. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

some sources fixed, [14], [15],

Additional source [16] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I added in this comment with citations

“ Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia. ”

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

More links and refs don't make the notion that Tibet is in South Asia less laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.195.139 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: if Tibet should be considered part of South Asia, then China should be also considered part of South Asian. So India is no longer the largest country in South Asia. China it is. :)Xingdong (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ref

back to the topic

Since there is already a statement about traditionally Tibet is being considered in central Asia. If a separate UNESCO and Britannica's statement about Tibet being in central Asia is to be left unchanged, it is only fair to add a statement that UN geoscheme and National Geographic considers Tibet to be in East Asia, especially there is now a separate statement about Tibet being considered to be in South Asia by some academics.
One thing questionable in the statement right now is that "Chinese sources regarded it as "the West"", it is at least incomplete if not wrong. The phrase "the West" in Chinese is overwhelming used to mean "North America and Europe excluding Russia and it's allies" or sometimes the same meaning as the English phrase western world. I assume some previous editor used the phrase "the west" because it is included in Southwest and Northwest China, but the phrase "the West" alone without a reference is misleading and is of original research.
Last but not least, this can be a future reference, please check out wiki guideline Reliable sources, especially where it says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". The other part of the guideline is useful too. Chadsnook (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I put that "Chinese sources regarded ..." bit in off the top of my head when we were first working out how to express the ambiguity. I agree that it should be removed. And the UNESCO and Enc Brit citations can be grouped in with the others. How about we go to something like: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia[65][66][67][68][69][70]; but today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China to be in East Asia. Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] Bertport (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very good to me. I also think we should add Tibet's geographic position in relation to the rest of China at the end of this introduction. Because it is under the administration of China right now, by not talking about it's position in China, we are giving a political signal and it is unusual compare to other articles dealing with similar situations. Another reason we should include this, is that Tibet is shown as part of China in all the world maps. It's probably the easiest way for people to locate Tibet on a world map by describing it's geographic position in China. Without it, it can be a bit hard. We can simply say: In China, most of Tibet is considered to be in the southwest, part of it is in the northwest. How does that sound? Chadsnook (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be wary of conflating Tibet, the geographical, cultural and historical region, with the Tibet Autonomous Region, the political entity, which is entirely part of China. The former arguably extends into India, Nepal, Afghanistan and Bhutan as well as China, and that's the entity that this article should be covering. "Tibet is west of China Proper." would be a more appropriate statement for this article. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So far, that's probably the best we can do to make it a NPOV. So the whole passage becomes: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia; but today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China to be in East Asia. Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia. Tibet is west of China Proper. Does anyone oppose? Chadsnook (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My only question is whether em-dashes or parentheses are better for encyclopedic prose — I think em-dashes feel more formal. I agree with the phrasing. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the above (in "back to the topic") sounds reasonable to me. But I didn't think the term "the West" was all that wrong. I've heard the term "the western section" used for TAR, Qinghai, Xinjiang, and other sparsly populated provinces in the western part of China used by Chinese media sources. Especially in regard to the development of them. Only I can't remember the sources... do others think this is worth looking into, or know what I'm talking about? To clarify: I don't think we need to use the term "the western section" but I think it may have some validity, and could be useful.--Keithonearth (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith, I know what you're talking about. Xizang is often translated "Western Treasure House". I don't have much experience with Chinese media, but friends who speak Mandarin told me about references to the West, the direction, and also to the Wild West in Tibet. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you guys are talking about. We are getting into some Chinese idioms here. "the western section" is a lot more accurate. "West" means "西" (xi) in Chinese. This character alone just means the direction "west". "西方" (xi fang) literally means "west direction", but it is commonly used to refer to Western world. "西部" (xi bu) literally means "west part" or "west section", it refers to Western China, the size of it also depends on how you divide the country, that's why the Chinese version of Western China on Wikipedia shows a different map. I guess I was being a little too picky, it's just that i feel when the Chinese media translate Chinese material into English or report directly in English, they usually translate "Western world" as "the West", and use "China's west region" or "Western China" to refer to the west part of China, including Tibet. That's why I thought "Chinese sources regard Tibet as "the West"" was confusing. If it's clear to every body else, I have no problem to change it back to "the West" or use "the western section". Chadsnook (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! 西部/xibu is what I was thinking of. I do find the term "the west" ambiguous, but couldn't we do something with 西部? Maybe "Within China, Tibet is regarded as part of the Western section (西部 Xībù), implying Western China."--Keithonearth (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a very accurate description and the sentence is in standard format in English Wikipedia articles related to Chinese definitions or characters. You even put the tones on the pinyin. Great job, Keith. Chadsnook (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So the whole passage becomes: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia; but today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China to be in East Asia. Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia. Tibet is west of China Proper. Within China, Tibet is regarded as part of the Western section (西部 Xībù), implying Western China. Chadsnook (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is fine - with all the citations retained, of course. Regarding parentheses vs. dashes, it's a minor consideration, but I prefer the parentheses (and consider them more formal). Bertport (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this in term of weight and neutrality. I would copy edit to eliminate repetition and correct some minor grammar: "Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China part of East Asia. Some academics also classify Tibet as South Asias. Tibet is west of China Proper and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of the Western section (西部 Xībù)." I'm not sure what is meant by the phrase "implying Western China" and it seems awkward to me. Keith, could you clarify? --Gimme danger (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China, including Tibet, to be part of East Asia. Some academics also include Tibet in South Asia. Tibet is west of China proper, and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of 西部 Xībù, a term usually translated by Chinese media as "the Western section" or "Western China". --I think that clarifies it. Bertport (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on the "implying Western China" part, I think that Bertport's version above is good, I'd be happy to let it stand. But (and sorry to raise problems) but is it accurate to say it's normally translated by the media as "Western China" I don't think I've heard it translated like that way. What about just "...西部 Xībù, a term usually translated as "the Western section" or "Western China". The reason I said implying Western China is that the literal translation of 西/Xī is west and 部/bù is part or section, so there's no mention as to what part we are referring to, but it is used for Western China. That said "imply" isn't the best word. Thanks for the complement, Chadsnook I'm glad to hear that I got the format right.--Keithonearth (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. How about: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend toward considering all of modern China, including Tibet, to be part of East Asia. Some academics also include Tibet in South Asia. Tibet is west of China proper, and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of 西部 (Xībù), a term usually translated by Chinese media as "the Western section", meaning "Western China". Bertport (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great to me!--Keithonearth (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

... Tibet is west of China proper, and within the People's Republic of China...

I think it would be better with People's Republic of China clearly mentioned as stating China alone could have different invocations to different readers (i.e. when some people refer to China they intend to mean China proper). In this manner there is no ambiguity. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, do we know where exactly this usage is common? Bertport (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Wikipedia article on China itselfs starts with

“ China (simplified Chinese: 中国; traditional Chinese: 中國; Hanyu Pinyin: ; Tongyong Pinyin: Jhongguó; Wade-Giles (Mandarin): Chung¹kuo²) is a cultural region, an ancient civilization, and, depending on perspective, a national or multinational entity extending over a large area in East Asia. ”

When different people say China they mean different things, my proposed addition clears ambiguity. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but does it clear ambiguity correctly? Or should we just leave off the and within China... since we don't have a citation for it? Just end with ...west of China proper. Bertport (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can say either People's Republic of China, or China and it's clear enough. The advantage of PRC is it's more accurate, as I think it is the modern nation-state we're talking about; the advantage of saying China is conciseness, and it's not untrue as the PRC is called China more often than not. What about [[People's Republic of China|China]] as having both advantages, as unambiguous and concise and accurate? --Keithonearth (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In North America and probably Europe too, most people regard People's Republic of China as China, very often, some people use the word China to refer to only mainland China, excluding Hong Kong and Macau. However, if Wikipedia is designed to be used by people around the whole world, we should take into consideration that Republic of China is officially recognized as the government of China by 23 countries, some non-governmental international organizations such as World Organization of the Scout Movement also refer to the Republic of China as "China". So, it's a good thing Thegreyanomaly pointed it out that we should use within the People's Republic of China instead of within China. I also don't see the necessity of having a citation for this part, since people can just click on the link of Western China. Unlike the disagreement on whether Tibet is part of Central Asia, East Asia or South Asia, there is no disagreement on whether Tibet is considered by China to be part of Western China or other parts of China.

I just saw Keith's advice after I typed mine, Keith's idea is reasonable too.Chadsnook (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest update: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend toward considering all of modern China, including Tibet, to be part of East Asia. Some academics also include Tibet in South Asia. Tibet is west of China proper, and within [[People's Republic of China|China]], Tibet is regarded as part of 西部 (Xībù), a term usually translated by Chinese media as "the Western section", meaning "Western China". Chadsnook (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Bertport (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me.--Keithonearth (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ptr123 removed all the South Asia comment and citations a while ago. I reverted his edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits needed

{{editsemiprotected}} This article should be tagged as a neutrality dispute, because it is biased in the direction of the followers of the Dalai Lama and against the government of China -- for example, the fact that there is a separate article, implying that modern Tibet is not "Tibet." Also, the sentence under the heading "20th Century" which reads "The principal reason for the British invasion was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its power into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the local Tibetan government" should be tagged with "citation needed" -- that's a real self-serving excuse for an imperial invasion. --Slackmeister (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.--Aervanath (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that a challenge to neutrality was done by individuals, not by consensus. --Slackmeister (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Struck throught edits posted by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree tis article should be tagged as a neutrality dispute. Just because Dalai Lama is currently somewhat a favorite in some west media doesn't mean his ideas of Tibet should prevail here. Other factors, e.g. Dalai Lama prosecution of the TIbetans who follow Dorje Shugden, should be presented in a balanced fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.237.194 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "Edits needed"

I don't agree with Slackmeister when (s)he says the article "should be tagged as a neutrality dispute, because it is biased in the direction of the followers of the Dalai Lama and against the government of China." I have just reread the article and, it seems to me that a very deliberate effort has been made to fairly present both points of view.

Also, I think he or she should specify what they mean when they say that: "there is a separate article, implying that modern Tibet is not "Tibet." I do, however, believe (s)he is correct in pointing out that the statement about the principal reason for the invasion of Tibet by the British needs referencing or qualification - so, I have added a "citation needed" tag here.

Finally, if Slackmeister wants to make edits and add tags - I suggest (s)he log in and create a proper User's page and become an "established user". Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with John above, including being unsure of what is referred to by "Modern Tibet". I worry that Slackmeister is referring to the Tibet Autonomous Region, which I can't see as anything other than an arbitrary boundary drawn by the People's Republic of China. --Keithonearth (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The boundary of the area now called Tibet Autonomous Region was formed long before the establishment of PRC. It wasn't drawn arbitrarily. Dalai's vision of the boundary of his ideal Tibet is more arbitrary in that it includes a lot of areas that have long history of residence of many other ethnic groups, like the Qiangs, Mongols and Huis.

By way of analogy, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia does not have separate articles for "historical/cultural Hawaii" and for the "administrative region of the United States." There is also undue weight given to the claims of the so-called government in exile, because not one nation has given it diplomatic recognition. --Slackmeister (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So are you asserting that the Tibet Autonomous Region equals Tibet? That Tibet ends at the administrative borders of the TAR? (something I do not agree with, and think is vary POV.)-Keithonearth (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree with it, I think that for most of the world, Tibet is Tibet, and they go to an encyclopedia for information, not a political statement. That's why I advocate adding the tag. --Slackmeister (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you say the Ireland article is biased? Yaan (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks OK. I see your point, though -- that article could be tricky, and probably has had problems in the past. Both Ireland and Hawaii are islands, unlike Tibet, and therefore have a distinct geographic identity outside of politics. --Slackmeister (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Struck throught edits posted by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Also, I think that the sentence "The principal reason for the British invasion was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its power into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the local Tibetan government" is actually both accurate and neutral. However, it is prone to misreading, which I fear Slackmeister has done. The sentence is not saying that Britain was not working to expand its imperial power into Tibet through invasion; it's telling us why the British were particularly interested in invading Tibet as opposed to some other random place on the face of the Earth. So, I think it should be reworded for clarity.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Part controlled by India

This sentence in the article is awkward for its excessive justifications: "Tibet was once an independent kingdom but today is part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) while a small part, according to the government of the People's Republic of China, the government of the Republic of China, some of their diplomatic allies, as well as sympathetic scholarly and non-governmental bodies, is controlled by India."

It should be rewritten & cited. The dispute between PRC and the Government in Exile is already documented in the rest of the article (starting with the next sentence in the article in fact) and doesn't need to be repeated within each sentence.

Something like: "Tibet -- once an independent kingdom -- is today part of the People's Republic of China, except for a small region controlled by India." (plus citations.)

-- 216.223.143.38 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Five Point Peace Plan for Tibet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allied with Arabs and Eastern Turks?

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

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

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

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

Zhonghua minzu

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

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

add this in history section

Around 650 AD, the chinese Tang Dynasty captured Lhasa.<>[18]

ROC in Lhasa

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

Both these points are supported by the sources cited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put this article on a diet!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repetitive test

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

claimed by a certain island

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

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

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

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

The ROC constitution says, "The system of self-government in Tibet shall be safeguarded."[19] There are four other mentions of Tibet in the constitution, but these just specify how many delegates Tibet gets in different bodies. Overseas Chinese get delegates too, so the assignment of delegates doesn't imply that a territorial claim is being made. The Republic of China Yearbook 2008 (published: January 2009) shows only Taiwan and some surrounding islands as ROC. Ma announced in October that he now considers the mainland part of ROC, so maybe they'll be changing the maps again. But as of now, the ROC is not claiming Tibet. In any case, I would submit that this is a matter of internal Taiwanese politics and has very little relationship to Tibet. Kauffner (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The constitution of the ROC does not consider Tibet as a country to be outside of the territory of the ROC, it does not need to put a statement in their constitution like "the ROC claims Tibet to be a part of the ROC". For the record, the constitution of the ROC does not claim or/and define the name of any part of its territory. Not Tibet, not Taiwan, not Beijing, etc... The ROC considers all areas under the PRC "mainland China" (with (outer) Mongolia) a part of ROC. The republic of China Yearbook is not relevant here simply because its not important enough and it does not mention its territory claims. For administration reason, the government of ROC is not involved in areas outside of "Free China"--the island of Taiwan and a few other islands. You make it sounds like Ma changed his mind and just came up with this idea that mainland China is part of the ROC. He just did not officially claimed it until Oct 2008 since he became the President of ROC in May 2008. [Taipei Times: Ma refers to China as ROC territory in magazine interview] The Presidents of ROC might have different explanations of the administration of mainland China, but the government of ROC has not changed it's constitution in regards of its territory claim. In Chapter 1, article 4, "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."[[20]] This is their Chinese version: "中華民國領土，依其固有之疆域，非經國民大會之決議，不得變更之。" Further more, in The Seventh Revision, [[21]], 1. The territory of the Republic of China, defined by its existing national boundaries, shall not be altered unless initiated upon the proposal of one-fourth of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, passed by at least three-fourths of the members present at a meeting attended by at least three-fourths of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, and sanctioned by electors in the free area of the Republic of China at a referendum held upon expiration of a six-month period of public announcement of the proposal, wherein the number of valid votes in favor exceeds one-half of the total number of electors. Tibet with the rest of PRC all fall into ROC's existing national boundaries. They have not changed their territory claim, so the old national boundaries while the government was in mainland China is the existing (to continue to be) boundaries. That is their official claim over all of China, including Tibet. In the same interview, "Ma said under the ROC Constitution, the ROC “definitely is an independent sovereign state, and mainland [sic] China is also part of the territory of the ROC.” Tibet is part of mainland China. The "self-government in Tibet shall be safeguarded (by the ROC)" and the numbers of Delegates from Tibet in the ROC government are further explanation of Tibet being considered a part of ROC by its constitution. Not only the ROC is claiming Tibet, it's claim over Tibet has never changed in its constitution.

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

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

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

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

Historical/Cultural?

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

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

Serfs Emancipation Day

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

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

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

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