Talk:Tibetan independence movement

From Wikipedia:Translation into English:

• Article: zh-tw:西藏獨立運動
• Corresponding English-language article: International Tibet Independence Movement.
• Worth doing because: Long article in Chinese; English-language article is a stub
• Originally Requested by: Jmabel on behalf of User:Eequor
• Status: In-Progress, Vina 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Completed, Vina 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes: User:Eequor tagged the English-language page as "needing translation", but did not note it here.
• I did the Translation, but I cut quite a bit that was in other articles, and I feel that the actual article doesn't really touch on the movement as an organization, as opposed to the movement as an ideology. Don't know if futher cleanup is appropriate -Vina 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Slavery

Perhaps it would be useful to mention the fact that slavery was practiced in Tibet before the communists invaded. Lots of people don't know that. If I had been in charge of the chinese army, I'd have invaded tibet too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.17.224 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Tibetans may have had slavery, but at least they didn't murder millions of their people like the "liberation" loving Red Chinese did under Mao.108.74.211.40 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

true it existed, but this isnt the place to discuss what you would have done. also, im pretty sure its illegal to impose your veiws on other independant nations by force and abosrb them completly. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you remove my link?

I found the author view is distinct, after reading through it I found my attitude was changed greatly. If you don't want add an external link, you can add his opinion to the article. "This is not an essay that tries to justify or defend China's human rights violations in Tibet. This is an essay that tries to present information that most Free Tibet pamphlets and articles omit, and builds the argument that campaigning to "free" Tibet is both socially and morally irresponsible."

Ok, but don't add it to every Tibet-related page. Add it to one that's appropriate. --Khoikhoi 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Led by the 14th Dalai Lama?

I thought he renounced independence and instead advocates full autonomy within China?

As early as 1988, The Dalai Lama did make clear that he wasn't advocating for Tibetan independence and as such, the Dalai lama cannot be said to lead the independence movement. I have removed this and tried to make the introductory text more accurate. We'll see if it remains. --coldmtn 12:30, 4 Feb 2006

The Dalai Lama wants what's realistic and does not involve any sort of aggression. Therefore he has agreed (he has no other peaceful choice!)to an autonomy BUT he has very important conditions such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, you know, things that under the current regime china does not have! Me 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not freedom of religion (good thing, IMO), but buddhists are definitely allowed to practice

'I am Panchen Lama's believer,you violate Panchen Lama's volition.'DaLaiGroup bent on evil-doing.In my head they are dying.I know you are plotting a new Damageplan in Tibet China.Tibetan:CaiDaJorya

Talk

"Some people actually living in Tibet are not enthusiastic supporters of the movement, because they are non-native Chinese who have displaced the Tibetan population or because they fear punishment by the Chinese government for expressing enthusiastic support" This does not belong in the introduction. It also severely limits the list of reasons why Tibetans don't support the cause. Many Tibetans find chinese rule an improvement. That should be mentioned. 66.58.219.109 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ??????I would like to know why these Tibetan peoples find that it is an improvement and how have their lives been improved by it??????

I noticed it and changed it. The sentence was an edit to another POV statement that leaned toward the PRC position. Details on views of locals on the issue are elaborated in the body of the article, so we don't need to cover the level of support in the opening paragraph. But it suffices to say that an accurate assessment of popular support is difficult under PRC policies, so that's what I wrote. Kelvinc 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

why has nobody raise the issue that some of the land claimed by dalai lama is not native tibetan land? some of them belongs to other minorities group, in fact the history records show the tibetan actually invaded those areas and are not native neither. therefore the use of the term "native" is inaccurate for tibetan as well unless the movement renounce the claim of land that belong to other ethnicities who do not see themselve as tibetan neither. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be Immature

There's been some silly deleting in this article's discussion page without any reason being given in this talk page. I've redone some points (but not all) and I will report further deleting to moderators. You have been warned. Racooon (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename, weeding

Is 'ITIM' a formal name, of an organized campaign or movement? If not, the article should be renamed to International movement for Tibetan independence or something similar. Also, there seems to be material better apt for articles. Overall, the article says rather little about the actual international lobbying on the Tibetan independence cause. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - have moved the article to Tibetan independence movement. The article seemed to be unsure what it was about. It starts off talking about "ITIM" as if it was an organisation, but then goes on to describe the whole movement. Even now, there are strange bits like the "Tibetan passport" section. What is that about? What relevance does it have to Tibetan independence? Is it here to show that Tibet was recognised as independent by the countries that stamped the paper, or what? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have tried to correct some weasel language that made it look like the Dalai Lama supports the independence movement, when he clearly does not. More to be done, including citations for all the claims in the "positions" section. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan independence movement or Free Tibet?

This article is titled "Tibetan independence movement", then it has a logo of "Free Tibet". Can someone actually tell me which is it? The Tibetan people had certainly never been free under the Dalai Lamas. Are we to believe that the dl and his cronies now want to free the Tibetan people? A free tibet and an independent tibet are two completely different things. The dl and his cronies lived for free at the expense of the tibetan people. It would improve the article if it is clarified which topic this is about, or to concentrate on the Tibetan independence movement instead of confusing it with a free tibet. 81.155.102.122 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Tibetan independence movement self-identifies with the slogan "Free Tibet". I imagine that they could identify how they define "free". I also suspect that their definition differs from yours. As you can see from the title, this article is about the Tibetan independence movement. The slogans, logos and other ideas important to that movement will be covered in this article, regardless of how you personally feel about them. I suggest that you attempt to improve this encyclopedia by editing articles, rather than repeating arguments about the Dalai Lama on unrelated talk pages. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow!!! You mean it's all a lie? Define 'free' how they like? Sure, slaves felt they were free because they were told they were free. 81.155.102.122 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

the logo shouldn't be used because it is not only used by people of this movement. not all the supporter of FT are supportive of secession. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Development and influence section can someone verify from a non-Tibetan source that "Tibetan independence is not currently supported by Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists." Thanks. Mavlo (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention the posers?

Free Tibet is well known as the biggest way for someone with very little political concerns to claim political savvy. Even south park mentioned itYVNP (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for posterity, South Park is hardly an authority on who or what is or isn't 'posing.' And there is virtually no way to know who is 'posing' outside of original research. 72.225.243.84 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This may have been documented in reliable sources, in which case it would belong. —Zujine|talk 21:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly would a "reliable source" document that somebody is a "poser"? What sort of tangible, verifiable criteria must a "poser" have?108.74.211.40 (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim in lead not supported by source

I have corrected a claim in the lead because it inaccurately represented the source it cited as support. The claim in quesiton was "The movement used to be a platform of the Central Tibetan Administration of exiles, and of the 14th Dalai Lama, but now they are seeking a sort of high-level autonomy within China.[1]"

The source cited ([1]) has the following to say about the Dalai Lama's old and new positions:

"Tibet's exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, has abandoned his long-standing position calling for Tibetan autonomy, declaring Tibet to be part of China."

"The Dalai Lama, who turns 70 this year, appears to have accepted that China should control the political and economic affairs of Tibet and guarantee its culture, religion and environment."

"This is a distinct shift from the plan he has proposed up to now, first delivered in a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg in 1988, that Tibet should be a "self-governing democratic political entity" with Beijing responsible for its external defence and foreign affairs."

"The Dalai Lama has also referred to his homeland as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, the name given by Beijing to the political region that has been shorn of Tibetan-populated areas now administered as part of surrounding Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces."

From these quotes, it is clear that the cited source nowhere represents the Dalai Lama as ever pressing for independence. Instead, we can summarise the "old" and "new" positions as:

1. Old: Tibet remains part of China but has a high level of autonomy with Beijing controlling only external defence and foreign affairs
2. New: Tibet remains part of China but with a lower level of autonomy, with Beijing controlling political and economic affairs.

In any case, the Dalai Lama's position that Tibet remains an autonomous part of China has not changed. I have changed the sentence accordingly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the source was wrong for the claim, but the claim that the Dalai Lama had advocated Tibetan independence is true if the "old" position refers to the Dalai Lama's position before 1988. I have restored the sentence with a source that surveys his changing positions. Quigley (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)