Jump to content

Talk:1959 Tibetan uprising/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Map

It should be noted that tibet is actually bigger than it is shown to be on the current map of china. Tibet, at its largest point, occupied all of Xingxang Autonamous region, and also a large area of the surrounding Autonamous regions.

Politicalnerd08 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial

It should be noted that this page amy be considered highly controversial, and should probably be closely watched for vandalism.

Politicalnerd08 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Casualty number

The casualty number in the info box should be what Tibet exile government claims for the whole armed struggle lasted from 1956-1962. This article seems only mentions about the incident in Lhasa, which is only a small part of the action. --24.13.180.133 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Xinhua news article:

http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2008-03-30/155315256146.shtml

"3月10日是达赖集团所谓的“西藏起义抗暴纪念日”。1959年的这一天，达赖集团在拉萨发动全面的武装叛乱，打砸抢烧，无恶不作，叛乱分子杀死西藏自治区筹备委员会委员、堪穷（四名僧官）帕巴拉·索朗降措，并将他鞭马拖尸“示众”达两公里，惨不忍睹。对达赖集团而言，3月10日本身就是一个呼唤暴力的日子。"

It was said that a Tibetan monk, who worked with the Communists as a member of the Preparatory Committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, was killed and his body was dragged by a horse in front of the crowd for two kilometers. I ask someone familiar with the events to verify this, who this person is, what he did, and what happened that day on March 10th, 1959, and edit it into this wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.197.174 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Almost the entire article relies on a single account by the "Office of Tibet, London", which, according to the article, is not even the view of the CTA. I question the reliablility of that source. Ideally, the article should balance the views of the CTA and the Chinese government, being the most significant points of view on the subject. Neither view is difficult to find, even on the internet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Office of Tibet is described in the section on the structure of the Tibetan Government in Exile: "The CTA also maintains Offices of Tibet in New Delhi, New York, Tokyo, London, Kathmandu, Geneva, Moscow, Budapest, Paris, Canberra and Washington, D.C. These Offices of Tibet are the official agencies representing His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile." They're official agencies of both the Dalai Lama and the CTA. I believe the line in the article that you are referencing was added by an editor who may have been confused by the status of the Office of Tibet. The Offices are charged with educating the (non-Tibetan) public about issues in Tibet's status and history, so it seems quite reasonable to expect that the CTA's interpretation of events that occurred before its creation would be distributed via the Office of Tibet. Really, I think that the line in the article that indicates that there may be disagreement between this account and the Dalai Lama or the CTA should be removed- it cites the front pages of the Dalai Lama and the CTA as a source, but in neither place is there any indication that they differ from the Office's account. My question would be: since the Office is an official agency of both the Dalai Lama and the CTA, and the Office is publishing an account of the 1959 events, what reason is there to believe that this account differs from what you would hear from the CTA or the Dalai Lama? The Office exists specifically to disseminate this sort of information on behalf of the Dalai Lama and the CTA. It should, however, be balanced with reports from the PRC of what happened during this period, or any international observers. I think more than NPOV, the single-sourcing is the issue. That's largely my fault- I had quick access to the Office's account, but couldn't quickly find other good chronologies on the web. This article was pitiful before the Office chronology was added, so it seemed like a good idea to get at least an outline of the events up given the numerous references to 1959 that have been made in the media in light of recent events in Tibet. What I would really like to see is a chronology from the PRC that parallels the Tibetan account- that would provide the best contrast in terms of the interpretation of these events. Do you have links to something like this? --Clay Collier (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
can we confirm this OOT account is the sole and official CTA view of the incident? and to remove references to it being an account of OOT but that of the CTA release via OOT? if the views is not the official stance, it should be critically reworded as being unrelated to the stance of CTA on the incident and be subjected to as questionable sources. just because OOT is part of CTA doesn't mean they only present official view, many other agency are known to carried rival views as well. one well known example is the CIA factbook which description of nations doesn't represent the official view of the USA. Akinkhoo (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source from the CTA itself: Tibet: Proving Truth From Facts. The chronology contains fewer details than the Office of Tibet account, but otherwise they seem to correspond. The only difference that I've seen is that here there's a slight difference between the casualty estimates from the Office's account and the accounts on the CTA site- 86000 vs. 87000. The accounts I've linked to are published by the CTA Department of Information and International Relations; I would call the OOT account and the DIIR account accounts from two different branches of the CTA, but as the accounts don't really differ at all, there's very little to distinguish between them. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "may be different" because, at least at the time, I could not find any account offered by the CTA, nor any by the Dalai Lama. To those of you who think otherwise, thank you for posting your arguments. Now, the Dalai Lama web site does not mention the CTA nor any OOT as representatives of the Dalai Lama. Clay's quote,
The CTA also maintains Offices of Tibet in New Delhi, New York, Tokyo, London, Kathmandu, Geneva, Moscow, Budapest, Paris, Canberra and Washington, D.C. These Offices of Tibet are the official agencies representing His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile.[1]
is taken from the OOT London web site; I expect something similar from the Dalai Lama or from the CTA, not the OOT itself, especially since internal disagreements have been reported by third-party, albeit not the most well known sources.[2][3] At this moment, the CTA link and reference [4] is not working, so either some one else or I will have to follow up on that. I will replace my line for the time being. If eventually you could make the claim that such and such is the CTA's account, we'll just change the relevant citations.DXDanl (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a statement on the CTA site stating that the OOT was an official representative of the Dalai Lama and the CTA; unfortunately, the entire tibet.net site seems to be down at the moment. Here's the version from the Google cache. Not sure what you mean about internal disagreements; the articles you link to refer to differences of opinion within the Tibetan exile community over current tactics, rather than indicating that 1) the OOT is not part of the government, or that 2) they have different interpretations of the 1959 uprising. This page from dalailama.com refers to the "office of the Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (also known as the Office of Tibet) in their region" regarding contacting the Dalai Lama, which does indicate that the Office of Tibet acts as a representative of the Dalai Lama. Hopefully the CTA website will resurrect itself at some point, but I don't think that there should be any question that the Office of Tibet should be regarded as part of the government, and that it's views on the uprising don't differ significantly from those of other parts of the government- at least from the OOT and CTA accounts, there's no reason to think so. I'm fine with identifying the elements from the OOT chronology as being specific to the OOT and not another body, but I don't think that the text should suggest that the OOT account differs from the rest of the government when we don't have indications that this is the case. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, both the Dalai Lama and the CTA web site state that the OOT is representative of the Dalai Lama.[5][6] I never said that the OOT, the CTA, and the Dalai Lama hold different positions. The original references were to the OOT, and there were no explanation why the text claimed sources other than the OOT. Even if they have the same account, the citations and the references should be very clear about what the actual source is. Perhaps I should have come up with a less misleading line for my edit. The CTA's account can now be compared with that of the Dalai Lama/OOT.DXDanl (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)(corrections made DXDanl (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
In my previous comment, "The original references ... other than the OOT", I was referring to the OOT references, but later revisions of the text that had changed "Office of Tibet, London" in one place into "Tibetan Government in Exile".DXDanl (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 6

Should this even be in here? The video on YouTube is private.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY

DonSlice 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

Almost the entire article is based on sources from the parties involved. The English Wikipedia policy, Verifiability, clear states that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It also states that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I realize that policies are to be followed with discretion, but in this case, the violation seems much too blatant.DXDanl (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's quit a bit of coverage of the uprising in "The Dragon in the Land of Snows". Tsering Shakya is a Tibetan exile, but doesn't seem to have any connection with the government in exile- his work seems to be in the capacity of a scholar, rather than activist. I had a copy of the book a week or so ago and was hoping to add some additional references, but it was recalled to the library before I had a chance. There are enough books on Tibetan history that it should be possible to add some of them as references. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait and see what happens.DXDanl (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for the uprising

This page gives no suggestions as to the reasons for the uprising. The only suggestion as to the cause is the Camp Hale section - and this is hardly the whole story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.250.195 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We should work to include notes that the "socialist reforms" were often only democratic reforms, such as abolishing the serfdom, secularism and ending the privileged and theocratic aristocracy. Also, to discuss "freedom fighters" supporting a serfdom is perhaps a novel meaning of the word "freedom", but not one I am familiar with. Could someone explain why supporting the theocratic rights of aristocrats to own people and control the labor of serfs is "freedom"? Also, it would be worth noting what foreign powers financially and materially supported the Tibetan guerillas. Britain and the American CIA are known to have paid and supported much of this apparatus. Is there are reason this is not included in the discussions here? 69.114.165.204 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistake of reference

In section Aftermath: "This number might however be underestimated since according to Chinese sources, PLA killed 86,000 Tibetans the days after the Dalai Lama's flight.[19]". But Ref [19] turns out to be an book written by an American? 206.165.101.124 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The American writer is using "captured Chinese sources", as the sentence states. The American source is a secondary source which summarizes what primary Chinese sources say. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written using secondary sources to avoid original research.

"The veracity of such a claim is difficult to verify"

This repeated statement has no value. One of the standard criticisms of Grunfeld's work is that he always tries to cast doubt on sources which are critical of the Chinese government, while he accepts blindly everything coming from that government. "The veracity of such a claim is difficult to verify" is nothing more than a rhetorical device here. Bertport (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.WP:NPOV Kkkdddiii (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If certain sources state numbers you can reckon on on just one fact: that these particular sources are not reliable. The matter of fact is that nobody knows. Whether you state in between which numbers the estimations of several parties are, or it should be left away completely. Something like "thousands until tens of thousands" might be a solution too. Davin (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
When quoting Tom Grunfeld (fr/nl), it may be wise to introduce him with an article here on English Wikipedia. I would rather call him a communist than a sinologist. In fact, according to Simon Leys he is even voluntarily member of the Communist Party. In case of an article on him, I wouldn't forget a section called 'criticism'. Regards, Davin (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It was not of the party but of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association as I see now. I'm sorry for the mistake. Davin (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks for the tip and the links. Bertport (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't think any government sources should be used either when the article is about the said government(s).DXDanl (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing importance from mid to top in WPTIBET

This had a pretty large effect on Tibet. It marked the end of rule by the Dalai Lama’s government and the Dalai Lama’s presence in Tibet, and the loss of a great deal of Tibetan autonomy and the beginning of more direct rule by the Central Government. It also resulted in the beginning in Political Tibet of religious suppression and human rights abuses by occupying (or Central Government if you prefer) forces. Or from the perspective of the Central Government, governing the TAR become significantly more difficult and involved, and remains so 50+ years later.Wikimedes (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was unable to change the importance in the Tibet and China infoboxes independently. Although the topic is very important for Tibet, in the broader context of China, it may be less important. Is it possible to show top-importance for WP:Tibet and mid-importance for WP:China?Wikimedes (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and propaganda

The "Lhasa Rebellion" section is rife with obvious NPOV bs statements. It sounds like one of rabid propaganda pieces written by pro-lama internet trolls. Take this statement: "Monks and nuns were forced to have sex with each other and forcibly renounce their celibacy vows." Then "After torture, these men and women were often killed." The heck? Yeah right, after that they were commanded to smash babies and torture puppies I'm sure.

Aside from dubious bs statements in itself. The supposed citation comes from a book that is written by CIA operative "who's a personal friend" with the Dalai Lama, who actively participated in training fighters in the violent uprising. NPOV much? Why don't these people cite accounts written by Auschwitz prison guards for information on Jewish human rights then? I'm sure these accounts won't be biased at all.

EDIT: After further research, even the said page on the book itself contains contains no such accounts to support these ridiculous claims. Look it up with google books yourself ("http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FwaJCAU8mr8C&pg=PA71&dq=rapga+chinese&hl=en&ei=WI_FTdqrJoiugQeJxvnKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false"). Farking Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woofenstein (talk • contribs) 08:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why were you looking at page 71 when the citation clearly points to page 134? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.193.15 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Associated Press photos

I fail to see how two 1959 photos from the Associated Press agency can be used in Wikipedia under the (false) pretext of their being in the public domain in China. --Christian Lassure (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. I don't have much experience with copyright issues, but as far as I can make out, it looks like WP:Possibly unfree files is the place to report it.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you are both wrong.

is quite clear. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Soviet empire thesis

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule, claiming that China was an "empire" and not a state.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

besides anti China propaganda due to the sino soviet split, the Soviet Union did have strategic interests in Tibet and attempted to make inroads against the British during 1912-1948.

Rajmaan (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1959 Tibetan uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources of the article

The source section seems to have been left in quite a mess, and a few of the citations seem unnecessarily long. Any suggestions on how we can clean this up and work toward a more clean article?

Tylersaz (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Tylersaz

Minor edit and source addition

I changed the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Armed resistance in east Tibet" section from the previously uncited:

"Before the Communist takeover, the relationship between the Khampa and the Dalai Lama's Government had deteriorated badly.[citation needed] As a result, the Khampa were indifferent to the initial Communist assault on Chamdo. The PLA had entered Kham without much opposition from local Khampas. The relationship between the Khampa and the Tibetan Dalai Lama government in Lhasa was extremely poor at the time."

To:

"Prior to the PLA invasion, relations between Lhasa and the Khampa chieftains had deteriorated, although the Khampa remained spiritually loyal to the Dalai Lama throughout. Because of these strained relations, the Khampa had actually assisted the Chinese in their initial invasion, before becoming the guerrilla resistance they are now known for," with a new source from the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs (actually a really great read on the subject if you have the time).

Tylersaz (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)tylersaz

Soviet Involvement?

Can someone please find a source talking about Soviet involvement in the rebellion? It would save a lot of trouble for me. DPPTPP (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Lhasa Rebellion" section

The first paragraph in this section is mostly a duplication of information in the following paragraphs. It's also out of order, chronologically, in the section. The text in this paragraph, and/or the citations, should be incorporated into subsequent paragraphs as needed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1959_Tibetan_uprising/Archive_1&oldid=1046337225"