Talk:Nyingchi

map

user:虞海 recently changed the svg map I made back to the old less detailed png one, with no comment. On this page and also on Lhoka Prefecture and Nagqu Prefecture. I fail to understand why this was done. If there is not some reason I will change them back to the svg version.

svg

png

--Keithonearth (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No explanation? I'm changing back to the svg version, on all the pages. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lhasa which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nyingchi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908035013/http://www.nyingchi.com/ to http://www.nyingchi.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Tourism

Readded RS and edits in Tourism section, as a balance to edits on "prosperous model villages", which the RS states are "fake Tibetan 'model villages' ". Multiple sources state the same criticism, including Tsering Woeser as well as Tibetans interviewed by sources which can be used only as inline sources. The RS Tibetan Political Review is valid, and it's intro as a view on tourism attempts to address the rather unclear issue of what is majority and minority view as per UNDUE. After reading various sources over the last few months, it seems that the majority of Tibetans agree with the strong criticism - that their culture is being turned into a "theme park" for "Chinese tourists". Thus, the edit is relevant and per RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You will need to make the case at WP:RS/N that The Tibetan Political Review (which has strangely been cited in a Google sites link) is RS, and not simply because you said so or like it for its political bent. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The onus is elsewhere for making the case that Tibetan Political Review is not RS. The edits were stable and Esiymbro edited the text. Here's the edit with info contrary to RS. Later, the paragraph was deleted but the deleted text specifically reviewed the same model villages mentioned in the paragraph above it, the main topic of the 2012 investments in "prosperous model villages". The RS calls them "fake Tibetan 'model villages' ", and is a valid style of review often used in architectural projects in the west, among the RS's other attributes. Since the editor has not responded to the readding of the text, it supports its previous stability and validity. Please bring your concerns to RSN. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus has been established on "Tourism" here. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: I do not see any justification for adding any material at all from this unnotable Warren W. Smith. The entire "tourism" section is also filled with claims and conjecture about "fake villages". The only thing close to a factural evidence is an alleged observation that some of the entertainers are Han Chinese – which, according to you, comes from Woeser rather than Smith, but in the article this is not clearly suggested. Even it is true, this is irrelevant to the claim that the villages are fake. The so-called model villages are not even new villages, just old towns and villages with updated infrastructure, plainly evident if you have searched about tourism in Nyingchi. The whole section is a blatant POV push without anything encyclopedic. Esiymbro (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Moved from a duplicate section 05:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, Pasdecomplot. You probably know that whether the "model villages" are in place or not, tourism has long been a key industry in Nyingchi. And in some areas it is the industry for locals. Assuming good faith, do you understand what you are doing? Esiymbro (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Moved from a duplicate section 05:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Complete removal

Hi Esiymbro: One thing that should be clear is the current version reflects not just Warren Smith's own view, but also Tsering Woeser's view that Smith is merely quoting. The correct way to address WP:UNDUE is WP:BALASP. A complete removal means zero proportion given to a significant, albeit minority, view that happens to be criticism. Normchou ^💬 05:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment only about the Tibetan Political Review reference: the unaffiliated Google Sites journal is dubious as a WP:RS. There is no affiliation with any academic publisher, there are no academic reviews of the source, and there are no other RS mentions of it that I can find. If the citation can be replaced by an established RS, go for it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. Normchou ^💬 05:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Normchou I've read your version on the last section and it is more balanced than Pasdecomplot's writing. However I don't really understand the logic of this tourism section. The part Pasdecomplot wrote mentioned made it seem that it is Smith's view and they were the same villages as the Guangdong sponsored ones in 2012, while you suggest that it is actually Woeser who provided this "fake village" view point back in 2007. In the source it is not clear as it contains both reports of Woeser's observations and the authors comments. Esiymbro (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Esiymbro: Smith and Woeser sharing the same view is my understanding. I'd say it is a view worth some weight given the RFA source. I noticed that you mentioned the economic effect of tourism. That would be another view which can be given some weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material (government statistics, for example). Normchou ^💬 05:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There are RS published reports on this topic. Now that you have mentioned this aspect, I'll expand on it in the article later. Esiymbro (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't get what the issue is against Smith as an author Esiymbro and MarkH21. Academic reviews are not required for all of Goldstein opinions, for example, so why for Smith?

• If you read his piece entitled "Origins of the Middle Way Policy", an historically accurate portrayal and a strong criticism of the Middle Way diplomatic approach is found. If you're knowledgeable about modern history within the region, you'll find the piece balanced and deserving of respect as RS. Smith's work was discovered while digging for info on the Middle Way Approach(should be a page, some info here).
• So, the issue with its URL being "dubious" is also not clearly made. Thus, deleting the RS and replacing it with a RFA source is not really appropriate, but Woeser and RFA support Smith's review of Nyingchi's model villages. Unless a case can be made at RSN to delete Tibetan Political Review and Smith, as I've said, it should be used.
• The Tourism section is on Nyingchi. It includes edits on investments for a 2012 "prosperous model village" development. In 2015, Smith reviews the "prosperous model villages" and calls them "fake Tibetan 'model villages'", which balances the info previously included. Earlier in 2007, Woeser writes of issues with Chinese tourism policy in Tibet. So, here we have RS which reveal Tourism policies have been criticised for at least 8 years. It's a view widely noted in other sources as well. Thus, as Normchou states, its view is worth weight.
• Which view is minority vs majority is another issue...
• I would add that Chinese sources on economic development profits and investments cannot be reviewed for accuracy since their facts and figures are not accessible to the public, are questionable as "RS" obviously.

The edits I provided are balanced, as explained, since they use direct quotations from Smith. An encyclopedia is not promotional literature, ...tourism has long been a key industry in Nyingchi. And in some areas it is the industry for locals. Assuming good faith, do you understand what you are doing?, so the question here is also not really understood. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Tibetan Political Review, there is no indication of its reliability. There is no academic publisher, no evidence of peer-review (different from the existence of an editorial board), and no evidence of citations or reviews by established reliable sources. For Wikipedia purposes, Smith's paper / the Tibetan Political Review is deserving of respect as RS only if other reliable sources treat it with such. The relevant policies are very clear about this (emphasis mine):

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.
— WP:SOURCE

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

You also compare this unaffiliated author to Melvyn Goldstein, but they are very different. Goldstein is a member of the National Academy of Sciences whose works are well-cited, well-reviewed, and generally published through academic publishers.

By the way, reliability and due weight is not assumed as you seem to suggest; the onus is on the editor adding content to demonstrate reliability and due weight per WP:CHALLENGE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

To help resolve the Tibetan Political Review assessment without cluttering the other discussions here, I have opened WP:RSN#Tibetan Political Review. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MarkH21 for clarifying onus. I apologise since I thought the burden was on the editor which challenges the source. I'll add another policy note, In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

Amazon's bio says,Warren W. Smith Jr., an independent scholar in Alexandria, Virginia, received his Ph.D in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[1] Smith's specialty is "Tibetan nationalism, Sino-Tibetan relations and the issue of Tibetan self-determination". I provided the info since Smith's reliability is at issue for Esiymbro. Here's his fr.wiki bio [2] and note that his critic is criticized in the lead for espousing PRC views[3] Ses positions sur le Tibet sont jugées comme étant proches de celles de la République populaire de Chine. Will participate in the RSN. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSN#Tibetan Political Review for list of credentials. Readded text with RS, since it's an obvious slam dunk. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Five editors find it unreliable and only you call it reliable. Furthermore, you need to find consensus before re-adding it per WP:CHALLENGE. Further re-insertion is disruptive editing. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"Political re-education awaits monks and nuns..."

About the revert: the RS has political re-education in its title, not "detention". So, political re-education is the accurate term. If the issue is with the word "camp", that would be another issue than what the edit summary states. The title and RS also state monks and nuns, not just nuns. So, "Detention of Larung Gar nuns" is not an accurate section title per RS. The deleted text which is accurate per RS includes, The Tibetan Review states that some nuns and monks are under "continued political re-education ", while those allowed to return home face six additional months of political re-education, and are not permitted to rejoin monastic institutions.

Also notable, the edit summary does not mention the simultaneous revert of edits in "Tourism" section, which has already been presented in talk [4] for Esiymbro. Looking forward to building consensus and understanding where the issues are - in both talk discussions. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your prior edit intentionally distorted the TAR government's treatment of nuns as operating political re-education camps, subsequently corrected by @Esiymbro:. Yes, both Tibetan Review and HRW have stated that the nuns were briefly detained, so the section title is representative of that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pasdecomplot: I attempted a synthesis regarding that section and it is now reflected in [5]. I have included this page in my watchlist to help with any future discussion. Normchou ^💬 04:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)