Jump to content

Talk:Tibetan culture

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

Untitled

[edit]

This article's section of Clothing and Customs is seriously lacking. There's also no external links of any kind. 66.168.129.5 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Field Museum also has some grisly items which I would prefer not to upload, such as religious artifacts made of human bone. If there is a demand for these items, please respond on this talk page. (Unsigned comment by Ancheta Wis)

That sounds interesting, but it's not required. HanBoN (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. If it bothers you I'd be quite happy to take pictures and upload them. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm just an ordinary reader, so please excuse me if I'm not using this page correctly.

I am no expert on Tibetan culture, but it seemed to me that the calendar in the calendar section was very similar to the Chinese zodiac (with 5 elements) calendar. However the calendar in the article shows only 11 animals. I think that the sign of the Monkey might be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.99.151 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV concerns

[edit]

"Tibetan civilization boasts a rich culture." This sound like a bit of quackery. POV? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "quackery"? The sentence is a generic lead-in; I've yet to encounter a culture not described as "rich". Chinese culture gets the uncited adjective "complex", if fairness is the issue. --Gimme danger (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry but I couldn't resist adding the "citation needed" tag to the amusingly short sentence forementioned above. --96.229.224.150 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really see the POV here, and if there is POV, then I will tag every other cultural article because they basically fallow the same pattern. I have yet to see an article that demotes a culture. In either case it is too short, so within the day or so I will provide a better intro.--PikachuGyeong (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with the intro, but the polyandry section seems out of date -- 1922. Is it still practiced? If so, are there more recent sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.254.126 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early influence on Tibetan culture

[edit]

I just read Tibet Past and Present and learned that China has a greater influence on Tibetan culture than anyone else. And this influence is very significant for it is in almost every aspect of Tibetan lives. The author Sir Bell points out that among the many things, knowledge and skills imported from China were books on astronomy, astrology and medicine; the making of butter, cheese, barley-beer, pottery, water mills and the national beverage tea. Buddhism was also partly introduced by the Chinese even though it came out of India. In conclusion Sir Bell wrote: "we may in fact say that the present civilization of Tibet was taken mainly from China, and only in a lesser degree from India." (Page 25) This information should have its own section in the article. Can someone put it in? Tibetsnow (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Indian and Chinese Influence on Tibetan Culture section on the article. The Tibetans were high up in the mountains but their culture was greatly influenced by those around them. Showing this cultural link is very important for people to understand Tibet. It also provides a historical background to help the Tibetans and Chinese to reconcile their differences. Tibetsnow (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bell doesn't seem like a very good source for this sort of information. Where did he get his facts? Even if he performed or had access to the best research at the time, he was writing 80 years ago, and it's likely to be somewhat out of date.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Charles Bell was the leading British political officer in Tibet region where he spent nineteen years. Well versed in Tibetan, he wrote the first Tibetan to English dictionary. During his time there, Sir Bell became a good friend of the 13th Dalai Lama and in 1920 was invited by the latter to visit Lhasa where he stayed for about a year. He was welcomed by the Tibetan authorities and had access to the records of Tibetan history.
Bell was no friend of the Chinese. He job was to deny The Chinese authority from exercising its power and influence in Tibet and bring Tibet into the reign of the British Empire. Despite his bias against the Chinese, his research still led him to recognize the profound Chinese influence on the Tibetan culture. This makes his statement very creditable.
Bell learned about Tibetan history from the 13th Dalai Lama and his officers. I am sure you know that it was the 13th Dalai Lama who claimed independence from China in 1912. So, even though the 13th Dalai Lama was separating Tibet from China he was still honest regarding the history. Unfortunately, many of today’s Tibetan activists are no longer honest with the history which is why people like me have to read books from Westerners to learn about Tibet’s history.
You said “Bell doesn't seem like a very good source for this sort of information.” Consider the time he spent and the connection he had in Tibet, who else in the West can provide more creditable information?
You said: “it's likely to be somewhat out of date.” How can an accurate record of history be out of date? His work might not work for some people today but that is not his fault. Tibetsnow (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have assumed that I was implying a political bias on Bell's part, but that was not my intended meaning. Perhaps his bias was in favor of large and powerful civilisations such as his own and, no doubt to a lesser extent from his perspective, China. Or perhaps he had no such bias and simply reached his conclusions based on his best judgment. I don't think this vitiates my complaints. Bell reached sweeping conclusions about Tibetan cultural history. That requires not only data but analysis. If he got most of his information from the 13th Dalai Lama, that doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence, since the 13th Dalai Lama was a priest and politician, not a historian. I'm sure he had some sort of historians or history buffs in his entourage, but we don't have any information about how reliable they were. It's true that Bell's credibility would be even worse if his conclusions were moulded by his political interests, but in any event it doesn't seem he doesn't seem credible enough to support his conclusions.
Your rhetorical question How can an accurate record of history be out of date? assumes its premise. If we agreed it was accurate, then we wouldn't be arguing about its reliability. Anyway, we are talking about an analysis of historical facts, which is even more subject to reinterpretation over time.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"flour-ibex"

[edit]

There is a long quote from Francke about the gift of a "flour-ibex," which is a fairly interesting bit of knowledge, but it shows up under the clothing section. I suggest that we make a new section for "traditional gifts," and have this flour-ibex and the khata discussed there, separating the khata from the clothing section. I'll make that change now, and look more closely at whether it can be further expanded.

New changes

[edit]
@ བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན: Can you please explain your changes on the talk page? Because you remove material that is referenced, pictures that are good, explicit and had been in article for long time. Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Young monks woodblock printing, Sera Monastery, Tibet
Can you please explain your changes in the article on the talk page? Because you remove material that is referenced, pictures that are good, explicit and had been in article for long time. You removed the lead picture twice. We don't want that you remove that. Hafspajen (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tibetan culture is depicted as backwards and inferior to other cultures. I think this needs to be changed. Especially the first picture (and others) don't really show the beauty of Tibetan culture as the pictures of other sites on the topic of cultures of countries do. Then there are way too many pictures in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a childrens book. But I have to admit that pictures offer a good view on the topic. The introduction is too long and goes to much into detail. This should be explained later in the article and not at the start. --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really agree on this one. I don't think it is depicted as backwards and inferior to other cultures at all, I don't think the leed is to long. PLEASE WAIT until your changes are DISCUSSED; for god's sake. John Hill Bladesmulti Yngvadottir Joshua Jonathan Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
' Drmies - somebody please explain how wikipedia is edited. Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshing

[edit]

I suggest that the article is reorganized and changed at some points. The article on Tibetan culture is already very well written and goes a lot into details. I think this should be avoided partially because there are other sites about the different parts of Tibetan culture and they are mostly stubs. So what i suggest is, that the text should be more of an overview and the main articles should go more into detail. In comparison to the other sites about Asian cultures the article about Tibetan culture should include pictures which resume the topic and show the beauty of things. For example the article about Japanese culture has beautiful pictures (although there are not so many of them).

Also, I think, it would be good if the article was reorganized. Following this structure (which is determined by the importance of the aspects of the Tibetan culture:

1. Religion
2. Visual Arts
2.1 Painting
2.2 Statues
2.3 Wood carving
2.4 Calligraphy
2.5 Rug making
3. Performing Arts
3.1 Dance
3.2 Music
4. Language
5. Literature
6. Architecture
6.1 Religious architecture
6.2 Other Structures
7. Clothing
8. Cuisine
9. Social life
10. Sports

--བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now, that you made your suggestions you may want to wait like a week before you start making changes, that other editors can catch up with your suggestions, like John Hill. Hafspajen (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good I will. But there is no need to start cursing my friend. All I want (and I hope you do too) is a biased and good (if not excellent :) article about Tibetan culture. To accomplish this it would be best if we relied on each other, wouldn't it. So I promise to discuss every change here before adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, dear fellow. Wasn't exactly cursing . More like exclaiming. You are fast like a rabbit. Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be an innovative person . Its very good that we both now explained ourselves. --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you are. Innovative. But now you understand why discussion is good. I can agree that the article can be improved. I can also accept that your proposal of an other lead picture (the first picture) to be changed - but not only removed - that picture is rather good and can be used somewhere else then in the article. Why not post several possibilities + the one we have now and chose? Feel free to add more pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pictures
  • You put this at one moment as a lead pic.
    You put this at one moment as a lead pic.
  • this was you second change of lead pic
    this was you second change of lead pic
  • Actual
    Actual
  • possible
    possible
  • Yamantaka
    Yamantaka
We keep religion at middle and starts with the history, but I don't think that religion is needed here, we know that it is Tibetan Buddhism, unless you can provide what we should write. I also think that Buddhism entered in Tibet before 7th century. A few of these pictures look good. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jkadavoor ... We were here. Hafspajen (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Will try to mention good pictures here instead of adding directly in the article. :) Jee 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two more: , . Jee 16:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jee. I was trying to point out to our friend to discuss his changes. Hafspajen (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISSUES RAISED About the issue: that the article goes a lot into details. Well, I think that it is a rather good thing. It will not hinder ther development of the other articles, but Wikipedia tend to be a place where you can't find any more information in the same place any more. That is not so good. Hafspajen (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • About that there are way too many pictures in this article, I think if people don't really have a clue how a culture is - then images has a very high encyclopedic value. Hafspajen (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't think it is depicted as backwards and inferior to other cultures at all, I don't think the leed is to long. You said that : This should be explained later in the article and not at the start- There is a policy on Wikipedia that the readers should know all about the article already by reading only the lead. That SHOULD SUMMARIZE THE ARTICLE. oops hit the caps lock
  • About the lead picture doesn't show the beauty of Tibetan culture as the pictures of other sites on the topic of cultures of countries do - well - that's a point. Maybe Jkadavoor can make a combined multiple picture for the leed - like many pictures together? Hafspajen (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of collages because Commons is forced to delete them whenever one source picture get deleted. The current lead picture is good; but has some quality issues. You can search relevant categories in Commons using FastCCI to find community assessed better pictures. Jee 02:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Jee? Didn't new that. But then if they do,one can make a new one. Or you mean they delete each and every picture in the collage? Hafspajen (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a look at the pictures:
  • These three are very good
  • this was you second change of lead pic
    this was you second change of lead pic
  • possible
    possible
  • Yamantaka
    Yamantaka

I can't really decide which one would be best. But I would be very happy if one of these three would be chosen. Thank you! A collage would be very nice too but as Jee pointed out this would mean a lot of effort to keep it working. --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah there you are, ... sorry, I cant read Tibetan letters. Will you tell how tour name is spelled in English? I really like the monk with the mandala. Hafspajen (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm official transcription by Wylie would be byamspa bloldan but its pronounced Jampa Loden or Champa Loden. The monk with the mandala is a very good picture. --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

[edit]

I am pleased to see that this article is getting some much-needed attention and I think all involved have made some good points and seem to be working in good faith.

I do agree the article does seem to be overloaded with photos but almost all of them are of real interest and shouldn't just be deleted without warning or discussion.

I like the suggestion of reorganising the article into a longer list of headings as suggested above and, perhaps, moving some of the details into new articles with these headings.

I do agree that the "lead" needs rewriting - so that it gives a good overview of the article - a difficult thing to do well.

I am sorry I will not be able to contribute to this process as much as I would like to because of ill health - but I will try to keep checking on developments and try to help out where I can.

I look forward to seeing the article develop and mature.

Thanks to all of you who care and are willing to help improve this important article. John Hill (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, NO DOUBT they were good faith edits. I am very very sure about that, but I had to make him to discuss thing with us SOMEHOW. I still think that a long and comprehensive article is good. I am not happy fragmenting content in may small articles. The specific articles can co on developing the subject in depth. But we need on main article that gives a good understanding of the subject without to be forced jump around all over the Wiki to find informatiom. That's what good main articles are for. Se Romanticism, Selfportrait, Woman artists Norway, for example. Also removing text will automatically mean removing images, because the amount of images is regulated by the amount of text.. Hafspajen (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am again... I totally agree with John Hill. But that should be obvious... The lead needs rewriting, some photos need to be deleted (for example coins and banknotes and the dragon in the art gallery) and the article should summarize the Tibetan culture and not go too much into detail. Details should really be explained in the corresponding main articles (some of them are stubs). I will start a new discussion below about the lead ok? I have started writing one which seems to sum it up even better than the one which is used now. --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to say that I think it is good to have a main article that is detailed, because a long and comprehensive article is good. I am not happy fragmenting content in many small articles. What John said was:photos but almost all of them are of real interest,about details that perhaps, moving some of the details into new articles and "lead" needs rewriting. He wasn't saying anythig else. But we can as one of our experienced editor for second oppinion. Joshua Jonathan - will you give a second oppinion. Hafspajen (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with following articles: Chinese culture, Culture of Japan, Culture of Bhutan, Culture of Korea. They all do what I want to do here. Summary article should be a summary. Of course we could write every aspect about Tibetan culture in just one article but then navigation would be very difficult wouldn't it? And again: The main articles are stubs (mostly). They really need editing. If we write everything in this article there will be nothing left for them :/ do you get my point? --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MY dear friend, I get your point, I did it all the time. And with all respect - those leads are badly written and just wrong. Please read this - WP:Lead. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


OK. COPY IT OVER HERE, THIS IS HOW A LEAD SHULD BE WRITTEN: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.


Haha well said about China (or atleast Communist China - I like Chinese culture and most people are friendly too. Concerning the other articles: I think they are well written. They have been edited a lot and this is the outcome so I think this is how articles about cultures should be written. Of course we will write an even better one about Tibetan culture! Concerning the lead: Please let's discuss this in the section specially created for this (below). Also: You can't compare an article about culture with an article about cottage gardens. Compare things that are similar.--བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well there are things that are similar about them - thy are both articles. But let's try Japanese popular culture, then. Hafspajen (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We will, I wish Joshua Jonathan should pop up now. Do you know that the articles do have regulations and standards on Wiki that are very specific? like. This is how an article shoud look like. Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate--བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well a paragrap is several sentences. The point is that you should summarize the key points. Both literature, cuisine, should be mentioned. Not removed. Hafspajen (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But please: Read my proposal for a new lead and tell me what you think BELOW. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk • contribs)
By the way, are you a monk, Champa Loden? Hafspajen (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Lead

[edit]

As I pointed out several times I strongly support a briefer, shorter lead. I wrote this one below. I will not post it until there are some who agree.

The Tibetan culture developed over many hundred years from prehistoric times until today on the Tibetan plateau which lies surrounded by the high Himalaya, Kunlun and other mountain ranges. The region's remoteness and inaccessability preserved the rich distinct culture which is particularly heavily influenced by Buddhism and the geographical setting. Almost all parts of the culture contain elements of the prevailing Buddhist beliefs and Buddhism itself has adopted a unique form in Tibet, influenced by the Bön tradition and other local beliefs. Other influences include those from the neighboring cultural spheres of China, India and Nepal. Buddhist teachers from these regions introduced their art traditions and customs. All these spheres contributed to the Tibetan culture. Since the occupation of Tibet by China the Tibetan culture is seen endangered by some.

I excluded the other things so that they can be added in the corresponding sections of the article: "Several works on astronomy, astrology and medicine were translated from Sanskrit and Chinese. Why not add this in "Literature"?

Tibet's specific geographic and climatic conditions–its altitude, short growing season, and cold weather–have encouraged reliance on pastoralism, as well as the development of a different cuisine from surrounding regions which fits the needs of the human body in these high altitudes perfectly. Add this to the cuisine section...

The general appliances of civilization have come from China, among many things and skill imported were the making of butter, cheese, barley-beer, pottery, water mills and the national beverage tea. It is a bit far fetched to say that the general appliances of civilization have come from China... They were influences on the Tibetan civilization of course but not the general appliances. I suggest that this is put into another section called "General influences" where the geographical conditions as well as other influences can be discussed. --བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • The point is that you should summarize the key points. Both literature, geographic and climatic conditions, cuisine, all should be mentioned. Not removed. The general appliances can be rewritten. Hafspajen (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is a top-level article, which means that it should be a general introduction to the topic. Note: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. And all of it SUMMARIZED briefly in article lead. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Actually, the lead is too short. Hafspajen (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will continue and write a new one which will be posted here.--བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some good examples: This is quite a good lead: Culture of the United Arab Emirates and Culture of Indonesia . Culture of Sri Lanka, Culture of Bangladesh, bit short but not bad. If you want to chech how long LONG a lead can be - try Cyprus. Mark that it is still only four paragraphs. Hafspajen (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what little it's worth, I was asked to give an outsider view here as an experienced Wikipedian who doesn't know much about this topic ... I also disagree that the lead of this article is too short, and that sections of the article itself should be removed. There is a lot of room for expansion here: animal husbandry and architecture, for example, are hardly covered. And the lead should cover all the topics of the article sections. This is a complex culture; it deserves a long and comprehensive article; and the lead should be a guide that sums up all that is covered in it. Think of it this way: many readers will only read this article to find out about Tibetan culture; others will read it first and then read more about the things that interest them. It's not true that we should only cover specific aspects of the culture in their own articles; readers who are not already familiar with a culture need both a clear and detailed overview and articles dealing with all the specifics. I would cut a few of the pictures in the galleries - do we really need two pictures of yaks, for example? and there is some emotional ("peacock" language, like "rich" culture and "perfectly" in the lead, that should be cut. But in my opinion both the article and the lead need to be expanded with more specifics and more explanations. (Nice choice of opening picture, by the way :-) )Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We added lately a better yak, and the old was not removed. Thank you, Yngvadottir. Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan what do you say? Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're having a party here, while I'm having at another place? Well, thanks anyway for inviting me in. A few comments:
  • I haven't read all the details of these talkpage-posts, but I've got the feeling that བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན་ is a nice guy (or girl), and that the two of you might get along quite well. Ehm, I guess that Hafspajen provided the pictures, as usual?
  • There's a lot of unsourced stuff in there; please be so kind to provide sources. Otherwise, this article may read more like a tourist-brochure than as an encyclopedic article.
  • Sources are also needed to avoid WP:OR.
  • Save the lead for last: first the contents.
  • "Tibetan culture" is a reification, as if it something stationary or so. "Tibet developed a distinct culture" is better.
  • "The Tibetan culture developed under the influence of a number of factors from prehistorical times until today" - WP:WEASEL. But also an indication for the structure of the article: as it is now, it is some kind of tourict-brochure. Where's the history? You (plural) could use the history as a framework; it will "automatically" lead to the present times, and provide some sort of a "filter."
Now, have fun together in changing this article into a great piece: Haf's for the pictures and the style, བྱམས་པ་བློལྡན for the content, and XXX for the good sources. And don't tempt sledgehammers like me and Vic to come long; otherwise mr. Infinity Talk may also show-up again. Best regards to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan dear, thank you for your comments. Now you gave us even more work. Most of the pictures were provided by me, though not the lead picture, that's a new one, nice too, added by Champa Loden. And I do not wish my Tibetan be bitten by Vic, just keep all this secret. Hafspajen (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you promise you keep decorating my talkpage, I won't tell anybody else about you being around here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tibetan culture. 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, 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: 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) 10:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

@Sam-2727: please explain why you think this article is unbalanced. By the way, how come you know this template? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan:--I believe the article is unbalanced because it does not talk about the endangerment of Tibetan culture, but simply focuses on Tibetan culture coming out because of chinese help, a point some would believe to be untrue. This especially shows in the Performing arts section. I learned that template message by googling it. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam-2727: I see your point; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibetan_culture&oldid=1210441473"