Wikipedia

Talk:Tibet

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HagermanBot (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 28 April 2007 (81.157.96.109 didn't sign: "→response: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by 81.157.96.109 in topic South Asia
Learn more about this page
For older discussion, see Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4
WikiProject iconCentral Asia Unassessed
WikiProject iconTibet is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTibet GA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina GA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Calm talk

Template:PastACID

Template:V0.5

Talk page archived

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The former talk page was getting too long, so I moved it.--Niohe 12:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tibet flag should be removed from the Sovereignty section

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

If the "Tibet" flag remains in the section, a picture of the Chinese national flag flying in Tibet should also be present. Otherwise, the presence of only the Tibetan flag in the Sovereignty section of this article implies that Tibet is a sovereign state with its own "inherent" flag, which is a highly POV assertion. Mamin27 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, the caption says the flag was historically used. Nowhere does this article say Tibet is a sovereign state with it's own flag today. Khoikhoi 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
You obviously are not reading the same caption I'm reading or you are just making things up. Where does the caption mention the word "historically"? This is what your caption says: Flag of Tibet used intermittently between 1912 and 1950. This version was introduced by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1912. It continues to be used by the Government of Tibet in Exile, but is outlawed in the People's Republic of China. This caption is unacceptable for NPOV in the context of this section titled "Sovereignty." I am forced to add the sentence: "No country in the world recognizes this flag as sovereign." Mamin27 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
You mean no country in the world recognizes the PRC flag as sovereign in Tibet. --Arigato1 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dude, the Government of Tibet in Exile is in India, and everyone knows it's not a sovereign nation anyways. That's why it has the name "in exile" in it. It's different from Tibet itself, which as we all know is in China. Tibet has historically used the flag, and now the gov. of Tibet in exile still uses it. That's not POV at all. Khoikhoi 04:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The phrasing of your caption is unacceptable. It first states that the flag was used between 1912 and 1950 (presumably the time period when Tibet was "sovereign" and had exercised political independence), and then the following sentence states "It continues to be used by the Government of Tibet in Exile." This is subtle language used to hint that the bearers of this flag holds sovereignty over Tibet, which is absolutely unacceptable for NPOV. No, it's not common knowledge that Tibet is not a sovereign nation; if it were, why do you need a section called "A sovereign nation?" Mamin27 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The section "A sovereign nation?" is about Tibet's historical, not present-day status. That's why it says, "the Chinese government and the Government of Tibet in Exile, however, disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China was legitimate." They're talking about the past. I find the caption perfectly acceptable, as it is indeed common knowledge that Tibet is part of China. I also honestly find nothing wrong with the caption at all. Khoikhoi 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
A 'government in exile' is no government at all. Why not describe an object as a 'square circle' or have an organisation called 'The Confederate Government of The United States Exiled in Russia'? 19 Nov 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.68.3 (talk)
Well, there are articles about other governments in exile. See Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea for instance.--Niohe 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The adjective in the above government is 'provisional' and not 'exiled'. 20 Nov 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)
So you are reducing this to a question of semantics? How profound!--Niohe 12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Very profound indeed. Without semantics there can be no clear meaningful questions. A clear answer cannot be given for a meaningless question. I have pointed out an oxymoron. 20 Nov 06.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)
Why restrict your crusade against governments in exile to Tibet? I suggest that you make this point at Talk:Polish government in Exile as well. I'm sure that Polish Wikipedians will welcome you in helping them overcoming this semantic stumbling block. You can also try to do something about the oxymoron Category:Governments in exile, which you will find at the bottom of this article. There is a lot of rewarding work for you at Wikipedia.--Niohe 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


I'll leave this rewarding work to you, as you proposed it.


The Wiki article on the above on the Polish stated that it was: 'largely unrecognised and without effective power after World war II'. By definition a government governs. If it does not govern then it is not a government. 21 Nov 06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)


Weasel words are things like, "some argue..." or "it is believed that..."—things that people say to when they don't have a source to back-it up. However, the caption in the flag is very straightforward: It was introduced by Thubten Gyatso, and is still used today by the Gov't in exile. What's so POV about that? I think people are making a big deal out of something that's pretty much an accepted fact. Khoikhoi 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused; I though I removed a different phrase, but it seems I made another edit. Never mind, this looks OK.--Niohe 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
See the difference between yours and Mamin's version. ;-) Khoikhoi 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for finding this. I felt that saying "No country in the world today recognizes this flag as sovereign" was both superfluous and a bit "weasely". It's a bit like inserting a phrase "Mr. X is no longer the president of the US" in articles on presidents you don't like. Nothing proves nothing. Besides, flags don't need international recognition to exist.--Niohe 19:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
In that case to call the government of Tibet in exile a government when it is in fact not a government is also superfluous and 'weasely'. 21 Nov 06.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)
I agree. I also find it unecessary to add a Chinese flag (right next to a bunch of prayer flags) below the Tibetan flag, in some attempt to "equalize" the article. As I said before, no one denies that Tibet is part of China. Khoikhoi 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, did you see my exchange with the anonymous gentleman above? Some people just dart in to a discussion as if there only was one country in the world...--Niohe 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, but I see it now. At least the discussion is more on-topic this time... Khoikhoi 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
???? Who said there was only one country in the world?


You guys must have seen the 'presidential inauguration' of Obrator in Mexico: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6166908.stm
Now we have a Mickey Mouse president in the world as well as a Mickey Mouse government in 'exile'. 21 Nov 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk)

Evaluation of Lamaist rule between 1913~1950

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Since there is a topic on the evaluation of PRC rule in the article, shouldn't there be an evaluation of Lamaist rule that lasted between 1913~1950?Ian-- 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Write it and cite it, dont make yourself look like a pov-whore by posting this here for people to see Pirus 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here is a description from the newspaper Guardian (Nov 20, 2006) on Tawang (now occupied by India) under the Lamaist rule:

In the hillside village of Lhou, a group of ramshackle homes covered in orange chrysanthemums, Pema Gombu says he has lived under three flags: Tibetan, Chinese and Indian. Although his living room is decked with pictures of the current Dalai Lama, the 81-year-old says the Tibetan administration in the early 20th century was the worst.

"The [Tibetan] officials in that time were corrupt and cruel. I am sure his holiness did not know this. In those days if a Tibetan stopped you they could ask you to work for them like a slave. They forced us to pay taxes. Poor farmers like me had to give over a quarter of our crops to them. We had to carry the loads 40km [25 miles] to a Tibetan town as tribute every year."

It was this treatment that turned Tawang away from Tibet. Mr Gombu said he helped guide Indian soldiers into the town in 1950 who carried papers signed by the Tibetan government which transferred Arunachal's 35,000 square miles to India. "It was the happiest day of my life."

It seems Guardian is too biased and exaggerated the dark side of Lamaist rule.Ian-- 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
"occupy"?
from your same article -
"The last time China and India clashed was in 1962. It was a short, bloody war that claimed more than 40,000 lives. China's troops scattered Indian soldiers and occupied Tawang before retreating back into Tibet."
now please stop posting your stupid propoganda here. if you have anything to add to the article, do it. otherwise, dont give half-assed quotes giving biased views from articles which are desperatly trying to be neutral
URL for your article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1952226,00.html
either way, i dont see why you cant translate this into something tangible in the article. the talk page isnt meant for debate, although thats what it sometimes boils down to around here Pirus 08:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This talk page is for serious discussion. If anyone is interested only in ranting foul languages like "whore" or "ass", then he shouldn't be here in the first place.Ian-- 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Which country is occupying Tawang? Here is an article from the magazine Frontline published in India: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2117/stories/20040827000807500.htm
The note "The Northern Boundary of India", which Gopal appended to Vol. 3 of his biography of Nehru, most unusually, testifies to this ardour. "The inclination of some British officials at the end of the nineteenth century to relinquish Indian sovereignty over parts of the Aksai Chin plateau does not provide China with traditional rights to this area." So, India is bound by the situation it inherited on Independence. It can invoke "history" and - ask for more. This is utterly untenable in international law and morality. A successor state cannot claim a boundary, which its predecessor did not have. There is a name for such claims - revanchism. Sadly, Gopal misdirected himself and misadvised Nehru. But was not the McMahon Line 1914 also a British creation? India occupied Tawang only on February 12, 1951 evicting the Tibetan administration. Gopal wrote: "This traditional boundary of India... as shown by the official Indian maps of 1954, was known to the People's Republic of China when, by the treaty of 1954, they explicitly undertook to respect India's territorial integrity." Ian-- 22:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This talk page is for "serious discussion" regarding the article, not for your personal propoganda. And you are a whore, a pov whore because you keep posting BS that isnt relevent to the article. You got pwned on the last stuff you posted and now youre erecting more text for me to read over. Stop acting smart. Im NOT gonna read the wall of text you just posted up, because you obviously havent learned the first time around. You should rather respond about how you were able to put such an anti-Indian spin on the last article you edited. Either way, im about to delete this whole thing, because its basically just repetition of me refuting your idiot propoganda, and you pulling more random stuff out your back orifice. Its not helping the article; its making you feel as though Arunachal Pradesh (which isent even tibet) is a part of china. Personally, its a big enough stretch that the you feel (or atleast im pretty sure you feel) that tibet is a part of china. Anyways, let that permeate before i delete this whole ridiculous wall of text Pirus 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ian's right. Be nice, everybody. Pirus, you've totally got to stop calling people whores. As for the substantive issues ... I've somewhat lost the thread of what this is about. Arunachal Pradesh was clearly once part of the Tibetan cultural sphere, but the same is also true for Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh, etc.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
arghh alright ill be nice. Anyways, dude keeps posting stuff about how india is occupying arunachal pradesh and its pretty irrelevent, and i keep responding like the genius i am, but its annoying how dude is using this as a platform for his rants rather than anything in the article Pirus 04:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, like I said, I've kind of lost the thread of what this discussion was about. I'd appreciate it if Ian could say something to summarise what the point of this for the article is.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nat, I don't know what is wrong with this Pirus who is particularly interested in whore and ass. I only think that it is appropriate to discuss Tibet during the lamaist rule from 1913-50 since there is another topic of Tibet under PRC rule in the article. Just by suggesting such topic, I was cursed by Pirus as a whore. Why was Pirus so afraid of any poster suggesting the evaluation of Tibet history of certain period?
Afterwards I excerpted the Guardian article on a story of an old folk who has lived in Tawang and experienced the three administrations -- Tibet, Chinese and Indian -- respectively. And this old folk confessed that he led the Indian Army to occupy Tawang in 1950.
But Pirus badmouthed me as "ass" merely because I used the word "occupy", then I quoted the Indian magazine Frontier which article also pointed out that India did not "occupy" Tawang until 1951. Pirus got furious and ranted that he didn't want to read other source and even threatened to delete my writing.
Neither Guardian nor Frontier is propaganda machine as Pirus labelled them. And I never implied that Tawang is Chinese territory as Pirus claimed that "I made him feel so". Anyway, I agree with you that Arunachal Pradesh, like Qinghai, western Sichuan, Ladakh, Sikkim, and Bhutan, have been once cultural Tibet.Ian-- 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

translation issue

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quote from the page: "Source: Department of Population, Social, Science and Technology Statistics of the National Bureau of Statistics of China (国家统计局人口和社会科技统计司)". Isn't this a mistranslation? I think it should be something in the likings of "Department of Population and Society Scientifical Statistics of the National...". No? UncleMatt 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think 科技 is a noun here, not an adjective... it's a bit weird to say 科技统计司 for "Scientific Statistics Bureau". Third opinions? -- ran (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed sentence, re: ROC

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the following recent addition to the article:

Till today, Tibet has remained an integral part of China on the Map of Republic of China (the democratic Taiwan). See Republic of China Map here [[5]]

This is basically redundant with the following sentence: "Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet".—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed sentence, re: Demographics of Tibet

Latest comment: 18 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

I also removed this recently-added passage:

Following the chinese One child policy,which give the minorities about two times possibilies to reproduce,the Demographics of Tibet are changing rapidly.[1]See Ethnic minorities in China

First of all, the One-Child Policy doesn't give anyone possibilities to reproduce; it restricts their possibilities, more so for Hans, less so for minorities. Moreover, the statement "the Demographics of Tibet are changing rapidly" seems entirely opaque. What is the nature of this change? Third, the website linked to doesn't actually say anything at all about Tibet.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a typical Ksyrie edit, you better invite him to a discussion here if you want to understand how he is reasoning.--Niohe 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
to Niohe,you know me very well....--Ksyrie 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I mean it can be seen from your point of view as a socalled chinese goverment propaganda.But it's ture that nowadays the minorities grow 7 times faster than the Han chinese.See here Ethnic minorities in China.The chinese goverment did prohibit the tibetan from claiming independence,so it give them twice possibilies to reproduce.Today,in the area called China proper,you can easily find the Tibetan who sell their artificts and Uyghur who sell their ethnic food.Maybe 100 hundred years later,tibetan or Uyghur may became the majorities in China.So sad to forsee the possible future chinese.--Ksyrie 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, I wish I were as lucky them, so that I could sell ethnic food or trinkets in China. However, you haven't responded to any of the points that I initially raised above, so I have again removed this passage.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's not what I want to say,the chinese government really give tibetan no choice to choose their leader freely,but other ethnic including the Han chinese neither,furthure more,they give their more possibilities to reproduce.So why the guys are so interesting in the point of view that tibetan and Uyghur are the only people who suffered and implies that they are prosecuted.Just look at the after 1949 history of China,each policies of chinese communists did was the policies national applied in whenever the ethnics,the great forward or cultural revolution are most done in the regions of Han chinese than tibet or xinjiang.if we counter the suffers, the Han chinese suffered the most.So why not see the tibetan and Uyghur and other ethics as a whole who do not enjoy the human rights?--Ksyrie 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
To advance my POV,in my sense of socalled ethnic presecution,the prosectued ethnics maybe regarded as inferior and treated worse than other ethnics by the government or people.But you know it's just the contrary in China,the you-imagined prosecuted ethnics received much better beneficts than others,and you call it prosecution?Did you ever hear about that in a countries where the government prosecuted one ethnic,and the intermarriaged descendents of this ethnic and another nonpresecuted ethinc always choose to be the prosecuted ethnic in order to enjoy the benefict?It's completely mad to see that you guys always see them as subjected people and give much sympathy to them,while they lived better in China that other non-prosecuted people.It's completely mad the world.--Ksyrie 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would very much appreciate to hear an Uighur or Tibetan tell us that they have a better life than Han Chinese in the PRC. How do you know that they suffered less during the Great Leap or the Cultural Revolution?
When I visited Xinjiang some time ago, it was patently clear who were in power and who were not, and who had the resources and who did not. I can assure you that the people with money and resources were Han Chinese. Sure, there are individual Tibetans and Uighurs who prosper under PRC rule, but it's a bit thick to expect the Tibetans and Uighurs as a group to be "grateful" to the PRC. Ever heard about national pride? At any rate, to ask them to be grateful sounds not very different from European colonialists expecting their colonial subjects to be grateful for the blessings of Western civilization. I think we can all move beyond that kind of condescending rhetoric.--Niohe 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am not to say they are grateful or other thing,you have really travalled to china,you may know about the natural environment in xinjiang and tibet,it's completely different from the Eastern China,do you expect the economics in this kind of place where far from sea to grow better than the coastal cities?If you find than the rich are mostly Han chinese it's because they lived in the better natural environment not because they are favorised by government.Look at the Manchu and Ethnic Koreans in China who live in the Eastern China,they live a better live than Han Chinesesome sources in chinese.You cann't exclude the natrual factor in the economic developement.I am sure if tibetan and Uighur live in the eastern china,they may live a much more standard of living.And to say something sad,the suffering,for the great leap forward and cultrual revolution i won't know better than you do.But check the demographics statistics,if the minorities really suffered more than han chinese,their propotion will diminished before 1980.see Ethnic minorities in China.But we see the contray.--Ksyrie 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sigh...--Niohe 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Look, this is all well and good, but ... none of this has anything to do with the flaws in the text that was initially added. I don't see that being addressed.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but Ksyrie has never been very good at taking part in a constructive discussion. He reminds me of the king in "Mencius", who when having lost an argument, turned left and right and started to talk about something else (王顾左右而言他).--Niohe 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply


Clearly Nat Krause was correct in removing these passages because they were badly written in English (in fact they really make no sense semantically), and it would seem that the writer's fluency in English is questionable. The passage should really read, 'The One-Child policy, which many Hans resent as prohibitive punishment, did not apply to the minority groups in China. As such the Han population sees the PRC Goverment treating its minorities more favourably than the majority Han.'

As for Niohe's point about a few prosperous Tibetans and Uighurs, it must be pointed out that there are far more poor Hans than there are wealthy Hans. There are probably not much difference in the living standards between the poor Hans and the poor ethnic minorities. The rich-poor divide is not simply a question of ethnicity. The situation is the same in the US where Blacks are on average poorer than Whites, but there are still plenty of rich Blacks and poor Whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.0.231 (talk)

I have never disputed the fact that there are more poor Han Chinese than there are minorities (in absolute numbers), so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But I guess that in both absolute and relative numbers, there are more wealthy Han Chinese in Lhasa and Ürümqi, than there are wealthy Tibetans and Uighurs in Beijing. Get the point?--Niohe 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply


There are more poor people than wealthy people in any country in both absolute and relative terms. In the West, even people who should count themselves as wealthy will tell you that they are poor. It is no doubt true that there are more wealthy Hans in the western regions than there are wealthy Tibetans or Uighurs in the eastern region. Why? Because the Hans took their capital with them, whereas the Tibetans and Uighurs had nothing to take with them (except their labour, and any Western economist will tell you that labour is not worth very much). Don't forget both Tibet and the Tibetans were very poor to start off in economic terms; of course the Tibetans will try to convince the rest of the world that they are very wealthy spiritually. But unfortunately spiritual wealth does not feed earthly needs. Niohe should realise that the Tibetans are now a lot better off than in the times of the lamas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.0.231 (talk)

I'm not denying that some Tibetans and Uighurs are prospering under the PRC, but you can justify any colonial enterprise with that kind of argument.--Niohe 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is not a colonial enterprise, nor are my observations justifications as such. If the Tibetans followed the misguided ways of the lamas, they will simply go extinct, the same way as the Neanderthals; or at best there will be a few specimens left in zoos and museums, or on reservations as in the US model. The reason for this is that the rest of the world will move faster and faster relative to the Tibetans, until they will become not a recognisable part of global human society. There are Tibetans and Uighurs who prosper, not because of a colonial enterprise, but because they are smarter than others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.0.231 (talk)

Wow! So now Tibetans and Uighurs are reduced to zoological specimens; I didn't realize there were people thinking this was in the 21st century. Anyway, I'm not sure what this debate is about, so I'm going to call it a day.--Niohe 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes for many this is the 21st century both in time and space, but unfortunately many Tibetans still think they live in the past. That's is why it is important to help Tibetans catch up; the lamas are definitely not letting the Tibetans do that as it is not in their interest to.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.123.201 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

(Removed inflammatory remarks by 213.122.113.63)

Dear anonymous: I'm not sure what point this thread is debating at this point. I doubt that very many knowledgeable people would dispute that many Tibetans today are better off in many respects than they were the last time lamas ruled—although the extent of the improvement can be disputed. Clearly, this has not resulted in a condition where Tibetans are generally wealthier than the Chinese are—I don't know if anyone has suggested otherwise. Moreover, a lot of countries in Asia have experienced rising standards of living over the last 50 years, and it was not necessary for them to lose their independence in the process. The main source of improvement has been exposure to modern technology and the beginnings of integration into the international economy.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not really you cann't exclude the environmental factors in the economic propertity.Check the Manchu,and Ethnic Koreans in China,they are generally healthier than the Han Chinese.The tibetan are poorer because they lived in the Tibetan Plateau,where maybe the most difficult place for transportation,not because of the exploit of chinese government.--Ksyrie 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Very profound indeed. I "cann't" find much more to say...--Niohe 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nat Krause, if you are not sure what point this thread is debating at this point, then you have a problem, because you started the thread, and Niohe took it up. Many people know that in the late 19th century and in the 20th century, there were major restructuring of what you would term China. Like any major company restructures, what was before and after the restructuring look differently to different people. For example, GM today is not the GM of 50 years ago. Yes GM still build cars, but it does other things as well, and it has other problems. Like any company restructuring, divisions may seek to break away, but the parent may reign it back in. This was the situation with the region of Tibet. Tibet has not 'lost' its independence, but has remained in the new restructured 'company'. Although the West use the same word 'China' to describe the state known as 'The Qing Empire' and the PRC, the 2 states are different. Tibet is a 'country' in the sense that Scotland is a country, that is a country under 'Great Britain'. Tibet is a 'state' in the sense that 'Texas' is a state under the entity called 'The United States of America'. Of course, just like rival companies, one will stir up trouble for their rivals to win business (slogan: Our burgers got more meat than theirs. Where's the beef?). This is exactly what you are doing, stirring.

The East Asian countries you are talking about amount to Japan, S Korea and 'Taiwan'. Japan was already an industrialised country. Are these countries independent? They are very much dependent on the USA for defence and they certainly would not openly oppose US foreign policies. In return the USA give them a market for their products. In effect these countries are not independent. Even their cultures have been Americanised (and I understand that people here oppose any changes to the Tibetan culture).

Exposure to modern technology and integration into the international economy requires capital. It is the PRC who is investing this capital, and creating these opportunities for the Tibetans. Both exposure to technology and integration into the international economy results in new information and knowledge for the Tibetans, which will make the Tibetans realise that the teachings and ways of the lamas are both untrue and false. It is not in the interest of the lamas to allow exposure of modern technology and knowledge to the Tibetan masses; this is one of the reasons why the exiled lamas make propagandas against the PRC.

Give China another 100 years, and all Tibetans will be as wealthy as any other Chinese, but you will have to accept that for this to happen, the Tibetans of 100 years from now will be different to the Tibetans of 1930. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.113.63 (talk)

I certainly did start this thread, and for the purpose of explaining the faults in a passage I removed from the article. No one has yet made a meaningful response to that, except to agree. So, the thread has strayed quite far from its original purpose. This is not such a bad thing—I tend to favour the idea that some level of extraneous dialogue can potentially benefit the article in an indirect way in the future—but I had become somewhat unclear on quite who disagrees with who and on what score.
I would like to say, before continuing, that, as far as I know, there is no one around here who opposes "any changes to the Tibetan culture". It's possible that a position like that is held by a few semi-literate hippie teenagers, but that's hardly worth paying attention to.
The comparison between Scotland and Tibet is an interesting one, although it has obvious limitations, to the effect that it is nonsensical to compare Tibet today with Scotland today. Still, it is interesting to note that recent surveys show a very high level of support among the Scottish people (in the vicinity of 50%) for independence from England. Can you imagine? This is a people which speaks English as its native language and which, despite past conflicts, has lived in peace and equality with the English for hundreds of years. Yet, they still aren't terribly comfortable with the idea of sharing a national government with their one-time conquerors.
I did not, in fact, intend to imply a comparison between Tibet's economic development and that of Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan. That would really be a silly comparison, since those countries (renegade province, etc.) are basically part of the developed world, and Tibet is far from that level currently. I wouldn't really describe South Korea as a fully independent country, although I'm sure they like their current situation a lot better than if they were a "South Korean Ethnic Autonomous Region" run by the U.S. Republican Party or somesuch. Regarding Tibet, I was thinking more of countries like India or Thailand, although it's likely that their per capita income is still considerably higher than Tibetans'.
The claim that "exposure to modern technology and integration into the international economy requires capital" is difficult to respond to. No one begins with modern capital, so everyone has to get external investment while building their own. However, there's no reason anybody's capital investment has to all come from one source, I don't see how this has any relevance at all to Tibet's political ties with China. Your statement that access to modern information "will make the Tibetans realise that the teachings and ways of the lamas are both untrue and false" is an interesting claim and I don't know if it would prove to be correct, but it doesn't seem very likely. A lot of religions do just fine in the modern world; for instance, Greece is fairly developed and has access to modern information sources, but they continue to support the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, most of the exiled Tibetan lamas' largesse comes from wealthy supporters in West and Taiwan, not from some illiterate peasantry somewhere.
Most importantly, I'd like to respond to your analysis of this conversation: "Of course, just like rival companies, one will stir up trouble for their rivals to win business ... This is exactly what you are doing, stirring." (Let's set aside the point that it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone who clearly doesn't believe I'm expressing opinions in good faith.) I've heard this sort of thing before, of course: those who criticise China's Tibet policy are all outside agitators trying to undermine China (or, even worse, if they are Chinese, they are betraying their duties to their own country and family). Let me ask you: is this position falsifiable? What would somebody have to do or say to prove that it's not true? If there's no answer to that question, then you don't really have an opinion, but an article of faith.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply


You obviously don't realise Scotland is not a country dependent upon England, both Scotland and England are countries in the United Kingdom, which also include the Province of Northern Ireland and the Principality of Wales. Despite so many people support the break away of Scotland, it has not yet happened. Have you voiced your support for this?

Why do you want to compare Tibet to India or Thailand? There are several states in India which want to break away (or should I say that there are elements in several states who incite breaking away), for example Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Do you voice your support for those movements also? The same is true in Thailand where the south wants to break away (or again should I say certain elements want to break away). Do you voice your support for that movement also? If Scotland, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, South Thailand, or Texas are not fully independent states, then why should Tibet?

Religions in the West have evolved. The Christian Churches now believe the earth go round the sun, and not the other way round. Neither do Churches in the West profess to be political rulers, which is opposite to the lama supporters' claim that lamas are political leaders. Not even the Catholic Church could make Roman Catholics do what it teaches (for example in family planning). Yet the lamas expect the Tibetans to do everything they say, and to convince the world that they are correct. The lamas have not moved their religion like Western religions. Do Tibetans have to believe in demons and evil spirits? Would they believe in these if they had proper access to information? If they did not believe in these then by definition they do not believe in lama Buddhism. Buddha went into a life of ascetism because he wanted to answer a few questions such as why is there disease, why is there death, why is there suffering etc. He apparently became 'enlightened' ie 'buddha'ed', because he thought he found the answers. But I should think people now realise most diseases are caused by infections caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi, worms and so on. Buddha did not know about viruses or bacteria, so in one stroke, even a child in the West now is a 'buddha', ie an 'enlightened one' because he knows what cause diseases. May be everyone is now a 'supreme buddha' because everyone is now enlightened with modern knowledge to answer Buddha's questions.

So Nat Krause you justify your comments by saying you express your opinions in good faith; what exactly is your good faith based upon? Have you looked anywhere to test your good faith? It would certainly appear that you have not, as it can be so easily challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.21.240 (talk)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

With the proliferation of national WikiProjects, even one for Austria-Hungary, 90 years gone, would there be enough interest to justify such a project as this? Happy New Year! Chris 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not against the idea, and if such a WikiProject is started, I'll sign up as a participant and put the project page on my watchlist, etc. However, I don't see any particular need for it, or enthusiasm, so I don't think it's really necessary at this time. Some WikiProjects seem to get started needlessly. There is, by the way, already a WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism, but it is mostly inactive. Even WikiProject Buddhism is awful quiet most of the time.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have created a discussion at [6], thanks! Chris 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beauty Contest Condemned?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The beauty contest is condemned by the Tibetan government in exile."

What is the source of this statement? From the link prior, it seems the Dalai Lama himself has no opinion one way or another, so who in particular condemns the function? -- Hidoshi 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The spam warning and chinese text message overlap

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.1 and on this Tibet page the warning about spam links and the message about the page containing chinese characters overlap making both somewhat unreadable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.84.208.151 (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

South Asia

Latest comment: 18 years ago29 comments13 people in discussion

Thegreyanomaly, I was hoping that you could provide more academic sources (i.e. encyclopedias). The first source was the "Center for South Asia Studies", but it includes Afghanistan as well, which isn't always considered as being part of South Asia. The same applies for your second source. Your third source, the list of Summer Language Programs, says that Tibetan is offered at SASLI, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Tibet is in South Asia. Remember that many Tibetans live in India. As for the last source, I couldn't find any mention of "Tibet" or "South Asia" on it.

Now, according to Britannica:

Tibetan Bod, in full Tibet Autonomous Region, Chinese (Wade-Giles) Hsi-tsang Tzu-chih-ch'ü, (Pinyin) Xizang Zizhiqu historic region and autonomous region of China that is often called “the roof of the world.” It occupies about 471,700 square miles (1,221,600 square kilometres) of the plateaus and mountains of Central Asia, including Mount Everest (Chu-mu-lang-ma Feng). It is bordered by the Chinese provinces of Tsinghai to the northeast, Szechwan to the east, and Yunnan to the southeast; Myanmar (Burma), India, …

Khoikhoi 06:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess you are right. I concede that Tibet is Central Asian geographically, but below I have made it clear that it is culturally South Asian Thegreyanomaly 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by "culturally South Asian"? Isn't South Asia home to many cultures? South Asia is, according to the article, a "geopolitical region", not a cultural one. If it is, you should probably find sources for that. Khoikhoi 08:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Response

The first reference was from UC Berkeley, one of the few universities that offers majors in South Asian studies. And yes they do accept Afghanistan as South Asia but so does the UN and many other universities. Most academic sources I have seen at least give reference that, if not always, Afghanistan has been part of South Asia. The second reference is UW Madison, which makes identical claims to that of UC Berkeley. The last link refer states the folloiwng "Tibet occupies a strategic ___location in Asia and has historically played a role in maintaining peace in Central and South Asia." I'll admitt on that one the wording is a bit vague.

Tibet Environmental Watch http://www.tew.org/archived/himal.part1.html

http://goasia.about.com/cs/azsiteindex/a/sasia101.htm

Thegreyanomaly 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "Tibet Environmental Watch" quote seems quite politically POV to me. It seems to seek to establish Tibet as a part of a "South Asian" identity along with the subcontinent, and away from Central Asia or China. This seems reflective of the British colonial policy of expansion into Afghanistan and Tibet from their base in India.
I looked through their website, and couldn't find anything about what kind of organisation this is, where it is based, or who are its members. What's more, it's hopelessly POV. I therefore submit that it's not a reliable source.
As for the About.com link: with all due respect, I'm not sure that the Travel section on About.com is either an academic source or a reliable one. I don't think travel websites are usually acceptable as references for a geographical definition.
Can you suppy a reference for your claim that the UN recognises Tibet as a part of South Asia? --Sumple (Talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I never said the UN recognizes Tibet as South Asia. I said they recognize Afghanistan. Its not a political POV. Khoikhoi asked me for another academic source that recognizes Tibet as South Asia and I gave him on, TEW. The About.com one was just extra. I have recognition that several universities recognize Tibet as South Asian by putting them in their South Asian Studies programs Thegreyanomaly 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, like I said TEW doesn't look exactly "academic" or even reliable.
Is inclusion in the "South Asian Studies" program an indication that they "recognise" Tibet as South Asian as a matter of geography? Perhaps it is an indication that they feel that Tibetan culture is closer to some South Asian cultures?
For example, you might study Siberia as a part of Russia in an "East European program" or a "European program". However, that does not mean that Siberia is in Europe rather than Asia. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, kindly note that tour guides are not reliable sources according to wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#History guidelines. According to the Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Arts, cultural Tibet is "heavily influenced" by that of the [Han] Chinese. Even some anti-Chinese/proindependence Tibet experts also admit that:

  • "the present civilization of Tibet is taken mainly from China and only to a lesser degree from India. The general appliances of civilization...have come from China" [Bell, Charles, Tibet Past and Present]

Culturally unrelated to East Asia? Come on! - 218.102.23.90 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

[2][3][4][5] I cited far more links than About.com (You should have checked the page history). No part of Asia is completely unrelated to another, but the cultures of Tibet are closest related to the cultures of Bhutan, Arunachal Pradesh Buddhists, Ladakhis, and other South Asia states/countries along the Tibetan (or Chinese, depending on POV) border Thegreyanomaly 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also choose a more reliable source. Charles Bell lived from 1774 to 1842 and wasn't a historian. He was a reverend's son and a doctor. How much do you think Europeans even knew about Asia at that point in time. Thegreyanomaly 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tibetan writing isn't even related to Chinese writing (its a syllabic alpbhabet, a writing system primarily used by South and Southeast Asians). Their form of Buddhism evolved from a heavily Hindu-influenced Buddhism created by the Bengali Pāla Dynasty.

Bala everyone. Bengalis now believe in Allah not buddha.

The Malay language is written with the Latin alphabet, so it must be related to English? BTW, Chinese Pinyin is also written with the Latin alphabet, so by your reasoning, Chinese also must be related to English. You are just bs.

Banglapedia http://a-bangladesh.com/banglapedia/HT/P_0037.htm
I also have a second reference of this from Kanai L. Hazra's Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India Thegreyanomaly 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Charles Bell was of course Political officer, but WHO ARE YOU to deny that he studied/observed well in local History/Civilization as he has spent years living in the region? So how many years have you spent in Tibet? Claiming higher authority than him would only make me laugh!
And who the bloody hell said there should be only one writing in one nation? Have you ever heard of such thing as "Multinational state"? Well, I really doubt if you have. Factually, neither Manchu scripts nor many other minorities groups' writings was related to Chinese character (invented mainly by Han Chinese)! But, like it or not, the Manchus did refer their regime(1644-1911) to as China. As China is a well-known multiracial state, is it that difficult for you to understand? 218.102.23.126 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
218.102.23.126, you're going to have to remain civil and polite in the future, or else I will simply remove your comments from talk pages without further notice. Also, unless you have some good reason not to, please register and use an account—you edit Wikipedia plenty.
It appears there is some misunderstanding on greyanomaly's part about who Charles Bell is. Wikipedia has articles on a doctor and a surveyor by that name, neither of whom ever seem to have been to Asia. Instead, I think this would be on Charles Alfred Bell (1870-1945) who was an administrator in British India. The book 218.102.23.126 is quoting seems to be from 1924. Obviously, his Tibetology is rather out of date by now at best.
Thegreyanomaly is quite right to point out that Tibetan script is unrelated to Chinese script, because this contradicts the claim that the present civilization of Tibet is taken mainly from China and only to a lesser degree from India. The general appliances of civilization...have come from China. Isn't writing a "general appliance of civilisation"? I don't see how this has anything to do with China being a multiethnic state.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It should also be noted that the Tibetan script is also used by many South Asian groups. Below is the quote I spoke of
pages 236-237 Hazra, Kanai L. Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India. 1998th ed. New Delhi: Munishiram Manharlal, 1995.
The Pāla Empire was what gave Tibet its form of Buddhism. Yea the Tibetans changed it, but the Pālas gave it to em, not the Chinese. Tibetan Buddhism is probably the most wellknown cultural element of Tibet Thegreyanomaly 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, wiki-account already existed, the problem is that the passwords were lost![7] Nat, the difference between two languages is of course related to China's status as "multinational"! As China now appears as such a kind of state, we should not be surprised by the difference between the Tibetan script and the Chinese character (Hànzì, literally:"Han Character") as the languages' developers, Tibetans and Hans, are ethnically separated (As a matter of fact, Chinese governments never deny that the Tibetan writing system was developed before the region become part of the Chinese dominion and that the Tibetans form an unique ethnic group). Just like there is difference between ethnic-Russians (Slavic) and ethnic-Siberians(mainly Turkic/Mongoloid), linguists even claim that Espanol language and that of the Basques are of totally two systems.(Please also note that linguists group Hanyu(but not Indian languages) and Tibetans into one family, namely Sino-Tibetan languages).

Charles Bell lived in Tibet for years witnessing the daily life of the Tibetans and I believe that daily lives, e.g., clothing, chopsticks, style of architecture(seen the golden roof of the Potala?), 12-animal calendar) do form integral part of the Tibetan culture, and non-Han writing is only one single element, not "all", of the general appliance of civilization. Second, unquestionably Tibetan Buddhism is the main element, but who can deny that there is Chinese/Sinicized element (Han Buddhism) within the local faith? Regarding Bell's Tibetology being "outdated", Nat, kindly note that Tibetan cultures in the 1920s are still Tibetan cultures. - 210.0.204.29 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like add that, no offence, the saying of "Tibetan script is also used by many South Asian groups" is a little bit misleading. Indeed, the South Asian population who use Tibetan script only form a small part of the subcontinent (mainly Mongoloid-inhabited regions like Ladakh the Little Tibet and the Himalayas which are bordering Tibet), You found people using Tibetan in, for example, the traditional Indian states? Yes, but only in the Tibetan exiled community. Generally the developments of the Tibetan writing are independent of both Han/Chinese people and the Indians [Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Arts, p454]--219.79.164.95 11:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Tibetan script descended from Brahmi just like South Asian scripts. It is closest related to Indian scripts to say the least. Also the Bhutanese, who are undisputed as South Asians, write in the Tibetan script. Also notice Tibet fits into the Sino-Tibetan group, but it also goes deeper into the Tibeto-Burmese group. South Asian languages like Nepal Bhasa (नेपाल भाषा) are entirely South Asian yet Tibeto-Burman (which are Sino-Tibetan). Sure its called the Sino-Tibetan group, but its divided into Tibeto-Burman and Chinese groups. Tibetan, Burman languages, and some South Asian languages are fit in there. Myanmar is a country under the Indosphere don't argue about what they are; Myanmars are Southeast Asians who are culturally related to South Asia. The Tibetans are very close to an Indosphere languages like Nepal Bhasa (नेपाल भाषा), Myanmar, Ladkhi, Bodo language, etc. Thegreyanomaly 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
You might as well say because Vietnamese is written with a Latin alphabet that it is a Latin language!!! Whoever say Tibetan is linguistically related to Indic (Indo-European rather than Dravidian) languages knows nothing about linguistics, and should be exposed for this bs. 3 April 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.101.15 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
'Dalai' is the Tibetan for 'Ocean'. In modern Putonghua 'ocean' could be 'Da-hai' (great sea). Is this close enough in similarity or not for your linguistic argument?
This is what's known as a total coincidence. "Dalai" is Mongolian, not Chinese or Tibetan.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I know I should't intervene in this kind of fruitless debates, but I guess I can't resist it. I noticed that User:219.79.164.95 claimed that the Manchus referred to their regime as "China". Nothing can be further from the truth, as is well known, the Manchus usually referred to their regime as the Great Qing Empire (Daicing gurun, Daqing guo). "China" was only a geographical expression at the time.--Niohe 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually the 'Chinese' have never called their country 'China'. 'China' is the name given by other people.
Look, that Tibetan culture/Tibetan language is "close" to South Asian "culture" or "language" does not suddenly remove Tibet into South Asia as a matter of geography. There's that great big pile of rock that we call the Himalayas for godssakes. Tibet is (generally speaking) further north than Afghanistan. Do you consider Afghanistan as part of Central Asia too?
Anyway, I think the linguistic arguments are ridiculous. There's a Sino-Tibetan language family, which, despite disputes about how internally diverse it is, still makes Tibetan close to East Asian languages than any Indian language
Your argument runs thus: Tibetan is different from Chinese. Therefore Tibetan is like Indian languages. It doesn't work like that. Even if Sino-Tibetan was to be split down the middle between Chinese and Tibetan-Burman, there is still more evidence that they are mutually related than evidence that Tibetan would be related to, say, Hindi, which is an Indo-European language.
As for writing ... yes that shows cultural affinity, but much less so than linguistic affinity. To give you an example, Manchus use Tibetan script. By your argument that makes Manchus South Asians. The reality is that the adoption of Tibetan script shows cultural and religious affinity, and goes nowhere towards "proving" that Manchuria is a part of Tibet. --Sumple (Talk) 11:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


The Manchus do not use the Tibetan script; the Manchus use the original Mongolian script, which was in turn from the Uyghur script. 3 April 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.101.15 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
response

No, Tibetan is closer to Indian languages and other South Asian languages than it is to Chinese

Wrong!!!! Indian languages consist broadly of 2 groups, Indo-European and Dravidian, neither of which are related to Tibetan.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.96.109 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

Bhutan: Bhutanese (Dzongkha) actually makes it down into the Tibetan group

Nepal: Nepal Bhasa (नेपाल भाषा) is Tibeto-Burman. Limbu language is too, but I do not believe it is an official language (It is also spoken in Sikkim)

India: Bodo, Meitei, Garo, Mizo, Pahari, Ladakhi, and Kokborok are Tibeto-Burman. These (minus Ladakhi which I believe is a district language) are all official languages under state governments.

That should be plenty of evidence to say that there are South Asian languages that are closer to Tibetan that Chinese is.

A linguist is even advocating moving Tibeto-Burman out of of Sino-Tibetan. I am no longer trying to tag Tibet as geographically South Asian (see above Talk:Tibet#South_Asia) (it is geographically Central Asian). My argument is only that it is culturally South Asian. Thegreyanomaly 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

One linguist's maverick opinion does not count very much in the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.96.109 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
Thegreyanomaly, I'm honestly not entirely hostile to your position. I just don't completely understand it. What does "culturally South Asian" mean? I thought "South Asia" was basically a geographical concept. Clearly, Tibetan's closest relatives are language spoken at various points in the Himalayas, and, after that, Burmese and some of its cousins. I tend to think Ladakhi, Sikkimese, and Dzongkha should be discounted, as they result from population movements within the last 1000 years or so. Anyway, some languages related to Tibet are spoken at and around the edges of the Indian subcontinent. What does this tell us?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I've taken so long to respond. What I am trying to say is that Tibetans are closer to South Asians culturally that they are to East Asians, Central Asians, or Southeast Asians. They are Central Asian in terms of their geography but in a cultural sense Tibet isn't so close to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, or Tajikistan or any other Central Asian nation. Thegreyanomaly 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Do ethnic Tibetans look like Indians, or can you tell them apart from other Chinese peoples, because they don't look like Indians to me, and I can't tell them apart from other Chinese?

If there is still no consensus in the near future, I will formally remove the Tibet entry from South Asia, where the four citations provided by User:Thegreyanomaly factually, as mentioned above, prove nothing. - 219.73.86.204 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem with this debate, is that terms like 'south Asian' and 'east Asian' are vague, and relatively recent coignages. In fact it seems like an entirely meaningless question to ask whether Tibetan culture is 'more' Chinese, or Indian. One cannot measure and weigh cultures or clearly see their boundries. the borders of modern India and China are historical accidents. Dzongka is a Tibetan dialect. The lingusitic position of Tibetan is controversial, it may be distantly related to Chinese, but is certainly not related to Indo-Aryan languages. Tibetologist 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Map

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Unsourced map and caption, removed from article on 25 April 2007 —Babelfisch 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)  Reply
            Claimed by Tibetan exile groups.
Tibetan areas designated by PRC.
Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control).
Claimed by India as part of Aksai Chin.
Claimed (not controlled) by the PRC as part of the TAR.
Other historically/culturally-Tibetan areas.

Has your map been vandalised? The colour blocks on the key are spread out in a strange way, making it impossible to understand. Bards 13:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it is supposed to be like that. I'm not sure how difficult most people find it to be, but it's certainly not impossible.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
ok, I think I get it. But it is a non-standard format, and not obvious, especially when the map is relatively small. Perhaps a bigger, more detailed map would help eg. clearly labelling the regions - Aksai Chin, Jammu, Kashmir, Sikkim, Bhutan, etc. Bards 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No sources are given for the territorial claims indicated on the map and its caption. I've pointed that out on the discussion page on Wikimedia on 18 November 2006. There has been no reply, so I've removed the map. —Babelfisch 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't re-insert the map without providing sources.[8] —Babelfisch
The map has been here for years without anyone disputing it. What parts specificly do you think are incorrect? You can add {{fact}} tags if you want. Khoikhoi 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The map that has been on this article for years seems to be to be perfectly ok to me and is definitely from a NPOV, as it shows all views. However, the map Babelfisch put in its place seem to me to be to be biased and a POV map, and should not in my opinion be the main map in the lead. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk
I' didn't insert a "POV map" - I just moved the map from the demographics section. —Babelfisch 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've looked at the links Ran has added to substantiate the claims of the captions. The problem is that at least some of them are not proper sources:
  • "Claimed by Tibetan exile groups":
  • Tibet at a glance (The Office of Tibet, London; 30 September 1996)
    — There's a map, but it's not very detailed. The claims east of Bhutan are not clear, for example, and you can't make out the areas marked red (█) in the caption. (I'm rather curious what the sources were for those areas. I've never read detailed descriptions of the exile community's claims there.)
  • "Tibetan areas designated by PRC":
  • "Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control)":
  • Tibet at a glance (The Office of Tibet, London; 30 September 1996)
    — Not very useful, see above.
  • Official web page of Arunachal Pradesh
    — So what? This page doesn't say anything about Tibet and actual Chinese control.
  • China-India Border: Eastern Sector (map produced by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin)
    — Excellent CIA map about the border dispute, but it doesn't show all of Tibet. See below.
  • "Claimed by India as part of Aksai Chin":
  • China-India Border: Western Sector (map produced by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin)
    — Another CIA map, wonderful. But concerning the north of the disputed territories, this map and the map in the article do not agree at all. What has happened here?
  • Official Website of Jammu and Kasmir (Directorate of Information, Jammu and Kashmir Government)
    — No maps, nothing about the territorial dispute on this page.
  • "Claimed (not controlled) by the PRC as part of the TAR":
  • China-India Border: Eastern Sector (map produced by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin)
    — Once again the CIA map about the border conflict in the eastern sector. Here it is really appropriate.
  • China Tibet Information Center
    — Government website about Tibet. This page is useless as a source here, not a word about territorial claims. What for?
  • "Other historically/culturally-Tibetan areas":
  • Kingdom of Bhutan (Bhutan Tourism Corporation Limited)
    — Nice, but what for? Nothing about "Tibetan areas" on this page.
  • About Sikkim (Government of Sikkim, Department of Information Technology)
    — Same as with Bhutan above.
  • History of Leh (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council)
    — Same as with Bhutan and Sikkim above.
I guess at least some of these were not the sources that were used to produce the map. —Babelfisch 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone please help me make some edit to the article

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am in mainland China behind the Great Firewall, so I cannot access the article directly. My proxy for accessing the page has been blocked from editing by Wikipedia.

In the third paragraph of section "Name" / "In Chinese", there might be a typo. "土番 (Tufan)" should be "土蕃 (Tubo)".

Thank you.HELLO, WORLD! 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it's a mistake, 吐蕃[tǔ fān] is the ancient name for Tibet. 土番 here is only the pronunciation translation of the ancient name. Please read the context. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Notes

  1. ^ http://www.stats.gov.cn/was40/gjtjj_en_detail.jsp?searchword=population&channelid=9528&record=6 Communiqué on Major Data of 1% National Population Sample Survey in 2005
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]

藏

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 藏 character is pronounced "cáng" when used to mean storage (e.g. 儲藏 chǔcáng "to store"), and the "zàng" pronunciation is usually to describing Tibet or Tibetans, or in words like 寶藏 (bǎozàng) "treasure". So while the character is the one and the same, a meaning of "Western storage" for the term 西藏 would require a deliberate mispronunciation, so I added the blurb about the different pronunciations on the article. Thought I'd give a heads-up as I wade into the minefield. Kelvinc 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Infobox

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't Tibet have an infobox like all other disputed territories and occupied countries? I checked around other such territories and countries and they all seem to have infoboxes expect for Tibet. Is this the work of editors who favour the communist government in China and wish to suppress all things to do with Tibet? If so Wikipedia isn't very NPOV these days. Usergreatpower 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for an infobox, but the infobox must itself be NPOV. The one that had been repeatedly inserted wasn't. Again, I'd be all for an infobox on the model of the one in Western Sahara. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be a general consensus that there should be an infobox on this article similar to that of Western Sahara so the next step is what should be included in the new infobox and what shouldn't to make it NPOV? A sample infobox would be good. 88.110.139.15 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am very bad at designing boxes, but I'd suggest that there should not be a flag or an anthem, nor any assertion that either the PRC or the CTA is the legitimate government for Tibet. Stay with geographical and population facts. --Nlu (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just change the spelling mistake

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

known as the Dalai Lamas have existed in Tibet, and the fourteen --->>> Here Dali<<-- Lama's are beleived to be the incarnations of Avalokiteśvara ("Chenrezig" [spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmendarm (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Tibetan Monk Chant

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After reading and re-reading this article I was discraced to find no relevance to the "Tibetan Monk Chant" I feel that this is a major factor in Tibet's culture, most young people in Tibet listen to the chant when they are young and I believe that it is this that causes them to lead such a life in exile (no source)I would greatly appreciate some mention in the article or even better an article to itself, I would volunteer to make this article being interested, since an early age, in Tibetan Monks D. BULL 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changes made by User:Xiaoliang1 today

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Being new to this project I am not sure yet of the policy regarding changes and what can and cannot be done to revert edits. However, some of the changes made by the above user seem to be unverified and dubious at best I wonder if someone more knowledgeable than me could look at the changes made by the user please? Thanks Tangerines 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user asked me for help in getting his or her edits into the article. Honestly, I don't know why they asked me, as I have never worked on this article before. The information comes from the website of the central Chinese government itself, so I certainly wouldn't trust it to be unbiased on this issue. If there is a section for the official PRC viewpoint, it could go in there. Like I said, I have no experience with this, so I will leave it to others to figure it out.--Danaman5 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
This user has again added virtually the same edits even though there is a message on his talk page saying that his source is not unbiased. Can this edit also be reverted as certainly part of it again does not appear to adhere to the NPOV policy of wikipedia? Thanks Tangerines 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Of course Chinese government's source can be biased. However, Western and pro-Tibetan sources are much more biased than Chinese. I have evidence to prove what I said. How many big lies western media had made on Tibet related facts? If you really care about Tibetan issues, please spend more time to do more research on it before draw conclusions. Please make sure to read information from both sides. I don't judge by which sources I trust more than others. This is a lazy way. I judge only by the specific facts. The best way is to read the official websites of both chinese and Tibetans in exile. In the official website of Tibetans in exile, they strongly condemed and refuted the source I reffered to, which is a part of Chinese government white paper on Tibet issue. However, after you read Tibetan's refute, you will find they did not pointed out any major errors about the facts Chinese government pointed out. This is the best way to prove the historical facts in this chinese source is reliable. If your enemy refuted you but could not point out any major errors, that means those facts are something they can not deny, right? This method to find truth is much better than your way. Eventually you will find out that Tibetans and west media lied much more than Chinese on this issue. This is not because chinese is more honest, but because those truth is in the chinese interest, so they do not need to lie.xiaoliang1 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoliang1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
With respect what you just said more or less proves that your edits are not even slightly from a NPOV. You have even virtually admitted that the Chinese Government have lied. And why are you so fixated on someone being your enemy? For your information I merely wish to see this article to be expressed from as much as possible a NPOV and not to be bias toward one view or the other whether that be Tibetan or Chinese, so please do not presume to know what I think or believe. Tangerines 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Xiaoliang1, you cannot simply delete what you said above, and also remove the comment you made about your "enemy" simply because I responded to it. I have therefore reverted your removal of your comments. This is a Talk page, and what you say has to stay here, not just be removed. Tangerines 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

comment I can't really see the extent of the conflict here but please note that the Tibet page should address mostly historical and cultural aspects of the place. The seperate Tibet Autonomous Region should focuse more on current situation undr China. Hoever this of course does not mean this Tibet page is a forum for Tibetan nationalism but you cannot "censor" information providing it is reliably sourced. Also pleas edo not change anything unless you have reliable referncing to back it up . Please note that this is an encyclopedia entry so sources to back up a claim from either the Tibetan government in exile or the PRC central goverment have to be taken very carefully Please stick to fact as much as possible rather than citing the views of govermnent officials THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I corrected the part I added according to NPOV. Thank you for your help,Tangerines. By the way, I did not say the source (a book) I refered to is biased. I said it is possible that what Chinese government said can be biased. There is nothing special to this. Even President Bush lied about Iraq's mass destructive weapons. Thanks anyway.xiaoliang1 6 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoliang1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
"Tibetan government did almost nothing to modernize Tibet during its self-rule from 1913 to 1959" -- This is a formulation that unfairly blames lack of moderization on Tibetan independence. It's not like there was a pre-1913 modernization program that the Dalai Lama halted. Nor did China get busy modernizing after 1959. In fact, Tibet had to go through years of famine (unheard of pre-1959) and cultural destruction. Economic modernization didn't even begin until the 1980s. Kauffner 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Unlike the Tibetan regions in chinese provinces, TAR did not go through famine. Actually PRC did a lot to modernize Tibet during 1959 to 1980. For example, abolishing serdom, liberated a large number of people who were forced to become monks before 1959, introduction of secular and modern education, introduction of western medicines. Although no high education or big hospitals established, primary modern education and western medicines were introduced to most Tibetan during that period, whicn dramatically improved the age of life. Tibet religion instead of secular culture has been a target of destruction in that period. Thanks.xiaoliang1 5 Apr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoliang1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
xiaoliang, with regard to your first sentence - "Unlike the Tibetan regions in chinese provinces, TAR did not go through famine". This page though is about historical Tibet. The TAR is covered here - Tibet Autonomous Region which is surely where you should be discussing this and not here. ♦ BFC ♦·Talk 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
In 1959-62, possessions were confiscated, everyone was enrolled into a commune, and the grain they produced was requestioned for export to the Soviet Union to pay for nuclear weapons technology. A few years later, the Cultural Revolution starts up. Meanwhile, there is also a program to destroy virtually every temple (about 6,000). I don't see any part of this that qualifies as "modernization." Kauffner 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear Khoikhoi, You can not just delete other people's edit without giving a reasonable reason. You need to give a clear reason. thanks.>Talk
Hi. I reverted for several reasons. Firstly, Jiawei is not a neutral source, and if we're going to cite him, we're going to have to attribute him properly. That means we have to say, "according to Chinese sources" or "Chinese sources claim". It would violate WP:NPOV to state the opinion of Jiawei as an undisputed fact. A statement like "This selecting system was published as a regulation in Tibet in 1793" needs a third-party source, not one that is Chinese or Tibetan. Khoikhoi 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fine. I will add "according to Chinese source". By the way, Some of the refs are obviously Tibetan, you should tell them to do the same, right? We should have only one standard. Thanks.xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007
Tangerines, I mean within this time period (1793 to 1950), all Dalai and Panchen lamas were choosen with either of the two ways. This does not mean the first selection occured in 1793 and the last selection occured in 1950. Thanks. xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

With respect xiaoliang, you keep contradicting yourself. This is what you originally inserted:

"In 1798, Qing emperor reformed the way to select Dalai and Panchan lamas through drawing lot. Although Tibetans tried to resist this method, all the Dalai and Panchan Lamas from then until the 13th Dalai lama were choosen either with drawing lot, or using the old method but getting approvement by the Chinese emperor"

So you were saying from 1798 to the 13th Dalai Lama, who was born in 1876. Now you are saying 1793 to 1950. If you seem to be contradicting yourself, surely you can understand why your edits do seem to be dubious to others to say the least? You clearly have very strongly held views on Tibet as that is all you appear to contribute toward on wikipedia. Thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to add to the above, xiaoliang1, when checking the contributions, you also appear to be this user too - User:66.38.139.36. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tangerines, Please read carefully again. When and where did I say from 1793 to 1950? The present version is from 1804 to 1877, which was the year the 9th and 13th Dalai Lama was selected. 1876 was the year the 13th Dalai lama born. From 1793 to 13th Dalai lama, this selecting system was an effective regulation. But Dalai lam did not have to die or born on the year the regulation get effective, right? There is no contradictory at all. I changed it to the present version because you opposed to my origional way of expression, although I think my origional way of expression is more clearly. Thanks. xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

xiaoliang, I don't need to check again. Where did you say from 1793 to 1950? Have a look further up this discussion and you will find that you said this

" I mean within this time period (1793 to 1950), all Dalai and Panchen lamas were choosen with either of the two ways."

With the greatest of respect that is not the same as 1798 to 1876. The point being that whether or not you are correct in the manner of the Dalai Lamas being chosen, you are contradicting yourself and therefore making it difficult to fully accept what you are saying. I am perfectly aware that the Dalai Lamas were not simply chosen in their year of birth, however I was pointing out the 13th Dalai Lamas year of birth to point out the huge difference between that and 1950. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Tangerines. I am sorry I made this mistake in the above discussion. I was not careful enough in the discussion. I should be more careful and have a double check with the number I typed in the discussion. But what I wrote in the main article was until 1912, or 13th Dalai lama, or 1877, all of them are correct, and there are no contradictory within them. By the way, why do you think I am biased? I am not. What I really care is not China or Tibet, but truth. I hate lies or biased or mis-leading articles. I am a Christian. I did this after I pray in front of Lord Jesus. Thanks. xiaoliang1xiaoliang1 7 April 2007

xiaoliang, I will answer in your talk page as this is purely for discussion of the Tibet page, thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Xiaoliang, this,

"By the way, why do you think I am biased? I am not. What I really care is not China or Tibet, but truth. I hate lies or biased or mis-leading articles. I am a Christian. I did this after I pray in front of Lord Jesus."

was not what you originally said which was -

"By the way, I find you are a very smart guy. Do you care about truth, the complete truth or justice? I care. I am very busy. I spend my time on this article for truth and justice"

And you are still signed in as User:66.38.139.129. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Emperors, kings

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone (User:John Hill?) has been going around changing "Kingdom" to "Empire" and changing "Kings" to "Emperors" - see also the opening line, but not the rest of the article, of Songtsän Gampo. I thought these sovereigns are more usually called "kings". Any ideas? --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Autonomous region map caption

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

By the way, is the caption of Image:TAR-TAP-TAC.png entirely accurate? "Ethnic Tibetan autonomous entities set up by the People's Republic of China. Opponents to the PRC dispute the actual level of autonomy." Is it only opponents to the PRC who dispute this? I would have thought that almost any neutral observer would agree to this point, if nothing else.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Images

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has too many pictures. Images should be under the appropriate related sections. Reorganization is needed. ian-Kiu 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibet&oldid=126695717"