Tibet was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Recent edits by Quigley and Skookum
I will have to begin by supporting most of Quigley's edit over the following reversion. I don't have time to explain why for the moment. --HXL 何献龙 13:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the main level section titled Human rights is totally WP:UNDUE here. We do not have a section on politics, international status, or the government in exile. Whatever is now said or pictured in the section only reflects the views of Western pressure groups working for separatist causes to challenge the international status. If this content is appropriate, it should go into some other article on these more specific topics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Improving neutrality for section "Economy"
I believe that the section on the economy is slanted in favor of the Chinese government. Discussion on whether or not the government costs are carried by the Cemtral Government does not belong in this section as it is only remotely related to the Tibetan economy as such. It would be fine to include such facts in a section on the politics of Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region.
On the whole it seems to me that the aim of the economy section is to promote actions of the Chinese government. Statements about China affirming its commitment to improving Tibetan standards of living sound more like campaign ads than content in an encyclopedia and neglect the need for unbiased, neutral discussion of the controversy and effictiveness of China's economic strategy in the region, which would be possible to describe without taling sides. This pointed silence detracts from the quality of the article. Erget2005 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would disagree with nearly everything you wrote. the taxation sentence is not entirely inappropriate: taxes are applied on the economy. if you think otherwise...I have no words for you. It is an important "demystifying" fact to know to prevent lies from the West and the CTA clique from appearing here on WIKI, and moreover, it is cited by four sources, and even the Daliar Lama corroborates that claim.
- it seems as if you, by providing counterarguments to noble intentions, will [unavailingly or intentionally] worsen the POV weight problem that is inherent in this section, as I see it. don't include the noble intentions (economic development) or the false accusations (from the separatists) in the first place, and there won't be a rebuttal. --HXL 何献龙 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Chinese government is the government of Tibet. If you want to present alternative views, you should do it at Tibetan independence movement. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chinese Tibet is officially an autonomous region. One can argue as to whether the Chinese legal definition or practice of "autonomous region" correlates to what one might reasonably expect of true autonomy. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Chinese Tibet is officially an autonomous region. One can argue as to whether the Chinese legal definition or practice of "autonomous region" correlates to what one might reasonably expect of true autonomy. PЄTЄRS
- that is certainly valid but you are bordering on SOAP-ing here. Now let's discuss the real topic at hand, the one that Erget2005 raised issues over. Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ganga river starts in Tibet?
The section on the geography of Tibet states that the river Ganga (called Ganges in the article) starts in Tibet. I thought the root of Ganga was in Gomukh in Uttarakhand in the Indian Himalayas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.47.66 (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Early 20th century
Seems like there's not much after 1911/1912. There's interesting reading out there on Russian and then Soviet interest in Tibet. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Tibet and Mongols I changed quotation from Laird because it was done in biased manner. On the next page Laird wrote that it is impossible to describe Tibet's status under Mongols as a simple submission. This is important change because otherwise the phrase creates impression that Tibet has become another province of the Mongol state. The term 'viceroy' here is not correct: such post did not exist in the Mongol empire and prince Godan could not grant it. This post may be termed in English as 'ruler approved by the Mongols'.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.18.196 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
History sections
There is lots of room for improvement in WP coverage of Tibetan history. This article, Tibet, is already large, and its history section is already long. The way the history section is organized, and what material we have in it, is definitely subject to discussion and improvement. But let's avoid making it much longer than it already is. Bertport (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, but let's correct such incorrect concepts as "viceroy made by Koton" - see my comment above.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.18.196 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I can repeat the same as already wrote: I changed quotation from Laird because it was done in biased manner. On the next page Laird wrote that it is impossible to describe Tibet's status under Mongols as a simple submission. This is important change because otherwise the phrase creates impression that Tibet has become another province of the Mongol state. This view is not shared by many scientists. The term 'viceroy' here is not correct: such title did not exist in the Mongol empire and prince Godan could not grant it. Relevant title may be termed in English as 'ruler approved by the Mongols'.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.18.196 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we agree to use the following for the "13th, 14th and 15th centuries" section, for the time being?
Tibetan lamas and Mongol lords participated in a priest-patron style relationship of mutual and flexible influence. Mongolian prince Khuden gained temporal power in Tibet in the 1240s and sponsored Sakya Pandita, whose seat became the capital of Tibet. The priest-patron relationship continued to characterize Mongol-Tibetan relations into the Yuan Dynasty and beyond. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Between 1346 and 1354, Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen toppled the Sakya and founded the Phagmodrupa dynasty. The following 80 years saw the founding of the Gelugpa school (also known as Yellow Hats) by the disciples of Tsongkhapa Lobsang Dragpa, and the founding of the important Ganden, Drepung, and Sera monasteries near Lhasa.
Bertport (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree with revision you proposed. Please, include it into the article on Tibet as you indicated. Probably, it is better to use more flexible term 'rule' instead of 'dynasty' for Phagmodrupa.---SK91.76.18.196 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
To HXL49. Not exact and POV.
- During Tibet's history, starting from the 7th century, it has existed as a unified empire and as a region of separate self-governing territories, vassal states, and Chinese provinces.---------Actually, there were independent states along with others: a large principality with center in Lanzhou in late 10th Century; Tibetan state in the area of Kukunor in the 11 Century; Guge kingdom etc. (e.g. Kychanov, E.I. and Melnichenko, B.N. 2005. The History of Tibet from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura).
- Tibet is now inhabited by considerable numbers of Han and Hui people – but they have really immigrated there mainly in the 20th Century. It is well-known that Han-Chinese lived in Tibet in small and not considerable numbers till the peaceful liberation" and that Hui people only after that time have become so numerous that now they compete in Lhasa with Tibetan Muslims. Check published evidences from the 19th-early 20th centuries.
- ascendancy of the Dalai Lamas to power in western Tibet------Not correct. U-Tsang, including Lhasa, is central but not western Tibet.
- though his rule was often merely nominal with real power resting in the hands of various regents and viceroys.-------Not confirmed by references. Which regents and 'viceroys'? You think that the 5th and the 13th Dalai Lamas also had nominal power with real power of 'regents and viceroys'?
- Today, most of cultural Tibet is ruled as autonomous areas in the People's Republic of China.------I met the term 'cultural Tibet' in the PRC sources. It should be replaced to more neutral term.
- Ethymology of the Russian word for 'Tibet (Тибет) derived from Mongolian 'Tuvd' ('Төвд').------It is exact and generally accepted in Russia (see Kychanov & Melnichenko, above; also Kuzmin, S.L. Hidden Tibet. St.Petersburg: Narthang, 2011). These sources say that the word 'Tibet' first appear in Orkhon Turkic inscriptions in Mongolia as 'Tyobyot'. Arabic ethymology is not the only ethymology in the world.
- The Kingdom of Nanzhao (in present-day Yunnan and neighbouring regions) remained under Tibetan control from 750 to 794-------You removed 'present day' because you think that Yunnan province in the current margins existed from 750 to 794?
- "In 1910, the Qing government sent a military expedition of its own to establish direct Chinese rule and "deposed" the Dalai Lama in an imperial edict, who fled to British India (although this contradicts Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation)."------------You removed about the reincarnation. You may check any reliable source to know that any Dalai Lama is incarnation of his forerunner and, if the incarnation was already recognized as real, it can not be 'deposed'. What was done by the Qixi regime contradicts Buddhism. It is also clear.
- In regard to census of Tibetans and other peoples in Tibet, you quote only the PRC sources which are biased. Opposite view: namely that a significant proportion of the Han are seasonal workers, tourists and the military are not taken into account by this statistics (e.g.: Strangers in their own country: Chinese population transfer in Tibet and its impacts. Dharamsala, 1997) is prohibited here?---SK91.76.12.183 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you can call Nanzhao or any other polity in the 11th century a "state", because statehood is a modern European construct.
- As is so common with historical population transfers, each side picks a selective time and place in history to maximize their victimhood and exemplify the barbarity of their enemies. The early 20th century, the benchmark against which you want to measure the amount of Hans in Tibet today, is when the Dalai Lama expelled all the Hans in his territory.
- The other issue is that Hans and Hui have a comparably longer history in the plateau region—which is what this article is about—than in Tibet proper. The first paragraph deals with the situation in Tibet today, and not disputed historical narratives, which are better covered in the body paragraphs.
- "Central Tibet" is an unclear Lhasa-centric term.
- We already mention the Turkic Töbäd, just not the modern Russian word. So the definitions section isn't bloated with every language, only the Standard Tibetan, Chinese, and English etymologies are covered.
- Yunnan Province probably did not exist from 750 to 794, but giving the modern-day region that Nanzhao occupied is useful for readers who would have no idea where Nanzhao existed without a map.
- Wikipedia strives to be written from the point of view of observable reality, and not according to supernatural ideas like reincarnation. "Depose" only means to remove from political office, and does not have bearing on the religious aspect.
- The Chinese census numbers are generally considered reliable and transparent. Counting temporary undocumented workers is difficult for every census, the military omitted by many, and I don't know of any census that counts tourists. If you can find a reliable source with a transparent methodology that attempts to count them, that would be great, but the CTA is well known to falsify statistics, and the Tibetan Youth Congress (which authored the work you suggest)... god forbid we should use them as a source for anything except their own opinions. Quigley (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are right. In this sense of modern European construct, we can not consider any empire in China (Ming, Qing etc.) as state.
- Regarding the past number of Han-Chinese in Tibet, you are not right. In U-Tseng there were few Han and Manchu in few large cities. Overall, the same concerned Kham and Amdo but there were more Hans in cities and settlements (refer to reports from Kozlov, Przewalsky etc.).
- "Central Tibet" is an unclear Lhasa-centric term."-----Not correct. Central or western are geographical terms. Lhasa is not in western Tibet.
- I can not find where I wrote that Töbäd is a modern Russian word...
- As Yunnan Province did not exist from 750 to 794, it should be mentioned as "present-day Yunnan province" in that context.
- "Depose" only means to remove from political office, and does not have bearing on the religious aspect. - That meant "deposed from the position" without explaining whether political or religious. So it was not legitimate.
- Regarding PRC 2000 statistics. I didn't met any reliable source but I meant only the fact these the abovementioned groups have fallen from census. You confirmed this but did not include in the article. Then, quoted Chinese data concern TAR. What about other Tibetan territories? Your article there accuses CTA in politicization. What about proportion of Tibetans in Tibetan autonomies outside TAR? It is concealed. Again pro-CPC bias.---SK91.76.20.199 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Bias again
After the fall of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, in 1911, Tibetans were one of the five major ethnic groups represented in the first flag of the Republic of China (ROC) -- along with the Han (red stripe), the Manchus (yellow), the Mongols (blue), and the primarily Turkic Muslims (white). The Tibetans were represented by the black stripe. --------Again, biased view approved by editors. This insertion should be deleted: it is history of ROC but not Tibet as such. It aims at 'confirming' Han nationalist claims to Tibet which was that time independent.---SK91.76.14.23 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly, the flag is not "Han nationalist" as it is aspiringly multi-ethnic if it puts its diversity at such the forefront. China's unbroken claim to Tibet is important to understand, because if China lapsed its claim during a period of no control, then Tibet would have actually become independent. Quigley (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Pre-Buddhist Tibet
I don't agree with reducing the size of the history section, there should be more content, not less. The article glances over the history of pre-Buddhist Tibet and focuses too much on Mongol, Manchu, and Chinese rule of the region.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:SIZE. There may be sections that should be elaborated somewhat; there are certainly sections that should be condensed somewhat; and it is always important to strive for giving the reader an accurate general impression. But this is a huge topic, so details, nuance, justification of points of view, etc. have to be delegated to more specialized articles. Generally speaking, I think most people are more interested in the Buddhist and modern periods than in pre-Buddhist Tibet. Bertport (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what people are interested in, pre-Buddhist Tibet is a huge part of Tibetan history and it's unfair to skip so much of it. We could reduce the size of the other sections if article size is a concern, but I don't think two or three more paragraphs will make too much of a difference.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- No idea on 'condensation' of sections.
I support suggestions done by one under nickname SakyaTrizin. Again, the article is BIASED to the ROC/PRC profit. As earlier, I suggest to delete everything about all flags. Or, to avoid bias, also to mention the flag of the independent Tibet State not mentioned in this section.---SK91.76.20.199 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that there is an unfortunate Chinese bias in this article. In the last few months, there have been a few editors who stridently believe the PRC and ROC propaganda, working on this and other Tibet-related articles. There just don't seem to be enough other editors with the will, energy and time to deal with it properly. Bertport (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that historical revisionism by the PRC is a problem on topics related to Tibet. We should not let modern political debates affect our accurate reporting of the past. So I take this as a support for adding more content on pre-Buddhist Tibet?--SakyaTrizin (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Across the range of Tibet articles, there is on the contrary a Tibetan nationalist bias, that one may not see because it is his or her own bias. You need only look at the reference list for the Tibetan history articles, which acknowledge loads of information from such reputable scholars of history as the Central Tibetan Administration, Chushi Gangdruk, savetibet.org, friendsoftibet.org, ad nauseam. Should an editor try to replace some of these sources with still exile-sympathetic but actual Tibetologists with names, there is no scarcity of new editors who have just read the The Truth and need to insert this into a Wikipedia article right away. If our aim is to improve the class of Tibet articles to the point that any of them can pass peer review, and not just to advance our own viewpoints, then that entails respecting each others' viewpoints and contributions; i.e. not throwing around accusations of "shill" or "propagandist", and aiming to use the most rigorous and skeptical, if not the most politically potent, sources and text. Quigley (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bertport, enough of your nonsense. Read what Quigley writes. On the other hand, I don't oppose including the phrase "Han and Hui people, who began to come in larger numbers after the PRC took control" within the whole article, but I strongly oppose its prominent inclusion in the introduction. Before you added that sentence, the only remotely political tidbit that was in the lead was the fact about control. You made it worse by following the suggestion by this IP, who I have already warned for adding POV. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should not be influenced by the PRC propagandists or the pro-Tibet movement. Everything should be based on scholarly sources, and not on historical revisionism from a modern political debate.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I advise you not to use the wording "pro-Tibet" to refer to those who advocate for independence: what does that make the anti-independence people? anti-Tibet? nonsense. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- That would be the implication.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- what would? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- That would be the implication.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see that my posts in this discussions are not appearing. If this means ban, it is stupid because I can find many other IPs. The most important thing is that "HXL49|'s Roundtable" prevents well-known others' views and makes article on Tibet clearly Han-Chinese nationalist biased. Again, editors should consider this.---SK91.76.20.199 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- HXL removed your comments.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- And for good reason. After his long post, his comments consisted only of ranting and laughable demonstration of his poor English (he evidently doesn't know what "roundtable") means.
- "it is stupid because I can find many other IPs". Once we get a long-lasting IP range-block on him, he won't be talking with such arrogance any more. He is lucky for me not to report him to WP:ANI for his repeated personal attacks. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- He has a point though. This article focuses a lot on the brutal Chinese invasion and control of Tibet, but that's only a small portion of Tibetan history.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- HXL removed your comments.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Mongols
While the article discusses the cultural relationship with the Yuan dynasty accurately, it does not discuss the political and administrative realities under Mongol rule, and makes a misleading implication that the cultural and political relationships were the same, which is a huge historical oversimplification. I've added a mention of the dpon-chen and Sakya lamas, and plan to expand on what their roles were.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Laird 2006, pp. 112–113
- ^ Franke, H. 1981. Tibetans in Yuan China. - In: China Under Mongol Rule. Princeton.
- ^ Kychanov, E.I. and Melnichenko, B.N. 2005. 'Istoriya Tibeta s Drevnikh Vremen do Nashikh Dnei [The History of Tibet from Ancient Times to the Present Days]. Moscow: Russian Acad. Sci. Publ.
- ^ Smith, W.W. 1997. 'Tibetan Nation. A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations'. Boulder: Westview.
- ^ Sperling, E. 2004. 'The Tibet–China conflict: history and polemics'. - Policy Studies, v. 7 (Washington, East–West Center). - http://www.eastwestcenterwashington.org/publications/publications.htm.
- ^ 'The Mongols and Tibet. A Historical Assessment of Relations Between the Mongol Empire and Tibet'. 2009. DIIR Publ.
- ^ Van Walt van Praag, M.C. 1987. 'The Status of Tibet: History, Rights, and Prospects in International Law'. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.