Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Splitting up the article

Currently there are two requests to split the article up - here and here. I can't see an open discussion thread on this. Could we please get some feedback for them?

Personally I wouldn't split the article up yet. Maybe create sub-pages that can be more in-depth, but we still need the topics themselves here. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's time to do so either. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, the events are unfolding and too many details are still hidden behind the curtain. I think the top priority should be to keep the facts straight as many morons have been tempering with the article. For example, some loser changed "denounce Chinese violence on Tibet" to "denounce Chinese rule over Tibet." I almost laughed my ass off when i saw that, but still, it's pretty lame and a bigger problem then splitting. I'm just glad the loser didn't remove the reference too, so i could still read the original article and know what it was supposed to be. Ssh83 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting up the article would muddy the issue. Maybe something for the future once the conflict (hopefully) has died down. Longchenpa (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Split and ditch. It is really neither necessary nor notable enough to list counter-demonstrations and diplomatic responses from each and every country as they happen, e.g. "In Cork City, a small group of protesters demonstrated outside Fitzgeralds Park". The entire section could be summarised in one sentence. "There were counter-demonstrations internationally and political response varied from country to country". The intention really is not purely encyclopaediac, it is more on a par with "I was there" social networking websites.

But don't I know how inflammatory it is to edit where matters of faith are involved ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution is "summarise". Most of the "international" sections can be summarised with "Anti-China protests occurred at Chinese missions in Country A, Country B, Country C... The protests turned violent in Country C, Country F, Country L, ... There were pro-China protests in Country X, Country Y, Country Z." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep all the information together. Longchenpa (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree to PalaceGuard, summarise and group the similar statement shared with different national officials to make that section more readable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or to make a table to list the statement one by one since the number of country is quite a mass.

Country	Demand peaceful solution?	Demand CRP to improve human right?	Support Tibet independence?	Boycott 2008 Olympic?	Source

This is about the unrest in Tibet. Although I would usually say it should stay, but this article is too long for my liking. Split and make an article called International reactions to the 2008 Tibetan unrest or something like that. --haha169 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree NOT to split the article right now. The unrest is a dynamic and meanwhile mediatised event that as such will go beyond the August Beijing Olympics. Events/actions and reactions to the events influence each other. Since at this stage it is difficult to know what has been influencing what, and which past events will influence future events, I would be happy to keep the article chronological. (Tadju (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Reason for the riots : not independance.

There seems to be a HUGE number of people that think that the riots were primarily due to Tibet wanting to separate from China. In the article, it's mentioned that the riots started because of the arrest of monks, ethnic hatred (socioeconomic reasons). But it also mentions that "The protests soon shifted from calls for independence to violence, attacks on non-Tibetan ethnic groups, rioting, burning and looting on March 14.", making it seem as if the riots were mainly about independence ans only shifted to violence because of ethnic hatred/the rumours. The initial small protests by some citizens and the monks were about independence, but the many who JOINED in to start the violent riots were NOT there for independence.

Georg Blume (german reporter) was in Lhasa a few days after the riots and interviewed some of the citizens. Here's what he reported: "He says some Tibetans who took part in the riots said they were proud that they were finally able to stand up to the Chinese; others said they were ashamed of the violence.

They complained about social discrimination, unequal pay and rumors that almost everyone had heard that Tibetan monks had been arrested, and even killed, in the days before the riots." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/world/asia/25tibet.html?ex=1364097600&en=7a9b2feee16ff0ef&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I noticed that James Miles also said the same thing- ethnic hatred(partly due to economic reasons) and rumours of monks being shot was what started the riots. This is already mentioned/referenced in the article.

The -small protests- were due to calls for independence, but NOT the riots, which this line doesn't make clear: "The protests soon shifted from calls for independence to violence, attacks on non-Tibetan ethnic groups, rioting, burning and looting on March 14."

TO me, the article should make it more clearcut that the riots was not over anger about calls for independence, but out of :

• ethnic hatred ;
• the rumours that the monks were shot ;

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 

Support. For me, the small independance-relate protest and the rumors (monks jailled) had just been the sparks starting the all. But the fuel is socio-economic, ethnic, etc. Yug 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between the independence protest, the riots in Lhasa (started by the rumors that monks had been killed, actually, monks are jailed all the time in Tibet), and then the protests throughout Tibet, Abe, Gansu, Sichuan, which were in reaction to the crackdown. They've been calling for:

a) The PRC to allow the Dalai Lama to visit

b) The PRC to open talks with the Dalai Lama

The other protests have been largely peaceful, unless burning China's flag and putting up Tibetan flags instead isn't peaceful.

I understand this article is about more than just the original independence protest, more than just the riots, but about the whole situation. To say that riots have been going on all over Tibet isn't true, though there was the riot that kicked this off in Lhasa.

There isn't anything about the confused response of the police, which was covered the New York Times. The police didn't respond in Lhasa, just stood and took pictures. Tibetans in Gansu say the same thing happened there. They were able to march right up to public buildings and tear down the Chinese flags. The police just pulled back and watched. Longchenpa (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your first sentence, that's what I was trying to say Longchenpa! The statement in the article "The protests soon shifted from calls for independence to violence, attacks on non-Tibetan ethnic groups, rioting, burning and looting on March 14. " makes it sound as if the calls for independence were started by the majority and the ethnic hate turned the majority to riot, when it's really a small group that called for independence which was followed by the ethnic hate/rumours causes the majority to riot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are we, psychic? How do we know what the motivations of the rioters were? Even if you were psychic, I doubt you would be able to consistently distinguish between the two in the mind of a person who is inclined to riot.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? For god's sakes, did you even read what I wrote? Two foreign reporters doing interviews in the region have reported the same thing. The main reasons that the citizens have for the riots are socioeconomic, ethnic pride/hatred, and rumours of the monks being killed; NOT separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.70.18 (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that in the coming days, there are going to be a whole lot of "theories" and information from "inside sources" about why the protests took place, why it turned violent in Lhasa, etc etc. They're not all going to agree, and some of them, quite honestly, will sound ridiculous. We should be ready to deal with these stories as they surface in the media. What to include, what not to include, etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We have interviewees who express pride "that they were finally able to stand up to the Chinese", we have pictures of a chinese flag being ignited, so I guess the conclusion that the riots were in part about independence seems rather valid. To me, separatism, ethnic hatred, anger towards the government would all seem to mix very well, so I don't know what the alleged discrepancy between these is supposed to be coming from. Yaan (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

New section "The comdemnation of biased reports of western media"

I believe this new section could be useful, but as it is currently written at the time of my comment[1], the section is filled with WP:Weasel words and possibly unreferenced claims. But I'm bringing it up for discussion first instead of editing it straight away to avoid risking revert wars. If editors here generally agree it needs to be edited, then I will go ahead and do it, unless somebody does it first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this section, after careful rewriting, to be merged with "International Reaction" to form a new "Reaction" section. Because obviously we should also include some parts on the Chinese side of story. It could include several sub-sections: "Reactions of Dalai Lama and Tibetans in Exiles", "Reactions of Chinese government", "International Reaction", "Media Reaction".35.11.36.204 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment - this section should not be its own section, unless someone wanted to expand it into a "Chinese Response" section, or something - otherwise it should be merged. Right now it reads as something recently tacked on and is so poorly written I cannot understand half of it. WHich is a shame because the Chinese government's reaction to the reaction should be included - but properly. Cadence3 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section. I think this newly added "The condemnation of biased reports of western media" simply has to go. This section seems like it is written by someone with limited English proficiency (the spellings are often wrong). It is also impossible to get verifiable Western sources to counter-balance or even confirm the accuracy of these references (since many of them are from Chinese-language sources). Some of the alleged bias are also already covered in the "Media" section (as pointed out by China Daily).

I think the Wall Street Journal article listed by HongQiGong (below) is a good source and hopefully can be incoporated into this article. However, regardless how the Chinese media think the Western media is "biased", some of these contents has no place in this article.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the WP:Weasel words. This information belongs in the media section. We can add the mutual fingerpointing, I suppose, with the claim of biased western reporting bookended with the observations in today's NYT article that the Chinese press is slanting its coverage of Tibet, leaving out facts. Longchenpa (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Its not saying that there weren't bias in the Western coverage (or the Chinese one). But this section is simply terribly written, that is why it shouldn't stay on the article.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am kinda late on this, but I wanna point out that I added CNN's John Vause responds on the matter under the original "Media" section yesterday, which also means that English sources can also be found on this issue. I can see this section be added again onto the article, in the future, that is. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New sources

Here's a new article from the Wall Street Journal - [2]. Though not a Chinese source in and of itself, it does try to tell the Chinese side of the story. It also gives minor mention of Han Chinese feeling that Western media has been biased on the reporting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Try http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHKG23120420080317 on the expulsion of HK reporters. It has much more information than the citation given, which simply states it as a fact, including significantly what they were accused of and the type of documents they were travelling on. Frankly (personal note) I think it was dumb to the nth degree to turf them out, rather than taking them to task over what they were doing and sorting out their papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.28.108 (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources

More sources. The scope of the protests is much larger than I realized. The Tibetans say that the majority are protesting peacefully, though some have thrown rocks and attacked government buildings. The Chinese have responded with live ammo. http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2008/03/20/tibet_protests/

Notes from the report:

While some protesters have stormed government buildings, throwing stones and clashing with armed police who fired live ammunition and tear-gas, other protests have proceeded peacefully, with sit-ins and horseback charges by nomads carrying the banned Tibetan flag.

“Tibetans [detained for having pictures of the Dalai Lama] are also being told that they will be detained until the end of the Olympics, and once the Olympics are over, court proceedings will then begin”

“Monks in the local monasteries are not allowed to come out and those who are outside are not allowed to get in,” a monk at the Drepung Gomang monastery in southern India said in an interview.

“On March 18, Tibetans from different remote areas came to the county town on horseback, and many young Tibetans came on motorcycles. The motorcycles were run over by Chinese police trucks,” the monk said.

In Qinghai, which borders Tibet, around 400 students from the Yushu area tore down Chinese flags and set fire to them, a source inside Tibet said.

Residents of Ngaba (in Chinese, Aba) autonomous prefecture in Sichuan said two monks were shot dead by Chinese armed police after they defied a police cordon set up around the Kirti monastery. Local residents also said a “massacre” had occurred during the clashes around Kirti.

ETA: Ah. Here are Tibetan eyewitness interviews: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/politics/2008/03/15/tibet_interviews/

Longchenpa (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sign your name please! In my opinion, Radio Free Asia is not the best source for news information, mainly because its funded by the US congress and it is a propaganda organization (also see China Radio International). Like the government-founded Voice of America, some (like other countries' governments) have criticized it for political agenda.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's 1am and I forgot the tildes. I've added them. I'm not sure I agree with that characterization, particularly under the current administration which has tried to ax RFA's funding.

One thing they have that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times don't have -- reporters who are fluent in Tibetan. Most Tibetans in Tibet do not speak English and their voices are noticeably lacking in news reports out of Tibet. What the Tibetans have to say about the unrest is important. Longchenpa (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Longchenpa, Georg Blume (german reporter) and James Miles have both reportedly done interviews with Tibetans. As I mention below, foreigners have already reported what RFA does. We don't need a propaganda organizations' bias here. Thanks.216.252.71.154 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not questioning the importance of their opinion. I guess I'm just trying to point out that Radio Free Asia (which founded by the CIA) has always been the most well-known anti-Communist broadcasting agency in the United States. Some people might have problem with using their specific source for "Red China" (LOL, I know that is an obsolete term).--Sevilledade (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, the RFA article and your summary has said nothing new about the situation. We already know about the arrests, the deaths in Aba county, the flag burning, peaceful protesting, the monastery blockading, etc. The only thing "new" would be your claim that "The Tibetans say that the majority are protesting peacefully, though some have thrown rocks and attacked government buildings" when the article doesn't even state that! If anything, reports from toursists and foreign journalists have shown that the protests have been mostly violent! Even in other countries, the police have had to fire tear gas and push back protestors after they started attacking the Chinese embassies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful not to conflate VOA (a cold war era entity, anti-"Red China," yeah) with RFA, which began under the Clinton administration. It was started in 1996. The source of funding is definitely a problem, as is the funding for the PRC's state-run paper. But the direct Tibetan language quotes are invaluable, and their site is in both English and Tibetan. Longchenpa (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You act as if only the source of the funding is a problem. The main reason they got the funding is because they have a biased tone behind everything they report, which is why they were funded by the government in the first place! Their reporting is as bad as Xinhua talking about the evil mobster Tibetans killing Han Chinese.

If state-owned newspapers from China are included, as they should be, I find it difficult to see why a report from partially state-funded RFA is not. Relata refero (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Xinhua should be included, except for statistics which could be included arguably, or if its report is followed by a contrasting statement by TIbetan dissidents of a particular incident that no foreign journalist has reported on. Either of these 2 requirements has justified why Xinhua is sourced in the article the few times that it has been. The RFA is propaganda based as well, so its emotionally charged and subjective statements should NOT be included. Also, the info in the report has already been reported on by foreigners.

If we include statistics from Xinhua, then we should include direct quotes from Tibetans from RFA. And please watch your tone about them. They have Tibetans working for them and are very pro-Tibet, but no more so than the Dalai Lama's government whom we have quoted. In my last reading of this article yesterday we used much more than just statistics from Xinhua. Longchenpa (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty big leap of logic there Longchenpa. We already have Dalai gov't statements, we don't need more. Plus, they provide no new info like I said. Last, yes it's because stupid people here keep doing revision wars. It should not be here. How about you remove the POV crap instead of whining about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.114.99 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

The article is still POV. Suicup (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to have to do better than that if you want a tag. Relata refero (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is POV? Alexwoods (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want a POV tag you need to go into more detail - that's why it was removed, as you haven't provided any. John Smith's (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Bias?

Much of any written material in English on Tibet in Wikipedia is skewed towards Western view and general public opinion of Pro Tibetan and Anti China. It is important to remove any bias to prevent opinion of both sides, no matter what is the personal opinion of the reader. To balance the article, Chinese point of view and not just that from Western Media like CNN and BBC should be included.

Yazhou Zhoukan - an authoritative Hong Kong base Chinese News and News commentary/ analysis magazine much read by international Chinese community states in the March 30 2008 edition:

1) Western intervention in Tibet is not new: Sidney Wignall, in his autobiography "Spy on the Roof of the World", and John Harrop, both working for the Indian Intelligence infiltrated Tibet posing as mountaineers back in early 1955. In his book, he mentioned that he met CIA agents already detained by Chinese authority. This back dates CIA activities in China to 1954 or before, a full 6 years before the CI supported 1959 Tibet insurrection.

2) CIA trained Tibetan exiles in US in the highlands of Colorado, over 1800 agents passed through the CIA camp. To support the Tibetan Exiles anti China activities, the Tibetan exiles government in India were supported with 150,000 US$ a month and this did not ceased until 1974.

3) In CIA director's Allen Dulles biography, it mentioned the memo he sent to Eisenhower about the support to Tibetan exiles. Eisenhower's comment were " if we are doing this to the China, whould this not make the Chinese oppress the Tibetan even more?"

4) Former CIA agent in charge of Tibet affairs Victor Marchetti, mentioned in his memoirs that after change of policy in 1974 to Tibet, hawkish elements of the CIA and Tibetan exiles along with their supporters, continue to strive for military / violence solutions. This became even more vocal after change in Chinese policy and secret approach to Dali Lama's brother to attempt to reopen dialogs. In the early 1980's Dali lama renounce the desire of formal independence of Tibet and strive for a Tibet within China but with high degree of autonomy, but this further angers these increasingly vocal and hawkish elements who calls for full independence of Tibet.

5) Hawkish elements in the Tibetan overseas community is now spearheaded by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), funded by pro Tibet communities, is now lead by Tsewang Rigzin, a 37 year old, former US residence has openly declare to Yazhou Zhoukan interview openly disagreed with ideas and policy of Dali Lama, "the TYC will do all that is necessary and what we think is right" Dali lama is increasingly loosing control of the overseas Tibetan movement.

6) This explains the background of the 2008 Tibetan riots.

Chinese point of view :

1) Overseas forces along with Western intelligence have continue since the mid 1950 to destabilized China via Tibet. It is within the rights to protect its territory and the integrity of the nation. What the Chinese is doing to protect its self is nothing what other nations including the West facing the same.

Blaawan (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blaawan

A lot of that stuff is already in there. I would be very cautious about what edits you make. This is a pretty touchy topic for a lot of people. Alexwoods (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can avoid revert wars by proposing specific changes on the talk page before making them. Alexwoods (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One shouldn't read modern Chinese policies based on the cultural revolution, so it makes no sense to read western reactions based on US former cold war policies. That would be simplistic and reductive. Blaawan, your points 1-4 are all cold war era policy, and point 5 isn't connected to the US save that the leader is a US citizen (which doesn't mean anything; there is also a US communist party).

The modern attitudes towards China are split along several lines:

1) Among the conservatives there are those who are concerned about China's astronomical military expansion. I can tap a military analyst and quote statistics if you like but, for example, the Song class nuclear submarine is one concern.

2) Then, there are those conservatives (I include both democrats and republican conservatives) who are primarily concerned with the financial gain to be had doing business with China. They are against anything that would upset China.

3) The more liberal are fractured over China due to many issues. Top on the list: American manufacturing job loss (due to US companies sending work overseas) has made China unpopular in areas like the Rust Belt.

4) A number of long-standing senators have been pro-Tibet (or more specifically pro-Dalai Lama) since the early 80s.

5) The progressives tend to favor incorporating China into world markets and so are pro-China for the same reasons conservative businessmen are.

6) The Hollywood set tend to be mildly pro-Tibet largely due to Richard Gere and Oliver Stone. However the Steven Seagal debacle cooled Hollywood on the Tibetan cause.

7) Periodically when China has pissed the US off, Tibet and Taiwan have been both used as a painless-to-business-interests method to give China the finger. A few years ago when the US crashed a state-of-the-art fighter jet in China and China returned it in itty-bitty-carefully-studied pieces, the US immediately sent military aid to Taiwan and made overtures to Tibet.

There is no consistent US policy regarding Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I love kids who have no idea what they are talking about come in & educate us in the direction of US Policy towards China/Tibet/Taiwan. The "state-of-the-art fighter jet” that you were referring to was a EP-3E Aries II during the Hainan Island incident. First of all, it wasn't a fighter jet, it was a reconnaissance aircraft. 2nd, even the Chinese one was only a J-8, a 30 yrs + aircraft that the Chinese don't even consider that any "high-tech". Stay in school son. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a P-3 Orion, and state-of-the-art because of what it carried: with a 10-man crew, it was loaded with high-tech equiment to detect, classify, and destroy submarines. It's known for long endurance, 12 hours in the air, which is extraordinary for an aircraft. It's used in Sig/ELINT. It's not like that Mig-25 Foxbat China got from Japan. The Chinese got a wealth of technology from that plane.

Stop making assumptions, you're making a fool of yourself. I'm probably older than you are. ETA: Hmm. You're the same person who took a swipe at me up above with that "this 'Longchenpa'" comment. We're here to edit an article, not get into personal issues with each other. Longchenpa (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop copying stuff from other Wikipedia entries. That's a weak comeback by the way. I will leave you alone for now. Your edit history tells me that you will do pov pushing when you have the chance. I will be keeping an eye on you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stop copying stuff from other Wikipedia entries." Actually, no. I just contacted my friend who's a military analyst as he was running out the door to work.

I'll grant you that it wasn't a fighter jet, he corrected me, the P-3 Orion is a prop plane. But I notice you haven't mentioned anything about Sig/ELINT which is the substance of what China got -- oh, and by the way, it's not mentioned in either of those articles. You can just stop with the unfounded accusations.

I tried to link you to some info on Sig/ELINT. You obviously don't know anything about it if you think the Chinese didn't get anything of value. I couldn't find anything about Sig/ELINT in Wiki or Google. It's in World Air Power Journal or you can pick up a copy of Jane's relatively cheap on Amazon if you buy used.

Or you can be a former employee of Science_Applications_International_Corporation. That helps. ;) Longchenpa (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in those articles about the recon equipment P-3 Orion meant specifically to "detect, classify, and destroy submarines." No wonder you resorted to threats. You didn't have anything of substance to add. But you're no longer calling me "son" or "kid" so I guess we can count this as improvement in your behavior. Longchenpa (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of hostility has any place here. Alexwoods (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. Threats are kind of absurd, n'est pas? Longchenpa (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

China and the US are constantly engaging in a tit-for-tat. US bombs the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, then China holds a US spy plane, so on and so forth, ad nauseam. Go ahead and rant if you want, but drawn out arguments about which country is the bigger asshole is pointless. Guess what? They're both assholes. So let's stick to discussing the article instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Alexwoods (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here, Hong Qi Gong, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. I don't see anyone calling anyone an "asshole." Or are you responding to Blaawan? The stuff he lists here is all cherry-picked from old cold war policies. Eisenhower? 1974? Longchenpa (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Blaawan,

Do points one through three have anything in particular to do with this article? Points four and five seem to imply that hawkish elements within the Tibetan exile movement such as the TYC (and possibly the CIA as well?) played an important part in instigating the recent unrest. Shouldn't one focus on citing that claim over including material which merely implies it?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese

I think we need more than one vitriolic editorial from a non-notable source to support the statements in that section. Alexwoods (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can some editors assist me on this. There are some user (User:Spanos) who keeps "tweaking" information (that are not in the reference), and adding extraneous and POV information to these statements. I really hate to engage in edit war with these users.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to help you but you keep beating me to the punch! My edits keep getting knocked out because we are editing at the same time. Alexwoods (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I check/read ref quite often too. I'll keep an eye out when I can. Also, Alex, what do you mean? Which section? TheAsianGURU (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles from People's Daily

Here are a few articles from People's Daily that, in my opinion, are relatively not controversial and have information that have not been mentioned by Western news (or at least not that I've seen, though I'm not a bot crawling for Tibet news).

• German media apologize for errors in covering Tibet riots - I believe this is in response to the glaring errors[3] that the German news made.
• More international support for China's handling of Lhasa riots - A few countries mentioned in the People's Daily article have not been mentioned in this article: Turkey, Iraq, Cuba, Oman, and Comoros. (Hey, we've got Fiji in there, so why not Comoros...? But honestly, I think we should just strip down that list of countries.)
• Schools in SW China ethnic Tibetan area resume classes after riots - self-explanatory.

Suggestions on where and how to add these? Unless suggestions come forth or somebody takes the initiative to add them, I'll go ahead and do it myself. As always, information from these articles should have in-content attribution to People's Daily as to avoid presenting the information as hard facts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question --- Under "Media" section. (The German one is already there.) However, the 2nd ref is from the People's Daily......not the best place to quote supports from the "International Community"...especially they are from Turkey, Comoros, Cuba & our dear friend Hugo Chavez. The 3rd quote can be added under a new section --- "Aftermath." TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the second source by HongQiGong, I slightly disagree. I think since that article deals with diplomacy, and the responses are from the countries top officials to another, it shouldn't be a problem. I doubt it needs to change "official" responses from other countries.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic regions: compare the two maps

Compare the two maps, first the map of the regions with Tibetans according to the PRC:

Then the map with the area Tibetans claim to be ethnic Tibet:

Note the similarities. The yellow region is ethnic Tibet. I'll be changing the caption under the map unless someone has a convincing argument that this is not true. Longchenpa (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the second map you posted "Image:MapAK1.JPG", it didn't specify in the map's source that it is about "ethnic Tibet"? Unless it stated on its source that it is about ethnicity, we don't know that.--Sevilledade (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite and cooperative with the title. Technically, it's historical Tibet. I can say that, but it's more likely the Chinese will be happier with the euphemism "ethnic Tibet." Longchenpa (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Source:

Sorry for being late, but I was in India during all that, not going to the internet during that time. I am actually the author of that map, and I drew it according to my research and experiences (after having visited more than 96 % of counties with Tibetan population in the TAR, in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan). If a source needs to be named, it would be: Andreas Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces. Kham, vol. 2: The Qinghai Part of Kham, Bangkok 2004, p. 2.

The caption reads: Ethnic Tibet: Distribution of Tibetan populations (as written in the book mentioned above). I should further explain that "distribution of Tibetan populations" only means that Tibetans can be found in those areas, but it does not mean that they are the only inhabitants, or have been historically. As can be seen on a different map I have drawn – see „Demographic and ethnographic outlines of the Tibetan Plateau“ – there are at least a dozen other non-Tibetan and non-Han ethnic groups living in what people nowadays tend to call „historic Tibet“. This is why there is good reason to call it „ethnic“ and not „historic Tibet“ or "political T.". This is more adequate than the term "historic Tibet", as the latter does only express that something was existing in the past: It neither explains a political status (for that one should rather use „political Tibet“, which is also not defined per se) nor the time period aimed at. History is long-lasting, and it is not only Tibet that framed different areas at different times, China does as well, as do Germany or the USA. (Just as an example: What would a comparable „historic USA“ mean? In its borders of 1959, or 1865 or even 1490...?)

With this I would like to argue that certain term should be used for their adequateness, and not because the one side, or the other, may like it more.

Andreas --Gruschke (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

About the "historic Tibet"... Different parties have different versions of history, Tibetans sees this region as historic Tibet or as BBC labled it, Greater Tibet ([4]), and it is fine. I also know though it is fact that most Western media and the Chinese media only sees Tibet Autonomous Region as the actual Tibet. About Qinghai province for example, in some of the autonomous prefectures, it is actually both Mongol and Tibetans (and in some other autonomous prefectures, it is both Qiang and Tibetans, etc.). Different ethncities generally have different interpretation of history. I know Mongols could also claim Qinghai as a Mongol region since "Qinghai" is historically called "Kokonor" in English, the Mongol name for this region.--Sevilledade (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why people are confused that protests are taking place "in China" and "why are the Chinese protesting?" The gerrymandering of Sichuan's border to include much of Kham aside, once it's clear that the protests are taking place where the Tibetans are, and that the Tibetans are in the regions covered by historical (or ethnic if you want to be nice about it) Tibet, the "protests in China" make sense. We could change the caption, or we could line up both maps and make the point clear. Longchenpa (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since most Western media sources don't use maps like the above, it would be confusing to readers if we are to using these maps. I think the current caption is fine, disclaiming that it is in Tibetan-populated areas. Or we could move the title to "2008 Tibetan unrest" or "2008 Tibetan protest"? That would be without boundary issues.--Sevilledade (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support: for "2008 Tibetan unrest". Without taking sides, "protests" seems a bit weak for the burning and rioting. Yaan (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "2008 Tibetan unrest" is appropriate. Longchenpa (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Occam's razor: just change the caption. Tibetans haven't migrated to these other regions or expanded into them, these are historical Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection...

...is in place for two days. Please discuss changes here (use {{editprotected}} if you come to a consensus on any changes) and start talking rather than just undoing each other. And, yes, I'm aware I protected The Wrong Version. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally! TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought this article was on a pretty even keel. Alexwoods (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the constant reverting of each other by Longchenpa (talk · contribs) and Sevilledade (talk · contribs). It would be better to come to a consensus here on the talk page rather than warring in the article. Nesodak (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They are both reasonable people, in my experience, and they were headed towards consensus. There was some misunderstanding about the cites, but no vitriol and I don't think either of them got to 3RR. Alexwoods (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We did come to a consensus but it might have been expanding outside the two of us. We'll never know. Longchenpa (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We were in conversation on my Talkpage. It was pretty civil. AP had changed their article. There's no need to hit revert when in you're in communication with the original editor. ETA: To be fair, Sevilledade thought I was insisting on keeping the original quote when I was just asking for time to rewrite based on the changed AP article. Longchenpa (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically here is what happened (from my point of view). Longchenpa wrote some statement based on an AP source linked by Yahoo! News; however the statement wasn't to be found in the Yahoo source. It turns out that AP had retracted that particular statement from their official articles. But Longchenpa and I were in disagreement of whether to include some versions of the article (like Forbes) that did contain the retracted statement. Howeveer Longchenpa later rewrote the statement based on an AP source.--Sevilledade (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, rereading our conversation I can see you misunderstood. I insisted on the other copies to prove that I hadn't imagined it. It was there in the 8:30am version. But I was only asking for time to re-write the section. For all I knew, nothing of what I wrote was in the new AP article. Hm. I can see how you thought I wanted to keep it though. If I had kept it, I would have added that AP retracted it, at which point one might as well not have in there at all. Longchenpa (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it's the talk page that should be protected, now that it's been discovered by theRed Guard Alexwoods (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems rather rude. Longchenpa (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Alexwood and to Alexwood - "I don't think that kind of hostility has any place here." TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. You are being hostile towards me. This is the third time now. Longchenpa (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't equate my snippy comment about a vandal with your sustained hostility towards editors that are putting a lot of good faith work into this encyclopedia. And by the way it's Woods with an s. Stay in school, son. Your spelling will eventually improve. Alexwoods (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies towards spelling your name wrong, I guess my years of schooling still isn’t enough. You are the first person ever who come in and tell me that I might have a hostility problem, if that’s the case, I will review per WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. However, per the admin noticeboard - here, I noticed that it's not just me who might have the problems. I hope at the same time we will be able to review our conduct together as well. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his behavior is totally uncalled for. No one else here is behaving this way. Sevilledade (talk · contribs) and I managed to have an entire tense edit war without any name-calling or vitriol. Longchenpa (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To Longchenpa - Just like the last edit in the article (before the admin’s arrival) --- You add stuff that was not in the ref. and made it sound like it was a part of the article. At here, you do it again. You know that the statement was quoted from Alexwoods’ reply and I quoted it here to respond to his/her Red Guard comment (because you replied to it and "thank him/her" above). Now, you are making it sound like I am attacking you. You fit words into other people's mouth in order to push your agendas. At first, you felt the same towards the “Red Guard” comment at first yet you switched your position immediately after you discovered Alexwoods’ reply. Finally, nobody is name calling here. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't done your homework, TheAsianGURU. Sevilledade and I both discovered that the text of the AP article had changed between 8:30am and 10:00am.

As far as name-calling is concerned, you've called me "son" and "kid" and called Alexwoods "Red Guard." Early on there was also dismissive "this Longchenpa person" IIRC. As far as the "Red Guard" name-calling goes, no I didn't think it was directed at me. Your attitude towards myself and Alexwoods is clearly antagonistic and needs to stop. (P.S. Check the time stamp on that thank you.) Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what was that editwar about, precisely? Please sort it out in a new section, because I think we all want this unprotected ASAP. Relata refero (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they did sort it out. The actions of those editors (based on a misunderstanding rather than a real disagreement) spurred the protect, but I doubt they will give any trouble going forward. It's pretty clear that they are both working for the betterment of the article. Alexwoods (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, Relata refero, I'll be happy to explain. I'm trying to get the page unprotected, too.

The edit war was between myself and User:Sevilledade but we had already resolved it. Our discussion resolving it early this afternoon was here User talk:Longchenpa under "Yahoo article," and the post-mortem is in the "protection" section of Talk:2008_unrest_in_Tibet. It was resolved before the page was protected.

What happened:

- I added a quote this morning (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=prev&oldid=201056840) from an 8:30am AP article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet.

- Later in the afternoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201114739&oldid=201113385) User:Sevilledade said the article was misquoted. My quote was not in it. User:Sevilledade did an undo.

- I told him of course it was. I'd copied it directly from the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201118602&oldid=201118298), and reverted it.

- User:Sevilledade contacted me on User_talk:Longchenpa#Yahoo_article saying "I don't want to accuse of original research but...." and reverted it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201119117&oldid=201118602) with the comment "are we reading the same article?"

- I looked at the AP article. It had changed and had a new time stamp of 10am. User:Sevilledade stated on my Talk page that I must have imagined the quote, so I looked on the internet and found the original version:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/26/ap4815545.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VL44RO0&show_article=1

- I put the quote back in (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201122515&oldid=201119117), citing the Forbes article, and asked for no more reverts as I "re-write this section as soon as I've read the new article. *grumbles @ Yahoo.*"

- User:Sevilledade reverted it back again, saying in my Talk page that I can't use those quotes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201122947&oldid=201122515)

- I reverted it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201126638&oldid=201122947) saying that I had proof that quotes had been there and I would update, give me a minute.

- User:Sevilledade reverted it back again (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201127168&oldid=201126638), and in my Talk page stated I couldn't use that quote because AP had retracted it. He apparently assumed I intended to keep the quote.

- I reverted it back stating that I'd written the article in good faith, give me a chance to rewrite it. Stop reverting (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201128907&oldid=201127168). On my Talk page I told him "Of course I'm not going to use the quote. But stop treating me like a vandal."

At that point we had resolved it. I changed the article -- removing the quote -- and thanked User:Sevilledade for his patience (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201133624&oldid=201128907).

Personally, I blame AP for changing the text of their article. It took the two of us several reverts before we realized that's what had happened. Longchenpa (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So much for what I thought was surprisingly civil collaboration for an otherwise conflict-prone subject matter. Oh well, it was a matter of time, I guess. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, Sevilledade and I get along just fine. This was over one sentence "Although Chinese state television has been repeatedly showing scenes of damage from the riots there was little visible destruction in the areas of Lhasa where reporters were taken" which disappeared from the 8:30am AP article. Longchenpa (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I am entering a "cooling-off period," voluntarily. TheAsianGURU (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Der Spiegel

I'd like to note that german magazine der Spiegel, which has been accused by both anti-cnn.com and by a youtube video, has not relented, and instead striked back: Eines der neuesten Videos greift westliche Medien an, auch SPIEGEL ONLINE, und beschuldigt sie, mit verfälschenden Bildunterschriften und Filmtexten Propaganda zu betreiben. Bei näherem Hinsehen erweisen sich allerdings eher die Vorwürfe als Propaganda - und die jubelnden Kommentatoren als mutmaßliche regierungstreue Claqueure. (my translation: One of the newest videos attacks western media, including SPIEGEL ONLINE, and accuses them of making propaganda with falsifying image captions or movie texts. On closer inspection it is (rather) these accusations that turn out to be propaganda - and the cheering commenters as probably regime-abiding claquers.. What I would like to see at the end of the media section would be something like "Media companies accused of "falsified reporting" include CNN, FOX, the Times Online, Sky News, Spiegel Online and the BBC. Spiegel Online has rejected the accusations. Any opinions?

(and for anyone interested, I would translate that Spiegel online caption as "Chinese security personnel in the stone hail. The military reacts toughly". For other uses of "Haerte", see for example [5] or [6].) Yaan (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Der Spiegel was not one of the main offenders, so I can understand if they strike back. They had a picture of police behind shields with a caption saying "Chinesisches Sicherheitspersonal im Steinhagel: Das Militär reagiert mit Härte." which means "Chinese security staff in a hail of stone: the military answers with strength." There was no "strength" or "violence" in the actual picture - just defence, so the reader had to take the journalist's word for it, that the "hard response" was elsewhere. The caption was confusing, but hardly as misleading as the pictures of violent Nepali police labelled "Chinese".

I do not see any reason to have a section with a list of media directly accused of falsified reporting. Just about all foreign media have had confusing, misleading or deceptive reporting on at least some points. That is inevitable when one has to report a major event from a place where one has no access. Reporting and source verification has been awful, but there is no reason to single out a few culprits. Mlewan (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This "one sentence describes the picture, one sentence describes something else"-style is actually somewhat typical for both Spiegel and Spiegel online. See also here for some (a few) more examples. Yaan (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

I would like to add this information to 2008_unrest_in_Tibet#Countries_and_Regions

• Brazil - The Brazilian Government deplores the events in the Autonomous Region of Tibet which have led to the loss of human lives. In recalling its traditional support to the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China, the Brazilian Government expresses its steadfast expectation that self-containment be exercised, so as to make possible an enduring solution which promotes peace and understanding in the Autonomous Region of Tibet, with full respect to cultural and religious differences.

• Cyprus - Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou underlined that Cyprus supports the principle of “a single China” with its territorial integrity safeguarded. Referring to the recent developments in Thibet, HE expressed the hope that the situation does not deteriorate, that there is no more loss of lives and that peace and stability will prevail in the region.

• Hungary - State Secretary László Várkonyi said that Hungary goes along with the Declaration issued on March 17 by the European Union’s Slovene Presidency expressing the EU’s deep concern over the disturbances in Tibet, warning the involved parties to exercise self-restraint, calling the Chinese authorities to respond to the demonstrations in accordance with internationally recognised democratic principles and urging the Chinese government to properly address the concerns of Tibetans with regard to issues of human rights.

• Singapore - Singapore supports the declared policy of the Chinese Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens from violent demonstrators with minimum use of force. We are opposed to the politicisation of the Olympics.

• Spain - The Government of Spain advocates that a lasting and acceptable solution should be reached through dialogue that preserves Tibetan culture within the People's Republic of China.

• Sri Lanka - The Government of Sri Lanka wishes to reaffirm its adherence to the “One China Policy” and the territorial integrity of China. Sri Lanka sincerely hopes that normalcy will return to the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and further wishes that the disturbances will be brought to an end amicably with the Buddhist concept of “Ahimsa”.

--Avala (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Page is no longer protected, so you can do it yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

move

I just was so bold to move the article, per a short discussion by Sevilladade, Longchenpa and me above. The rationale is that some people might think "Tibet" is synonymous to the TAR, but the unrest has spread as far as Gansu, and protests have even been reported from Beijing. On the other hand the clashes seem so far to involve mainly Tibetans (on the non-government side, anyway). Yaan (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense. Thank you. Longchenpa (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

James Miles vs other correspondents

Right now, the article about starts with this paragraph:

Information is scarce as Chinese authorities have prevented foreign and Hong Kong media from entering and reporting on the region,[3] with the exception of James Miles, a correspondent from The Economist, who gained approval for a week-long trip which happened to coincide with the increase in tensions.[4][5]

Why is this? How come we name James Miles in the first paragraph but we don't list other western correspondents? As far as I understand Miles left Tibet on the 18th. And I read an article by the Economist saying Miles was the only approved correspondent in Tibet. Here in Germany we are told that Georg Blume and Kristin Kupfer were the last foreign correspondents in Tibet and that they were asked to leave Tibet on the 20th? (And did so. german: taz article) What is the situation regarding the correspondents? From the 27th there were 26 further correspondents allowed into Tibet weren't they? Are those correspondents employees to some larger, trusted news outlet? -- JanCK (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Georg Blum was there too and he reports the same things as James MIles though. Feel free to add him in. THe reporters let in after the violence aren't really relevant since they got in after the violence ended... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.114.99 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that's old info from the first iteration of the article that is no longer accurate. I'd be cool with you correcting it. Longchenpa (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

Why is it that every time that someone point out that this was not a protest but a riot, then the contribution is removed?

Make no mistake the Tibetans are a violent people, as shown by this riot; their religion of tibetan buddhism has never allowed democracy to function. The tibetans outside of tibet use slogans such as free tibet and save tibet, when tibet has already been saved and freed from the slavery system they had. All that the dalai lama's people want is to get back on the gravy train but this will not happen in this modern world. 81.154.206.11 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be constructive in your edits. This talk page is also not place for personal comments like this, since we don't care about your opinion on Tibetan Buddhism.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo evidence of CNN and Fox bias

Sevilledade says: "PalaceGuard008 these photos are clearly from a biased and POV website. If we are trying to not including unreliable sources, why make exception for these images.)"

I don't see what's unreliable about these photos. First, a common misconception is that WP:NPOV requires every source to be neutral. It does not. WP:NPOV means that we present all relevant points of view. We are including sources of questionable reliability such as CNN (though thankfully not "fair and balanced" Fox), and I have not seen any news reports that dispute the veracity of the criticism levelled by Anti-CNN.com.

Is the website non-neutral? Hell yeah. Is that a problem? No, so long as we also present any alternative points of view that are available. If Fox is somehow able to justify its blatant sensationalism, then for sure we have to include that too. None is forthcoming at this point, though, and I am not surprised.

This is the same reason that we also include material from both pro- and anti-Chinese government bodies, even when that material is pure speculation, e.g. "Based on eyewitnesses' accounts and testimonies received by it, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) claims that at least 79 Tibetans are known to have died as a direct result of the crackdown; that over 1200 Tibetans have been arrested; and that more than 100 Tibetans have disappeared."

Is that source biased? I don't think it even pretends towards neutrality. But is it unreliable? Not the way we have phrased the relevant sentence. It is a reliable source for what the TCHRD believes happened. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If the article declares "who is saying it", it should be fine. Benjwong (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The outbreak

I have a problem with this sentence: "An eyewitness stated that police cars, fire engines and other official vehicles were set on fire after anger erupted following the police's dispersal of a peaceful demonstration near a small temple in Lhasa." The reference (The Times) does not mention any eyewitness at all. Neither does it say anything about any "small temple" or anything about the demonstration having been dispersed. Neither can I find any reference to any police car on fire. The source says: "A predictable and harsh response by the Chinese set off more protests by monks, then ignited popular rage among the ordinary inhabitants of Lhasa."

"Eyewitness" may refer to the journalist James Miles, who was in Lhasa at the time, but he hardly saw the actual dispersal of the demonstration himself. He may not even have been a direct eyewitness of any vehicles on fire, even though that is more likely.

So the source does not support the text. That's one problem. The second problem is that I do not fully trust the source of the source. How do the journalists measure "popular rage among the ordinary inhabitants"? Do we have any idea how much support the rioters/demonstrators have in Lhasa? Was it "popular" or a vocal and violent minority?

I do not know how to fix this though. If anyone has any ideas, please go ahead. Mlewan (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the way to go would be to attribute statements whenever you are unsure about how reliable they are, i.e. "source XY reported that fire engines were overturned and police cars set on fire" etc. If a claim is unsupported by the source given, it might be best to remove it (or try to find a source that supports it). Yaan (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Which news outlets are notable?

I think when xinhua states they know who is behind the riots (with details!) then this is worth including in the article, as one can assume this is a sufficiently official Chinese version. Same would go if the dalai lama claimed he knew who is behind the riots. News outlets only loosely connected to either side or not connected at all are not by itself so notabe, IMO. Yaan (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine as long as we say "accoring to Xinhua". It's absolutely correct that it's a notable source. Alexwoods (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that the bit from xinhua has been reverted again (but for some other reason than the original one), I think I should point out that WP:VERIFY only says that (emphasis original) "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.

Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." I.e. there is a preference for english-language sources, no compulsion to leave out relevant info just because the sources have not been translated (yet). Maybe someone could go through the article and quote the relevant passages in the footnote ("３月１０日，达赖集团精心挑选出的１０１名核心成员正式从达兰萨拉出发，发起“西藏人民大起义运动”。", etc.?), though? Yaan (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to start hosting freelance translations. Let's switch to an English cite if / when Xinhua translates it, and for now all the Chinese-speaking editors can review it to see if it's correct. Alexwoods (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My idea was to quote the key sentences in Chinese, so that one does not have to go through the whole document. But I kind of agree this is not really necessary here, just a matter of comfort in some cases. Yaan (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding the english version, anyway. Yaan (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When did you guys started to take what Xinhua said seriously? Who knows what other kind of conspiracy theories might users add to this article. I still stand by my original opinion, that is if this information is only published in Chinese sources i.e. People's Daily, we'll need to find major Western sources to confirm the news.--Sevilledade (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't think for a second that I take what Xinhua says seriously. It is notable only because it's the official mouthpiece of the Chinese government, and the statement that the cite supports is likewise notable not because it's true (we don't know if it is or not) but because it's what the Chinese government, which is one of the major players in this conflict, said. Alexwoods (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this alot under Beijing orchestrating Tibet riots, according to the UK's Government Communications Headquarters, above. In a nutshell, if the Dalai Lama said the riots were caused by Batman, we would put that in the article, because the Dalai Lama said it and anything he says about this event is notable in the context of this article. However, if I write an article in my local paper claiming that Batman is to blame, it's not notable, because I have nothing to do with this event. So, Xinhua stays, because it's notable that the Chinese government is telling us their version of the events, even though it might not meet our standards for fair and accurate reporting. Alexwoods (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is not about taking Xinhua seriously, it is about what the Chinese governemnt/party sees fit to publish on this issue. No-one ever took the Gleiwitz incident seriously, but still it deserves to be mentioned on the Invasion of Poland (1939) page. Conspiracy theories are not by itself notable, but once they are used by one party in the conflict, they become so. Yaan (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: it's not about the truth of what Xinhua says. It is about the fact of it making a statement, detailing its claims against the Dalai Lama. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Xinhua is a news agency as well. We can't just blindly assume that just because it's a PRC news source, it's going to give false info. Some of the stuff it says is going to be true. Plus, Western news outlets are biased as well. I think it's fairer to give both sides of the issue and treat them as equally reliable (i.e. don't clearly favor one by adding negative or positive modifiers to one) and then allow readers to make the decision as to what news source to trust, or even better develop their own opinion on the issue. I don't think we need to find a Western news source to back up what Xinhua says, as someone mentioned above, because that automatically assumes that Xinhua is a lesser source; as a media source, it should be treated equally to all other media sources. Xinhua might be biased, but so are other "major Western media sources"; thus, instead of Wikipedia showing bias towards one or the other, we should refer to them as equally reliable and let the readers make the choice.Wpchen (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"３月１０日，达赖集团精心挑选出的１０１名核心成员正式从达兰萨拉出发，发起“西藏人民大起义运动”。" My rough translation, (I'm a Hong Kong Chinese) "on 10th March, Daila group chose 101 core members to bring up the "Tibetan people (great) revolution (action) in Lhasa." -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Literally: March 10, 101 core members carefully chosen by the Dalai clique officially leave Dharamsala, to launch the "Tibetan People's Great Uprising Movement". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Background: the 1949 Annexation of Tibet, is it OR?

Is it just me? or there just doesn't exist verifiable sources to support the claim of "The 1949 annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China"? I could not find similar claims in the Tibet or the History of Tibet pages, yet there are many sources referred to by those pages as to claim that neither of the two most recent governments of China (People's Republic of China, and Republic of China) had "ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet", which invalidates an "Annexation" claim.

Google searches only reveal claims of annexation from heavily political sources, none of them looked unbiased to me, and none offered a reasonable explanation to support such a claim.

Is it appropriate to remove the claim of such an "Annexation" in the background section, or at least request sources to support that?

Steven li (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No other government ever recognised an independent Tibet in modern times, even when the Chinese government exerted virtually no control between 1912 and 1950. China never claimed to "annex" Tibet. This would seem to be either the product of utter ignorance or the idiosyncratic point of view of the more extreme factions of the Tibetan independence movement - more extreme than the Dalai Lama, certainly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we call it "occupation"? I think that would be a technically correct term, and better grammar than we currently have. I also don't think Tibet's missing international recognition is very important to this particular article. What is important is that they had de-facto independence, and that the Chinese in 1950/51 came back more or less uninvited (or only invited after they had used force). IMO much more important would be what happened under PRC rule. Yaan (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the background section had been completely rewritten with much more neutral language, and the word "annexation" had been removed. Thanks guys! Steven li (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of law, there is no such thing as "de facto independence". De facto "independence" in the absence of de jure independence is called "autonomy". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese did not annex Tibet. The PRC consolidated the borders of its territories after the chaos of the 19th and 20th century in Asia. During this period, the place was like the 'Wild West'. 81.133.235.169 (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

images

I don't really understand why the cnn images were deleted. The China Daily had them all over the front page, and still has them accessible online, Xinhua has them, so IMO this is notable enough to be included in this article. Yaan (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Though Anti-CNN.com allows any sharing without requiring condition, the copyright issue is quite confusing in the 1st place. Anyway, more media have admitted their fault for misusing the materials in their report, at last. Washington Post (Editor's note: The caption for an earlier version of this slideshow was incorrectly associated with a photo from Nepal. This version has been corrected.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By all means, we should use those images if they show up in a reliable source, which anti-CNN is not, which is why they were deleted. Let's use them. Alexwoods (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

background, pt. II

I don't think the sources are sufficient to attribute the riots mainly to ethnic hatred, or anger over fuel prices. We have reports on (at least on instance of) flag burning, pro-Dalai lama and pro-Tibet slogans, people turning toilet paper into khatas etc., all this seems to hint on that the rioters were at least partially nationalist-oriented. Note that nationalism and ethnic hatred mix pretty well, and anger about other mishaps can always be included in someone's reasons to go on a rampage. My suggestion for the intro would therefore be to go along the lines of

- Tibet de-facto independent from 1911 to 1950/51

- Dalai Lama exiled since the 1959 revolt, generally portrayed as arch-enemy by the PRC

- lots of migrants from China proper in recent years (immigrants seems a bit strange use of wording here, but if it is technically correct, we can as well keep on using it)

- recent price increases

- demonstrations on march 10, the 49th anniversary of the 1959 revolt

- rumours about lamas being beaten up in those protests

opinions? Yaan (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blume and Miles

I understand your concern, but the reasons currently listed as the reasons for the riots were gathered from interviews with Tibetans from foreign journalists. Anything else is just speculation. In my opinion, the anger of increasing prices, socioeconomic disparity, etc caused the anger against the Chinese government and its citizens. I believe the flag burning, pro-Tibet slogans, and the toilet paper celebrations are their way of showing their ethnic pride that they feel has been shamed by Chinese people moving into the area and becoming more successful than them.129.97.193.90 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"the reasons currently listed as the reasons for the riots were gathered from interviews with Tibetans from foreign journalists". Excuse me, I have not seen any interview where the interviewee stated "We are rioting because fuel prices have increased". In fact I have not even read any articles explitely stating that rising prices and chinese migrants are the reasons for the protests. I have read articles that connected the March 10th (= 49th anniversary of the 1959 uprising) demonstrations with the March 14th riots, though. Yaan (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it seems that people needlessly changed the source of the statement over the past few weeks.Ugh. Well here are 2 sources that state the same thing. http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10870258 and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/world/asia/25tibet.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss They are both Western journalists who've been in the region talking to locals during and right after the riots. Yes, you see way more articles implying that the riots are connected to the independence protests, but that's because a lot of news organizations are awful and just want to stir up steaming dung.

To make it short and sweet: "Georg Blume, a reporter for the German newspaper Die Zeit, was one of the few Western journalists to get into Lhasa after the riots. He arrived on March 15, he said, and saw huge areas damaged by riots, fires and looting. He says some Tibetans who took part in the riots said they were proud that they were finally able to stand up to the Chinese; others said they were ashamed of the violence. They complained about social discrimination, unequal pay and rumors that almost everyone had heard that Tibetan monks had been arrested, and even killed, in the days before the riots." Also, "There is big resentment too over sharp increases in the prices of food and consumer goods from the rest of China. Many residents of Lhasa, suspicious of the new train service, which they felt might encourage immigration, had been comforted by what they say were official statements saying the rail link would help bring prices down. But they have kept on rising, as they have in other parts of the country." The first was from Georg Blume and the 2nd from James Miles.129.97.193.205 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And a bit offtopic, it's kind of strange how the situation parallels the complaints of blacks in the US that led to '92 race riots. What started off as a peaceful protest by a few hunderd against those of their kind being beaten/arrested (Rodney king), continues as an angry riot with thousands of people already pissed about their poverty and the existing ethnic tension in the area. No doubt that people started rumours of Rodney King being treated worse than he was or twisted the background story. And what began as an angry riot turns into wide-spread violence by opportunists like the poor, the rebellious young, and the criminal. Many innocent white, latino and asian civilians were beaten and killed. Over a thousand had their stores burned and looted. All in the name of "justice". Sigh. Also, I should add that the US military was deployed to handle the riots with marines, apcs and TANKS! It's kind of eery how similar the 2 situations are129.97.193.205 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they say they are unhappy about rising prices, but they do not say that this is the reason they go on a rampage. Also this does not explain the unrest in other ethnic Tibetan areas of the PRC (assuming they are related).

btw. the Los Angeles riots of 1992 article currently starts with "The Los Angeles riots of 1992, also known as the Rodney King uprising, were sparked on April 29, 1992 when a jury acquitted four police officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King when he resisted arrest following a high-speed pursuit.", I actualy think this could be a model for this article ("On March 10th, 2008, demonstrations commemorating the 49th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising occured in Lhasa and several other ethnic Tibetan areas of the PRC [In fact, there were a number of demonstrations by exile tibetans in other countries as well, maybe we should mention this]. The 1959 revolt had been directed against the rule of the People's Republic of China, and led to the flight of the Dalai Lama to India. Other factors contributing to the riots in Lhasa on March 14th seem to have been ethnic tensions, rising prices, rumours [etc.].")

re. off-topic, random violence, also along ethnic lines, is of course rather typical for riots and uprisings (even among Chinese, like in the 228 incident). Yaan (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, the Georg Blume quote obviously implies that he was inquiring about the reason for the riots. James Miles was there to report on the riots, so he would ask questions pertaining to the riots. If they actually wanted to separate, I can tell you right now that, logically, they would've TOLD THEM they wanted to and would say something to the effect of "FREE US, WE WANT TO SEPARATE", but they did not. They just explained their issues, which were socioeconomic and ethnic issues. In addition, James Miles states: "The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred.",which I'm guessing he had to interview many rioters/residents to ask them about it. And rather, I don't think the Rodney King article is worded very well- it should be changed, but I'm guessing many people are already well-informed of the real reasons for those riots, unlike this riot where few seem to understand- including you! And, come on now, you're obviously just picking at straws to try to twist the article. All evidence so far points to the rioters looting and beating ethnic Han chinese out of hatred, not because they want to separate or they would've attacked much more government buildings rathern than focussing on the stores of more wealthy Chinese people. Right now, the article is pretty neutral as it already explains both sides and I hope people keep it this way.216.252.71.154 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read German, you might want to read this and maybe also this article by Georg Blume. Did you miss the "long live Tibet" and "long live the Dalai Lama" slogans mentioned in the economist article? Did you miss the "The violence was fuelled by rumours of killings, beatings and detention of Buddhist monks by security forces in Lhasa this week" statement? The one about rioters being "proud that they were finally able to stand up to the Chinese" was even quoted by yourself! I don't think the line from "We don't like China" to "We don't like Chinese" is terribly difficult to cross, and ethnic tension/violence is a much too typical side-effect of nationalism to take it as evidence of anything here IMO. Yaan (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't read German, so I can't read those German articles. Yes, they mentioned that SOME in the crowd chanted that. Did YOU miss that the part where he stated: "The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred"? Is that not the most simplistic manner of explaining why the riots started after having interviewed many people? It sure is better than all the assumptions that you're making. Just because a couple of people say long live Tibet/Dalai Lama, does not mean they want independence. Yes, if I were buddhist and I heard that my government was killing monks unjustly, I would be pretty damn pissed too, but that is NOT necessarily a call for independence. Heck, the initial peaceful protests for independence were tiny as hell compared to the actual violent looting and beatings. It's clear that you're really ignoring the facts here and just want to push your own agenda here. The statement that they were "proud to be finally able to stand up the Chinese" does NOT necessarily imply that they want independence! It could've meant that they were fighting the Chinese social discrimination against them that they cite or the socioeconomic inequality by burning their shops- which would make sense considering their ethnic hatred against them. For god's sakes, if they were RIOTING because of independence, they would've SAID IT DIRECTLY TO THE REPORTERS, and it would've automatically been reported by the NY Times and the Economist but it WAS NOT. What the reporters DID deduce and DIRECTLY say, was that the riots started out of a combination of factors but PRIMARILY ethnic hatred. I don't how more clearly I can spell it out for you. You're overplaying a few quotations and events and adding your own interpretations to them, while I am giving you quotes of reporters CLEARLY explaining what the riots were about and CLEARLY explaining what the rioters/residents of Lhasa were unhappy about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.192.128 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you are the one who is making assumptions here. Mr. Miles does not give any indication he interviewed anybody, he may just have reported what he saw, not what he was told. Mr. Blume sais he was not able to interview any participants of the riots (of course that invites interpretation, too, but I'll leave that to you). Mr. Blume also says nothing about what the primary reason is - that is, if we do not count his remarks on "politicized clerics, dynamic Chinese businessmen, militaristic communist cadres and the new generation of young Tibetans" in the concluding section. Miles, otoh, also clearly sais "The violence was fuelled by rumours of killings, beatings and detention of Buddhist monks by security forces in Lhasa this week", and that he saw a Chinese flag trampled in the street. Call me blinded by Chinese propaganda (their interpretation is, interestingly, quite clear), but I don't think one guy reporting what the riots seemed to be is not sufficient to make it all about rising prices and zero about disaffection with the government. Yaan (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, Miles and Blume came to the same conclusion, and Blume said he did interviews, so I'm assuming Miles didn't pull his statements out of his behind and actually talked to some residents about the riots. That would be the logical conclusion since he's one of the few in Lhasa for the riots, so why would he just hang around making assumptions about what they were complaining about without any evidence whatsoever? Even if Miles didn't interview anybody, Blume still did and he still came to the same conclusions so your point is absolutely moot. Your criticism is REALLY getting ridiculous here. Miles already says what the primary reason is (ethnic hatred), and one must assume that he had to talk to people in Lhasa to find out why, otherwise he would've made the same conclusion that you and many other misinformed do - that the riots were for nationalism/independence. The fact that the rumours of monks getting killed angered the residents and helped start the riots is already mentioned in the article. Not to mention that I ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT POINT OF YOURS. So what if monks getting killed is part of the reason why riots started? Does that point to nationalism or does that point to the same type of anger you or I would feel if we saw nuns getting shot by the police? I already addressed your "proof" of nationalism by the Chinese flag being trampled. You are free to actually read what I say. And someone who attributes flag burning and pro-tibet slogans as proof that the riots were not because of ethnic hatred, but because of nationalism (and implying that the cause of the riots were for independence/autonomy) has no right to criticize how the current article is written. Your own "proof" is 100% presumptuous, while the argument I make is actually from what the Tibetans have reportedly said. Until you actually find that someone in Lhasa being interviewed complaining about wanting independence or autonomy, or any evidence that the Tibetans rioted out of nationalism, besides your own presumptuous interpretations, then I advise you to drop the issue because you seem downright biased and unreasonable right now. Sorry, to say but the evidence is stacked against your view. Last, no one said it was all about the rising prices. If you read the article, it clearly states that the riots occurred for several reasons, of which only one was inflation. So basically, YOU ARE JUST SPECULATING. You cannot just include your own, personal opinions and interpretations into the article. The fact is that the reporters who were there actually described what the residents were complaining about, and at the very least, offered their professional interpretation of what the riots were about (James Miles), which is supported by their interviews with the residents of what they were complaining about.216.252.71.154 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to point that out, but Blume did not come to the same conclusion as Miles (not completely the same, anyway), this is just your interpretation. I have not seen you referring to trampled or burning flags so far (and I still feel I have the right to criticize the article, even if I'd stick to the point that flag-burning is more often directed against a country, not against an ethnic group, thank you), and the argument you make is not from what Tibetans reportedly said (which is, according to Miles "Long live Tibet" and "Long live the Dalai Lama", and according to Blume "We were finally able to stand up to the Chinese"). For someone who speaks out so strongly against speculation, you use the "would" word pretty often btw. I'll give you that no-one claimed it was all about prices, but then no-one said it was all about independence (or even all about nationalism) either. Yaan (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WHen I said Blume came to the conclusion, I was referring to what he called the complaints of the residents, since you were skeptical that Miles actually interviewed any residents to come to his conclusions about their complaints. Yes, I do agree that Miles, but not Blume, directly concluded that the riots occurred out of ethnic hatred, since Blume went in after the riots, he could not see exactly what happened during them. Of course, no one has said it was all about independence or nationalism since no reporter has managed to come to that conclusion through interviews with residents of Lhasa! How can you not understand this? Only CNN/FOX, etc imply that with their headlines but they didn't even have reporters in there. As I said, the part about independence generating tensions is already in the background section and I have chosen not to remove it because it could be a factor in the riots, but like I said, only some were shouting Pro-Tibet slogans (which could be either calls for independence or just anti-chinese emotions and showing their ethnic pride). Also, and I believe I have said this like 5 times already, the reporters found that the residents complained about things other than independence/autonomy. Miles concluded it was primarily out of ethnic hatred. How can he not, when see sees even Chinese CHILDREN getting attacked by Tibetans? That's not nationalism, that's ethnic hate. But that's my personal opinion, as it's your personal opinion that a few people trampling a flag means that the riots occurred out of nationalism against all other evidence of it occurring because of socioeconomic disparity, rumours of monks getting killed, etc. Again, your own personal interpretation is NOT to be included in this article.Not to mention that saying that a few flags were trampled in the background section is is out of place. I have completely dismantled your entire argument, yet you persist to keep inserting your edit back in! Sigh...

Listen, I'll make this very clear for you: The reporter who was in the area concluded it was primarily out of ethnic hatred. He found the resident's complaints to be about socioeconomic conditions and ethnic tension. He most likely had to interview people to discover this. Georg Blume interviewed residents and found that their complains were the same. I do not put that Tibetan crowds stoning and beating Chinese children is evidence of ethnic hatred in the background just like I expect you to not put that a few people trampling Chinese flags is evidence that the riots were because of nationalism because that is OUR PERSONAL, UNPROFESSIONAL INTERPRETATION. This is a Wikipedia article, not a blog. You are free to create your own blog to unleash your opinions upon the world, but you are NOT to keep putting out-of-place statements in random parts of the article to further your own agenda. Seriously, I have addressed each and every single one of your points, yet you refuse to listen to reason!216.252.70.18 (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's just stick to what Miles and Blume had to say. Also please stop reading my mind. Yaan (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just too good at reading the intentions of others :). I'm glad we can now stick to actual information by professionals who were there. I'd appreciate it if you didn't take his quotes out of context though. In the intro, it talks about the sensitive political situation in Tibet, but then right after it mentions "it's more likely that what we saw was yes inspired by a general desire of Tibetans both inside Tibet and among the Dalai Lama's followers, to take advantage of this Olympic year. But also inspired simply by all these festering grievances on the ground in Lhasa.", making it seem like the riots were inspired by independence calls when he clearly states earler in his response to the question about whether the Dalai was involved that: "Well we didn't see any evidence of any organized activity, at least there was nothing in what I sensed and saw during those couple of days of unrest in Lhasa, there was anything organized behind it. And I've seen organized unrest in China. The Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 involved numerous organizations spontaneously formed by people in Beijing to oppose, or to call for more reform and demand democracy. We didn't see that in Lhasa. There were no organizations there that ... certainly none that labeled themselves as such.", meaning that the riots were not out of organized calls for independence. If it's not organized, it's disorganized, which points it to it even more to being out of ethnic hate/socioeconomic issues, if you read the whole question and response. However, I won't remove that despite it being misleading, since I believe we have bickered enough over this tiny section. You make it very hard for me not to judge your intentions when you keep doing things like this...207.188.87.114 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But the Tiananmen square protests (those in 1989) evolved about more than just four days. I see the contradiction re. the Dalai Lama, but strictly taken this does not rule out political inclinations on the part of the protesters. The Tiananmen square protests in 1976 were pretty spontanous, and still directed against a rather specific group in the government, weren't they? IMO, Blume makes the most convincing point - a number of unsolved issues, some of which more political, some of which more social/economic + a spark, in this case the demonstrations for the 49th anniversary of the 1959 uprising - which in turn were probably inspired by the olympics this year. Yaan (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it does not completely rule it out, but I do think it points it to not being any organized calls for independence. Miles clearly says that the Tiananmen protests were an organized movement. I'd say 100,000 students organizing themselves into hunger striking and marching across the city is organized and not spontaneous compared to random looting, beating and burning. But whatever. What Blume says is already in the article: political situation, spark (rumours of monks getting shot were spread throughout the city by some people hmmm), and socioeconomic conditions. It's fine as it is now though. Also, I looked at the source that I assume you put in for the part about education/job access. I put it into Babelfish translator:

"Peaceful protests of monks - violent excesses of young people: Does a break go through the Tibetan society?

It gives completely determines a break. The urbane youth dressed west speaks itself still gladly of the Dalai Lama - although she does it completely differently than the monks, in its monasteries completely the religion hang-evenly. But I felt clearly that these young people want some more different one. They have headphones in the ears like our young people, it carry Jeans, the same jackets, the same Turnschuhe. They deplored themselves most violently that they do not get the same places or the same education as the Chinese that the Chinese more moneys have. There material values and expectations are in the play, which there were not in the old Tibet."

Isn't that even MORE proof that the riots were for something else other then Pro-Tibet? I can't really make sure that the translator is not mistranslating it thoughs since I don't speak German. Is there anyone here who can translate it? Also, the translator says unequal access to education and "that the CHinese more moneys have". It's not exactly the same as- they have unequal access to jobs- because those two definitely do not mean the same thing. Is there an actual English source for this? I don't think there are many Germans reading this article...74.14.224.102 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"job" is my translation of "stelle". google translates this to "place", but in this context it seems very clear to me that what is meant is "job". Maybe changing "job" to "position" would be a safer translation, but then I think the english wording would become more ambigous one than the german one really is. But if you think I might (consciously or subconsciously) be misinterpreting, you could ask other German-speaking editors at the German Wikiproject or at the German-speaking Noticeboard (sorry, don't know the exact page title), or you could try and ask around in english at German Wikipedia. see also these possible alternative translations. Yaan (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

background (cont)

Be careful of running into WP:Synthesis problems. I'd say that unless reliable sources say X caused the unrest, we should leave it out. And even then, we should do in-content attribution to the sources, because there are obviously going to be disagreements. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but the problems you point out already seem to exist in the current version. Yaan (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. No such thing as "de facto independent", as I pointed out above.

2. The Dalai Lama is not painted as the arch-enemy by the PRC. In fact, official histories of the 1959 uprising paing the Dalai Lama in sympathetic terms, as someone poorly benighted by certain advisors. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of counterpoints:

1. It seems to me that, your undeveloped assertion above notwithstanding, there is a meaningful distinction to be made between autonomy (as HK has now) and de facto independence, which is what obtained in Tibet, at least according to a charitably pro-Chinese view, between the periods of direct control during the Qing and after 1951. Or, at least, you haven't convinced me that there isn't a difference. Not clear how this is relevant to the article at hand.

2. While for one brief moment in the 1950s that statement was true, the situation has obviously reversed itself. He most certainly is painted as the arch-enemy at the moment by the PRC.

3. According to everything I have read, "lots" is right on the money, at least for Lhasa, and I am going to want to see some very solid cites if you are going to claim that those migrants are "transitory". In principle I agree that we shouldn't overemphasize what anyone thinks are the causes of the unrest, but the migration hypothesis is very well attested in the Economist and elsewhere, and we're not going to blunt it by saying "but that's BS because according to us, the editors of Wikipedia, most migrants don't plan to stay." Alexwoods (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you already took 3 out. Alexwoods (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such as "de facto independence" - just as there is no such thing as "de facto ownership". You are either independent or you're not independent. If you are not independent at law, then you are something short of independent - e.g. you are autnomous. If you want to argue that Tibet was independent at law - perhaps because it declared independence, if it ever did - then that is fine. You either bear all the hall marks of independence - in which case you are independent - or you do not, in which case you are not.

"De-facto independence" is a confusion of concepts, much as "de facto sovereignty" (if something is not legally sovereign, then it is something short of sovereign) and "de facto ownership" (usually this means possession) are.

You'll need some reliable sources to show that the PRC government is painting the Dalai Lama as the "arch-enemy". Methinks the PRC government's arch-enemy (until May 20 anyway) is more likely to be Chen Shui-bien. As you can probably see (or maybe not), the PRC government has consistently said that it is willing to negotiate with the Dalai Lama on the condition of (what it terms) full abandonment of the independence cause; by contrast, it is not willing to negotiate with Chen Shui-bien come hell or high water.

I've seen recent press reports which are reporting the PRC government is calling the Dalai Lama a terrorist. Typical sensationalist drivel. If you've read the PRC government's list of accusations, you will know that the PRC government is accusing militant Tibetan independence organisations such as the Four Rivers and Six Hills (or however you translate it) and the Tibetan Youth Congress. The Dalai Lama's alleged role is tacit support for these organisations. There is also an important distinction between the "Dalai clique" and the Dalai Lama himself.

Have a look around on people.com.cn for the "official" history of Tibet post-1949 (which have now been brought onto the front page) to gain a first-hand understanding of the Chinese government's view of the Dalai Lama.

"Lots"? If you have a look at the population figures posted on the Tibet article, you will probably find that the Tibetans remain the majority in their homeland(s). Moreover, migratory Han residents in Tibet are just that - migratory. They go there, do business for a couple of years, and move back. Likewise, Tibetans today work, study, and sometimes live in all parts of China. "Migrants" is a misleading word, likewise. How many non-Tibetan Chinese actually settle permanently in the TAR? Not many, I think you will find. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're being cute. I know the PRC's official position on the Dalai Lama, but they have also outlawed images of him, and vilification of him in the press has been a constant over the past month, and indeed any time Tibet is mentioned it's customary to paint him as a 'splittist' and refer to his 'clique'. I'm not going to get into a debate over who is vilified more, him or Chen, but don't try to tell us that he's not portrayed very, very negatively in the Chinese media. Your comments on de facto independence are likewise incorrect - at law, possession is distinguishable from rightful ownership, but is a question of fact, just as de facto independence is a question of fact, but de jure independence is a question of law. Autonomy is clearly different, and means a situation where one body is given free rein but in a delineated way. So autonomous regions in Europe can often set their own language policy, but can't impose income taxes. Again, HK is autonomous - it can set 'domestic' policy within HK, and it has a separate set of laws from the PRC - but when its laws or policies conflict with those of the PRC, the PRC laws rule. De facto independence, on the other hand, means that it doesn't matter what the laws of the de jure (or arguably de jure) 'parent' country are, because its control does not extend into that territory. Take a look at Shan State and South Ossetia for examples of de facto independence. Tibet, after the ebb of Qing control and before 1951, was de facto independent. If you were in Lhasa, it didn't matter if the ROC had just set a 5% tariff, because the ROC didn't control Tibet - Tibet was, in fact if not in a court of law, independent. I understand that you don't like the term, but that's too bad, because it is exactly accurate. As for this question of "lots", how about this: I will compile some sources about Han migration into Lhasa, which I assert is common and large-scale, and you find one reliable non-anecdotal source that says that all those people are just soujourning there and that they eventually plan to go back to Jiangsu or wherever. Alexwoods (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Transnistria too. It is simply wrong to say that 'de facto independence' is a confusion of concepts. Alexwoods (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about the word "de-facto independence", if we can find another word that describes the situation in Tibet before 1951 that is fine with me. IMO the comparision with Transnistria, Abkhazia etc. hits the nail on the head. I also don't think "migrant" is such a bad word - it is pretty in-line with the China-related usage of "migrant worker", is it not? Yaan (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to use 'de facto independence', because that's what the situation was and there is no reason to change it. Also, I don't think anyone is arguing with 'migrant', and you're right that is the commonly used term in English for the Chinese liudongrenkou (sorry, no characters on this computer) phenomenon. Alexwoods (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay - look, no argument about the substance of Yaan's list, just being picky about wording.

Alexwoods, when you speak of "de facto independence" vs "de jure independence", I think what you are talking about is "recognised independence" vs "unrecognised independence". I'm not going to talk about the wording of other articles, but independence is not like marriage - there is no form to be filled in or register to be signed. If you possess all the hallmarks of an independent state, you are independent. If you do not, you are not. There is no "intermediate stage" where you bear all the hallmarks of an independent state but lacks the piece of paper to prove it. What there is, is the gradual acceptance or recognition of that fact by other governments.

Transnistria possesses all the hallmarks of an independent state according to some interpretations. According to others, it doesn't bear all these hallmarks - which is why most countries do not recognise it. Recognition or lack thereof, without more, is irrelevant to the question of whether it is independent - it is merely an expression of the opinion of other governments of their interpretation of the facts.

Your arguments above are all arguments for the "independence" of Tibet, there is nothing "de facto" about it. Arguments that do not stand up in a court of law are not "de jure false but de facto true" - they are either true, in which case the court is in error, or they are false. A murder suspect who has been let off by the court but convicted in the court of public opinion is not a "de facto" murderer. If he actually did it, he is a murderer. If he didn't do it, he is not.

However, all of that - everything that you or I have been saying - is original research unless there is a reliable source to back it up. If there are reliable sources (judgments, treaties, encyclopaedias, books) that call early 20th century Tibet "de facto independent", I am happy to let that stand as one opinion - of course, in the interest of WP:NPOV all other sourced views would also need to be proportionately represented. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please stop using HK's autonomous status as a comparison. It has a time limit of 50 years. The autonomy wanted in Tibet has not been publicly discussed by DL. For something as historical as tibetan culture, it is going to need a lot more than a few decades. Independence basically = permanent autonomy. Benjwong (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)