Talk:Tibetan sovereignty debate/Archive 1

Untitled

Until modern means of travel had been invented, Tibet was basically a very inaccessible place at an average elevation of 14,000 feet. This calls into doubt the ability of anyone to truly command the territory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magwep (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 October 2006.

Third-Party views

I have quite significantly altered the final paragraph of this section. No references were given for the assertions about the specific nations which satisfy the Montivideo Convention criteria for statehood, and the author(s) also implied that all movements in the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements meet these criteria. This is misleading and untenable, and my instinct is that the rest of this section could also do with a similar reworking. Please note that I employed the word 'nation' in its broadest sense, i.e. divested of political connotations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.154.45 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 November 2006.

Having more carefully examined the section and its references, I felt that the best move was to remove the entire section. The bulk of it rested on a single 1989 history of Tibet by Melvyn Goldstein, and the included quotation '...even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican' is from 1969. The crux of the section was that the lack of international recognition of Tibetan sovereignty indicates international agreement that Tibet is not a sovereign nation. However, the same Melvyn Goldstein wrote in a 1998 Foreign Affairs article 'The Dalai Lama's dilemma' at page 93 that the international position is merely one of acceptance for strategic reasons rather than actual agreement. Ultimately, this section in its present state is misleading and unilluminating, and I have therefore chosen to remove it. Ketahuan 08:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the "single source" referred to here is a solidly researched book of almost 900 pages; a seemingly contradictory journalistic piece by the same author does not invalidate that work. I hope we can agree on that.

If this article needs revision, then efforts should be applied to the section on "Chinese views" which is disproportionately larger than the section on "Tibetan views." Among other things, it contains bizarre claims, such as the statement that the Ming dynasty exercised sovereignty over Tibet. While I have no doubt that the PRC government believes that was the case, I very much doubt that anyone can cme up with a credible source backing that claim.--Niohe 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You can enlarge the Tibetan-in-exile views or challenge claims. But I find it difficult to argue subordination when Dali-Lahma succession must went through BeiJing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.70.36 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I find it very difficult to take any claims seriously from a government that first unilaterally withdraws from treaties, agreements and organizations which it finds "unfair", and then, in the next breath, invokes an agreement from 1792 to claim sovereignty over a territory its has just conquered by threat of force.--Niohe 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the ROC government or the PRC government? since both of them are claiming sovereignty over Tibet.(and the ROC government still claim sovereignty over outer Mongolia) Seyraphim (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter as both the ROC and PRC claim the right to rule the whole of China. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

---

hi, i would like to add some interesting information lost in an old national geographic article on the status of tibet. it adds some first hand accounts of a journalist, who witnessed china's exercise of suzuerainty over tibet. i think it may be a contribution for first hand accounts as a reliable source.

„since the fifteenth century all power, civil and spiritual, has been nominally in the hands of the Dalai Lama, but China maintains a Manchu resident and an army. Until the Dalai Lama’s 22 year, the government is in the hands of a regent appointed by the Emperor of the China.

In order to avoid strife in selecting a Dalai Lama, the electoral council places three stips of paper with the names of three boys in an urn, and the Manchu resident removes one with a small staff.

The dalai lama’s council, in whose hands is the actual power, embraces four so-called “Galons” appointed by the Emperor of China. The administration is in the hands of a closed aristocracy, and bribery and corruption are nearly universal.”

Explorations in Tibet Date: Sept. 1903 Pages 353-355 National Geographic

How much time did the author of this piece spend in Tibet ... who is the author, anyway? How many of the facts did he witness firsthand, as opposed to being informed by sources? Who were his sources? For instance, there were no dalai lamas selected within 25 years of 1903, so he must have been told about this by somebody.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

a national geographic author summarized an account by G.Z. Zoubikov who resided in Lhasa for several months. He is a Russian buddhist and a graduate from the Oriental Faculty of the University of St. Petersbrg. He was also given the Przhevasky prize by the society, being the first Russian Tibet explorer. He entered Tibet from the north in the summer of 1900 and stayed for several months mostly in Lhasa. According to the article, I quote: "The present Dalai Lhama is 27 years old. He is the 5th since 1806, one of the regents having continued in authority for an ununsually long time, owing to 3 children selected to be lhamas having died before attaining majority." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.156.199 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2007

correction, mr.zoubikov's stay lasted over a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.156.199 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2007

Reincarnation Application

The Reincarnation Application article is related to the Tibetan sovereignty article, but I'm not sure how to tie it in. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Clerks. 17:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Apparently, the "freedom" of speech on Wikipedia is even more restricted than North Korea. Most people who believe that this article is biased are often deemed as "Pro-Communist" and "Freedom Haters." PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS NPOV. I HAVE ALREADY NOTIFIED SOME ADMINISTRATORS ABOUT THE BIAS AND ADMIN ABUSE GOING ON. I assure you that I am only interested in the historical context of the Tibet. Unfortunately, many people try to mix politics and history together in order to create a feeling of domination and abuse by the People's Republic of China and such people are often Pro-Tibetan independence. I believe that sites or articles such as this should use academic sources rather than government or Pro-Tibetan sources. One will see that the sources linked to this website are mainly from Pro-Tibetan groups. Nationalism should be avoided on both sides. Ironically enough, no independent sources from academic history books are ever mentioned. Yet, people want to have a "fair" and "unbiased" debate about this topic. Anyone who reads this article can obviously feel that it is heavily supportive of Tibetan independence. Outside of the western world, almost no "Tibetan" groups exist! In the current political state of the world, many western countries are afraid of China's rise and its impact on the world. This not only goes for China but also for the Russian Federation as well. Many similar "groups" criticize Russia for not being "democratic" enough while Bush just vetoed a legislation allowing torture. Because of these modern events, I believe that the sources are also biased and tend to be very supportive of "western" nations. They have seem to have forgotten about both world wars fought in the 20th century and the reasons behind them!

I AM ASKING EVERY INTERESTED MEMBER TO SEARCH FOR ACADEMIC RESOURCES AND TRY TO BALANCE OUT THE BIAS. Bias is hard to avoid but we should try to introduce both sides' ideas fairly. Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you are running around tagging Tibetan articles with the POV tag, and then pasting a message on the talk page which does not address what your specific concerns are. Post specifics, or the tags will be reverted as your own POV. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that merely citing an "academic" source does not guarantee unbiasedness, as did Hitler's Germany, so PR China has its "academic" supporters. Citing such people will not lead to an unbiased article. Neither Tom Grunfeld nor Melvyn Goldstein represent unbiased views, they are definitely staunch (biased) supporters or the PRC view. Their views are given too much prominence here and must be balanced by views and citations of non-sinifed tibetologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.144.240 (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has well-classfied Tibetan, Chinese and Third-party viewpoint , please CLEARLY POINT OUT which area is POV.158.182.31.185 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The term 'academic' carries the notion of 'useless' in English. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

article's introduction

As it's still controversial (and POV) claiming Tibet as independent during the years 1912-1951. I with no doubt reverted this edit. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations with Nepal, Mongolia, Great Britain, and Ladakh, Poor Citation

On the claim of Tibet once had diplomatic relations with Nepal, Mongolia, Great Britain, and Ladakh (in the "Historical Status" section), the citation used (number 10 for now, titled "Language Log: Microsoft Outlaws Dzongkha", at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002619.html) turns out to be a blog entry, at a blog site primarily discussing language related technologies. The author of the cited post casually mentioned this claim without providing further citations or reasoning. I would suggest that we remove this claim for the time being, until more reliable and verifiable (see WP:V) sources can be cited. Claims as significant as the existence of diplomatic relations between two sovereign nations should have much more credible sources (than a casual blog entry at least). Steven li (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody commented or objective to my view points above, I'm going ahead to remove the reference to diplomatic relations between Tibet and the four countries, until a reliable source can be found. Steven li (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute - this is in a section entitled "The View of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile". That "Government" expresses the view which you removed on its website: http://www.tibet.com/whitepaper/white1.html . I can think of no more reliable source of "The View of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile" than its own website! The text you removed is not stating that the diplomatic relations did exist, it is stating that it is the view of the Tibetan Government-in-exile that they did. Am I missing something obvious here? Paul Christensen (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, I only removed it because the source (a technology blog site) was unreliable and not appropriate to support the claim (diplomatic relations), and after I waited a couple of days without hearing objections. If you believe you've found a better source, feel free to go ahead and re-word this section. However the material you mentioned describes the "diplomatic, economical and cultural relations" in a very ambiguous and nebulous way, you may want to spend some time writing up something more specific and crisp though. Steven li (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the intro NPOV

I have removed text from the introductory paragraph introduced recently by Yewhock. The views expressed were clearly not Neutral, and the viewpoint is already well covered in the Third-Party Views section. Given that views are so clearly divided on this issue the general introduction needs to remain as a statement of the scope of the problem, not of any specific views on it.Paul Christensen (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

need more restructing...

i am not sure both side are arguing the same point, it feel all over the place. can we have some kind of ex.summary for each side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.10 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominal power

The article currently states that "The September 1903 issue of National Geographic stretches back to the 15th century Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and tells us that the power of Dalai Lama was only nominal". This is not what the following text says; which is that all power, both civilian and spiritual, is nominally in the hands of the Dalai Lama. The difference is subtle but significant. Cripipper (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Zahirrudin Ahmad

Do we have any evidence that this person is a historian? 'A Resume of Facts' does not sound like a very historical statement. Cripipper (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me - he has written a couple of works on Tibetan history & philospohy and his "Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century" is cited by a number of people (for example: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~rmcclea/McCleary%20Formation%20of%20Tibetan%20State%20Religion.pdf )Paul Christensen (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Long March

I propose to excise the section on Deng Xiaoping's statement to Kissinger. It contributes nothing to the discussion of sovereignty, merely demonstrating that Deng Xiaoping claimed that the Red Army marched through southern Tibet. Cripipper (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on this: Deng Xiaoping is still a key "thought leader" for the Chinese leadership so his observation that the Chinese Red Army marched through (implicitly without doubt that they were in Chinese territory) does reinforce the Chinese view that de facto independence was not extant at that time.Paul Christensen (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The logic of this argument doesn't stand up; the argument put forward, as cited in this article, is that "many other parts of China also enjoyed de facto independence" during this period. Therefore, the extension of your point means that any provinces through which the Red Army marched were not de facto independent, which is clearly a nonsense. During the Civil War Nationalist armies marched through Burmese territory; this has no bearing on whether Burma was de facto, or even de jure, independent. Furthermore, you are assuming to understand the thought processes and rationale of Deng during a period of flux in the party's official position on whether national minorities had the right to national self-determination. As I said, all this demonstrates is that Deng said they marched across a section of southern Tibet. Cripipper (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and I don't feel very strongly on this, so delete it if you do and no-one else has any input. Paul Christensen (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance

When I came to this page first a few weeks ago I was impressed by its breadth & balance: the Chinese and Tibetan views were given approximately equal weight. But in the last couple of weeks the "View of the Chinese Governments" has been expanded substantially, and the "View of the Tibetan Government-in-exile" has contracted a little. IN my opinion this leaves the article badly unbalanced in the weight of content, and there is now a need either to condense the Chinese view or expand on the Tibetan one. What do others think?Paul Christensen (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Paul's comment. I don't specialize in this area of history so I am unequal to the task of updating this, but the article is embarrassingly unbalanced. To Yewhock, it is not about taking a political position, it is about having a reasonable level of even-handedness in the treatment of the subject. As of now it is too slanted to one point of view to be considered a reliable or relevant source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlynnenny (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

   Let the pro-Tibet party add what they want. I am sure they are around and in due time we will read from them, and I want to see how they respond. I have seen their footprints in Tibet-related wikipedia articles. Yewhock (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason was simple, a lot of third-party talks such as the citations from the Encyclopaedia Britannica and works of Melvyn C. Goldstein were put under the title of "view of the Chinese government". I suggest move all these contents into "Third-Party views". Clearly, some people have been treating "pro-China views" as "the Chinese government views". These two things, however, were very different.Speaker cn (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The PRC Government is itself pro-Tibet, after all it is part of The PRC. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying that George Wallace was pro-black because black people lived in Alabama. I don't like logical fallacies. Gimme danger (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No George Wallace was anti-Black, but he was pro-Alabama. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the PRC policy is to eliminate the Tibet problem by oppression and organized deculturation, it is definitely not pro-Tibet. Current PRC policy goes against the PRC "constitution" in that they now seek to "change" the "minorities" rather than respect and foster them. This is a very anti-Tibetan (and anti-Uighur etc) stance by PRC.Human-Rites (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The PRC policy is very pro-Tibet. Whether you then interpret it to mean that it is anti-Tibetan because by being pro-Tibet it actually changes Tibetans' lives is up to you. But any sensible person knows that people, populations and so called human cultures change over time. Is it pro-Tibetan if you desire that the Tibetan people stand still in a time-warp? 81.155.102.52 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

UN resolution 1723

Here is an excerpt (bolded emphasis is mine) from the UN resolution 1723:

The General Assembly ((...)) Solemnly renews its calls for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination

This resolution is already mentioned in the article (tied to the footnote #82) in the following way:

The 1961 resolution, in the opinion of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.

In which way doesn't this resolution clearly state that the right to self-determination applies to the Tibetan people? If it doesn't may we delete , in the opinion of the Tibetan Government-in-exile,?

Moreover, in such a case and if the UN is not the Tibetan Government-in-Exile(!), may we transfer this mention about the resolution 1723 into the Third-Party views section? Natmaka (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no deed to do so (the transfer thing) since large parts in "the view of the Chinese Governments" are also from the third parties' views. And we should note that PRC rejoined the UN in year 1971 which means the three UN resolutions were made when China was absent in UN. How effective and fair were those resolutions? It is still debatable.Speaker cn (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited on this article about the UN resolutions all came from the Tibetan exile government's website.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. How can the source of a UN resolution be the "Tibetan exile government's website"? The UN General Assembly publishes this resolution, therefore the source is the UN website, leading to (click '1723') to UN archives publishing the official document, which contains ("The General Assembly ((...)) Solemnly renews its calls for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination"). Therefore this view is not, as stated in the article, "in the opinion of the Tibetan Government-in-exile" but the UN's view, and therefore pertains to the Third-Party views section. Natmaka (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Definition of Tibet

I propose to include the disputes of the definition of Tibet into this article too. Too often I have seen people who don't know the Tibet referred by the Tibet Government in Exile and the "TAR" by the Chinese government were two absolutely different concepts; the former entity was almost twice of the area of the later one. I believe the readers deserve to know, when talking about Tibet, the two sides were actually refering to very different geographical entities.

Good point. This is an important controversy and it should be discussed.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A BBC story below about Scotland, England, Britain, Great Britain, and The United Kingdom, and Andy Murray. A reader also pointed out Holland and The Netherlands. Hopefully the parallels will clarify to the diehards the meaning and definition of China, Tibet, The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7604057.stm 81.154.201.191 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Return" to China

Question raised

Recently added text: "Dalai lama also pointed out that, for Tibetans to survive as a people, it was "imperative" that the Chinese people in the whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) return to China. Considering the region Dalai Lama claimed as the whole of Tibet, an estimation of the population of the non-Tibetan people who should "return to China" was around 50 million. The caculation was made by adding up most of the population of Qinghai(5.4 million in 2004), more than half of the population of Sichuan (87.3 million in 2004) and a portion of the population of Yunnan (44.2 million) and then substracting the population of the ethnic Tibetans in these region.".

It's interesting that the Dalai Lama's five-point plan calls for some Chinese people to leave the Tibetan territories, and that is definitely worth mentioning. Still, what the source given actually says is that "Today, in the whole of Tibet 7.5 million Chinese settlers have already been sent ... it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China." This clearly does not say that all Chinese people in Tibet must leave; it apparently means that 7.5 million settlers must leave, although it could also be understood as saying that some of them should leave. I have no idea what justifies the number "50 million" that is mentioned here—I don't see any source which says that more than half the population of Sichuan lives in Cholka Sum, and that hardly seems plausible.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just another typical load of bs from dalai lama, made without any thinking. The Anglo-Saxons have survived very well outside Germany and England. They now populate the world. This should be the same for Tibetans. Even now the Tibetan people number only a few million, because survival in such a harsh environment under primitive conditions is difficult. For the Tibetans to survive as a people, they must leave Tibet, in the similar way the Anglo-Saxons have left the land of their ancestors, and progress. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Paradox of Dalai Lama's "Greater Tibet" Theory

Dalai Lama's Tibet

I have checked the map again and here is a more acurate explanation on the area of Tibet. The area Dalai Lama claimed as "the whole of Tibet" includes the whole of the Tibet Autonomous Region, the whole of Qinghai Province, about 1/6 of the Xinjiang Province, about 2/3 of the Gansu Province, about 3/5 of the Sichuan province and about 1/4 of the Yunnan province. It is about 1/4 of the area of China.

The green part is the geographical definition of Tibet according to Dalai Lama

Chinese provinces in English

Chinese "Return to China"

The second point of Dalai Lama's Five Point Peace Plan was, "Today, in the whole of Tibet 7.5 million Chinese settlers have already been sent, outnumbering the Tibetan population of 6 million. In central and western Tibet, now referred to by the Chinese as the "Tibet Autonomous Region", Chinese sources admit the 1.9 million Tibetans already constitute a minority of the region's population. These numbers do not take the estimated 300,000-500,000 troops in Tibet into account - 250,000 of them in so-called Tibet Autonomous Region. For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past."

My understanding was Dalai Lama treated all the non-Tibetan people in "his Tibet" as Chinese (actually there are Han Chinese, Muslim Chiese, etc) and he wanted those Chinese to "return to China". However, his claim of "7.5 million Chinese settlers" was not supported by any evidence.

Nobody can really calculate exactly how many non-Tibetan people are present now in "Dalai Lama's Tibet". I did a rough calculation assuming the population averagely spreads in each province. This assumption could be different from the real situation but at least we can have a rough idea about how many people we are talking about who should "return to China". My calculation result was around 50 million. People are welcome to post their calculation results.

Voting in a Democratic Entity Leads to...

One could argue that Dalai Lama did not have the intention to drive all the non-Tibetan people to leave Tibet as it was not explicitly stated in his proposal. But here is another intersting statement from Dalai Lama, "The whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) should become a self-governing democratic political entity founded on law"

The population of all the ethnic Tibetan people in China is under 6 million. If Dalai Lama does not drive the Chinese in "Tibet" away, the 50 million Chinese could easily vote for Tibet merging back to China in a "a self-governing democratic political entity". In that case, all of Dalai Lama's ideas about "Tibet" would become in vain. Then why would he bother to found the new Tibet anyway?

Charge of Ethnic Cleansing

With the reasoning above, we can conclude that Dalai Lama has to drive most of the non-Tibetan Chinese people away in Tibet for his new Tibet plan. But he would face a very serious charge if he really intends to do so: ethnic cleansing.

The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"

To remove 50 million ethnic Chinese from Tibet certainly qualifies as ethnic cleansing, I believe.

So, what does Dalai Lama really want? I wonder.

I propose to put part of this discussion into the article and people should be aware that Dalai Lama's proposal to solve the Tibetan sovereignty debate is basically a deadlock.

Response

Speaker_cn, I think you're right to wonder about this, because the Dalai Lama has, as far as I can tell, not been very clear about his intentions in this regard. I also agree that it is very unfortunate that the Dalai Lama's people tend to play fast and loose with the numbers. However, I do think there are three important issues that should be brought up:

1) The map that you posted above, where does it come from? Is this an official document of the exile government or the office of the Dalai Lama? If the boundaries shown are slightly wrong, it makes a big difference, because it is in the areas along the border that the Tibetan claim is weak and the Chinese population is large.

2) The population of the provinces in question is definitely not evenly spread. For one thing, people tend to live in cities, and the Dalai Lama certainly does not claim Chengdu. Moreover, the countryside where Tibetans live is typically less densely populated than the countryside where Han people live.

3) It looks to me like the passage you quoted above clearly says "Chinese settlers return to China." The term "Chinese settlers" does not necessarily mean all Chinese people in a given area; only the ones who are settlers (i.e. not born or raised there). Moreover, the passage says that settlers "have already been sent" (emphasis mine), which makes it unclear whether "settlers" includes people who arrived voluntarily rather than being required to move there by a government program (which the Dalai Lama claims is happening). In any event, the passage clearly says how many people we are talking about: 7.5 million, not 50 million. I understand your point about the results of democratic elections, but since we are not, in fact, talking about 50 million non-Tibetan voters, there would not necessarily have to be ethnic cleansing. By my calculations, according to government statistics, 18.4% of the land area of the PRC consists of areas where Tibetans are a majority of at least 60%; in other words, this is most, but not all, of the Tibetan area claimed by Tibetan exiles. These areas taken together are 85% Tibetan, and that's without anybody being required to leave.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious!!! You are talking about Gerrymandering. Do you Understand that Tibetan population of Qinghai is only 20%, and in Sichuan only 1%, if you want new borders than China can anex TAR into Sichuan. There is a number of different ethnic groups such as Bai people, Blang, Bonan, Dongxiang, Han, Hui Chinese, Lhoba, Lisu people, Miao, Mongols, Monguor (Tu people), Menba (Monpa), Mosuo, Nakhi, Qiang, Nu people, Pumi, Salar, and Yi people and you must understand that they don't want that BECAUSE THAT AREA BELONGS TO ALL ETHNIC GROUPS WHO LIVE THERE. And who would want to give real autonomy to them because less than four out of ten TAR Tibetans reach secondary school, THEY SHOULD STUDY HARD AND BECOME SOMETHING AND NOT LISTEN TO AN OLD MONK WITH NO EDUCATION AND DALI LAMA NEVER HAD A REAL JOB. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THANK YOU .Kkkdddiii (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A short explanation

File:Tibet population pie 1.png

Nat Krause, you are right about one thing: in the Tibet Autonomous Region, around 95% of the resident population is ethnic Tibetan (about); far more than 60%. See the pie on the right side and I will give the source later. If the Tibet Autonomous Region is the Tibet Dalai Lama claimes, things would be a lot easier for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaker cn (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the TAR is one of the areas where Tibetans are more than 60% of the population. I was referring also to the following autonomous areas: Kardze, Yülshül, Hainan, Huangnan, and Golog, along with the southwestern part of Qinghai, which is the discontinuous portion of Haixi.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuan, Mongols, and khāns

Also recently added: "However, the successors of the Yuan Dynasty never attempted to stake claim over the Khagan title and saw themselves as Emperor of China, as the Yuan Dynasty became another one of the long list of dynasties in the history of imperial China." This is saying that none of the Yuan emperors (after Kublai?) used the title qaγan? Is that really correct, that they did not claim to be the great khan of the Mongols? I notice that the Wikipedia articles for each of the Yuan emperors actually lists "qaγan" as part of their Mongolian names. Besides, it's not clear what relevance this sentence has to the one before it, which is: "Among the historical claims to Tibetan sovereignty, supporters note that during the Yuan Dynasty, it was the Mongols who conquered Tibet, not the Chinese, and that the Mongols administered Tibet and China separately and very differently, allowing the Tibetans much greater autonomy." Since the Mongols conquered Tibet before Kublai Khan, what does that have to do with the emperors who came after him?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I think this history was no problem as I copied it directly from the Yuan Dynasty part of wiki. Those emperors did claim themselves as Chinese Emperors instead of Mongolian Khanates because only in this way could they rule a country whose major population was Han Chinese. The title "Chinese Emperor" is like "US President" which had nothing to do with their Mongolian names like "George W Bush"Speaker cn (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

2. The whole idea was the Yuan Dynasty was a Chinese Dynasty although its main rulers were Mongols. The referred arguement failed to realize that Tibet was an entity ruled by China instead of a parallel entity with China.Speaker cn (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the article on the Yuan dynasty says that, but, then, you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I don' t really see why the Yuan emperors would need to abandon the title of qaγan in order to rule China—there have been many rulers who used multiple titles, so why couldn't they do that? In any event, this requires more information, so I'll bring it up at Talk:Yuan Dynasty.

As for your second point, the preceding sentence does not say anything about whether the Yuan dynasty was Chinese or not. It says that Tibet was conquered by Mongols, not by Chinese, which is true: Tibet was conquered before the establishment of the Yuan. It then says that Tibet was allowed autonomy under the Yuan, which is still true if the Yuan were Chinese.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Yuan dynasty was definitely Chinese. The Imperial House was Mongolian. The Chinese peoples include the Mongol nationality.81.155.97.59 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia is part of Chinese governments?

I didn't know Chinese governments include sources like Catholic Encyclopedia, National Geographic, Encyclopaedia Britannica, historian Zahiruddin Ahmad, and Tibetologist Melvyn C. Goldstein? Seyraphim (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a really great way of communicating on Wikipedia. Try to use it as often as possible. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you are wrong, it's not sarcasm, it's a valid question. I'm questioning why those sources are categorized under view of Chinese governments when they are not any part of Chinese governments? Seyraphim (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, the sarcastic phrasing of your post obscured your question. I don't know why these sources are classed as Chinese government views. They are obviously not all describing statements by the PRC government. I would imagine that they would added to support the view of Tibet as part of China. Feel free to change anything you think is incorrect. I'm not sure if changing the headings or cutting down excess quotations would be the best way of dealing with this. Remember, be bold. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

Someone please, help clean up this messy part in "Third-party views":

"This view is, however, incorrect. For instance the "United States Congress has at times expressed a different perspective. See Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 536, 108 Stat. 382, 481 (1994) ("Because Congress has determined that Tibet is an occupied sovereign country under international law," Congress has imposed a reporting requirement on the Secretary of State regarding, inter alia, the state of relations between the United States and "those recognized by Congress as the true representatives of the Tibetan people."); see also Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-138, § 355, 105 Stat. 647, 713 (1991) ("It is the sense of the Congress that . . . Tibet . . . is an occupied country under the established principles of international law [and] Tibet’s true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people . . . .")."[97]"

It seems intrusive and unreadable. Thanks. -60.242.157.200 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Gimme danger (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

International Law

The intro questioned International Law. The status of Tibet in International Law is quite clear: It is a part of The People's Republic of China. This is recognised by The United Nations. Similarly the legal status of the "annexations" of north America and Australia by Europeans is that it is perfectly legal under International Law. Also the so called "Tibetan Government in exile" is not a government at all, and they do not represent the Tibetan people.

The opening paragraph of the article on International Law should be corrected.

Genetic studies, multiple origins, modern ethnic group

Ptr123 has been repeatedly inserting the following sentence: "Genetic studies show that modern Tibetans, like most other modern ethnic groups, originate from multiple ancient groups." There are multiple problems with this edit. First, it implicitly calls Tibetans a "modern ethnic group", without explanation or justification. Second, it asserts origin from multiple ancient groups, and cites a web page [1] which does not make this claim. Third, the cited web page itself is not a reliable source. It's a rambling, semi-coherent hobby page. If you follow the homepage link to [2] you find it is written by somebody identified only as "Ah Xiang" (possibly no other person than Ptr123) and contains the admission, "This website expresses the personal opinions of the author." Even if the web page did make the claim Ptr123 is attributing to it, this source would not be acceptable. Bertport (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

addition to the lede

The following was added to the intro:

No other nation has ever recognized the independence of Tibet, extended diplomatic recognition to the "government in exile," or declared that Tibet is an "occupied country."

I am modifying it for the following reasons: 1) the statement "No other nation has ever recognized the independence of Tibet" is false; I will clarify it by adding "since 1949"; 2) the statement "No other nation has ... extended diplomatic recognition to the 'government in exile'" is true and very relevant, but it is unnecessary to add scare quotes around "government in exile"; 3) the statement, "No other nation has ... declared that Tibet is an 'occupied country'" is true, but this is starting to seem a bit unbalanced. There are various points that could be made here, and they described at length in the body of the article, not being easily summarised. There are UN resolutions about Tibet which are quite strongly worded, etc. Since the facts really need to be described in detail, I am removing this third statement from the intro.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Issues

This article needs a serious dose of editing to make it NPOV. At the moment it reads like a refutation of all of Beijing's arguments for invading Tibet. Interesting as this is, it needs to be set in a neutral context rather than just presenting the pro-Tibetan side. It may be that a change in wording is all that is required, it may be that more information regarding the Chinese claims is needed. Either way there is also a serious lack of citations and references. I'm referring to large sections of the article, such as the legal arguments section, and to other parts where phrases like 'A Lhasa woman recently told me that...' are simply as unencyclopaedic as is humanly possible. 144.82.205.104 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what you read was the result of a series of invasive edits done by an anonymous user today. I've just reverted them. Bertport (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

one example at least of how flagged revisions would be helpful. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by flagged revisions? Bertport (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ming-Tibetan relations

Regarding the passage Most scholars outside the PRC say that during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), Tibet was an independent region outside Ming control, although scholars inside the PRC think it is significant that many local Tibetan leaders received titles from the Ming court. See Tibet during the Ming Dynasty for details. --

"De facto" is unwarranted because it is not language used by scholars outside the PRC in regard to Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty. "Many local Tibetan leaders received titles from the Ming court" is argumentative, and is shown in Tibet during the Ming Dynasty to be specious, and should not be mentioned at all. However, if it is going to be mentioned, it should be made clear that only PRC scholars give it any weight.

This passage started as a simple summary of academic opinion outside the PRC on the topic of Ming-Tibetan relations. Someone wanted to color the statement with a point of view that is not supported by academic opinion outside the PRC. If that is going to be done, it has to be properly attributed to its own support group, not mixed up in a way that readers would think it's the opinion of scholars outside the PRC.

Alternatively, it is acceptable to return the passage to its previous form: Most scholars outside the PRC say that during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), Tibet was an independent region outside Ming control. See Tibet during the Ming Dynasty for details. Bertport (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tang-tibetan relations

Around 650 AD, the chinese Tang Dynasty captured Lhasa.[3]

spically pawned, those of you who say chinese never ruled tibet

Around 760 AD, the Tibetans captured Chang'an, the capital of the Tang Dynasty. So did Tibet rule China in the 8th century? Though I do agree that later Chinese dynasties ruled Tibet, the temporary capture of Lhasa around 650 AD may not be used as a justification for Chinese rule over Tibet at that time.--216.254.172.133 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my history is a bit murky, but I couldn't find a source for the above claim.

Try these:

A Corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions. H. E. Richardson. Royal Asiatic Society (1985), pp. 1–25. ISBN 0-94759300/4.

Tibetan Civilization. R. A. Stein. 1962. 1st English edition 1972. Stanford University Press, p. 65. ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-0901-7 (pbk).

Beckwith, Christopher I (1987). The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02469-3

"What are the major events of Tibetan history (timeline)?". Stason. http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/tibet/B1-What-are-the-major-events-of-Tibetan-history-timeline.html. Retrieved 2007-09-25.

Bertport (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ROC view at International Symposium on Human Rights in Tibet

This view is reliably sourced and should not be removed or changed without reaching an agreement on this talk page. Bertport (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The passport?

Why isn't the passport part under the government-in-exile's section. I don't think it's significant enough to warrant a separate section. It's merely a support for the government-in-exile's argument and there are plenty of them in both camps. It would be messy if they all got their own sections

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Gimme danger (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)