Talk:Shigatse Photovoltaic Power Plant

Quality of sources
The last two sources that were restored are of very low quality and should not be used.

This one is sheer Chinese propaganda to show how nicely China behaves in Tibet. It is not neutral enough to serve as a source for Wikipedia; plus the point is not to add all the results of a Google search about solar energy in China; 8 sources to illustrate the development of solar in Tibet is sufficient, knowing that it is not the main topic of the article.

The second reference is identical to this one, already used in the article, at a better place. Ydecreux (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So I think these two sources should not be restored. As for the previous one (the World Bank one), it was misplaced from the beginning by DDupard. So DDupard did not repare any "damage", but simply fixed their own initial mistake. I had used the same reference for the French version of the article (meaning I have nothing against it), but it was removed by Elnon. I am fine with this reference where it is now.

Ydecreux (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "How nicely China behaves in Tibet," this sort of phrasing is to be found in Free Tibet propaganda where Tibet is presented as a separate country illegally occupied by China, when in fact Tibet is not listed as a colony by the United Nations, and China is not considered as an occupying power in Tibet by the same. --Elnon (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been in China a dozen times and have nothing against this country. You should know that the UN only lists territories considered as colonised by developed countries (UK, US, France, New Zealand, and formerly Spain in the case of Western Sahara). For the anecdote, a colleague of mine recently told me that his family had to cancel their project to travel to Tibet because his wife was working for the UN human right body, thus they had no chance to get a visa. The legality of the treaty between Tibet and China has been questioned by a number of jurists. But this is not the point here, and I don't have any competence about this issue. The point is simply to avoid sources that are not neutral and of a promotional nature, especially when there are plenty of sources already (8) for the same sentence. This being said, I just passed by to visit this page, but I have stopped following it, as well as the French version. So you can mess up with both of them as you wish; I will not interfere. I intervened in the past because I had been informed about this page as potentially problematic because I follow the French "Renewable Energy" portal. Please accept my apologies in advance if I don't read and answer your next message on this discussion page. Ydecreux (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot help noticing that the two references you have suppressed feature a banner with the caption "60th Anniversary of the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet (1951-2011)." I can quite understand that this caption may ruffle the feathers of any human rights campaigner who is aware that "the legality of the treaty between Tibet and China has been questioned by a number of jurists". So, in order to avoid hurting their feelings, I will not insist on these references being reinstated. --Elnon (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)