Talk:Tibet/Archive 9

GA delist
I see this was once a Good Article, then delisted. Why was it delisted? What do we need to do to regain GA status? Bertport (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the archived notice, it was delisted due to lack of inline citations on controversial claims. Since every claim about Tibet is controversial, I suppose the way to get back to GA status is to get a good citation for every sentence. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is realy ture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.2.166 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

- A BBC story below concerning Scotland, England and The United Kingdom, and Andy Murray. A reader also pointed out the terms Holland and The Netherlands. Hopefully this will clarify to the diehards the meaning of China, Tibet and The People's Republic of China. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7604057.stm 81.154.201.191 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what this comment has to do with the comments before it?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. China and Tibet are constituent parts of The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China. Tibet and other parts of China may have had various local rulers or chieftains at various times, but they were still a part of the Greater China. This draws upon the exact parallel of The United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a kingdom, as is England, and Wales is a principality, none of which are independent from each other in terms of sovereignty. Many people here do not or pretend not to understand the position of Tibet relative to China. Tibet is a part of The ROC and The PRC in the same way Scotland is a part of The UK, but it is not a part of England. 81.152.87.111 (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The position of Tibet relative to the ROC seems to be that the ROC has a Comission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. But that is not yet the same as having souvereignty over Mongolia and Tibet, IMHO. Yaan (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ROC is in reality defunct and exist as Taiwan only. In practice the ROC was succeeded by The PRC. Tibet is a part of The PRC, in the same way that Wales is a part of a polity called The UK. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

tags on leading paragraphs
Written Ministerial Statement on Tibet (29/10/2008) by British Foreign and Commonwealth Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=8299838

Should be pointed out British Government's recent change of standing on Tibet issue:

"Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty.  Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. Our interest is in long term stability, which can only be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for the Tibetans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuC.V (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone just added a lot of citation tags to the leading paragraphs. Do we really need citations in the lead? Everything in the lead should be elaborated, with citations provided, in the body of the article. Bertport (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations should be included everywhere there is a statement, including the introduction, and especially on such a contentious article. "Tibet was once an independent kingdom" is a statement, and needs a citation. You can find out how to link to references already given further down the page at WP:Cite, as well as read about Wikipedia's policy requiring citing of challengable material. --Joowwww (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Joowwww: I certainly don't want to start and edit war with you - so I will add a reference as you requested. It does seem to me, however, unnecessary here as I don't think anyone, even the most ardent PRC supporter, would try to argue that Tibet has never been an independent kingdom. This is a completely untenable position considering the many wars between Tibet and China and the fact that at one point Tibet actually captured the Chinese capital of Chang'an. Anyway - enough time wasted on this - please see the reference I have added. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it was or it wasn't, I only requested a reference on a statement. --Joowwww (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tibet/ Tibetans captured Chang'an. The Chinese/ Han Chinese captured Lhasa. Just like Scotland and England were once always fighting each other (and in some ways still do), the Tibetans and Han Chinese also fought. And just like Scotland and England are now parts of one country called The United Kingdom, so are Tibet and Han China now parts of one country called The People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.167 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tibet under The People's Republic of China
This sentence: "Chinese sources claim rapid progress for prosperous, free, and happy Tibetans participating in democratic reforms, although nothing like a free and open election has ever occurred in Tibet under Chinese rule.

is biased in its wording. To take the point further, some people may not consider the American electoral system completely free and open considering that the president is elected by electoral college rather than directly by the voters. It should be changed to something like this:

"Although Chinese sources present rapid progress for prosperous, free, and happy Tibetans participating in democratic reforms (find a reference), these claims are highly disputed by Tibetans themselves (source 53)."
 * Do you mean by some Tibetans or by all Tibetans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.102.52 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording accurately characterizes the content of the source cited. Bertport (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording may accurately characterize the content of the source, but the point of the article is not to present a single source as the final word on a subject. If the sentence is to be left alone it needs to be made clear that the entire wording is paraphrased from that single source. Goldste7 05:26, 9 August 2008 (EST)
 * I've removed the editsemiprotected template as there doesn't seem to be consensus to make the change at this time. ~ mazca  t 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
In the name section, the article states:
 * "PRC scholars favor the theory that "Tibet" is derived from tǔbō."

This sentence contains many implications, assumptions and may not necessarily be true. Could someone please change it to
 * "Some scholars favor the theory that "Tibet" is derived from tǔbō."

? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.195.218 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Identifying the source of a theory or claim is the key to neutrality. If anything, the sentence should be more specific, rather than less. "Some scholars" is what we call a weasel word. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grunfeld as "Unreliable Source"?
I deleted the unreliable source next to the quotation from A. Tom Grunfeld's The Making of Modern Tibet. Grunfeld certainly isn't unreliable. The NY Council of Humanities describes him here: "A. Tom Grunfeld is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at Empire State College of the State University of New York. He is a historian who specializes in the teaching of modern East Asian history with an emphasis on China and Tibet. He has been traveling and living in that region since 1966. He has published several books and over 150 articles and book reviews including The Making of Modern Tibet. He has lectured and presented papers at academic conferences in numerous countries around the world." I think that means he's pretty established. And after checking Google Books, the page number is correct, and the passage is identical. I really don't know why someone tagged him as unreliable. If we start politicizing citations, we've kind of lost the war. If someone would like to challenge this, I'd be more than happy to discuss it rationally. There's so much disinformation about Tibet that scholarship is really are only hope. Let's not ruin that. Icetitan17 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd describe what Grunfeld does as a clever imitation of scholarship. I once looked up about 30 of his citations at random. I found that about 50 percent of time, he seriously misrepresented his source. His version almost always makes China look better and Tibet look worse, compared to what his "source" says. The guy gets fawning coverage in the Chinese media, so the communists seem to be in on whatever it is he's doing. Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's trivial to find citations from notable experts saying that Grunfeld is unreliable. Can't we find some other source to include in the article instead of Grunfeld?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kauffner you seem to be making a lot of conjectures without offering much in the way of proof. Grunfeld's book is not self-published, nor is he an acknowledged fringe source. He doesn't seem to violate any of the criteria on the Reliable Sources page, so it would seem that any conclusions drawn upon the merit of Grunfeld's scholarship are based on original research. It seems to me that in order to present a Neutral Point of View in the article, China's side of the Tibetan argument must be argued as well as the Tibetan side. If anyone feels that Grunfeld's conclusions are biased or a secret communist conspiracy (as you seem to imply), then find a source to counter the argument. We can't choose to ignore a source simply because we don't like what it says. Icetitan17 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone ought to object to including Grunfeld as an example of a particular POV. The question is (or should be) whether he is a reliable source of facts. The section of the article in question in this case has bigger problems than that, which I had been meaning to bring up on the talk page.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to concede my position on Grunfeld. I finally found a Historiographical study of Tibetan/Chinese modern propaganda, and Grunfeld is listed as one of the main offenders. I'm not exactly sure how to include this without making it seem like we're singling out Grunfeld. Any ideas? Icetitan17 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Powers 2004, pp. 8-12 discusses Grunfeld's strengths and weaknesses, who supports his work or objects to it and why. Throughout the rest of the book, Powers calls out specific fallacies in Grunfeld's work. This is briefly summarized in Serfdom in Tibet controversy. Basically, he's a Sinologist who has accepted the Chinese point of view and consistently ignores or rejects Tibetan sources, and has extended his publishing to include Tibetan topics, without having the same level of relevant expertise as a Tibetologist. I would qualify any Grunfeld citations in a Tibet-related topic with something like "according to Sinologist Tom Grunfeld..." He is significant as a western scholar who supports, pretty much without reservation, the Chinese point of view. Bertport (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the best solution to me. Icetitan17 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Forced sterilization and other abuses

 * There was a 2002 UN report on the forced sterilization, forced abortions and monitoring of menstrual cycles of ethnic Tibetans, despite China's claims that the One Child policy doesn't apply in Tibet.


 * Business cannot legally be conducted in Tibetan, putting ethnic Tibetans at a disadvantage.


 * Flooding of homes for hydro electricity without warning citizens.


 * Security officers interrogate monks regularly, and arrest anyone found with writing of the dalai lama.


 * Citizens are be given 3 years of imprisonment for having a "Free Tibet" booklet.

These are some of the things that are well documented and aren't currently mentioned in the article under the human rights abuses.

Channel 4 interviews of Tibetans on these issues: Undercover in Tibet

These issues are still not mentioned in the article. Does anyone have some other good sources? Of course it is difficult when the Tibetan people are literally risking their lives by talking about the issues. —Pengo 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to document that these claims are made by pro-Tibet groups. Due to the nature of the press in PRC territories though, it's difficult to get sources about human rights violations that would be considered reliable by all parties here. Phayul is one such news site; I know at least one other English-language Tibetan newspaper, but its name has slipped my mind. The United Nations has published several other reports on the Tibet situation, as has the US Department of State. Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch all publish reports, as do various Tibet independence organizations, but, again, these sources will be vigorously disputed.
 * With respect to reproductive issues, I was unable to find the UN report you mentioned with a preliminary search; if you could give any more details it might be easier to find. Gimme danger (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it is supposed to be 'undercover', it is impossible to verify whether the claims are true or otherwise. And given all the problems with the honesty of UK made television programmes (both BBC and independents) recently, it will be below Wiki standards to include in article. 81.155.102.52 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly we can do better than a television program, given the amount of literature that's been written on human rights in Tibet. Each of the claims Pengo mentions have been documented elsewhere.Gimme danger (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where? 81.159.82.167 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google "forced sterilization" and Tibet together. Numerous organizations that even you might find credible have covered the issue. I might dig through the sources at some point for Wikipedia, but, frankly, it makes me nauseated. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But where is there a neutral source? There are likely reports to say lamas used fetuses for religious ceremonies, but should we presume they are true? 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you consider a neutral source? --Gimme danger (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A neutral source is a source that has traceabliity, proof, credibility and reproduceability. This would exclude the lamaist propaganda machinery, which churns out pulp fiction to win audience and, more importantly, money donations to live on. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you, for example, consider scholarly journals a neutral source? Would you consider the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch part of the "lamaist propaganda machine"? Are all advocacy groups a priori propaganda groups to you? Are interviews with survivors in exile considered propaganda? I'd like to get a good idea of everything that you are going to reject before I invest time in collecting resources. Gimme danger (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A neutral source does not exclude or include any particular group. All it has to be are: traceability, proof, credibility and reproduceability. Since you are making a claim, then please provide neutral sources. Put it in a simpler way perhaps even you can understand. If an Asian or African group were to put forward a report on the cruelity of Europeans or White people towards other races and even to their own race would the West take a blind bit of notice? I think not. If one were to report that the English destroyed the language of their cousins the Irish, so much so that in Eire, the majority of its population did not understand Irish, would the West say what a bad lot the English are and order punishment upon the English? Then what about the USA, the French, The Dutch, the Belgians, the list goes on and on and on. Now just for comparison, could you come up with neutral evidence that the Chinese or even the Hans treat the Tibetans worse than say the English treated the Irish, or the White American's treatment of Native and African Americans, or the White Australian treatment of Aboriginal Australians? I think you will find that the Chinese and the Hans treat Tibetans far better than White people's treatment of other peoples and each other. The Chinese treat the Tibetan Chinese not simply as equals but as more than equals. I very much doubt the aim of White people is to help Tibetans to preserve their culture. Before you know it White people will be wanting to convert Tibetans to Christianity and tell them their religion is just a part of the devil's plan. 81.154.204.122 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am just not up to your level of reasoning, but I don't think I understand what your ramblings about Irish, Africans, Christianity etc. (basically everything after "Put it in a simpler way perhaps even you can understand") have to do with the reliability (or "neutrality") of sources. In any case, I think the important points are covered at WP:RS. Yaan (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you are not up to it. Gimme danger is making or trying to make a point, namely forced sterilisation and other abuses but has not backed it up with anything. He is simply repeating pro-lamaist propaganda. Why does he not go and examine all the abuses White people impose on others as a matter of policy, like forced sterilisation on Gypsies and other races? There is no policy in The PRC to abuse Tibetans, rather Tibetans are treated above the Han Chinese as a matter of policy. White people in the West are making false claims as a smoke-screen for their own policies of abuse, for example the UK's ex-government minister Kenneth Baker even claimed that the Chinese are destroying the Tibetan language. How ridiculous!!!81.154.204.122 (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't I examine all these myriad abuses? I have. These have nothing to do with anything that is up for discussion on this talk page though. As I've advised you before, if you'd simply like to spout off about your views on Tibet, China and the evils of the West, you're quite welcome to do so on your own time in your own corner of cyberspace. Here, however, we are writing an encyclopedia and are not interested in your personal opinion in the slightest.
 * With regards to the topic at hand, I will now spend 10 minutes gathering sources for claims of forced sterilization. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * Opposing view from Melvyn Goldstein
 * 
 * Enjoy. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above references link to the lamaist propaganda pages. Why don't you check for yourself. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unclear from your indentation what you are referring to. Are you referring to the original references from BBC posted on 11 August or the four scholarly articles that I posted on 11 November. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What reference from BBC posted on 11 Aug? It was Channel 4 and not BBC. The references you posted were not scholarly (meaning proper peer reviewed) but works of pro-lamaist propaganda. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Melvyn Goldstein's work was pro-lamaist propaganda? That the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law is the Dalai Lama's secret US propaganda fount? Remember "peer-reviewed" is not short hand for "agrees with me". I'll grant that the first link wasn't peer reviewed and that the fourth wasn't properly vetted. Is there any source that you would accept for any negative information regarding human rights in Tibet? --Gimme danger (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008

(UTC)


 * First of all you have not answered what and where is the BBC reference? Secondly of course I accept negative information regarding human rights in Tibet, for example I accept all the information about abuses dished out by the dalai lama and his cronies on the Tibetan people. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you payed by the Chinese goverment to wach articles on Tibet? Don't you dare reverting this edit, gimme. You are everywhere where there are Tibetan articles. But if someone would examine your edits it would reveal that you are against Tibetans, you just hide behind a neutrality mask. And one more thing. Lead section The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. And you are biting the newbies, see Please do not bite the newcomers to scare them away or keeping them away from editing about the Tibetan controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.150.227 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are TV specials not considered conducted by the BBC not considered reliable or verifiable for Wikipedia purposes? If not, that seems shocking to me.  They're no much less susceptible to one person's bias than an article would be just because of the number of people associated with the project.LedRush (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The TV programme quoted is from UK Channel 4 and not BBC. If you follow UK news, you will know that recently both the BBC and the commercials have come in for big criticism for misleading viewers and dishonesty over phone-in competitions. Gimme danger is claiming facts and information, but has failed to produce them. If he feels nauseated he should take some sickness pills. Some people might feel nauseated watching horror films, but it doesn't make the content of these films real, except that it is real in the films. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecology
I'd like to see a section on the ecology of the region - biodiversity, climate (monsoon) and so on... but I know next to nothing about them. However, Tibet keeps cropping up in stuff I read about environmental issues and on TV programs about monsoons and so on. I'd like to understand why. So I'm hoping there's someone who could start such a section? Dakinijones (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

spelling mistakes
under the section independence proclaimed privileges is spelt wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In the first section, the phrase 'The statues of Tibet is dispute' should read 'The status of Tibet is disputed'

Independent kingdom
At the opening of the article, it is stated "Tibet was once an independent kingdom". Could it clarified that Tibet had ceased to be a kingdom for many centuries? 86.157.235.243 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that phrase is in the introduction, so it's probably better not to go into much detail.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The time range when Tibet was once an independent kingom is not stated anywhere else in the article. Since it was mentioned in the intro, it might as well carry the date ranges, since this could not be found later in the article. Tibet had ceased to be a kingdom for several centuries. 81.155.103.28 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should clarify that later in the article. The fact that it was a kingdom and that stopped being one is not very relevant to the intro. Or, maybe we should simply say "an independent state" in the intro, and not mention kingdoms..&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't mention "kingdom", then you are denying that Tibet had kings. Every place on earth was once "an independent state", especially before the arrival of the human race. Given that it was stated in the intro that Tibet was once an independent kingdom, it would improve the article by stating the dates when Tibet was an independent kingdom. 86.155.215.91 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But where the problem lies is that no one really even knows how to define Tibet. I agree with specifying dates there. Colipon+(T) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be true, but surely the Tibetans are able to identify who their kings were, even if they cannot define Tibet.81.155.97.59 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? What ambiguity is there in the fact that the Yarlung kings (starting with Songtsän Gampo) ruled a kingdom in what is now the Tibet Autonomous Region? They certainly weren't part of the Tang Dynasty's empire, although they sometimes paid tribute to the Chinese (when the two weren't at war, which occurred often before the treaty signed in 821 AD).-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So what. There wasn't a place called 'England' 1600 years ago, but there is certainly one now. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to dates, Langdarma (r. 838–841) is considered the last great secular king of a unified Tibetan kingdom. I say "secular" because the independent and unified Tibetan kingdom of the 17th century was not ruled solely by Güshi Khan, but largely by the Dalai Lama himself in a theocratic fashion.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tibet has not been a kingdom for hundreds of years. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that there had been no Tibetan king for more than 600 years. Many Tibetan nobels living in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces were chartered by emperors ever since Ming dynasity.
 * And Dalai Lama's, their power was once supported by mongol soldiers, and then by the emperors. They had no chance to act as a king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanglu115 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then this piece of information should be added to the article as that would make an improvement. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro
An excerpt from the introduction says:

''A unified Tibet first came into being under Songtsän Gampo in the seventh century. From the early 1600s until the 1959 uprising, the Dalai Lamas (Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leaders) were, at least nominally,[2] heads of a centralised Tibetan administration, with political power to administer religious and administrative authority[2] over large parts of Tibet from the traditional capital Lhasa. They are believed to be the emanations of Avalokiteśvara (Tibetan:spyan ras gzigs, or 'Chenrezig'), the bodhisattva of compassion.[3]''

I think this paragraph makes select emphasis on certain facts and is, whether by intention or not, not fully inclusive of Tibetan history. For example, it is without a doubt that Tibet was at least suzerain to the Qing Government, and the Dalai Lama, at one point, must be confirmed by the Qing government. You can debate whether this meant subordination, whether this meant sovereignty, or whether this was simply the political convention at the time, you can even debate whether the Qing government was truly "Chinese" in the politically-correct sense (as opposed to being "Manchu"). But you cannot debate that this was an important part of Tibetan history that is ommitted from the opening paragraph, perhaps to lessen its emphasis, or to subtly provide for the POV-inclined case of Tibetan self-determination. Colipon+(T) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it seems strange to mention the Dalai Lama's rule of Tibet without mentioning its place in the Chinese empire. Still, the trouble is, I'm not sure quite what to say about it. The fact that the Dalai Lama and his government ruled (the largest portion of) Tibet from 1642 until 1959 is disputed by no one. No one disputes, either, that it had some kind of relationship with China for most of that time. Unfortunately, there are a lot of disputes about the nature of that relationship, when it began, and whether and when it ended. This being the intro, we can't go into too much detail. What to say?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you go further down the article says there is little doubt Tibet was under "subordination" of the Manchu Qing for most of that period. The Qing government even provided Tibet with a military, very much analogous to what the PRC is doing with its PLA garrison in Hong Kong. This is not to mention that there is little doubt the Tibetan rulers paid tribute to Qing Emperors. If Tibet was independent for this entire time, even nominally, as the opening paragraph seems to imply, then why would Tibet feel the need to declare its independence when the ROC formed in 1912? "Not going into detail" is hardly enough justification to leave the opening paragraph as a misleading piece of information for the average reader, whose views have probably already been shaped by the common western media criticisms of most if not all of the Chinese government's policies. More importantly, it runs counter to the NPOV spirit of Wikipedia. Can I be bold and edit it to something more factual like "during that time period the Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Tibet, but it was subordinate to the Manchu Qing government"? (of course, I will work on the wording with strict NPOV) Or will that receive a flurry of reverts and be seen as Chinese propaganda? Colipon+(T) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly don't mean to suggest that we should leave the wording the way it is. I'm just not sure what to change it to. Trying to say things in a concise way often seems to be in tension with being both clear and accurate. For example, saying "during that time period the Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Tibet, but it was subordinate to the Manchu Qing government" is not inaccurate, but it makes the first clause vague: the sentence as originally written meant (I believe) that the Dalai Lama himself did not personally rule, but his ministers ruled in his name (which is true: the 6th through 12th Dalai Lamas had very little political power); the new sentence might mean that the Dalai Lama did not personally rule, but the Qing did. Also, it would be better to say "China", rather than "Manchu Qing", since many readers will not know what a Manchu or a Qing is. However, saying "China" gets to be slightly controversial. I suggest "Chinese empire"&mdash;I don't think that should be too disagreeable to very many people (as long as we are talking about the post-Yuan period, which we are). Even that is potentially a problem, though, since "Chinese empire" ends in 1912, but, according to some views, Tibet's subordination to China continues.


 * FYI, the Tibetan "declaration of independence" in 1912 does not declare that Tibet thereby becomes independent; it declares that Tibet is independent, with the strong implication that it has been independent all along. Quoting the translation given by Goldstein, "I [the Dalai Lama] ... [was] hoping to to clarify to the Manchu Emperor ... that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been one of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'declaration' was made after the Manchu Empire became moribund, so yes the content is true. However, it is equivalent to saying that Sun Yat-sen declared that the ROC is independent from the Qing Dynasty or the Manchu Emperor. Of course every part of China was independent of the Qing Emperor, because after the Revolution the remaining Emperor (Pu-Yi) existed only as a puppet and had no control of any part of China, including Tibet. 81.156.180.208 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very POV interpretation by Nat Krause. There was no Tibetan "declaration of independence", as Tibetan people were never asked. There was some kind of statement from the then dalai lama, which was made without the consensus of the Tibetan people. 81.155.103.167 (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your second paragraph, I agree with you. But the very fact that this clarification was required, at least at the beginning of the ROC regime in China, is enough to suggest that the relationship had been very vaguely defined previously, and it seems implicit that Tibet was, at least at one point in time, subordinate to the Manchu Emperor. And in regards to the first paragraph of your comment, I think you are right in the sense that regardless of how to put it, this is a delicate issue that will generate controversy.

I propose: ''The Dalai Lama, a religious figure believed to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara, nominally ruled Tibet for [the stated period], while actual power resided with his ministers or advisers. During the Qing Dynasty, the Tibetan administration was subordinate to the Chinese Empire, with its military and foreign affairs subject to some degree of control from Beijing. This status was declared nullified in 1912 by the Dalai Lama at the time.''

Of course this is only a working proposal, please tell me your thoughts. Colipon+(T) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a more minimal approach: The government of the Dalai Lamas, a line of Tibetan spiritual leaders, ruled the largest Tibetan region from the 1640s until its incorporation into the PRC in the 1950s. During most of this period, the Tibetan administration was subordinate to the Chinese empire of the Qing Dynasty. I think that it is unnecessary to add in the intro that the Dalai Lama is seen as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, especially since he is not the only Tibetan lama seen as such, so it is not a defining characteristic. It is also not entirely accurate to say that actual power resided with the Dalai Lamas ministers, since the 5th and the 13th Dalai Lamas lived for a fairly long time and had a lot of personal power. As for military and foreign affairs being subject to some control, this is no doubt true, but I'm not sure that it is accurate to single out these particular areas. Tibet did have an independent military during this time; on the other hand, the empire did involve itself in domestic and religious affairs at times. I don't think it is necessary to describe the nature of the subordination in the intro.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, what you say makes sense. My only concern now is the Dalai Lama not always having the highest authority on the land. It is no doubt true that some Dalai Lamas were figureheads who only performed religious rituals and had little to do with domestic affairs. The minimal approach seems to imply that the Dalai Lama was ruling for this entire time. Also, should we mention the Panchen Lama as well? Colipon+(T) 07:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried to hedge on implying that the Dalai Lama was actually in charge by saying "the government of the Dalai Lama". Certainly, the defining characteristic of this government&mdash;the one thing they all agreed on&mdash;is that they were ruling in the name of the Dalai Lama, even if he was really a figurehead. As for the Panchen Lama, I think that goes into a little too much detail, although the Panchen Lamas and their team were apparently one of the most important vassals of Lhasa during this period. If we are going to go into more detail, I think it would be better to mention one or more of the eastern Tibetan rulers independent of Lhasa, such as the king of Derge.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

- "I [the Dalai Lama] ... [was] hoping to to clarify to the Manchu Emperor ... that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been one of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."— The patron-and-priest relation simply meant the Chinese gave employment to a large number of tibetans, and the dl hoped the Emperor would not make these tibetan priests redundant, as this would cause the tibetans hardship.

There is no historical evidence that Dalai Lamas ruled Tibet, as there was never any suggestion that Tibet was a lamadom. The Dalai Lamas were spiritual rulers and not temporal rulers. Temporal rule in tibet was subordinate to the Chinese Emperor. 81.155.103.28 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The Dalai Lamas were indeed the temporal rulers in Tibet for hundreds of years. This was recognised by the Manchu rulers who, ". . . formally recognized and even proclaimed the Dalai Lama as the sole temporal sovereign authority in Tibet." From: Tibetan Marches. André Migot. Translated from the French by Peter Fleming, p. 90. (1955). E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc. New York. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Manchu rulers made such a proclamation, then why would the Qing Emporers maintain that Tibet was a part of their empire? Given the dalai lamas were spiritual rulers, how would they be able to carry out efficient temporal rule? Or was it a political ploy by the Qing court to ensure Tibet had no effective temporal ruler, so that ultimately Tibet was controlled by the powers in Beijing? Alternatively the claims in "Tibetan Marches" were untrue. 86.155.215.91 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure one could find many examples where one set of rulers made territorial claims which then later rulers disagreed with, across many different countries and time periods. In other words, it does not follow that if one ruler makes a claim that others many years later would necessarily make the same claim. Then to your question of how could a spiritual leader also hold an efficient temporal rule, I'm not sure how to answer that. I haven't tried to be both myself, so I don't know. Perhaps ask the Dalai Lama how it worked for him? - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But he said it after the overthrow of the Qing. Why didn't he say it to the Qing emperor of his time? Was he afraid that since he was the emperor's subject, any such comment could result in his head being removed? 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But the present Dalai Lama does not rule Tibet and never have done, so he would not know. He also stated his position, which is that he does not want independence but autonomy for Tibet within The PRC. The trouble is Western countries are egging on a few Tibetans to be suicidal, for their own political gains. Just look at what has happened to Georgia recently. 81.155.103.167 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone actually put down exactly what that dl said because in the time of the Qing there was no such a country 'China', there was 'The Great Qing Empire'. 86.147.244.1 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay can someone respond to my proposal? Colipon+(T) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tags
I see several sections have been marked with pov since April/May 2008. Is there any active discussion going on yet? If not, the tags should be removed. --Eleassar my talk 06:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed them. --Eleassar my talk 07:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Tibetan Plateau
The picture featuring the caption "Tibetan plateau" shows not much tibet at all. It's edited from the picture on the right and shows the south- respectively west-faces of Cho Oyu and Lhotse (/Nuptse). These walls fall towards Nepal, the landscape "left" (in the picture) of these walls is entirely Nepal, so the cutting is not chosen well. I think the picture should be replaced.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * done--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no possibilty whatsover that Dhaulagiri is visible in this image. I have again removed it from the Eight-thousander. See File_talk:Flight_over_himalaya_annotated.jpg. Viewfinder (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is now labelled correctly.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Objection against Redirect "Roof of the World" to "Tibet"
I object against the redirection of "Roof of the World" to "Tibet". Before Tibet got into the limelight, the term "Roof of the World" was applied to the Pamirs, see: Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th ed., 1911):  , a mountainous region of central Asia...the Bam-i-dunya ("The Roof of the World") or The Columbia Encyclopedia,1942 ed., p.1335: "Pamir (Persian =roof of the world)" - see also  homepages of the Pamir area:  Pamirs, a region they know as POMIR – “the roof of the world". Explanation added in the entry --Marschner (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Be bold and fix it. Yaan (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake Johnson8776 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sport
Nothing here about sport in the culture section, presumably there is some. There is an article called Tibet national football team which i've added to the see also section. extraordinary (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion re. quality of article
(section header added by Yaan (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

The Tibet should be re-written. The point of view is strongly biased. And finally, Tibetan-in-exiles, you can only tell lies.

Your last statement takes away credibility from your claim. I have found no "weasle words" and systemic bias and am removing the bias flag. I welcome any SPECIFIC criticism of statements or labels used, but until then.. Cuvtixo (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody add the history of conflicts with Dzungars in this article?
I see the wiki article Dzungars and find a section named "Conflicts with Tibet". Could anybody fulfill this history for Tibetan artical? The Emporer Kangxi made his efforts to stabilize Tibet. It is so much important because regulations were settled down afterwards to ensure the court's impact on Tibet and DaLai and Panchen Lamas. And the 6th DaLai Lama, who was famous and quite controversial in the history, also lived in that period of turbulance. He wrote quite a lot of love poems, which are still popular in the folk songs. By the way this DaiLai Lama were born in India-seized Arunachal. Wanglu115 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Dzungars had any conflict with Tibet. Their conflict was with the Hoshud under Lobzang Khan. I actually had written something about these conflicts previously, but I think this has now been moved to the History of Tibet article. Yaan (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kekexili
This movie was not made by National Geographic. It was made by Chinese director Lu Chuan (陆川) and funded by "much corporate support, being funded in majority by Columbia Pictures, Warner Bros. and Canon." in addition to National Geographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.226.7 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Central or East Asia?
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on with regards to if Tibet should be considered Central or East Asia, but no discussion here. It would really help if people express their opinions here, so we can clarify the matter. Myself I do think that Tibet should be considered part of Central, as it shares much more with Central Asian regions geographically, and culturally. The only objection I can see against it is that Tibet is now a part of the Peoples Republic of China, and the PRC is normally considered an East Asian country. I think this is a week argument because it suggests that the PRC is homogeneous, and does not straddle any geographic divides. Tibet has more in common with Mongolia than with East cost China. In the case of Xinjiang it is even more clear. Crossing the border into Kazakhstan makes way less little difference culturally or geographically or linguistically than taking the long train ride to Beijing. Both Xinjiang and Tibet are part of the PRC, and part of Central Asia.--Keithonearth (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the way I see things China is considered East Asia and Tibet lies under chinese rule. But if you look at the geography Tibet would seem to lie pretty much dead center if not in western Asia. But thats just my two cents. --IvanTortuga (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this could be the question of the century! Apparently, the debate has been going on for hundreds of years; it is an honor for us to play a role also.  With Europe a distinct continent as it is recognized today, Tibet surely looks central to me.  Because of the curvature of the Earth and the lay of the land, you have to go southwest to northeast to find the center axis line, especially because of how the islands are sited.  The main problem seems to be two-fold: 1. China controls the territory, so there is the political map issue and 2. the accepted Asia maps on Wikipedia point to East Asia as well; take a good look at the maps on that article.  There appears to be much debate on that article too, but according to the notes on that edit box, the UN calls Tibet East Asia.  I can see why each of you perceive it differently.  Why not a compromise:  "Tibet is politically part of East Asia, since it is under the rule of China; although, the Tibetan land itself lays on the Central axis of the Asian Continent."  The only alternative for it to be one or the other, would be to either convince the UN that Tibet is Central Asia and correct the maps or physically move the territory to the east somehow.  ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One other way to get around this is to say that "Tibet is located in East Eurasia." ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of you sound like we get to make this up off the top of our heads. Central Asia and East Asia are terms with established usage.  Both Central Asia and East Asia articles identify Tibet as being in Central Asia.  My Rand McNally Illustrated Atlas of the World puts Tibet on the South and Central (not East) Asia map.  I just checked two maps of Southeast Asia, and they both include part of China.  Are we, then, going to say that Beijing is in Southeast Asia?  Of course not.  Russia extends to East Asia -- are we, then, going to say that Moscow is in East Asia?  Of course not. This is the silly logic that Ptr123 is using to argue for Tibet being in East Asia. Bertport (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Ptr123, please stop editing the article with controversial material until the issue is resolved on here on talk. We need to build consensus on Wikipedia. Also, we should be a good example to other editors and everyone who reads the article by avoiding edit wars.  After reading the articles East Asia and Central Asia again, I still see a duality there.  Just because China took over the region, that does not change where Tibet is located.  I call for a vote to resolve the issue; I vote that Tibet is located in Central Asia.  This encyclopedia looks at the long-term picture; the UN and China can catch up to Wikipedia.  ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please Ptr123, please discuss your point here, editing without discussing it is of no help at all. I think you may have some validity to your point, and maybe we should try to some compromise, but I can't be bothered to do that if you don't discuss it.  While I do appreciate that you have be providing some points in your edit summary sometimes, that ends up getting fragmented and lost among all the other edits, it is necessary to use the discussion page for a dialogue to develop.  I'll just keep reverting your edits if you don't discuss them and make your point.--Keithonearth (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tibet is much more culturally connected to the rest of East Asia than to the relatively homogeneous culture of the stans in Central Asia. Geographically, Tibetan plateau is the continuation of the mountainous area of the neighboring area to its east. Tibetans also conduct most of its commerce with people to its east. United Nations geoscheme, like most other organizations, consider Central Asia to be the areas of the former USSR stans.--Ptr123  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Thank you Ptr123 for making your appearance here. I must have reverted your last edit while you were making your comment, I wouldn't have done it so fast if I'd seen your comment first, my apologies.  (incidentally it is normal to keep the comments in chronological order from oldest at the top to newest at the bottom, to keep things more clear, as such I moved your comment to be in order), while I'm glad you seem to be trying to compromise, with your last edit changing "Central Asia" to just "Asia", I would perfer that be something we decide to do here.  And myself I perfer to not change it in the direction of more ambiguity.  I'd perfer something more along the lines of "Tibet, while part of the East Asian country of the Peoples Republic of China, is geographical considered part of Central Asia.  Another option I'd be totally happy with is calling it part of the Transhimalaya, though I think that term is pretty obscure (not even an article about it) and that counts against it.  I would dispute that Tibet has less in common with the countries to the West than East.  I'm not sure what you are thinking of, but in the case of religion you may have a point.  However, both Tibet and the 'stans have low population density, with traditional economies that were based around pastoralism, with large amounts of Nomadic Pastoralism.  But I'm generalizing here as the 'stans are far from homogeneous, none of what I say is true for Uzbekistan. Trade was carried out in all directions, East to Ladakh and Hotan, South to Nepal, North to Mongolia, and East to China.  In terms of religion, Tibet does have more in common with other Buddhist regions, but the VajrayanaBuddhism (while isolated schools exist in China and Japan) has far more in common with the form practised historically in Northern Pakistan, and Assam, where it's now extinct.  I'm concerned that your edits are done with the goal of emphasizing the similarity with China, and trying to cover up the differences.  That they are POV. --Keithonearth (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the danger is more on the other side. People who don't know much of the history of the area keep quoting and mis-quoting selective materials, cover up the similarities in terms language, custums, culture etc. between the Tibetans and other ethnic groups in Southwestern China, exaggerate the differance, thus make it impossible do a balanced presentation.


 * It's human nature to think that those who disagree with you must be biased and/or ignorant. Wikipedia has policies about citing reliable sources to back up disputed text.  Making personal accusations is not productive. Bertport (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are already sources listed in the current article that clearly consider Tibet to be part of central Asia. Also, in MacMillan's History Atlas of Asia, pg. 70, we have "...Chinese troops had withdrawn from central Asia, to be replaced by the Uighurs and the Tibetans."  However, it does seem that the current government of China is having some success in redefining usage of "east Asia".  How about, in the leading paragraph, we say Tibet is in Asia, north of the Himalayas; in the geography section, we can say that traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia, and Chinese sources regarded it as "the West"; but that today's maps show a trend towards considering all of China to be in east Asia? Bertport (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds very intelligent to me Bertport, it's the best idea so far, and I stand behind it entirely.--Keithonearth (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds very unintelligent. In the quote "...Chinese troops had withdrawn from central Asia, to be replaced by the Uighurs and the Tibetans", central Asia means an area not including Tibet plateau, but roughly the area of the former USSR stans plus Xinjiang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.237.194 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Very nice work everyone!!! ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Kindly note that National Geographic and EB article affirm Tibet as geographically East Asian. China being politically East Asian is not the only reason. 219.79.30.145 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some researchers are free to say Tibet is part of South Asia, but this is pov to the extreme, bordering on being ridiculous.


 * The important thing is not whether one wikipedian personally disagrees with a statement, or even if twenty wikipedians disagree, but whether the statement is backed by citations from reliable sources. In the case of the South Asia bit, I think it should be removed.  It has two references cited, but the first is a broken link, and the second one does not, so far as I can see, justify the statement.  The South Asian Studies program at Emory U offers classes in the Tibetan language, but that does not amount to saying that Tibet is in South Asia.  Probably they include it because there are many speakers of the Tibetan language in India.  South Asia is, so far as I know, generally considered sub-Himalayan. However, the rest of the paragraph in contention is valid and should remain. Bertport (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ptr123, you claim in your edit summery "there are a lot of support for my edit in the talk page", I don't really see that here, maybe you could explain further, and explain why you are not satisfied with the edit as it stands. As I said above I don't think moving toward more ambiguity is helpful, and is not an improvement.  I am increasingly disappointed in your continued disregard for discussion.  You continue to edit without discussion, and revert other edits you disagree with.  Please, this is a subject that is attraction allot of debate, and as such it would be appropriate to discuss here changes you would like to make before making them.--Keithonearth (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are only seeing what you want to see. Both United Nations and National Geographic say that Tibet is in East Asia. What kind of biased presentation it is to strongly insist here Tibet is in Central Asia or even South Asia! --Ptr123 —Preceding undated comment was added on 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC).


 * The whole point it that both opinions are presented in the article, and yet you Ptr123 continually insist on eliminating the opinions that differ from your own. The idea that Tibet is part of East Asia is present, as is the idea that it is part of Central Asia.  Please explain why you keep reverting it to a vary ambiguous Tibet is on the Tibetan plateau, and find the idea of expressing alternative opinions to your own so objectionable.  I've changed it back to the description that places Tibet in both East and Central Asia.  I have also taken out the description of Tibet as part of South Asia, not because it's POV, but because it doesn't seem common enough to merit inclusion here.  I would ask you to explain you reasons for your edits instead of just blaming other people.  The "You are only seeing what you want to see" comment above I find necessary.  I do see alternative ways of classifying Tibet geographically, as do most other editors it seems, and that's what we're trying to express in the article.  --Keithonearth (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to be more than even-handed in simply saying Tibet is in Asia, even though most reputable sources/organizations agree with me that it is in East Asia. Even the main article of Britannica on Central Asia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/102288/Central-Asia) clearly states that Central Asia is the area of former USSR stans, yet you chose to ignore that and insist in using another reference from Britannica. Your wording in the paragraph tried to look like "both opinions are presented in the article", yet strongly implying that Tibet had been in Central Asia and was only recently re-classified as in East Asia because of political reasons, which is unsupported by any reference.   --Ptr123  —Preceding undated comment was added on 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

We can find lots of reliable sources that considered Tibet to be Central Asia. How many would it take to satisfy you? It really is a recent change, to consider Tibet as part of East Asia. Bertport (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As Bertport says, we do have references for Tibet being classified as Central Asia. You still don't say why you find a referenced fact so objectionable, that it must be purged, and hidden behind an ambiguous statement.  We are expressing the idea you are promoting (that it is considered to be part of East Asia).  If you feel it necessary to change the wording, that would be worth discussion but simply saying making the classification more ambiguous is not an acceptable solution to me, as it is not helpful or meaningful.  You seem unable to accept that more than one idea is possible.  Tibet is considered to be part of East Asia, and it is also considered to be part of Central Asia.  No contradiction there.  Please explain why the idea can not be expressed, or let it stand.--Keithonearth (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to give a few thoughts on this topic if you guys don't mind. I want to kindly point out a few things about the two editions you guys have been switching back and forth that I think need more work on. The shorter edition (from Ptr123) is somewhat just a repeat of the beginning of the article. It doesn't mention East Asia or Central Asia. For people who doesn't know where Tibetan Plateau is, this introduction doesn't help them to locate where Tibet is, which should be the premier reason for this introduction to exist in the first place. Ptr123 provided reference from National Geographic, Britannica, UN geoscheme. The other version should also provide their reference from UNESCO besides the one from Britannica as it has a fact tag on it right now. You might have other reference already, and we don't have to mention all of them in the introduction, but i haven't noticed any other source supporting central Asia on this talk page. "in MacMillan's History Atlas of Asia, pg. 70, we have "...Chinese troops had withdrawn from central Asia, to be replaced by the Uighurs and the Tibetans."" This cannot be used as a valid reference here. It does not talk about the topic "the location of Tibet" directly and this sentence alone only tells that Tibetan troops made into central Asia. It means Tibetans and Uighurs replaced Chinese troops in Central Asia. If and only if this place Chinese troops withdrew from includes Tibet and does not includes other parts of central Asia, then this sentence means Tibet is part of central Asia. If that's the cased, that would have meant Chinese troops occupied Tibet before this happened during this part of the history, I cannot recall this happened at the time. We can also go back to history where there was an event Chinese troops withdrew from a place to be replaced by Uighur and Tibetans. It seems to me such event only happened once. Correct me if I am wrong, it is around the area west of Xinjiang. Another thing I noticed in this version "Traditionally, western (European and American) source have regarded Tibet being in central Asia", this implies in the past, Tibet is more often regarded as central Asia in the west. This is probably true, but there need to be a reference for this as well since it's not a common knowledge.
 * Another solution is, we can just simply say Tibet is an area located in East and Central Asia. You guys can checked out a few other articles which also have to deal with areas could be included in several regions. Like Mongolia and Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree, Taiwan and Vietnam. I find them very useful and simple. Chadsnook (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph used to say that Tibet was in Central Asia. It was that way, without controversy, for five years (since the article was created), until last December, when Ptr123 started changing it to East Asia.  Subsequent discussion and research revealed that there were (relatively recent) sources that put Tibet in East Asia.  I agree with you that it would be preferable to be more specific in the lead of the article, but it seems to be too complicated to state it there.  I don't think the lead paragraph is the place for a history of changing concepts of Central and East Asia. As noted in the discussion above, we hit upon the idea of avoiding the issue in the lead paragraph, and spelling it out in the Geography section. Bertport (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it should be in the lead of the article. By "this introduction", I meant this paragraph you guys been working on, not the introduction of the article, specifically, Ptr123's version was too simple, "to exist in the first place", I meant "to exist of primary import", not to "exist on the top of the article" :-) Chadsnook (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I've added several citations.  Actually, I'd say it was indeed common knowledge, or common usage, that Tibet was in central Asia.  That's why you'll see text implicitly placing Tibet in central Asia all over many Wikipedia articles, atlases, and books, without citation or reference.  It's actually somewhat disorienting (to those of us who have heard it associated with central Asia for decades) to hear that some are now placing it in east Asia.  Bertport (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say Tibet has generally been considered to be in East Asia, ever since the term East Asia came to usage. Sometimes, European travellers say it is located in Central Asia, or more accurately, "Inner Asia". When that's the case, Inner Asia and East Asia are not two mutually exclusive areas.


 * I think it's fair to say that this comment is contradicted by the sources already cited. Bertport (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also quite easy to find sources that contradict what you said. A simple test would be just taking a look at Dalai Lama. Would you say he looks more like a typical East Asian, or a typical Central Asian?  Ptr123 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your idea is absurd. Defining typical East Asian and typical Central Asian cannot really be done. The physical characteristics indicative of East Asians and Central Asians do have overlap; people are not biologically homogeneous. Someone's physical characteristics does not define someone's geographic region. Furthermore, one could very easily argue that his holiness looks more like a Bhutanese or Newar (both of which are South Asians). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that Dalai Lama does look more like East Asian than Central Asian. Few will disagree with that. 211.40.35.105 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Basing geographic divisions on racial characteristics doesn't makes any sense or help to clarify anything. Pointing out that the Tibetans look more like Chinese than "Centeral Asian" would not be an argument for classifying Tibet as East Asia, even if it were true.  But it's not true.  There is no such thing as a "Central Asian" racial characteristics.  In fact Tibetans look as much, or more, like Kazakhs or Kyrgyz or Ladakhis as they do like Chinese.  This is going nowhere.

Tibet as South Asia
I fought this battle on South Asia. Tibet is sometimes considered South Asia by a significant number of South Asian scholars, meaning that it is a view that ought be represented. You can see the South Asia page for the references. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually here are the links . A few of the links that were once there broken and were bot removed, a few of them on South Asia need repair. I will soon get to fixing those. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

some sources fixed,, ,

Additional source  Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I added in this comment with citations

Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More links and refs don't make the notion that Tibet is in South Asia less laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.195.139 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just my 2 cents: if Tibet should be considered part of South Asia, then China should be also considered part of South Asian. So India is no longer the largest country in South Asia. China it is. :)Xingdong (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

back to the topic
Since there is already a statement about traditionally Tibet is being considered in central Asia. If a separate UNESCO and Britannica's statement about Tibet being in central Asia is to be left unchanged, it is only fair to add a statement that UN geoscheme and National Geographic considers Tibet to be in East Asia, especially there is now a separate statement about Tibet being considered to be in South Asia by some academics. One thing questionable in the statement right now is that "Chinese sources regarded it as "the West"", it is at least incomplete if not wrong. The phrase "the West" in Chinese is overwhelming used to mean "North America and Europe excluding Russia and it's allies" or sometimes the same meaning as the English phrase western world. I assume some previous editor used the phrase "the west" because it is included in Southwest and Northwest China, but the phrase "the West" alone without a reference is misleading and is of original research. Last but not least, this can be a future reference, please check out wiki guideline Reliable sources, especially where it says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". The other part of the guideline is useful too. Chadsnook (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I put that "Chinese sources regarded ..." bit in off the top of my head when we were first working out how to express the ambiguity. I agree that it should be removed.  And the UNESCO and Enc Brit citations can be grouped in with the others.  How about we go to something like:  Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia[65][66][67][68][69][70]; but today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China to be in East Asia. Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]  Bertport (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you but Tibet was never part of China but a part of India and so it would make more sense for it to be part of South Asia. China is in the East and so is part of East Asia. I would hope you would refrain from personal commments as it is clear your Chinese and you love to daydream.


 * That sounds very good to me. I also think we should add Tibet's geographic position in relation to the rest of China at the end of this introduction. Because it is under the administration of China right now, by not talking about it's position in China, we are giving a political signal and it is unusual compare to other articles dealing with similar situations. Another reason we should include this, is that Tibet is shown as part of China in all the world maps. It's probably the easiest way for people to locate Tibet on a world map by describing it's geographic position in China. Without it, it can be a bit hard. We can simply say: In China, most of Tibet is considered to be in the southwest, part of it is in the northwest. How does that sound? Chadsnook (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be wary of conflating Tibet, the geographical, cultural and historical region, with the Tibet Autonomous Region, the political entity, which is entirely part of China. The former arguably extends into India, Nepal, Afghanistan and Bhutan as well as China, and that's the entity that this article should be covering. "Tibet is west of China Proper." would be a more appropriate statement for this article. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, that's probably the best we can do to make it a NPOV. So the whole passage becomes: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia; but today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China to be in East Asia. Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia. Tibet is west of China Proper. Does anyone oppose? Chadsnook (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My only question is whether em-dashes or parentheses are better for encyclopedic prose — I think em-dashes feel more formal. I agree with the phrasing. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the above (in "back to the topic") sounds reasonable to me. But I didn't think the term "the West" was all that wrong. I've heard the term "the western section" used for TAR, Qinghai, Xinjiang, and other sparsly populated provinces in the western part of China used by Chinese media sources. Especially in regard to the development of them. Only I can't remember the sources... do others think this is worth looking into, or know what I'm talking about? To clarify: I don't think we need to use the term "the western section" but I think it may have some validity, and could be useful.--Keithonearth (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keith, I know what you're talking about. Xizang is often translated "Western Treasure House". I don't have much experience with Chinese media, but friends who speak Mandarin told me about references to the West, the direction, and also to the Wild West in Tibet. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you guys are talking about. We are getting into some Chinese idioms here. "the western section" is a lot more accurate. "West" means "西" (xi) in Chinese. This character alone just means the direction "west". "西方" (xi fang) literally means "west direction", but it is commonly used to refer to Western world. "西部" (xi bu) literally means "west part" or "west section", it refers to Western China, the size of it also depends on how you divide the country, that's why the Chinese version of Western China on Wikipedia shows a different map. I guess I was being a little too picky, it's just that i feel when the Chinese media translate Chinese material into English or report directly in English, they usually translate "Western world" as "the West", and use "China's west region" or "Western China" to refer to the west part of China, including Tibet. That's why I thought "Chinese sources regard Tibet as "the West"" was confusing. If it's clear to every body else, I have no problem to change it back to "the West" or use "the western section". Chadsnook (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! 西部/xibu is what I was thinking of. I do find the term "the west" ambiguous, but couldn't we do something with 西部? Maybe "Within China, Tibet is regarded as part of the Western section (西部 Xībù), implying Western China."--Keithonearth (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a very accurate description and the sentence is in standard format in English Wikipedia articles related to Chinese definitions or characters. You even put the tones on the pinyin. Great job, Keith. Chadsnook (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So the whole passage becomes: Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as being in central Asia; but today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China to be in East Asia. Some academics also consider Tibet to be part of South Asia. Tibet is west of China Proper. Within China, Tibet is regarded as part of the Western section (西部 Xībù), implying Western China. Chadsnook (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is fine - with all the citations retained, of course. Regarding parentheses vs. dashes, it's a minor consideration, but I prefer the parentheses (and consider them more formal). Bertport (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, the west didn't know the existence of Tibet, let alone its whereabouts. 119.39.251.210 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with this in term of weight and neutrality. I would copy edit to eliminate repetition and correct some minor grammar: "Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China part of East Asia. Some academics also classify Tibet as South Asias. Tibet is west of China Proper and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of the Western section (西部 Xībù)." I'm not sure what is meant by the phrase "implying Western China" and it seems awkward to me. Keith, could you clarify? --Gimme danger (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend towards considering all of modern China, including Tibet, to be part of East Asia. Some academics also include Tibet in South Asia. Tibet is west of China proper, and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of 西部 Xībù, a term usually translated by Chinese media as "the Western section" or "Western China". --I think that clarifies it.  Bertport (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on the "implying Western China" part, I think that Bertport's version above is good, I'd be happy to let it stand. But (and sorry to raise problems) but is it accurate to say it's normally translated by the media as "Western China" I don't think I've heard it translated like that way. What about just "...西部 Xībù, a term usually translated as "the Western section" or "Western China". The reason I said implying Western China is that the literal translation of 西/Xī is west and 部/bù is part or section, so there's no mention as to what part we are referring to, but it is used for Western China.  That said "imply" isn't the best word. Thanks for the complement, Chadsnook I'm glad to hear that I got the format right.--Keithonearth (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. How about:  Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend toward considering all of modern China, including Tibet, to be part of East Asia. Some academics also include Tibet in South Asia. Tibet is west of China proper, and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of 西部 (Xībù), a term usually translated by Chinese media as "the Western section", meaning "Western China". Bertport (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds great to me!--Keithonearth (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

... Tibet is west of China proper, and within the People's Republic of China...

I think it would be better with People's Republic of China clearly mentioned as stating China alone could have different invocations to different readers (i.e. when some people refer to China they intend to mean China proper). In this manner there is no ambiguity. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, do we know where exactly this usage is common? Bertport (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Wikipedia article on China itselfs starts with China (Wade-Giles (Mandarin): Chung¹kuo²) is a cultural region, an ancient civilization, and, depending on perspective, a national or multinational entity extending over a large area in East Asia. When different people say China they mean different things, my proposed addition clears ambiguity. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but does it clear ambiguity correctly? Or should we just leave off the and within China... since we don't have a citation for it?  Just end with ...west of China proper. Bertport (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can say either People's Republic of China, or China and it's clear enough. The advantage of PRC is it's more accurate, as I think it is the modern nation-state we're talking about; the advantage of saying China is conciseness, and it's not untrue as the PRC is called China more often than not.  What about China as having both advantages, as unambiguous and concise and accurate?  --Keithonearth (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In North America and probably Europe too, most people regard People's Republic of China as China, very often, some people use the word China to refer to only mainland China, excluding Hong Kong and Macau. However, if Wikipedia is designed to be used by people around the whole world, we should take into consideration that Republic of China is officially recognized as the government of China by 23 countries, some non-governmental international organizations such as World Organization of the Scout Movement also refer to the Republic of China as "China". So, it's a good thing Thegreyanomaly pointed it out that we should use within the People's Republic of China instead of within China. I also don't see the necessity of having a citation for this part, since people can just click on the link of Western China. Unlike the disagreement on whether Tibet is part of Central Asia, East Asia or South Asia, there is no disagreement on whether Tibet is considered by China to be part of Western China or other parts of China.
 * I just saw Keith's advice after I typed mine, Keith's idea is reasonable too.Chadsnook (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest update: ''Traditionally, Western (European and American) sources have regarded Tibet as part of central Asia; today's maps show a trend toward considering all of modern China, including Tibet, to be part of East Asia. Some academics also include Tibet in South Asia. Tibet is west of China proper, and within China, Tibet is regarded as part of 西部 (Xībù), a term usually translated by Chinese media as "the Western section", meaning "Western China".'' Chadsnook (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Bertport (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks great to me.--Keithonearth (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Ptr123 removed all the South Asia comment and citations a while ago. I reverted his edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Who translates 'Xizang' as 'western treasure house'? Xizang means The Hidden West. There is really no treasure in Tibet, just poor, backward inhospitable places and hardship, and no treasures whatsoever. 81.156.180.208 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Concise English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary by Oxford University Press & The Commercial Press for one (I could find more, this is just close at hand): "藏: Storing place, depository: ~宔 hidden treasures, valuable (mineral) deposits."Keithonearth (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits needed
editsemiprotected This article should be tagged as a neutrality dispute, because it is biased in the direction of the followers of the Dalai Lama and against the government of China -- for example, the fact that there is a separate article, implying that modern Tibet is not "Tibet." Also, the sentence under the heading "20th Century" which reads "The principal reason for the British invasion was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its power into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the local Tibetan government" should be tagged with "citation needed" -- that's a real self-serving excuse for an imperial invasion. --Slackmeister (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.--Aervanath (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that a challenge to neutrality was done by individuals, not by consensus. --Slackmeister (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck throught edits posted by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback    talk    20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree tis article should be tagged as a neutrality dispute. Just because Dalai Lama is currently somewhat a favorite in some west media doesn't mean his ideas of Tibet should prevail here. Other factors, e.g. Dalai Lama prosecution of the TIbetans who follow Dorje Shugden, should be presented in a balanced fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.237.194 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "Edits needed"
I don't agree with Slackmeister when (s)he says the article "should be tagged as a neutrality dispute, because it is biased in the direction of the followers of the Dalai Lama and against the government of China." I have just reread the article and, it seems to me that a very deliberate effort has been made to fairly present both points of view.

Also, I think he or she should specify what they mean when they say that: "there is a separate article, implying that modern Tibet is not "Tibet." I do, however, believe (s)he is correct in pointing out that the statement about the principal reason for the invasion of Tibet by the British needs referencing or qualification - so, I have added a "citation needed" tag here.

Finally, if Slackmeister wants to make edits and add tags - I suggest (s)he log in and create a proper User's page and become an "established user". Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with John above, including being unsure of what is referred to by "Modern Tibet". I worry that Slackmeister is referring to the Tibet Autonomous Region, which I can't see as anything other than an arbitrary boundary drawn by the People's Republic of China. --Keithonearth (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The boundary of the area now called Tibet Autonomous Region was formed long before the establishment of PRC. It wasn't drawn arbitrarily. Dalai's vision of the boundary of his ideal Tibet is more arbitrary in that it includes a lot of areas that have long history of residence of many other ethnic groups, like the Qiangs, Mongols and Huis.


 * By way of analogy, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia does not have separate articles for "historical/cultural Hawaii" and for the "administrative region of the United States." There is also undue weight given to the claims of the so-called government in exile, because not one nation has given it diplomatic recognition. --Slackmeister (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you asserting that the Tibet Autonomous Region equals Tibet? That Tibet ends at the administrative borders of the TAR?  (something I do not agree with, and think is vary POV.)-Keithonearth (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you agree with it, I think that for most of the world, Tibet is Tibet, and they go to an encyclopedia for information, not a political statement. That's why I advocate adding the tag. --Slackmeister (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you say the Ireland article is biased? Yaan (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it looks OK. I see your point, though -- that article could be tricky, and probably has had problems in the past. Both Ireland and Hawaii are islands, unlike Tibet, and therefore have a distinct geographic identity outside of politics. --Slackmeister (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck throught edits posted by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback    talk    20:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think that the sentence "The principal reason for the British invasion was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its power into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the local Tibetan government" is actually both accurate and neutral. However, it is prone to misreading, which I fear Slackmeister has done. The sentence is not saying that Britain was not working to expand its imperial power into Tibet through invasion; it's telling us why the British were particularly interested in invading Tibet as opposed to some other random place on the face of the Earth. So, I think it should be reworded for clarity.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Part controlled by India
This sentence in the article is awkward for its excessive justifications: "Tibet was once an independent kingdom but today is part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) while a small part, according to the government of the People's Republic of China, the government of the Republic of China, some of their diplomatic allies, as well as sympathetic scholarly and non-governmental bodies, is controlled by India."

It should be rewritten & cited. The dispute between PRC and the Government in Exile is already documented in the rest of the article (starting with the next sentence in the article in fact) and doesn't need to be repeated within each sentence.

Something like: "Tibet -- once an independent kingdom -- is today part of the People's Republic of China, except for a small region controlled by India." (plus citations.)

-- 216.223.143.38 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)