Talk:Tibetan literature

Pro-Chinese bias
This article is rather heavily POV toward the opinions of Chinese authorities. it will need some serious attention.Msalt (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't explained what changes you want, so you can't keep a tag there. Shrigley (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain your basis and authority for deciding when tags are allowed. You seem to be exhibiting a sense of ownership of this page in violation of Wikipedia's policy WP:OWN. This isn't about me "keeping" a tag or you deciding if that is allowed, but rather an attempt to reach consensus on editing this page.  I'm reverting your removal of the tag.


 * The central fact of Tibetan culture today is the split between Tibetans in exile, led by the official government in exile in Dharamsala, and Tibetans inside China, some of whom support Chinese administration and some don't. The article as it stands pretends that this split does not exist, which is exactly the position of the Chinese government. That's merely the beginning of the POV slanting here.  In terms of literature specifically, the article waves its hand vaguely at many centuries of Tibetan literature, then focuses heavily on a contemporary literary organization established by the Chinese government.  Even the literary cliques identified use standard Chinese naming "the 4 blanks", "the 3 blanks."


 * Most striking is the complete absence of any mention of the Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala, India, which has a literary office and a significant library. There are many books of poetry, songs and stories by Dalai Lamas through history; none are represented here.Msalt (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He removed your tag because you didn't provide any real explanation (as he explicitly said) and your immediate attack on him violates Wikipedia's policies on civility.
 * It is easy to see that the article divides modern Tibetan literature between two different sections, that in exile and that not in exile, so your claim that it "pretends that this split does not exist" is completely false. The article barely mentions the existence of a Tibetan Association of Writers within China. It doesn't "focus heavily on it."
 * Obviously the article is very short, messy, and vague. If you have expertise in Tibetan literature, do not hesitate to make improvements. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 18:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (I'm discussing your accusations of incivility in a separate section.) You're right that the article notes an exile community of Tibetans, but it does not acknowledge the crucial fact of a dispute over the leadership of the culture and political region of Tibet.  That is, once again, precisely the POV of one of two actors in this dispute, the Chinese government.  We should not have an article that contains such bias.
 * The discussion of TAW is a drastic imbalance of WEIGHT in discussing a literature of many centuries. Compare articles such as English Literature.  They don't discuss any official government literary organizations.  If we do, we certainly should include those of the Dharamsala government as well as those of the Beijing government. Msalt (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's not a good idea to politicize culture. It would be grossly disproportionate to accord equal weight to the enormous cultural output of Tibetan literature inside Tibet and the paltry Tibetan literature of exile followons in countries like India. As for the accusation of "wav[ing] its hand vaguely at many centuries of Tibetan literature", Wikipedia has a bias towards 20th century topics because of its userbase. This does not have anything to do with being "pro-Chinese", because Tibet was administered by China many times in the past. The comparison to English-language literature is not useful, because within China as a whole, government literary organizations loom large (same with religion).


 * Anyway, my point remains. You need specific, actionable goals in order to keep a POV tag there. The best thing would be for you to fix the article yourself. The second-best thing would be to provide specific sources to detail what changes you like, including coherent arguments. But a truthy "I don't think Chinese rule is legitimate, so we shouldn't write about Tibetan culture in China" complaint won't cut it. Other supposedly intuitive ideas like that Tibetan literature has had an enormous output for centuries is questionable, because of the extremely low literacy rate before socialism and because of restrictions on education and publication by monasteries. Shrigley (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On what basis are you declaring standards that I need to meet before putting a POV tag on this page? You don't make any reference to Wikipedia policy, and as far as I know you do not hold any administrative position giving you that power. Your repeated reversions of my tagging are approaching edit warring.
 * In fact, I have stated my rationale, discussed with any and all who join me on talk, and have made several attempts to improve the page (some of which you reverted without comment).
 * I never said that Chinese rule is not legitimate. Please don't put words in my mouth.  It is striking that you appear to see my presence as taking the opposite side of an ideological battle from you.  That is precisely what concerns me about your editing, and about some of the language you and others are inserting into this page.
 * There is clearly a controversy about the legitimacy of Chinese rule over Tibet. This article should not be a place to argue for one or the other side of that controversy.  But it should also not be a place to pretend that the controversy does not exist, or to argue for the legitimacy of Chinese rule in Tibet.
 * Ironically, in the very edit in which you removed the POV tag, you made several POV edits to the page. The text previous read "Historically, Tibetan has served as a trans-regional literary language that has been used, at different times, from Tibet to Mongolia, Russia, China and present-day Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan." You changed this to read "Historically, Tibetan has served as a trans-regional literary language that has been used, at different times, not only in China as a whole but also to Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan."
 * Clearly this is advancing the POV of the Chinese government by assuming that Tibet has always been part of China. That is a highly contentious position at best.  Can you please explain what you were trying to accomplish by making this change?Msalt (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple. The previous wording implied that China and Tibet are and always have been separate countries. The new wording does not necessarily imply that they always have been united, but does not make the contrary assertion in the controversy either. It is more neutral. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording that you inserted clearly (but implicitly) makes the argument that Tibet has always been part of China by saying that Tibetan has been used "not only in China" but also in other countries; the original wording said that it has been used "in Tibet." "In Tibet" is neutral, because it applies regardless of whether Tibet is ruled by China or not.  Your wording argues for one side.  As a compromised, I removed China from the list of places other than Tibet where the Tibetan language has been used.  I can see where from your point of view, including China in that list makes it other than Tibet, and implies the position opposite of the one you are advocating.  Does that compromise work for you? In my view, this language neatly sidesteps the issue of whether Tibet is "part of" China, was always part of it, or was once separate but is now part of it.  Msalt (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility
(I'm refactoring my earlier response to Xanthoyl, with the civility material moved to this new section, for clarity.)

Xanthoyl wrote, above: "He removed your tag because you didn't provide any real explanation (as he explicitly said) and your immediate attack on him violates Wikipedia's policies on civility."

Please explain how noting a violation of Wikipedia's BP:OWN policy constitutes a violation of civility. WP:CIV says "Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict."

Disagreements on wiki policy are not one of the items on that list. My perception of Shrigley's WP:OWN issue is not a personal attack, but rather a perfectly civil discussion of his or her editing behavior on the page. Shrigley did not reference policy or any objective standard, simply his or her opinion, as the basis for reverting and for declaring what is allowed. That is not a valid basis.

Similarly, you suggest that I should make improvements to this page only "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature..." This is also not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and again indicates a sense of ownership, assuming that you and/or Shrigley have such expertise (which neither of you has demonstrated). If you don't, then it sounds like directly discouraging an independent editor, which is yet more seriously in violation of WP.

The only incivility that I have noticed, other than your use of the loaded language "your immediate attack" to discuss my valid policy concern, is Shrigley's edit summary in removing the POV tag. His or her edit summary reads "Vague, uselss tag" (sic). This is an explicit violation of WP:CIV. In the section on Identifying Incivility, the fourth example of "Direct Rudeness" is precisely this:

"'(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. 'that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen', 'snipped crap');'"

Less directly, the more civil approach is "fix, don't remove." Joining the discussion on bias in this page (on either side of the issue) would have been much more civil than reverting with a snide comment. Another good approach, which I often use, would have been to say something like "I don't feel as if you have given sufficient reasons to warrant a POV tag. Can you please elaborate on where you see POV?  If not, I plan to remove this tag in a couple of days."

I agree strongly that we should keep this discussion civil, and hope that all parties involved will do so.Msalt (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He simply removed an unexplained tag, and you immediately asserted he "thought he owned the page." Don't make mountains out of molehills. The effort you put into writing that wall of text should have been spent improving the article. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 20:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been improving the article, WP:BOLDly even. Meanwhile, you are exhibiting incivility even as we speak: "that wall of text," "mountains out of molehills," etc. I've raised several significant issues here in talk.  Perhaps you could join that discussion?Msalt (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He made one edit, in which he removed one tag. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 22:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I also made one edit, before he reverted it with a snide edit summary. Civility isn't about what you do so much as how you do it.  Declaring "you can't do that" without reference to policy or any objective standard? That's what I explicitly said seemed like ownership. I stand by that.Msalt (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His edit summary was dismissive, but your responses were more uncivil; in particular, the creation of this thread was uncivil, because it consists of disproportionate aggressive behavior, directed at me, because I briefly took issue with your replies to another editor. Please consider redacting it before we continue discussion here. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You accused me of incivility out of the blue, and I responded to your criticism. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "disproportionate aggressive behavior, directed at me." Could you please specify which things I said that were uncivil, and which parts of WP:CIV you find them in violation of?  I have made good faith efforts to really listen to your accusations and give them a fair hearing, and have referenced your specific phrases and the applicable portions of policy.  It would be very helpful if you were to do the same.
 * Alternately, we could discuss the issues with this article, which I have noted on Talk in detail and attempted to address. That would be cool, too.  Msalt (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley made one revert, the removal of a single tag he found puzzling, with a slightly dismissive summary and said nothing more than "You haven't explained what changes you want, so you can't keep a tag there." You responded by making the accusation of WP:OWN, a serious assertion and in this case entirely unfair. Quoting an example of what ownership means, from the policy page:
 * "Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."

Shrigley has made exactly two edits to this page the whole time it has existed. I said that a couple of your complaints about the article couldn't be reconciled with what I found there, which makes them hard to fix. I also mentioned that the immediate leap to accusing people of ownership constituted an uncivil remark. I didn't, and haven't, reverted or altered any of your changes to the article.

You respond to this by starting an entire thread about me, starting off with about 500 words, in which you twist my friendly concluding sentence, "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature, please don't hesitate to make improvements" into some kind of threat. How was that a "good faith effort" on your part? How do you suppose it feels to log in and see something like that? Xanthoxyl &lt; 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The essence of civility is collaborative work on improving the pages, and avoiding personal conflicts and personalizing disagreements over content. I have explained in some detail my concerns with this page, and made a number of improvements.


 * I'm not as interested in rehashing the discussion you and I have just had as you seem to be, nor do I see what you hope to accomplish here. Your comments seem very personally offended; we could also discuss this in email if you prefer. I'm happy to respond to what you want to talk about, though it's not clear to me whether your questions there are rhetorical or not. It's also helpful when discussing Wikipedia Policy to reference specific sections or language.


 * With all due respect, you seem to be taking great offense at my actions while doing similar or worse things yourself. You're still using loaded (uncivil) language -- saying that I'm twisting your words, that I'm uncivil, making mountains out of molehills, etc.  My first comment that offended you (but was not addressed to you) was carefully couched, saying that the tag removal "seems to be exhibiting..."  I was discussing my perception, which appears to be wrong, but at least I explained what I meant when asked. Shrigley never explained his/her removal or the basis for it, before or after, and that was exactly what I was concerned about.  The new thread about civility? You are the one who raised that issue, separately from the question of pro-Chinese bias on the page, and separate issues deserve separate sections.  It's not a big deal, just efficient organizing of thought.


 * Was it a good faith effort on my part to note the inaptness of your phrase "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature...." Yes, I think it was. You still have not explained what you meant by that, and I don't see what is "friendly" about that condition.  You are the person who created this page, it turns out.  I appreciate any open invitation to edit it (as opposed to a conditional one) but of course no one needs any invitation from you at all.


 * How do I suppose it feels to log in and see something like that? I think the answer is different for every person.  I didn't love having my tag reverted without explanation or authority, or being called in violation of civility and one who twisted words for responding to you, etc.  But whatever. Let's move forward and work on the page.Msalt (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope of Tibetan culture
There are Tibetans and related people living near the current political boundaries of Tibet that we should probably include in this article, and I would be curious what everyone's opinion on this is. The article focuses on Tibetan language, which is fair; we should not make the mistake of confounding political borders with cultural ones.

The most obvious inclusion would be Ladakhi writers, who are clearly part of Tibetan culture despite being across the border in India. Thupten Palden should be included, for example.

What about, say, Bhutan? Mongolia (where cultural boundaries have overlapped at different times)? Sikkim and Darjeeling? Nepal? Etc. Msalt (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Nepal, Darjeeling, and Mongolia are not part of some historical "Tibet". There may be Chinese immigrants who brought Tibetan culture to those regions, but they are comparable to Chinese American literature, which would not make the United States a part of "Chinese culture area" or "China". Shrigley (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The question is not what regions were part of some historical Tibet, politically, but in what regions Tibetan culture held sway (regardless of political boundaries.) These are two very different questions. Latino culture is strong in many parts of the the United States; telenovelas ignore political boundaries. Political boundaries for Sweden and Norway have changed many times, but it's arguable they've always shared a culture. Hong Kong over the last 100 years has shared both British and Chinese cultures.  Etc.  I note that you didn't mention Bhutan; I assume you will concede that Tibetan culture extends at least to there? Msalt (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Bhutanese culture has some similarities to Tibetan culture in the same way that Japanese culture has some similarities to Chinese culture. However, I don't think the Bhutanese would appreciate their culture being reduced to a subset of Tibet's. It is usually ignorant outside commentators and low-quality sources that fail to observe the distinction between the two, especially in modern times when, say, Ladakhis do not identify as Tibetan or Chinese, but as Indians. Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering the similarities and overlap with Bhutanese culture. The issue is not who people identify with politically; this is a culture article, not a political one. It is important that we discuss Tibetan literature in cultural terms, and not use this page as yet another battleground for the issue of who should be ruling Tibet politically.  Unfortunately, that is precisely what this page is doing, in my opinion, and what you are advocating in this talk page. Msalt (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Historical section of page
The historical section of the article contained a long, essentially incomprehensible paragraph that was actually signed -- in the text! -- by its author. (I've never seen that before.) I considered attempting to rewrite it more clearly, but the train of thought was so difficult for me to fathom that I fear my efforts would constitute original research. There were also no references. I'm preserving the text below in case anyone wants to give it a shot. Msalt (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"During this time the mainstream is translated Buddhist scriptures, but also related to other disciplines such as philosophy, medicine, astrology, literature and so on. Translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan mainly. So how does the situation of literary translation? Translated into Tibetan Buddhist classics, in addition to a lot of discussion outside the writings of Buddhist teachings, there are many of the Buddha, the Buddha's biography, fables, stories, poems praising deities, these works of literature and the color is very strong. To describe the Buddha's life merit for the content of rhyme body work 'wishful vine' is a very beautiful poetry, which later became the model for the Tibetan poets reading. Not only is the book discusses Buddhist teachings, in order to facilitate memory and recite, most have adopted the body in the form of rhyme, the text narrative, the description of thinking in images, Xing means than the use of literature are no doubt add a lot of color. So, Tibetan literature and culture of Tibetan Buddhism has very close ties. The early Tibetan history books, 'Pakistan Association', 'five teachings,' the latter part of the history books, 'Wise Wedding Banquet', 'WANG Chen mind; Cuckoo Song' and although the history books, its literary value can not be ignored, the book some of the wonderful dialogue and delicate portrayal gives memorable impression. This means that a lot of translation of Buddhist scriptures in Tibetan literature for the development of inadvertently creating good conditions. The thirteenth century, proficiency in ten out to learn Pandita - Sakya Gongga Gyaltsen first talked about rhetoric. In his 'Introduction to the wise,' This book's second chapter describes the very limited space, rhetoric, and his insights from the seventh century these well-known classical Indian literary theory book, 'Poetry Mirror' (The author is in India in the seventh century classical literary theorist Tan D). To the fourteenth century, the London literary theoretical works by the great male teacher translated into Tibetan, was made to help teachers carefully collated translation, as a textbook for teaching, since 'poetry Mirror' has become the top scholar of Tibetan monks to learn writing This required course. From this phenomenon we can consider, Sakya Pandita is the first in the history of Tibetan literature, literary theory, the introduction of foreign masters. The male London, to help two big division is to continue to complete the translation of Albert Saban, comprehensive and systematic introduction of foreign literary theory, the theory of Indian classical literature, 'poetry mirror' in the Tibetan literary roots in the soil, and the later Tibetan literature had a profound impact. Fourteenth-century 'poetic mirror,' the first translation until the twentieth century, nearly seven years in Tibetan Tibetan literary writers were actually based on the 'poetry mirror' theory made a profound comprehensive study of its great research, writing many with outstanding achievements in the Tibetan literary theorists have meters next; Spengler Namgyal, the Fifth Dalai Lama, Hong chase; Tenzin song Jini Ma, suka; Los chase Jeb, Jen collapse; Ngawang tie, Kume next; Namgyal Gyatso, was Dan Xia Rong, Maoergai; Sangdan, East Ga; Lausanne red columns, etc., they write a lot with the insights of the 'poems mirror' theory works, and creative a 'poetic mirror,' as the creative guidance of outstanding poems, a traditional Tibetan literary works of poetry a model. Produce such a work of literary theory at the same time, the Tibetan scholars in the rhetoric of science has also made outstanding contributions. Rhetoric writings of 'wise men earrings' is Jen collapse; Ngawang bar book, this book's rhetoric in the writings of the existing length of the largest, richest vocabulary. Rhetorical writings of the advent of the rich Tibetan literary language, play a positive role in promoting, thus the prosperity of Tibetan literature has created good conditions. Outstanding Classical Literature in India at this time as 'wishful vine', 'cloud that', 'six young people story' (Some people think that 'six young people story' is not a translation, but the Tibetan literary writer, I have a different view, once wrote the article that 'the story of six young people' is the translation of works) 'thirty-four Bunsen Biography', 'winning praise God destroy', 'Ramayana', 'Shagongdaluo' (translation section) and maxim poem 'King of the line' theory, 'advised the family and friends book' and other works of Tibetan translations appear, greatly broadened the horizons of Tibetan writers are creative."

NPOV dispute
Per the policy WP:NPOV, I have established this section to discuss particulars that need to be addressed to ensure the neutrality of this article. Please note the wording of the tag itself, per Wikipedia policy: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Fundamentally, the background is that there is a dispute (in the real world) over whether Tibet has always been just a part of China, or has some independent claim to sovereignty. As an encyclopedia, we should not take a side in this dispute or promote one side over another. The article as it stands appears to promote the view of Tibet as only a part of China, which is the position of the Chinese government, in several locations.

As I have noted, it gives undue weight to the most recent bits of Tibetan literature that have been published since the Chinese established complete political control over Tibet in 1959, which has the effect of promoting the idea of Tibet as Chinese. It includes and discusses writers who are not culturally Tibetan but live in Tibet (the "lao xizang"), though we would never claim that Paul Bowles or William Burroughs were Moroccan writers. It describes Tibetan writers using questionably reliable sources in very typically Chinese descriptions (the Four Scholars, the Four Owl-Siblings, etc.) It parrots official Chinese questions about Tibetan language identity, in a section not encyclopedic for a discussion of literature. It uses the POV term "Diaspora" to refer to Tibetans who consider themselves in exile from an occupied home land. The article did not even mention the 14th Dalai Lama, who has written scores of books, until I added him.

I have attempted to correct many of these issues, and have been reverted by Shrigley without discussion, in a massive edit that conflates several different disagreements and is difficult to follow or undo. That same large edit actually introduced new POV elements, such as changing the discussion of the range of the Tibetan language; the original said it "'has been used, at different times, from Tibet to Mongolia, Russia, China and present-day Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.'" but Shrigley changed it, without explanation, to say the language "'has been used, at different times, not only in China as a whole but also to Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.'"

I suggest that we work to resolve these and other specific disagreements, and make changes one at a time with discussion, rather than make block edits with multiple changes or dismiss any challenges to the current status of the page without reference to detail or policy. Msalt (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about politics or sovereignty, but every single country in the world accepts China's sovereignty over Tibet. It is not just "the position of the Chinese government"; in fact, the contrary view is propaganda from a few fringe separatists. As both I and the reliable sources note, there are several reasons why Tibetan literature especially flourished - and consequently why there is more to write about - after the Communists introduced social and educational reforms in Tibet. Firstly, this was the time that Tibet industrialized in general, and second, this was when the monasteries lost their monopoly and censorship power over education and publication.


 * So this is not just "bits of literature", it's thousands of books published every year, and a vast improvement in output over what the combined premodern theocracies and fiefdoms could theoretically publish. As regards non-autochthonous Tibetans; they are still publishing in a national language of Tibet (Chinese), of the same nationality as Tibetans (Chinese), and are integrated into local lives and literary societies; and most importantly of all, they are discussed in sources which discuss Tibetan literature. The term "Tibetan diaspora", likewise, has wide currency in academic literature, as well as a rich tradition of self-use. The term does in fact connotes a "yearning to return to a homeland", just like exile.


 * By the way, let's quote your favorite author of English-language ghostwritten new age self-help books on this supposed "controversy", the 14th Dalai Lama: "I am not in favour of separation. Tibet is a part of the People's Republic of China. It is an autonomous region of the People's Republic of China. Tibetan culture and Buddhism are part of Chinese culture. Many young Chinese like Tibetan culture as a tradition of China.... China will turn to its 5000-year history of tradition, of which Tibet is a part." Shrigley (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Shrigley, you are contantly describing the issues concerning this page in a POV manner, demonstrating right here the bias that I am flagging with the POV tag. You continue to disparage me in violation of the WP:CIVIL policy, here claiming that the 14th Dalai Lama is an "English language ghostwritten new age self-help" writer and my "favorite author" both of which are heavily POV statements. (For the record, I have never read anything written by the Dalai Lama. I did find it very odd and unencyclopedic that he was not listed on a very comprehensive list of Tibetan authors.)  I respectfully suggest that you take a break from editing this page, as you continue to see everything connected with it as part of some political struggle, and you continue to show an inability to discuss the issues concerning this page outside of your very strong positions on one side of that struggle. If you are not willing to do so, I think we should pursue dispute resolution as you seem unwilling to discuss these issues on their own terms and in accordance with Wikipedia's civility policy. Msalt (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)