User talk:SakyaTrizin

Welcome!

 * }

Your recent work in history of Tibet
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please use the talk page to propose major changes like changing the titles of articles. Don't just change them yourselves without prior discussion. Thanks. Bertport (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to walk over your edit just now. Bertport (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tibet under Yuan administrative rule
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neolithic Tibet
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Add opinion of another editor regarding Tibet
Hello Sakya Trizin, As a previous editor of the Tibet page, may I request you to refer to the page again under the Demographics section, for another opinion on recent edits? I believe the page may be currently hijacked by pro-communist China whereby there is an attempt to exclude foreign statistics, and to politicise the Dalai Lama by using non-neutralist terms (compare edits by me and two other users, Quigley and Tartanator). Thank you. --Celinabluewick (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your viewpoint
I'd seen some of your edits. What is you view about the Qing Dynasty? What country do your think it was originally founded? ༆ (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Qing Dynasty was a sincized dynasty, albeit it was ruled by Manchus. Qing Dynasty considered the country a Chinese entity since the Ming was defeated, as can be seen in several treaties such as Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet of 1906. --76.65.34.92 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The debate over the sinicization of the Qing Dynasty, and the degree of sinicization, is contentious. Historian Evelyn Rawski argues that the Manchus were rulers, not of a "Chinese empire", but a "multi-ethnic and multicultural regime where the rulers ruled different ethnic groups with different cultural policies." Rawksi asserts that the notion of a "Chinese Qing dynasty" is the product of 20th century Han nationalism used to justify the territorial claims of the ROC, and later, the PRC. Referring to Qing rule over Tibet as either a "Chinese rule" (which is a pro-China POV) or just as a "Manchu rule" creates NPOV issues. The most neutral approach, I think, is to refer to Qing rule as a "Manchurian Qing rule," which sidesteps the POV debates over the Chinese-ness of the Manchus.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar to my point: Qing is a Manchurian dynasty/empire and NOT a Chinese one. China distorted history as if Yuan and Qing are China because that is the only way to justify the occupation and domination of Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, East Turkistan, Tibet and even Taiwan. As you can see, Mongolia still exists today, so that is why we know that Yuan is a Mongol dynasty and NOT a Chinese one. If Manchuria (or Manchuko) still survived to this day, EVERYONE would realize that Qing is also NOT a Chinese dynasty, but a Manchu one. So, during the Yuan dynasty, both China and Tibet were parts of Mongolia, and during the Qing dynasty, all Mongolia, East Turkestan, China and Tibet were parts of the Manchu state. So, we should just stick with the idea that saying Qing is Manchu/Manchurian one. ༆ (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Era of Fragmentation
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Please do not continue to make statements such as "China's cultural genocide of Tibet is disgusting" and "all moral Tibetans have resisted against the PRC regime". Statements like these polarize users and cast a pall over your edits. Thanks. Shrigley (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)