Talk:Free Tibet/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If there ever was an example of non-NPOV on Wikipedia, this article is IT

Having been a Wikipedian ever since the existence of Wikipedia, I have seen non-NPOV, but this article definitely takes the cake. I think this is a very important article, but obviously some of us really need to work hard and make sure this article is at least on par with basic NPOV Wikipedia standards.Children of the dragon (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing 'Disputed Neutrality' tag

There has been no dispute in these talk pages do it is a bit odd for the article to sport a 'Disputed Neutrality' tag. The article includes the claims of both sides which is exactly what a good article should (which is perhaps why there has been no disputation). I'm removing the warning tag... technopilgrim 4 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

'Damage by artillery'

What is the timeframe and specific reference for the "damage by artillery" of temples mentioned in the article? Timeframe is important as it gives us context. Was this part of the original occupation in the 1950s? Was it part of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), in which case Tibet was hardly being treated differently than the rest of China. Or are these recent artillery attacks? I'm removing the claim now, not because I doubt it is true but because it is incomplete, and deserves to be included if it has a complete form. technopilgrim 07:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was during the Cultural Revolution. But I don't think it should be included here anyway- it has nothing particular to do with this article. Mark1 08:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I have listed this as copyvio from and made a temp. stub page. ---User:Hottentot

Added Disputed Neutrality Tag Back

I am concerned about the last sentence in the article, "(The PRC government asserts that Tibet is, and has been, a part of China, and that military actions taken in the 1950s and 1960s were for the sake of the Tibetan people themselves in order to liberate them from the feudalistic, slave-owning system of government administered by the Dalai Lama)."

I believe that the phrase "feudalistic, slave-owning system of government administered by the Dalai Lama" conveys a biased point of view, even if unintentionally. First, the sentence describing the purpose of the campaign, "It campaigns for an end to what Tibetans consider to be an occupation of their country by Chinese forces," seems very neutral. There are no adjectives or comments describing the occupation, which might even be appropriate given the nature of the campaign. Secondly, there is no reason to discuss the reasons that the PRC gives for occupation/liberation.

I suggest that IF a parenthetical explanation of the PRC position is needed, that read something like: (The PRC government asserts that Tibet is, and has been, a part of China, and that military actions taken in the 1950's and 1960's were for the sake of liberating the Tibetan people from the system of government administered by the Dalai Lama). --Dorje Shedrub 04:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As unappealing as it may sound to those of us who cherish Tibetan culture, I think we have no choice but to provide the PRC arguments in unvarnished fashion. The reader needs to hear both sides if he is to understand the situation. The accusation of feudalism is not without basis and is an essential part of the PRC argument. And as harsh as it sounds, there is no question that the pre-invasion social structure included slavery, so I think this must also be kept.
Perhaps a solution is to reorder the article to give the PRC arguments first followed by a Free Tibet rebuttal to these arguments. This would favor the Free Tibet movement, which is non-nuetral on the face of it, but acceptable given this is the article on Free Tibet and the reader will not be surprised to find the Free Tibet arguments are given "home court" advantage. As an example, it is fair to claim that slavery was on the way out and likely would have ended on its own within the next decade or so. -- technopilgrim 21:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point; however, I would advocate for two things. First, to put the PRC argument not on this page (which is just about one organization and which could lead to some wanting the PRC argument on every page about a Tibetan Independence group), but rather, put it on the International Tibet Independence Movement page - there is already a section for the PRC side there [but there is also a disputed neutrality tag there too]. Secondly, I think it would be good to put the PRC's specific arguments and cite where they can be found (I did a brief search on a PRC embassy site, but didn't find anything in the time I was there - lots of info). I agree, rebuttal from both sides should be included for the sake of non-partiality. Would we be in consensus on this? --Dorje Shedrub 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus Human Rights Organisations

"Chinese Sovereignty. The Chinese Empire acquired sovereignty over Tibet in the 17th century but in the course of the following two centuries Chinese authority steadily diminished. Meanwhile, British colonial officials in India, initially Warren Hastings, attempted to secure a foothold in the region. These efforts were fruitless, mainly because of Tibetan resentment over a Nepalese invasion in 1790, which the British supported. In 1904 Tibet, then virtually independent of Chinese authority, was invaded by the British, who were alarmed over purported Russian influence in the country. The expedition laid the foundation for an Anglo-Chinese convention of 1906. By the terms of this agreement, the Chinese Empire acquired recognition as the sovereign power in Tibet. The agreement also provided for the payment of a large indemnity to the British, who subsequently withdrew their troops." Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia 1996

The above article shows how the British have repeatedly supported invasion or invaded Tibet. It also confirms China's sovereignty. Why else would China pay an "indemnity" for the British to leave? Why would China pay this protection money for "suzerainty"?

Other propaganda organisations include the Burma Campaign, another UK organisation. the People's Democratic Party was funded by the US in a similar fashion to the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Chavez was brought back to power by a popular uprising. Myanmar supported a gas pipeline to China. Human Rights Watch, is the US equivalent of the UK's various propaganda organisations. Wikipedia supports these by repeatedly removing the truth from entries or archiving the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:47, 31 July 2007

Free tibet on lhassian dialect

How to say "Free tibet" on domestic language/dialect of Tibet?

As I understand the domestic dialect of Tibet is lhasian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super biased

This article is super biased. I want to fix it up, including the references, tone, etc. I'm going to put a tag on it to make sure readers know this is not the standard of Wikipedia. —Zujine|talk 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

although some can quickly see the tilt, you perhaps better explain what exactly the tilt here is. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 06:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who counts as a Tibetan?

Who counts as a Tibetan nowadays? I mean can you now count a white American or Australian whose ancestors were English as British or English? the British government will certainly not accept that. (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the Dalai Lama come in this?

Surely a free tibet is a tibet that is free of the dalai lama and with people free to choose their religion or not to believe in a religion. (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]