Talk:Tibet/Archive 2

message: I just did some edit: Nepalese regarded its mission (namely "Vakil") as only a Trade Commission (similar to the British Mission), thus had nothing to do with recogizing Tibet's independence. For example, the Vakil was allowed to stay/operate in Tibet until the 1960s while the Nepalese-Chinese treaty signed in the mid 1950s had long recognized Tibet as part of PRC. The Treaty text itself also mentioned Vakil.--219.79.30.35 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will see about that. Me 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal's recognition of Tibet's independence? 

message: Here are two maps showing a certain extent of Tibet's (de jure) subordination to ROC:
--219.79.27.170 06:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps published in the 1920s 

message: Lhasa is currently nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote this article there if you are interested.--Fenice 12:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Wouldn't it be so much more sensible to simply write an article on the country of Tibet, and then have the TAR as a period of its history (just as one would do with a history of Wales, and its eventual domination by England)? -- E. M. Clemwis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.81.188 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 September 2005
: I think that the separation by the two articles is great. The TAR article can be the communist point of view. So people know right away TAR is something the communist gov. of china has created. Its a new name and a new point of view, since they became Republic of China and are governed by the communist party.
Tibet however is not TAR, it is much much older than TAR. It will stay Tibet for as long as Tibetan Buddhism is around and trust me, that will be a long time. So I do not understand why people who are pro TAR and pro PRC keep editing the Tibet article which is suppose to be on the historical Tibet. They should be editing the TAR article. Any opinions on why they do that? Me 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet v. TAR 

message: I've begun to create a List of administrative divisions of Tibet Autonomous Region. The problem though is that I don't really know Tibetan, only the alphabet and how it converts to Wylie transliteration. Basically I'm getting the Wylie from the ja: Wikipedia and converting it into Tibetan letters the best I can. So if anyone knows Tibetan, please help me take a look and see if there're any mistakes. Thanks in advance. -- ran (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of administrative divisions of Tibet Autonomous Region]] & [[List of administrative divisions of Qinghai]] 

message: There are in the book "Dragon in the Land of Snow" by Tsering Shakya which has a series of interesting and probably extremely relevant maps showing the extent of Lhasa's authority in the the last century, from the collpase of the Qing to the Nationalists (and the reconquest of parts of Tibet into the Sikang province), if anyone can verify their accuracy or upload them it may prove illuminating.
:We can't upload maps that are copyrighted, but it would be great to incorporate the info, especially since it's so hard to come by. -- ran (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you attribute your info to its source, that probably wouldn't be a problem. -- ran (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Before you do, you should check who produced the maps and when.  If they were produced in the early 20th century then we may be OK on copyright, but if they're more recent then they are almost certain to be under copyright.   This page has a rather unfortunate history of copyrighted maps being added and then removed again, which we don't want to continue. Mark1 10:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Maps 

message: The section sited, and I quote: 
"...does note that according to Chinese census there was a population of 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964 in Tibet proper."
Query: To what does this Tibet Proper refer?  To the best of my knowledge the 1953 census report furnished by the Dalai Lama's office on the population of the TAR cited something in the region of 1.3 millions, thus I think perhaps it may be that by Tibet proper one refers to all 'ethinically cultural' areas of Tibet, or ethnic Tibetans.  Than one must further query did this include the non-Tibetans dwelling in Tibet?  In the absence of a detailed source it is difficult to say one way or another.
Correspondingly, one should perhaps mention the 7.5 million ethnic Han in Tibet claim made by various people in the interest of NPOV.
:I don't know where those stats came from, since no sources were provided by whoever added them. But I do believe that the 6 million / 7.5 million thing is mentioned somewhere in the article already. -- ran (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but since they say it and it's widely reported, Wikipedia's job is to report it -- together, too, of course, with the PRC's census numbers. A lot of people would also consider the PRC's censuses to be inaccurate -- which they probably are, considering how hard it is to count unregistered migrant workers. -- ran (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Evaluation of PRC rule 

message: This seems decidedly POV: the inability and failure of the Dalai Lama to prevent wholesale Westernization among his followers has made many to question who really destroyed Tibetan culture. -- Xianxxx 08:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  It was added by a twit who turns up every so often; I thought we'd weeded all his stuff out. Mark1 13:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Re: Evaluation of PRC rule 

message: Should not the Guge be mentioned in the history of Tibet?
:Of course. But since the history section right now is pretty long, you might want to add it to the article History of Tibet. -- ran (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guge 

message: Sorry, this was my first time using the editing capabilities of Wikipedia, and I haven't quite worked out how to use the talk pages yet.  
Very briefly (lengthier explanations follow) my suggestions (my edits were deleted):
#The Australian Tibet Council should go back in (I might have accidentally deleted it), but under the Anti-Chinese Policy section (see their 'about' page)
#Tibet Information Network link should be deleted (outdated, TIN doesn't exist anymore)
#Categorizations generally should be rethought.
The separations into "pro" and "anti" Chinese policy versus "apolitical" are not so clear cut. The Australian Tibet Council  definitely leans to the anti-Chinese policy side of things, whether or not they are involved in other "apolitical" work. Certainly organizations that are committed to doing aide work (or work like THDL), regardless of either side of the issue, and specifically refuse to take sides or get involved in the various debates can be counted as "apolitical". However the waters get murkier outside of those organizations.
I put Michael Parenti's article in an "other" category because his sources on which he bases the most sensationalist part of his debunking on, seem biased; Gelder and Gelder and Anna Louise Strong both had very strong ties to the CCP at the time of writing their books, and that was -as far as I can tell - the lens through which they looked at Tibet.  As well, his section on the occupation is biased.  For instance, Tibetans who were against China were not all against Communism and weren't all elites, as his article might lead one to assume.  For instance, there were Tibetan Communists (among the aristocracy no less) who wanted to transform Tibet into a communist nation-state of their own, not to be ruled over by China.  (I have to dig into my sources - not available at the moment - for a reference on them). And Parenti's section on Elites, Emigres and the CIA selects out the Dalai Lama's actions connected to the far right, totally ignoring his actions, support and relationships with those of more 'liberal' mindsets making him seem like a despot aligned only with the likes of Pinochet, not the Desmond Tutus etc of the world.  Although he makes a case for a more complex reading of Tibetan history, his own reading is far from complex.  "Shangri-la" versions of pre-'peaceful liberation' Tibet should be debunked, (and the perfect saintly image of the Dalai Lama, too) in favor of more complex examinations of the Tibet.  Thus, the basic argument of Parenti's article is balanced - that one can say Feudal Tibet is bad without saying Chinese Rule is good.  However, I argue he leans heavily towards the side of sensationalism in order to make his points.  It is political - leaning towards a debunking of both systems of authority, whether or not that is correct, it definitely isn't without politics.
To further my point, Tibet Information Network (which no longer exists and should be deleted) is in the anti-Chinese Policy category.  That choice is just as much a matter of POV as Michael Parenti's article being "apolitical". It was an organization centered around gathering independent information that could be either politically charged or apolitical, but would be disseminated in as 'apolitical' fashion as possible.  So, like Parenti's article, it could or could not be considered 'apolitical'.  
With these disparities in mind my suggestions are:
#make another category or change Apolitical (perhaps Neutral or Other is better, or even Neutral Aide Organizations and Miscellaneous)
#do away with categorizations (probably the worst idea)
#Make altogether new categorizations. Ngotsa 06:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have re-added the link that I deleted. Sorry about that! --Khoikhoi 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I think this article didn't give enough information about the facts about Tibet. I just want to add more information from other resouce other than the Chinese government or the Free Tibet orgs. Can you tell me what should I do? I just improve this article.
:Find some facts which are not in the article.  Find a reliable source for those facts.  Then add them to the article along with a reference to the source. (But only if they are undisputed facts.  If they are disputed, then you should say whose opinion they are). For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Yee's homepage is probably not a reliable source. Also, please sign your comment here with four tildes, so that we know who said what. Mark1 15:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The serf system and the ROC's claim on Tibet are both mentioned in the article.  And please don't edit my signature. Mark1 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just want to give some facts about Tibet. How can I do it? 

message: The article claims that the Epic of King Gesar is the longest epic poem in the word, a claim also made by the Kyrgyz about the Manas epic, at 500,000 lines long. Gesar is counted by verses, Manas is counted by lines, any idea for standards to compare apples-to-apples? Chris 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Epic of King Gesar

message: Chinese official figures for Tibet in 1953 were 2.8 million, in 1964 the estimate was 2.5 million (and the Chinese would hardly be the one's to exaggerate the disparities in Tibet). Even if we take the official Chinese line that 90,000 Tibetans fled into exile, this would amount to 7% of the population killed (200,000 if there was zero population growth). This would be greater (proportionately) than the maximum amount of Bengali deaths, around 4%, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, frequently refered to as a genocide. Should this be incorporated somehow? CJK 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if this is your original research.  People die and fail to have children for many reasons, of which genocide is one of the less common. Mark1 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So, henry flower is mark, and also markalexander? So I can create multiple accounts and post? Is that OK on wikpedia? Jeez Luiz! Me 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One at a time please. It's okay to start a new account and use that one instead, if you tell everyone that's what you're doing.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please teach me more about my spouse's country, I really like to learn from a traveling western tourist like you rather than a Tibetan person. That makes sence! It is the Wikipedia logic. A very serious place to get info. I am so glad I found Ran and you to teach me about Tibet! You both should get PhD in Tibetan History, Language and Culture!Me 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I: "Yes, you can start another account." My Tibet: "Don't try to teach me about my spouse's country!" Good point. You know, you can't cite your wife in an encyclopedia article, anyway. I would have thought that was obvious.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There was the Great Leap Forward, which killed 30 million people in China between 1958 and 1963. Also, genocide and ethnic cleansing refer to acts that are specifically aimed at removing one ethnic group with respect to other ethnic groups. As I've already explained before in Talk:Ethnic cleansing, this did not happen in Tibet even if we take all of the allegations and casualty figures to be true. -- ran (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No genocide in Tibet, ah, Ran? :) Me 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What tremendous loss of life?  We haven't established that there was one. Mark1 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe old people died of natural causes and were not replaced because the birthrate was lower.  Maybe people followed the DL to India.  Maybe they moved to China proper.  Maybe the Chinese didn't find them for the census because they were nomads.  Maybe they hid in the hills because they didn't want the Chinese to count them.  Maybe they died because of famine, maybe their heads were cut off by Chairman Mao's army.  Maybe some of each. I don't know, but neither do you. Mark1 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Proof of what? There's proof that the Chinese counted 2,753,081 Tibetans in TAR in 1953 and that they counted 2,501,174 Tibetans in 1964.   I'm sure there are various sources discussing reasons for the difference, but none of us have gone looking for them. Mark1 22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The 1953 and 1964 census figures can certainly be mentioned.  Explanations for the difference found in respectable sources can be mentioned.  Other speculation cannot. Mark1 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Anything relevant and sourced from respectable sources, yes. Mark1 22:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job! Keep up the good work, no genocide, just some dead people and the PRC sources. And what good, legit sources they are. Such good quality plastic junk made in china these days. Walmart is the museum of the chinese art. I love those cheap plastic things that break after one week. It is all worth it! And Ran is not expressing a chinese nationalistic POV at all! He has Tibetan sources.No, wait! He does not! Who do we believe? The chinese government or the thousands of people crossing the border? Is there a genocide? Is Tibet chinese? Is Palestine Jewish? Me 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A genocide?

message: We need a third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion here at Talk:Lhasa. User:Lapsed Pacifist is clearly having trouble understanding the standards we follow here at Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, everybody avoid personal comments (even "subtle" ones). Wikipedia should be about the articles, not about the contributors. -- Writtenonsand 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Lhasa]] 

message: Someone has started a poll to rename Inner Mongolia to Southern Mongolia. If you're interested in the topic, please come to Talk:Inner Mongolia to express your views. -- ran (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ran correctly assumes that a portion of those interested in Tibet are also interested in other Chinese border areas. Fred Bauder 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He is interested in keeping imaginary motherland china whole. He is a chinese nationalist. He is also interested in Taiwan. He has a POV on all the issues in regards to what is china and what is an independent nation. I have a lot more to say about this but Ran will ban me and what will I do??? :) Me 06:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Inner Mongolia]] to [[Southern Mongolia]] 

message: When we look at the banned Tibetan flag, it is clearly as replete with ancient religious symbolism as that of Taiwan. To reduce the banning of the flag to an anti-separatist move is as much an over-simplification of the situation as the more general refusal to admit to the modernising element in the Chinese government's suppression of restrictive religious traditions. Any kind of 'blind-spot,' in this sensitive situation, undermines the ongoing struggle against oppression, from whatever direction. Etaonsh 18:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Tibetan flag banned as symbol of separatism'? 

message: Please note that discussions are currently underway regarded naming conventions for Tibet-related articles. The main issue involved is how Tibetan words should be romanised, which means it could ultimately influence the style of every article where Tibetan names or words are used. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Tibetan naming conventions 

message: What is it? It's mentioned in the Ü-Tsang page, and from the context, seems to be a language or dialect of some sort. Can any Tibetan native / expert give an answer? And also hopefully add the explanation to the U Tsang page. Thanks --Sumple (Talk) 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All is revealed at koine. :) HenryFlower 14:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Tibetan Exile Koiné would be a lingua franca form of Tibetan used among Tibetan exiles. However, I don't know if this is really the appropriate name for this thing, because it does not seem to be used outside of Wikipedia. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibetan Exile Kloine 

message: An important piece of Tibet's history is left out - that of their militaristic past. "Arms and Armor From Tibet at the Metropolitan Museum" - an article from the New York Times. Many people think (or would like to think) that Tibet always was a peaceful place inhabited by Bhuddist monks and isolated from wars, but that is not entirely true, as the article points out. Also, it is important to mention their powerful military when talking about the ancient Tibetan empire.--Ryz05 t 17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having fought wars and having produced lots of weapons doesn't necessarily make a people militaristic... Look at Ryukyu - there are lots of their swords and armour in lots of museums. Yet when the Japs invaded they fell like a paper screen. I don't think anyone would call Ryukyu "militaristic". --Sumple (Talk) 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought Tibet had once invaded China proper some time ago (not exactly sure)? --Heilme 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yeah, that's true. Tang dynasty of China, I think. --Sumple (Talk) 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet's militaristic past 

message: I can't make heads or tails of this graphic. How do the colors match up with the six bullet points? Aplomado talk 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look across each row. For example, red, orange and yellow are claimed by exile groups, etc. -- ran (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic at the top 

message: For such a controversial issue, this article lacks an appropriate number of references.  As Phidauex mentioned, the current NPOV dispute could be resolved by citing more, and more reputable, sources.  Neutrality is also hampered by statements in the "Evaluation of PRC rule" section; some of the prose is rather unencyclopedic, and several contestable statements are not derived from sources.  When writing statements to the effect of "the PRC claims x; Tibet claims y; this analyst claims z," it is nessecary to provide an inline citation after the statement.  For reference, see the Hugo Chávez article. -- WGee 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ran, the ref you are  using to show that the tibetan guy joined the red guards is his own story, in it he says he felt really bad after he joined these red guards, I talked to several Tibetans and my spouse's witness who said that these young Tibetans trully and deeply regreted joining this campaign. Do not remove that explanation and do not play games with me. Do not tell me you don't have a political agenda. If something is true do not remove it!! If you need to add that the communist party later changed their mind and claim they denounced it that is something you can add yourself. It is clear here what you are trying to do being a chinese person. But Wikipedia is not a place to push your views on us and make the tibetans look bad, because that is what you and your buddy from hong kong (who refuses to create an account) are trying to do. Mark my word, if this article does not show that is disputed I will go all the way to the owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales with this with a petition signed by all 500 Tibetans living in Wisconsin. Me 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Simply put your edits are not NPOV based. How can I be NPOV when the admin is chinese and has POV? I will dig out more of your POV edits and contribs. And yes, I am suppose to make sure if a person 1000 years from now reads this article knows the truth. All I want is the truth. You have to explain why these tibetans destroyed religious objects. Now the way the article says it is better, AFTER I ADDED THE REFERENCE. Don't you think? I will dig out more. I want this article free of chinese POV. You want it free of Tibetan "separatist" POV so hopefully we will balance it out. Me 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And to suit my POV the article has to look like it was written ONLY by a Tibetan person which I know is not gonna happen. So I will push for NPOV. But the conflict here is your NPOV and my NPOV are different! Me 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references 

message: WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Asia 

message: OK, I am done getting my POV removed. For the 100th time! This article (as well as the TAR article) is disputed! Why are you removing the tag? Me 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one removing the tag, but if you do have a POV question you wish to raise I would suggest pointing out specific points that you disagree with, rather than categorically reverting an entire day's worth of edits by multiple users, as you recently did. -- ran (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you want to even have that posted? Out of milion probably 2 or 3 young teenagers did that. Why does that deserve a place in this article? What is your inner motivation, Ran? Also lets check when this person we are using as a reference regreted it Me 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see this source, especially the section entitled "Destruction of the temples". Frankly I don't see why you're getting so worked up -- doesn't it show even more how evil the communists were, how they brainwashed everyone into doing horrible things? -- ran (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I do not see why you want that part in there. Can you answer a simple question?? And no, they way you wrote that it does not seem pro-tibet or neutral at all. It shows that chinese communists were bad but still tyhey were supported by tibetans. That is NOT TRUE! Some(very few) Tibetan teenagers were tricked into doing that and later they regreted it. They you have this posted is   simply not true or not complete and OUT OFR CONTEXT!!!! Please take a writing class at your locar college or if you can not afford it read some self study books on how to write an article. You are lacking in many basic ways. Me 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is not the TAR article, dear Ran. You can't simply flood the "Tibet" article with bunch of chinese stuff. I mean look how much it talks about the chinese name! Why do you need to have all this info there?? You are simply vandalizing the Tibet article with your pro chinese ideas. Me 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. It should be as big as the English and the Tibetan paragraph.Me 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then expand the English and Tibetan paragraphs. -- ran (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. For us to try to closely balance the lengths of different paragraphs in attempt to get them to line up exactly with how important we think the subject is ... that way lies madness.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: dear ran, I must say, you either have some sort of addiction to wikipedia and sleep with your computer on your chest or you are simply extreme in your political nationalistic views. We, the regular people, have jobs and kids to take care of and can not possibly expand meaningless articles forever. Plus I was trained in my Gimnazia that a good piece of writing does not need to be long to get it's point across. Me 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You continue to play your little games with me. How low. I am not blanking anything! ARE YOU BLIND? I am editing your anrelated blah blah about the chinese characters in the chinese name for tibet. What is the relevance? STOP PLAYING GAMES! I am not a fool, I will watch you and hold you accountable for your actions, you are being a vandal and you should stop before I contact the owner! I am not sure if you are mentally challanged because you seem like it. If you are stop typing and tell your legal guardian to correct the situation. You are being childish, my friend. Stop posting biast stuff and stop deleting my contribs!  Me 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did chop out a large portion of the section in question. That's what Ran is referring to.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I know what I did. Wikipedia does not messure in size rather in content. His rambling is nonrelevant and distracting. It is good enough to say when they first used the chinese word and what they mean by it. krause, have in mind who you are talking to and look in your heart, wikipedia is #3 in rating when the word "tibet" is searched. I don't want you on my side but please do not second guess what I am doing in terms of Tibet. I am married to a Tibetan National in Exile. Get it? All my links have been deleted so sorry for that, by same old same old pro  communist china random editors. Me 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so you have been married. Does that make you superman? No, sorry, Wikipedia does not 'messure' in marriage rather in content. Aranherunar 14:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am still married! :) Being married to a Tibetan person who's parents walked 30 days to cross the Himalayas after the Chinese invaded? What does that make me? How about having kids and naming them after their Tibetan grandmother who, like many other Tibetan refugees in India died of TB at the young age of 34? Or how about our precious Geshe-La who died in the US and could never return to his Tibet to die there? Because that was his wish but being a Tibetan refugee he had to get visa for his own contry! Yeah, that means nothing to you. But it means the world to me. Also I have heard some lamas can fly like Superman. Me 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Could someone help check the Tibetan spelling of Nathula? I removed an extra "a" because I think it's not needed if there's already a "la" there, but I'm not entirely sure. Thanks in advance. -- ran (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there should be one "a". It's la (per ) in Wylie romanisation, which is lossless.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathula 

message: Why the discussion of which Chinese characters are to be used to write the Chinese name for Tibet, when there the Tibetan characters are not present.  Why not have Cyrillic and Devanagari script versions, too?  I know, I know "because it's part of China".  Ffffft.  So what?  Tibet has its own language and script; the Chinese characters are of secondary importance.  That's right - secondary importance, that's what I said.  I see why this page has a POV tag and I haven't even gotten past the first paragraph yet.Skookum1 07:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? There are Tibetan characters right at the beginning: "Tibet (older spelling Thibet; Tibetan:  བོད་, Bod, pronounced pö in Lhasa dialect;"—Nat Krause(Talk!) 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I missing some kind of UniCode thing in my system then? Because all I see are four question marks - ????.Skookum1 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems to be the problem. I see those question marks as the Tibetan characters for Bod. You can set up a nice unicode font for Tibetan pretty easily on Windows. Tisé is good for input, too.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tisé?Skookum1 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's Tise, it's a utility that can be used to input Tibetan. -- ran (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The POV tags are there because the whole article smells of chinese nationalism. But read on and let us know! The Tibetan script is there however Ran refuses to cut his huge paragraph on the Chinese name. This article is already too big, full of streching the Chinese parts because more Chinese editors are working here than Tibetans. As a matter of fact 0 Tibetans are editing here! Why is that? Also check ran contribs. to the Taiwan article and how he thinks Taiwan is part of PRC. Taiwan is a strong supporter of HH the Dalai Lama and his exile gov. Me 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding my analogy of the Tibetan and Taiwanese passports: the post I made does not indicate any opinion I have on the validity of Taiwanese and Tibetan passports. It was an analogy stating that getting a passport stamped by a country does not mean diplomatic recognition by that country. The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan is not recognized by most Western countries -- this is a fact. I was making an analogy from that fact. Whether this fact is desirable or undesirable has nothing to do with my analogy. -- ran (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ... First of all, go back and read my comments about Taiwan again, my comments about Tibetan and Taiwanese passports DID NOT indicate any kind of bias or opinion on this matter. As I said it is fact that ROC passports are stamped by countries that do not recognize the ROC diplomatically, it was not an expression of opinion on whether countries SHOULD recognize the ROC. When I state a fact that people don't like, it does not mean I support the continuation of this fact. Secondly, no, we are not going to have two articles. The point of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to have one single article where all the different views live together. Different views will live together here, at Tibet, and different views will also live together at the article Tibet Autonomous Region. -- ran (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Off topic, guys! --Sumple (Talk) 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What's this? Tibet and Taiwan are parts of China which is controlled by the PRC. Happy?!? Heilme 10:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan script should be used in first paragraph

message: On the issue of whether the Dalai Lama's government ruled until 1951 or 1959: Tibet proper was split in 1951 with western Kham coming under the "Chamdo Military Commission." In 1951-59, the Kashag had authority only in U-Tsang (and not much authority there after 1955 -- Beijing often violated the 17-point agreement.) Isn't the real issue the word "invasion"? But surely it is TGIE's view that Tibet was invaded (or do I need to find references for this?)Kauffner 04:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you point out the book and buy it for Ran and the other chinese nationalists here you will still not be able to change the article. It is way beyond POV. It is like it was written from the PRC with the communist regime's books being cited as good neutral source! Ha! According to the chinese guys like Ran, Tibet was always chinese, the Tibetans just didn't know it! :) Me 06:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Tibet "proper" was "split" before 1951, during the Republic of China era. Incidentally, did anyone notice that Amdo was vandalised by "Amdo Inc", some little company? I've restored it. --Sumple (Talk) 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm I thought Qinghai (Amdo) was created as a province in 1928. And yes, Xikang was (partially) controlled by Chinese warlords from the mid 30s up until 1950. --Sumple (Talk) 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither did ROC control many other parts of China while the country was torned by civil war. Kindly note that the province of Xikang existed on non-Chinese maps published in 1933 and 1942 - 219.79.29.79 03:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is quite relevant to the history Xikang as an administrative unit: it was created by the ROC during a time when they did not control the area. A more important point with regard to Tibet is that the government in Lhasa has never controlled the entire Tibetan cultural area. Much of Kham and Amdo—even where it was ruled by Tibetans—was divided into numerous chieftaincies and petty kingdoms. Therefore, before 1951, Tibet had always been split, if we use "Tibet" in the sense that the government-in-exile does (viz the entire Tibetan cultural region).—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1951 or 1959

message: A noted vandal, My Tibet (signature: Me), claims that he somehow knows the 'truth' behind Tibet. This is plain and absolute vandalism (or utter ignorance from a 13-year-old-kid), and it is easy to see from his edits that he know nearly nothing about the history of Tibet, nor of its culture, and has absolutely no source to support any of his claims (though he claimed he had 'every book written on Tibet', he had failed to provide any of them so far). Please revert his edits without any further query when you see them (unless he does provide source, which is unlikely). Aranherunar 14:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please revert his edits without any further query when you see them" ?? "Utter ignorance from a 13-year-old-kid" ? This is a personal attack according to wikipedia and a very mean one. But it did make me laugh. And I forgive you. I wish I was 13! Could I have kids if I was 13? It looks like you and others here do not want to even listen to the Tibetan side at all! This proves my point all along that this article is not neutral and is written in a way that shows one side of the story. POV. I can provide plenty of sources, for example "Tibet, A Political History" by Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa. My spouse (Tibetan person!) told me it is regarded as the true history of Tibet by the Tibetan people. Will you take that book as a reference? I could go over each line on this article and compare it to Mr. Shakabpa's book. Me 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Citing sources, and cite your sources when you add facts to articles. If you are using Wikipedia:Reliable sources, there shouldn't be any problem. heqs 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Others have tried. We keep getting their games. They ( the admin Ran, and others like this aranherunar) keep saying these are not reliable sources. However their sources are mostly from the current government in china and other communist material. They don't have one single Tibetan person contributing to the article Tibet! What does that tell you? I will take a look at these Wikipedia:Citing sources but I also want to remove some of this chinese nationalistic stuff. I simply don't have the time to play games. Help is needed. I will need to invite some more people to at least witness this joke. Me 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:My Tibet is not a vandal & it is not helpful to call him such.  He is a zealous partisan for Tibetan independence who does not understand the ethos of NPOV. Yes, his fervently-held beliefs have caused him to carry out wholesale deletions of others' work, much as the Red Guard destroyed those things that they found offensive, but it is not quite correct to call either of them simple vandals.  My advice to you, User:My Tibet, is to consider the example of the present Dalai Lama.  He could be leading his own campaign of destruction and many would find him justified.  But he is not. Instead, he is open to discussion and new ideas, he advocates cooperation, and he expresses no hate for the Han Chinese.  Please consider if you can be more like him and less like the Red Guard here on Wikipedia. The world will be a better place. Tashi dalek.  --technopilgrim 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Tashi Delek to you, too. And thanks... I guess?! I am not a vandal, nor will I ever destroy anything religious or cultural like the Red Guards did. I will destroy political things especially if basic freedoms are in danger. And I have met many witnesses claiming these freedoms are gone in Tibet. Three of my close Tibetan friends escaped to Nepal in their 20s and made their way to WI. They told me Tibetans still have a strong sence of self and do not get mixed with the chinese in families. Although I do support interacial marriages in the west where we enjoy democracy I think in terms of Tibet it is important to avoid it as much as possible. Many Tibetans including my spouse have told me that they would never marry a chinese person. So what does that tell you, the regular chinese person? Also I was told that Tibetans in Tibet dislike (not to say hate) the chinese. How does that make the chinese feel? I am part of the WI Tibetan Association and I can tell you we are dedicated to preserve the Tibetan life and come back some day even if it is in our next life or the one after that! We have many chinese friends who support the independence of Tibet. Why is that? So you see, it is not a matter of nations or races, rather it is a matter of politics. While the top fat politicians laugh at us and watch us fight, we, the regular people, Tibetan, Chinese, Mongol, scramble around trying to find happiness...My own native country has claims for some neighboring nations but I personally think if they don't want to be part of us better let them be. And that is why I was shocked to see this in Wikipedia. Me 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my Tibet, don't be shocked, Wikipedia is exactly this kind of thing. I'm afraid you don't understand the editing policies of Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you can leave, but be sure not to break your promise of telling the students of Tibet about Wikipedia. We need more factual data from Tibet. Aranherunar 03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:My Tibet]] be warned

message: Back to editing. There is a statement that needs a chinese reference.  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family have gone missing. The article mentions the chinese gov. says they are under a hidden identity for protection and privacy. I am planning on removing that unless someone provides the reference to that statement. Tsering! Me 00:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. In case you're wondering, the referenced site, Xizang-Zhiye, is a Chinese-language news-site run by the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala. They have an English version too. -- ran (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the next Panchen Lama according to HH Dalai Lama of Tibet