Talk:Tibet/Archive 1

message: Xizang=Tibet in Chinese. I don't see why it should be redirected to the AR. Does another name exist for the greater region? I haven't heard of one. --Jiang 04:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is Wargi Dzang in Manchu, Xizang literally means Western Tsang (western part of Tsang or Tsang [which is located] to the west [of China]). On the other hand, Tubet refers to Tibet in Manchu and was transcribed as 土伯特 in Chinese. Xizang is an inherently inappropriate term for Tibet. Xizang can refer to the TAR or Tibet but I think Xizang usually refers to the TAR in Chinese context. It is similar to "China." --Nanshu 02:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Yah, it's an historical term (that's why I used "was"). And I mean China can refers to "China proper" or the greater region but there is no single words to distinguish them. --Nanshu 03:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a word 吐蕃(tu3 bo1) which I suspect is the same as 土伯特. --Liuyao 04:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The inherently inappropriate term can refer to both, but more often to the TAR. Will I turn "Xizang" into a disambig. page? --Nanshu 03:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xizang & Tibet? 

message: History section, 4th paragraph
"The independence claim was a term used by revolutionaries the Qing dynasty."
I think it needs a 'during' or perhaps an 'in' before 'the Qing dynasty'
:I've no idea what any of that sentence means.  What revolutionaries? Markalexander100 03:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word 

message: I'm going to be working some on this article but mainly on History of Tibet and Foreign relations of Tibet as well as on a Tibetan resistance movement article over the next few weeks. At times what I have done on one article will not necessarily match what I have done on the others. This is complicated by the fact that edits will also be occuring on Wikinfo. Foreign relations of Tibet will mainly concern Tibetan attempts to achieve international recognition. Tibetan resistance movement will deal with Tibetan rebellions and CIA assistance to them. I'll mainly be working from the following books. Fred Bauder 20:05, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
===Further reading===
*  John Kenneth Knaus, Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival, Perseus, 1999, hardcover, 398 pages, ; trade paperback, Perseus, 2000, 
*  James Morrison and Kenneth Conboy, The Cia's Secret War in Tibet, University Press of Kansas, March, 2002, hardcover, 301 pages, 
:Sounds like a plan. Tibet independence movement redirects to a sub-stub on a organization founded in 1995. I don't think this is appropriate but I don't know enough to change it. --Jiang 01:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some new work

message: *  John Kenneth Knaus, Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival, Perseus, 1999, hardcover, 398 pages, ; trade paperback, Perseus, 2000, 
*  James Morrison and Kenneth Conboy, The Cia's Secret War in Tibet, University Press of Kansas, March, 2002, hardcover, 301 pages, 
:Sounds like a plan. Tibet independence movement redirects to a sub-stub on a organization founded in 1995. I don't think this is appropriate but I don't know enough to change it. --Jiang 01:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: I see the Tibetan tragedy as affecting both the Tibetans, who despite having a social and economic system that was remarkably backward and oppressive nevertheless have the right of self-determination on their side. On the other hand, for the Chinese, "No good deed goes unpunished" as they have poured money and cadre into the region and been met with only a grudging acceptance by Tibetans of liberation and international opprobrium. I don't see a barrier, provided NPOV rules are followed, for presenting both points of view. Fred Bauder 11:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Two legitimate points of view: old regime Tibet was "remarkably backward and oppressive" or China has been punished for its good deeds. Let both flowers contend. Gee, I wonder which side your on. Kauffner 16:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two sides

message: Why was the link to Students for a Free Tibet removed?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 01:35, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
:Because the site is not about Tibet, it's about the free tibet movement among students in the UK.   If we have an article on such a thing, that's where a link might be appropriate.  If we add links to every site dealing with any aspect of Tibet, however tangential, to the main Tibet article, then the page will be 200k and the world will end. Mark1 01:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Students for a Free Tibet 

message: How about just adding one paragraph at a time? I reverted back to a non-duplicated version. Good luck with your edits. Ancheta Wis 06:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated sections 

message: Removed, because it achieves the remarkable feat of falling foul of both my and Jiang's POVs.  Many would dispute the former, many would dispute the country. Mark1 02:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any compromise falls foul of the extreme POVs. Anyway, look up the other countries in that category – some are as disputable. Lev 20:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact that it survived CfD means just that. That's what categories are for. Lev 11:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The community has decided the category has a right to exist. What you are proposing is an absurd status "may exist but may not be added to". -Lev 19:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the argument on "country" was voted down. Then how does "former" be implicated on this case? Is Tibet currently a sovereignty country?Fastfood 23:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Former countries in Chinese history 

message: There is nothing quite so frustrating as having many hours of work which is factual and unbiased being deleted by someone who gives no explanation. The section on the name I have cited twice, if someone disagrees with it please tell me why and do not simply delete it. --Nathan hill 14:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Name Tibet 

message: 1. Seizing upon my agreement to relegate Wylie to parentheses my esteemed colleague Mr. Hottentot has taken it upon himself to indiscriminantly revert my edits, whether or not the changes I made had to do with Wylie transcription or not. I can't help but feel picked on. 
2. The trouble with History of Tibet, and indeed across Wikipedia now is that there is no consistency as to how a Tibetan word is spelled. Things that I have written are still in Wylie, and probably because no one else knows Tibetan they are not changed, and even when they are they are done incorrectly, e.g. Namri Songsten (Gnam-ri-slon-mtshan). The last two syllables of his name are pronounced (more or less) Löntsen and certainly not Songsten. 
3. There is something uniquely irritating about, having found the idea of a free open source encylcopedia appealing, choosing to change it in those areas where I had some knowledge, having each of these changes undone and contested by people who have clearly no knowledge of the Tibetan language or Tibetan history. Indeed, one feels as if he has been slapped in the face for offering a helping hand. Apparently the community of Wikipedia users would rather have pious pontificating and political propoganda than anything resembling academic consensus, let alone the truth. Perhaps it doesn't go without saying, but I have things to do in life besides explain to people why the Tangut empire should be called so and not Western Xia, the fact that the Tanguts speak their own language and not Tibetan, the fact that Genghis Khan was never in Tibet. Is it too much to ask that if I have written something and cited an authority that if someone disagrees they consult the authority and come up with a counter-argument. Well, here is my resignation. --Nathan hill 12:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned earlier, this is not the place to further your own campaigns as to what things "should" be called.  We're only interested in what they are called.  I'm sorry it's such a trial to work with the uneducated rabblement. Mark1 01:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And now the trouble begins