Talk:Nangpa La shooting incident

message: this article is biased towards the tibetan side, wikipedia is neutral. but the article was clearly written by a pro-tibet side person Btzkillerv (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Green Cardamom, at "allwords.com" the definition of "popular culture" is given as "the prevailing vernacular culture in any given society, including art, cooking, clothing, entertainment, mass media, music and style." These two items that you included in that section don't really fit that definition, since I do not think that either of these accounts of the Nangpa-La incident are currently "popular." They might be in the future, depending on how much exposure they get, and how many people care to view/read them. Merely belonging to a category of art, mass media, book publishing, etc., does not make something popular. This topic of the potential abuse of human rights in Tibet may get the attention of the masses only when it makes prime-time news.
I don't think that the majority of people make a conscious effort to educate themselves about specific issues through reading books or going to local film screenings for limited-release documentaries. Notice that the documentary was made by a partnership between the BBC (limited to Great Britain viewers for television) and an Australian company. This does not mean that mainstream America is viewing it. In this regard, another definition of "popular culture" is "frequently encountered or widely accepted; commonly liked or approved."
I would rather see these two items listed under "Further reading and viewing," as you already created a section for "Further Reading," which has now become partly redundant. Let's not prejudge whether these items are popular, because they may well not be!
Skol fir (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what your saying. It's standard procedure on Wikipedia to have a "Popular culture" section for books, films, etc.. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Popular_Culture and Wikipedia:Popular_culture. It's pretty standard if you look around at other articles. See Kargil War for example. If you want to rename the section to "Depictions in the arts" or something like that, it's be OK with me, I know the term popular culture causes some problems. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see it as a distinct section because they are major films and books solely about the incident and we need a place to discuss them on Wikipedia. It's written in prose form and can be expanded upon with more details. They can also be listed in the further reading section, but it's normal to also have a section that also discusses them - ie. who directed, produced, expanding on the content or special information, etc.. this really is normal procedure in Wikipedia articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a new heading for this section, "Portrayal in the arts", as the word "depict" is in first order a term specifically used in the Fine Arts/Visual Arts—it derives from the Latin depingere, depict- : de- + pingere, to picture—while "portray" has broader connotations. How about that? Skol fir (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category of Popular Culture 

message: I just got a simple question on whole report of BBC . I saw it, and i recognized that the shot in the report appears the same moment,when the tibetan falls down. I really don/t know from which distance the cameraman is filming, but i think it must be about 2000 metres, and as much as i know, the sound needs 6 seconds on that distance to appear. So how can the sound of the shot be heard same moment ,when the shot tibetan falls down. Must there not been a time difference of 6 seconds, and why is there no 6 seconds in original video?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.119.32.77 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC didn't film it.  Pro TV did.  Ask them, not here, it's not a forum.  Or alternatively, try READING the rest of this talk page where it's already been referred to.  Seems most likely it was edited to save on broadcast time, as all footage is when used by news agencies. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shot in BBC Video appears same Moment as shot person falls down 

message: In 2008 I watched a movie, I think it was "The Cup". An episode in the movie involved religious people being smuggled from Tibet to refuge in India. Using Google maps, I tried to find how and where they had crossed the Himalayas. In my search I stumbled into this article.
The article had obviously been propagandized by Chinese agents. Every aspect of the outrageous incident had been reduced to drivel. I essentially rewrote it. Some people jumped on me, but most of the changes stood the test of time and critical Wikipedia review. It was very gratifying.
In the last few days I noticed things about Chinese hacking of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I remembered the changes I had made, and the fact that around the time I made the Wikipedia changes, my desktop had been infected by an unknown virus. At the time, I saw no connection. I used every virus removal tool I could find to get rid of the virus. Nothing worked. Eventually I dug into the details of how the virus worked and removed it myself. It was very educational.
Today I saw the connection and decided to see how this article had transformed over the years. I had an idea that if the article was offensive to Chinese "internet sanitizers", they would have persisted in trying to modify the article to cover the "face" of China. I was right. There were essentially two contributors who worked energetically to change the article to be less critical of China. They were successful.
I have revised details to make them somewhat more neutral. I could not resist the temptation to make some of the changes provoking.
I love China. But much more than that, I love transparency and honesty. If they want to hack my system again, let them try.
Jimknock (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, I am not a "Chinese censor" and the odds the Chinese took the time to hack your personal computer system because of your Wikipedia edit activities is an unlikely story - people get infected with computer virus all the time is the simple explanation. You said "I could not resist the temptation to make some of the changes provoking." What you're actually doing is making WP:POV edits for the purpose of provoking a fight, please stop it. Wake up from the fantasy world and try to make edits that are WP:NPOV and can be sourced to reliable sources. BTW I went back and looked at the version of the article you said you wrote . Not only is it completely unsourced, it contains numerous outright factual errors, most notably saying multiple people were shot and killed - in fact there was only one.  This article still suffers from a lot of problems but it has come a long way since, please don't regress by introducing unsourced POV. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: This article needs copy-editing. The grammar and wording are awkward. I tried to do a bit, but it is not my forte. --Voidvector (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: I came here to do some copy-editing and removed the copy edit tag from the article. However, there are a number of facts in the article that are not properly referenced. During my copyediting, I preserved the information that was in the article. But I lack expertise on what actually occurred. Adding more citations would increase clarity here.Magic1million (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve References