Talk:Tibet/Archive 4

message: : Sorry to say but this page is being edited and re-edited by propagandists on both sides of the Tibetan issue.  With prayers that the negativity that leads to true ignorance be dispelled, I've removed on particularly offensive propagandistic phrase.  Best to just keep to non-politicized information here. To quote from guidelines from Wiki ("Guide to Creating Your First Article"):
"Things to Avoid: Personal essays or original research:
Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work. Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if you can support them by reference to accepted work."
Also, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
"One of the five pillars that form the foundation for all Wikipedia policies and guidelines is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. In a nutshell, this means all Wikipedia articles must be written from a detached standpoint, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes all the types of pages in the encyclopedia (articles, maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals, etc.)."
Magwep 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page being edited by propagandists on both sides of the Tibetan Issue

message: Is there any way to mention in the main article the traditional Tibetan system of punishment that was abolished by the PRC? As they were a theocracy, their doctrines did not believe in the death penalty, the compromise for that was bodily mutilation, such as hacking off hands, taking out eyes. These cruel punishments that are in violation of basic human rights were abolished when the PRC established themselves there.
Or is it possible to mention anywhere what Tibetans did with captured Communist party members during the war? They tortured and mutilated them. 
It just needs to be shown that Tibet is a real place, with real people, their history is as full of atrocities as any one elses. Its not some magical Shangri La of Perfect Harmony, it was a theocracy as crushing as any from Dark Ages Europe.
:Yes, the article can mention any facts provided that they are well-documented.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet, not Shangri La 

message: After sticking some information into Early Days, I'm wondering why a history section even exists on the main page when History of Tibet is a whole article by itself elsewhere. There are also blurbs about religion and language in this section.  They probably belong in some other section like culture.  Ep9206 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's considered quite normal on Wikipedia for an article about a place to have a brief summary of the history, while linking to a longer article on History of X.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is History in this Article? 

message: The sovereignty section of this article has been moved here. Please feel free to expand the summary on this page. Me...™ 04:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereignty 

message: In the archive 2 talk, there is the topic related to the passport issued to the members in the Tibet Trade Mission that had visited many countries in 1948. A fellow poster argued that since countries like Britain and Italy stamped visas on those passports, such action means implicit recognition of Tibet as an independent country before 1950.  But please look at the facts:
(1) Chinese government has never exercised any kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction. In 1948, it could not control what those British and Italian immigration officials did.  Even if those Tibetan officials held Disneyland Passports and were admitted, Chinese government could do nothing about it.
(2)  Before the Tibetan Trade Mission visited US and Europe, where did they set foot first?  Hong Kong and Shanghai.  What kind of travel documents did they hold to enter Shanghai in January 1948?  Chinese passports.  Because the Nanking government insisted that they must hold Chinese passports to enter Shanghai, these Tibetan officials applied for Chinese passports at the Chinese Consulate in Calcutta and used them to enter Shanghai.
::: There is great ambiguity between the English words 'state', 'country', 'nation' and 'nationality'. 'England', 'Scotland', 'Wales' and 'Northern Ireland' are all separate and different countries with their own national identities, but they all come under the one state 'United Kingdom'. It may be that these terms do not translate well or indeed do not exist in other languages.
(3)  So why did these Tibetan officials hold two passports?  One Chinese and one Tibetan.  The answer is that they (including Dalai Lama) were purely opportunistic.  And why did countries like Britain and Italy issue visas to these Tibetan officials but never recognized an independent Tibet?  The answer is that they were hypocritical. 63.166.120.27 02:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Tibet passport 

message: ☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺
This isn't for political debate, however much we all love the situations abroad. Keep your hats on, and go and say something nice about each other at WP:TEA. Then come back, put some reggae on, and lie in the wet grass outside eating biscuits and drinking red wine. Go on. HawkerTyphoon 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaps

message: I've recently been compiling this list. In particular, I've been trying to research the Tibetan names of the counties in Ngawa and Garze Autonomous Prefectures, both in Tibetan letters and in Wylie. I'm not a Tibetan-speaker, however, so I might have made mistakes, and there are two counties in particular whose Tibetan names I can't find.  (Mao County, which is majority-Qiang; and Jiuzhaigou County, which was recently renamed from Nanping County.) Any help would therefore be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! -- ran (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of administrative divisions of Sichuan]] 

message: How about we remove a lot of the history to other pages, and keep only a few paragraphs? Most of it doesn't really need to be there as it's mentioned in other articles anyway. Pauric 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting the article down 

message: In answer to the questions. By 'government' I meant the the Dga'-ldan Po-brang which ruled (central) Tibet from the civil war in the 17th century until 1951/1959 (an argument for either date could be made). I of course agree that 'lama' (bla-ma) is the accepted Tibetan equivalent of 'guru'. The person I was replying to seemed to think 'the Lamas' was a meaningful way to refer to premodern Tibetan administration. This I have to disagree with. Much of the administration was noble laity, and many Lamas were not involved in the government. The administrative structure, tax policy etc. of the Tibetan government prior to 1959 has been treated very well by Melvyn Goldstein in ppaers which  can be downloaded from his webcite. 
As for religious freedom, as I have aleady said, Tibet had Bönpo's and Muslims, and for a while christians. These people were tolerated, and not required to become Buddhists. They were all ethnic Tibetans (of course not the christian missonaries but their converts) so the idea that the government assumed or forced all Tibetans to be Buddhist is wrong.  Also, Tibet has many sects of Buddhism, the government sect is the Dge lugs school, but the other sects were tolerated and at times functioned largley independent of the government, and only when politics was a factor (like the Jonang) were they surpressed. Premodern Tibet had religious freedom, far more than Tibet under PRC administration does. 
No world government to my knowledge presents the religions of the world to its populace and asks them to choose between them. This cannot be what is normally meant by religious freedom. In fact most counties which would be called the hallmark of religious freedom have a state sponsored religion e.g. England, Denmark, Sweden, Germany (with two state religions). Even the US with its touted seperation of Church and State, has the President swear on a bible, has god on the dollar bill, etc. etc. 
The claim that Tibetan Buddhism is/was not 'real' Buddhism, can only be addressed once an agreement has been reached about what 'real' Buddhism is. Most Buddhologists think such an exercize is unproductive.
: What do you mean by pre-modern Tibet? 17 Oct 06
:: Before 1951, 18 Oct 2006
:::: As you say that there is such a clearly defined timeline of pre-modern and modern Tibet, it is clear that it is the PRC who brought the region into modernity. Are there any regions which slipped back from modern to pre-modern and its people prospered- take for example Pol Pot who took Cambodia back to Year Zero? Time does not flow backwards, the lama theocracy is rightly confined to the place where it belongs- history. 19 Oct 06  
'No world government to my knowledge presents the religions of the world to its populace and asks them to choose between them. This cannot be what is normally meant by religious freedom.' 
:Exactly, so all governments only pay lip service to 'freedom of religion'. The rule of most countries now are split between the 'administration' and the 'judiciary'. What you have stated is the meaning attached to 'religious freedom' by the administrative process; that is to say, 'well, of course we have religious freedom, we the Adminstration allow this and that church and organisation to be set up, there's plenty of religions you can partake in, so don't stir up any trouble for us and say we don't give you religious freedom, and by the way why don't you join the one the state sponsers?'. The 'judiciary' has to decide what is the law and how should the law interpret 'religious freedom'. Take a recent case in the UK where a Royal Navy serviceman who professed that his religion was The Church of Satan, or Satanism for short. The Court ruled that the Royal Navy has to provide what is necessary for this man to practise his religion of Satanism. This decision was not the intended one by the administration, but it is the correct legal interpretation. This is similar to the US Constitution that they believe all men are created equal. Earlier interpretion by administrations decided that all men did not include Black people, and there were even a Court ruling to say that the Negro was not man. Of course eventually the correct legal interpretation of 'all men' included Black people, but this took many, many years. And it has taken even more years for US society to accept this. In the judicial sense, the lamas never provided religious freedom. Of course from an administrative point of view, this was no worse than any other administration in the world. Tolerance of other religions, as you say, is not the same as religious freedom.  
:: Your claim then boils down to, no Tibetan court defended the rights of a religious minority against the state. I fear given the poor access which scholars have to premodern Tibetan legal documents (do to PRC policy, and the cultural revolution) this claim is admitteldy hard to disprove. That doesn't mean it is true, however. Tibetan courts did at times defend the rights of serfs against their landlords, as the research of Prof. Goldstein mentioned above has shown.
Much of the administration was noble laity, and many Lamas were not involved in the government.
:You will find that the members of the 'noble laity' also had the title of lama.
:: I ask for proof, I have in 10 years of studying Tibetan language and history never seen anyone except a religious figure referred to as a Lama. 
: Ahem, sorry to ruin your fun guys, but this very long discussion seems to have little direct relevance to the article. --Sumple (Talk) 04:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, at least, loosely related to aim of getting the facts straight in the article text, which is more than can be said for most of the discussion on this discussion page.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replies on religious freedom