Talk:Central Tibetan Administration

message: I would please like to edit page, but I fear vandalism, I suggest editors take up issue.  Please edit this (sorry, don't know how to do properly) and add further information as follows:
"The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country, but it receives financial aid from governments and international organisations for its welfare work among the Tibetan exile community in India. This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government."  >>replace with>>
The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country although it does receive
special status from the Indian government.  Tibetan independence advocates deny that this non-recognition means that the CTA does not really represent a state, although they do agree that normally an independent state is so constituted when or if it actually governs an independent area and people. "Recognition can provide evidence that foreign governments are willing to treat an entity as an independent state, but cannot create or extinguish a state." (International Campaign for Free Tibet).  
http://www.savetibet.org/tibet/history/legal.php  Furthermore, the CTA maintains
that in spite of the official non-recognition, the CTA "is now being recognized increasingly by parliaments and general public around the world as the legitimate and true representative of the Tibetan people."  http://www.tibet.net/en/cta/
According to the CTA, it does constitute a "veritable" government with "all the departments and attributes of a free democratic administration."  However, officially the CTA denies that this government plans to assume power should it return to Tibet.  Instead, it explains that in case Tibet becomes "free," the Dalai Lama has directed the government to dissolve, he would name an Interim-President (or one would be elected somehow), ethnic Tibetans in China would take charge, a Constituent Assembly would write a new constitution establishing a parliamentary democracy, and then an election by Tibetans in Tibet would be held to establish a new government.
http://www.tibet.net/en/cta/  The Dalai Lama has stated that he recognizes the CTA constitution and the demands of the Tibetan people require that he be the "supreme head" and "ultimate authority" of the government. http://www.tibet.net/en/ohhdl/future.html   On the other hand, he has recently stated that he is in "semi-retirement" and has already handed over political leadership.
http://metaphorsforlife.com/2007/05/13/hh-dalai-lama-to-lay-down-political-leadership/
The CTA has received money from various sources including non-government organizations to support its activities in exile.  In 1998, it released a statement acknowledging that it received $1.7 million a year, dating from the 1960s, from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.  According to news reports, "The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said in a statement."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E958260&scp=1&sq=cia+tibet+exile&st=nyt&pagewanted=all
Furthermore, intelligence agencies of India and Nepal were said to have supported these operations. The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, University Press of Kansas, 2002, 
http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206846769&sr=8-1
Why is the Tibetan Government in Exile (the only legitimate government of Tibet) called an 'theocratic government'? The Government in Exile has a democratic system since the Tibetan Constitution was signed by the Dalai Lama in 1960. Although H.H. the Dalai Lama is still the Head of State, the political powers of the Government in Exile is in the hands of the Kashag and the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, who are chosen by the Tibetan people in exile.
----
Any religous leader that is also a chief of state that can't be voted in or out constitutes a Theocracy,,,, that is why it is called a  'theocratic government'. 
The Vatican City can be assimulated as well but since the Papal states were assumed into Italy in the mid 19th century, there is no real land to govern. since the 900 people that live there are pretty much "of the cloth"...
Iran has been an Islamic theocracy since the Pahlavi monarchy regime was overthrown on Feb. 11, 1979. 
Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy until 1992, at which time the Saud royal family introduced the country's first constitution. The legal system is based on the sharia (Islamic law). Not much different...
So lets wrap up... If it's looks like an apple, is red and tastes like an apple, it might be----- an apple. call it a macintoch or a crab apple or a jonathan, but it's still an applechaz171 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that definition the United Kingdom is a 'theocratic government'. After all, the Queen is head of state and governor of the church of England, and can only be removed if there's a sudden revolution. Tom 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Queen has no real power over what goes on at all. She doesn't lead her people, she doesn't propose laws, she doesn't suggest what her people should be doing - she just reads a bit of paper once a year and sits about for the rest of it. Also, she's not the religious leader of the entire state - there are plenty of other religions represented proportionally in all of the countries that the Queen "lords it over". Unless there's been a major conspiracy all along, where the Queen helps get a Prime Minister elected only if s/he does her bidding, I don't see what relevance your comment has. (82.34.144.139 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the more relevant point is that the Queen is the temporal head of the established church, and not the spiritual head.  Were she both, then I think Tomothy would have a point. Fishhead64 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untiltled 

message: I have renamed this article and rewritten parts of it baed on information I have acquired during the visit to Australia of Samhdong Rinpoche. I removed the description of the Adminstration as "theocratic" because it has an elected legislature and an elected head of government. It is no more theocratic than the UK. How the lamas ruled Tibet in the past is no longer relevant, because the Dalai Lama has been committed to a democratic government for an independent or autonomous Tibet for at least 30 years. I am seeking further advice on which areas of "historical Tibet" the CTA now claims jurisdiction over, and indeed (since the Dalai Lama is no longer seeking Tibetan independence) whether it claims jurisdiction at all. I noted during the visit that Samhdong Rinpoche did not claim to be "Prime Minister of Tibet", only "Cabinet Head of the CTA." Adam 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: It makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate.  POV to the extreme. The name of this article should be also be renamed to "Tibetan Government in Exile" as that is the common name. --67.175.167.158 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made 2 revisions.  First, I changed the word "Tibet is under the control of the People's Republic of China" to "Tibet is under the administration of" as the latter is more neutral yet accurate.  Second, I have added the counter statement that the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) is not recognized as a government by any other governments directly to the lead paragraph.  Putting that counter statement in the second to last paragraph is deliberate concealment of factual and critical information regarding the Central Tibetan Administration, and is anything but NPOV. Mamin27 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  if they are a democracy, then they cannot be considered a legal goverment or administration until actually GETTING ELECTED 1st. so were there any election held or are they just claiming they will have election when they gain power? it feel somewhat questionable atm to claim they are "rightful and legitimate government" if they are based upon democracy, they can at most claim to SUPPORT the creation of such a said government but cannot be considered as said government until they are legally elected. i am arguing technicality, but there is a destinction between plans and reality. because he's is only the "rightful and legitimate government" under theocratic system, not democracy. he must survive an election to be a democratic leader. Akinkhoo (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you read it, it says they have had elections. and i think "under control of" was better. it may seem biased, but its thetruth. just because the truth is against a group it still should be kept the truth.the chinese have no claim to tibet besides military control over it, similar to the muslims control over isreal. it dosnt matter that you kept the natives out of there lands for centuries or millenia, its still there lands. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is hopelessly biased against the Chinese government 

message: I agree with Mamin that the statement that the CTA is not recognised by any other government should appear near the beginning. However, I don't think the statement, "This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government" is necessary; it's redundant with what is said two sentences earlier.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it is necessary to reinforce the CTA's lack of recognition as a government because the most common term for it (in my experience) is "Government in Exile", use of which implies recognition of government status, especially when combined with the far-from-NPOV tone of most news sources that mention it. I spent a long time under the impression that the CTA was recognised by our (the British) government for this reason. Leushenko (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: Tibetan Government in-exile claims that Tibet was an independent states because it was autonomous in 1912-1951.
But ridiculous that Dala Lama claims Greater Tibet, it includes Qinghai (you call Amdo). Don't forget Qinghai was under control of Nationalist China in 1911-1949. (see Ma Bufang)
198.155.145.88 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...what answer did you want exactly? That's not a question (and I'm not an FTG member, I'm just nosy). Leushenko (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  he is asking how can austria claim germany. basically amdo was under chinese control and was not part of lhasa administed area, yet CTA claim amdo as their own. maybe palastine should claim all of israel? :) 222.165.76.171 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  that is actually inaccurate as the land in question was not originally tibetan at all but of other minority group including some mongols, muslim tribe. the idea that Jews and Tibetan owns all the land when they are just one of the naive group is quite unreasonable isn't it? will you support naive american claiming all of US for example? Akinkhoo (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Tibet Group Member Please Answer Me!

message: For a long time, there has been a "Fact" template requesting sources to support the claim of monthly Tibetan refugee arrivals from China through Nepal. I'll go ahead and remove that statement. I believe this is also supported by the Wikipedia policy of "Material which is doubtful and harmful may be removed immediately, rather than tagged." (See Template:Fact). If anyone comes up with supporting citations, which meets the 3 standards (NPOV, Verifiability, No OR), please feel free to add this claim back. Steven li (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a citation from UNCHR and corrected the statement. A better citation could probably be found by going through various official documents re:refugees. It really wouldn't have taken long to find a citation yourself. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The referenced material is not available, please double-check the link. Steven li (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing reference to monthly arrival of refugees 

message: I have posted this once before on another talk page, but I will post it again here.
I saw a few editors say this on the talk pages of a few articles related to Tibet and it is used on the this article Central Tibetan Administration and a few other articles. I am wondering if this is an original research? I do not disagree that the Dalai Lama seeks the Autonomous status of Tibet, but I am afraid it's not similar to that of Hong Kong. My feeling is that the conditions that the Dalai Lama listed for the government of the PRC, for accepting China's sovereignty over Tibet, is very much different from the functions of the government of China in Hong Kong. I would like to ask to see a reference for this. Otherwise, if other editors disagree with me, we can talk about the conditions listed on Dalai Lama's website and compare them with Hong Kong Basic Law, and discuss the similarities and differences between the role of the government of China in Hong Kong and the role of govt. of China in Tibet that proposed by the Dalai Lama .  Chadsnook (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that what the Dalai Lama explicitly seeks is not very similar to the autonomous status of Hong Kong. One might argue that this is a negotiating tactic aimed at producing a result similar to what Hong Kong has, but that kind of speculation can be avoided in encyclopedia articles.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  autonomous status similar to that held by Hong Kong? 

message: I have tagged :File:Rinpoche.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Rinpoche.JPG]] may be deleted 

message: hi all,
I think the address for this organisation is CTA,Dharamasala and not "CTA,Mcleodganj,Dharamsala."
my source is http://tibet.net/en/index.php?id=36
You will notice that the address format is (some department),CTA,Dharamsala.
Also the travel guide .Lonely Planet India, page 368
 
The local travel/taxi operators calls this place "library" in reference to the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives which is a popular place for visitors. http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=55&Itemid=76&lang=en 
The tibetan resident calls this place "Gangchen Kyishong". The post office delivers your mail if you use this inplace of CTA in the address.
Google map does not have any high resolution images, but this organisation's main offices are not within the town of mcloeadganj.look at the map in lonely planet india page 370. It clearly shows "Gangchen Kyishong" to be halfway between the town of mcleod ganj and dharamsala. 
 
Tdakpa (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong address? 

message: Is there a reason why the flag is not featured in this article? 87.112.33.116 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason why it should be? It has its own article. I am not sure about the relationship between this organization and that flag. The seal is prominent on the website, but the flag isn't. Quigley (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Quigley removed this text:  leaving only the first clause, "The CTA is not recognized as a sovereign government by any country ..." The explanation was "rm misleading. Congress does not determine foreign policy (e.g. Jerusalem Embassy Act, which unlike this was actually binding) and "subsequent U.S. policy" implies some other U.S. policy in past". I don't think is a very good reason to remove the text. Unlike the Jerusalem Embassy Act, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 was actually signed by President Bush. Congress plays an important role in determining foreign policy, but this language was also agreed to by the president. I don't think "subsequent U.S. policy" really implies that things were different before, but I don't see why we couldn't make it clearer by saying, "a position not necessarily reflected in American policies before or after."—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The placement was what concerned me most. "The CTA is not recognized as a sovereign government by any country, although..."—the 'although' implies that there is some contradiction between Congress's nonbinding resolution and the executive branch's independent foreign policy. In reality, there is often a contradiction, expressed as with, for example, Israel, between a Congress that caters to domestic needs and lobbyists and an executive branch that is less swayed by popular movements and perhaps more by power politics. Mr. Bush's signing the resolution does not make it his administration's policy. Important resolutions by the U.S. Congress [i.e., not press release-like reproaches of current events] that reference the CTA can be mentioned, but it is important not to conflate them as part of official diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the CTA. Quigley (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded @'s text to 'Activities with other organizations' and 'although' is removed (as is closing caveat) since that was @'s dispute. The text has equal importance with other current contributions in page. Thanks.  12:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Congressional statement in 1991 

message: This page needs updating with information on Lobsang Sangay, but I am unclear on how the government is structured.  Is he the new Prime Minister, Head of State, or both?  DFS (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He is neither at present, but he will definitely become the new Prime Minister under the current exile charter. Changes to the constitution have been proposed but the details are unknown, so he may become something like a head of state as well.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobsang Sangay 

message: I believe Tempa Tsering is the minister of foreign relations. The information in the article seems to be outdated. --C Coligniero (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent source I could find is this article from October 9, 2012; it says that Dicki Choyyang is the foreign minister. Tempa Tsering had this role under the previous Kalön Tripa, and then he became the Dalai Lama's representative in New Delhi. Since the Dalai Lama no longer leads the CTA, it is unclear to me now whether this position has been converted to a CTA representative or whether the he is no longer associated with the CTA.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tempa Tsering 

message: Hi all, I recently reverted/amended an edit ( this one]), by an editor that I would have expected to know better. This edit is just as bad as edits that push views against the Chinese Government. There is clearly no "one truth" in this matter, and therefore to use a word such as "falsely" is to push a "one truth" agenda. --Rebroad (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Central Tibetan Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613165802/http://savetibet.org/documents/pdfs/2003RefugeeReport.pdf to http://www.savetibet.org/documents/pdfs/2003RefugeeReport.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www2.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/rir/?action=record.viewrec&gotorec=450153
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127164356/http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=15 to http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Central Tibetan Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100803041342/http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=14 to http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should be deleted (or maybe condensed into a sentence, maybe not) since the same RS and page numbers is used for the extreme POV and then used for the excuse of the POV as malformed. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted section, since Pullman RS for and against POV is solitary entry. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually also argued by Melvyn Goldstein in an older paper, which I’ve now added. There are also several more recent academic papers and books making the same observation, so it should be represented in the article. — MarkH21talk 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lynn Pullman's POV in Politics section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion