Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
About 13 years ago the first Tibetan passport was lost from an eastern Indian hill station. Last year, it was recovered in a junk shop in Nepal. This passport shows that the countries of India, the UK the USA, Italy, Switzerland and France all issued visas to Tsepon Shakabpa. This is more proof that Tibet was an independent country. See the articles here, here, and here. Also to see the actual passport, go here. If Tibet was part of China before 1950, why would these countries issue visas to this man? ---User:Hottentot
Ran, you speak of "Chinese public opinion" in a comment regarding Tibet. I can access the government's position as expressed in the white papers, but I can only guess at public opinion as there are very limited venues where it might be freely expressed. What public opinion does exist is badly distorted by lack of access to information.The impression I have from my reading, is that most Chinese in Tibet would just like to leave what is a hardship post for them while almost all Tibetans (Chinese too, after all) would be happy to see them gone. Fred Bauder 19:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The Han do not have the emotional attachments that the Jews have for Palestine, and have not lived in Tibet and Xinjiang as long as the Poles have been in Silesia or whites in Australia or the Americas. How would they ever break away, barring war with India or Russia? I don't believe China will be organising referenda on secession anytime soon. "A terrible tragedy"? Have you canvassed Tibetan and Uighur public opinion?
Lapsed Pacifist 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not revert your comments about Ireland? I found them interesting. You think Ireland is tragic? You have plenty company. Did you really feel my comments were "crushing"? I will try to moderate my language. You contend you are defending NPOV, yet when PRC policy in Tibet and Xinjiang is questioned, you send out a flurry of comments and messages. I detect a lack of zeal on your part when PRC policy is portrayed as benevolent. You claim you are stating Han Chinese public opinion, and neither support it or oppose it. Yet the manner in which you present it indicates to me that you agree with it (comparing Chinese attachment to territorial gains to Europeans' attachment to democracy). Why not say so? This is a talk page, your opinions are valid here. If the Han have an emotional attachment to territories they are not native to, it does'nt compare with the Jews' towards Palestine. I'm already familiar with the population movements in Europe in the 20th century. You gave me a link to a Tibetan website that belied much of what you claimed about "advantages" given to Tibetans. Why? Did you even read the article? You make condescending remarks to other users about western attitudes to state censorship in China. I'll ask you again, when you're online, do you canvass Tibetan and Uighur public opinion on PRC ethnic policy?
Lapsed Pacifist 22:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You claim you are stating Han Chinese public opinion, and neither support it or oppose it. Yet the manner in which you present it indicates to me that you agree with it (comparing Chinese attachment to territorial gains to Europeans' attachment to democracy). — this is exactly the sort of patronizing chauvinism that I was talking about. To many Chinese, the European attachment to democracy is just as questionable as the Chinese attachment to territorial integrity is to Europeans. So when I make this comparison, why do you automatically conclude that I'm making a positive statement about the Chinese position, simply because the European position is positive to you?!
And why do you think I canvassed Tibetan and Uyghur opinion? Did I make any statements about Tibetan and Uyghur opinions? Don't both the reality in Tibetan and Xinjiang, and the passionate statements of exiled Tibetans and Uyghurs already express quite clearly what they think?
As for the article I gave you, of course I read it. I read it from beginning to end. Perhaps you should too, this time without preconceptions.
If you think that I have a certain level of "zeal" on PRC policy, I'm afraid that you're sorely mistaken, since I most certainly do not. I defend NPOV regardless of whether the opinion in question is agreeable to me or not. Go read the NPOV policy again, since I'm not sure you understand it. -- ran (talk) 22:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ugh, this is turning distinctly unpleasant.
Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. It is unlikely that I can change your political opinions on a Wikipedia Talk page, and since I haven't expressed my personal political opinions, your rebuttals aren't exactly changing mine. Let us focus on the articles at hand. -- ran (talk) 22:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Let's. As you have read the article, did you agree with the points made?
Lapsed Pacifist 22:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the opinion and interpretation made in the article are popular, especially among Tibetans and Westerners. I also agree that such an opinion contradicts both the PRC's opinion, and the general opinion of Han Chinese, especially those in XJ and Tibet. (Note that these opinions are all different; the Han Chinese in XJ hate the PRC opinion too!)
For example, from the perspective of the Han Chinese, things are turned against them, especially when they're trying to apply to universities, etc., and they feel that the authoritarian government is cheating them out of something they deserve. From the perspective of the Uyghurs, things are also turned against them, since they are incorporated into an authoritarian country that's ruled by Han Chinese and is completely callous to what they feel are legitimate needs of their community. And of course the PRC government is trying to not fall from power.
So a well balanced article should take into account all of these views without discrediting all of them. -- ran (talk) 01:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well... the problem with such an approach is that a lot of things will get thrown out. For example, the PRC government is never going to talk about how the Han Chinese or Uyghurs in Xinjiang really think, it's only going to say that they're harmonious and all that. -- ran (talk) 01:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
How about online articles? Here's one:
http://www.mlcool.com/html/01271.htm
A bit long to translate, but basically, the article talks about:
Would this work? -- ran (talk) 02:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, I agree with that. But what kind of sources are acceptable though? -- ran (talk) 22:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest editors (including myself) should try to familiarise themselves with all attitudes, histories and the different stances taken; those of the PRC government, of the separatist groups (and their foreign supporters), of the different categories of Han who live in these particular regions, and of mainstream public opinion in China, and write about them. Then we should explain how they have come about and determine which have a factual basis. Readers can then figure out for themselves the rights and wrongs of the situation.
Lapsed Pacifist 23:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
This sentence, "Historic Tibet commonly claimed by Chinese nationalists" seems somewhat iffy. Which Chinese nationalists make this claim? The Chinese Nationalist Party does not. I changed the phrase to "Areas historically within Tibetan cultural sphere" because Sikkim, Ladakh, Bhutan, and Tawang are areas that have historical ties to Tibet and share a common or similar language, culture, and religion. --Yuje 00:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mean the Kuomintang, I mean contemporary Chinese nationalist groups online, who tend to make far reaching claims that include Outer Manchuria, Mongolia, Tuva, etc. The Falun Gong newspaper Epoch Times, for example, trashed the government for signing the recent border agreement with Russia, since China basically surrendered all possible current and future claims on Outer Manchuria. -- ran (talk) 05:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting topic. So Chinese nationalists are like the old German nationalists and try to claim anywhere there is some colorable claim, like Germany's claim to Austria or Sudetenland? Do we have an article on them? Or do they amount to enough of a tendency that an article could be written? Fred Bauder 02:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Minor clarification, Bhutan has never been under the control of Lhasa, and traditionally the Dge-lugs establishment in Lhasa and the government of Bhutan were bitter enemies. --Nathan hill 13:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't be silly, there's no analogy. The international community recognized Tibet as a part of China 46 years ago. In contrast, the international community (PRC included) recognizes Bhutan as a sovereign state. If China invaded Bhutan, it would be an international incident, incurring severe diplomatic repercussions that will hurt China's economic rise, which is incidentally precisely what the Chinese government currently builds its legitimacy upon. And that's not mentioning the fact that China's trying to get friendly with India right now (2006 is "China-India Friendship Year"), and invading India's protectorates isn't really the best way to show friendliness. So no, your fearmongering here doesn't make too much sense. -- ran (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The dispute appears to arise out of the undemarcated border between China and Bhutan, with sections of it disputed. All we know is that Bhutan has protested and China has attempted to explain. All further speculation -- whether based on the inappropriate analogy to 56 years ago or on a vague, irrational hatred of "Red China" -- are nothing more than speculation.
You're probably giving the PRC government more credit than they're due anyways. China is already facing a chain of hotspots along its entire eastern border, and is trying to do everything possible to calm the northern and western borders, even at the risk of provoking domestic unhappiness. (The recent border agreements with Russia, for example, were widely seen as too yielding; in response, the government censored the subject.) Invading Bhutan can only mean that the PRC government is undergoing a bout of sudden and severe stupidity. And though that is also possible, it's irresponsible to make such claims unless you have more compelling reasons to do so. -- -- ran (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.