Talk:History of Tibet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Parenti

I am removing the reference to Parenti's article as he is not a reliable historian. For more discussion on these topics (including Parenti's unreliability) see: Talk:Dalai Lama/Archive 1. John Hill (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Why is Parenti not a usable source? From the discussion on the Archive, it seems that the idea is that he is unreliable because he based his writing on Maoist sources. Am I understanding this correctly? --Gimme danger (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Parenti is not only biased but is a completely unreliable historian. For just one example of his woeful lack of knowledge of Tibetan history, Parenti claims in his article that: "In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops." This is, predictably, totally confused - he has not only given an incorrect date (some 300 years out!) but mistakes Kublai Khan for Altun Khan. In fact, the title "Dalai Lama" was first used by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan for Sonam Gyatso in 1578. I could go on and on - but there seems little point. Two such gross errors of fact in one sentence should make it very clear just how unreliable he is. John Hill (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm finding it difficult to discern to between "unreliable" and "just plain wrong" sources here. The fact that I only believe half of them makes me concerned about injecting my bias into the article and question my ability to distinguish. But we certainly have no obligation to insert actual factual errors (Thank goodness!). --Gimme danger (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think he is necessarily confusing anyone. He may just be referring to Phagspa. Yaan (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. the following section does sound somewhat more confused, though:

Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet.

His two previous lama “incarnations” were then retroactively recognized as his predecessors, thereby transforming the 1st Dalai Lama into the 3rd Dalai Lama. This 1st (or 3rd) Dalai Lama seized monasteries that did not belong to his sect, and is believed to have destroyed Buddhist writings that conflicted with his claim to divinity. The Dalai Lama who succeeded him pursued a sybaritic life, enjoying many mistresses, partying with friends, and acting in other ways deemed unfitting for an incarnate deity. For these transgressions he was murdered by his priests.

This seems as if he is confusing Altan Khan's trip to Köke Nor with some military operation to Tibet ordered by some Chinese emperor (plus maybe the 4th Dalai Lama with the 6th). And of course if we accept that he took the title in 1578, then the 3rd Dalai Lama would have been 35 already. Yaan (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Slaves or serfs?

I have just removed the reference to the Chinese supposedly abolishing "slavery" in Tibet. The reason is that, while there was previously a feudal system which included "serfs" (as in China), there was no organised system of "slavery" as it is generally understood today.

"Scholars actively debate whether it is accuate to use words like feudal and serf in the Tibetan context. The peasants paid various taxes, both in kind and in corvée labor, to the government, to monasteries, and to local nobles, but did that make all the peasants serfs? And if so, how many were serfs?

In the opinion of one scholar, Tom Grunfeld, author of The Making of Modern Tibet, reliable documentation about the numbers of Tibetans who were serfs before 1950 does not exist. . . . When forced to make an informed guess on this subject, Grunfeld gives some credence to the Chinese claims, made in 1959, that 60 percent of the population were serfs, not 95 percent, as the Chinese widely claim today. But when we look at that number, we find that half of the 60 percent were landowning peasants who paid taxes in labor and kind to the government, a monastery, or nobles. That leaves only 30 percent who might be classified as landless serfs, indentured to aristocratic families, a monastery or the government. But the 30 percent who were monks were not bonded to anyone. Nomads, who made up 20 percent of the population, were often free of all government control. Unfortunately, discussion of this subject is handicapped by the lack of solid data. Furthermore, in some provinces, such as Kham and Amdo, many peasants had no lord at all. These easterners resented any attempt by the aristocrats of Central Tibet to impose their domination in the east. The complex reality of the socio-economic structure prior to the invasion—which differed in various regions throughout Tibet—is not a subject about which anyone can accurately make gross generalizations.

Curiously, China told Lhasa that the purpose of its takeover was to "liberate" the Tibetans from imperialist forces. There was no mention of liberating serfs. On the contrary, China promised it would preserve the existing social order: the Seventeen-point Agreement makes that clear. It was only after the Dalai Lama fled his country, in 1959, that China began to collectivize the land and execute landlords, as it "liberated the serfs" in Central Tibet. It is an inconvenient fact of history that Beijing worked with Tibetan nobles, during the first nine years after the takeover, to preserve aristocratic rights over serfs and that China prevented the Dalai Lama from initiating reforms during this time. China's first motivation was to occupy Tibet, not to change it.

During the 1940s, travelers who passed through both China and Tibet reported that Tibetan peasants were far richer than their Chinese counterparts were. Tibetans had a level of immunity from famine, while poverty and starvation were common in China." Laird, Thomas (2006). The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, pp. 317-319. Grove Press, New York. ISBN 978-0-8021-1827-1.

I hope this sheds some light on a very cloudy and contentious subject - one that Tibetans and Chinese frequently strongly disagree about. In fairness, I should add to the final point about the poverty and starvation amongst Chinese peasants during the 1940s that the situation may well have been largely due to the fact that China was at the time devastated by the war with Japan and the civil war. John Hill (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And you're showing one reference to counter the reference I placed. That's fine. I won't argue the "serf" is not "slavery" issue. However, the statement mentioned each event as separate:

In conjunction with land reform, the Chinese government also abolished slavery and the Tibetan serfdom system of unpaid labor.

It did not say that by abolishing serfdom they abolished slavery. But now you deleted the word altogether and so the fact that this is disputed is not even hinted at in the article. Maybe this fact should be included instead of it being eliminated from the article altogether.

On the issue of serfdom, it should be at least mentioned that it was abolished at some point because it did exist. I'll list here a number of sources that mention this but this is only stuff I've read or merely browsed. I'm sure others could contribute more. I'll leave it up you or them or you to find the appropriate source to link the statement to since I think others may be more familiar with the subject than I am. I have only just started reading about this since a few days ago.

But the fact that serfdom existed and was abolished at some point is not debated and should not be listed as "citation needed".

http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html

http://www.tibetinfor.com.cn/tibetzt/tibet50-en/background/doc/old_01.htm

http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article16744

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/tibet.html

Several articles from People's Daily Online http://english.people.com.cn/90002/93607/93800/6395279.html; http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90785/6394257.html; http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6395275.html; http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6391451.html

This link includes several articles on the subject: http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/beta/doc/1G1-54099131.html

I also found several other links to articles from The Washington Post, Newsweek, China Daily and Xinhua but cannot access them since they require subscription fees.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear "Madgirl 15": I have never tried to deny that the PRC legally abolished serfdom in Tibet - they also did this in China proper. This, in itself, was a very commendable action, but they way they went about enforcing their new laws - such as killing landlords - seems very brutal and unnecessary to me.

I removed the reference you originally gave because Parenti is an unreliable source (please see my note above illustrating this) and then removed the word "slavery" because it did not seem to be justified under the circumstances. Serfdom certainly did exist in the old Tibet but I know of no evidence that organised buying and selling of human beings took place there so, while the Chinese may have passed laws prohibiting it, it does seem a hollow claim that they "abolished" a practice when there is no evidence that it existed. To say they "prohibited" slavery in Tibet it is fine - to say they "abolished" it sounds like propaganda to me. John Hill (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, stating things such as "'abolished' a practice when there is no evidence that it existed" is contradictory everything I have read and what you just said. If someone passes a law that prohibits something, isn't that making the practice of that something illegal or putting an end to it? Wasn't putting an end to slavery what through a law what the Emancipation Proclamation was? Of course, it did not mean that the practice of slavery ended there, since people still practiced it, simply illegally since there was a law that prohibited. Am I wrong?

I've never read anywhere that they killed landlord. If they did, which I'm not saying I'm skeptical of it because I'm not trying to defend anyone here, then there must've been a reason behind it. Just one that is not justifiable in the eyes of, say, a court of law. Why not write that, instead of simply "they killed landlords", "they killed landlords in a way that was unjust"?

Also, as to the word propaganda... why resort to this word to justify not placing the word "abolish"? Political systems work through propaganda. While it is true that propaganda usually never suggest truthfulness, one can't always say it is always used to suggest something negative. The only time when propaganda is never given a negative connotation or not even perceived as such is when it fits with accepted believes and dispositions of those who receive the propaganda. This is why I don't think that your suggestion of the word "abolished" being removed is justifiable. In order to achieve a neutral tone, all perspectives should be exposed whether some agree with them and others don't since it is not a matter of agreement but more of exposing the facts.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As to reaching a consensus on this matter... perhaps the appropriate reference should be selected and a more careful choice of words should be employed to achieve the neutral tone.

(Perhaps omitting the part of "in conjunction with land reform" since this is already previously mentioned.)

In conjunction with land reform, the Chinese government also abolished the Tibetan serfdom system of unpaid labor

Changing the above into this:

The Chinese government, in conjunction with the local government of Tibet, signed an agreement that ended the Tibetan serfdom system of unpaid labor.

I find this citation problematic. It points to the top level of a website with a lot of links on it. When I search the page for "agreement" or "government", I find nothing. I would not call that a citation that permits verification of the claim. Also, the language construction is awkward - more clear to say, "The Chinese and Tibetan governments signed an agreement...." Also, the content is vague. What agreement was this, when and where was it signed? Bertport (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation currently on this sentence is not a citation at all. The claim ought to be supported by one of the articles directly.Gimme danger (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then since no one can find a good source to back this statement up, why is it still here? To be clear about this, there WAS an agreement (known as the 17 point agreement), but it says nothing about slavery or serfdom. So why is this stated at all if there is nothing that verifies it accuracy?

I think the section simply needs to be written again since no reliable sources will probably ever be found to back these statements up, unless the sources I listed above are evaluated by someone other then me and be deemed reliable sources. All the links that mention that the Chinese government ended serfdom or that slavery or serfdom ended in Tibet, but they are from Chinese websites which will probably be deemed unreliable. I've read most of them and, in my judgment, many sound biased but the ones that sound most reliable and less biased are the ones from People's Daily Online. However, I've heard in other talk pages people argue the impartiality of similar pages such as Xinhua, and the perception there is on Chinese media in general, so that makes citing statements using these sources very difficult. Perhaps, someone could verify these sources so that the section can actually be improved, since it would be moot to edit the article if the sources used will always be found unacceptable by others.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

erdene zuu not the first monastery in mongolia?

Could this be more a question of interpretation than one of right vs. wrong? Though I am not sure, I don't think there are any surviving monasteries in Mongolia today that are older than Erdene Zuu (those built by Altan Khan are, of course, in Inner Mongolia). I guess it is rather hard to rule out that monasteries may have existed in the 13/14th century or under the Uighurs, but is there any positive evidence? At least it should be mentioned how exactly the claim "Erdene Zuu was the first" is wrong. Yaan (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it the "oldest extant monastery in Mongolia"? That would by my suggestion for wording. --Gimme danger (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll just ask John Hill what exactly is wrong. Yaan (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi to you both. I think the problem here is that we are talking about two different things. I, following Laird's account, was referring to "Greater Mongolia" (to coin a term) - not the present state of Mongolia. The concept of "Inner Mongolia" would have been meaningless at the time of the 3rd Dalai Lama. The first monastery built in "Greater Mongolia" was the Thegchen Chonkhor, built by Altan Khan at Hohhot in what is now "Inner Mongolia", which has been absorbed by China.

"Altan Khan had Thegchen Chonkhor, Mongolia's first monastery, built [in Koko Khotan - Altan's capital - now Hohhot] and a massive program of translating Tibetan texts into Mongolian was commenced. Within 50 years most Mongols had become Buddhist, with tens of thousands of monks, who were members of the Gelug order, loyal to the Dalai Lama.

I have adjusted the text to reflect this confusion. I hope you find it acceptable. If not, please let me know - I am happy to discuss it further if you wish. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just some nagging, I think the sentence is a bit long now. "first Monastery among the Khalkha" or something like that would be OK for me. Though maybe not for the general reader. I don't really think the division between the Tümed (plus some other tribes that were under Altan Khan's (more or less) direct rule?) and the Khalkha was meaningless in the 1580s, although I'll admit I know rather little about the Mongol factions during that period. Regards, Yaan (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Tibet

I have just deleted the very long and unnecessarily repetitious section on the history of Tibet in the general article on Tibet and am now attempting to merge the info into History of Tibet removing duplication while trying to retain all properly referenced information not already in the History of Tibet article. This merging process has been recommended since December 2007.

I am also adding new material where it seems appropriate. I will do my best to be fair and thorough but, unfortunately, I am very pressed for time so I would be very grateful if knowledgeable persons would check the changes and excuse me for any oversights or mistakes. I will try to do some more work on this over the next couple of days. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging text from Tibet article. Help requested!

I have completed moving the historical text over from the general article on Tibet. There was (and still remains) a lot of duplication and I have done my best to quickly begin the merging process, do some editing, make some additions, etc., etc., etc. I, unfortunately have run out of time (I am leaving on an overseas trip to celebrate my mother's 94th birthday!) in a few days) but I think the article still needs considerable polishing. All help from fair-inded, good-hearted people is requested to really bring this article up to feature article standard - as I think it could and should be.

As the accounts of recent Tibetan history vary so completely it is extremely difficult to be both accurate and fair - to present a good, accurate encyclopedia article that is inclusive. Let's try to do it! John Hill (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DalaiLama-13 lg.jpg

The image Image:DalaiLama-13 lg.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Did oppressive “feudal serfdom” exist in Tibet before the Chinese arrived?

This is a very controversial and complex subject so I have rewritten the section on it in the article itself. However, because some readers will likely be unsatisfied with my brief summary, I thought I should give more evidence here and have, therefore, decided to quote fairly extensively from Robert Barnett’s careful and (I believe) balanced examination of the evidence:

“Melvyn Goldstein, an American anthropologist who carried out research within Tibet into pre-1959 social relations, concluded that most Tibetans before 1959 were bound by written documents to the land on which they were based and to the lord who owned that land, and so he argued that they could be described as “serfs” (Goldstein 1986, 1988). Most Western scholars accept that this was broadly the case, but query the extensiveness of the practice and the politics behind the terms used to describe it. . . . W. M. Coleman (1998) has pointed out that in practice the Tibetans had more autonomy than appears in the written documents, and that Tibetans could equally well be described simply as peasants with particular kinds of debts and taxation responsibilities, rather than using a politically and morally loaded term such as “serf.” Other scholars have noted that such social categories, Marxist or otherwise, are in any case rooted in European history and do not match the social system of pre-1951 Tibet, let alone the very different arrangements found among the people of eastern Tibet.

These scholars do not disagree with the Chinese claims that Tibet had a particular form of social relations that differed from those later found in democratic and Communist countries. What is contested is whether later scholars or politicians should use terms that imply a value judgment about the moral qualities of these relations. This is a matter of intense dispute because the Chinese claim about serfdom, on the surface a factual account of social relations, in fact depends for its effects on its linkage to two other elements which are highly contestable–feudalism and extreme oppression. It is taken for granted that these are inseparable from serfdom. A conscious effort of the intellect is required to recall that one does not follow from the other.

There is no question that Tibet was an extremely poor society for most of its members, or that the poorest were the most likely to exploitation and abuse. This was true of most sectors of any society in Asia and elsewhere until recently, including China, and is still true today in many areas. So even if it was agreed that serfdom and feudalism existed in Tibet, this would be little different except in technicalities from conditions in any other “premodern” peasant society, including most of China at that time. The power of the Chinese argument therefore lies in its implication that serfdom, and with it feudalism, is inseparable from extreme abuse.

Evidence to support this linkage has not been found by scholars other than those close to Chinese government circles. Goldstein, for example, notes that although the system was based on serfdom, it was not necessarily feudal, and he refutes any automatic link with extreme abuse. “I have tried to indicate that the use of the term ‘serfdom’ for Tibet does not imply that lords tortured and otherwise grossly mistreated their serfs. . . . There is no theoretical reason why serfdom should be inexorably linked to such abuses,” he writes, noting that extreme maltreatment was unlikely since it would have been against the interests of the landowners, who needed the peasants to provide labor (1988: 64-65).

There seems to be limited evidence of the systematic savagery described by Chinese writers, at least since the late nineteenth century. There was a famous case of mutilation as a punishment in 1924, but the officials involved were themselves punished by the 13th Dalai Lama for this action, he had banned all such punishments in a proclamation in 1913 (Goldstein 1989: 123-26, 61). A case of judicial eye gouging in 1934 as a punishment for treason was clearly exceptional, since no one living knew how to carry it out (Goldstein 1989: 208-9). On the other hand, there are hundreds of reports, many of them firsthand accounts of Tibetan political prisoners being severely tortured in Chinese prisons during the early 1990s, as well as almost ninety cases of suspicious deaths in custody (see, e.g. TCHRD 2005), none of which have been independently investigated.” From: ”What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform?” By Robert Barnett in: Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, pp. 81-83. Eds. Anne-Marie Blondeau and Katia Buffetrille. (2008). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-520-24928-8 (paper). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. The bibliography of this piece would be amazingly useful for expanding Serfdom in Tibet if the AfD results in a keep. Damned finals though. Too much Wikipedia and not enough time. Gimme danger (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The tone and content are very good. However, this topic being as contentious as it is, I would recommend more meticulous citations, to scrupulously avoid being subsequently tagged as original research. Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is a good model to study for a thorough examination of a contentious topic, that holds up well to Wikipedia policies. Bertport (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments: Thanks for your comments. I am travelling at the moment and do not have access to all my books and notes so it is difficult for me to add much at this time. I have added another reference to Laird on the main page (see the entry under "Slaves or serfs?" above on this page for the quote from his book).

The full references mentioned in the quote from Blondeau and Buffertrille above are:

Goldstein, Melvyn C. 1986. "Re-examining Choice, Dependancy and Command in the Tibetan Social System-'Tax Appendages' and Other Landless Serfs." Tibet Journal 11, 4:79-112.

Goldstein, Melvyn C. 1988. "On the Nature of Tibetan Peasantry." Tibet Journal 13, 1:61-65.

Goldstein, Melvyn C. 1989. A History of Modern Tibet: The Demise of the Lamaist State, 1913-1951. Berkely, Calif.

Coleman, William M. (1998). Writing Tibetan History: The Discourses of Feudalism and Serfdom in Chinese and Western Historiography. Ann Arbour, Mich.

TCHRD (Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, [1]) 2005. "Tibetan Prisoner Serving Life Sentence Dies in Prison." February 4. Dharamsala. [2].

There is more I could quote from Blondeau and Buffertrille and more references. If you need them let me know, and I will enter them when I can get the opportunity (which may not be for some time). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also appreciate this paper, which critiques a view of a single system in Tibet and some of Goldstein's points in particular: Samuel, Geoffrey Tibet as a Stateless Society and Some Islamic Parallels The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Feb., 1982), pp. 215-229

Mostly he provides evidence that there was not a single economic or political system, even as one was closer to Lhasa. In there you'll also find this quote, for example, "It may well be that here, as elsewhere, the natural tendency to view Tibet in terms either of medieval European feudalism or the centralized states of East or South-East Asia may be distorting our perception of the true nature of the Tibetan system. (p.226)" - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It easy to show that not every scholar agrees with Melvyn Goldstein. To use him only, or only those who agree with him, as a source is POV, and the views of others such as Michael Parenti, in his paper Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth [3], are needed to give balance to what you have written. (NB: I have not read the entire article, so if the balancing sources are actually there, and I have just missed them, I am sorry if I have reached a wrong conclusion about lack of balance.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right: there probably are a wider range of expert opinions that should be reflected. However, I'm sure you will agree that NPOV does not require marginal opinions to be given as much weight as more widely-respected opinions are. We can only determine which is which by relying on reputable, reliable sources for information, and Michael Parenti is not that when it comes to Tibetan history.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Parenti is an historian and political scientist who has published twenty books. His WP article mentions issues of class and power as one of his areas of interest [4], which certainly qualifies him as a source on issues of feudalism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• As has been demonstrated to you many times, Michael Parenti's work is unreliable and factually inaccurate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Parenti is a notable figure in the discussion, and should be included. The article can also include other scholars' critical evaluations of his reliability and accuracy. Bertport (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if marginal, his scholarly input still exists, and should be mentioned. However, he shouldn't be given the same total volume of textual space as let's say, ten other scholars of a different or opposing view. Parenti's described position should be brief like any other's and buttressed by those who share the same or similar opinion (how many of them that can be found, that is). I doubt Goldstein and Parenti are the only leading scholars on this issue.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is Parenti a notable figure in this discussion? By what standard is he one of the leading scholars on this issue?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He is notable in that, whenever this topic comes up, his name comes up. For that reason, he should be addressed, even if the main purpose of bringing him up is to show that his writing has been dismissed by other scholars. (Either way, all content gets cited - the Parenti content, and the dismissal content.) Bertport (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• That doesn't make any sense. Why would you knowingly include false information if you intended to disprove it anyway? What encyclopedic value does that have? There is nothing that says all viewpoints must be held equal and, in fact, this is a keystone provision in WP:FRINGE. This is not an article about Michael Parenti or his poor grasp of the facts, those things can be relegated to his biography. This is an encyclopedic article about Tibet and it should include only reliable, academic and factually accurate sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Parenti is certainly not the only scholar who promotes these views, correct? I never said give him the spotlight and the podium. Rather, if there are several others propagating a similar view, he should be mentioned alongside them, as well as by scholars who bother to refute him, which means that he is significant enough if he is mentioned by other scholars.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to take John Hill's work above and incorporate it into Serfdom in Tibet. It seems the main reason this topic merits attention is its political potency, not its historical soundness. And so, it should not occupy a lot of turf in History of Tibet. The situation resembles that of Intelligent Design, which has no value as a scientific theory, and thus deserves little if any mention in Evolution, but does merit close examination as a political/religious controversy, and thus gets extensive treatment in its own article. Bertport (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advocate this approach as well. This kind of framing may make it easier to incorporate disparate viewpoints into the Serfdom in Tibet article. Gimme danger (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional notes

When I was copying in the long notes from Robert Barnett above - I left some of the first paragraph out partly because I didn't think they were necessary to the argument, and partly to shorten my task of copying it all down. This omitted section is indicated by the string of dots between "Most Western scholars accept that this was broadly the case, but query the extensiveness of the practice and the politics behind the terms used to describe it. . . ." and "W. M. Coleman (1998). . . ."

I see now that, as this argument seems particularly intense, I should have included them - so, here they are now:

"Franz Michael and Beatrice Miller argued that the less loaded words "commoner" or "subject" are more accurate than the word "serf," partly because of ample evidence that a large number of Tibetans were able to moderate their obligations to their lords by paying off some of their dues, and so could move from place to place. Tibet also had a functioning legal system to which they could appeal in some cases (Miller 1987, 1988; Michael 1986, 1987). Dieter Schuh (1988) showed that those who might technically be called "serfs" were in fact relatively prosperous-the majority were often poorer, but in many cases they were not "bound to the land" and so were not technically"serfs." Girija Saklani (1978) argued that the feudal-type institutions in Tibetan society were counterbalanced by factors that reflected "the principle of cohesion and collectivity" rather than of a rigid hieararchy." Ibid., pp. 81-82.

Refs:

Michael, Franz. 1986. "Tibetan Traditional Polity and Its Potential for Modernisation." Tibet Journal 11, 4: 70-78.

Miller, Beatrice D. 1987. "A Response to Goldstein's 'Re-examining Choice, Dependency and Command in the Tibetan Social System,' " Tibet Journal 12, 2: 65-67.

Schuh, Dieter. 1988. Das Archiv des Klosters bKra-shis-bsam-gtan-gling von sKyid-grong. Bonn.

Saklani, Girija. 1978. "The Hierarchical Pattern of Tibetan Society." Tibet Journal 3, 4: 27-33.

I hope this helps to make this cloudy situation somewhat clearer. I think I should add here that Tibetan society, like every other society, was by no means perfect but was probably no worse overall in terms of personal rights and opportunities at the time than surrounding countries, including China. This situation, I believe, generally continues, and, in spite of huge spending by the PRC in Tibet in recent years, little of the money and few of the advantages are going to ethnic Tibetans - and most to recent immigrants from China proper. Tibetans really are suffering from severe discrimination and destruction of their culture. However, without letting the Chinese off the hook, this is in no way to say that China is at all unusual in such treatment of conquered indigenous peoples. I believe it is most unfair of those of us from countries such as Australia, Canada, the U.S., Brazil, or the previous European colonial powers, to pretend that we have done any better or been any more humane than the Chinese government. While it is important to keep up pressure on the Chinese to substantially improve conditions for, and their treatment of, the Tibetans - this must be also balanced with the recognition that our own countries have just as much to answer for and we should all be working equally hard for protecting human rights and freedoms world-wide - including in our own back yards.

Now, unfortunately, I will have to leave this discussion for over the next few weeks as I will be travelling and only occasionally will have the opportunity to look in on it. I can only hope everyone will try to be civil and respectful and that the article will finally present a truthful and balanced picture. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

It is clear from the current discussion that some editors of this article are so devoted to the cause of Tibet, and to Tibetan Buddhism, that a conflict of interest prevents objective editing. I am not so naive as to believe that such editors will step back when issues that are critical of what they hold so close to their heart arise, because my observation has shown that such editors hang on tenaciously and are motivated by their beliefs. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that such conflict of interest editing is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and consequently results in articles that are a best POV, and at worst just billboards promoting a cause. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to you implying that I am not objective. Please reread my second last paragraph above and be aware that I have been exposing human rights abuses of indigenous peoples in Canada, the U.S. and Australia since at least 1963. I have spent much of my life trying to expose, prevent and reverse the effects of some of those dreadful abuses. I in no way condone such exploitation and maltreatment past or present in Tibet (and they certainly did occur in "old Tibet") but I do believe they should be dealt with factually and in context and without an overlay of strident, self-serving propaganda. At the same time I believe that China should not be singled out as if it is the sole or most extreme abuser of human rights and freedoms in the world today - unfortunately, it certainly has lots of contenders in this field. Yours, John Hill (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Yours, John Hill (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny that the problem of conflict of interest exists here, and some related articles? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Malcolm. No, but I don't believe the problems cannot be resolved - assuming goodwill and a committment to the truth on all sides. Similar situations of opposing views appear regularly on the Wikipedia's pages. It is up to us to try to resolve them fairly. John Hill (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "assuming goodwill and a committment to the truth...". John, I wish that is what I was seeing. But I do expect to see exactly that when (if) the Messiah comes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with you to some extent (especially as I find myself wasting precious time searching through articles on a daily basis looking for vandalism, prejudice and bias) but the alternative is just to give up. I think I'll stick with the Wikipedia, at least for a while longer, and see if this grand experiment in cooperative editing can work after all (it is really quite incredible, I believe, how much has been achieved so far in spite of the many foibles of human nature and some really mean and nasty forces out there in the ether). Cheers, John Hill (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It's about as bad for "Tibet-centric editors" to edit Tibetan articles as it is for a Jewish person insisting on including Jewish sources. This is completely ridiculous and I strongly object. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, if the Dalai Lama assembled ten subordinate lamas to sit around and edit wikipedia to make it favorable to one of their positions, then that would be an obvious conflict of interest. But you think that the same applies to these editors here? Who have no collaboration or affiliation with lobbyists or associations but merely an affinity for Tibet? I don't think you're making a very good case, Malcolm Schosha.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some editors who are so psychologically and spiritually invested in the cause of Tibet, and in Tibetan Buddhism; that, when they are involved in issues (apparently) critical of Tibet and its theocratic government, conflict of interest can easily become a serious problem. I have observed this problem in action, and although I have worded this in terms of Tibet and Buddhism, it can be a problem when issues sensitive to Jews arise in Jewish topic articles, for Christians, for members of the Theosophical Society, and many other groups when some editors are so psychologically invested in a group or cause that they can not accept critical elements, and do all in their power (including edit warring) to block what they see as harmful to their beloved cause. It is quite understandable, and I do not condemn them, but they do sometimes make problems and block efforts to write balanced articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• And you, the arbiter of objectivity, can tell us then who these fiends are that hold these conflicts and who should be forbidden from editing the articles and subjects they associate so closely with. We could forbid all impassioned parties from editing any articles for which they show even the slightest concern and ban anyone who expresses a passing interest in all but the most banal of subjects. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, this operates under the assumption that you personally know these editors and the depth to which they are invested "psychologically and spiritually" in whitewashing Tibetan history for the sake of benefiting some big cause. That's quite an accusation, and it really goes against Wikipedia's guideline of Good Faith. My 2 cents on the matter.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds writes that I want to be an "arbiter of objectivity", and that I want users "forbidden from editing". PericlesofAthens writes that I have made an "accusation" that is contrary to assuming "good faith". Please. Where did I say that an editor here should be "forbidden from editing"? And I have not "accused" editors of something other than human nature.

What I wrote above is "It is clear from the current discussion that some editors of this article are so devoted to the cause of Tibet, and to Tibetan Buddhism, that a conflict of interest prevents objective editing." I think that is correct, and I am sorry if that comes as unwelcome news. But there are also editors here who, even though devoted to the cause of Free Tibet, are also quite capable of understanding, and writing, a balanced Wikipedia article. I rather hope that those users will act to limit the edit warring inclinations of other editors who believe that it is necessary to block the evil efforts of Malcolm Schosha, and all others, who want to say some critical things about beautiful and virtuous Tibet. Wikipedia is filled with articles that are nothing more than billboards praising some movement, group or leader because they have decided that is more important than Wikipedia rules to write balanced article. In most of those cases the situation is hopeless. Perhaps it is hopeless here too...but I thought perhaps it was not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire line of thought is little more than an ad hominem attack. I see nothing specific to this article being addressed here at all. This insulting but otherwise vague and irrelevant opinion is duly noted. Longchenpa (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a criticism, not an attack (you need to learn the difference); and it is not an ad hominem (you need to learn more about logic before trying to use logical terminology) because it discusses an editing problem, and does not try to discredit any individual (God forbid!).

By the way, this discussion applies particularly to the Serfdom in Tibet article, but discussion got moved here by another editor. I have done no editing on this article, and have no intention of doing so. Nevertheless, what I have said certainly applies here too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Word to the wise, arguing that you're not attacking people by attacking someone else isn't really going to help your point. You should probably give up here because you're really not doing yourself any favors. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose the vagueness (attacking a general undefined group of editors) is the reason you don't consider this ad hominem? That doesn't change it from being an attack, and switching your target to attack me is the same tactic. You're still attacking individuals and not addressing the facts. Longchenpa (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cumulus Clouds, if you think I have violated WP:CIVILITY I invite you to take it to the Administrators Notice Board [5]. But, in my view, you need to develop the ability to distinguish between a criticism, that is related to the editing of the article; and a gratuitous attack on a person. As your your saying to me "you're really not doing yourself any favors", thanks for your generous concern about my well being. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'm just really politely trying to ask you to stop posting here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds wrote: "I guess I'm just really politely trying to ask you to stop posting here". This request of Cumulus Clouds' seems in violation of WP:OWN, and this user seems to have assumed authority to decide which editors are allowed, and which are not. The attempt to block even the discussion of dissenting, or minority, views apparently justifies my point that there are editors here who are in conflict of interest. This request (demand) that Cumulus Clouds has made to me is unacceptable; and all the more so because I have been careful to remain civil, have not in any way disrupted the editing of the article, and have focused only on points that I consider important for an article that is neutral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, for the duration of this entire conversation, you have been rather vague and so far careful to avoid bringing up a specific issue in the article that has led you to believe that there is a conflict of interest. You mentioned "Free Tibet" and Tibetan Buddhism, but you didn't provide any specific examples or links to edits that would suggest the article is unbalanced. Once you do that, then this conversation will have some substance worth discussing.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion comes as a direct continuation of "Did oppressive “feudal serfdom” exist in Tibet before the Chinese arrived?" [6] which was moved here by user John Hill from the talk page of the Serfdom in Tibet article [7] (That article is now a complete mess, and needs a lot of work to improve it.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• ??? Do you have a point? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PericlesofAthens. So far you have been vague and I can see nothing pertaining to this article. Longchenpa (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. As it works out Malcolm Schosha is a sockpuppet account and has been blocked indefinitely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malcolm_Schosha Longchenpa (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'feudal serfdom'

I'm glad to see the section has been removed as I don't think it belongs here. However, I do think some readers are likely to come here looking for info about the controversy so I've put in a link to the allegations of serfdom in Tibet page as well as the social classes of Tibet page for those with an anthropoligical interest.Dakinijones (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of article is unclear

The title of this article is "The history of Tibet", but what's in it is really the history of the Tibetan people. Could the title be changed to reflect this? 81.159.87.54 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

History is the history of people. Please refer to the United_states article as an example. It is about the history of the American people, including the Native Americans who never considered themselves US citizens. Longchenpa (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1652 - fifth Dalai Lama visit the Qing Emperor - no kowtow and no kneeling before the Emperor

In the article you can read: "In 1652 the fifth Dalai Lama visited the Manchu emperor, Shunzhi. He was not required to kowtow like other visitors, but still had to kneel before the Emperor; and he received a seal"

When you read the book "China´s Tibet policy" from Dawa norbu, page 52: As William Rockhill writes: He [the V Dalai Lama] had been treated with all the ceremony which could have been accorded to any independent sovereign, and nothing can be found in the Chinese works that he was looked upon in any other light

Some similar statement in this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozang_Gyatso,_5th_Dalai_Lama

Some historians claim that the emperor treated the Dalai Lama as an equal[14] while others dispute this claim.[15].

So if the Dalai kneel before the Emperor is disputed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.130 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the dispute is not about whether the Dalai Lama knelt or not, but about what that kneeling means? Yaan (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is about

1) wether the Dalai Lama knelt or not

2) and if he knelt, what the kneeling meant--Claimheard (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tibet was captured by the Han Chinese Tang Dynasty

Around 650 AD, the chinese Tang Dynasty captured Lhasa.[8]

There is a belief in Tibetan traditional historiography that the Han invaded Lhasa, but this is due to the Rgya Bod yig tshang's misunderstanding of the Chinese sources. An army was sent against Tibet but it withdrewl almost immediately. This episode is discussed in Beckwith's book and all the normal places. It is worth pointing out that Lhasa was not in any sense the 'capital' in the 7th century, so this story smells very strongly of an apocraphal account, even if it hadn't be proven (which it has). Tibetologist (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Threshold of reuiqrement in wikipedia according to policy is verifibility, not truth, and your statement constitutes original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez, mellow out. One very out-of-date citation does not constitute verifiability, and intelligent comments on the talk page do not constitute original research.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, i never new 1992 was 100 years ago. are we in 2100? and comments refuting a source with no source constitue WP:OR. its sort of obvious from your contribs that you have a POV slant in favor of tibetan indepedence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The book cited may have been published in 1992 but its author Sir Charles Bell had been long dead by then, as Wikipedia will tell you. For the fact that this is a misinterpretation I refered to Beckwith's _Tibetan Empire in Central Asia_ but I think this topic is also treated in Kapstein's _The Tibetans_, certainly it is not original research. Tibetologist (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Rinpoche.JPG may be deleted

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)

Tibet's history begins with India and not China

RRRAD (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)RRRAD. You have mentioned that Tibet had split from burma. You've also stated that its language derives from Sanskrit and had adopted Buddism as its religion. This is just an opioion but doesn't this point towards more association and history with India. Before dismissing this point at least know that China as a country has grown in size and has placed a territorial claim on Tibet. Furthermore isn't it also true that all Southasia countres can find their routes directly related to India even though there is much Chinese influence. If this is the case then why can Tibet in reality not be part of India?.

Tibet is an independent historical cultural locus. It did not split from Burma, or from China, or from India. The Tibetan script derives from an Indian script, which is not the same as saying that the Tibetan language derives from Sanskrit (all languages are spoken before they are written). It's true that Tibet has a lot of cultural influence from India.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tibet Feudalism slavery issue vs China occupation

I am surprised the articles mentioned Chinese government occupation of Tibet, but failed to mentioned slavery in place of Tibet government before 1959. Even the United State of America will not hesitate to mentioned the civil war that that end the slavery. Yes, China government are not all evils on the occupation part, but neither Dalai Lama are saint, for the roles of maintaining the slavery under his feudalism ruling. source : Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sltan (talk • contribs) 08:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Serfdom is not the same as slavery. And any good Marxist should be able to tell you that! I personally find it sad that no Chinese ever thanked the Russians and Japanese for all the nice railways they built, but I guess it is because people always tend to bitch instead of seeing the positive!

More seriously though, I think it would indeed be worth to include some words on the structure of Tibetan society in the early 20th century, and I know that Goldstein discusses it briefly in his Modern History of Tibet. Care to go to the library? Yaan (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Land tenure varied widely across Tibet - "serfdom" and share-cropping was indeed prevalent in those parts of Central Tibet where much of the land was part of large estates owned by aristocratic families - but not in other areas. As Geoffrey Samuel points out in his book it is much more accurate to talk about Tibetan Societies rather than a Tibetan Society as social structures, customs. and conditions varied tremendously from region to region and even between farmers, nomads and craftsmen within the same region.

Anyway whatever the faults of Tibet the Tibetan people certainly did not need China's help to end serfdom or change things. Right next door to Tibet there is the example of Bhutan, which had a similar culture to Tibet and if anything was much less developed in the 1950's & 1960's. Bhutan has manged social reform and developed without being occupied by the Chinese or anyone else and without destroying their temples or culture. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

march 2008 protests

I'm not a registered user so I don't want to edit such a sensitive question, but I think the paragraph on the 2008 protests lacks: 1. that the protests were very widespread 2. that a lot of the partecipants were common people, not monks. even if precise information is lacking and opinions and interpretations should be avoided, I think it's safe enough to point out these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.12.122 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The History of the Qiang people

There must be something about the Qiang (= K'iang = Ch'iang) people here...I don't know their history so I didn't write anything about them, but The History of Tibet begins with them. Böri (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Any relationship between the Tibetans and the Qiang is speculative at best. Christopher I. Beckwith treats this question in detail in his PhD dissertation, a reference can be found on his Wikipedia page. Tibetologist (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I found this: "A more careful view would be that the ancient "Qiang" were the ancestors of all or almost all of the modern Tibeto-Burman speakers, and the modern "Qiang" (who call themselves /me/ in their own language, written RRmea in the Qiang orthography), are but one small branch of the ancient "Qiang". They in fact did not think of themselves as "Qiang" (a Chinese exonym) until the early 20th century..." http://victoria.linguistlist.org/~lapolla/qiang/ethnointro.html

Wolfram Eberhard says that the Qiang people were the ancestors of the Tibetan people, Çin'in Şimal Komşuları(in Turkish) = The Northern neighbours of China (but I couldn't find it on internet!) Böri (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• The point is exactly that 'Qiang' is a Chinese exonym (something like barbaros is Greek). No word lists or texts are preserved in the ancient Qiang language, nor is there any way to be sure that the peoples referred to by Qiang in fact refer to the same group across Chinese historical literature. In such a situation it is impossible to prove that the Qiang are Tibeto-Burman speakers (or anything else speakers). There is no reason to believe the Qiang spoke Tibeto-Burman or Tibetan, and there will never be a reason to believe this, so why believe it? Tibetologist (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Wolfram Eberhard, let the Tibetologists (like Beckwith) be the experts on Tibetan and the Turkologists (like Eberhard) be the expets on Turkic. Tibetologist (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's an interesting theory, that the Qiang were related to the Tibetans, and one worth some research. But for right now there's no real evidence and it's not generally established. Until more is done on this theory it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Longchenpa (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As Longchenpa says above, it is an interesting theory. Is there any reason why it should not be mentioned briefly as such? John Hill (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• and what about the Di people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_(ethnic_group) Böri (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As Tibetologist says, "'Qiang' is a Chinese exonym (something like barbaros is Greek)". This hardly merits description as a "theory" until something more specific is presented.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are 900 years between 300 B.C. and 600 A.D. ... Don't we know anything about the Tibetan History of that period? Böri (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We know only very little. Ptolemy mentions a people the Batai who live on he Bautisos river (2nd century ad), and the country Fuguo (<Spu) is mentioned in the Sui dynasty. This and all other evidence is discussed in Beckwith's dissertation. Tibetologist (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Before the Qin Dynasty, the name of China was NOT China! But today, we see Zhou Dynasty as a Chinese dynasty. And in the past (300 B.C.) the name of Tibet was NOT Tibet, so at that time the people of Tibet didn't call themselves The Tibetans! The people of Tibet at that time were the ancestors of the Tibetans, so we can call them the Proto-Tibetans. Böri (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• There were definitely people living in Tibet before the sixth century AD, but how do you know they were Tibetans? In the case you give, there is a continuous literary tradition demonstrating at least a homogeneous linguistic population from the Shang to the Qin. But in Tibet writing was only invented in 650 AD so there is no way of knowing what happened before then. If you have some evidence that the Qiang are ethno-linguistically Tibetan, I and the rest of the world would be happy to see it. In his new book, Chris Beckwith (Empires of the Silk Road, Princeton, 2009) argues that the Qiang are Indo-Europeans. If anything, this does show that a discussion of the Qiang is not appropriate for the wiki article on the history of Tibet. (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where did the people of Tibet come from? Where did the people of Burma and Bhutan come from? Where did the Tibetan language come from? and I found this: http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf "...In a direct comment on these studies he (Victor Mair) states: "The Qiang are generally recognized to be a Tibeto-Burman people attested already in the Shang period oracle bones (c. 1200 BCE). It is more likely that the Zaghunluq(Zahongluke) people were Indo-Europeans, perhaps Iranians or Tocharians. But is Victor Mair correct in this assumption? Is it not possible that the Tocharians of that time indeed were a mixed people of Europeans and Proto-Tibetans? According to Christopher Beckwith, the Qiang were a nomadic group of whom "extremely little" is known." Böri (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Human abuses there since 1950's is mentioned in the article as if this is the only period in which there was abuses. So the countries who wish to play great games, were benevolent whereas all others are human rights violators....let us leave the human abuses to the master of abuses, the same people who employed human violations were the ones who wrote the codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

an opinion

As a new generation of Xizang (Tibet), I feel shame on you those protests. You people were bloody and dirty landlords that killed so many slaves. Dalai Lama was your monster governor. You people don't represent 90% Xizang people in the world. Stop rumor in wiki. Control of this post is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiadebox (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:TPG for some orientation on use of Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks. Bertport (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Feudalism

This article badly needs information about Tibetan economy and social system. There is not a single mention of feudalism. I suggest the following assay: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html There are many references there. Id1ingMinds (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Parenti article has been discussed, discredited, and dismissed. Parenti has no background in Tibetan history, and his polemic has been demonstrated to be riddled with errors. One place where some discussion occurred was Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy - but I believe there was more detailed discussion done elsewhere, too. Bertport (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

biased view

"In 1751 ... Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire." and "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states" are very biased view, certainly without mainstream acceptance. The statements are so problematic that they should be either removed or reworked immediately (EDIT: at least showing it is only an opinion from a particular author, not a well-accepted view, alongside with the opposing views). Any authoritative works such as the Cambridge History of China will state the opposite. Wikipedia is not a place for such a biased view.--173.206.59.88 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove material that is cited by a reliable and verifiable source. You may have the opinion that the source is biased, but that is not relevant. If you can provide a specific citation to another reliable and verifiable source, then please do so. In that case, we can examine both sources and come up with suitable text for the article. Bertport (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, unlike Tibet sovereignty debate, this article is about the history, not an article to provide different POVs or arguments. Statements which represent a POVs or argument that can be easily contested do not really fit in this article, especially if there are obviously many reliable and verifiable sources suggesting the opposite. For the purpose of this particular statement, just find Qing maps in any reliable sources, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Cambridge History of China (e.g. Volume 10, page xii), will show the statement is far from being uncontested. And indeed it's very easy to find such sources, but nevertheless I do believe they are better to be put into relevant article (e.g. Tibet sovereignty debate) than this very article.--173.206.59.88 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it say in Encyclopædia Britannica, Cambridge History of China Volume 10, page xii? Bertport (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-read my previous reply, I was talking about Qing maps in any such places. An on-line version of the Encyclopædia Britannica one is here, clearly showing that Tibet was integrated into the Qing, which is the opposite of that statement. Cambridge History of China Volume 10, page xii (and Volume 9, page 280-281) are also maps showing so. Just do a search for Qing maps, and you will find numerous reliable sources indicating this. --173.206.59.88 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A map is not an authoritative statement. On the basis of that map, we could add a statement that "there exists a map showing Tibet as within the boundaries of the late Qing dynasty." But that does not justify removing the Smith material. Bertport (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps in reliable sources are authoritative information. These maps are used to represent the information in an easy-to-read manner, which are as authoritative as other part of the sources. Besides the maps, the Cambridge History of China also states "A second contrast between the Ming and Ch'ing periods is a function of the Ch'ing success in expanding the limits of their territorial control to more than double the size of the Ming empire ... By 1760, vast stretches had been added in the northeast (later partly known as Manchuria), in the north (including what is now known as Mongolia), in the west (Sinkiang and Tibet), and in the southeast (Taiwan)" (Volume 9, page 7). This clearly shows that Tibet was added into Qing territory. This alone justifies the removing of that statement, not mentioning all the authoritative information that other sources have provided.--173.206.59.88 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The map is accompanied by very little description of what it is supposed to mean. "Late Qing" is broad, and it is not indicated whether the boundaries encompass nominal suzerainty, or actual political authority, or what. The text you cite refers to 1760, which is earlier than the time Smith describes. In any case, we don't get to just pick the sources we personally like and say all the others are wrong. Bertport (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The text refers to 1760, and the maps (not just a map; I had also cited maps such as Volume 10, page xii and Volume 9, page 280-281 of the Cambridge History of China, see above) are clearly showing the Qing territories. In any case, you can't say "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states" by just picking a source which contradicts the others. Furthermore, this article is for the general history, not a place for such disputable arguments and opinions. --173.206.59.88 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So far you have only given two specific citations, one to a map and another to a passage on 1760. You have yet to show us any specific sources that contradicts the text you dispute. Bertport (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, not a map, but already at least 3 maps (see above). The previous section talks about events in 1751, and then the original text says "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states", which obviously contradicts the passage I cited. The passage I cited shows that Tibet was added into Qing territory by 1760, so clearly it's impossible to remain a condition which no longer existed. Please try to make Wikipedia articles neutral. --173.206.59.88 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) You have shown us only one map, and it does not assert anything contradicting Smith. Nor does your text referring to 1760 contradict Smith, because Smith does not assert that Tibet was a separate state in 1760. 1792 saw the zenith and the loss of Qing authority in Tibet, per Smith. pg. 137. What is more, your edit also removed material supported by other sources - Shirokauer and Stein - and introduced new claims without support for them. Bertport (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the other maps, such as the ones in Cambridge History of China (which were already cited above). There are many more authoritative materials in other reliable sources, such as "China marches west: the Qing conquest of Central Eurasia" by Peter C. Perdue, in which the map of page 2 shows Tibet was part of Qing in ca. 1800, not mentioning the map from Encyclopædia Britannica showing late Qing Dynasty which also contained Tibet, all contradicting with the claim made by that statement. Furthermore, the text claimed to be supported by Shirokauer/Stein is exactly the first quoted statement in my original post ("In 1751 ... Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire."), which also clearly contradicts with the text cited from Cambridge History of China showing that by 1760 Tibet had became a Qing territory. Once again, such disputable arguments don't fit in this article. In addition, the only sentence I added ("he decided to strengthen the powers of the ambans after the Gurkha invasions") is merely a reword of a statement in the sebsequent section("In 1792, the emperor issued a 29-point decree which appeared to tighten Qing control over Tibet. It strengthened the powers of the ambans.") supported by another source, not a introduction of new claims.--173.206.59.88 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another reliable source "Travellers History of China" by Stephen G. Haw has a good summary of the situation in the 18th century: "The Manchus mounted several campaigns to suppress the disturbances, which resulted in the conquest of Tibet in 1720 and Qinghai in 1724. From that time onwards much closer control was exerted by the Manchus ... Manchu control was further strengthened as a result of the suppression of a rebellion by a Tibetan chief in 1750 and of successful campaigns against the Gurkhas, who invaded Tibet in the 1790s." (page 229) It says Tibet was conquered in 1720 and control was further strengthened in 1750 and 1790s, along with other reliable materials such as the 1800 map (by Peter C. Perdue) and late Qing dynasty map (by Encyclopædia Britannica) showing Tibet as part of Qing Dynasty, completely oppose against the claims that "In 1751 ... Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire" and "1792 saw the zenith and the loss of Qing authority in Tibet". --173.206.59.88 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between imperial China and places like Tibet was complicated. Why do we have to try to fit it into a simple category like was/was not part of Qing territory? What we need is more specific descriptions of what the nature of the relationship was at different times. Unfortunately, maps are particularly ill-suited to this purpose.

It strikes me as doubtful that Warren Smith's view is the consensus among scholars on the issue of what the relationship was like in 1792. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be removed from the article. Why don't we cite it as an opinion given by a particular researcher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Pandatshang (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the relationship between imperial China and places like Tibet was complicated, and in this article it should not fit into a simple category saying yes or no, that's exactly why that the original text "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states" should not be presented as if it's already generally accepted, and without stating like "Warren Smith argues that ..." and without any opposing arguments. That's the reason my first edit changed the original text to "there exists argument that XXX" instead of simply "XXX" (where XXX is Warren Smith's view). Unfortunately, this edit was reverted by User:Bertport. I also realized that the matters are so complicated that there exist many and opposing POVs and arguments, so such complicated opinions and arguments are better to be put into articles such as Tibet sovereignty debate (which is precisely used for this purpose) than this one, as this article is only about the general history of Tibet. --173.206.59.88 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide verifiable citations from reliable sources that disagree with Smith, then it is perfectly acceptable to add them to the article and to qualify Smith's material with "according to Warren Smith". It is common practice in Wikipedia history articles, and in academic history texts, to compare differing sources. I reverted your original edits because you made no justification for them. Bertport (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As the original text was simply trying to give a definitive negative answer which is not well-accepted, I changed the original text to show the existence of such view but not at all that it is already the consensus. I did not justify it in my original edit since I thought the edit should be easy to understand for NPOV purposes (I had opened discussions since then). Anyway, we should try to keep Wikipedia articles neutral, especially in such history-related articles. --173.206.59.88 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I checked Stein and did not find support for "Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire" there. I don't have the Shirokauer. So, you may be right that this sentence is unjustified. If you want to add "he decided to strengthen the powers of the ambans after the Gurkha invasions" then please provide a citation supporting it. Bertport (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your "he decided to strengthen the powers of the ambans after the Gurkha invasions" is already covered - the whole paragraph beginning "In 1792, the emperor issued a 29-point decree" is expressing just that, but in more detail - the invasion of the Gurkhas was 1788-1792. Bertport (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added 2 above sources showing the opposite arguments, alongside with the Smith one. Now it should look much more neutral than before.--173.206.59.88 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)