Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest

death toll doesn't add up

The article says that official Chinese new agency reports 22 deaths. But the source says that first there were 13 reported deaths, and then added another 5 civilians and 1 police officer. Doesn't that add up to 19? Many news published 19, so why did Yahoo News publish 22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.216.2 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this suppose to mean

I hope someone can correct the following sentence from current wikipage on 2008 Tibetan riot:

1. According to James Miles, The Economist's correspondent in Lhasa, the police fatalities included both Tibetans and the ethnic Han Chinese who were the target of much of the violence.

And is there any statistics on how many Han and Hui people were killed by mobs? All the video I can find all shows Tibetan mobs beaten up Han and Hui people. The following is from CNN website:

1. Beijing's official death toll from the rioting is now 22, but the Dalai Lama's government-in-exile has said that 99 Tibetans have been killed.

Why deaths quoted are only of "Tibetan" deaths. Deaths caused by rioters, burning and looting including a whole Chinese family with 8 months old baby caused by a fire started by rioters is not mentioned, it imply all deaths are Tibetans and China authority is hiding the "real" numbers. Blaawan (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beijing's claim didn't specify the ethnicity of those dead people. Dalai Lama's claim didn't include how many Han and Hui were kill by Tibetan mobs. Another thing is that Dalai Lama didn't say whether those 99 Tibetans were killed by Chinese military force and police or by other Tibetans. Because there is a report from Chinese media said that a Tibetan girl who worked in a Han-owned store were burnt to death after mobs set fire to store.

The following report says some tourists only see Tibetan mobs attack Chinese (by the way, I guess CHINESE here means Han and Hui people)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/18/wtibet718.xml

Another thing I want to say is that Chinese media and Dalai Lama's Tibetan government on exile and western media all show a clear bias on reporting this event, I hope some people can start a page discuss this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanmany (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

you read my mind

Not a few minutes prior to this, I had posted

“ There should be an article for 2008 Tibetan anti-Chinese protests Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC) ”

Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename need : 2008 unrest in West-China

Yellow and orange are "Tibetan area" according to PRC. O.o" Yug (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stale

 – Rename request withdrawed.
This rename request aimed to neutratlise the too Tibetan-independance-centered POV of this article. But further informations and explanaition by other users let me see that "Tibet" is eventually the more suitable word to use. Thanks to all who took time to answered too me.
I still believe this article is too Tibetan-independance centered -independance which is impossible according to the respective forces-, while making too few comments about : socio-economic reasons (price of diesel and petrol rise ; employment ; economic inegalities), religious situation, administrative corruption (as in all China), etc. which were the reasons of the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests, just 1000km south and 6 months ago. Talk widely about the romantic independance make sense and fashion for USA or Europe located newspapers, but I think (POV, yes) that talk widely about utopist "independance" don't make sense for people involved. Yug (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet is misleading and POV :

1. the Current official Tibet is one province of PRC, Gansu, Sichuan, Qinghai are not the "current tibet" ;
2. while Tibet had historically contain this areas, that was only for some period of time (often in a maximum of extend). Say "2008 unrest in Tibet" when we talk about current province of Tibet, Gansu, Sichuan, Qinghai, it's support the idea of a Great Tibet which was true in the VIII century, and in some other time, but false in most of the 1000 last years. The claim that "Tibet" should include all this area is really controversed and is -from what I remenber- as a tibetan expansionnist claim build in the beggin of the XXth century, while supported bu Britain against the collapsing China of the time ;

Also, the name "2008 unrest in Tibet" talking about the current PRC province : Tibet, Gansu, Sichuan, Qinghai seem to me POV (Great Tibet) and misleading. Yug (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with west versus east? Hold up your right hand, that is east. I knew you could! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh... yeap, typo-mistake.... -.o Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this map, Image:Tibet-claims.jpg all of the yellow and orange areas are places which are officially designated by the Chinese government as Tibetan autonomous areas.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"West China" is clearly POV. "current tibet", no different from "past tibet", is different from Tibet Autonomous Region. deeptrivia (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

West China may be POV, as it would be unfair to call Guam west United States, even though it is a territory of the United States. Tibet should do fine, at worst we could say Tibet Autonomous Region, although thats quiet a mouthful. Regarding statements that Tibet is a province of China, please see points 3 and 4 of the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, also note that it refers to the state as Tibet, not West China, nor the TAR. Note also that point 14 states that Tibet has sovereignty "there will be peaceful co-existence with neighboring countries and the establishment and development of fair commercial and trading relations with them on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territory and sovereignty." Anyways to recap I feel that both TAR (defacto state name) and Tibet (mentioned in the 17 point agreement) are possible names, West China seems to be POV. ------- Zethus (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stale

 – see upper. Yug (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibeto centered : please stop this.

Hello. Why :

1. the introduction was talking ONLY about tibet and Tibetan independance controverse ;
2. When the unrest occure in all Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, Tibet provinces, can we still state that the claim in tibetan independance ?
3. were are social reasons ? economic reasons ? work discrimination ?

Help to neutralise this article, common people in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, Tibet are not the Dalai Lama, I can't simply believe they start an unrest for the independance issue. Common people give more importance to their standing of life, their salaries, their health than the USA-located independance movement. Yug (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the focus is in Tibet, other events are peripheral to it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Chris, Tibet was Chinese for 4 centuries, and was Chinese for the last 60 years. I have difficulties to believe that they are standing up for independance, this claim is naive.

Tibet has not been Chinese for the last 60 years; it has been illegally occupied. The fact that Tibet has previously had a 400 year period under Chinese rule is no more significant than the fact that Norway, Sweden and England in the past were under Danish rule for many hundred years. It does not allow the Danes to "take back" Great Brittain or Sweden. The apologism for the brutal occupation of Tibet by China and the historical revisionism that is selling the Chinese occupation as benign is heartbraking to witness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.96.2 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'Illegally occupied'- by whose law? One could equally say that the theocrats had illegally occupied Tibet in the past. In the West theocratic rulers on the temporal throne had been deposed centuries ago, so it is pure hypocrisy to support a bunch of lamas who claim the right to rule over others, when in the past they have brutally suppressed all who opposed their authority. 81.154.206.11 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm 23 years old and I was in a city were occured the 2005 civil unrest in France and a realist activist in 2006 labour protests in France. I know what happen for each, the claims of people on the street. And I know what news papers wrote down : spectacular lies, to sell their papers.

So I think exactly the same : people, on these West-China cities are protesting for things, to improve their situations. And news papers are happy to write down : "Dalai Lama ! Independance !" -____-"

We don't have to be naive, when four province have unrest we don't need source to say : there is clearly something other than naive [currently impossible] independance. Yug (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, your speculation on these points is interesting, but not really germane to writing this article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I sincerely believe what I said. -___-" If "your speculation" means that you want to underline that I have no source : your right. If you agree to look this article with logic, I'm probably right. Yug (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yug, although Tibet was ruled Chinese for 200 years it was ruled by Mongolian, British, and Nepalese troops at various times in history. Regardless, China's claim to rule Tibet really goes back to the Mongols. For about 300 years Tibet was independent, then it slowly turned some of its sovereignty over to the Manchus . The Manchus abdicated the throne, and a period of "warlordism" happened. The Republic of China rose out of the ashes of it claimed Tibet as its own but never acted on it, then the communists came and claimed to be the spiritual successor to the ROC and threw it back to Taiwan. Whether the Peoples Republic of China has acquired this "right" is a subject of debate and discourse.

As for your reference to your own political experiences I too was involved in politics and got hung out to dry. I consider myself non political, but I do care about certain issues. Newspapers don't always lie, however there is two sides to the debate, and the PRC news would have you believe that these are violent hooligans running amok, whereas more liberal western news would say its a slaughter. However I've grown to distrust authoritarians and their papers, more so than western media (not that I believe them either, it's just a preference.). Also to keep in mind this is a precedent that has happened before, and Tibetan independence isn't a joke to the international community like the idea of my native Cascadia (independence movement). Keep in mind that Kosovo has never been independent (it was a vassal to the Ottomans once I believe). Honestly, lets see how this develops. Zethus (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please clarify whether and when Britain ruled Tibet? 81.154.206.11 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

«Whether the Peoples Republic of China has acquired this "right" is a subject of debate and discourse.» History don't understand right, history understand power. The power is in Chinese hand, what lawer and scholards will add are pure mind-games. Yug 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.135.4.212 (talk)

Stop the flame-fest and make the article neutral already! 24.222.16.170 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this discussion is a flame fest, I have never said anything to attack Yug's character and have enjoyed talking it over with him. He seems to be a pretty decent fellow. As far as the article goes I have refrained from editing it for the most part, as I feel a lot of it is POV, I just check the recently added facts to see if they're verified or not in my edits. Yug as far as the "Might makes right"idea most people in the world today are violently opposed to it. A example is the Philippine Islands where the populous revolted against American rule, or a more modern example would be the world reaction to the United States invasion of Iraq. There are few people who believe that since the United States has an army and nuclear weapons it gives them the right to police actions of other counties on basis of unfounded "terrorism" nor does everyone believe that China has the right to invade other counties on basis of unfounded "imperialism".

I'm kinda letting my mind wander regarding relating this to the original argument that the area of Burma and the whole of southeast Asia are affected. Burma, is a pariah and is in fact one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world state(as far as I understand it). It doesn't seem that China would be doing poorly though, for all it seems to be doing fine economically and should be able to support Tibet. If there is indeed a economic crisis in China or Tibet then it should be reported as a humanitarian crisis (like the power outages in Uzbekistan) and could be viewed in that light.Zethus (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Zethus for your comment. My sentences were peaceful, I'm just tired to see people say "China have not the right to do that because international right say ... and the 19?? treaty say ...". Yes, this is international law. After what we don't have to be blind, it is clear and de facto true to say that : "History just understand power". I talk here of "de facto", I obviously don't support this way. So come into this article and state that tibetan people fight for the romatic idea of Independance.... no... This is too easy. Journalist peacefully sit in USA or Europa, in the front of their computers can believe write down such beautiful sentences with "Independance ! free Tibet ! etc.". But we, an encyclopedic community, should look more at fact and logic : independance is not for next week ; nor for next 30 years : they know that, they live this daily. There is also probably a BIG socio-economic background. Talk mainly -as being the first motivation- about the tibetan independance (own state) is really naive, or a manipulation.

I'm happy to see today that someone came to say :

The original target by the Tibetan mobs was the Lhasa Mosque. The Tibetan mobs do not like the business owners who control the economy in Lhasa, and since majority of the small business owners are Muslim Hui, they were targeted by the Tibetan mobs. This riot has more to the with the high inflation than pro-Dalai Lama independence.

Yeap : we don't attack a mosque to get Tibetan independance. Yug 09:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your sentiments Yug, I can't help but draw parallels between the fate of Tibet and the fate of countries like Poland or Estonia and their relationship to the former Soviet Union. When I was a young kid I was thought the Soviet Union would never fall, even though I found out later that it was on the verge of collapse . The Tibetan people apparently do not feel like they are part of the Chinese motherland, otherwise we wouldn't be having these protests in the first place. Yes there may be economic hardships, however you don't really see the Han Chinese in Beijing in open revolt over this. Tibetan independence, Kurdish independence, Kosovoan independence may never come however it is good to mark these events down, a example would be the Chechens who failed in their bid for independence. Of course there is a socio-economical background (and I've encouraged you to expand upon it) however it seems to have a even larger historical background. Its generally recognized that the Tibetan people have a history and culture that is separate from the general public in China.

As far as original targets go, I can't really say. I wasn't there at the time and nobody (other than the Chinese state media)is making reports inside Tibet. Can anyone really provide a complete picture on the protests at this point? Were they done out of venom against the Lhasa Mosque? Or were they a reaction to police brutality? We may never know the true answer because of the ban on independent journalism by the Chinese authorities. Stating that high inflation is the reason for the riots would be stating it an fact is unacceptable as we don't know that all Tibetan people revolted because of increased inflation, stating that it COULD be a reason would be more acceptable. Also saying that "This riot has more to the with the high inflation than pro-Dalai Lama independence" is also a opinion that cannot be proven without polling all the protesters involved (which is highly unlikely. I think it would be awesome if you can find verifiable sources for the inflation and economic crisis in Tibet. We could then add that content to the article as possible causes for the protests.Zethus (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

James Miles was there. He did not get a complete picture because he's only one journalist, but from what he saw, this was basically a race riot. They moreso attacked stores owned by non-Tibetans than the police/government buildings. Even western media has said that most of the rioters were poor youth. And you criticize the other person for saying that the riot had MORE do with the high inflation than independence but he is correct. He did not say ALL of the rioters were just looking for looting and some ethnic violence. The facts of the events all point to a race riot, not a protest for separation from China. It's well documented even on pro-tibet websites that much of the complaints of Tibetans have to do with how they are poorer than the non-Tibetan small business owners (Crystal Night anyone), so there's a lot of resentment from them for that. Quote from James Miles by the way: "What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa.". I don't know about you, but I can put two and two together and see that if they are targetting muslim Hui and Han Chinese (non-tibetans), it's, at the very least, a race riot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.70.18 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I sadly have no expert knowledge on Tibet (except for the VII century O.o).

But, I major in Chinese studies, I'm currently in Taiwan, and I was in Beijing, and Zhengzhou (still in development) last year: I saw the socio-economic inequalities between the super-poors and the new super-richs (with some hyper-richs building 1000 identical housses for them), and I was able to read the tensions that this situation produce.

I frequently read news about localized riots in contry side cities, Chinese corruptions scandals, etc. This is ready to explose in many area of China, without historical "occupation" background. So I suppose that it's the same for Tibet : socio-economic inequality, with -of course- more sensitivity due to the historical background of Tibet.

Afterwhat : yes, it's better to use "could" in my sentences when I don't have source. An other think is that this article seems to slowly get more deep, and become better.

I also hope people interested by Tibet will finally provide source to my claims (give an equal citation of socio-economical situation and independance). Use logic is good and often helpful, but I agree that have eyewitness sources is still better ;) Yug 13:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

if that section is for international reactions, then why is china the second one on the list? would it not be beter to put that in the existing "china's reaction" ? --SelfQ (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would less confusing if we put all opinions in the "reactions" section and reserve the "government response" section for actions the PRC government took. If you disagree, though, feel free to modify the article as long as you do not remove any information. --Bowlhover 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If that section is for international reactions, then why is the Tibet gov't in exile the FIRST one on the list? After all, they are part of the conflect not 3rd party. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tibetan Gov't in exile does not have troops deployed in Tibet and is not a active participant in the protests event though they may be done on their behalf. A good analogy would be the Vatican wasn't involved in the Catholic League (German) even though it was to support the church. Zethus (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The "Casualties" section is very POV for China/against the Tibetan gov't in exile. There are plenty of articles from foreign (objective?) press stating that according to sources in Tibet, over a dozen protesters have been shot and hundreds injured by Chinese authorities. I think that should be mentioned. - Erik E. (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The official death toll is now at least 16(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet) with some estimates as high as 80.69.3.132.238 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The deaths were mostly Muslim Hui and Tibetans converts to Islam, The original target was the Lhasa Mosque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.190.32.7 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. Those casualties are all Han Chinese or Muslim Hui. I don't see how this fact can be biased against the Tibetan gov't in exile. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

These statements are a bit misleading, it doesn't account for the amount unaccounted for people. The PRC has a bit of a problem with reporting deaths of people who disagree with them. Either that or my history books need to be totally rewritten. Regardless I doubt we will ever get the total picture with the media blackout. Zethus (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Force on both sides

Just a quick pointing out that both sides of the unrest are using force; while Chinese police are indeed cracking down on the protestors, Tibetans are attacking ethnic-Chinese people and their businesses in Tibet: "Qiangba Puncog, the Tibetan regional governor, said 13 "innocent civilians" had been killed by mobs in Lhasa". [1] This article is surprisingly neutral although I still get the sense of a (very subtle) slant towards the Tibetans. --Joowwww (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The original target by the Tibetan mobs was the Lhasa Mosque. The Tibetan mobs do not like the business owners who control the economy in Lhasa, and since majority of the small business owners are Muslim Hui, they were targeted by the Tibetan mobs. This riot has more to the with the high inflation than pro-Dalai Lama independence.

I would also like to point out that Chinese police did not use "deadly" force, while the rioters are. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Then please put a source here so it may be included in the article. --K kc chan (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I very much doubt the people here will believe "official sources", while ironically, any knock-job Tibetian group's blog get included as "source". In any case, here is news article from VOA which point out PRC officially did not and will not use deadly force [2]. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been proven that what prompted the riots was a Chinese tank running over a group of Tibetan protesters who were not engaging in any violent activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.2 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proven where exactly? I doubt that a lot. And after looking at your contribution history I can see a fair amount of POV-pushing. --Joowwww (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the armored van that ran over protesters in the capitol of the TAR. But it definitely wasn't a tank. Zethus (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With that IP, I am surprised that nobody has pointed out yet --- I think he/she was just trolling. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No I was not. And yes, it was an armored van, sorry my memory is not the best in the world... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.2 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty pointless I would say. I have never heard anywhere which say the protest started because of some protesters got ran over. The most accepted reason is an accumulation of frustration + the 50 year anniversary + proximity to the olympic game. Unless you can provide some sources, your accusation hold no water. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Revolutions have been started over less than the price of tea. Also this has been simmering for some time now that's just the match that started the fire. Also if you read closely the part with the armored van is already in there and cited.Zethus (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, the price of tea is not an issue here. And if you read even closer, the armored van is not listed as a reason that started it all, which is his claim. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that, please read the article more carefully, it is listed in reference 11. In the article it says that the protests became violent when a armored van plowed through a crowd of protesters and afterwards military vehicles were seen taking over 100 people away. Again please read reference 11. Zethus (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the Chinese army have any involvement in the crackdown? This article seems to indicate so. However, all sources, from both pictorial and witness accounts, I have seen thus far indicate the contrary. It is argued that the PLA did lend armored personnel carriers (APC) to the People's Armed Police (PAP), i.e. pictures showing APCs with license plates and insignia covered. It is also evident that some civilians were mobilized. However, no signs of the army anywhere to be seen. Unless proved otherwise, I suggest the article to remove references to the Chinese army. Isnaciz (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Those APCs belong to the Armed Police for riot control. Armed Police are fully capable of riot control as well as crack downs. The Chinese government is really careful this time NOT to use the PLA Army. (A lesson learned from 1989.) We can maybe add on in the article that the Armed Police is a fully capable combat ready force. (To some degree) TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"combat readiness" is probably not best suited to describe the PAP. The PAP is an amalgamation of various branches of services, which include border guard, firefighting, gold guard, forestry and etc. This particular branch of the PAP in spotlight is the anti-riot branch. Isnaciz (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. As I said before - "To some degree," one can say that the People's Armed Police is fully capable & combat ready and others beg to differ. I know quite well what they do during peace times. This is not the time nor the place to get into this matter, so I’m gonna just leave it like that. However, I agree with you on the position that the PLA Army has not (or not yet) be involved in the incident and let's keep the article that way until future developments. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't a forum but I'd just like to point out to get you all thinking that although many people and non-official organisations have been quick to deplore China's response to the protests, if those kind of riots occured in any other country would that country's government have acted any different? See WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity, which although not nearly as bad as the situation in Tibet, makes China's (reportedly non-lethal) response seem surprisingly tepid given the fact that so many people have been killed. --Joowwww (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looting & Vandalism

According to CNN & BBC, the numbers of looting & vandalism actives have been skyrocketed and many of them were captured on tapes. Where is the section about that? I bet a “neutrality tag” is coming on this page real soon. TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looting and destruction is discussed extensively in the article. Please read it again, all the way through. On the other hand, we don't know about Tibetan deaths because foreign reporters have been ejected from Tibet by the PRC government. Badagnani (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's under "Violence in Lhasa," well, it should be a separate section. As of your question - CNN Quoted Exiled Tibetan Government that the death toll is around 80. There is plenty of media coverage in Asia, mainly Hong Kong media, which is what 90% of the CNN footage from. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you argue that any media source that we are going to get there is unbiased? The real question is how do we include media that is released and sort through the individual biases of it. It baffles me to be honest. I doubt we'll ever know the "real" truth even if it is reported correctly because of the media ban. Still the article is noteworthy. Zethus (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are western journalists from there. The Economist currently have a correspondent there. I also know of a blogger from there, unfortunately I lost the link, if someone have it can he/she please share it with us? Also, I must point out that to be completely fair, the Dali Lima is also capable of pumping out biased news. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

James Miles will be departing Tibet in a few hours, if he hasn't made anything new he's probably leaving the country, regarding the Dali Lama pumping out biased news, he is capable however he can't control what the press says to the degree that the PRC can to be honest. Most of the Western media use him as a counterpoint to the PRC because of the PRC media blackout there. I have serious doubts about the blogger there because of the general inability to post anything related to Tibet in mainland china.

Zethus (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the blog link: http://kadfly.blogspot.com/

So what are you implying Zethus? That all his -original- pictures and reports are fake, and that he's actually a Chinese communist agent? Right. He's actually an American, so maybe he just decided to make up news and fabricate pictures about the Tibet situation for giggles. /sarcasm. His blog was created in JANUARY, and his writing is that of someone who's first language is English FYI. He also talks about American politics in his earlier blog posts. In his latest blog post, he says he believes that Tibet should be given independence if the majority of their population wants that. Now, you are the only person that I have seen mentioning Chinese Internet Censorship as a reason that he shouldn't have been able to post his pictures/reports. That is completely false. They can post these pictures/reports but local citizens may face serious consequences. Also, the Chinese government will watch users that post content that is bad for their reputation. A western tourist blogging about how he witnessed all sorts of violence in Lhasa is NOT bad for their reputation. That's why James Miles was allowed to stay in Lhasa for the duration of his permit as well - so he can reveal to the world that this riot was not as peaceful as some may think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the link. I just wanna say that I just saw his interview on CNN & his report were closely similar w/ the blog. (Now, I don’t know if that is actually his blog or someone copying stuff from his blog, but that doesn't matter.) Most of us here on this page (as I have seen so far) are probably the most neutral editors I have come across on the site. I am glad that JM was in Lhasa, I am glad that he is safe & I am looking forward to hearing more from him. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Wiki editors on this page are more neutral, but that's not saying much. I'm sorry for my rude tone, but I was pretty annoyed after I read this line by Zethus: "See the articles by Asian news (the news paper), it has some pretty good pictures of the conflict, though how they got them is questionable. I was quiet surprised when I saw the dead bodies and the tanks, because for some reason I believed that the Chinese would stick to their word and not harm anyone, oh well." Someone who is absolutely skeptical of a blog because no one can possibly post anything about Tibet in China, immediately believes reports and pictures from Tibetan dissidents IN TIBET. The absolute contradiction was astounding to me and to me, it revealed his bias despite his calls for neutrality and making sure sources are neutral/verified. Aside from his flaw in logic, several pictures of dead bodies tells us NOTHING. Come on, they couldn't get ANY pictures of police with guns pointed towards them? How can they expect anyone to believe them if they just send pictures of dead bodies with no police around. Oh wait, they can apparently because there's people that will eat up anything that is pro-Tibet.

It's fairly easy to circumvent the firewall. My personal experience has been that while it is not possible to read any blogs (the blogspot.com domain is blocked), it is possible to post to blogs (the blogger.com domain used for that is NOT blocked, for whatever reason). Content filtering is probably not done, especially on outgoing content. In any event, any sort of monitoring or blocking can be circumvented by a simple SSH tunnel or any other method of encrypted proxying to a unblocked foreign server, since servers are not blocked by default and encrypted data is not blocked. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.199.182 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Why do the maps show both askai chin and arunachal pradesh as part of china (through use of border), when one is controlled by china and the other by India? This is clear pro-china pov. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Because those maps show China's claims, which overlap with those of India. When you enlarge the map, arrows clearly point out both claims. The map was not included to show POV, but because it is the best available on the Wikipedia. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they are part of China. Even the name Chin of that state means China (Chin) in Hindi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.206.11 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Important Event

This is an very important event. Not much is known from the 1959 Tibetan uprising, so this is the first time to see how the PRC Government reacts to protests, as well as uprisings since Tiananmen Square Protest. POV statements have already surfaced. Please keep this article as clean & free of POVs as possible. All statements should be accompanied by citations only. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If I ever submit anything I'll try to pass it through here first. Though if I see POV statements unsupported by fact I'll call them out, also I might correct spelling. Its a real problem to balance the need for up to the date news with unbiased coverage. I'll do my best to remain unbiased when editing, if I ever slip into bias on a edit don't hesitate to call me out on it.Zethus (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So far, most of the POV statements were from IP Edits. We'll all try our best to keep this article as balance as possible. Thanks again. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Western journalists"

As far as I know all foreign journalists are banned from Tibet now - not just ones from Europe and North America. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please state so here.

I've also updated the fact it was Miles who made the comments on both Han and Tibetans being the victim of the Police crackdown. John Smith's (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Xinhua News Agency "

Any news from the Xinhua News Agency should be viewed with extreme caution due to it being run by the PRC who is a party to the protests and may violate (NPOV). Regardless it still can be used as a counterpoint to western media, just don't cite it too often.Zethus (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note stating that Xinhua News Agency is government-run. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Xinhua is well known as the mouthpiece of PRC. TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About that I've started to notice a lot of our news articles cite Xinhua as their primary source of information. A good example is the ninth reference Zethus (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

People who don't know what Xinhua is wouldn't care what it's reporting. People who believe in Xinhua whole heartily wouldn't care what other news agencies are reporting either. I believe it's doing a job on what it's designed to do --- A Press window of the PRC. I like the current "official press agency of PRC" statement, it's informative yet without adding any POVs. TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How come no one is complaining that Dali-Lama as biased when he's not even a mouth-piece, he directly work for the Tibet exile gov't. Oh and Free Radio Asia is sponsored by the US government. Clearly there is room for bias there. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dali-Lama is recognized as biased. Radio Free Asia is sponsored by the US government, and probably is baised to some degree. However the Chinese government is a primary party in these protests and Xinhua is recognized internationaly and in China as the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China. Therein is a conflict of intrests because Xinhua must report directly to to the Communist Party of China's Public Information Department. If the United States were to say that there were no casualties on the side of Iraqis in the occupation of Iraq and seized or controlled all public press in the United States then the world community would be in a uproar as well. The PRC has also has a precedent of doing this example. Zethus (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, well let's not get into another pointless cluster-fock about PRC here. How about let's just agree that we shall all work together to make sure no biased news make it into the article whichever side of the fence you happen to stand on. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, please just list anything reported by Xinhua as the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China, and the Dali-Lama as himself so as not to confuse readers when they see biased statements. Try to represent both sides fairly. Zethus (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a [blog] that could potentially provide some useful information. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

images from Chinese Wikipedia

Will someone who reads Chinese please help source these two images on their article? They look useful for this one:

• http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:20080315.jpg&variant=zh-cn
• http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lhasa.jpg&variant=zh-cn

Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to see either. Sorry I'm no help Zethus (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the images. I don't think I can help you on that either, sorry.

88.105.2.80 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection might be needed

As the story unfolds (or ends), the number of IP edits has been increasing. I believe semi-protection might be needed in the very soon future especially these kinda “sensitive” subjects. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I for one wouldn't mind semi-protection. Zethus (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)]

DEFINITELY AGREEABLE. Call upon all users to vote/support SEMI-PROTECTION for this article. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zethus (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)If we're going to do this someone has to inform the administrators.

Well, on the brighter note - seems like IP Actives have died down a lot. Just in case, any admin reading this article? TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No Shin-chan01 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes? TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Police violence

Am I the only one who is baffled and disturbed by some of the Media coverage of the protest and police action. The news I saw described Chinese police are beating protesters, to the point of bleeding, yet, I found out the footage shown was actually in Nepal. I was watching news coverage of the protest in Tibet, and saw police chasing Buddhist monks with sticks and beating them with it, and monks and civilians covered with blood. I thought the behavior of the police were disgusting, yet later I saw the same footages and photos of those polices on the internet, but the description is that those police beating and protests were actually happening in Nepal and not in Tibet. [3] It looks very similar to images of Tibet, but I don’t know why the media would pass these images for Tibet protest though.--207.69.139.142 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you go to www.backchina.com, you will see that some pictures and footage are not true. Ex:Germany media called sticks guns. AND BBC think that ambulances and doctors are "heavy troop forces"

The information added has been verified with impartiality. Although more references are needed, they are not hard to find. I based my writings on my knowledge of Chinese history, which can be easily verified with geographical maps of China during different dynasties. I feel very honored to be able to add the little details to a well written article. I do feel though that these are important details that should not be omitted for readers to get a full picture of the conflict and where its backgrounds can be retraced from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.10.181 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See the articles by Asian news (the news paper), it has some pretty good pictures of the conflict, though how they got them is questionable. I was quiet surprised when I saw the dead bodies and the tanks, because for some reason I believed that the Chinese would stick to their word and not harm anyone, oh well. Zethus (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zethus, read this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/ ; an actual Western journalist from The Economist with experience in Lhasa. He's pretty neutral about it and has no reason to lie. I wouldn't trust some of the pro-tibet websites or Western media. Their pictures have been mislabelled greatly, the reports have been unverified and sourced from pro-tibet exiles, and are just as bad as Chinese CCTV propaganda. Pictures of dead bodies have been labelled as TIbetan but have had no one to verify that they are actually Tibetans killed by soldiers. Reports from tourists as well have said that the police did not use Tiananmen-style violence but mostly tear gas. Judging from the reports of tourists, bloggers and this journalist himself, the dead bodies are more likely to be of the hans ethnic chinese or hui muslims than tibetans. It's funny because I see you in this discussion talking about being NPOV and looking at neutral sources, yet you easily believe a bunch of miscaptioned, unverified reports on pictures of dead bodies. Your sarcastic and condemning tone reveals your own bias against the Chinese side of this. As Miles said, the olympics has made the Chinese government very hesistant to use any force against the rioters, yet Western media and the sheep (their audience) will form a picture of Tiananmen in Tibet in their heads either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also things you may consider is you might want to consider, history books are not always NPOV. Tibet can be seen as part of China or as it's own independent entity depending on the writer. Zethus (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow this topic, I would like to say a little bit about the biased media report. Please refer to the link http://newschecker.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-lie-about-xizang-tibet-violence-and.html . It seems that the news agencies are trying to manipulate people's attitude on this issue. gofly (talk)11:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.184.13 (talk)

I read it, it bounds with incorrect grammar. Even the title "Who Lie about Xizang Tibet Violence", it's a blog and not a reliable source.Zethus (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the blog. Did a search on Google and watched a video on YouTube. It seems the blogger is telling the truth. But it's highly unlikely that we will be able to find a reliable source of this information. --Deathkenli (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a new section in the article or writting another article about the manipulations on photos? (with the photos included, of course) Anyone with a common sense should clearly see the differences between Chinese police and Nepal/Indian police. However, the tricky part will still be about finding an official or authentic source for this information. In the worst case we must wait until any news agency respond to the content of the photos. 85.228.100.214 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The blogger is not even bothering to hide his bias. He seems to insist on using the Mandarin Chinese names for Tibet and Lhasa, pointlessly and he is pretty much vomiting Chinese nationalistic rhetoric in general. However, he does back up his assertions about media bias with sources. --130.132.199.182 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections needing reference

The following was removed from the article. There seems to be partial references for these, but not for the entire statement. Benjwong (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The protests were started by Buddhist monks calling for the release of fellow monks detained in October 2006 as they celebrated the Dalai Lama receiving the United States Congressional Gold Medal on September 27, 2006.

• Over 50 Tibetans and non-Tibetans in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada staged a peaceful demonstration in front of the Chinese consulate in Vancouver on March 14th and 15th. Several protesters stayed overnight at the consulate as part of the demonstration, and Vancouver policemen stayed with them to ensure their safety. They managed a flag-burning session outside the embassy.

• India's harsh crackdown on pro-Tibet protests in the country was largely seen as a sign of India distancing itself from the Tibetan cause in an attempt to improve relations with China.

Tibetan Intifada

One of the popular name of this event in blogs and reports is "Tibetan Intifada". This has evoked strong sentimentality to those who consider the Palestinian issue one of the major moral dilemmas in our time [4][5][6][7].

I might want to point out that the word "Intifada" evokes very negative emotions from the Jewish community.Zethus (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely I don't see the use of "Tibetan Intifada" in any way sympathetic to the Chinese government of the Han Chinese in Lhasa. It may draw analogy between anti-Sinitic actions with anti-Semitic actions. But then any compassion towards the establishment challenged by the uprising ends at the fact that the Chinese state over Tibet is not, and cannot in any possible way in the minds of most Jews, be likened to the Jewish State. However, to the Western Left, or anyone, Jewish or not, who considers the Palestinian Intifada to be at least of some revolutionary significance, the term "Tibetan Intifada" delivers as much a sentiment as "Saffron Revolution". What it might possibly hint, is perhaps Chinese Apartheid. Uprisings, riots have been frequent on Chinese soil after the Deng Era, and Tibetan "liberation movement(s)" have been florishing in exile since 1959. But never has a struggle so continuous as the Intifada for the cause of Tibetan liberation been noticed within China's borders. The use of the term thus changes all those perceptions.

Strange. That name has negative connotations, plus the events have differed form that conflict immensely. This is more rioting and civil unrest than a conflict. You could just as easily compare it to the 2005 French riots. --D:J I J:D (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename needed

I guess the title "in Tibet" is not really suitable now, because the event is becoming international. Probably a name including "Tibetan" is more suitable. – PeterCX&Talk 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The international actions usually are that of storming the embassy of the Peoples Republic of China. Its just a reaction to the event not a event of itself.---Zethus (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree 140.122.97.7 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rioters vs Protesters

Munford (talk) wants to change protesters to rioters; in place of a revert war please post your opinion here so we can achieve a consensus with other wikipedians. I personally believe that not all protesters were rioters; however most rioters were in some way protesters. Zethus (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While what you said is true, generally, Protesters become Rioters when they use violence, crime, and/or vadalism. Which we have seem all 3 in Tibet. There for, I support changing Protesters to Rioters. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rioter is a NPOV word that based on what kind of activity those people were engaged in. This story here is quite similar to what happened in Los Angeles riots of 1992. It started as protests and changed into race based riot. In that article, the word "rioter" or other equivalents are used throughout. To describe activities before March 14, word protester is more suitable; but for violence section, rioter is the right word. -munford (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be used as a blanketing term, if you noticed before you re-reverted the edits (which I asked you not to do before we had a consensus) we already featured the word "rioters in many sentences) regardless I do understand your point. Zethus (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My edits were only in the sentences that described violence and in the section called "Violence in Lhasa". -munford (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also it's not just that I want to change everything back (I do, but I'm not going to engage in some petty revert war with you, I generally leave it to one revert only, if theres a problem I talk it out), the major problem is that I asked you to talk it out on the talk page and achieve consensus before you go running around changing all but one "protester" to "rioter". You can be absolutely vindicated in your mind however you have to accept that different people have different world views. And no, one annon edit does not make a consensus. If you don't see me for a week it's because I am in the middle of midterms so I might not be able to reply. Regardless I hope more independent editors will make their opinions known about the subject while I'm not here. Zethus (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you have problem with changing "protesters" to "rioters" when the sentences were all talking about stabbing people, setting fire etc. If you have a justification for that, please state it. -munford (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel "rioters" is a more suitable word. -Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.114.167 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons i find western media biased after relating images of rioting from Xinhua and then reporting the whole unrest as "protests". --Kvasir (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutralisation

Hello, I made a neutralisation under IP (not loggued),

• please see changes here

I downgraded the Tibet statut (occupation) as one factor leading to violences, not the core of the trouble.

I added the claim (see talkpage, upper) that the starting point may have been Inflation, and Hui muslim and Han comparative economic success.

Yug = 140.122.97.7 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's a good theory Yug we need evidence to back it up, I put up a tag so you have time to post reliable sources to back up your theory---Zethus (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

Ok, I hesitated to put it but I seen that many statement were without source either. Anyway, your add is welcome. ;) thanks for your help 220.135.4.212 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-adding it. See reference 5 Zethus. It's sourced

The sentence "Inflation, as well as the comparative economic success of non-Tibetan ethnic groups had lead to attacks against Hui and Han owned business." was deleted by user:Sevilledade (3 days old account, contribution only on this article) arguing it was POV.

Not sourced yet : yes. POV, I don't think so.

• Inflation is a trouble for all poor in China, I don't think Tibet make exception.
• The claim that "hotels were vandalised, except those own by tibetans" (help me to find from were come this statement please !) say exactly the same.

I explained why inflation is particularly infuriating to TIbetans in the Bakcground section. I'll put a snippet about it in the intro. Also, there's multiple sources that only non-Tibetan businesses were targetted.

Riots start in all China for socio-economical reason. Talk in the introduction only about the independance as only source of the riot, this, yes, is POV.

=> Revert edit of Sevilledade (19 march, 19:34.) Yug (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

Could we maybe (per WP:N) cut this section down a little? The reactions of nations like Italy, Sweden and Poland are a) totally predictable ("we condemn this") and b) frankly irrelevant. Major and regional powers, yes, but not nations that aren't really involved. Biruitorul (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A clean up is needed, I agree. For example - Poland, this Polish-Tibetan Group is just a party of the parliament, not even the ruling party. They can say whatever they want, yet still doesn't reflect the official Polish government’s position. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Poland entry removed.218.189.215.153 (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"storm"?

Wiktionary (and common usage) defines storm as "A violent assault on a stronghold or fortified position.". All of the "international reactions" references speak of things like "tried to storm" or "tried to force their way into", yet the article uses very definitive wording (stormed) in almost every description. I feel this is not really accurate, possibly even intentionally misleading, so I'll change some of them. LarsHolmberg (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PRC death toll

I doubt that the death toll Champa Phuntsok (Qiangba Puncog) announced on March 17 is 16. Several sources (lemonde.fr, Reuters, Xinhua) show that the toll is 13. Daltac (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm sure it is not over 50 and is caused by protestors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.67.182 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They are Pushing the Independance issue in this article

Thanks for user:Elliskev edits (neutralization[8]) and comment : "there are far too many rally images. this isn't the Pro-Tibet Rally article. rm as giving undue weight to this aspect".
I personnally think that pro-independance and "innocent" good-will editors are pushing the Independance issue in this article, and almost totally avoiding socio-economical issue. Sadly, USA and European based newspapers and journalists will probably make the same easy biaise : write down "Free Tibet ! Dalai Lama ! Independance !" is far more easy and profitable than look the complex socio-economic situation of all current China and even harder to have an analyse of recent socio-economic situation in Tibet.
Accordingly, sources about socio-economic situation's importance may be difficult to provide. We face the limit of the "citation need" policy. I hope that you can help us to listen the "be logic first" recommendation and find out source about recent socio-economic situations, and state clearly the socio-economic + politic/justice (human rights) + historic (anexion) origines.
Cheers, Yug (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a citation for your addition in the lede. --Elliskev 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction

Mind if I paraphraise the current reaction and place the rest of it in a seperate article... (similar to what I did to the Benazir Bhutto one).

Richardkselby (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do. --Elliskev 15:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, I was just about to suggest the same thing. LarsHolmberg (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I thought you were talking about the protests outside china section. Anyways, I think they both belong on other pages (perhaps even the same one), but most importantly, I think the protests outside china section needs to be shortened. LarsHolmberg (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

About Images

OK. As long as the images were under "oversea protest" or "local Chinese protest" sections, they are fine. Do I want to see "Pro-Chinese" protest images? Sure, but I don't think there is any. I like images, and I want them to be in the article. As long as they within the right sections, I think we should select the best ones & keep them. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the three images in that section, only one is of sufficient quality to be of any use at all. The other two plain suck. Without a caption I'd be hard pressed to guess what they're showing. --Elliskev 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Especially one about Seattle, if you don't click on it, you would think people were lining up for PS3 Launch or something. I would say we still wanna keep them right now, because we really don't have that many pictures. When we received more pics, we can then select & keep the best. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you click on the Seattle image, it becomes questionable whether the caption (and the reason the pic is in this article) is correct. Is this a pro-Tibet rally? I see signs about trusting Jesus, signs telling me to support the troops, signs saying that the Iraq war needs to end, something about Israeli "apartheid", and ..oh yeah.. there they are. See them at the back? Yes. There they are. "Save Tibet"... --Elliskev 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There were going to be "pro-Chinese" protests in London and Canada this Saturday. But the organizers finally caved in under "pro-Tibetan" harassment. Daltac (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah?! That's interesting. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't there any images of riots, burning cars, broken shop windows and such? Where are the images of the event itself? This article surely isn't only about the reaction to the event. What about those images of riots, military deployment, and riot control captured by Xinhua that the BBC has been using from time to time? News coverage screen captures? There are bound to be available images on the internet somewhere. --Kvasir (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess most of these images might be copyrighted? If Wikipedia was easily accessible from Lhasa, maybe there would be a way to get GNU-licensed pictures up, but so far all pics seem to come from news agencies and therefore with a copyright. Of course some might still be subject to "fair use", but apparently no-one has yet felt the urge to delve into that. Yaan (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Socio-economic statement and ref

This edit removed a citation that I added to the existing language "socio-economical context (comparative economic success of non-Tibetan ethnic groups)...lead to riots."

I have restored the reference based on this quote from the source: "At this point, economic and social grievances came to the fore, and members of the general population became involved in the monks' protests. Many Tibetans are angry at the increasing numbers of Han Chinese migrants arriving in the region, accusing them of taking the best jobs." --Elliskev 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Elliskev ;) Yug 05:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.135.4.212 (talk)

Who is this "John" that BBC quoted from

At here, BBC quoted from an "an eyewitness as John." I bet his last name is also Smith. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts are a problem. Where news sources have reported them, they should be attributed to "an eyewitness named X, quoted by the BBC, said..."

Note that this does not apply to expressions of opinion, which are inherently non-notable from eyewitnesses, such as the CAnadian backpacker whom some people persist in adding. Relata refero (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian tourist's view on the event

User Relata refero and I have been disagreeing with whether or not to include statements involving The Times interviewing a Canadian tourist who was in Tibet. I think the commentary by the backpacker is of significance, since it is a comments on the sensitive issue from a third party view and someone who has experienced the event. This article doesn't contain direct opinion about the political issue from tourist who experienced the event, but plenty of politicians and others views and opinions. Other editors' input on the whole issue is welcome.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Relata refero. Lay analysis adds color to a news article, but has no place in an encyclopedic entry. --Elliskev 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm waiting for more comments coming in.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note You've changed your OP since my response. I was responsing to this version. My objection is to the addition of things like this:Canadian tourist John Kenwood after coming back from Tibet told The Times about the experience: "It's hard to pick a side in what happened, I agree that the Tibetans have their own culture, but I can't agree with what people did. After a while, it was not about Tibetan freedom any more."

That is a layperson's analysis of the nature of the situation, and it's not appropriate here. --Elliskev 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. James Miles' comments would be a much better addition. He basically implies the same thing though. Quote " It was an extraordinary outpouring of ethnic violence of a most unpleasant nature to watch, which surprised some Tibetans watching it. So they themselves were taken aback at the extent of what they saw. And it was not just targeted against property either. Of course many ethnic Han Chinese and Huis fled as soon as this broke out. But those who were caught in the early stages of it were themselves targeted. Stones thrown at them. At one point, I saw them throwing stones at a boy of maybe around 10 years old perhaps cycling along the street. I in fact walked out in front of them and said stop. It was a remarkable explosion of simmering ethnic grievances in the city."

I believe an eyewitness account of a Tibetan mob stoning a 10 year old boy becuse he's of a different ethnicity says a lot more than some Canadian tourist's opinion. Actually, I just read that James Miles actually DOES say the same thing: "The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred. Immigrants have been flocking into Lhasa in recent years from the rest of China and now run many of its shops, small businesses and tourist facilities." Check reference 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.111.231 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with James Miles' analysis as a professional observer. --Elliskev 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if we remove the BBC's "John," we should remove this Canadian backpacker too. JM from the economist is a professional Reporter, this guy & BBC's John can be anyone...their views can be bias. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Woh, hold on. It's not the tourists' reliability that's in question. It's the news sources' reliability that matters. And in this case it was all major news sources that reported what these tourists said. We shouldn't be removing any of them, but we should be clear which news source reported on what, and specify that they are reporting on what tourists told them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The news sources are reliable, but one tourist's opinion is not encyclopaedic. I simply don't see a single good reason to put him in. That he saw the rioting with his own eyes makes him notable for descriptions of the riots - not on Deep Moral Questions. Relata refero (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But here is the thing tho. No matter what - the BBC's John or The Times's backpacker's statements shouldn't be added onto Wikipedia due to the fact that they are POVs. Now if they interview me, I have my own POVs on this issue & those statements can not be added on Wikipedia either. J.M. from the Economist is different, he is a professional reporter and his articles are quite neutral with only reporting on events, not his POV (or very little) on the cases. “John & Mr./Ms. Backpacker” are reflecting majorly based on their own POVs. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dalai clique

I think we need an article about the "Dalai clique" referred to by Chinese officials. How do they construe this group and what is the origin of this term? Badagnani (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information on this subject avaliable yet for an article of it's own. I think this topic should wait a while to see if anything new pops up. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It came from "達賴集團" (It means - The Group of Dalai or The Organization of Dalai). The Chinese has been using that for a while. It has turned down from the former "Gangs of Dalai" a lot. It just caught on w/ western median because Wen Jiabao used it in a conference recently. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the emphasis on youtube blocking necessary?

The internet censorship in PRC is a well known issue and has an independent wiki entry. The youtube has been under target before frequently. Sure it is worth noting that mainland Chinese have limited access to reliable information sources, yet I'm not sure whether emphasis on the current PRC action is appropriate. I heard from my Chinese-speaking friend that youtube basically forbids any pro-China comment to be posted in English. So I submitted a con-CNN comment under a video called "Truth of western media" or something like that, and indeed my comment disappeared in one hour. Regarding that, the neutrality of youtube is questionable. So I suggest either to have this to be mentioned or remove the particular emphasis on the current youtube blocking issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.212.87 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Tibetan exiles and dissidents really reliable sources?

In many parts of the article, there are numerous claims made by Tibetan dissidents to the casualties and actions of Chinese anti-riot police. Examples: "The Times quoted Tibetan sources in London as saying that between 26 and 33 protestors had been killed on March 15th after a bomb was thrown into a crowd demonstrating for the release of prisoners outside Lhasa's main prison[7]."

"A Tibetan said a work colleague had seen a green armored vehicle plowing into the crowd, running people over, at approximately 3 p.m. on March 14. "

I already removed a statement about how Chinese police shot at a crowd of 400 nuns, middle school children, and monks. Seriously? Come on. Anyways, I removed it because the report was from a clearly biased, pro-tibet website that had "Christian-based" news, and their source were Tibetan dissidents who "verified" their claim with a few pictures of dead bodies.

I didn't remove the other statements because they're from relatively reliable newspapers, but really the source is very questionable. The only foreign journalist there, and the tourists have noted that if the occasional bangs/gunfire was heard, it was single shots (likely warning shots) and there was no bursts of machine gun fire. They also noted the the riot police themselves only carried batons and shields, and used tear gas, not guns. Now, how exactly do they move from that extreme reluctance to use force (because of the Olympics) to throwing bombs into a crowd and running them over with a military vehicle? No outside source has even witnessed the police using ANY lethal weapons during the riots. There have been NO pictures of the police using any weapons on the rioters. It's all been speculation and reports by Pro-Tibetan sources.

It's true that Xinhua is also cited twice in this article, but for one of them, the info was also reported by the London Free Tibet Campaign as well (burned mosque), so that's a moot point. The other time that Xinhua is cited, they just list the number of buildings burned during the riots. James Miles has already said that most of the small businesses were burned because the Chinese police waited a while to let the riot cool off a bit. Western tourists have confirmed the same thing. Both have also mentioned that muslim Hui were targetted, so the mosque being burned isn't surprising. I really don't think the number of buildings burnt has as big of an impact on the tone of this article compared to saying that the police threw bombs and vehicles in crowds vs. them using tear gas/batons and ocasional warning shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.111.231 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have some doubt on this issue. For me, their statements are not trustable, but citable if we clearly state in the article'stext the source.

Yug 06:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres more than two Xinhua references, also there are references directly from the Chinese government. How can we possibly be NPOV if we report accounts from "confidential eye witnesses" "Western tourists (that are in a part of a country their not supposed to be in)", a han girl, and the Chinese government themselves and not Tibetans? If not them then who? Also 99.230.111.231, if Chinese police did kill innocent protesters how exactly is that going to be verified? Its also on CNN video if you watch it, I'm too lazy and too tired to do this during my vacation. Zethus (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zethus, I already explained the two Xinhua references. I just found the 3rd one you're talking about, and like the other two, they report basically the same things that James Miles and Western tourists have reported. I would be satisfied if all Xinhua and Tibietan exile sourced info was removed. And for gods sakes, the tourists were kicked out soon after, but they WERE there. Stop assuming that they are just Chinese agents. There were pictures of 2 Canadian tourists being escorted out by the police. If the Chinese police did kill innocent bystanders, I expect for tourists or the journalists to have seen it. That's how it's verified. Anything else is just speculation. If there were pictures or videos of police using guns or bombs against the TIbetan rioters, please post links here. If not, I'm going to assume that it' just Tibetan propaganda which is no better than Chinese goernment propaganda. Now please re-read what I wrote. When Tibetan dissidents say that the police threw a BOMB and plowed a vehicle into crowds, I'm A BIT SKEPTICAL. James Miles has said the police didn't even use machine gun fire against the protestors, now why would they blow them up? Are you getting me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.114.99 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I changed your "Also Yug,[...]" by "Also 99.230.111.231, [...]" since 99.230.111.231 is not me. Yug 14:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not like they haven't run over dissidents before, James Miles LEFT the area before the conflict became really heated He was there when they intitaly broke out, but he couldn't be everywhere, he observed one city and had about 4 days after the riots broke out to make his report. The fact is there are hardly ANY NPOV sources to quote, as we cannot make the PRC to open up their borders. Also your saying that these people who are escorted (and I use the term lightly) out to see violence thats happening when they are leaving and take photos? How can they see violence when their being told to leave by the PRC. Cameras are banned and when something is given from a source in Tibet to the western world it is automatically discounted because it is a picture by a Tibetan.132.178.206.219 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a downright lie. James Miles was there when a mob stoned a 10 year old ethnic Han Chinese, he was there when the mob was burning down tons of shops, and when they attacked buses full of Chinese. He was there when the riot police started handling the crowds. He was there when he heard single shots of gunfire. I believe that would be the height of violence - unless you can prove that the Tibetans somehow managed to do worse. Yes, he couldn't be anywhere, but that is NOT an excuse to suddenly take Pro-Tibetan dissident sources as reliable. Right, police just started to shoot into a crowd of middle school children, nuns, and monks for giggles. Really, why don't we just stick the devil's horns on the Chinese police and be done with it then? The tourists in and around the region when when the violence staretd. That's how they saw it. As I said, you can easily find sources of foreign eyewitnesses reporting about the violence in the region. Yet, they did not see bombs exploding and the military ramming trucks into crowds, leaving a trail of blood and intestines. And when the "source" is a tibetan man who said that he heard from his work colleague, that so and so happened, yes it becomes unreliable. "a friend of a friend of mine said". And yes, you can find many pictures of crowds of TIbetans standing around dead bodies, or Tibetan crowds holding "FREE TIBET" signs, random dead bodies in the street (who could be Han Chinese), riot police with their shields, military police running around, nepalese police beating monks, etc. Why can't you find a single picture of the aftermaths of the bomb exploding or the truck running into a crowd? None of them decided to take pictures then, but whipped them out to take pictures of the dead bodies? Give me a break.

If a Tibetan dissident actually gets a picture of police with weapons shooting school children and nuns, the aftermath of the bomb thrown into the crowd, or them running vehicles through crowds, then yes I would see that as reasonable to put into the article. Otherwise, it sounds like a huge load of crappy propaganda. If a Tibetan dissident provides pictures of dead bodies with no timestamp or verifiable story behind it, then yes, as far as I am concerned, that's about as reliable as Xinhua.99.230.114.99 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is alot more than three, news sources directly quote Xinhua. Just because it's Yahoo news doesn't mean that Yahoo has reporters on the ground in tibet. It's kinda funny, when someone quotes Times news they find the quote from Xinhua, quote it and say that Times News said it. As of now I'm on vacation, I don't think I will be around a computer for a week and won't be able to make edits. Regardless please try your best to make this more NPOV, Yug I hope you don't take my criticisms too harshly but I'm just expressing my opinion on the talk page. Anyways have a great week! LaterZethus (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just went through all Yahoo news references and all of them either take info from pro-tibet sources, or are talking about boycotts, Nepalese police, etc. If you're going to give an example of Xinhua being sourced, at least give me a helpful one to start with :P

Section background

Please help to keep the section explaning all : socio-economical background ; politic and justice background ; and historic background. Some editor -according to low quality mass media- support the naive idea that all is explainable by Independance-will alone. Please, help to keep this issue as just one of the several complex reasons. Yug 06:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A question on vandalism

I'm not sure where to put this, but with the onset of these protests, on wikipedia, has there been a surge of anti-Chinese vandalism? If this question is off topic, someone remove this. --122.107.72.132 (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We are aware of this, I personnaly think that it's because newspapers , to sell more papers quicker, write down naive "Free Tibet ! Dalai lama !" articles. Then, good will editors add naive view into this article. We do our best to improve this article. Be conscient that this will ask time. 06:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.135.4.212 (talk)

If most articles on the subject are naive, then I am afraid this article will be naive as well. If you want to change people's naivete, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Relata refero (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"good will editors". That would mean people in the employ of the Chinese government...

That is negative. Wikipedia try to have a NPOV stance. In fact, all sources used are checked for NPOV before being included. This is why you do not find "FREE TIBET! DALI LAMA!" type of thing in this article. We are here to report the truth, not our personal political views. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning that there has been a surge in vandalism. Thanks.--122.107.72.132 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction

Did anyone notice that no major Western countries have publicly denounced the violence in Lhasa? This is appalling to me. I mean, whether Tibet should be independent is one issue, but the ethnic violence and anti-human crimes committed by tibetan thugs are recorded facts...How come countries such Sweden, who have been proclaiming themselves as peace advocates, ignore those facts and jump immediately into China bashing? That's utmost hypocricy. Disgusting. 35.11.39.19 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The peoples republic of china has a long history of human rights abuses. Also if they feel so persecuted then they should at least allow independent journalists to cover the full story. As they don't have the full story but have seen only PRC brodcasts how can they make a opinion or denounce the protests when they don't have all the information.132.178.206.219 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That PRC has a long history of human right abuse, does not validate the violence. Moreover, the statement that "they...but have seen only PRC brodcasts" is also not true. As mentioned in this article, James Miles of economist was there covering the protest (although the only Western Journalist allowed) and he has clearly pointed out the violent nature of the "protests". Finally, I think my original post is regarding the "International Reaction" section of the article. I think it is probably necessary to add a summary sentence to point out that no Western countries have condemned violence by rioters -- this is not POV because it's not judgemental, but just a factual summary to help readers comprehend the long, unordered list of responses.35.11.39.19 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk or anything, but as the banner at the top of this page says:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 unrest in Tibet article.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Let's try to keep the talk focused on article improvement. --Elliskev 19:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

effects elsewhere

Can anyone see how this http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_as/taiwan_presidential_election might be folded in? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't. TW issue is another thing that, as of now, has nothing to do with Tibet or at lease, very little. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Western media bias (Or claims of such)

I've added some extra text on what the Chinese side claims is Western bias in reporting the riots.[9] It's not perfectly written, so please revise as needed. Here is the source I used - [10]. And this other URL can't be used as a source because it's a forum, but for those who are interested - [11]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

EW on speculative article based on British intelligence

I notice that several users are trying to put in, and one user is constantly reverting, a particular article from the G2 intelligence review written by Gordon Thomas, the Welsh intelligence expert and syndicated widely. Here's the version that reached the top of digg. I'm not sure it isn't a marginal viewpoint, but the individual is a reliable source. He writes for the Sunday Express and wrote one of the major works on Mossad. Relata refero (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sceptical about what he has to say. Why would the Chinese government purposefully instigate Tibetan riots when it knows the world is watching so close to the Olympics? It makes no sense. Plus I'm not sure I trust the word of someone who wrote a book titled "Secrets and Lies: A History of CIA Mind Control and Germ Warfare". --Joowwww (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the title is a lot more out-there-tinfoil-hatty than the actual book. Some publishers tend to do that sort of thing.

About why the PRC would do such a thing, your guess is as good as mine. I don't really believe it. However, the point is the chap is considered respectable about intelligence-related leaks. His own interpretation is generally crackpot-ty in my opinion, but he tends to be quoted all over the place, like in the Guardian and the NYT. Relata refero (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This news link was from March 20. And no major news outlet has reported it. Usually Western media would be fast to jump at something like this, but none of them has carry it. I did some search only to find a Tibetan news outlet carrying this article. Freedomthirst.com? What kind of website is it.--Sevilledade (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Beijing orchestrating Tibet riots, according to the UK's Government Communications Headquarters

Someone should include this reference in the page: http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=19922&article='Beijing+orchestrating+Tibet+riots' The GCHQ is clearly a credible source. ThVa (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be better to use a URL that's from the GCHQ itself, if GCHQ did make such a claim. Or at the very least, use a link from Canada Free Press, which seems to be where phayul.com got the article. Funny thing though, I can find the article from Canada Free Press cached on Google - [12] - but clicking on the URL that's supposed to be on Canada Free Press's website itself, the article is not there. Can anybody find it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right--the article is not where Google search results claims it should be. I've contacted CFP requesting clarification on why they're removed it. ThVa (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, if we can't find the article directly from Canada Free Press, I think it's fine to include the content in the article as long as we specifically state that it comes from phayul.com - the site is pro-Tibet and readers deserve to know that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Various sites seem to have quoted this article; I used this one because it was the first one I noticed, on a slashdot post. I confronted the author of the post with the dubious credibility of the source he linked to, and his defense is flimsy: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=496168&cid=22834848 In light of this I'm going to have to retract my initial request. ThVa (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See the section above about "EW on speculative article based on British intelligence". About the same article, I suppose. "Source" refers to both author and publisher, and in this case the author seems reliable. Relata refero (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What was CFP's answer? Badagnani (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

None this far. Maybe someone else can give a try. ThVa (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeebus, those guys at slashdot sound like they would believe it if a pro-Tibet source wrote that the CCP were Martians came to invade the planet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there was any solid evidence of Beijing doing such a thing, it would be all over the British media by now. It would be sensational, if true. So obviously it is not true.--GwydionM (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? No one will dare publishing such news whithout verification. I suggest one should add when possible the following text :

Gordon Thomas, a writer, published an article were he stated that according to GCHQ, the UK government communications agency, agents of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, disguised as monks, triggered the riots. It is speculated that the riots were deliberately calculated by Beijing to provide an excuse to stamp out the simmering unrest in Tibet.

According to Ruan Ming, the CCP staged the incidents in Tibet to force the Dalai Lama to resign and to justify repression of the Tibetans. Michael Sheridan, a journalist, claimed that an ethnic repression was actually masterminded by a faceless trio composed of Wang Lequan, Zhang Qingli and Li Dezhu.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rédacteur Tibet (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 

Again, we've emphasized on this, these references (they are from www.phayul.com) are questionable. Anyway, the problems concerning the source you want to cite (www.phayul.com) has already been discussed above; the source from phayul, a pro-Tibetan news agency, claimed to retreive its article from Canada Free Press, but the Canada Free Press's website doesn't contain this article or has removed it. BTW, The Times Online article you cited at the end has little to do with GCHQ or this topic. Either way, you'll need some kind of consensus in the talk page to add information of that kind of merit and controversy.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not understand your point. If these data are questionable, then question them. Neither the chinese government, neither GCHQ did deny these information. If you have a denial, then add this to the information, same about The epoch times, which is a related news. The other article, I sorry, I did not yet extract the major points. I'll do it. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on Phayul, the Epoch Times is unreliable on a level with the People's Daily or the North Korean media. It is a Falun Gong mouthpiece. Let's try to keep it out of the article entirely, please. Alexwoods (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it more important to take into account the interviewed person there? In addition, the Epoch Times is cited in 87 pages on wikipedia. In addition, the people’s daily is cited many times in the present article page. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can show the reference on a major Western media outlet, we'll definitely add it on. Until then, please wait for more editors to commenting on this topic.--Sevilledade (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RT, I'm with Seville here. If a major media outlet carriest this story, then it should go in the article. Until then it's really just a conspiracy theory. Alexwoods (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, It is a conspiracy theory. And if were thrue? Why do you think so many people are requesting foreign media or institutions to enquire about the trouble in Tibet. I specified the names of the authors or interviewed persons of the 3 articles I found along this line. I did not find one single article that said these theory are wrong. Not even chinese one. Can you prove these are wrong theory? If you can, then just add these informations. It is very important. Tibetans are dying in Tibet, some are starving of hunger in Monastries. One monk died of hunger, I hope it is mentioned in the article. Anyway, my point is that if you can't find evidence that this theory is not right, then what you are doing is censorship --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it were true, we would put it in the article. It's not censorship if it's false, non-notable or irrelevant information. If you have good cites for the starvation claim, please put those in. Alexwoods (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you say this when you can't prove the contrary? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't prove that the riots weren't orchestrated by Rastapopoulos either, so do I have to put that in the article too? See what I mean? It's logically impossible to prove a negative. Alexwoods (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, I can prove Rastapopoulos isn't involve here, as he is a fictional character. Again, no one denied the articles, and the authors might go to court if they give wrong informations, isn't it? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rédacteur Tibet, could you use references other than the articles from www.phayul.com? I mean there are so many prominent news sources you can use (AP, Reuters...), why only choose references from phayul.com?--Sevilledade (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are the very few to speak tibetan, with Tibet Times, therefore, they have access to information other don't have yet in these critical moment. If you use googlenews, you will see, they are well reported. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No. If I use google news to search the news you cited to this article, it still directed me to the articles of phayl.com. No Western media outlets has reported on the same story. Also, like we pointed out above, some of the sources phayul.com claim to retrieve their article from does not actually have the information (i.e. Canada Free Press).--Sevilledade (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe you did not searched really well, I found at least one very rapidly http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1396916.php/China_tightens_monastery_blockade_monk_dies_of_starvation__1st_Lead_ --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is from the same source. I have to confess that I don't see what the problem is here. We're keeping the statement in the article, and it is virtually identical to what all the news articles say, i.e. "according to exile groups" or "according to the government in exile." That's what we have to say until it's independently corroborated. You shouldn't worry about this. You made a very constructive contribution to the article and we're leaving it in. Alexwoods (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if we add information reported from phayul.com and Epoch Times as long as we do in-content attribution to those two sources, and describe the sources as pro-Tibet and affiliated with Falun Gong, respectively. One thing that worries me is, is phayul.com actually a notable source?

What I disagree with is the amount of information that User:Rédacteur Tibet seems to want to add, per the text he wrote up above. That's a real problem in WP:Undue weight for something that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

A second thing that worries me is that Times article. Your average reader knows that Chinese news sources are biased, but assumes s/he can trust a western publication like the Times. But that Times article reads like an article from People's Daily. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is, if we are to include information that sounds like conspiracy theory from questionable sources, then why not also add information from a source like this one - [13]? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll sumerize, you are right, it is too long. And, Ok for taking away all the conspiracy theory, but then, please delete this from the article : " People's Republic of China response Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao blamed supporters of the Dalai Lama for the recent violence in Tibet. "There is ample fact and we also have plenty of evidence proving that this incident was organized, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique," said the Premier"

as this is pure conspiracy theory, this well proven, and the Dalai Lama, as well as the monks who were arrested yesterday did denie these claims. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that may sound like conspiracy theory, but that's something that Wen Jiabao said. You actually want to delete Wen Jiabao's response to the riot? That's crazy, no offence. If Dalai Lama said martians orchestrated the riots, we should still put that in, because it was the Dalai Lama that said it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly right, and I really think we should stop discussing this. Alexwoods (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Resource Page corresponding to 2008 unrest in Tibet

Hello all, I'm new to Wikipedia, please forgive and correct me if I made mistakes

 Here I provide a reference page which contains resources (Pictures and Videos)

Please help to build up this "database" so we can get an objective picture for the incident. I'm a user in www.military.com, I was discussing this with some members so we had thread for it, you will find many links, pictures and videos in page 2(Scroll down), 3 collected from internet,

Be warned, it contains violent contents unsuitable for under 18s.

Tibet and China Thread in www.military.com Sword X (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A Tibet researcher's blog - Woeser's blog, tracks recent locations of demonstration, has a map for it Sword X (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding ref tags

I've fixed some of the footnotes that were added without ref tags, but plenty of others still need to be fixed. When adding new footnotes, please remember to use ref tags. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new in using Wikitalk, how do I edit the ref tag?, I also want to Delete the Blue Rectangle surrounding my post but don't know how to do it Sword X (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the blue box. To edit the ref tag, look for the text between the <ref> and the </ref>. If you want to edit the link, look for the area that says "http://" and the link after it. To edit what the link says, look for the text after the space after the link. For example, [http://www.example.com TEXT]. Please make sure the edit is actually to improve the ref rather than making a test edit. Please feel free to make tests in the sandbox. To remove a blue box, just remove the extra spaces. You can also look for other individual parts within a ref tag that you can edit. Wikipedia:References may help. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to use cite tags, too! Take a look at how Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web are used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sevilledade and HongQiGong's edits

Hello, I just notice that Sevilledade and HongQiGong made lot edits on this article], edits which need to be check. Especially, Sevilledade -who so far edit only this article- deleted 3 days ago a sentence explaining that the origine was all political and social and economic, to restore a 100% political origine (tibetan independance). I conclude that I can't exclude he may be a pro-tibetan wanting to underline (too much) Independance wish. If someone can check the dif, and the deleted links, that may help. Yug 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Checked :

• Sevillade edits seems ok, except for a "Non-POV link deletion" (I haven't read the link, I can't judge)
• HongQiGong edits seems ok too : many typo fixing.

Yug 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this being Sevillade's only effort is a red flag, but I'm not seeing problems with the changes. The Non-POV link deletion was to an online petition on behalf of the Tibetans. I'd debated deleting it myself last night. Although the text of it had some good information I'm not sure using a petition as a source is up to wiki standards. Longchenpa (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked now. Your claim is completely false, Yug, and your credibility is now zero. Sevilledade has edited many other subjects. Also, Sevilledade has signed his posts. You haven't. Longchenpa (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa : have you notice my second post ? :

Checked : Sevillade edits seems ok, except for a "Non-POV link deletion" (I haven't read the link, I can't judge) HongQiGong edits seems ok too : many typo fixing. Yug 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Were I close at 90% the issue. We face a sensitive article, we had users who made in one time a dozen of edits, these contributions need a quick check (5 mins), and that's ok. I eventually had time to partially made the check and to close at 90% the issue. I hadn't more time.

For my signature : see user talk:Longchenpa Yug 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You know, all you have to do is sign in and the IP address of whichever computer you're using won't matter. Longchenpa (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the substance of your complaint - other than questions about these two posters - I agree. The importance of socio-economic issues for Tibetans in Tibet squares with recent reports from Radio Free Asia. Even Tibetans who speak Chinese and have received university degrees in China have found they have no opportunities in Tibet because they lack Chinese connections. In former Amdo, a friend of mine and fellow Asian studies student found Chinese corruption at the local level endemic, strangling opportunities for the poor, including Tibetans. The Tibetans in exile in Dharamsala and the Tibetans inside Tibet have different issues. Longchenpa (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah except for adding something about China Daily reporting on Western media bias, most of my edits have been formatting concerns. But I am resigned to the fact that formatting problems will continue being inserted into the article until news of this dies down and we don't have so many new and IP editors coming to edit the article anymore. Having said that, I have been very surprised at the amount of balance that is presented in the article, and the fact that people aren't fighting with each other on this Talk page. Usually something like this quickly becomes a battleground. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

HongQiGon, you should see the History of Tibet article. A grammatical mess. But you can't mow the grass until the battle is over. Longchenpa (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I joined quite a while ago (in August) and has made numerous edits besides this article (did you not check my contribution?). I removed the "Non-POV link" because it has no business in the external links being it has nothing to do with this event. --Sevilledade (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at Yug's claim now that I've checked out your posting record. I can't check Yug's because he didn't sign his post. Longchenpa (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this report, its without basis. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a/ I note it again : I opened this issue and closed it at 90% 5 minutes later by a 2nd post :

Checked : Sevillade edits seems ok, except for a "Non-POV link deletion" (I haven't read the link, I can't judge) HongQiGong edits seems ok too : many typo fixing. Yug 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

b/ I apologized on user talk:Sevilledade] for my mistake : when I checked his contribution, I mixed up "50 older" (all were on this article) and "oldest" (8 month ago, in septempber 2007, on other topics).

I repeat : this issue was open and at 90% close 5 minutes later. A misunderstanding lead to this unexpected long talk. Yug 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sevilledade started editing this wiki page way before this "Longchenpa" showed up. Are you sure you know how to check "User contributions"??? TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing Tibet, Buddhism, and Tang Dynasity related articles for months now. Longchenpa (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The voice of condemnation of western media

In Chinese mainland and some other areas and Internet,many Chinese people oppugn the impersonal of western media, see:[14]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.14.93 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please define "oppugn." Longchenpa (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It's true that some of the western media, including BBC, CNN, etc, are full of bias. The only thing they want is to show you what they want. These image zh:Image:Bbc_bias.JPG,zh:Image:Cnn_bias.JPG show that they can do nothing but rumormongering.--Apengu (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Please check under "Media" section. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have just rollbacked a couple of edits by 219.79.27.59 to the last version by Suicup because of the debate over the Neutrality of the article. As a member of the countering systemic bias WikiProject, I would like to say that the article does not provide all viewpoints, with little or no space given to the Chinese viewpoint of the matter. Whilst I see 219.79.27.59's point, all viewpoints need to be tld - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second that. There are practically nothing on the behalf opposing the protestors. Especially in the Canada section. Peaceful protest, my foot. RegalStar (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most Chinese "viewpoints" are the same piece of propaganda wheeled out time and time again. Out of all the media reports I've read, the Chinese ones are generally the most partisan and biased. Can you show me which Chinese newspapers have mentioned a single innocent Tibetan being shot by Chinese security forces? Now contrast that with reports from media like the BBC that discussed Chinese being attacked by Tibetans, Chinese shops being burnt, etc.

It's a simple fact that there is far wider and more objective reporting coming from the foreign media. If there is something important and unique to report from the Chinese media then let's hear it - we already have pieces from some publications. But we shouldn't fill the article with the same propaganda from the Chinese government being repeatedly daily simply because there isn't anything better to put in. Generally we should refer to what is happening. If Chinese censorship is leading to little new information that is not the project's fault - send a letter to your nearest Chinese embassy saying that their media controls are limiting the opportunity to tell China's side of the story on internet projects like Wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that we're filling the article with the "same propaganda from the Chinese government being repeatedly daily", right? That would be a problem if that's what we're doing. I think the complaint here is that there's little to no Chinese viewpoint. And by the way, the BBC has barely mentioned Han Chinese being attacked by Tibetans. Other Western news sources like The Australian, The Times, and The Guardian have, and they've been included, I believe. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that the problem was that the article is being filled with propaganda, I said that if there is a lack of good material to fill a void then there isn't much we can do about it - I was warning against using "propaganda" and one-sided accounts that are unreliable. If people have good sources and comments then let's see them. But if there is a lack of a "Chinese perspective" that is down to Chinese media censorship limiting the flow of information apart from "official views" and a few choice examples which are difficult to verify.

I think we'll have to disagree on the BBC's reporting of the situation, though I didn't say they had reported every aspect in detail. John Smith's (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the BBC but the NYT and the Economist have both written several very nuanced and fair articles about the causes and violence on both sides. I think the article, although it is still taking shape, reflects that approach fairly well. I don't think the dearth of information caused by the media blackout justifies citing the China Daily (on political matters anyway). I think it would be a good thing if we all tried to keep out the propaganda, and if there is a source that covers the same ground as the China Daily section then it should be replaced. Alexwoods (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We as editors are not supposed to be judging what is and is not propaganda though. I think as long as we attribute the news to their sources, we're fine, even if they're Chinese sources, keeping in mind that at the top of the Media section, the article covers the media blackout for Western (and Hong Kong) journalists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to evaluate sources. I don't agree that Chinese media should be ignored, but it may be better to use less partisan articles if possible. For example, Hong Kong media like The Standard usually have far more reliable reports than Xinhua, People's Daily or Chinadaily. The Chinese government's viewpoint is already present - I think that one point point Alex was making is that variations on existing statements should not be added, because I am sure the Chinese government will continue to denounce the Dalai Lama and make similar comments to what it has already said. John Smith's (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(Wait, the article doesn't say that Hong Kong journalists are also barred - but I'm fairly certain they are. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

It does - read the second paragraph and "Riot actions" under "People's Republic of China response". John Smith's (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source indicating that Hong Kong journalists are barred - [15] - would somebody like to incorporate that into the article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please people don't randomly adding "neutrality" tag onto the article without thoroughly discussing it first.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up the article

Currently there are two requests to split the article up - here and here. I can't see an open discussion thread on this. Could we please get some feedback for them?

Personally I wouldn't split the article up yet. Maybe create sub-pages that can be more in-depth, but we still need the topics themselves here. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's time to do so either. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, the events are unfolding and too many details are still hidden behind the curtain. I think the top priority should be to keep the facts straight as many morons have been tempering with the article. For example, some loser changed "denounce Chinese violence on Tibet" to "denounce Chinese rule over Tibet." I almost laughed my ass off when i saw that, but still, it's pretty lame and a bigger problem then splitting. I'm just glad the loser didn't remove the reference too, so i could still read the original article and know what it was supposed to be. Ssh83 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting up the article would muddy the issue. Maybe something for the future once the conflict (hopefully) has died down. Longchenpa (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the riots : not independance.

There seems to be a HUGE number of people that think that the riots were primarily due to Tibet wanting to separate from China. In the article, it's mentioned that the riots started because of the arrest of monks, ethnic hatred (socioeconomic reasons). But it also mentions that "The protests soon shifted from calls for independence to violence, attacks on non-Tibetan ethnic groups, rioting, burning and looting on March 14.", making it seem as if the riots were mainly about independence ans only shifted to violence because of ethnic hatred/the rumours. The initial small protests by some citizens and the monks were about independence, but the many who JOINED in to start the violent riots were NOT there for independence.

Georg Blume (german reporter) was in Lhasa a few days after the riots and interviewed some of the citizens. Here's what he reported: "He says some Tibetans who took part in the riots said they were proud that they were finally able to stand up to the Chinese; others said they were ashamed of the violence.

They complained about social discrimination, unequal pay and rumors that almost everyone had heard that Tibetan monks had been arrested, and even killed, in the days before the riots." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/world/asia/25tibet.html?ex=1364097600&en=7a9b2feee16ff0ef&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I noticed that James Miles also said the same thing- ethnic hatred(partly due to economic reasons) and rumours of monks being shot was what started the riots. This is already mentioned/referenced in the article.

The -small protests- were due to calls for independence, but NOT the riots, which this line doesn't make clear: "The protests soon shifted from calls for independence to violence, attacks on non-Tibetan ethnic groups, rioting, burning and looting on March 14."

TO me, the article should make it more clearcut that the riots was not over anger about calls for independence, but out of :

• ethnic hatred ;
• the rumours that the monks were shot ;

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 

Support. For me, the small independance-relate protest and the rumors (monks jailled) had just been the sparks starting the all. But the fuel is socio-economic, ethnic, etc. Yug 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between the independence protest, the riots in Lhasa (started by the rumors that monks had been killed, actually, monks are jailed all the time in Tibet), and then the protests throughout Tibet, Abe, Gansu, Sichuan, which were in reaction to the crackdown. They've been calling for:

a) The PRC to allow the Dalai Lama to visit

b) The PRC to open talks with the Dalai Lama

The other protests have been largely peaceful, unless burning China's flag and putting up Tibetan flags instead isn't peaceful.

I understand this article is about more than just the original independence protest, more than just the riots, but about the whole situation. To say that riots have been going on all over Tibet isn't true, though there was the riot that kicked this off in Lhasa.

There isn't anything about the confused response of the police, which was covered the New York Times. The police didn't respond in Lhasa, just stood and took pictures. Tibetans in Gansu say the same thing happened there. They were able to march right up to public buildings and tear down the Chinese flags. The police just pulled back and watched. Longchenpa (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your first sentence, that's what I was trying to say Longchenpa! The statement in the article "The protests soon shifted from calls for independence to violence, attacks on non-Tibetan ethnic groups, rioting, burning and looting on March 14. " makes it sound as if the calls for independence were started by the majority and the ethnic hate turned the majority to riot, when it's really a small group that called for independence which was followed by the ethnic hate/rumours causes the majority to riot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are we, psychic? How do we know what the motivations of the rioters were? Even if you were psychic, I doubt you would be able to consistently distinguish between the two in the mind of a person who is inclined to riot.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? For god's sakes, did you even read what I wrote? Two foreign reporters doing interviews in the region have reported the same thing. The main reasons that the citizens have for the riots are socioeconomic, ethnic pride/hatred, and rumours of the monks being killed; NOT separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.70.18 (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that in the coming days, there are going to be a whole lot of "theories" and information from "inside sources" about why the protests took place, why it turned violent in Lhasa, etc etc. They're not all going to agree, and some of them, quite honestly, will sound ridiculous. We should be ready to deal with these stories as they surface in the media. What to include, what not to include, etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New section "The comdemnation of biased reports of western media"

I believe this new section could be useful, but as it is currently written at the time of my comment[16], the section is filled with WP:Weasel words and possibly unreferenced claims. But I'm bringing it up for discussion first instead of editing it straight away to avoid risking revert wars. If editors here generally agree it needs to be edited, then I will go ahead and do it, unless somebody does it first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this section, after careful rewriting, to be merged with "International Reaction" to form a new "Reaction" section. Because obviously we should also include some parts on the Chinese side of story. It could include several sub-sections: "Reactions of Dalai Lama and Tibetans in Exiles", "Reactions of Chinese government", "International Reaction", "Media Reaction".35.11.36.204 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment - this section should not be its own section, unless someone wanted to expand it into a "Chinese Response" section, or something - otherwise it should be merged. Right now it reads as something recently tacked on and is so poorly written I cannot understand half of it. WHich is a shame because the Chinese government's reaction to the reaction should be included - but properly. Cadence3 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section. I think this newly added "The condemnation of biased reports of western media" simply has to go. This section seems like it is written by someone with limited English proficiency (the spellings are often wrong). It is also impossible to get verifiable Western sources to counter-balance or even confirm the accuracy of these references (since many of them are from Chinese-language sources). Some of the alleged bias are also already covered in the "Media" section (as pointed out by China Daily).

I think the Wall Street Journal article listed by HongQiGong (below) is a good source and hopefully can be incoporated into this article. However, regardless how the Chinese media think the Western media is "biased", some of these contents has no place in this article.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the WP:Weasel words. This information belongs in the media section. We can add the mutual fingerpointing, I suppose, with the claim of biased western reporting bookended with the observations in today's NYT article that the Chinese press is slanting its coverage of Tibet, leaving out facts. Longchenpa (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Its not saying that there weren't bias in the Western coverage (or the Chinese one). But this section is simply terribly written, that is why it shouldn't stay on the article.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am kinda late on this, but I wanna point out that I added CNN's John Vause responds on the matter under the original "Media" section yesterday, which also means that English sources can also be found on this issue. I can see this section be added again onto the article, in the future, that is. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New sources

Here's a new article from the Wall Street Journal - [17]. Though not a Chinese source in and of itself, it does try to tell the Chinese side of the story. It also gives minor mention of Han Chinese feeling that Western media has been biased on the reporting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More sources

More sources. The scope of the protests is much larger than I realized. The Tibetans say that the majority are protesting peacefully, though some have thrown rocks and attacked government buildings. The Chinese have responded with live ammo. http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2008/03/20/tibet_protests/

Notes from the report:

While some protesters have stormed government buildings, throwing stones and clashing with armed police who fired live ammunition and tear-gas, other protests have proceeded peacefully, with sit-ins and horseback charges by nomads carrying the banned Tibetan flag.

“Tibetans [detained for having pictures of the Dalai Lama] are also being told that they will be detained until the end of the Olympics, and once the Olympics are over, court proceedings will then begin”

“Monks in the local monasteries are not allowed to come out and those who are outside are not allowed to get in,” a monk at the Drepung Gomang monastery in southern India said in an interview.

“On March 18, Tibetans from different remote areas came to the county town on horseback, and many young Tibetans came on motorcycles. The motorcycles were run over by Chinese police trucks,” the monk said.

In Qinghai, which borders Tibet, around 400 students from the Yushu area tore down Chinese flags and set fire to them, a source inside Tibet said.

Residents of Ngaba (in Chinese, Aba) autonomous prefecture in Sichuan said two monks were shot dead by Chinese armed police after they defied a police cordon set up around the Kirti monastery. Local residents also said a “massacre” had occurred during the clashes around Kirti.

ETA: Ah. Here are Tibetan eyewitness interviews: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/politics/2008/03/15/tibet_interviews/

Longchenpa (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sign your name please! In my opinion, Radio Free Asia is not the best source for news information, mainly because its funded by the US congress and it is a propaganda organization (also see China Radio International). Like the government-founded Voice of America, some (like other countries' governments) have criticized it for political agenda.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's 1am and I forgot the tildes. I've added them. I'm not sure I agree with that characterization, particularly under the current administration which has tried to ax RFA's funding.

One thing they have that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times don't have -- reporters who are fluent in Tibetan. Most Tibetans in Tibet do not speak English and their voices are noticeably lacking in news reports out of Tibet. What the Tibetans have to say about the unrest is important. Longchenpa (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Longchenpa, Georg Blume (german reporter) and James Miles have both reportedly done interviews with Tibetans. As I mention below, foreigners have already reported what RFA does. We don't need a propaganda organizations' bias here. Thanks.216.252.71.154 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not questioning the importance of their opinion. I guess I'm just trying to point out that Radio Free Asia (which founded by the CIA) has always been the most well-known anti-Communist broadcasting agency in the United States. Some people might have problem with using their specific source for "Red China" (LOL, I know that is an obsolete term).--Sevilledade (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, the RFA article and your summary has said nothing new about the situation. We already know about the arrests, the deaths in Aba county, the flag burning, peaceful protesting, the monastery blockading, etc. The only thing "new" would be your claim that "The Tibetans say that the majority are protesting peacefully, though some have thrown rocks and attacked government buildings" when the article doesn't even state that! If anything, reports from toursists and foreign journalists have shown that the protests have been mostly violent! Even in other countries, the police have had to fire tear gas and push back protestors after they started attacking the Chinese embassies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful not to conflate VOA (a cold war era entity, anti-"Red China," yeah) with RFA, which began under the Clinton administration. It was started in 1996. The source of funding is definitely a problem, as is the funding for the PRC's state-run paper. But the direct Tibetan language quotes are invaluable, and their site is in both English and Tibetan. Longchenpa (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You act as if only the source of the funding is a problem. The main reason they got the funding is because they have a biased tone behind everything they report, which is why they were funded by the government in the first place! Their reporting is as bad as Xinhua talking about the evil mobster Tibetans killing Han Chinese.

If state-owned newspapers from China are included, as they should be, I find it difficult to see why a report from partially state-funded RFA is not. Relata refero (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Xinhua should be included, except for statistics which could be included arguably, or if its report is followed by a contrasting statement by TIbetan dissidents of a particular incident that no foreign journalist has reported on. Either of these 2 requirements has justified why Xinhua is sourced in the article the few times that it has been. The RFA is propaganda based as well, so its emotionally charged and subjective statements should NOT be included. Also, the info in the report has already been reported on by foreigners.

If we include statistics from Xinhua, then we should include direct quotes from Tibetans from RFA. And please watch your tone about them. They have Tibetans working for them and are very pro-Tibet, but no more so than the Dalai Lama's government whom we have quoted. In my last reading of this article yesterday we used much more than just statistics from Xinhua. Longchenpa (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

The article is still POV. Suicup (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to have to do better than that if you want a tag. Relata refero (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is POV? Alexwoods (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want a POV tag you need to go into more detail - that's why it was removed, as you haven't provided any. John Smith's (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Bias?

Much of any written material in English on Tibet in Wikipedia is skewed towards Western view and general public opinion of Pro Tibetan and Anti China. It is important to remove any bias to prevent opinion of both sides, no matter what is the personal opinion of the reader. To balance the article, Chinese point of view and not just that from Western Media like CNN and BBC should be included.

Yazhou Zhoukan - an authoritative Hong Kong base Chinese News and News commentary/ analysis magazine much read by international Chinese community states in the March 30 2008 edition:

1) Western intervention in Tibet is not new: Sidney Wignall, in his autobiography "Spy on the Roof of the World", and John Harrop, both working for the Indian Intelligence infiltrated Tibet posing as mountaineers back in early 1955. In his book, he mentioned that he met CIA agents already detained by Chinese authority. This back dates CIA activities in China to 1954 or before, a full 6 years before the CI supported 1959 Tibet insurrection.

2) CIA trained Tibetan exiles in US in the highlands of Colorado, over 1800 agents passed through the CIA camp. To support the Tibetan Exiles anti China activities, the Tibetan exiles government in India were supported with 150,000 US$ a month and this did not ceased until 1974.

3) In CIA director's Allen Dulles biography, it mentioned the memo he sent to Eisenhower about the support to Tibetan exiles. Eisenhower's comment were " if we are doing this to the China, whould this not make the Chinese oppress the Tibetan even more?"

4) Former CIA agent in charge of Tibet affairs Victor Marchetti, mentioned in his memoirs that after change of policy in 1974 to Tibet, hawkish elements of the CIA and Tibetan exiles along with their supporters, continue to strive for military / violence solutions. This became even more vocal after change in Chinese policy and secret approach to Dali Lama's brother to attempt to reopen dialogs. In the early 1980's Dali lama renounce the desire of formal independence of Tibet and strive for a Tibet within China but with high degree of autonomy, but this further angers these increasingly vocal and hawkish elements who calls for full independence of Tibet.

5) Hawkish elements in the Tibetan overseas community is now spearheaded by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), funded by pro Tibet communities, is now lead by Tsewang Rigzin, a 37 year old, former US residence has openly declare to Yazhou Zhoukan interview openly disagreed with ideas and policy of Dali Lama, "the TYC will do all that is necessary and what we think is right" Dali lama is increasingly loosing control of the overseas Tibetan movement.

6) This explains the background of the 2008 Tibetan riots.

Chinese point of view :

1) Overseas forces along with Western intelligence have continue since the mid 1950 to destabilized China via Tibet. It is within the rights to protect its territory and the integrity of the nation. What the Chinese is doing to protect its self is nothing what other nations including the West facing the same.

Blaawan (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blaawan

A lot of that stuff is already in there. I would be very cautious about what edits you make. This is a pretty touchy topic for a lot of people. Alexwoods (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can avoid revert wars by proposing specific changes on the talk page before making them. Alexwoods (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One shouldn't read modern Chinese policies based on the cultural revolution, so it makes no sense to read western reactions based on US former cold war policies. That would be simplistic and reductive. Blaawan, your points 1-4 are all cold war era policy, and point 5 isn't connected to the US save that the leader is a US citizen (which doesn't mean anything; there is also a US communist party).

The modern attitudes towards China are split along several lines:

1) Among the conservatives there are those who are concerned about China's astronomical military expansion. I can tap a military analyst and quote statistics if you like but, for example, the Song class nuclear submarine is one concern.

2) Then, there are those conservatives (I include both democrats and republican conservatives) who are primarily concerned with the financial gain to be had doing business with China. They are against anything that would upset China.

3) The more liberal are fractured over China due to many issues. Top on the list: American manufacturing job loss (due to US companies sending work overseas) has made China unpopular in areas like the Rust Belt.

4) A number of long-standing senators have been pro-Tibet (or more specifically pro-Dalai Lama) since the early 80s.

5) The progressives tend to favor incorporating China into world markets and so are pro-China for the same reasons conservative businessmen are.

6) The Hollywood set tend to be mildly pro-Tibet largely due to Richard Gere and Oliver Stone. However the Steven Seagal debacle cooled Hollywood on the Tibetan cause.

7) Periodically when China has pissed the US off, Tibet and Taiwan have been both used as a painless-to-business-interests method to give China the finger. A few years ago when the US crashed a state-of-the-art fighter jet in China and China returned it in itty-bitty-carefully-studied pieces, the US immediately sent military aid to Taiwan and made overtures to Tibet.

There is no consistent US policy regarding Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I love kids who have no idea what they are talking about come in & educate us in the direction of US Policy towards China/Tibet/Taiwan. The "state-of-the-art fighter jet” that you were referring to was a EP-3E Aries II during the Hainan Island incident. First of all, it wasn't a fighter jet, it was a reconnaissance aircraft. 2nd, even the Chinese one was only a J-8, a 30 yrs + aircraft that the Chinese don't even consider that any "high-tech". Stay in school son. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a P-3 Orion, and state-of-the-art because of what it carried: with a 10-man crew, it was loaded with high-tech equiment to detect, classify, and destroy submarines. It's known for long endurance, 12 hours in the air, which is extraordinary for an aircraft. It's used in Sig/ELINT. It's not like that Mig-25 Foxbat China got from Japan. The Chinese got a wealth of technology from that plane.

Stop making assumptions, you're making a fool of yourself. I'm probably older than you are. ETA: Hmm. You're the same person who took a swipe at me up above with that "this 'Longchenpa'" comment. We're here to edit an article, not get into personal issues with each other. Longchenpa (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop copying stuff from other Wikipedia entries. That's a weak comeback by the way. I will leave you alone for now. Your edit history tells me that you will do pov pushing when you have the chance. I will be keeping an eye on you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stop copying stuff from other Wikipedia entries." Actually, no. I just contacted my friend who's a military analyst as he was running out the door to work.

I'll grant you that it wasn't a fighter jet, he corrected me, the P-3 Orion is a prop plane. But I notice you haven't mentioned anything about Sig/ELINT which is the substance of what China got -- oh, and by the way, it's not mentioned in either of those articles. You can just stop with the unfounded accusations.

I tried to link you to some info on Sig/ELINT. You obviously don't know anything about it if you think the Chinese didn't get anything of value. I couldn't find anything about Sig/ELINT in Wiki or Google. It's in World Air Power Journal or you can pick up a copy of Jane's relatively cheap on Amazon if you buy used.

Or you can be a former employee of Science_Applications_International_Corporation. That helps. ;) Longchenpa (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in those articles about the recon equipment P-3 Orion meant specifically to "detect, classify, and destroy submarines." No wonder you resorted to threats. You didn't have anything of substance to add. But you're no longer calling me "son" or "kid" so I guess we can count this as improvement in your behavior. Longchenpa (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of hostility has any place here. Alexwoods (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. Threats are kind of absurd, n'est pas? Longchenpa (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

China and the US are constantly engaging in a tit-for-tat. US bombs the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, then China holds a US spy plane, so on and so forth, ad nauseam. Go ahead and rant if you want, but drawn out arguments about which country is the bigger asshole is pointless. Guess what? They're both assholes. So let's stick to discussing the article instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Alexwoods (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here, Hong Qi Gong, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. I don't see anyone calling anyone an "asshole." Or are you responding to Blaawan? The stuff he lists here is all cherry-picked from old cold war policies. Eisenhower? 1974? Longchenpa (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Blaawan,

Do points one through three have anything in particular to do with this article? Points four and five seem to imply that hawkish elements within the Tibetan exile movement such as the TYC (and possibly the CIA as well?) played an important part in instigating the recent unrest. Shouldn't one focus on citing that claim over including material which merely implies it?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese

I think we need more than one vitriolic editorial from a non-notable source to support the statements in that section. Alexwoods (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can some editors assist me on this. There are some user (User:Spanos) who keeps "tweaking" information (that are not in the reference), and adding extraneous and POV information to these statements. I really hate to engage in edit war with these users.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to help you but you keep beating me to the punch! My edits keep getting knocked out because we are editing at the same time. Alexwoods (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I check/read ref quite often too. I'll keep an eye out when I can. Also, Alex, what do you mean? Which section? TheAsianGURU (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles from People's Daily

Here are a few articles from People's Daily that, in my opinion, are relatively not controversial and have information that have not been mentioned by Western news (or at least not that I've seen, though I'm not a bot crawling for Tibet news).

• German media apologize for errors in covering Tibet riots - I believe this is in response to the glaring errors[18] that the German news made.
• More international support for China's handling of Lhasa riots - A few countries mentioned in the People's Daily article have not been mentioned in this article: Turkey, Iraq, Cuba, Oman, and Comoros. (Hey, we've got Fiji in there, so why not Comoros...? But honestly, I think we should just strip down that list of countries.)
• Schools in SW China ethnic Tibetan area resume classes after riots - self-explanatory.

Suggestions on where and how to add these? Unless suggestions come forth or somebody takes the initiative to add them, I'll go ahead and do it myself. As always, information from these articles should have in-content attribution to People's Daily as to avoid presenting the information as hard facts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question --- Under "Media" section. (The German one is already there.) However, the 2nd ref is from the People's Daily......not the best place to quote supports from the "International Community"...especially they are from Turkey, Comoros, Cuba & our dear friend Hugo Chavez. The 3rd quote can be added under a new section --- "Aftermath." TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the second source by HongQiGong, I slightly disagree. I think since that article deals with diplomacy, and the responses are from the countries top officials to another, it shouldn't be a problem. I doubt it needs to change "official" responses from other countries.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic regions: compare the two maps

Compare the two maps, first the map of the regions with Tibetans according to the PRC:

Then the map with the area Tibetans claim to be ethnic Tibet:

Note the similarities. The yellow region is ethnic Tibet. I'll be changing the caption under the map unless someone has a convincing argument that this is not true. Longchenpa (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the second map you posted "Image:MapAK1.JPG", it didn't specify in the map's source that it is about "ethnic Tibet"? Unless it stated on its source that it is about ethnicity, we don't know that.--Sevilledade (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite and cooperative with the title. Technically, it's historical Tibet. I can say that, but it's more likely the Chinese will be happier with the euphemism "ethnic Tibet." Longchenpa (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

About the "historic Tibet"... Different parties have different versions of history, Tibetans sees this region as historic Tibet or as BBC labled it, Greater Tibet ([19]), and it is fine. I also know though it is fact that most Western media and the Chinese media only sees Tibet Autonomous Region as the actuall Tibet. About Qinghai province for example, in some of the autonomous prefectures, it is actually both Mongol and Tibetans (and in some other autonomous prefectures, it is both Qiang and Tibetans, etc.). Different ethncities generally have different interpretation of history. I know Mongols could also claim Qinghai as a Mongol region since "Qinghai" is historically called "Kokonor" in English, the Mongol name for this region.--Sevilledade (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why people are confused that protests are taking place "in China" and "why are the Chinese protesting?" The gerrymandering of Sichuan's border to include much of Kham aside, once it's clear that the protests are taking place where the Tibetans are, and that the Tibetans are in the regions covered by historical (or ethnic if you want to be nice about it) Tibet, the "protests in China" make sense. We could change the caption, or we could line up both maps and make the point clear. Longchenpa (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since most Western media sources don't use maps like the above, it would be confusing to readers if we are to using these maps. I think the current caption is fine, disclaiming that it is in Tibetan-populated areas. Or we could move the title to "2008 Tibetan unrest" or "2008 Tibetan protest"? That would be without boundary issues.--Sevilledade (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support: for "2008 Tibetan unrest". Without taking sides, "protests" seems a bit weak for the burning and rioting. Yaan (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "2008 Tibetan unrest" is appropriate. Longchenpa (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Occam's razor: just change the caption. Tibetans haven't migrated to these other regions or expanded into them, these are historical Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection...

...is in place for two days. Please discuss changes here (use {{editprotected}} if you come to a consensus on any changes) and start talking rather than just undoing each other. And, yes, I'm aware I protected The Wrong Version. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally! TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought this article was on a pretty even keel. Alexwoods (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the constant reverting of each other by Longchenpa (talk · contribs) and Sevilledade (talk · contribs). It would be better to come to a consensus here on the talk page rather than warring in the article. Nesodak (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They are both reasonable people, in my experience, and they were headed towards consensus. There was some misunderstanding about the cites, but no vitriol and I don't think either of them got to 3RR. Alexwoods (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We did come to a consensus but it might have been expanding outside the two of us. We'll never know. Longchenpa (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We were in conversation on my Talkpage. It was pretty civil. AP had changed their article. There's no need to hit revert when in you're in communication with the original editor. ETA: To be fair, Sevilledade thought I was insisting on keeping the original quote when I was just asking for time to rewrite based on the changed AP article. Longchenpa (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically here is what happened (from my point of view). Longchenpa wrote some statement based on an AP source linked by Yahoo! News; however the statement wasn't to be found in the Yahoo source. It turns out that AP had retracted that particular statement from their official articles. But Longchenpa and I were in disagreement of whether to include some versions of the article (like Forbes) that did contain the retracted statement. Howeveer Longchenpa later rewrote the statement based on an AP source.--Sevilledade (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, rereading our conversation I can see you misunderstood. I insisted on the other copies to prove that I hadn't imagined it. It was there in the 8:30am version. But I was only asking for time to re-write the section. For all I knew, nothing of what I wrote was in the new AP article. Hm. I can see how you thought I wanted to keep it though. If I had kept it, I would have added that AP retracted it, at which point one might as well not have in there at all. Longchenpa (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it's the talk page that should be protected, now that it's been discovered by theRed Guard Alexwoods (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems rather rude. Longchenpa (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Alexwood and to Alexwood - "I don't think that kind of hostility has any place here." TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. You are being hostile towards me. This is the third time now. Longchenpa (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't equate my snippy comment about a vandal with your sustained hostility towards editors that are putting a lot of good faith work into this encyclopedia. And by the way it's Woods with an s. Stay in school, son. Your spelling will eventually improve. Alexwoods (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies towards spelling your name wrong, I guess my years of schooling still isn’t enough. You are the first person ever who come in and tell me that I might have a hostility problem, if that’s the case, I will review per WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. However, per the admin noticeboard - here, I noticed that it's not just me who might have the problems. I hope at the same time we will be able to review our conduct together as well. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his behavior is totally uncalled for. No one else here is behaving this way. Sevilledade (talk · contribs) and I managed to have an entire tense edit war without any name-calling or vitriol. Longchenpa (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To Longchenpa - Just like the last edit in the article (before the admin’s arrival) --- You add stuff that was not in the ref. and made it sound like it was a part of the article. At here, you do it again. You know that the statement was quoted from Alexwoods’ reply and I quoted it here to respond to his/her Red Guard comment (because you replied to it and "thank him/her" above). Now, you are making it sound like I am attacking you. You fit words into other people's mouth in order to push your agendas. At first, you felt the same towards the “Red Guard” comment at first yet you switched your position immediately after you discovered Alexwoods’ reply. Finally, nobody is name calling here. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't done your homework, TheAsianGURU. Sevilledade and I both discovered that the text of the AP article had changed between 8:30am and 10:00am.

As far as name-calling is concerned, you've called me "son" and "kid" and called Alexwoods "Red Guard." Early on there was also dismissive "this Longchenpa person" IIRC. As far as the "Red Guard" name-calling goes, no I didn't think it was directed at me. Your attitude towards myself and Alexwoods is clearly antagonistic and needs to stop. (P.S. Check the time stamp on that thank you.) Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what was that editwar about, precisely? Please sort it out in a new section, because I think we all want this unprotected ASAP. Relata refero (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they did sort it out. The actions of those editors (based on a misunderstanding rather than a real disagreement) spurred the protect, but I doubt they will give any trouble going forward. It's pretty clear that they are both working for the betterment of the article. Alexwoods (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, Relata refero, I'll be happy to explain. I'm trying to get the page unprotected, too.

The edit war was between myself and User:Sevilledade but we had already resolved it. Our discussion resolving it early this afternoon was here User talk:Longchenpa under "Yahoo article," and the post-mortem is in the "protection" section of Talk:2008_unrest_in_Tibet. It was resolved before the page was protected.

What happened:

- I added a quote this morning (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=prev&oldid=201056840) from an 8:30am AP article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet.

- Later in the afternoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201114739&oldid=201113385) User:Sevilledade said the article was misquoted. My quote was not in it. User:Sevilledade did an undo.

- I told him of course it was. I'd copied it directly from the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201118602&oldid=201118298), and reverted it.

- User:Sevilledade contacted me on User_talk:Longchenpa#Yahoo_article saying "I don't want to accuse of original research but...." and reverted it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201119117&oldid=201118602) with the comment "are we reading the same article?"

- I looked at the AP article. It had changed and had a new time stamp of 10am. User:Sevilledade stated on my Talk page that I must have imagined the quote, so I looked on the internet and found the original version:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/26/ap4815545.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VL44RO0&show_article=1

- I put the quote back in (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201122515&oldid=201119117), citing the Forbes article, and asked for no more reverts as I "re-write this section as soon as I've read the new article. *grumbles @ Yahoo.*"

- User:Sevilledade reverted it back again, saying in my Talk page that I can't use those quotes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201122947&oldid=201122515)

- I reverted it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201126638&oldid=201122947) saying that I had proof that quotes had been there and I would update, give me a minute.

- User:Sevilledade reverted it back again (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201127168&oldid=201126638), and in my Talk page stated I couldn't use that quote because AP had retracted it. He apparently assumed I intended to keep the quote.

- I reverted it back stating that I'd written the article in good faith, give me a chance to rewrite it. Stop reverting (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201128907&oldid=201127168). On my Talk page I told him "Of course I'm not going to use the quote. But stop treating me like a vandal."

At that point we had resolved it. I changed the article -- removing the quote -- and thanked User:Sevilledade for his patience (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_unrest_in_Tibet&diff=201133624&oldid=201128907).

Personally, I blame AP for changing the text of their article. It took the two of us several reverts before we realized that's what had happened. Longchenpa (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So much for what I thought was surprisingly civil collaboration for an otherwise conflict-prone subject matter. Oh well, it was a matter of time, I guess. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, Sevilledade and I get along just fine. This was over one sentence "Although Chinese state television has been repeatedly showing scenes of damage from the riots there was little visible destruction in the areas of Lhasa where reporters were taken" which disappeared from the 8:30am AP article. Longchenpa (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I am entering a "cooling-off period," voluntarily. TheAsianGURU (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Der Spiegel

I'd like to note that german magazine der Spiegel, which has been accused by both anti-cnn.com and by a youtube video, has not relented, and instead striked back: Eines der neuesten Videos greift westliche Medien an, auch SPIEGEL ONLINE, und beschuldigt sie, mit verfälschenden Bildunterschriften und Filmtexten Propaganda zu betreiben. Bei näherem Hinsehen erweisen sich allerdings eher die Vorwürfe als Propaganda - und die jubelnden Kommentatoren als mutmaßliche regierungstreue Claqueure. (my translation: One of the newest videos attacks western media, including SPIEGEL ONLINE, and accuses them of making propaganda with falsifying image captions or movie texts. On closer inspection it is (rather) these accusations that turn out to be propaganda - and the cheering commenters as probably regime-abiding claquers.. What I would like to see at the end of the media section would be something like "Media companies accused of "falsified reporting" include CNN, FOX, the Times Online, Sky News, Spiegel Online and the BBC. Spiegel Online has rejected the accusations. Any opinions?

(and for anyone interested, I would translate that Spiegel online caption as "Chinese security personnel in the stone hail. The military reacts toughly". For other uses of "Haerte", see for example [20] or [21].) Yaan (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

I would like to add this information to 2008_unrest_in_Tibet#Countries_and_Regions

• Brazil - The Brazilian Government deplores the events in the Autonomous Region of Tibet which have led to the loss of human lives. In recalling its traditional support to the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China, the Brazilian Government expresses its steadfast expectation that self-containment be exercised, so as to make possible an enduring solution which promotes peace and understanding in the Autonomous Region of Tibet, with full respect to cultural and religious differences.

• Cyprus - Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou underlined that Cyprus supports the principle of “a single China” with its territorial integrity safeguarded. Referring to the recent developments in Thibet, HE expressed the hope that the situation does not deteriorate, that there is no more loss of lives and that peace and stability will prevail in the region.

• Hungary - State Secretary László Várkonyi said that Hungary goes along with the Declaration issued on March 17 by the European Union’s Slovene Presidency expressing the EU’s deep concern over the disturbances in Tibet, warning the involved parties to exercise self-restraint, calling the Chinese authorities to respond to the demonstrations in accordance with internationally recognised democratic principles and urging the Chinese government to properly address the concerns of Tibetans with regard to issues of human rights.

• Singapore - Singapore supports the declared policy of the Chinese Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens from violent demonstrators with minimum use of force. We are opposed to the politicisation of the Olympics.

• Spain - The Government of Spain advocates that a lasting and acceptable solution should be reached through dialogue that preserves Tibetan culture within the People's Republic of China.

• Sri Lanka - The Government of Sri Lanka wishes to reaffirm its adherence to the “One China Policy” and the territorial integrity of China. Sri Lanka sincerely hopes that normalcy will return to the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and further wishes that the disturbances will be brought to an end amicably with the Buddhist concept of “Ahimsa”.

--Avala (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Page is no longer protected, so you can do it yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

move

I just was so bold to move the article, per a short discussion by Sevilladade, Longchenpa and me above. The rationale is that some people might think "Tibet" is synonymous to the TAR, but the unrest has spread as far as Gansu, and protests have even been reported from Beijing. On the other hand the clashes seem so far to involve mainly Tibetans (on the non-government side, anyway). Yaan (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

James Miles vs other correspondents

Right now, the article about starts with this paragraph:

Information is scarce as Chinese authorities have prevented foreign and Hong Kong media from entering and reporting on the region,[3] with the exception of James Miles, a correspondent from The Economist, who gained approval for a week-long trip which happened to coincide with the increase in tensions.[4][5]

Why is this? How come we name James Miles in the first paragraph but we don't list other western correspondents? As far as I understand Miles left Tibet on the 18th. And I read an article by the Economist saying Miles was the only approved correspondent in Tibet. Here in Germany we are told that Georg Blume and Kristin Kupfer were the last foreign correspondents in Tibet and that they were asked to leave Tibet on the 20th? (And did so. german: taz article) What is the situation regarding the correspondents? From the 27th there were 26 further correspondents allowed into Tibet weren't they? Are those correspondents employees to some larger, trusted news outlet? -- JanCK (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Framing the Chinese"

“True face of western media,” this clip on YouTube shows how major Western media are framing the Chinese for abusing the Tibetans in recent riots. Shame on these western media! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas&feature=related This material should be included on this article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you better read this article here before engaging in political polemics here, where they do not belong. Haiduc (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Epoch Times is founded by the Falun Gong. Wikipedia certainly is not a political organization here, especially when it comes to issues of espionage.Btmachine333667 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did PLA started the Riot?

Someone added this in the article:

"...later evidence gathered by Britain's GCHQ, the government communications agency that electronically monitors global communications, indicated that the riots were actually started by agents provocateurs organized by the Chinese government..."

I did a brief search on google, and the only sources of the story are from Falun Gong newspapers and Free Tibet groups...GCHQ or British government did not release any offical words on this piece of info...can anyone find independent sources to verify this fact? Jim101 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That was me, I hope I did not jump the gun. Epoch Times claims to have got the info from G2 Bulletin but I'd rather not buy access just to find out the facts. Haiduc (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious allegation that needs more facts. Epoch Times is an anti-CCP news source, thus there is a possiblity that they are biased when reporting Communist actions within China. I changed the wording of your edit to make it more neutral. Jim101 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)