| Revision as of 21:31, 24 July 2021 editPearBOT II (talk | contribs)Bots171,709 editsm Merge Archives and Auto archiving notice per TfDTag: PAWS [2.1]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:23, 6 October 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,315 editsNo edit summary |
| (9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
{{Old AfD multi |page=Serfdom in Tibet |date=27 May 2008 |result='''no consensus''' |date2=4 February 2024 |result2='''No consensus''' |page2=Serfdom in Tibet controversy}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|class=B|importance=High|tibet=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=High|tibet=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=B |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Agriculture |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High |ethics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organized Labour |importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Image requested|in=Tibet}} |
| ⚫ |
{{oldafdfull|page=Serfdom in Tibet|date=27 May 2008|result='''no consensus'''}} |
|
|
{{archivebox| |
|
{{archivebox| |
|
* ]| |
|
* ]| |
| Line 18: |
Line 26: |
|
|archive = Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== questionable material == |
|
|
The following paragraph is sourced to a Website where the same material is used. The problem is this site does not provide any source for this material, all it says is "In 1916 an American missionary, with experience in Chinese administered Eastern Tibet wrote." Since this paragraph does not have a reliable source I think it should be removed. Any ideas? ] (]) 04:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:"There is no method of torture known that is not practised in here on these Tibetans, slicing, boiling, tearing asunder and all …To sum up what China is doing here in eastern Tibet, the main things are collecting taxes robbing, oppressing, confiscating and allowing her representatives to burn and loot and steal." |
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind I found the proper link. ] (]) 05:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Have the Tibetans themselves reported brutalities like this? We should not rely on the words of a unknown American. ] (]) 06:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I added the following after reading the whole page. Believing that the American missionary's account might be an mistake, Sir Eric Teichman, a British diplomat clarified that whatever brutality existed, it was "in no way due to any action of the Chinese government in Peking or the provincial authorities in Szechuana." Does anyone have more info on this? ] (]) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This entire article is a mess and being edited constantly to keep it that way. Why is it not locked? ] (]) 13:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Very biased piece of work == |
|
|
|
|
|
The word "China" has been repeatedly mentioned, and was insinuated that it was the wrong and biased POV. Sometimes, when writing about history, people need to be less general, instead of writing "Chinese propaganda, Chinese state media and Pro-Chinese". Historical actors are not as simple as this. It makes me wonder if this article is written by a liberal hippie. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect characterization of Marx's "opiate of the masses" == |
|
== Incorrect characterization of Marx's "opiate of the masses" == |
| Line 44: |
Line 36: |
|
:According to Howard Zinn, Marx "saw religion, not just negatively as 'the opium of the people,' but positively as the 'sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.' |
|
:According to Howard Zinn, Marx "saw religion, not just negatively as 'the opium of the people,' but positively as the 'sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions.' |
|
|
|
|
|
This article should not repeat and reinforce this common misinterpretation. |
|
This article should not repeat and reinforce this common misinterpretation. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bias and Propaganda == |
|
== Bias and Propaganda == |
| Line 57: |
Line 49: |
|
|
|
|
|
The article currently implies that all the Tibet literature should be framed as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan", essentially denying the existence of independent reliable sources. I think this wording should be removed (it is unreferenced anyway). There are many independent sources, some of them cited in the article, and there is no support for framing them as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan". --] (]) 08:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
The article currently implies that all the Tibet literature should be framed as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan", essentially denying the existence of independent reliable sources. I think this wording should be removed (it is unreferenced anyway). There are many independent sources, some of them cited in the article, and there is no support for framing them as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan". --] (]) 08:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== John Powers is not a neutral source == |
|
|
|
|
|
so much of this article is based on the book by John Powers without any indication being made that he's a Tibetan Buddhist who supports Tibetan independence, making him an incredibly biased source. He definitely shouldn't be portrayed as some neutral overseer in the debate just because he wrote a book about the "controversy". |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 09:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've just checked. John Powers is a scholar on "Buddhism Studies" , not history. Using him as a sole source for controversial facts on history does seem dubious.] (]) 03:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Debate and meta-debate == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is both a debate and a meta-debate about serfdom in Tibet. The first debate is about whether the Tibetan society prior to 1950s can be described as featuring serf-like characteristics. The meta-debate is about whether this is relevant for other questions - notably whether China’s takeover of Tibet in the 1950s can be justified with promoting social progress. At least two-thirds of the article is about the second question – different from what the title suggests. I propose switching the order and labeling the meta-debate clearly as such. I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to carry out this change myself, however. ] (]) 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
This is a common but incorrect interpretation of Marx's view, and this is clear if you read the quote in context over at the Opium of the people article. At the time this quote was made, the negative value judgments we have today were not attached to opium. Marx's point was not that religion was evil in and of itself, but rather that it was an attempt to adorn the chains of oppression. His point in wanting to abolish religion was not to simply force people to view their chains in the harsh light of day, but rather to encourage them to do something about their oppression instead of contenting themselves with the significantly reduced state of merely being distracted from it.
I am now watching this page in order to determine whether it is displaying Chinese propaganda. There seems to be some sort of edit war being fought over this article. The majority of the article seems to be pure Chinese propaganda. However, there is a comment in the introduction of the article which indicates that the legitimacy of the claims made in this article is under dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The article currently implies that all the Tibet literature should be framed as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan", essentially denying the existence of independent reliable sources. I think this wording should be removed (it is unreferenced anyway). There are many independent sources, some of them cited in the article, and there is no support for framing them as "pro-Chinese" or "pro-Tibetan". --MarioGom (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
so much of this article is based on the book by John Powers without any indication being made that he's a Tibetan Buddhist who supports Tibetan independence, making him an incredibly biased source. He definitely shouldn't be portrayed as some neutral overseer in the debate just because he wrote a book about the "controversy".
There is both a debate and a meta-debate about serfdom in Tibet. The first debate is about whether the Tibetan society prior to 1950s can be described as featuring serf-like characteristics. The meta-debate is about whether this is relevant for other questions - notably whether China’s takeover of Tibet in the 1950s can be justified with promoting social progress. At least two-thirds of the article is about the second question – different from what the title suggests. I propose switching the order and labeling the meta-debate clearly as such. I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to carry out this change myself, however. Henry Kaspar (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
