This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tibetsnow (talk | contribs) at 06:29, 9 July 2011 (→questionable material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:29, 9 July 2011 by Tibetsnow (talk | contribs) (→questionable material)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Tibet B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | China B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serfdom in Tibet controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Paucity of reliable statistics
I think it will always be impossible to reliably determine the state of the Tibetan economy, population, health and educational services, etc., etc, for the period just before and after the Chinese take-over for two main reasons: First, there are very few statistics of any kind available for the period before the Chinese arrived and the ones provided by the PRC afterwards are highly suspect. The best that can be done is to make (very) rough and unreliable estimates. Secondly, Tibetan and PRC views on what constituted a happy, productive society, a good education, abuse of "serfs", religious and other freedoms, and the like, are so different that it is (to use an old saying) "like comparing chalk and cheese". The "experts" seem to either disagree with each other or have come to the same conclusion I have - so, in my humble opinion, the best policy is just to briefly state both positions and describe the uncertainty surrounding the subject, stop wasting time tying to get to the "truth" of the matter when this is clearly impossible, and get on with other things. Cheers, John Hill (talk)
- Much better articulated than I, sir, and very much my sentiment as well. In my opinion, the main point a reader of this article should come away with is not that there is disagreement of views but rather that our understanding of the situation is superficial and the number of studies done and real data available very limited. So then the scholarly disagreement is framed within that. They're arguing with as much data as they have, but it's not much. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree entirely! Quite right and I have argued often for: POV - source, other POV - source, and leave it at that. My belly ache is when POVs are presented as the NPOV. The PRC sources are clearly POVs, and often naively presented propaganda at that. The 'Tibetan Buddhist' apologists however like to present their - better presented but also slanted - views as the NPOV. (aren't we all?) Powers is a believing TB and author of an 'Introduction to TB'. He is very much a (well presented) POV and not an NPOV, and should not be presented as such. We saw quite and addition/editing spate a few weeks ago of the nature of "Here is the debate. The (laughably biased) PRC view is X. Here is what the slightly biased but noble Tibetans say. But as ever we find out the truth from Powers" Hmmmm. --Jomellon (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also while the relatively light weight and 'in a camp' Powers is presented as the NPOV, the conservative, Western, non- Marxist, non-Buddhist super-heavyweight scholar, universally respected even by his critics, Professor Goldstein is presented - especially by Bertport/Powers - as a biased POV. Hmmm...--Jomellon (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jomellon, you're just repeating stuff you made up. Bertport (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tibetan and PRC views on what constituted a happy, productive society, a good education, abuse of "serfs", religious and other freedoms
- That is also very true, but presenting the PRC as the standard against which Old Tibet is to be judged is also a bit of a trick. Modern Western standards are also not 'neutral', but they are the standards that most readers will have... and against that standard, forced labour, slavery, judicial eye-gouging, common whipping, flogging to death, life expectancy < 40, 95% illiteracy, tolerated homosexual sexual abuse of teenage boys in Lhasa by monks, monk life style forced on 8 year olds. etc do not quite fit with the image the TBs try to project. And these are all uncontested facts about Old Tibet. The TBs want to supress the widespread knowledge of this for PR reasons, and WP has a duty not to let that happen: irrespective of how aweful or not the PRC was/is. The PRC should also be clearly presented for what it is, good and bad. I think the only way forward for the TBs is to deal with the truth, and move on, not to attempt to suppress it (though among the general public they have largely got away with it!). The duty for WP is to present the established facts clearly, and the disputed facts as disputed, and why, without a large smoke screen. The page is not toooo bad now, imho, though it is a bit messy and could do with a rewrite: but that would be much too controversial! --Jomellon (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Goldstein a tweasel
Clearly, Goldstein is a tweasel and therefore should be excluded from the article altogether. His claims that Tibetans were surfers are absurd. Jomellon has freely admitted as much several times already. Bertport (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Astonishingly there were people arguing for the exclusion of Goldstein (! ...not an historian! ...scholarship superceded! ) 6 weeks or so ago: which shows just what a funny place some TBs had manouvered this page into. Crossette and Laird (!) were being presented as the 'last word' opinions. IMHO Powers is a big step up from Crossette and Laird: but still very much a TB POV and not the 'last word'. --Jomellon (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you looked all the way back to the origins of this article. It was started by Chinese propagandists (no joke) as a straight presentation of their POV. Others moved quickly to delete the article altogether - they didn't want it to even exist. The present article is a fair illustration of Misplaced Pages policies at work -- content based on verifiable sources, resulting from the contributions of multiple editors with their own perspective. Each editor has tas own opinions as to what should be emphasized more and what is overdone or overstated, and no one gets exactly the article ta wants. In the future, this article will be the target of occasional drive-by shootings, which will be reverted; but it will also see more meaningful reshaping over the course of time, as people bring more good source material forward. There is no last word. Many articles also go through episodes of active controversy, with long stretches of relative stability between. Bertport (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok! BTW: I find Tsering Shakya very reasonable... If you look at a lecture he gave in Berkeley, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA6jlvwrtns at about 1 hr 15 mins he describes talks with publishers in the PRC where he had asked them about interactions with censors, and what they can publish. The whole lecture is very interesting, tho he is not so flowing in English.--Jomellon (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Chinese" Source: Anna Louise Strong
Could I ask anyone interested in editing this page to read Anna Louise Strong "When serfs stood up"? Chapters 7 & 8: available in the comfort of your own home and free: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1959/tibet/ch07.htm
She was a Marxist, a POV, and can be regarded as a "Chinese" source. There is also a bit of Marxist polemic mixed in, but - just read these two chapters and make up your own mind as to whether she is lying. She is actually quite cautious when evaluting the truth of the peasants reports, noting for example during 'denunciation' sessions that the denouncers seemed to be following directions.
But read and decide yourself!--Jomellon (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Such claims of "moral authority for governing Tibet, based on narratives that portray Tibet as a feudal serfdom" and the PRC claims of improving Tibet - seeming to imply that without them Tibet would still be in the dark ages - are rather undermined by the fact that neighbouring Bhutan, which had a similar (possibly even more "feudal") social system, has managed improve and develop very well without being "liberated", invaded or taken over by Communist China. -- Chris Fynn (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- But why would we debate that on a talk page, which is for discussing improvements to the article and not rehashing the heated arguments we could be having on other parts of the internet! --Gimme danger (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Should 'controversy' be in the title?
I took a look (though not a thorough one) through the discussion archives, and cannot seem to find out why the word 'controversy' is in the title. Controversy is a very vague word which could be tacked onto nearly anything. If the intention behind it was to undermine the idea that there was really serfdom in Tibet, perhaps that would be better expressed in the lead and the body of the article - if, of course, such a view is strongly supported by reliable sources.
In any case, it's unclear to me why 'controversy' should be in the title.
Aside from that, the article reads remarkably neutrally for such a charged subject. —Zujine|talk 08:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Check the archive page, especially the sections "Article name", "Split", and "Name change - again?". Bertport (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I looked at the pages long enough to recognise that I probably do not want to dredge up that dispute. If this is the title chosen after long discussion - and it is supposed to be more about the contested discourse surrounding the topic than the topic itself - then I don't have more input. Thank you. —Zujine|talk 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Alleged Return of Serfdom
I also removed the insights of Frederick Hayek which, while interesting, seemed unrelated to the article. —Zujine|talk 09:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I restored this brief passage, which contributes to the discussion of whether the allegations that pre-1950 Tibet was a feudal serfdom gives the PRC moral justification for ruling Tibet. Bertport (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Does the source which mentions this, about serfdom in other places, say that it undermines the moral justification of the CCP? I can see the logic to your argument, but so far that just seems like... your logic. If a scholar had said: "The CCP's argument is weakened by the fact that serfdom was practiced in X place and Y place..." - then we could report that (though perhaps not in the lead).
To give an example, it would be the same order of logic to include information about the CCP's grotesque human rights abuses, like torture and organ harvesting of religious dissidents, to show that they have no moral justification for anything. The reason we don't include that in the lead, or anywhere in this article, is the same reason we should not include the notes about serfdom in Europe. —Zujine|talk 13:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Does the source which mentions this, about serfdom in other places, say that it undermines the moral justification of the CCP? I can see the logic to your argument, but so far that just seems like... your logic. If a scholar had said: "The CCP's argument is weakened by the fact that serfdom was practiced in X place and Y place..." - then we could report that (though perhaps not in the lead).
- I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that's valid justification for excluding it from the article. Hayek/Gorbachev is not just about Europe, but about communist claims to rescue peasants from serfdom, and includes China in that argument. How about a compromise - we move it from the lead to the "Comparison to other regions" section. Bertport (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that would be slightly better. I would not be opposed to a sentence in the lead saying something like "Advocates for Tibetan freedom seek to undermine the CCP's argument for moral legitimacy in invading Tibet by pointing to other societies that practiced serfdom elsewhere in the world."
OK, so it would not be quite like that, but the point is some words that make explicit why that information is relevant. Just my view. I accept the idea of moving it, and I will do so now. —Zujine|talk 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that would be slightly better. I would not be opposed to a sentence in the lead saying something like "Advocates for Tibetan freedom seek to undermine the CCP's argument for moral legitimacy in invading Tibet by pointing to other societies that practiced serfdom elsewhere in the world."
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? Tibetsnow (talk) 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. Tibetsnow (talk) 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. Tibetsnow (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories: