This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:19, 26 November 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:19, 26 November 2020 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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 |
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)
- 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? Tibetsnow (talk) 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? Lutzauto (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.152.25 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect characterization of Marx's "opiate of the masses"
In the Competing versions of Tibetan history section, the text says, "Marx condemned religion as 'the opiate of the masses'".
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.
From the article Marxism_and_religion#Karl_Marx_on_religion:
- 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.
Bias and Propaganda
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)
No independent research?
It is difficult to find academic consensus on the nature of society in Tibetan history. Sources on the history of Tibet are available from both pro-Chinese and pro-Tibetan writers.
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)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Tibet articles
- High-importance Tibet articles
- WikiProject Tibet articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles