This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems to me to be written from a pro-tibetan stance. Please try to make it more neutral. Soaringgoldeneagle ( talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of issues here that are presented exclusively from the Tibetan standpoint and are thus NPOV:
A balanced and well sourced discussion of the matters covered by this article already exists at Tibet and related articles. Delete please. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Any reader with some knowledge of modern Tibet's demography can tell this page is far from reflecting reality. It states as established fact the point of view of one side. It should be deleted.-- Christian Lassure ( talk) 19:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As has been noted repeatedly above, this article suffers from serious NPOV problems, given that it substantively relies entirely upon pro-independence and anti-integration sources. If no adequate responses are forthcoming within the next week, I will take the initiative to balance the POV in this article. Ultimately, if that is not possible, I will nominate the article for deletion, since an article that cannot be made NPOV is by definition a POV fork. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just compare this :
Anno 2008 in the capital Lhasa live 400,000 people, mainly Chinese. In 1959 only 5,000 inhabitants were living there.
to this:
Major ethnic groups in Lhasa Prefecture-level City by district or county, 2000 census
Total Tibetans Han Chinese others
Lhasa Prefecture-level City 474,499 387,124 81.6% 80,584 17.0% 6,791 1.4%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa
81.6% of the population are Tibetans
How bias it can be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 ( talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As has been suggested above, this article can best be neutralised as an article focussing on the arguments on both sides of the debate, as well as the uses to which these allegations have been put. I have added a lead in which I have endeavoured to tease out the different strands in the debate. Going forward, I hope to deal with the following major topics:
Your help in editing is welcome. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 05:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting from the "Change of power" section, I have re-organised it into "political and administrative", becuase the key allegation that is directly relevant to Sinicization in that section seems to me to be that China divided up the "traditional" provinces of Tibet.
The material about the legality of the invasion, and the legal status of Tibet pre-1950, is not relevant to Sinicization. The generally understood meaning of that term does not encompass Conquest, and in any case the assertion of control is well dealt with in Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951). I have preserved a small amount of background information to establish context, but have restricted it to uncontroversial and agreed facts. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how these are related to allegations of Sinicization. The comment about Mao wanting to move 40(? or is it 40,000) Chinese farmers into Titbet is relevant to the demographic point, but that's dealt with in another section further down. As to the failure of the agricultural policy -- I'm not sure how that is Sinicization. Corn is not an essentially traditionally Han-Chinese food. Unless the point is that the government tried to starve lots of Tibetans to death by making them grow corn? If that is the case, it needs to be argued fully. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
moved from article to here - YakLee ( talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The debate over allegations of Sinicization of Tibet is one plank in the wider debate about the history and future of Tibet. The debate is largely a political one, and centres around two issues. The first is the extent to which Han Chinese culture or population has gained ascendancy in Tibet. The second is whether any such process has been supported, tacitly or explicitly, by the government of China.
Sinicization generally refers to a process by which a culture or people become more similar to that of China. In the Tibetan context, it refers to a process by which Tibetan culture may have become more simimlar to that of the Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, and also to a process by which, it is alleged, the population makeup in traditionally Tibetan areas have shifted in favour of the non-Tibetan Chinese, and especially the Mongolss, the Hui and the Han ethnic groups. Because Sinicization refers to a process of "becoming similar to China", and there is a significant view that Tibet currently is or historically has been a part of China, the use of the term "Sinicization" itself is not unproblematic.
Politically, there are broadly two camps to this debate. On the one hand, supporters of Tibetan independence and critics of the policies of the People's Republic of China in Tibet generally support the view that Tibetan culture has shifted towards Han and other non-Tibetan Chinese cultures. A controversial allegation supported by this camp is that this shift is due to active or at least indifferent government policies. A more controverisal allegation supported by this side of the debate is that the number of non-Tibetan Chinese people who have migrated into traditionally Tibetan-dominated areas is significant, or is so large that it is in danger of outnumbering, or already has outnumbered, the ethnically Tibetan population in some areas. Some participants on this side of the debate use these allegations to argue for the poor human rights record of China and especially in Tibet, for the need for greater autonomy for Tibet within China, and more controversially, for the independence of Tibet from China.
On the other side of the debate, supporters of the People's Republic of China government policies in Tibet and opponents of Tibetan independence advocate that government policy has generally been protective of Tibetan culture. This camp argues that there has been no deliberate policy to promote Han Chinese culture in Tibet over Tibetan culture. Further, this side of the debate argues that Tibetans remain the majority population in almost all traditionally Tibetan areas. Finally, some participants in the debate argue that allegations of the Sinicization of Tibet is an attack on Chinese sovereignty disguised as a criticism of Chinese government policy.
While the history of interaction between Tibetans and Han Chinese stretch back centuries, and is characterised by mutual cultural and religious influences, as well as intermarriage and the movement of people, the contemporary political debate almost exclusively focusses on the nature and extent of the interaction in the half century since the government of the People's Republic of China asserted control over Tibet between 1951 and 1959.
User:YakLee, based on your responses to the above threads where other users and I have raised concern about the NPOV problems with this article, I conclude that you are not willing to discuss these problems.
As a result, I have requested user comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet and Wikipedia:WikiProject China. This is just a courtsey notice. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 08:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Under the Change of Power heading, the "citation" following the phrase "most historians claim" leads to the Tibetan Government-in-Exile main page. I seriously doubt the government-in-exile is (1) a group of historians or (2) a neutral source. This paragraph also employs the use of weasel words, citing broad consensus on a subject and then citing one source ("Most historians" "Many socialists"). Something should be done about this obviously POV article.
While we're at it, Tibet may have been an independent government in the decades preceding the Chinese invasion in 1950, but this curious omission fails to note that Tibet was under the control of Qing Dynasty regents or else being invaded by Britain for most of the second millenium. Tibet was only homeruled after the Chinese Revolution of 1912, when, due to internal conflict, they expelled the Chinese forces. While this point may be contentious, the Chinese side of the argument needs to be presented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
since when did wiki became student for free tibet .com?
I find this statement particularly dubious. Per my edit comment, "Low pressure and thin oxygen make it very difficult for people outside Tibet to stay there for long periods" directly contradicts Effects of high altitude on humans: "for example, to adapt to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) of altitude would require 45.6 days." Based on the scientific literature, there seems to be agreement that humans can acclimate to high altitudes within days or weeks. The reports of pulmonary edema make sense given the altitude, but the analysis is pure speculation on the part of the author of the source: "The high [population] figure appears absurd" (emphasis mine), and fails to cite a source for the speculative argument. The book cites "Chinese authorities", but does not provide a source.
Furthermore, "As a rule, the Han themselves are not keen on settling in Tibet" directly contradicts the quoted testimony of Han migrants found in news articles such as [1] and [2].
The problem with the two sources cited is that the date from before the current wave of migration, and are not applicable. Until more modern sources are found, there seems to be evidence that Han attitudes toward migrating to Tibet have changed significantly, and the paragraph no longer is current. Richard Ye talk 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. As mentioned above this article is not factual accurate, non-neutral and even misleading. For instance the line: Tibetans have become a minority in Greater Tibet. In so called Greater Tibet (which is erroneously linked to Tibet article) the tibetans were never a majority. Leave alone that the notion of Greater Tibet, wich includes the Tibetan Plateau and 3 chinese provinces, is a questionable notion. The ideea of the sinicization of Tibet is totally obsolete. -- Daduxing ( talk) 11:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Given there is recent scholarly opinion ( Robert Barnett) under "Debate on the intention of the PRC" refuting the unfounded cultural genocide claims, adding the category Category:Human rights abuses in China is spurious at best. And, @ Amigao:, it is time you abide by WP:BRD and talk page use: you have not even made 50 talk-space edits since 2011. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The page is seriously wrong: The first sentence states clearly that Sinicization of Tibet is a term used by critics of China; then, the rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases. Thus, the subject - a term used by critics - has been subverted, possibly vandalized (if the page was originally created by editors adhering to the subject - still checking versions), and redirected to another subject : China defends sinicization. And a reminder: sinicization cannot be separated from acts of human rights abuses since human rights abuses are inherent in sinicization; and, to eradicate a culture and replace it is cultural cleansing. So, we have a few options:
rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrasesis reactionary trolling, given the Religion section as a whole is mostly critical of PRC actions, and even includes a citation each from Radio Free Asia (dubious) and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. In the "Education, employment, and language" section, previously, not one but three citations to Adrian Zenz (currently based at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation) were found in the first paragraph. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I read thoroughly to the end of history section before forming the educated opinion—Therein lies the problem, it is anything but educated because the opinion is based on a section giving historical context. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's discuss the issue @ CaradhrasAiguo : the caption as recently reverted and presently reads is factually incorrect, and a big controversy in Lhasa, for Tibetans, and for architects and urbanists, among others internationally.
Monument to the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Potala Square, Lhasa in 2009. (not disputed) Then: Built on celebrating the demolition People's site Liberation of Army an entering occupied Tibet, historic built neighborhood just at outside the base protective of zone Potala and Palace, buffer a zone UNESCO of the World Heritage Site
Thanks. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
peaceful liberation(that is merely the name of the monument).
Similarly, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the rehabilitation work being carried out involves the demolition of post-1959 adjunctions to the traditional houses, their reconstruction and the widening of the streets
Furthermore, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the works undertaken on the historic buildings and the widening of the streets risk causing irreversible changes to the historic character of this area
Concernant la tour de 35 m de haut commémorant « la libération paisible du Tibet », la mission UNESCO a vérifié que cette nouvelle construction était bien située à l'extérieur des zones de protection du site du patrimoine mondial, du côté sud de la Nouvelle Place du Potala.CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems to me to be written from a pro-tibetan stance. Please try to make it more neutral. Soaringgoldeneagle ( talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of issues here that are presented exclusively from the Tibetan standpoint and are thus NPOV:
A balanced and well sourced discussion of the matters covered by this article already exists at Tibet and related articles. Delete please. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Any reader with some knowledge of modern Tibet's demography can tell this page is far from reflecting reality. It states as established fact the point of view of one side. It should be deleted.-- Christian Lassure ( talk) 19:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As has been noted repeatedly above, this article suffers from serious NPOV problems, given that it substantively relies entirely upon pro-independence and anti-integration sources. If no adequate responses are forthcoming within the next week, I will take the initiative to balance the POV in this article. Ultimately, if that is not possible, I will nominate the article for deletion, since an article that cannot be made NPOV is by definition a POV fork. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just compare this :
Anno 2008 in the capital Lhasa live 400,000 people, mainly Chinese. In 1959 only 5,000 inhabitants were living there.
to this:
Major ethnic groups in Lhasa Prefecture-level City by district or county, 2000 census
Total Tibetans Han Chinese others
Lhasa Prefecture-level City 474,499 387,124 81.6% 80,584 17.0% 6,791 1.4%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa
81.6% of the population are Tibetans
How bias it can be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 ( talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As has been suggested above, this article can best be neutralised as an article focussing on the arguments on both sides of the debate, as well as the uses to which these allegations have been put. I have added a lead in which I have endeavoured to tease out the different strands in the debate. Going forward, I hope to deal with the following major topics:
Your help in editing is welcome. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 05:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting from the "Change of power" section, I have re-organised it into "political and administrative", becuase the key allegation that is directly relevant to Sinicization in that section seems to me to be that China divided up the "traditional" provinces of Tibet.
The material about the legality of the invasion, and the legal status of Tibet pre-1950, is not relevant to Sinicization. The generally understood meaning of that term does not encompass Conquest, and in any case the assertion of control is well dealt with in Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951). I have preserved a small amount of background information to establish context, but have restricted it to uncontroversial and agreed facts. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how these are related to allegations of Sinicization. The comment about Mao wanting to move 40(? or is it 40,000) Chinese farmers into Titbet is relevant to the demographic point, but that's dealt with in another section further down. As to the failure of the agricultural policy -- I'm not sure how that is Sinicization. Corn is not an essentially traditionally Han-Chinese food. Unless the point is that the government tried to starve lots of Tibetans to death by making them grow corn? If that is the case, it needs to be argued fully. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
moved from article to here - YakLee ( talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The debate over allegations of Sinicization of Tibet is one plank in the wider debate about the history and future of Tibet. The debate is largely a political one, and centres around two issues. The first is the extent to which Han Chinese culture or population has gained ascendancy in Tibet. The second is whether any such process has been supported, tacitly or explicitly, by the government of China.
Sinicization generally refers to a process by which a culture or people become more similar to that of China. In the Tibetan context, it refers to a process by which Tibetan culture may have become more simimlar to that of the Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, and also to a process by which, it is alleged, the population makeup in traditionally Tibetan areas have shifted in favour of the non-Tibetan Chinese, and especially the Mongolss, the Hui and the Han ethnic groups. Because Sinicization refers to a process of "becoming similar to China", and there is a significant view that Tibet currently is or historically has been a part of China, the use of the term "Sinicization" itself is not unproblematic.
Politically, there are broadly two camps to this debate. On the one hand, supporters of Tibetan independence and critics of the policies of the People's Republic of China in Tibet generally support the view that Tibetan culture has shifted towards Han and other non-Tibetan Chinese cultures. A controversial allegation supported by this camp is that this shift is due to active or at least indifferent government policies. A more controverisal allegation supported by this side of the debate is that the number of non-Tibetan Chinese people who have migrated into traditionally Tibetan-dominated areas is significant, or is so large that it is in danger of outnumbering, or already has outnumbered, the ethnically Tibetan population in some areas. Some participants on this side of the debate use these allegations to argue for the poor human rights record of China and especially in Tibet, for the need for greater autonomy for Tibet within China, and more controversially, for the independence of Tibet from China.
On the other side of the debate, supporters of the People's Republic of China government policies in Tibet and opponents of Tibetan independence advocate that government policy has generally been protective of Tibetan culture. This camp argues that there has been no deliberate policy to promote Han Chinese culture in Tibet over Tibetan culture. Further, this side of the debate argues that Tibetans remain the majority population in almost all traditionally Tibetan areas. Finally, some participants in the debate argue that allegations of the Sinicization of Tibet is an attack on Chinese sovereignty disguised as a criticism of Chinese government policy.
While the history of interaction between Tibetans and Han Chinese stretch back centuries, and is characterised by mutual cultural and religious influences, as well as intermarriage and the movement of people, the contemporary political debate almost exclusively focusses on the nature and extent of the interaction in the half century since the government of the People's Republic of China asserted control over Tibet between 1951 and 1959.
User:YakLee, based on your responses to the above threads where other users and I have raised concern about the NPOV problems with this article, I conclude that you are not willing to discuss these problems.
As a result, I have requested user comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet and Wikipedia:WikiProject China. This is just a courtsey notice. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 08:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Under the Change of Power heading, the "citation" following the phrase "most historians claim" leads to the Tibetan Government-in-Exile main page. I seriously doubt the government-in-exile is (1) a group of historians or (2) a neutral source. This paragraph also employs the use of weasel words, citing broad consensus on a subject and then citing one source ("Most historians" "Many socialists"). Something should be done about this obviously POV article.
While we're at it, Tibet may have been an independent government in the decades preceding the Chinese invasion in 1950, but this curious omission fails to note that Tibet was under the control of Qing Dynasty regents or else being invaded by Britain for most of the second millenium. Tibet was only homeruled after the Chinese Revolution of 1912, when, due to internal conflict, they expelled the Chinese forces. While this point may be contentious, the Chinese side of the argument needs to be presented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
since when did wiki became student for free tibet .com?
I find this statement particularly dubious. Per my edit comment, "Low pressure and thin oxygen make it very difficult for people outside Tibet to stay there for long periods" directly contradicts Effects of high altitude on humans: "for example, to adapt to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) of altitude would require 45.6 days." Based on the scientific literature, there seems to be agreement that humans can acclimate to high altitudes within days or weeks. The reports of pulmonary edema make sense given the altitude, but the analysis is pure speculation on the part of the author of the source: "The high [population] figure appears absurd" (emphasis mine), and fails to cite a source for the speculative argument. The book cites "Chinese authorities", but does not provide a source.
Furthermore, "As a rule, the Han themselves are not keen on settling in Tibet" directly contradicts the quoted testimony of Han migrants found in news articles such as [1] and [2].
The problem with the two sources cited is that the date from before the current wave of migration, and are not applicable. Until more modern sources are found, there seems to be evidence that Han attitudes toward migrating to Tibet have changed significantly, and the paragraph no longer is current. Richard Ye talk 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. As mentioned above this article is not factual accurate, non-neutral and even misleading. For instance the line: Tibetans have become a minority in Greater Tibet. In so called Greater Tibet (which is erroneously linked to Tibet article) the tibetans were never a majority. Leave alone that the notion of Greater Tibet, wich includes the Tibetan Plateau and 3 chinese provinces, is a questionable notion. The ideea of the sinicization of Tibet is totally obsolete. -- Daduxing ( talk) 11:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Given there is recent scholarly opinion ( Robert Barnett) under "Debate on the intention of the PRC" refuting the unfounded cultural genocide claims, adding the category Category:Human rights abuses in China is spurious at best. And, @ Amigao:, it is time you abide by WP:BRD and talk page use: you have not even made 50 talk-space edits since 2011. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The page is seriously wrong: The first sentence states clearly that Sinicization of Tibet is a term used by critics of China; then, the rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases. Thus, the subject - a term used by critics - has been subverted, possibly vandalized (if the page was originally created by editors adhering to the subject - still checking versions), and redirected to another subject : China defends sinicization. And a reminder: sinicization cannot be separated from acts of human rights abuses since human rights abuses are inherent in sinicization; and, to eradicate a culture and replace it is cultural cleansing. So, we have a few options:
rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrasesis reactionary trolling, given the Religion section as a whole is mostly critical of PRC actions, and even includes a citation each from Radio Free Asia (dubious) and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. In the "Education, employment, and language" section, previously, not one but three citations to Adrian Zenz (currently based at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation) were found in the first paragraph. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I read thoroughly to the end of history section before forming the educated opinion—Therein lies the problem, it is anything but educated because the opinion is based on a section giving historical context. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's discuss the issue @ CaradhrasAiguo : the caption as recently reverted and presently reads is factually incorrect, and a big controversy in Lhasa, for Tibetans, and for architects and urbanists, among others internationally.
Monument to the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Potala Square, Lhasa in 2009. (not disputed) Then: Built on celebrating the demolition People's site Liberation of Army an entering occupied Tibet, historic built neighborhood just at outside the base protective of zone Potala and Palace, buffer a zone UNESCO of the World Heritage Site
Thanks. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
peaceful liberation(that is merely the name of the monument).
Similarly, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the rehabilitation work being carried out involves the demolition of post-1959 adjunctions to the traditional houses, their reconstruction and the widening of the streets
Furthermore, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the works undertaken on the historic buildings and the widening of the streets risk causing irreversible changes to the historic character of this area
Concernant la tour de 35 m de haut commémorant « la libération paisible du Tibet », la mission UNESCO a vérifié que cette nouvelle construction était bien située à l'extérieur des zones de protection du site du patrimoine mondial, du côté sud de la Nouvelle Place du Potala.CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
References