This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rather heavily POV toward the opinions of Chinese authorities. it will need some serious attention. Msalt ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You changed this to readHistorically, Tibetan has served as a trans-regional literary language that has been used, at different times, from Tibet to Mongolia, Russia, China and present-day Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.
Historically, Tibetan has served as a trans-regional literary language that has been used, at different times, not only in China as a whole but also to Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.
(I'm refactoring my earlier response to Xanthoyl, with the civility material moved to this new section, for clarity.)
Xanthoyl wrote, above: "He removed your tag because you didn't provide any real explanation (as he explicitly said) and your immediate attack on him violates Wikipedia's policies on civility."
Please explain how noting a violation of Wikipedia's BP:OWN policy constitutes a violation of civility. WP:CIV says "Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict."
Disagreements on wiki policy are not one of the items on that list. My perception of Shrigley's WP:OWN issue is not a personal attack, but rather a perfectly civil discussion of his or her editing behavior on the page. Shrigley did not reference policy or any objective standard, simply his or her opinion, as the basis for reverting and for declaring what is allowed. That is not a valid basis.
Similarly, you suggest that I should make improvements to this page only "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature..." This is also not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and again indicates a sense of ownership, assuming that you and/or Shrigley have such expertise (which neither of you has demonstrated). If you don't, then it sounds like directly discouraging an independent editor, which is yet more seriously in violation of WP.
The only incivility that I have noticed, other than your use of the loaded language "your immediate attack" to discuss my valid policy concern, is Shrigley's edit summary in removing the POV tag. His or her edit summary reads "Vague, uselss tag" (sic). This is an explicit violation of WP:CIV. In the section on Identifying Incivility, the fourth example of "Direct Rudeness" is precisely this:
"(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap");"
Less directly, the more civil approach is "fix, don't remove." Joining the discussion on bias in this page (on either side of the issue) would have been much more civil than reverting with a snide comment. Another good approach, which I often use, would have been to say something like "I don't feel as if you have given sufficient reasons to warrant a POV tag. Can you please elaborate on where you see POV? If not, I plan to remove this tag in a couple of days."
I agree strongly that we should keep this discussion civil, and hope that all parties involved will do so. Msalt ( talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Shrigley made one revert, the removal of a single tag he found puzzling, with a slightly dismissive summary and said nothing more than "You haven't explained what changes you want, so you can't keep a tag there." You responded by making the accusation of WP:OWN, a serious assertion and in this case entirely unfair. Quoting an example of what ownership means, from the policy page:
Shrigley has made exactly two edits to this page the whole time it has existed. I said that a couple of your complaints about the article couldn't be reconciled with what I found there, which makes them hard to fix. I also mentioned that the immediate leap to accusing people of ownership constituted an uncivil remark. I didn't, and haven't, reverted or altered any of your changes to the article.
You respond to this by starting an entire thread about me, starting off with about 500 words, in which you twist my friendly concluding sentence, "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature, please don't hesitate to make improvements" into some kind of threat. How was that a "good faith effort" on your part? How do you suppose it feels to log in and see something like that? Xanthoxyl < 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There are Tibetans and related people living near the current political boundaries of Tibet that we should probably include in this article, and I would be curious what everyone's opinion on this is. The article focuses on Tibetan language, which is fair; we should not make the mistake of confounding political borders with cultural ones.
The most obvious inclusion would be Ladakhi writers, who are clearly part of Tibetan culture despite being across the border in India. Thupten Palden should be included, for example.
What about, say, Bhutan? Mongolia (where cultural boundaries have overlapped at different times)? Sikkim and Darjeeling? Nepal? Etc. Msalt ( talk) 19:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The historical section of the article contained a long, essentially incomprehensible paragraph that was actually signed -- in the text! -- by its author. (I've never seen that before.) I considered attempting to rewrite it more clearly, but the train of thought was so difficult for me to fathom that I fear my efforts would constitute original research. There were also no references. I'm preserving the text below in case anyone wants to give it a shot. Msalt ( talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
During this time the mainstream is translated Buddhist scriptures, but also related to other disciplines such as philosophy, medicine, astrology, literature and so on. Translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan mainly. So how does the situation of literary translation? Translated into Tibetan Buddhist classics, in addition to a lot of discussion outside the writings of Buddhist teachings, there are many of the Buddha, the Buddha's biography, fables, stories, poems praising deities, these works of literature and the color is very strong. To describe the Buddha's life merit for the content of rhyme body work "wishful vine" is a very beautiful poetry, which later became the model for the Tibetan poets reading. Not only is the book discusses Buddhist teachings, in order to facilitate memory and recite, most have adopted the body in the form of rhyme, the text narrative, the description of thinking in images, Xing means than the use of literature are no doubt add a lot of color. So, Tibetan literature and culture of Tibetan Buddhism has very close ties. The early Tibetan history books, "Pakistan Association", "five teachings," the latter part of the history books, "Wise Wedding Banquet", "WANG Chen mind; Cuckoo Song" and although the history books, its literary value can not be ignored, the book some of the wonderful dialogue and delicate portrayal gives memorable impression. This means that a lot of translation of Buddhist scriptures in Tibetan literature for the development of inadvertently creating good conditions. The thirteenth century, proficiency in ten out to learn Pandita - Sakya Gongga Gyaltsen first talked about rhetoric. In his "Introduction to the wise," This book's second chapter describes the very limited space, rhetoric, and his insights from the seventh century these well-known classical Indian literary theory book, "Poetry Mirror" (The author is in India in the seventh century classical literary theorist Tan D). To the fourteenth century, the London literary theoretical works by the great male teacher translated into Tibetan, was made to help teachers carefully collated translation, as a textbook for teaching, since "poetry Mirror" has become the top scholar of Tibetan monks to learn writing This required course. From this phenomenon we can consider, Sakya Pandita is the first in the history of Tibetan literature, literary theory, the introduction of foreign masters. The male London, to help two big division is to continue to complete the translation of Albert Saban, comprehensive and systematic introduction of foreign literary theory, the theory of Indian classical literature, "poetry mirror" in the Tibetan literary roots in the soil, and the later Tibetan literature had a profound impact. Fourteenth-century "poetic mirror," the first translation until the twentieth century, nearly seven years in Tibetan Tibetan literary writers were actually based on the "poetry mirror" theory made a profound comprehensive study of its great research, writing many with outstanding achievements in the Tibetan literary theorists have meters next; Spengler Namgyal, the Fifth Dalai Lama, Hong chase; Tenzin song Jini Ma, suka; Los chase Jeb, Jen collapse; Ngawang tie, Kume next; Namgyal Gyatso, was Dan Xia Rong, Maoergai; Sangdan, East Ga; Lausanne red columns, etc., they write a lot with the insights of the "poems mirror" theory works, and creative a "poetic mirror," as the creative guidance of outstanding poems, a traditional Tibetan literary works of poetry a model. Produce such a work of literary theory at the same time, the Tibetan scholars in the rhetoric of science has also made outstanding contributions. Rhetoric writings of "wise men earrings" is Jen collapse; Ngawang bar book, this book's rhetoric in the writings of the existing length of the largest, richest vocabulary. Rhetorical writings of the advent of the rich Tibetan literary language, play a positive role in promoting, thus the prosperity of Tibetan literature has created good conditions. Outstanding Classical Literature in India at this time as "wishful vine", "cloud that", "six young people story" (Some people think that "six young people story" is not a translation, but the Tibetan literary writer, I have a different view, once wrote the article that "the story of six young people" is the translation of works) "thirty-four Bunsen Biography", "winning praise God destroy", "Ramayana", "Shagongdaluo" (translation section) and maxim poem "King of the line" theory, "advised the family and friends book" and other works of Tibetan translations appear, greatly broadened the horizons of Tibetan writers are creative.
Per the policy WP:NPOV, I have established this section to discuss particulars that need to be addressed to ensure the neutrality of this article. Please note the wording of the tag itself, per Wikipedia policy:
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Fundamentally, the background is that there is a dispute (in the real world) over whether Tibet has always been just a part of China, or has some independent claim to sovereignty. As an encyclopedia, we should not take a side in this dispute or promote one side over another. The article as it stands appears to promote the view of Tibet as only a part of China, which is the position of the Chinese government, in several locations.
As I have noted, it gives undue weight to the most recent bits of Tibetan literature that have been published since the Chinese established complete political control over Tibet in 1959, which has the effect of promoting the idea of Tibet as Chinese. It includes and discusses writers who are not culturally Tibetan but live in Tibet (the "lao xizang"), though we would never claim that Paul Bowles or William Burroughs were Moroccan writers. It describes Tibetan writers using questionably reliable sources in very typically Chinese descriptions (the Four Scholars, the Four Owl-Siblings, etc.) It parrots official Chinese questions about Tibetan language identity, in a section not encyclopedic for a discussion of literature. It uses the POV term "Diaspora" to refer to Tibetans who consider themselves in exile from an occupied home land. The article did not even mention the 14th Dalai Lama, who has written scores of books, until I added him.
I have attempted to correct many of these issues, and have been reverted by Shrigley without discussion, in a massive edit that conflates several different disagreements and is difficult to follow or undo. That same large edit actually introduced new POV elements, such as changing the discussion of the range of the Tibetan language; the original said it
"has been used, at different times, from Tibet to Mongolia, Russia, China and present-day Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan."
but Shrigley changed it, without explanation, to say the language
"has been used, at different times, not only in China as a whole but also to Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan."
I suggest that we work to resolve these and other specific disagreements, and make changes one at a time with discussion, rather than make block edits with multiple changes or dismiss any challenges to the current status of the page without reference to detail or policy. Msalt ( talk) 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rather heavily POV toward the opinions of Chinese authorities. it will need some serious attention. Msalt ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You changed this to readHistorically, Tibetan has served as a trans-regional literary language that has been used, at different times, from Tibet to Mongolia, Russia, China and present-day Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.
Historically, Tibetan has served as a trans-regional literary language that has been used, at different times, not only in China as a whole but also to Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.
(I'm refactoring my earlier response to Xanthoyl, with the civility material moved to this new section, for clarity.)
Xanthoyl wrote, above: "He removed your tag because you didn't provide any real explanation (as he explicitly said) and your immediate attack on him violates Wikipedia's policies on civility."
Please explain how noting a violation of Wikipedia's BP:OWN policy constitutes a violation of civility. WP:CIV says "Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict."
Disagreements on wiki policy are not one of the items on that list. My perception of Shrigley's WP:OWN issue is not a personal attack, but rather a perfectly civil discussion of his or her editing behavior on the page. Shrigley did not reference policy or any objective standard, simply his or her opinion, as the basis for reverting and for declaring what is allowed. That is not a valid basis.
Similarly, you suggest that I should make improvements to this page only "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature..." This is also not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and again indicates a sense of ownership, assuming that you and/or Shrigley have such expertise (which neither of you has demonstrated). If you don't, then it sounds like directly discouraging an independent editor, which is yet more seriously in violation of WP.
The only incivility that I have noticed, other than your use of the loaded language "your immediate attack" to discuss my valid policy concern, is Shrigley's edit summary in removing the POV tag. His or her edit summary reads "Vague, uselss tag" (sic). This is an explicit violation of WP:CIV. In the section on Identifying Incivility, the fourth example of "Direct Rudeness" is precisely this:
"(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap");"
Less directly, the more civil approach is "fix, don't remove." Joining the discussion on bias in this page (on either side of the issue) would have been much more civil than reverting with a snide comment. Another good approach, which I often use, would have been to say something like "I don't feel as if you have given sufficient reasons to warrant a POV tag. Can you please elaborate on where you see POV? If not, I plan to remove this tag in a couple of days."
I agree strongly that we should keep this discussion civil, and hope that all parties involved will do so. Msalt ( talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Shrigley made one revert, the removal of a single tag he found puzzling, with a slightly dismissive summary and said nothing more than "You haven't explained what changes you want, so you can't keep a tag there." You responded by making the accusation of WP:OWN, a serious assertion and in this case entirely unfair. Quoting an example of what ownership means, from the policy page:
Shrigley has made exactly two edits to this page the whole time it has existed. I said that a couple of your complaints about the article couldn't be reconciled with what I found there, which makes them hard to fix. I also mentioned that the immediate leap to accusing people of ownership constituted an uncivil remark. I didn't, and haven't, reverted or altered any of your changes to the article.
You respond to this by starting an entire thread about me, starting off with about 500 words, in which you twist my friendly concluding sentence, "If you have expertise in Tibetan literature, please don't hesitate to make improvements" into some kind of threat. How was that a "good faith effort" on your part? How do you suppose it feels to log in and see something like that? Xanthoxyl < 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There are Tibetans and related people living near the current political boundaries of Tibet that we should probably include in this article, and I would be curious what everyone's opinion on this is. The article focuses on Tibetan language, which is fair; we should not make the mistake of confounding political borders with cultural ones.
The most obvious inclusion would be Ladakhi writers, who are clearly part of Tibetan culture despite being across the border in India. Thupten Palden should be included, for example.
What about, say, Bhutan? Mongolia (where cultural boundaries have overlapped at different times)? Sikkim and Darjeeling? Nepal? Etc. Msalt ( talk) 19:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The historical section of the article contained a long, essentially incomprehensible paragraph that was actually signed -- in the text! -- by its author. (I've never seen that before.) I considered attempting to rewrite it more clearly, but the train of thought was so difficult for me to fathom that I fear my efforts would constitute original research. There were also no references. I'm preserving the text below in case anyone wants to give it a shot. Msalt ( talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
During this time the mainstream is translated Buddhist scriptures, but also related to other disciplines such as philosophy, medicine, astrology, literature and so on. Translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan mainly. So how does the situation of literary translation? Translated into Tibetan Buddhist classics, in addition to a lot of discussion outside the writings of Buddhist teachings, there are many of the Buddha, the Buddha's biography, fables, stories, poems praising deities, these works of literature and the color is very strong. To describe the Buddha's life merit for the content of rhyme body work "wishful vine" is a very beautiful poetry, which later became the model for the Tibetan poets reading. Not only is the book discusses Buddhist teachings, in order to facilitate memory and recite, most have adopted the body in the form of rhyme, the text narrative, the description of thinking in images, Xing means than the use of literature are no doubt add a lot of color. So, Tibetan literature and culture of Tibetan Buddhism has very close ties. The early Tibetan history books, "Pakistan Association", "five teachings," the latter part of the history books, "Wise Wedding Banquet", "WANG Chen mind; Cuckoo Song" and although the history books, its literary value can not be ignored, the book some of the wonderful dialogue and delicate portrayal gives memorable impression. This means that a lot of translation of Buddhist scriptures in Tibetan literature for the development of inadvertently creating good conditions. The thirteenth century, proficiency in ten out to learn Pandita - Sakya Gongga Gyaltsen first talked about rhetoric. In his "Introduction to the wise," This book's second chapter describes the very limited space, rhetoric, and his insights from the seventh century these well-known classical Indian literary theory book, "Poetry Mirror" (The author is in India in the seventh century classical literary theorist Tan D). To the fourteenth century, the London literary theoretical works by the great male teacher translated into Tibetan, was made to help teachers carefully collated translation, as a textbook for teaching, since "poetry Mirror" has become the top scholar of Tibetan monks to learn writing This required course. From this phenomenon we can consider, Sakya Pandita is the first in the history of Tibetan literature, literary theory, the introduction of foreign masters. The male London, to help two big division is to continue to complete the translation of Albert Saban, comprehensive and systematic introduction of foreign literary theory, the theory of Indian classical literature, "poetry mirror" in the Tibetan literary roots in the soil, and the later Tibetan literature had a profound impact. Fourteenth-century "poetic mirror," the first translation until the twentieth century, nearly seven years in Tibetan Tibetan literary writers were actually based on the "poetry mirror" theory made a profound comprehensive study of its great research, writing many with outstanding achievements in the Tibetan literary theorists have meters next; Spengler Namgyal, the Fifth Dalai Lama, Hong chase; Tenzin song Jini Ma, suka; Los chase Jeb, Jen collapse; Ngawang tie, Kume next; Namgyal Gyatso, was Dan Xia Rong, Maoergai; Sangdan, East Ga; Lausanne red columns, etc., they write a lot with the insights of the "poems mirror" theory works, and creative a "poetic mirror," as the creative guidance of outstanding poems, a traditional Tibetan literary works of poetry a model. Produce such a work of literary theory at the same time, the Tibetan scholars in the rhetoric of science has also made outstanding contributions. Rhetoric writings of "wise men earrings" is Jen collapse; Ngawang bar book, this book's rhetoric in the writings of the existing length of the largest, richest vocabulary. Rhetorical writings of the advent of the rich Tibetan literary language, play a positive role in promoting, thus the prosperity of Tibetan literature has created good conditions. Outstanding Classical Literature in India at this time as "wishful vine", "cloud that", "six young people story" (Some people think that "six young people story" is not a translation, but the Tibetan literary writer, I have a different view, once wrote the article that "the story of six young people" is the translation of works) "thirty-four Bunsen Biography", "winning praise God destroy", "Ramayana", "Shagongdaluo" (translation section) and maxim poem "King of the line" theory, "advised the family and friends book" and other works of Tibetan translations appear, greatly broadened the horizons of Tibetan writers are creative.
Per the policy WP:NPOV, I have established this section to discuss particulars that need to be addressed to ensure the neutrality of this article. Please note the wording of the tag itself, per Wikipedia policy:
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Fundamentally, the background is that there is a dispute (in the real world) over whether Tibet has always been just a part of China, or has some independent claim to sovereignty. As an encyclopedia, we should not take a side in this dispute or promote one side over another. The article as it stands appears to promote the view of Tibet as only a part of China, which is the position of the Chinese government, in several locations.
As I have noted, it gives undue weight to the most recent bits of Tibetan literature that have been published since the Chinese established complete political control over Tibet in 1959, which has the effect of promoting the idea of Tibet as Chinese. It includes and discusses writers who are not culturally Tibetan but live in Tibet (the "lao xizang"), though we would never claim that Paul Bowles or William Burroughs were Moroccan writers. It describes Tibetan writers using questionably reliable sources in very typically Chinese descriptions (the Four Scholars, the Four Owl-Siblings, etc.) It parrots official Chinese questions about Tibetan language identity, in a section not encyclopedic for a discussion of literature. It uses the POV term "Diaspora" to refer to Tibetans who consider themselves in exile from an occupied home land. The article did not even mention the 14th Dalai Lama, who has written scores of books, until I added him.
I have attempted to correct many of these issues, and have been reverted by Shrigley without discussion, in a massive edit that conflates several different disagreements and is difficult to follow or undo. That same large edit actually introduced new POV elements, such as changing the discussion of the range of the Tibetan language; the original said it
"has been used, at different times, from Tibet to Mongolia, Russia, China and present-day Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan."
but Shrigley changed it, without explanation, to say the language
"has been used, at different times, not only in China as a whole but also to Mongolia, Russia, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan."
I suggest that we work to resolve these and other specific disagreements, and make changes one at a time with discussion, rather than make block edits with multiple changes or dismiss any challenges to the current status of the page without reference to detail or policy. Msalt ( talk) 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)