Talk:Serfs' Emancipation Day/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
[Untitled]
User CardinalDan marked this page for deletion less than 60 seconds after it was created. How does anyone have a chance to even copy paste this fast. Benjwong (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no copy paste, it's fairly easy to request speedy deletion of a page. However, the time to posting a Speedy Deletion Request isn't a valid argument against it. I don't really see the justification in this case, though. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at that user's edit history, he/she speedy delete at quite a rate. Benjwong (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added information which aimed at neutralizing the article, in response to the request added. I add to revert the suppression of these addition, which I think were bringing important information non only for neutralisation, but also for the encyclopedia. I do beleive my addition should be clarified. I have also renamed the article, as indeed, the day was decided for Tibet and not for all countries. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry to revert again the suppression of my work, as explained above. I also would like to start a debate about the name of this article. "Serfs Emancipation Day" is not fully encyclopedic, as this day was not set in an universal way, but only for Tibet. Therefore, I propose renaming the article "Serfs Emancipation Day for Tibet" Any one having similar or opposed opinion ? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- "For Tibet" is not in the title of the holiday. As far as I know there are no other Serfs Emancipation Days in other countries, so there is no disambiguation issue, thus the current title is just fine.
- I have removed information which is not relevant to the article. Some of the sources are completely unacceptable also, such as tibet.com and an editorial by Kent Ewing. --Tocino 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry to revert again the suppression of my work, as explained above. I also would like to start a debate about the name of this article. "Serfs Emancipation Day" is not fully encyclopedic, as this day was not set in an universal way, but only for Tibet. Therefore, I propose renaming the article "Serfs Emancipation Day for Tibet" Any one having similar or opposed opinion ? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have added information which aimed at neutralizing the article, in response to the request added. I add to revert the suppression of these addition, which I think were bringing important information non only for neutralisation, but also for the encyclopedia. I do beleive my addition should be clarified. I have also renamed the article, as indeed, the day was decided for Tibet and not for all countries. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at that user's edit history, he/she speedy delete at quite a rate. Benjwong (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tocio, please explain why you object to these sources. www.tibet.com is the site of the Tibetan Government in Exile, thus certainly an important and valid source. As for Asia Times Online, I know of no reason to exclude it. Bertport (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tibet.com is the propaganda mouthpiece of separatists, and we should avoid using editorials from Taiwan based sites for People's Republic of China issues. --Tocino 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tocio, please explain why you object to these sources. www.tibet.com is the site of the Tibetan Government in Exile, thus certainly an important and valid source. As for Asia Times Online, I know of no reason to exclude it. Bertport (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- This topic is clearly related to the suppression of the 1959 Tibetan uprising and the fall of the Tibetan government in that year, so there can be no question that the TGIE is relevant. On the other hand, I think we should remove the Liberty Times link, because WP policy is to avoid using foreign language sources when English language sources are available. Bertport (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
"According to the Dalai Lama, the pre-1959 Tibetan society did comprise of poor people, but the appropriateness of term of Serf is questionable" and "The Dalai Lama says that serfdom existed in the rest of China, outside of Tibet, and he thinks the suffering was much more worse in other regions than it was in Tibet." (Hypocrisy much?) Proposing that only one of this conflicting positions be kept in the article, discussing before editing. --67.159.88.124 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"World Context" section
Should this section be kept in the form in which it exists now? A modified form? Not at all? Why or why not? --Gimme danger (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should go since when I read the article I saw no obvious connection between the UN's oppinions and serfdom. Human rights violations does not say anything about the emanicipation of serfs. The issues could be unrealted and we provide no explantion to the reader of any connection. If anyone knows what the author adding it intended it may be worth keeping if it can be explained. Jeltz talk 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeltz. The resolutions are unrelated to the holiday or serfdom in Dalai Lama-era Tibet. With that being said, I think it's Ok to mention them, like in a short paragraph, but it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to devote half of the article to them. --Tocino 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think that Tocino's last edit, which does not entirely eliminate the material but summarizes it, is fair, overall. There are a couple points in it that need to be qualified as Chinese claims. I also agree with Gimme danger that the edit summary "cleanup" was dishonest. Bertport (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Too many quotation marks
Just because you don't like how China describes the things, you can't put all the facts in quotation marks. It is ridiculous and erases the encyclopedic nature of an article. --2001:16B8:3199:3400:BC6D:DD68:5415:4BB3 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)