Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 4 February 2024, see discussion.
no consensus, 27 May 2008, see discussion.

Tibet High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

May to July 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

questionable material[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[76] Does anyone have more info on this? Tibetsnow (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very biased piece of work[edit]

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)[reply]

Incorrect characterization of Marx's "opiate of the masses"[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

This comment has schizophrenic vibes to it. Are you on any kind of medication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.73.98 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No independent research?[edit]

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)[reply]

John Powers is not a neutral source[edit]

so much of this article is based on the book by John Powers without any indication being made that he's a Tibetan Buddhist who supports Tibetan independence, making him an incredibly biased source. He definitely shouldn't be portrayed as some neutral overseer in the debate just because he wrote a book about the "controversy".

2607:FEA8:AA03:9600:9400:5363:718E:24B1 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked. John Powers is a scholar on "Buddhism Studies" [1], not history. Using him as a sole source for controversial facts on history does seem dubious.Stix1776 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]