Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest/Archive 3

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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Phayul

I have some problems with including phayul.org in the links too, and I was thinking about addressing them here when Seville removed it. It is a highly partisan website and we have had some problems with verifying the content of its articles in their supposed sources before. See the discussion above about the non-existent Canada Press article that they cited. While it's clearly not a pure partisan rant site like anti-cnn.com, it doesn't measure up to a real news site and I don't think we should refer to it unless absolutely necessary. So, I support Seville's edit. Alexwoods (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On that topic - in the course of a recent edit I removed a couple of statements sourced only to Phayul.

My view is that clearly partisan sources such as Phayul, Xinhua News Agency, or Anti-CNN.com, are inherently unreliable as evidence of the truth of their contents - e.g. it is inappropriate to say "All rioters were soldiers in disguise [ref]Phayul.com[/ref]", just as it would be inappropriate to say "The Dalai Lama is the world's biggest terrorist [ref]Xinhuanet[/ref]"

On the other hand, these websites are reliable sources of the fact that they made the claims that they made. Thus, it is appropriate to say (in the hypothetical situation of these being accurate summaries of their statements): "Phayul.com claims that all rioters were soldiers in disguise"; "Xinhuanet alleged that the Dalai Lama is the world's biggest terrorist", or "Anti-CNN.com has set out to prove that CNN is a pack of liars".

I hope other editors agree with this approach. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree in principle, just want to add that another point may be relevance. What China's official(?) news agency has to say is probably relevant enough to mention it in the article, what some random Cyberactivists have to say may not. Same for other side of conflict. Yaan (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article may be helpful

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875823 Just read this article, think it's quite objective, and it has quite a few details in this event. I've searched the reference list, it is not in. Hope it's helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.165.101.124 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of few cite news

1st for Communist Chinese Olympic Accountability Act inclusion in the Possible Olympic boycott section. And 2nd for Three dead in Indian 'Tibet' bomb news. The 2008 unrest may lead to these 2 events. But for the Accountability Act, no Tibetan unrest was mentioned in McCotter's initial bill. For the bombing "accident", the connection to the unrest can be purely speculation. Anyone agree to remove them? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, have moved the first article to "Bill" as it is not enacted. If I remember correctly, Representative McCotter and others first aired the idea of this bill in relation to Darfur and other "human rights issues", and not Tibet. On the other hand, the source cited (Bloomberg) said it is an attempt to force President Bush to boycott the Olympics, so it at least stands on its sources - though the number of inaccuracies in the report makes it seem quite dodgy. My view is leave it in unless it is contradicted by another reliable source. In the mean time, perhaps you can add in the information that the bill mentions nothing about the unrest?

Deleted the Indian bombing section: second sentence is uncited; first mentions nothing about the Tibetan unrest and is only tenuously connected with the topic of the article (because the guy might be Tibetan). If we included that, we would also include every case of any Tibetan involved in any criminal activity around the world... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sichuan

Sichuan incorporates both the traditional Tibetan areas of Kham and Amdo, albeit mostly Kham. I changed this in the article, but for some reason it was edited out. It is relevant, because some of the protests which occurred in "Sichuan" are reported in Tibetan news as occuring in "Amdo" ie. Amdo Ngaba Kirti Monastery. --Sonamchub (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have reverted your change. Modern Sichuan is the amalgamation of the former provinces of Sichuan and the eastern part of Xikang, the latter being the "Kham" referred to by Tibetan irredentists. (The western part of Xikang (Qamdo), which had been under the authority of the Dalai Lama, was merged into the Tibet Autnomous Region).

Your change was misleading because it implied that Sichuan was made up of Kham and Amdo - it is not. The western part of Sichuan is part of the former Xikang, or Kham, while bits in the north would have been in Amdo. The rest (and larger part) of Sichuan, however, have never been part of either.

The original sentence was supposed to convey "In the part of Sichuan that would have been historically in Kham...." If you see any inaccuracies or confusion in that, please change it accordingly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you should write what you have explained above and not just that Sichuan was traditionally called Kham. As I said, it is relevant to mention that the Northern part of Sichuan is still referred to as Amdo by Tibetans, as it is reported in some reports that the protests occurred in Amdo Ngawa Kirti Monastery and Amdo Dzoge which are part of the present day Sichuan. --58.6.183.57 (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it stood did not say "Sichuan is called Kham". It said "In Sichuan, in an area called Kham" -- just as you might say "In France, in Provence many protesters gathered..." And btw, I didn't write it. Please Be Bold and fix it up correctly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interview of Dawa Tsering, China Affairs Officer of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile

You can listen it from the Radio French International website.(Chinese) http://www.rfi.fr/actucn/articles/100/article_6734.asp

Q: The Chinese government on numerous occasions has questioned Dalai Lama's position on non-violence, and asked that if Dalai Lama truly advocates non-violence, why has he not condemned the cruel acts of murdering the Han Chinese committed by the Tibetan rioters during the March 14, 2008 riots in Tibet?

A: First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that (the Tibetans rioters) were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore (there were) only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan (rioters) were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan (rioters) set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those (Tibetans) who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.83.214 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please prove the reliability of Radio France Internationale or this particlar interview because it hasn't been used in the currently article. On the other hand, for those who have trouble in listening to the broadcast, here's the direct link to the audio file: fait_du_jour_jour020408.mp3. I've listent to the interview, the translation is basically true, but only covers the whole recording from 6:05~7:06 of 9:01 -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Radio France International should be on the same level of reliability as BBC, being a fairly influential, official news source. This means it is fairly reliable but less reliable than respected print media sources such as the AP. That is to say, it is unlikely to be fabricating interviews but we may not be able to fully rely on its proprietary analysis.

I think this material can be used provided we fully attribute it ("In an interview published by RFI, Dawa Tsering says..."). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the policy of using purely English source in EN WP, I must ask another question. Dawa Tsering is titled the "person in charge of Chinese affair" in the interview (0:55.) As I check the official site of TGE no such position or department exists. Besides I found that Dawa Tsering is listed as an Additional Secretary of Department of Information and International Relations in its page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: there is no policy of using purely English sources. The policy is to prefer English sources if the same information is available in both English and a foreign language source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to stay away from judgement on Wikipedia but I cannot after this sentence: "From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that (the Tibetans rioters) were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place." If the translation is correct, it is one of the most grotesque excuses I have seen. The Tibetan brutally beating up defenceless Han in one video made me want to throw up - and here someone says that beating is not violence.

The Tibetans may have had good reason for rioting. They may be oppressed. They may feel frustrated. There may have been provocations and there may have been attacks the other way too. I do not judge if what the Tibetans were doing was "right" or "wrong". But it bloody well is brutal violence. Mlewan (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree. I was told by my Sichuan Han classmate, the Tibetan and other Chinese minorities (no offense) do have some different POV of sanity. Arson is crime as well whether the victim is killed intentionally or not. Enough original experience. Now a short summary about the whole interview. (Not attempt to translate the whole interview since I'm no native Eng speaker.)

Q1: Can you explain the reliability of casualties statistics reported by TGE? Since most Han people think that your evidences were fabricated.

A1: Chinese Government never explains how they made up to ten thousand Tibetan protesters vanished from the riot for a sudden period. The method of suppression by People's Liberation Army is questionable, as well as how they expel the foreign media out of Tibet. So the casualties must be far greater than 140. Han people's acceptability is also selective regardless of the poor record of honesty of PRC official media. They refuse the Tibetan propaganda no matter the truthfulness of the evidences they supply.

The source of 140 casualties began with the first gunshot on 314. TGE rapidly received intelligence from residents living in Tibet. For example the one witnessed the death of a Tibetan he(she) immediately sent the message to his(her) relatives in Nepal and transferred it to the TGE HQ. We received more than thousand calls and many photos of civilian report about many Tibetan being killed everyday. The telecommunication and internet in Tibet was blocked on 16th or 17th March because PRC was finally aware of too much information leaked. Although many reports contradicting one another, we have filtered them and counted only when they are supported by enough testimonies and evidences. We have the name of 40 victims who were firmly killed during the incident, we have their dying time and location as well.

Q2/A2 (translated by the Anon)

Q3: China has just announced thru Xinhua News Agency (新華社), again accused (14th) Dalai Lama for not wholeheartly renouncing the Tibetan independence. How do you think?

A3: If you don't believe in him you can listen to his speech once more. He doesn't demand that restores the old system. He repeated he doesn't want Independence but sustained China for 2008 Olympic game. Truth is China refuses to talk, refuses to give Tibetans equality and autonomy which they deserve according to PRC constitution but Chinese Government just refused. If his requirements are met he will step away from politicking.

(end of interview)

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Has the quote been added to the article? If not, I will add it in. I've listened to the interview and agree that the anon's translation is accurate. If there are no other objections about the authenticity or reliability of the source, it should go into the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to adding this. Is there an official translation available?

Why do you object? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

well, what is wikipedia's policy on adding unofficial translations done by wikipedia editors?

Considering my contribution to ZH WP, I guarantee the accuracy of the translation by Anon. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the best we can use in the absence of an official English transcription. I've listened to the file, and can say it is accurate. If you don't trust the editors here, perhaps you can take it to the Languages helpdesk or the Translation project and ask for some uninvolved editors to transcribe the second question and answer?

Please sign your posts with --~~~~. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sameboat, do you think you could add a hanzi and perhaps even pinyin transcription of the interview to this page? Or could anyone else do it? That would make it much easier to verify the translation and match it to the mp3. Mlewan (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, since I may add this interview in the ZH version as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

（6:04）

Q2: 就中國官方多次對這個達賴喇嘛的非暴力主張提出質問，並且提問說如果達賴真的要是主張非暴力那他為什麼沒有對這個314這西藏發生的藏人屠殺漢人的這個殘暴的行為進行譴責？

A2: 首先必須聲明的是藏人在從頭到尾使用的是非暴力就是說，從藏民角度來講暴力指的是對生命的傷害。從頭到尾藏人從鏡頭你可以看有打漢人，但都是打而以，打完了以後這些漢人都會跑掉。僅僅意圖毆打，而不是傷害生命，那麼那些被殺的全部都是屬於意外。從中國的報導裡面都可以非常清楚看到，他們都是在藏人砸門的時候他們跑到樓上躲起來，藏人點火燒的時候他們都沒有逃跑而藏起來，結果後來就意外的燒起來，而那些點火放火的人他們根本不知道樓上有漢人在躲藏。所以被燒死的地方不僅有漢人也有藏人，所以這些事情都是一棟意外，不是屠殺。

（7:05）

No pinyin transcripted because I'm a Hong Kong Cantonese but capable of Mandarin Chinese. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the pinyin transcription:

Q2: Jìu Zhōngguó guānfāng duōcì dùi zhègè Dálài Lǎma de fēibàolì zhǔzhāng tíchū zhìwèn, bìngqiě tíwèn shuō rǔguǒ Dálài Lǎma zhēnde yàoshi zhǔzhāng fēibàolì, nà tā wèishénme méiyǒu dùi zhègè "3.14" zhè Xīzàng fāshēng de Zàngrén túshā Hànrén de zhège cánbào de xíngwéi jìnxíng qiǎnzé?

A2: Shǒuxiān bìxū shēngmíng de shì, Zàngrén zài cóngtóudàowěi shǐyòng de shì fēibàolì, jiùshì shuō, cóng Zàngmín jiǎodù lái jiǎng bàolì zhǐ de shì dùi shēngmìng de shānghài. Cóngtóudàowěi Zàngrén cóng jìngtóu lǐ nǐ kěyǐ kàn yǒu dǎ Hànrén, dàn dōushì dǎ éryǐ; dǎ wán le yǐhòu zhèxiē Hànrén dōu hùi pǎodiào. Jǐnjǐn yìtú ōudǎ, ér búshì shānghài shēngmìng, nàme nàxiē bèishā de quánbù dōushì shǔyú yìwài. Cóng Zhōngguó de bàodǎo lǐmìan dōu kèyì fēicháng qīngchǔ kàndào, tāmen dōu shì zài Zàngrén zá mén de shíhòu tāmen pǎodào lóushàng duǒ qǐlai, Zàngrén diǎnhuǒ shāo de shíhou tāmen dōu méiyǒu táopǎo ér cáng qǐlai, jiéguǒ hòulái jiù yìwài de shāo qǐlai, ér nàxiē diǎnhuǒ, fànghuǒ de rén tāmen gēnběn bù zhīdào lóushàng yǒu Hànrén zài duǒcáng. Suǒyǐ bèi shāosǐ de dìfang bùjǐn yǒu Hànrén, yě yǒu Zàngrén, suǒyǐ zhèxiē shìqing dōushì yī-zhuāng yìwài, búshì túshā.

End. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sameboat and PalaceGuard008! That was very useful. So the word for "violence" here is bàolì, 暴力. Mlewan (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This can't possibly be real. Accidents?? Not violence unless someone dies? Something tells me this is fake.

Unless RFI has started manufacturing its interviews... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis of India's response and its implications on Indian-Chinese relations

I haven't time to add it, but D.S.Rajan, Director of Chennai Centre for China Studies, has an excellent analysis of India's perspective on the South Asia Analysis Group:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers27%5Cpaper2658.html Longchenpa (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

intro

I removed the following sentence in intro which was not supported by the source it cited. “Although the protests began with peaceful demonstrations, they soon shifted from calls for independence to violence when the monks were arrested during the demonstrations. Lhasa Riots Expose Tibet's Split Society

What the WSJ article said was: “The Lhasa riots were sparked after monks were arrested earlier this month during peaceful demonstrations.” In other words the peaceful demonstration and arrest took place at a different protest, not the one that sparked the riots. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The following statement miss quoted the sourced article. "Rumours of monks being killed, political tension, socio-economic issues, such as the comparative economic success of non-Tibetan ethnic groups and rising inflation, fueled the violence. [Fire on the roof of the world http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10870258&top_story=1] What the sourced article said was this: "The violence was fuelled by rumors of killings, beatings and detention of monks by security forces in Lhasa this week." We should use what is said in the article, do you agree? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the article also stated: "The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred." In other articles, which is now sourced in the background, journalists interviewed the residents and found that they complained of their socioeconomic conditions compared to non-Tibetans. There was no reason to change the intro like that. You do not need to copy and paste direct statements. If you look at the other words in the article, you can see that they describe other reasons for the anger of the TIbetans. Clearly, the riots did not start just because of one factor. I don't know why you chose to ignore the entire paragraph in the article about the ethnic tension due to socioeconomic conditions, but highlight that one sentence.216.252.70.18 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you two refuse to add to this discussion and feel that it's appropriate to just continue with this edit war, I have satisfied your "direct quotation" requirement that you two just made up. The information is still in the background section; however, the Tibetan side just seems more unreasonable like this. Furthermore, the background section talks about the reasons stated in the earlier version of the intro, but now it's edited out. Great! There are also other articles of other journalists directly stating that they think the riots were for the socioeconomic inequality reasons, one of which was provided by one of you, yet you refuse to allow that statement to remain in the article. Ridiculous. I hope you two are happy now. 207.188.87.114 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent. I handled all of Tdudkowski's arguments on his talk page since he refuses to talk here. However, he keeps inserting his edit in the intro to make it seem like the riots were for political reasons rather than for various ones including socioeconomic issues. Hell, he and Littlebutterfly complained that it did not say perfectly directly in the sourced article that the Tibetans rioted for those reasons. THe article said that it was mainly out of ethnic hatred and then explains the socioeconomic issues behind that ethnic hatred. Yet because the article was not written in a way so that it directly can be quoted to saying that the Tibetans probably rioted for those reasons, it cannot be included. They seem to have never heard of paraphrasing. Even Georg Blume, another journalist saiid the same thing as what Miles did, but in a more direct way. So, in response I included the line about the riots being due to ethnic hatred in the intro- a great simplification but needed to clarify the intro which stated that the riots started purely because of rumours of monks being killed. It doesn't even flow into the background section now. However, I did it because butterfly and and tdudkowski kept reverting, saying that you can only put direct quotations from articles rather than paraphrasing and using your english comprehension skills. Now, Tdudkowski has reverted the intro edit about 5x now, while REFUSING to discuss the issue with me on this talk page or even on his own, rather resorting to personal attacks and random irrelevant attacks on the Chinese government. He has a Free Tibet sticker and Buddhist sticker on his talk page. Why the heck is he allowed to continue his reverts? There is NO reason why that line shouldn't be in the intro. If you remove it, it sounds as if the riots purely started out of rumours of monks being killed, which is what I'm guessing good ol tdudkowski wants. 74.14.224.102 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off of "Protests outside China' and "International Reaction" sections

In principle I would agree to the proposal, as these sections will only grow larger and could unbalance the focus of this article from the actual protests in Tibet. However any articles created would have to be functional articles in their own right rather than just a list of occurrences.KTo288 (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and create the 2008 Pro-Tibet protests article. Pahari Sahib 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good on you.KTo288 (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now merged the stub article 2008 Pro-Tibet protests article into a new article entitled International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest.03md (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes

Latest changes by User:John Nevard: [1]

I'm pretty sure the protests were against Beijing's policies and not against the military operation from 50 years ago. Your opinions? I also think USA Today is a slightly more neutral source than Radio Free Asia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

John Nevard and Littlebutterfly keeps reverting each other's changes because John accuses Littlebutterfly of "copyright violation" of the USA today source. Littlebutterfly probably needs to put up a quotation mark on the statement citing USA Today to satisfy these standards.

I also didn't realize the source John used was from RFA (Radio Free Asia). Even though some thinks it is an acceptable source, I do agree that it is rather biased since it is a propaganda organization sand they are well-known for being anti-Communist. USA Today is rather populatist though.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 89 links to the Radio Free Asia website on Wikipedia, 1448 to Radio Free Europe, and 1253 to the Voice of America. The US external broadcasters, like BBC World, are well accepted sources. John Nevard (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also many links to Xinhua on Wikipedia, they are definitely biased.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And unlike Xinhua, if the US Government stations broadcast falsehoods, someone is likely to seek correction and the removal of those responsible through democratic processes. John Nevard (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that, in any survey of listeners in any country other than the United States, people trust the BBC a lot more than the US propaganda stations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I have to remind you that some of your comments to Littlebutterfly are quite inappropriate and somewhat insulting. I've been watching the history revision, and you responded to his/her last edit with the word "crap...", and you started your discussion on Littlebutterfly's talk page with "This isn't China"! Those are pretty emotional comments when using them in a discussion with someone, even if you share disagreement with that person. You have to respect other people's opinion and not to be insulting.

I think there wouldn't even be a dispute if you would just warn this user to put up a direct quote mark on the statement he/she cited from USA Today.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, RFA as a source in the intro without even stating that the info came from RFA? How about we keep to the USA Today source in the intro. If copyright is a problem, then paraphrase. It's not that difficult. I don't mind using RFA in the rest of the article, as long as we say in content that the information came from RFA. Failing to do so is on the same level as presenting info from Xinhua as facts, footnote or no footnote. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

HongQiGong, Littlebutterfly also edited the intro quite a bit after John's edit to the article, that is why I hesitate change it to his/her version.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The main source of contention is the source, no? And if I'm seeing the article history correctly, Littlebutterfly's first edit (most recently) was to restore the original USA Today source. If there's a copyright violation with all of two sentences, then edit it. Don't use it as an excuse to sneak in an RFA source in the intro without even bothering to state that the information comes from RFA. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Wikipedia policy is that copyright violations are removed with extreme prejudice. After removing the copyright violating text, I looked for alternative sources which were actually focused on the incident that precipitated the protests. Obviously, the entire article is going to need to be checked for copyright violations, particularly from the USA Today article. John Nevard (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I removed the two sentences that are copyright violations and replaced them with what is not copyrighted. Problem solved. Moving on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The link is dead, so it hardly matters. I don't think we need to cite up there anyway given how copiously supported those statements are later in the article. Yunfeng (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased language (Gansu peaceful?)

"Rioters in Gansu claim the riots were peaceful"

This sentence seems almost comically POV

Ordinary Person (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't riots in Gansu, it was an organized protest march calling for 1) talks between the Dalai Lama and the PRC, 2) allowing the Dalai Lama to visit. I've corrected it. What the Tibetans have to say is relevant to this article. Longchenpa (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the source provided,[2] I'm having a hard time seeing where it states the protests in Gansu were peaceful. It contains a list of short interviews of eye witnesses, and I only see one that explicitly says the protests were peaceful:

Tibetan students in the Tibetan language department of North West National University of Lanzhou, in Gansu, staged a peaceful demonstration on the school grounds.

But this is specifically at the North West National University. Other interviews in the source itself seem to indicate violence:

Armed police are trying to arrest Tibetans who remain at large. There are still some sporadic riots.
They detained a lot of Tibetans. Those who committed serious crimes are being detained. Those whose offenses were not so serious have been released.
They smashed windows and left in less than an hour. There were about 2,000 soldiers who stayed to guard the area.

Unless a better source shows up to state that Gansu was peaceful, I'll be removing that statement soon. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) As a point of reference, this is what I'm talking about - [3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have a variety of responses here. True, that quote should be from Tsolho, not Gansu. I'm creating a map with the locations of the protests.

"Right now, we are protesting in the area of Tsolho. We are demanding that the Chinese leadership open a dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and peacefully resolve the Tibetan issue. We are also demanding that His Holiness be allowed to visit Tibet. Our protest is peaceful and involves about ten to fifteen monks from Serlho monastery in the Tsolho (in Chinese, Hainan) prefecture." - Tsolho
"On March 18, we--the monks of Palyul Darthang monastery in Amdo Golog (in Chinese, Guoluo)--marched to the local county government center. There were about 300 of us, joined by local Tibetans. At that time, there were no PAP there, but only about 40 local police. We marched to the local government office compound, pulled down the Chinese flag, and put up the Tibetan flag. The local police didn't dare to interfere. They simply watched from a distance and took photographs. We then marched to the local school and hospital and pulled down the Chinese flag and replaced it with the Tibetan flag. We also stormed the local detention center and demanded that the authorities release all the prisoners, which they did. We conducted all these protests peacefully, harmed no one, and did no damage." - Guoluo
"Chinese security forces arrived in the town of Kiku in Serthar (Seda, in Chinese) county. There were about 1,000 of them. They tried to pull down the Tibetan flag that had been raised by protestors at the town headquarters building on the 17th, and when the protestors peacefully resisted, the security forces opened fire, killing two protestors ... In the same county, over 1,000 Tibetans led by monks from Serthar Sera monastery began a protest march, walking about 30 miles to the point where the two Tibetans were killed. They carried Tibetan flags and pictures of the Dalai Lama and shouted slogans like 'Long Live the Dalai Lama!,' 'Human Rights for Tibet!,' and 'Tibet is Independent!' They also distributed leaflets calling for Tibetan independence. The security forces threatened them with 'serious consequences,' but the protestors are determined to continue with their peaceful demonstrations. So far, there have been no [additional] shootings." - Serthar
"In the Tseko area of Amdo, the monks are continuing peaceful protests as of March 20. About 2,000 Tibetans, both monk and laypersons, are involved in the protests. The protesters are calling for the Chinese leadership to open peaceful dialogue with the Dalai Lama and resolve the Tibetan issue peaceful. They are demanding a meaningful autonomous status inclusive of all Tibetan areas." - Amdo

These describe demonstrations, not violence:

"...a protest took place in Karze [in Chinese, Ganzi] town, Sichuan province. ...Both monks and laypersons took part. It was led by two people, Pema Dechen and Ngoga. The protesters shouted ‘Long live the Dalai Lama,’ and ‘Free Tibet,’ and they distributed leaflets. Several hundred paramilitary police were stationed there to block them… When the protests went on, the Chinese authorities arrested 10 protesters. Some of those who were arrested are Pema Dechen, Gonpo, Tseten Phuntsog, Lobsang, Zangpo, Palden, Gonpo, and so on. One person, Ngoga, who led the demonstration, was killed by gunfire." - Ganzi
“More than 300 Tibetans protested in Lithang on March 18. While leading the demonstration, a girl [known as Appa Bumo] carried a picture of the Dalai Lama and a khata [scarf] in her hands. She was arrested by the Chinese security personnel. There is a heavy presence of Chinese military and restrictions have been imposed in the area. All the news media are blocked. Schools, offices, and shops are closed.” - Litang

I'd take that quote out, yes. It's an oversimplification. We need to account for the different types of protests throughout Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess some of these events happened in different parts of Gansu (like peaceful demostrations in Lanzhou, riots in Labrang)? Yaan (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Olympic Boycott

Why are there reports on those world leaders who said they will not attend the opening ceremony that has explicitly said it has nothing to do with a boycott or Tibet? For example, Ban Ki Moon said he will not attend because of scheduling conflict, why is it mentioned in this secion? It's like saying Mr Ban won't be coming to my upcoming house warming party this summer has something to do with me personally. Those entries should really go into the 2008 Olympic Games article or even just its sub article on the Opening ceremony. Comments before I move them? --Kvasir (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave them in. It's more informative to the readers to say that they're not attending, but that they have stated that it has nothing to do with Tibet. This is especially true when we're talking about statements made by politicians. Let the readers judge for themselves how to interpret their claims. Think of it this way, the very fact that they've had to make statements that their non-attendance has nothing to do with Tibet, means that the subject matter is relevant to the Tibet protests. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a relevant point. Though some of them are only repeating to reporters what's been decided long before when they are asked to respond about the Olympics. We will never know what the original question was, or if the statesman made the announcement out of his/her own initiative. Some of them did not mention Tibet, or at least not reported. --Kvasir (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One question I'm wondering was "what constitutes as a boycott"? Does "xxx said not going to opening ceremony" constitute as one?

Since we know that no National Olympic team has decided not going to the Olympics. So far only several leaders announcing that they are not attending the opening ceremony; is that unusual of past Olympic events? Can we know about whether did all of the national leaders (presidents and prime ministers) from various countries attended past Olympic Opening Ceremony (in Sydney, Athens, Atlanta, Moscow, Los Angeles, Seoul...)?--Sevilledade (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Further to my last point, if I was to send an invitation to Ban Ki Moon to come to my house warming and ask specifically if his decision will have anything to do with the fact that I am Canadian, of course he is going to say it has nothing to do with me being a Canadian and would politely decline because of "scheduling conflict". This is IF he responds at all. It seems like journalists are creating stories out of nothing, and we as wikipedians are jumping on their bandwagon. --Kvasir (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Sevilledade, we should defintely report on the statesman who specifically has said his/her non-attendance is because of THIS particular unrest (as far as this article is concerned), but not others who weren't going to attend anyway. --Kvasir (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, alright, I would suggest we wait to see if others also want to respond. And barring any strong objections, I won't oppose the removal of these. I still think it's relevant, but I also think the article needs to be trimmed down. So I'll just go with the majority opinion on this one. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. The pro-Tibet groups are specifically contacting their representatives to boycott the opening ceremonies. It's very unusual for world leaders, on the heels of such requests, announce that they might not go. Normally no one says whether they're going or not. Longchenpa (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ETA: Yes, it's part of the discussionParliament urges EU leaders to boycott Olympic opening ceremony, Reuters, April 10.
It's linked to Tibet here, too.Sarkozy threat to Olympic opening, BBC, March 25, 2008.
Christian Science Monitor has it as well.E.U. weighs Olympic boycott over Tibet, Robert Marquand, March 26, 2008
The Dalai Lama says he supports China hosting the Olympic games.Dalai Lama: No one can tell protesters to 'shut up', CNN, April 10, 2008 I read on Yahoo news yesterday that he offered to attend the opening ceremonies. He also says he's "saddened" by the protests on the Olympic torch run in San Francisco, that China is an ancient nation and deserves to host the Olympic games and that despite recent events on the Beijing Olympics his position has not changed.The Dalai Lama said he was saddened by Wednesday's protests in San Francisco that disrupted the Olympic torch run, CBS5 Seattle Press Conference, Apr 10, 2008
McCain's made a statement as well.McCain would shun Olympic ceremony without changes, Rueters, Apr 10 Longchenpa (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave the Possible Olympic Boycott issue to other article. Making a list of world leaders not attending the Olympic or its events on this article incorrectly implies that their decision is influenced by the Tibet issue. How about only listing those who have linked their decision to the Tibet issue? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is absurd. The boycotts are directly linked to Tibet. Yunfeng (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They are directly connected. I don't support leaving the possible Olympic Boycott out. Longchenpa (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the original post on this thread. This is about those entries whose announcement does not mention anything about Tibet or a boycott. --Kvasir (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the comment I was replying to, and then read the comment before that. Yunfeng (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to you specifically. Just want to straigthen the flow of this discussion before we start debating whether or not boycotts to the opening ceremony are Tibet related. Longchenpa has also been posting links to the quotes of known boycott, no one is arguing those. --Kvasir (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should let political niceties obfuscate the timing. Certainly if they announced last year that they weren't attending that shouldn't be included. But if they announce it on the heels of X, Y, and Z official saying they're not attending because of Tibet, then the context should be considered. Those should be very carefully quoted, however, because they could be saying this because they already knew they weren't going to attend and don't want it to be misunderstood. Hong Qi Gong is right. Their ultimate decision is what will be most relevant. Longchenpa (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Case in point:

The citation for Ban Ki Moon's non-attendance in the text ^[1] does not say anything about his decision is Tibet related. Contrary the exact quote in the citation is "Ban won't attend the opening ceremony because of a scheduling conflict, conveyed to the Chinese some months ago,..."
The citation for NZ's Helen Clark ^[2] also says nothing about Tibet. The Greens can be quoted for their petition, but the current wording makes the impression that Clark is boycotting.

Either we find sources that says the decisions are Tibet related or we remove these and other entries like it. --Kvasir (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Such bad journalism from Bloomberg. Its article mentions right in the intro that Ban "becomes the latest leader" skipping the opening ceremony, and then it wasn't until the middle of the article that they clarified it was because of scheduling conflict. At any rate, I see Kvasir's point, especially if the politicians didn't state explicitly that they are trying to avoid any misconception of their non-attendance. But the thing to consider also is, well-known news sources have reported on politicians' non-attendance, even it is clarified for some of them that their non-attendance is not related to Tibet. That seems to suggest that the WP article on the subject should do the same, doesn't it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified that Helen Clark's planned absence is not a boycott. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hong Qi Gong, there is still problem with the Estonia entry. The citation does not elaborate why the Estonians aren't going. --Kvasir (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaders who said they are not attending the opening ceremony for reasons other than Tibet shouldn't be in the list. Ban Ki-moon said he's not attending the opening ceremony due to a "scheduling conflict", that this was conveyed to the Chinese months ago (implying before the March unrest), and said this week that he will shortly be visiting China to express his support for the Olympics.

Listing this and other instances under a "boycott" header misleadingly imply that they are boycotting when theya re not -- and in the case of Ban, has actually expressed support for the Beijing games. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST TO ARCHIVE TALK PAGE

There is WAY too many discussion topics on one page. I suggest that the discussion page should be archived, no? Prowikipedians (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too early as the event is still fresh and on going. I suggest, if you have time, to organise the headings. I'm sure there are lots of duplicates. People starting new topics that already being discussed. --Kvasir (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be a better use of everyone's time to actually delete some of the irrelevant / anonymous soapboxing from the talk page instead. Yunfeng (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan Youth Congress a terrorist organization behind the riots

Would it be relevant to include the views stated in this article from Xinhua: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/11/content_7958866.htm and others like it: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/10/content_7954661.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/14/content_7973855.htm that allege that "The Lhasa riots are actually the "masterpieces" premeditated by "Tibetan Youth Congress" and that the TYC is a terrorist organziation. Aum 101 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not include that material without more reliable sources. The TYC is active outside China, and no one outside China seems to have noticed that it is a "terrorist organization". The opinion in the articles is basically "we want to call TYC terrorists". However, as far as I know, no native English source calls what they are doing terrorism. Mlewan (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We only should call people terrorists if they are part of a legally designated terrorist organisation, and even then saying who designated them terrorists. If the PRC government legally (under Chineese law) designates the TYC as a terrorist organisation, then we would say "The TYC (a PRC designated terrorist organisation)" but a few op-eds are not good enough to call someone a terrorist on wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"with the exception of James Miles"

The last paragraph in the lead section currently reads Information is scarce as Chinese authorities have restricted the ability of foreign and Hong Kong media to enter and freely report on the region,[10] with the exception of James Miles, a correspondent from The Economist, who gained approval for a week-long trip which happened to coincide with the increase in tensions.. This makes it seem as if James Miles was the only reporter able to make it to Lhasa, when in fact Georg Blume and his colleague Kristin Kupfer made it to Lhasa on the following day. In fact, Blume wondered in an interview why he was the only one, as getting to Lhasa was "no problem at all" (Q: Du und Kristin Kupfer wart die letzten Berichterstatter. Hat es dich erstaunt, dass du länger bleiben konntest? A: Es hat mich vor allem erstaunt, dass ich der Einzige war. Denn es war ja überhaupt kein Problem, hierher zu kommen. Es ist eigentlich völlig absurd, warum kein anderer mehr da war. [4]).

The section either needs some rewording, or this "with the exception of" stuff should be culled. Yaan (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sydney demonstrations

The (independent) Australian press says "more than a thousand" demonstrators, while the Chinese press says 5000-6000. Ricfromc's edit is giving the Chinese press number without discussion. I think it's a terrible paragraph. There is no need to cite the Shanghai Daily when ABC has all the information in the paragraph, and there is no way that the Shanghai Daily is a more reliable source than an independent news agency for this information. Yunfeng (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think Shanghai Daily is not state-owned. But nonetheless it is subject to Chinese government censorship. I say if different numbers are presented, then present them both. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If not state-owned, then not independent. Yunfeng (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop deleting news sources that you don't want to see? As said, Shanghai Daily is not state-owned. If they cannot be cited then CNN cannot be cited as well. Besides ABC does NOT have all the information, it is relatively short and vague. Ric (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't possibly believe that on the issue of the number of people present at a rally in Australia an English-language paper from China is more reliable than a major Australian news organization? Yunfeng (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what I believe. The Australian news reporter did not count. She gave an estimate that can be well below the actual number. But what I believe does not matter. Wikipedia abides to NPOV, so both sides of the story need to be included. Ric (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Independet" indeed. The NSW police is the source of the 5000-6000 figure. It was Channel 9 and the other media outlets in Australia which were making up the figures. If you want an "independent" source, quote Singtao, a non-mainland, non-aligned (though usually anti-Communist) international Chinese-language newspaper, which reported the 6000 figure and sourced it to the New South Wales police. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious. People have the knee-jerk reaction to disbelieve anything Chinese-affiliated media reports, but accepts Western media without a shred of skepticism. Now, it blows up in their face. Pure gold!207.188.87.114 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(It's not a question of "both sides of the story". Channel Nine has been shown to be completely off their faces once again - but everyone expects that. They either had very incompetent reporters (quite likely) or they didn't like the accusations of bias they heard (and Channel Nine is not exactly the epitome of journalistic profesisonalism). The ABC seemed to have been running off the numbers estimated by the organisers in their march application (which was 1000) rather than the post-event estimate from the NSW police, so probably an innocent error. In any case, neither of them provided any justification for their estimates, and did not seem to be aware of the official police estimates, so they are not actually disputing the official figures, just being ignorant of them.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's the link. I'll insert it into the article if nobody else does. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And another, this from the BBC. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I shortened this a bit once more. Also the statement implying that the rally was not about the "torch relay rather than media bias" seemed to contradict the intro sentence. Are there any aerial pictures of the rally? I don't want to do a headcount or change the article based on such pictures, I'd just like to know for myself. Yaan (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I actually read what Palace wrote, would it be better to assign the numbers given by ABC and Channel nine to "obviously an error" and not mention them at all (that is, unless we have reason to believe something sinister is going on)? I think the one significant number here is the post-event police estimate, and then (if different) the estimate by the organizers. Yaan (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "downplayed" part I took from the BBC report. It is my speculation that it was an error by the ABC. It is entirely plausible though - given its track record - for Channel Nine to just make stuff up. That Channel Nine only reported "hundreds" was also reported by the BBC. I'm going to add "downplayed" back in and use BBC as the citation for the statement about Channel Nine.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK then, sorry for interfering. Yaan (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. is "entier" meant to be "entire"?

Sorry - yes. Here are a couple of pictures I found on the net: [5], [6], [7] -- dunno if it helps.

(Was in Sydney on Sunday, had no idea this was going on. Didn't see it on the TV news either. Didn't realise it had happened until read the BBC on Monday). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interview of the Dalai Lama with a reference in french deleted

Here below is a text with a reference from Radio-Canada.ca that was deleted.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 18, in an interview to Canadian journalists, the Dalai Lama said more than 400 persons have been killed in the recent events in Tibet while several thousand have been arrested.^[3].

Sevilledade, I understand you deleted the reference because it is in french and there is no equivalent in english. I put it back, because, if you apply equally this principle, you should also have deleted the text translatted from chinese. So, if you delete the french one again, please delete the chinese one also. Thanks--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest quoting the French script of few important lines in <ref></ref>. That way other who knows French may help checking the honesty of the interpretation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I'll do this. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I re-translated this quote. But I hope more users will comment on this French-language source. Because the statistics he mentioned in the above quote doesn't match with Tibetan exile government's in English language sources.--Sevilledade (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My french is not so good, but did he really say this in an interview? As far as I understand, the occasion on which the Dalai Lama gave these numbers is not really indicated. Yaan (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for more users to comment on this French-language source. I haven't found English-language news sources citing the numbers shown above in the interview.--Sevilledade (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an, um, article at xinhua which talks about 400 "casualties". Doesn't look like anything that could be described as "reliable source", though. Yaan (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The "400 casualties" the xinhua source you linked above is talking about "civilian deaths" I think. But I haven't found any notable English sources giving this statistics the Radio-Canada.ca source or the Xinhua source are giving.--Sevilledade (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was the french text in the ref. deleted? I think such quotes help a lot when looking for a particular statement in a foreign-language text. I'll give you my translation of the first three paragraphs:

"Un groupe de parlementaires canadiens s'est entretenu avec le dalaï-lama, vendredi, à Ann Arbor, au Michigan." A group of Canadian parlamentarians has met with the Dalai Lama on Friday at Ann Arbor in Michigan

"La rencontre privée a duré 45 minutes, soit plus longtemps que prévu. Après l'entretien, le leader spirituel des Tibétains s'est dit très touché par l'appui reçu des Canadiens en cette période difficile." The private meeting took 45 minutes, longer than planned. After the talks, the spiritual leader of the Tibetans showed himself very touched by the support received from the Canadiens in this difficult period.

"Selon lui, depuis le début des manifestations au Tibet, il y a un mois, au moins 400 personnes ont été tuées et des milliers d'autres arrêtées. Il déplore que les armes l'emportent maintenant sur la raison." According to him, at least 400 people have been killed and thousands of others arrested since the beginning of the demonstrations one month ago. He deplored that weapons are now prevailing over reason.

So I think this is actually only possible to understand in the way that the statement is supposed to be from the Dalai Lama. There is no other grammatical subject worth representing with "lui" - "he" around, except maybe the "entretien", but this is in the sentence before the one with the Dalai Lama, and also would make the last paragraph read strangely (according to the talks / the talks deplored). Yaan (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pal, the text is not necessary for the reference because the link is already cited to the statement. What is the point of attaching the french text to the ref's end anyway? The readers can always check on the actual article itself to read it; we just need to make sure the article is cited to the statement.--Sevilledade (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this makes it easier for people to find the actual claim in a text. I agree in this case it is not-that-necessary, because the text is rather short, however in longer texts it is often rather painful to look for one particular paraphrased statement. Then it comes rather handy when you know what to search for. It's kind of like having a page number for a book citation. Yaan (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle with this treatment. Why hasn't the meeting been reported in English? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

More Pro-China demo on 19th April

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080420/ts_afp/francebritainchinatibetoly2008protests_080420042521

I have added more sources of such in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 681juni (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Tibet Protests in Ottawa

I was reading the sources for the sentence in the article which says that the protests at Parliament Hill were violent, and the prime minister spoke against the protesters. However, this seems to be different from what the cited sources say - nowhere in the sources did it mention that the protests were violent, and Stephen Harper seemed to support the demonstrators by urging the Chinese government to practice restraint. Why is there a discrepancy? Would someone please look into it? Thanks. Caixiaohui (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

German-Foreign-Policy website information

I suggest that everyone concerned about the background information of the 2008 Tibetan unrest have a look at this article from the German-Foreign-Policy website: "The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign". It said, "The research of a Canadian journalist reveal that a German Foreign Ministry front organization was playing a decisive role in the preparations of the anti-Chinese Tibet campaign."

I wonder what the credibility of this websute is. And is it proper that we include the German goverment's operation behind the Tibet unrest into this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaker cn (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, about as credible as David Icke? Read WP:RS, and the other sourcing policies. John Nevard (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another article you may find useful: "Operations Against China". It clearly explained the root of the media distortion on the Tibetan unrest issues in Germany. And how different voices calling for the truth were suppressed in that country. I proposed that we should also add this information to the "Media coverage" part as people deserve to learn about the black hands in behind. Speaker cn (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The site is dedicated to the German World Conspiracy. Of course you are free to believe that Tibetans rioted because the German government wants them to, but Wikipedia is not a showcase for conspiracy theories IMO. Yaan (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And after reading the article, how exactly are the Heinrich-Boell- and Friedrich-Naumann-foundations said to have contributed to the riots? The article says that they organized certain seminars and gave fundings to groups that mediate conflicts within the Tibetan exile communities or publish reports on human rights violations in Tibet. Neither of the two foundations seemed to have urged Tibetans to use violence.

The big "Guerilla attacks" caption refers to activities 40 years ago of a foreign secret service that is neither affiliated with the FDP nor with the Green Party.

The statement about the Green Party getting involved in Tibetan affairs just at the time "when the People's Republic of China began an economic upswing that has now placed it in the top ranks of global commercial statistics" is especially ludicrous. The editors are probably aware that the Green Party was only founded in 1979, and their Heinrich-Boell foundation only in 1986. While one has not to agree with these 80ies peace movement type's attitudes, there is certainly nothing strange about a foundation not being able to focus on a certain topic when it (the foundation) does not even exist. Yaan (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"The research of a Canadian journalist reveal that a German Foreign Ministry front organization was playing a decisive role in the preparations of the anti-Chinese Tibet campaign." The journalist they are talking about, Doug Saunders, has written an article stating that this is false.

Here's what he says: "I went back to look at what I'd written, and it had very little to do with what China Daily's "Doug Saunders" said. The Brussels conference in question, which was a regular event for Tibet-rights groups, was not attended by the State Department or any government, and it was not organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, which in turn is not owned or controlled by the German government. And the torch-relay protests that arose from that conference, whatever you may feel about them, have no relationship to the riots and uprisings inside Tibet.

It tells you something about the current dangerous state of events that millions of people inside China are willing to believe that there is a vast Western plot against them, and to congratulate me for "proving" this. But it tells you even more that hundreds of thousands of people living outside China are apparently willing to believe the same thing, despite having full access to free media — in fact, the social-networking sites of Web 2.0 have created a worldwide explosion of ethnic-Chinese nationalism." http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K_bZlbitqMsJ:www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080419.wreckoning0419/BNStory/International/+Beijing+has+become+the+guardian+of+the+Chinese+brand&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a Aum 101 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN picture

Would it be worth mentioning that the criticized CNN version of the picture actually shows a stone-wielding protester in the foreground, and that the differently-cropped (not "full", it omits for example the walking/running guy on the left) version also shows a number of other protesters in the background?

off-topic: I admit that I don't really understand what all the anger is about, the pic with one stone-thrower certainly looks kind-of more iconic, while the other one shows that the guy was in fact not alone in attacking Chinese security forces. But how the first picture is supposed to omit violence on the part of the Tibetans is entirely unclear to me. Yaan (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV-ise "Chinese and Tibetans"

The article currently speaks of "Chinese and Tibetans" on many occasions. While some of these are direct quotes or paraphrases, others are not. It is non-NPOV to imply a dichotomy between "Chinese" and "Tibetans", since it implies that the Tibetans are separate from the Chinese rather than subsumed as a subgroup. In terms of the interested parties actaully involved in the debate, it reflects the POV of only a small minority of hardcore independence supporters. In terms of conceptions of China, it is hostile towards the multi-ethnic definition of the "Chinese people", as it implies a "Chinese" people composed only of Hans, or only of the 55 other ethnicities excluding the Tibetans. It's like saying "Latinos vs Americans", or "the British vs the Welsh".

I propose that "Chinese and Tibetans" should be changed to "non-Tibetan Chinese and Tibetans", "Han Chinese and Tibetans", or "Chinese authorities and Tibetans" as may be appropriate, wherever it occurs outside the context of a direct or indirect original quote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair. I changed a couple of "Chinese" to "Han Chinese" when it could possibly be unclear. I believe it is not necessary to precise that the Chinese police and government are "non-Tibetan". Ratfox (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Depends on the location - the occupants of "Chinese" government offices and police who were caught up in the riots in Tibet (as opposed to being sent in afterwards) were often ethnic Tibetans. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PalaceGuard and Ratfox. Ideally, we should neither take nor imply any position on whether "Tibetan" is a subset of "Chinese". "Han" is not the best choice in a lot of cases, since the ethnic tensions seem to group Hans and Hui people together, along with, perhaps, others. The above editors, I'm sure, savvy this already.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Ratfox's revision of changing some terms of "Chinese" to "Han Chinese". While its true that they may be referring to Chinese as in Han Chinese, but some of these references simply used the term "Chinese". Unless it really elaborated on the difference, I don't think it is okay to just change it like that.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As you wish... It is only about two or three places in the article, anyway. Ratfox (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

photos

Why are there no photos of the actual riot on this page? There are only images regarding protests and protesters. This page isn't entirely about the PROTESTS - the images should focus on the actual unrest.

In China, this incident is known as the "3.14 Riots". If you search google for "tibet riot", you won't get anything useful, whereas, if you search "3.14 riots", you will. (most authors of "tibet riot" seems to be from western sources for western people, "3.14 riots" by Chinese sources). Benlisquare (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are more pictures about the protests because they were heavily attended by the press, while few people were able to take pictures of the unrest itself. Also, pictures of the unrest seem heavily prone to accusation of bias, i.e. if you show a violent image, some are going to complain there were also peaceful protests in Tibet, and if you show a peaceful image, some will complain there were also violent riots. On the other hand, maybe it is not necessary to have so many pictures about the protest in the world. Ratfox (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many photos on kadfly's blog (http://kadfly.blogspot.com/), check the March and April posts, John Kenwood, a Canadian, he was touring Lhasa, Tibet at the time of the riots. His pictures and video were used in many newspapers and news reports. I believe he was the one interviewed by a news source (I can't recall which, The Times maybe?). --141.156.221.31 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Too long

The article is a bit long. I would suggest to cut heavily into the "Possible Olympic boycott" section. In most cases, it is doubtful whether the non-attendance is actually related to the unrest. The "International reaction" can also be substantially cut; the official statement of 33 countries is collected there currently. I believe the lot could be summarized in two or three paragraphs. (Those urging restraint: ...; those supporting Tibet: ...; those saying it's not their business: ...) Ratfox (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Most Wikipedia articles lack this level of detail, but then I consider most Wiki articles too cursory. I think that the article should stand as it is. Trasel (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trasel. Everything is ok with that article. -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Violence staged ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ET0NweFoc anyway to include this? possible related info, it goes into the details surrounding the violence shown in the media. a detailed analysis of Chinese police staging the whole violence. 67.160.164.94 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-3-28/67906.html

Here's a close up info on one of the things discussed in the video. 67.160.164.94 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Once you bring up reliable sources we can discuss this. I personally would not consider youtube videos or Falun Dafa mouthpieces very reliable sources of information. Yaan (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don’t Be Too CNN

This article needs to be split (not reduced). There was another article called Protest against western media's coverage of China. Not a great article or great title, but at least it existed. Before I could add any of the following, the article was deleted. Don’t Be Too CNN definitely deserves to be covered. I can't find anywhere to put it. Now the problem is in your hands. -69.87.200.78 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Internet was a center of protest against CNN’s coverage of China.

A Beijing Internet entrepreneur, Rao Jin, started a Web site called anti-cnn.com to document mistakes on CNN and other foreign media. The site claimed to be getting as many as five million clicks a day. His effort spawned the increasingly popular slogan “don’t be too CNN,” which in China came to mean “don’t be too biased.” Two video songs lampooning CNN became popular on China’s Internet, both called “Don’t Be Too CNN.” “Why do you rack your brains in trying to turn black into white? Don’t be too CNN,” sings an online singer named Murong Xuan in one of the songs. ^{(Source: CNN’s Coverage of China is Raising Hackles;
The Wall Street Journal, By GEOFFREY A. FOWLER;
April 19, 2008; Page A5)}

“DON’T BE TOO CNN”

A translation of the lyrics of “Don’t Be Too CNN.” (Translation is by Wall Street Journal reporter Sky Canaves.)

CNN
CNN’s warped reporting on Tibet,
   and the Tibetan separatist attacks on the Beijing Olympics torch relay,
   made me write this song
CNN
Don’t be too CNN
That day on the internet I suddenly saw a photo
It showed the riots taking place in Tibet
CNN
CNN’s simple promise, the whole truth is inside
But I gradually discovered, it’s actually deception
No matter how much the world changes, the blue sea becomes a field of mulberry trees
The fake South China tiger and this kind of photo [CNN Lhasa image], I despise them equally
You can’t turn lies into the truth by repeating them a thousand times,
The dark night makes my eyes black, but I will still use them to seek the light
CNN
How they rack their brains, to turn falsehoods into the truth, don’t be too CNN
How can you possibly turn Jay Zhou into Li Yuchun [supergirl winner]?
CNN
How they rack their brains, to turn falsehoods into the truth, don’t ever be CNN
I preferred that you all just be very stupid and very naïve
I preferred that you all just be very stupid and very naïve

'Fall'?

Is the use of the word 'fall' in 'monks detained since last fall' meant to signify the season of autumn?

Not clear, especially for us non-USA folk! :)

86.5.162.99 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing by Benlisquare

Note that Benlisquare is canvassing at Anti-cnn and is asking to manipulate Wikipedia to counter a perceived Anti-Chinese bias, see [10]. This article is mentioned in his forum post. Novidmarana (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New video quoted as evidence

There is a video at phayul which claims to prove Chinese brutality during the unrest. Whether it is reliable or not, it is quoted in press around the world, and should probably be included in this article - perhaps after someone makes some reality check on the content. Mlewan (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] Olympic Torch Draws Buenos Aires Protests for Boycott. Bloomberg. April 11, 2008

[2] Greens call for Olympic boycott. NZ City. April 11, 2008

[3] Le dalaï-lama, la Chine et Hitler on Radio-Canada.ca

[1]

[2]

[3]