Talk:Chinese settlements in Tibet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

this article seems biased toward the free tibet crowd 216.36.30.48 01:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it an attack page. It's in need of fleshing out, sourcing, and the last paragraph may need some work to get NPOV, but it's not deserving of speedy deletion. Edward321 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The article appears to deal less with Chinese settlements (towns or cities peopled by Chinese in Tibet) but rather Chinese migration into Tibet. I suggest a name change to: Chinese Settlement of Tibet or if editors find this a touch too incendiary then Chinese Migration into Tibet (or something similar). Bigdaddy1981 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mere migration, but a government policy aimed at diluting Tibet with Chinese settlers in order to bolster its claim to the disputed territory. Chinese Settlement of Tibet is not mush different from the Tibetan sovereignty debate. What this article needs is more information about particular towns established in Tibet by the Chinese government for Chinese workers and what effect this is having on the Tibetan people. Chesdovi 10:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is added then I agree, the title will reflect the content of the article. Perhaps some editors with more informations and/or access to Mandarin sources could add such material. Bigdaddy1981 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi - to be honest that is a very one-sided POV. Admittedly there are probably plenty of sources to support that claim, but there are also probably plenty of sources to support the other side of the argument, that Han Chinese migration into Tibet is done to bolster the local economy. As it stands right now, this article is in dire need of an NPOV injection of content - this does not mean we should delete any one POV, it only means we should present other POVs as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama quote[edit]

Deleting quote from Dalai Lama. Definitely non-POV. This would be like quoting George Bush on Iraq's status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.250.27 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not POV because the quote is attributed to the Dalai Lama. See here for Bush quotes on the Iraq war. Chesdovi (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we need more info on this[edit]

like pictures for one, and far more info. I mean this occupation has been far more brutal than in the West Bank and formerly Gaza, but it hardly gets mention. Why could that beTallicfan20 (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request for deletion[edit]

this is pure political propaganda. first thing is it is not only chinese living in tibet because tibet is a region that is so big that it contains many different indiginous groups. second thing is it is pure political propaganda from the pro-fre-tibet trolls. what is the pt of practically making an article about every little inch of recent tibetan history. 3rd thing is the tibetan migrations are usually local migrations between close by provinces and this article try to make it seem like all chinese are moving to tibet which makes no sense at all because tibet simply can not support all of the population of china (1.6 billion). third is the quote from dalai lama does not check with the resources that were given. this is just pure propaganda to the max. if they wish to spread to propagandas on line, they could do it on their own website (I am sure there are many). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.228.160 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Ethnic Politics[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bisholt (article contribs).

A Tibetan born and living in any of the regions or provinces of China is by definition Chinese. This article confuses Chinese with Han. --Elnon (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]