| Revision as of 20:06, 22 May 2008 editFoxhunt99 (talk | contribs)119 edits →Dispute what?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:23, 6 October 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers808,214 editsNo edit summary |
| (371 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi |page=Serfdom in Tibet |date=27 May 2008 |result='''no consensus''' |date2=4 February 2024 |result2='''No consensus''' |page2=Serfdom in Tibet controversy}} |
|
This article still needs editing and more information. Thanks for your input. ] (]) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
:I rather see this article completely rewritten or deleted altogether. The tone reveals that the author is out to make a point about the current status of Tibet, not illuminate the history of Tibet.--] (]) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=High|tibet=yes}} |
|
::The author mentioned no current status of Tibet at all. It is just some history that some people choose to forget. I am glad that it is here. It does needs a bit more editing, the tone is fine. ] (]) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}} |
|
And who are you? A single edit account that is three days old if I were the judge.--] (]) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Agriculture |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High |ethics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organized Labour |importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Image requested|in=Tibet}} |
|
|
{{archivebox| |
|
|
* ]| |
|
|
age=90| |
|
|
bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|auto=long}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect characterization of Marx's "opiate of the masses" == |
|
In order to be balanced, this article needs give a more complete picture of Tibetan society. For instance, the article fails to me mention the fact that Melvyn Goldstein shows that not all serfs were destitute, but could amass considerable wealth and even own their own land. Furthermore, in the book that Charles Bell points out that slavery in the Chumpi valley, were of a comparatively mild type. Finally, I do not think Anna Louise Strong can be quoted as a scholarly and neutral authority on Tibetan society. It is up to those who want to keep the article to improve it, I will propose its deletion if nothing happens.--] (]) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:On what page did Goldstein say that, I will look into it. Anna Louise Strong's report is well known in Tibet history studies. ] (]) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
On page 5 in Goldstein's ''History of Modern Tibet''. Also read his article from 1971.--] (]) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the ] section, the text says, "Marx condemned religion as 'the opiate of the masses'". |
|
== torture == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ] 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. |
|
I know there are torture chambers used by slave owners (lamas), and there are pictures of those, I would like to see some of those. ] (]) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: There are pictures on the web, google it. ] (]) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article ]: |
|
== Sources == |
|
|
|
: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|
This article seems to be sourced entirely from Parenti, Tom Grunfeld, and Anna Louise Strong. Of these three, only Grunfeld is a serious historian of Tibet, and his biased attitude toward the subject is well-known. Parenti and Strong should not be cited at all in an encyclopedia.—]<sup>(]·])</sup> 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I will have to disagree. Parenti is a well known historian as well, and Anna Louise Strong's book give much more insight that a normal historian can't because she was there at the time when it happened. Plus she is a third party, not from Tibet or China. ] (]) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Grunfeld is indeed a serious historian, but as many reviewers of his book has noted, he has not made any use of Tibetan language sources whatsoever, neither has he availed himself sufficiently of Chinese language sources. Another egregious omission is his complete failure to interview Tibetans on their own society. As for Parenti, what can I say? As far as I can tell, he has no credentials in either Chinese or Tibetan history. If no improvement of this article takes place soon, I will nominate it for deletion.--] (]) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:It comes to what you are trying to dispute, the existence of serfdom and slavery, or the source? I don't think there is any doubt that serfdom or slavery existed in old Tibet. If you want to argue to what degree were the serfdom and slavery then I can understand. Most the Tibetan in exile won't talk about this, a lot of the sources about the serfdom and slavery was obtained by Chinese, but I don't think if I used any publication from the Chinese would convince you anyway. Only source would work here is from third parties like Anna Louise Strong. ] (]) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Bias and Propaganda == |
|
:I see Tsering Shakya's book was quoted, Tsering Shakya is a Tibetan, who escaped from communist government. His view is probably biased. If you can use a Tibetan source, there are plenty Chinese source to be found too. I think it is best we use third party sources. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 07:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
== RV == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This comment has schizophrenic vibes to it. Are you on any kind of medication? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
If someone wants to do a RV, please give a reason, I don't think POV is a reason, how about why you think it is POV. ] (]) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dispute what? == |
|
== No independent research? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quote|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.}} |
|
I have some people who are trying to dispute this article. I like to make something clear first. The only purpose of this article is to show that slavery and serfdom existed in old Tibet, it is not about if Chinese government invaded Tibet to free them or enslave them or any other political ideas. It is meant to provide some evidences about this part of history which is not commonly known. ] (]) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*It is meant to denigrate and demean the Tibetan people before the period of Chinese occupation. The article, its contents and all of its references are all in flagrant violation of NPOV and if all that material were removed, this article would be little more than a sentence long. There is no reason to have any of this information in a seperate article outside of ] except to use it as a platform to try to justify the Chinese invasion. ] (]) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I never tried to justify Chinese invasion. This is a history article, it shows part of history. Why are you so against this. You say all the references are all in flagrant violation of NPOV, but why? You need to give a reason, is any of the author who wrote the source books a proven liar? I don' think you can prove it. Many of the pro-Tibet source are from Tibet historian only, I tried to only use western historians, not Chinese historians as source, yet you claim it is a NPOV problem. If some people pointing out something you don't agree, then it is a good thing, if everyone agree with you, then why do we even need NPOV rule? ] (]) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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". --] (]) 08:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
::And please be reasonable, if you read the article carefully, it present 2 sides, one side saying serfs and slave were treated badly, the other saying serfs and slaves condition were not as bad as it seems. It is presented in both ways. If you really have some other concerns I will gladly to address them. ] (]) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*You can explain , where you removed information that questions the view of China as liberators. As for the "western" sources you quoted, each of those people are known sympathizers of communist China and they are very likely to have opinions which closely align themselves with the communist Chinese government. ], who is quoted extensively in this article, campaigned vigorously on behalf of communist China during her life. Her writing on Tibet is therefore '''highly''' suspect and cannot be included here since it is not neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== John Powers is not a neutral source == |
|
::::This part was edit out, probably because it has nothing to do with serfdom. After 1960, many things happend, cultural evolution etc. Many areas of China suffered poverty and other human rights issues, not just Tibet. That quote was also from a Tibetan author was escaped from communist rule, as you stated, source from communist sympathizer are biased, but something from a Tibetan historian is not. This article has avoid citing many sources from Chinese historian, same should apply to Tibetan historian. Also Tomas Laird, Melvyn C. Goldstein are pro-Tibetan. You can't just pick and choose which source you like. Even some of the authors are communist sympathizers, that doesn't mean their word is any lesser reliable than a pro-Tibet historian. Anna Louise Strong may have only see the good side of communist party, but her interview with the locals provide some insight aspect of this part of history. ] (]) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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". |
|
:::*There are also more sides to this than the two you've trade to frame here. It isn't a question of saying "serfs were treated badly" and others saying "serfs aren't treated as poorly," but more of a question of whether there were serfs, to what extent where they use and by whom, comparisons with other feudal socities and historical context of Tibetan feudalism. Conditions of the serfdom are only a minor factor in all of that. Instead of going to those lengths, however, you've attempted to use this article to assail the government and people of Tibet as slaveowners and vicious feudal lords. This topic also does not need to have this article created, since you've said little beyond the bounds of what you wrote in ]. If I do not see improvement soon I'll nominate this article for deletion. ] (]) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There was a section based on Melvyn C. Goldstein's book, he argued how Tibet serfdom was different compare to European's. And he said Tibetan serfs sometimes were not bound by land, but I think either you or someone edit it out. I have to look for it again. And in this article, there is no mention tha Tibetan government were slave owners, in fact, did you read about one comment that slavery was mild in certain area? ] (]) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 09:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::I put the Melvyn C. Goldstein's section back, actually he claimed serfs can obtain certain degree of personal freedom. I don't know why you want to edit out something to suppor your view. ] (]) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*A couple of things: first if you're trying to make a case that you aren't a sockpuppet of Foxhunt99, it would be less obvious if you didn't respond to questions posed to that account after logging into the other. Secondly, the sources you mentioned had tags on them requesting verification and many of them had been altered or removed as being either unsupported or nonexistant by ]. You or your sockpuppets reverted those edits and replaced the bad sources, so the only claims you have that are truly being supported here are those by Anna Louise Strong, whose bias is so great it may be discounted or disqualified under ]. Once again, if these concerns are not remedied (and I don't see how they could be), I will seek to have this article deleted or merged with ]. ] (]) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I've just checked. John Powers is a scholar on "Buddhism Studies" , not history. Using him as a sole source for controversial facts on history does seem dubious.] (]) 03:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::::After reading some Tibetan articles in Wiki, and back track some of this one’s editing. |
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see your reasoning, Cumulus Clouds. It seems you are judging the quality of the sources based on your personal preference. You claim “so the only claims you have that are truly being supported here are those by Anna Louise Strong”, but that is not the case, after reading this article, there are obviously a lot more than just Anna Louise Strong. Melvyn Goldstien, Michael Parenti, Gelder, Charles Bell, Tomas Laird. Charles Bell was another westerner who traveled to Tibet himself, so did, Tomas Laird, Gelder, and Epstein. If you could claim Anna Louise Strong to be biased, then why not claim all pro-Tibetan sources to be biased too? ] (]) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== Debate and meta-debate == |
|
:::::::*Just for the record, checkuser requests will come up with all accounts related to the IP of the puppet master. Just because you've created a new user account after the request was put in doesn't mean it won't register. Your best bet is to remain logged in to one account until they decide whether to block you or not. ] (]) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You must be desperate that no one share the same bias as you? ] (]) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
There is both a debate and a meta-debate about serfdom in Tibet. The first debate is about whether the Tibetan society prior to 1950s can be described as featuring serf-like characteristics. The meta-debate is about whether this is relevant for other questions - notably whether China’s takeover of Tibet in the 1950s can be justified with promoting social progress. At least two-thirds of the article is about the second question – different from what the title suggests. I propose switching the order and labeling the meta-debate clearly as such. I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to carry out this change myself, however. ] (]) 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::*haha, I could say the same to you, my friend. ] (]) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are getting nowhere Cumulus Clouds, last time I checked, you were being checked at one time too. ] (]) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
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.
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)
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)
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".
There is both a debate and a meta-debate about serfdom in Tibet. The first debate is about whether the Tibetan society prior to 1950s can be described as featuring serf-like characteristics. The meta-debate is about whether this is relevant for other questions - notably whether China’s takeover of Tibet in the 1950s can be justified with promoting social progress. At least two-thirds of the article is about the second question – different from what the title suggests. I propose switching the order and labeling the meta-debate clearly as such. I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to carry out this change myself, however. Henry Kaspar (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
