Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guox0032 (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 22 May 2008 (→Dispute what?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article still needs editing and more information. Thanks for your input. Foxhunt99 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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.--Amban (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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. Guox0032 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? A single edit account that is three days old if I were the judge.--Amban (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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.--Amban (talk) 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. Guox0032 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On page 5 in Goldstein's History of Modern Tibet. Also read his article from 1971.--Amban (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

torture

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. 98.240.20.14 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are pictures on the web, google it. 129.59.150.62 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

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.—Nat Krause 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. Foxhunt99 (talk) 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.--Amban (talk) 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. 129.59.8.10 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.8.10 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RV

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. Guox0032 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute what?

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. Foxhunt99 (talk) 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 Tibet except to use it as a platform to try to justify the Chinese invasion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 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? Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (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. Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• You can explain this edit, 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. Anna Louise Strong, 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.

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. Guox0032 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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 Tibet. If I do not see improvement soon I'll nominate this article for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 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? Guox0032 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)