Talk:Tibet: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia GA‑class High‑importance Tibet is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Tibet has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 12, 2005 Good article nominee Listed April 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 10, 2005.
Current status: Good article

Template:V0.5

No new topics have recently been started on here, and the only recent messages have been replying to long gone topics, so I have archived the talk page which is now here Talk:Tibet/Archive 5. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reincarnation Application article is related to the Tibet article, but I'm not sure how to tie it in. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Clerks. 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I with no doubts reverted this kind of vandalism-liked edits [1]. Removing the added citation(s) is probably regarded as vandalism. - 219.73.11.127 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the user who removed your edits, but you are incorrect in your vandalism comments. Your edits were not all sourced for a start. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-PLEASE-! Just tell me which part of my edit is unsourced! Oh, BTW, is this incorrect in the first place if someone reverts my edits including [2] and [3]? --219.73.11.127 04:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to go, but by all means I will answer you tomorrow. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to go! Kindly note that I will be glad to add citations if you find out if ANY of my edits is unsourced. - 219.73.11.127 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is sourced does not allow it to be included. Sources must be verifiable and reliable. See WP:VERIFY. Propaganda literature does not fall into this category. --Strothra 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What propaganda literature? Are these [4] [5]? Point it out!219.73.11.127 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean Grunfeld? please note that Grunfeld sources have been widely used on wikipedia. And note that the book name is already listed on Reference [1]. I dont need to add book name everytime.219.73.11.127 05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be why I reverted my previous comment. --Strothra 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Could you please revert your own edits, so that I will not fall into the 3RR trap.219.73.11.127 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you'll need to gain consensus before adding any additional information - I don't frequent this article or this topic, but will oppose any unilateral additions against consensus at this time. The information you are attempting to add is disputed by multiple established editors. Please propose the specific sourced information you'd like to add on this talk page (or at least any new sources). Also, refrain from calling established editors "vandals." --Strothra 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont know what you are talking about. I didn't add information here [6] [7]! I added citation per request and you reverted. I corrected factual inaccuracy (Qing Dynasty being overthrown after the ROC was established) and you reverted. Secondly, point out what established consensus that I go against? Are you saying wikipedia editors shall claim authority over sources like Grunfeld? According to wikipedia guidelines which(and How) editors are classified as "established" and which are not?

FYI, I have already forwarded this POV case to another admin who is a well-known editor on Tibet. Have a nice day! 219.73.11.127 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grunfeld's book has attracted considerable criticism as being biased - in particular in: History as Propaganda, Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China, by John Powers, Oxford University Press, 2004 - see, for example, the interesting reviews of The Making of Modern Tibet on Amazon.com. It's statements should therefore, I believe, be treated with appropriate caution. John Hill 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]