Talk:Tibetan resistance movement

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The views mentioned in this note tend be one sided and do not in a unbiased way represent the plight and wishes of the tibetan populace in general. It is a matter of shame that factuality has been spurned in order to represent the view of one interested party. This is one thing that may one day lead to this website earning disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)

actually, this article is about the resistance to the chinese ivasion and occupation, not the chinese excuses for dominating a neghboring nation. this is "one sided" because its about one side, the victims. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Disrepute" undue

Nothing in this article seems unfounded or politicized, other than the objection above. There certainly exists an outside and inside resistance to the Chinese occupation. Whether or not the resistence represents popular opinion of Tibet's native population isn't the point here. Nor are the supposed benefits to the invasion and occupation claimed by China's Communist Party.

I disagree:

The statement at the end is political. Repeating the claims about the number of people who died in the disastrous "Great Leap Forward" is not related to the topic and is propaganda, as are the exaggerated claims of non-Tibetan immigration. In fact if this was not a 'popular' issue with the western media statements like "diluting the Tibetans both culturally and through intermarriage" would be seen as racist and advocating ethnic cleansing.

"Tibetan exiles generally say that the number that have died in the Great Leap Forward, violence, or other unnatural causes since 1950 is approximately 1.2 million, which the Communist Party of China denies. The Central Tibetan Administration also says that millions of Chinese immigrants to the TAR are diluting the Tibetans both culturally and through intermarriage."

"in the heart of"

"The initial People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet in 1950 met little resistance in the heart of the country."

In Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama it is said that The People's Liberation Army stopped short of the old border between Tibet and Xikang and demanded negotiations. So which is right?

Both. Xikang is nowaday's east TAR + north Yunnan. -- Миборовский 01:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

article revamp-improvement

As noted this article does not conform to wiki standards. I am currently rewriting it, including as much of the original text as possible, when verifyable, and reformating and adding more information. It will go live in about a week. If you have any input before-hand, please contact me here or on my user talk page. Thank you. Omganeshaom (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Question, though: what's the topic of this article? Is it at the correct title? There is a more developed article at Tibetan independence movement. This article currently seems to cover Tibetan resistance through 1969, focusing on the armed struggle and the lead-up to the armed struggle. Earlier versions of the article ended with the defeat of the large-scale uprising in 1959. I'm not sure what the topic is supposed to be.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The contemplated article covers a much longer time span than the present one and deals with the various forms of resistance encountered till the present day. It is an article in its own right.

Resistance to Chinese rule is one thing, but there is another facet, namely adhesion. Both ought to be addressed. --Christian Lassure (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article that Omganeshaom seems to want to rewrite, judging from the userpage draft, is definitely "Tibetan independence movement". Categorizing all that he does as "Tibetan resistance to Chinese rule" would be grossly biased and a significant deviance from the common name for the events if they indeed can be regarded as a complete whole. Quigley (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at my finished draft. After they announce the winner of the Prime Minister election tomorrow, I will add a short bit about the winner's platform regarding how the government-in-exile will approach their relationship with China...will it remain on the Middle Way Approach or will it return to seeking independence? There is an important difference between "independence" and "resistance" in the Tibetan case. Independence is a goal that has come and gone over the centuries. In the past 60 years it was only a goal for about 10 years, so it is a specific rather than inclusive term. Resistance is inclusive of all the ways in which the Tibetans have struggled to maintain their identity. But I agree that "to Chinese rule" may sound bias. Any more suggestions? If not, I am going to go stick with "Tibetan Resistance Movement since 1950". I have incorporated all the verifiable info from the original page into the new one. Omganeshaom (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)