![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm strongly against the tone of original article, and changed invaded and occupied Tibet to liberated Tibet. If you say CPC or PRC invaded and occupied Tibet, you may also wanna say United States invaded and occupied vast western part of the continent in its history of expanding. In deed, American Indians were conquered and persecuted by the whites, just like Tibetans were conquered by CPC as you may argue. If you write American history using the tone of dominant whites, you should write Tibetan history using the tone of ruling CPC, ie, liberation or liberate. Ramtears ( talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus, the original article only quoted the unique source, an article by AP, which could be probably biased. Ramtears ( talk) 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Using western sources or asking a non-Chinese to write articles about Chinese politicians is like asking an Iraqi to write article on George Bush, who'll probably describe the president as a war criminal. The fact is CPC and PRC have controlled Tibet region for many years and this situation will unlikely change in the near future. And this person was loyal to CPC. Thus, we should show respects to CPC and this politician himself, and describe him based on China's official documents. I guess this is the way he himself would like to be remembered and recorded in history if he were still alive. Plus, it's not very reasonable to list a title called Communism. Thousands of past and current Chinese officials were or are Communists. If we listed their major activities under the tag Communism, that will be ridiculous. Ramtears ( talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your main points and passion on the subject. However, people write about countries, regions, etc. in which they are not originially from all the time: academics, journalists, consultants, historians, bloggers, intellectuals...the list of examples goes on and on. An Iraqi or a Chinese citizen writing a fair article/book/journal about an American politician or subject is nothing unusual, nor should it be, and vice-versa.
Back to the article. The subject of the article, Tian Bao, was loyal to the CPR, which is a fact. He was, probably, one of the first ethnic Tibetans who were loyal to the Chinese army and Mao at the time, which is historically significant. However, simply because because he was loyal to the CPR does not mean that an article should be written from his point of view. Encyclopedias, even online ones, are not meant to be written from the point of view of the subject. They are meant to give on overview of the topic or subject. Autobiographies give the point of view of the subject or author, but encyclopedias are not intended for that purpose. i.e. liberation or liberate as opposed to Invade and occupation
As for the "Communism" heading: True, most Chinese politicians do not have "Communism" as one of their headings in their Wikipedia articles. However, since the Communist Party of China is the only legal political party in which an active politician can join, being a member of the Communist Party is not an unusual point. All career PRC officials and politicians are members of the Communist Party of China, (and there is virtually no alternative to this) so there is no need to point this out in most articles. It's usually common knowledge. However, Tian Bao was one of the first ethnic Tibetans to join the Chinese Communist Party, which makes him, and his membership in the party, historically significant for the article.
See also: People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951), which is another hotly debated article.
Enjoy the rest of your day. Scanlan ( talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)