Talk:History of Tibet/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Error in Facts: Section: "Pre-History"

This is my first time participating so I apologize if I'm doing it incorrectly.

Under the Pre-History section of this article it states that Chinese immigrants from northern china migrated into Tibet about 3000 "BP".

First off the information concerning the immigration seems to be deduced from the cited article in the previous sentence but the cited article doesn't seem to specifically state that as fact.

Can a flag or something be placed on that section that the information is at best an educated guess?

Secondly the statement that this happening about 3000 "BP" is confucing. What does BP stand for?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.15.140 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell from your comments whether you have read the article in question, "Mitochondrial genome evidence reveals successful Late Paleolithic settlement on the Tibetan Plateau". From the way it's cited, I got the impression that the article says exactly that. Otherwise, it does seem like a strange inference. As for "BP", it stands for "Before Present". I think it would be better to convert that to BCE.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I did read the cited material & thank you for your response. For the BP = Before Present, Was the intent to say 3000 BCE or was it to be 3000 years before 2010 which = 990 BCE? I guess I could change it but I would want to confirm that first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qops1981 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as BP, is concerned the "present" is traditionally considered to be 1950, so 3000 BP means 950 BCE. However, in this context, I think it's clear that it means approximately 1000 BCE.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Was just reading through the article and noticed some vandalism in the Rule of the Chinese Communist Government section.

64.180.44.64 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Alex Ramin 1/10/10

Right. Reverted. Bertport (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ptolemy

The mention of Bautisos by Ptolemy has been removed. Why should this be? Tibetologist (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rule of the Chinese Communist government edit

This section was clearly not NPOV. Rather than attempt to edit it I added a couple of paragraphs referring to the history of tibet controversy with link to the main article so reader can find out more about the controversy.


Probably two histories should be given. I would maintain the Chinese Government's version of the history is of interest since whether true or not, it motivated and motivates many of their actions. But whatever, clearly you can't just present it as truth, without mention of the controversy. Also seems unlikely that you could make a unified history from it, at least until there is open discussion of the history of Tibet in China. Either present two or more versions of the history in separate sections - or add a link to the controversy. I took the easy way out for now, just say a bit about the controversy and add a link to it. Robert Walker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Keeping two segregated versions of the history where each side gets free reign is a bad idea. What should be done instead is to combine the histories, taking away what is blatantly false in both, and including what is true and giving it proportional representation to its importance from each. I am speaking generally now about this section, and not about "the [serfdom] controversy", which I think you gave too much coverage. Quigley (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Sorry - that wasn't my idea really. Rather the idea was to have a history which focusses on what actually happened as far as one can determine it - then in a separate section to have an account of the Chinese version of events, clearly marked not as true history, but included so that you can understand the Chinese actions better by understanding what they believe to be the history of Tibet. Just an idea for consideration, but wanted to be clear about what the idea actually was.


You could do the same thing with almost any history I expect, which could verge on the absurd, but my ideas is that if done in moderation, in cases where there is or was a high propoganda element or element of constructed history and censorship so historians aren't free to act as they wish within the country - it could be useful to do that sort of thing for the histories constructed in countries with such systems of censorship in place.


As for the length of my contribution - this is wikipedia so I expect someone else to trim and summarise as necessary. That's something I'm not particularly good at so leave it to someone else to do it.


There's also the question of who can do a unified history since those most interested in editing the article are likely to be very partisan. At the minimum I felt it important to make sure reader is aware that there is a controversy, which was the intent of my edit, I'm definitely not the one to attempt any more advanced editing of the article!!
So anyway just a few more thoughts, hope this helpsRobert Walker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
As the article stands right now, it uses almost no Chinese sources. When you are adding your paragraphs of text to refute the observations of the less-than-stellar social system in old Tibet, you were actually refuting Western scholars who had conducted their scholarship before the Chinese government presence there. So this is actually not a controversy between Chinese sources and "true history" sources, but between Western academics sympathetic to the Tibetan independence cause, who have created this "controversy", and other Western academics. In any case, both sides' scholarship are produced independently of the Chinese state, so we cannot so conveniently discard one point of view. Quigley (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"The Chinese ... abolished slavery ... and ... Tibetan serfdom" is a controversial claim and should not be presented as fact. There are sources with Western names (most egregiously, Grunfeld) who are basically mouthpieces of the PRC, so this is not a question of which sources are from China. Bertport (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a fact that Tibetans owned slaves, not only in Tibet, but in Qinghai. Anti Communist Kuomintang officials noted that the Muslim General Ma Bufang eliminated the practice of lordship and slavery among Tibetans and Mongols in Qinghai. By the way, the source i used, below, was written by Uradyn Erden Bulag, who is an ethnic mongol, not chinese.Дунгане (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Quote- "In the past, the Mongols and Tibetans were divided as lords and slaves, but the two chairmen [Ma Qi and Ma Bufang], insisting on the principle of equality of all nationalities in our country, corrected the absurdity and astutely reformed it, which is really a perceptive measure greatly significat for the frontiers. Better still, in September when the cattle and sheep are plump, people cheerful, making the lake worship ritual is reall a celebration, analagous to the Mid-Autumn Festival in agricultural society, celebrating the harvest. The nomadic nationalities can now all rejoice without division in land and region."

Uradyn Erden Bulag (2002). Dilemmas The Mongols at China's edge: history and the politics of national unity. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 54. ISBN 0742511448. Retrieved 2010-06-28.

That hardly has the ring of neutral academic writing, Dungane. I take the author is some sort of KMT partisan. I have no idea why it would make a difference that this is KMT propaganda rather than Communist propaganda. Amdo was almost entirely a nomadic society, which makes it seems unlikely that slavery was a major social practice. Central Tibet was much more agricultural and centralised, which creates the opportunity for much more imbalanced power relationships. That said, I'm not aware of any serious source (i.e., not Grunfeld, Wang & Nyima Gyaincain, etc.) which says that there slavery per se was a widespread practice in Central Tibet, either.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Robert Walker, I don't really like the sound of "Rather the idea was to have a history which focusses on what actually happened as far as one can determine it - then in a separate section to have an account of the Chinese version of events". Naturally, the article should reflect Chinese sources to the extent that we judge them to be accurate and reliable. As for the propaganda claims of both side, naturally we can mention them.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I see what you mean. Just because many of the Chinese sources can't be relied on, if there are some that can be shown to be reliable in some way, then of course they should be used for the unified history. Also propoganda should be mentioned on either side.
Though most of what the Chinese say just doesn't match up at all with what I've heard, so it is hard to see how you can unify it with the Tibetan history. I'm no historian, most of what I learnt of the history is from Heinrich Harrer's book obviously sympathetic to the Dalai Lama but doesn't particularly seem a likely person to make things up large scale.
In any case whether and how much it is valid, if you try to unify, it just doesn't fit the Chinese history theme that they were "liberating Tibetans" who welcomed their presence in the country, which is repeated over and over in all the events in their history - you have to accept that before you can use the Chinese accounts. So how you can combine that with the history from other sources that paint quite a different picture I have no idea. It's like - not just removing obvious large scale discrepancies, but also the tone of nearly every sentence in the Chinese histories. Which all seems to tie back to the original idea that the Tibetans were serfs, without that claim the rest of their history rather falls apart, which is why I feel that point is quite important and needs to be mentioned at the head of the section, that it is a controversial claim and not to be stated as incontrovertible truth.
On the slavery and serfs claims - it is not so very long ago after all - just as we has WW2 veterans in the UK, there should be a few very old Tibetans (Tibetan speaking) who remember when they were slaves or serfs if the claims were true. You would then expect the Chinese to give them a lot of media prominence to support their account of the history. Has anyone heard of that happening? They should be quite well known by now, as they would be old and few and far between. Are there any famous "veteran" Tibetan serfs or slaves? Come to think of it, wouldn't be that old, same age as the Dalai Lama. And if there were any, then in the turbulence of the Chinese invasion, at least some of the ex slaves might have taken advantage of the opportunity and confusion to escape to India along with the other refugees, or escaped along with their "masters" - but not heard of a Tibetan exile who supports the Chinese accounts of what happened.
It is obvious my sympathies are mainly with the Tibetan account, to declare my own POV though with my edits I tried to keep my remarks as neutral and encyclopedic as was possible for me, partly by leaving the rest of the history unedited. Certainly an attempt at a unified history is one I wouldn't begin to attempt despite the wikipedia "Be Bold" maxim. And I think even without censorship, humans do exaggerate and say things which make good stories, and paint themselves in a better light however objective they may try to be and I certainly don't accept any of the histories as incontrovertibly true! Robert Walker (talk)
Funny that you ask about why there supposedly aren't serf veterans in Tibet, just as there should be WW2 veterans in the UK. They do exist, and I've heard from them (not being privileged in any way; they are a staple of the widely propagated official histories). The PRC has taped them for its videos on the subject, and displays their testimony in museums like the Tibet Museum in Lhasa. Scholars have even written about a race between the PRC and the Central Tibetan Administration to record favorable testimony before the contemporaries of that era die.
The point is that a lot of what you think may not exist because you haven't heard it, is because your media does not report it to you. You may not seek it out because you think that anything that comes from China should automatically be discarded as propaganda. The Harrer book (and even worse from a historical accuracy perspective, the film adaptation) receives unwarranted lack of criticism and undue promotion on many Wikipedia articles. That is something to address. Quigley (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Okay thanks for explaining. Though I know it is unfair, but my first thought when you say that was, well the interviews are probably manipulated. Maybe coerced, or paid to do them, or they get more prestige as a result or whatever. I know I asked if there were any and you have answered the question. I wouldn't know how to assess the accuracy of them, don't even speak Tibetan so you rely on translations. I imagine most Westerners would react in a similar way which might be why they don't get much publicity here.


What about testimony from Tibetan exiles? They would be more easily believed, so long as there is no reason to feel they are unduly influenced by the Chinese?


With the Harrer book - I haven't seen the film, but if I did it would be for entertainment not for historical education. Films of books are seldom accurate reflections of them, and whatever is in the film shouldn't reflect on the author's testimony. Unless the author himself makes the film of course.


I get the impression the book is considered reasonably accurate - as accurate as any person's account of something that they have lived through. If so then it seems reasonable to rely on it to the extent that you would rely on any individual's first hand account of events. Helps that it is in English for English speakers. Like - a good basis for building up a unified history, after correcting anything he says which turns out to be remembered incorrectly or in some way inaccurate.



I don't think all the inaccuracies in the Chinese history need necessarily be a matter of deliberate invention. The Chinese came to a country with no shared language, unfamiliar culture, also physical conditions they found harsh and hard to understand as well. In such conditions it is natural that they would pick up on things that seemed familiar to them and come to conclusions that made the culture more like the one they had come from themselves. So to add two and two to make five, as humans so often do. I expect some of that, and some of deliberate reconstruction of the history as well.


I certainly don't think Tibet was a "Shangri la" and am sure that there were lots of problems as with any country and they were desperately in need of modern advances in medicine, technology, and also probably needed political reform too. But I think they needed to reform in their own time and in their own way similarly to the way Bhutan has done so. And my impression from the Harrer book is that the people by and large were happy, indeed probably more happy than we are and more happy than the invading Chinese. Possibly because of the Buddhist ideas and values, also possibly just because of the low level of technology, many societies with less technology - have problems, disease, shorter lives, but often with all that, seem to be by and large happier than we are. So if you forcibly bring them up to date with modern technology it is likely to lead to unhappiness, they need to do so in their own way and in their own time and each culture needs to find its own way to do that, others from other cultures can offer help but can't really do it for them. I see that as the main way that the Chinese takeover of Tibet was in error. Which many other countries have also done the same including of course the UK, in other contexts. And I understand that the Chinese are taking some steps to redress the issues that arose and to allow the Tibetans more autonomy to find their own solutions and the more that is done the better!


The matter of whether there were serfs or slaves, and to what extent there were if there were such, is a minor point from that respect as even if there were, the country still needs to find its own way I believe. But important from point of view of assessing accuracy or otherwise of the Chinese histories Robert Walker (talk)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of another paragraph from renewed Chinese Rule

I have removed this paragraph:

The ninth Panchen Lama got the power granted by the Emperor when the 13th Dalai Lama fled to India. When the Dalai came back Panchen had to go to Qinghai. After the Chinese army went into Tibet, he asked and got approval of the government to come back to Tibet but died en route. According to Buddhism, the tenth Panchen was then reincarnated.

The English is so garbled as to be practically unintelligible. What does it mean to 'get the power' did he get it from the Qing Emperor. What is this paragraph doing in a section on the 1950s. Panchen is not a last name "Panchen had to go to". And most ridiculous 'according to Buddhism' according to whoes Buddhism exactly, this would be like saying 'according to Christianity Cardinal Ratzinger is the spiritual heir to John Paul II.'

I have recently read in a book on China's relations with the outside world that the Tibetian people for or Turkic origin. Was the author misinformed? J. Richner, Grahamstown, South Africa - Richner@absamail.co.za. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.132.162 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the English is intelligible, although flawed. More importantly, it is factually challenged. The 9th Panchen Lama may have had some sort of double-dealings with the Chinese and/or the British when the 13th Dalai Lama was in exile, but I can't say I'm clear on the details. I doubt the Chinese government seriously attempted to vest the secular powers of the Dalai Lama onto the Panchen Lama. The 9th Panchen Lama fled to Inner Mongolia and then to Amdo more than ten years after the Dalai Lama's return from exile. The most egregious error is that the 9th Panchen Lama died in the 1930s, long before the PLA entered Tibet. The 10th Panchen Lama was already a teenager in the 1950s; he was roughly the same age as the current Dalai Lama.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Tibetan Empire

'Traditional Tibetan history preserves a lengthy list of space alians, whose exploits become subject to external verification in the Chinese histories by the 7th century.'

Is this a wind-up ? Perhaps Himmler would be interested, but it seems questionable here. Claverhouse (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Proto-Tibetans

What about the Qiang / Ch'iang / K'iang tribes? Can't we say that they were the Proto-Tibetans?

What about the Quanrong people and Di (ethnic group)? (Weren't they the Proto-Tibetans?)
What about Tibet-Burma, Tibet-Bhutan connections... Where did the Tibeto-Burman languages come from?
& no mention of Former Qin (351-394), Later Qin (384-417) (Can't we say that they were Qiang-Chinese states?); Later Liang (386-403)(Di-Chinese state), Western Xia (Xi Xia / Tangut), Tuyuhun Kingdom (Xianbei-Tibetan state); weren't they the Tibetans?
- Here I'm talking about "the Greater Tibet" (Tibet and parts of Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan). Who were living in these lands during the Qin Dynasty? Weren't they the Proto-Tibetans? Böri (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Christopher Beckwith's dissertation, which discusses all extant sources for the history of Tibet before 650. He also disproves the identification with Qiang, with the possible exception of the Fa Qiang. Here is the citation

Beckwith, Christopher I. (1977). A Study of the Early Medieval Chinese, Latin, and Tibetan Historical Sources on Pre-Imperial Tibet. Indiana University PhD Dissertation.

I would be happy to help you find it.Tibetologist (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. No, I didn't read Beckwith. I asked many questions... This site tells more about the Qiang people: http://www.imperialchina.org/Tibetan.html Böri (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Qiang people again

in French: Les Chinois mentionnent les Tibétains, auxquels ils donnent le nom de Kiang ou de Si-Kiang (Kiang occidentaux), depuis le règne d'Ou-Ouang 1122-1116 av. J.-C.). / Kiang = Qiang & Si-Kiang = Xi Qiang

from this site: http://www.cosmovisions.com/ChronoTibet.htm
also from internet: Tibetan History begins with the incursions of Tibetan K'iang in Central China when Buddha was living in India, / It is said there that the T'u-fan people originated from the K'iang, / in language at least, to the Tibetans: the Ch'iang (K'iang), / The Tibetan used to be called Ch'iang / Originally, the Tibetan people, made up of the Ch'iang tribes / the northeast Tibetan dialects of the Ch'iang Tibetan tribes ... etc. Böri (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One can find many things on the Internet. I think you should read more widely on the issue, particularly Beckwith's dissertation, with an open mind. You could also read van Schaik's, Kapstein's, or Stein's history books which will not support this view. Furthermore, it is simply a methodological issue. How is it that one can identify a pre-literate people mentioned Chinese historical sources with the Tibetans? What evidence would constitute proofs of such an identification? Tibetologist (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"One can find many things on the Internet." = Of course... but were they all wrong? Böri (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have suggested many things to read and will be surprized if you think the prehistorical Tibetans can be glibly identified with the Qiang after you have read them. If you have not read them further discussion is pointless. (Although you could take a crack at the methodological point.) Tibetologist (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Sikkim?

Weren't most of them the Tibetans?

What about this map? Tibeto-Burman languages (in orange)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_Asian_Language_Families.jpg Böri (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the question exactly? The ruling class of Sikkim was Bhotia, a Tibetan speaking ethnicity. They are still around but have lost prominence since the annexation by India. See History of Sikkim. Incidentally, a new book about the history of Sikkim just came out by Saul Mullard, printed by Brill. Tibetologist (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you mean were the pre-historic Sikkimese Qiang? I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. If you mean were the pre-historic Sikkimese Tibetan, this is simply false. They were Lepcha. Tibetologist (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please correct date in History of Tibet page for the death of the 5th Dalai Lama

The death of the 5th Dalai Lama is listed in one section on the History of Tibet page as 1680, and in another section as 1682. It can't be both. Please determine the correct date and correct this. I can't edit either section and change the date because I don't know which of the two dates are correct. Thanks.

Awyn (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)awyn

Die Eroberung von Qinghai unter Berücksichtigung von Tibet und Khams, 1717-1727: Anhand der Throneingaben des Grossfeldherrn Nian Gengyao By Shuhui Wu

http://books.google.com/books?id=zqVug_wN4hEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

07:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Post Kangxi - Status of Chinese Ambans in Tibet

A report by Margaret Fisher and Leo Rose ("England, India, Nepal, Tibet, China", University of Berkeley, 1959) has shed light on some aspects of the status of Chinese "Ambans" or "Residents" in Tibet. Their report covers the period 1765 to 1958 and reveals that in these 193 year, there were no Chinese Ambans or Residents posted at Lhasa in 131 years; the longest continued absence being for 21 years from 1913 to 1933. It is also of note that the Ambans were present for just one or two months in a year in Lhasa in 57 years. This may be of interest to researchers in Sino-Tibetan history.Pidiji (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.historyofnations.net/asia/tibet.html
    Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed the offending link from the article. -Zanhe (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing info about famine and Great Leap Forward

The article doesn't mention either the Great Chinese Famine or the Great Leap Forward, both from approximately 1959-1961. There are more targeted articles that cover these in sufficient detail, but a paragraph or so overview is certainly warranted here. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Era

@Mevagiss: is it appropriate a Christian standard in an article on a non-Christian topic? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The wiki policy for this is WP:ERA, that the era setting must left as it is in an article. Using BC etc. is not a "Christian standard". It just happens to be the longstanding convention for historical dating in the English language. The use of BCE etc. is an alternative convention that is favoured by some editors. WP recognises both with the proviso that they cannot be mixed in an article or changed when either has been established by previous editors (to prevent unconstructive disputes.)--Mevagiss (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mevagiss: not exactly correct: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." So, the era-style can be changed, and I've already given the rationale: BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domino, "the year of our Lord) are Christian terms; they were the longstanding convention because of the European hegemony in the world. The "alternative convention" is not favoured by "some" editors at Buddhism-related and Asia-related articles; it's the de facto standard. Using BC/AD therefore strikes me as quite odd. @JimRenge, Farang Rak Tham, and Ms Sarah Welch: what do you think?
BCE is not even prevalent in use, let alone a standard. Anyone can check other articles and see that JoshuaJonathan is wrong. Start with Tibetan Empire, Zhangzhung and Zhangzhung language, Tibetan Plateau, timeline of Tibetan history, Sino-Tibetan languages and so on. Please check your facts before making statements to bolster your point. Check the same article as this in the Dutch German and French languages - a similar standard in used in those as well. Using BCE strikes me as political correctness. The English language is also prevalent due to European hegemony, so may I invite you to stop using it as well?--192.173.128.36 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You're not answering my main concern: why use Christian dating terms for the history of a non-Christian country, when more neutral terms are available? See History of India, Timeline of Indian history, History of Pakistan, Indus Valley Civilisation, and History of Indonesia for some relevant comparisons. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
NB: Tibetan Empire uses both styles; Zhang-Zhung language does not use any era-designations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The era usage in this article is stable and has been used by numerous editors without concern. That is typically a reason to resist any change - your "concerns" are artificial and reflect your POV. They are your opinion and cannot be measured against any objective criteria. I understand that using BC etc. is irrelevant to Christian faith so similarly, a Christian system of dating only exists in your opinion. Wikipedia;s purpose is to share factual content based on verifiable sources so that is why opinion-based discussions tend to be unconstructive and the era policy exists to attempt to avoid them.--Mevagiss (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow! Is this a serious answer?!? As you may be aware, I didn't invent this BCE-CE convention; it exists already for four centuries, and has been used more commonly for a couple of decades already, because other people, with more cultural and religious sensitivity than you have, raised those concerns. Scholars, with academic degrees and professions, for you information. Editors at India-related articles don't find tgis to be an "artificial" matter. The era policy does exist exactly because the objections against BC-AD are shared by many; you basically want to dismiss this policy and abort any serious discussion. So, let's repeat the question: why use Christian dating terms for the history of a non-Christian country, when more neutral terms are available? Simply stating 'this is how we've always been doing it here at this article' does not answer that question. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Tibet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Tibet/Archive_3&oldid=1136797632"