Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 Tibetan unrest article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3 months

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2011 and March 14, 2013.

Tibet High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

References for quoted sections

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2008 Tibetan unrest. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of errors, mostly in one POV direction

Sweet lord, this article needs a lot of work.

Citations 1-3 do not contain the information associated with them.

As has already been pointed out on this talk page, the fourth citation is from the Chinese government, and I have seen no independent source to support the “eighteen” number. News articles from the time seem to report a couple incidents at best.

Citation 6 is a dead link.

Citation 7 does not give the “May 4” date and does not say they explicitly “held talks on the riots.”

James Miles did not say that the “police response was tame” nor hint that he felt that way in Citation 10 or anywhere else I can find. And even if he did, I would question the value of including one person’s view on the matter in the summary paragraph. That he was the only foreign reporter present is notable, but he was only in part of Lhasa for part of the duration of the unrest so his statements shouldn’t be taken as conclusive and representative of the entire issue. But again, he didn’t say it was “tame” anyways.

Citation 11 does not support the claim made in the preceding sentence.

These are the problems I’ve seen just in the article summary so far. I pray that the rest of the article is more accurate and better sourced, but I don’t have high expectations. I’ll do what I can to start cleaning things up, but it will take a lot of time. I’d certainly appreciate help if anyone comes across this and shares my concern.

The reason I’m mentioning this on the talk page instead of just going ahead and making the edits is that, while clearly this is a sourcing issue, it seems to be a POV issue as well given that the errors systematically cast the Chinese government in a somewhat more favorable light. Each instance isn't egregious, but taken together, they add up to a skewed introduction. I might consider adding an appropriate article template to make clear that this article has issues while the work is done to fix it. PortentPainter (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading on, the article doesn't get much better after the summary. Many citation and POV issues. I'm going to add a "multiple issues" template at the top of the article and hope that others come to help clean it up. I'll do what I can when I have the time. PortentPainter (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PortentPainter I agree that the POV is skewed. Reworked the opening. Later sections are in worse shape. Will continue. Give a ping. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where the talk is on the massive changes made to the page in November. As PortentPainter says, the skewed pov errors systematically cast the Chinese government in a somewhat more favorable light, were reintroduced by AdoTang.

Seeing you're a recent editor, a good practice to adopt is look for the most recent serious editors on a page's talk or in its edit summaries. Ping them before making edits, and especially before making massive changes. Look to see if they're actively editing or not; if so, wait a few days for a response. If a page hasn't been edited in several years, it's another issue.

I learned about the topic on this page before editing. Since you've stated you're unfamiliar with the topic, please familiarize yourself before reediting, and begin talks before reediting.

Please also note to only add ^{[citation needed]} tags after verifying that citations are missing. Before tagging, open and read the linked refs. There are and were numerous unnecessary multiple taggings of edits, dated from November, but the edits are based on refs already provided. Unnecessary tagging is definitely not condoned in policy.

Your edits disassociated refs - now repaired, but be careful not to reattribute refs when editing. Also note: There are refs whose sources have been depreciated: CCTV, Global Times, looking into People's Daily. Review source status at Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives for the edits with Chinese govt media sources. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 15:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Lead restoration

Pasdecomplot I have restored the December 21 lead (this revision) which is substantially less problematic than the current one. There are POV and sourcing issues abound still, but there were so many more unreferenced and misreferenced claims in the lead that you added (this revision).

It also represents a better organized summary following MOS:LEAD. The lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs (5 is better than 9). The first paragraph should also only briefly define the topic as a whole per MOS:OPEN.

For an example of the referencing issues, you can't write strong statements like

Mass arbitrary arrests of monks, nuns, and lay Tibetans, lethal shootings by Chinese forces, and reported forced disappearances of Tibetans continued for several months afterwards.

in WP:WIKIVOICE when nothing cited for that sentence and nothing referenced in the article body even mentions Mass arbitrary arrests. Similarly, Another arbitrary arrest of monks at Labrang Monastery occurred was cited to a a NYT article that makes no mention whatsoever of the claim.

You need to check that 1) your additions are referenced to an RS and 2) that the cited source directly supports what is claimed. This is explained by WP:V and WP:CITE and also concerns several issues with the article body. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's not at all clear what this and this edit ("Restoring page") were restoring the article to. It doesn't seem to restore to any previous revision as far as I can tell; it appears to partially revert this edit by AdoTang but also simultaneously makes several other changes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite of the lede isn't per the page's main topics and most important incidents. These I will readd:

There were nuns, lots of nuns. Female monastic people. Why was the mention of nuns deleted from lede? Needs readding.
The Drepung Monastery monks were deleted from lede, the start of the movement - why? Will readd.
The Riwoche incident is critical to the uprising. But was deleted... Because the page's subject is not well known?
A paragraph break reduced the amount of text above image, but was deleted - why? Will reformat.

See other talk for supposed RS issues. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the four points regarding MOS:INTRO/MOS:SUMMARY:

Sure, "monks" can be changed to "monks and nuns".
Substantial parts of the your second lead paragraph was unreferenced and/or not already present in the article body (as required by MOS:INTRO and WP:V). Reproducing here for convenience:
The Drepung Monastery monks were also protesting the earlier arrests of their monks from a year before. Violence in Lhasa began when Chinese Public Security forces and the Chinese People's Liberation Army units beat and arrested groups of monks from Drepung and Sera Monastery during non-violent marches and protests, and spread after Tibetan laypeople later clashed with security forces in defense of the monks at Riwoche Monastery.
The first sentence is not mentioned in the article body nor referenced. The mentions of the Drepung and Sera incidents are WP:INTEXT attributed in the body but stated in the lead in WP:WIKIVOICE. The Riwoche mention is not referenced nor is it even mentioned in the article body.
See point 2 above.
I don't see how the image placement has changed based on the paragraph changes. The image is in the same place with the same parameters (thumb & right). Adding paragraph breaks purely for image placement is not the appropriate way to address image placement issues, but you also need to be more specific about the potential issue. Do you mean that the image is further down on mobile purely because the first paragraph is longer?

— MarkH₂₁^talk 00:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massive deletes and reverts

MarkH21, please halt the massive number of deletes and reverts until you read all the refs. Not every statement and word has a ref associated, but the body of refs support the edits. I learned the topic while editing over a period of time, which is responsible editing and should be done before deleting and reverting. These edit summaries are not accurate. A WP:EDITWAR warning to stop edit warring was placed on your talk hours ago. Maybe another warning for WP:HOUND is also needed, following Nyingchi. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does the policy have to be explained to you? It doesn't suffice to make an unspecified claim that 1 of the 170 footnotes supports text that you add to the article. WP:CHALLENGE says very clearly:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Your justification of the body of refs support the edits does not satisfy the requirement for an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Fixing blatant WP:V violations in misreferenced additions is not WP:HOUND, which requires an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. You continue to baselessly accuse other editors of misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]