Talk:Flag of Tibet

Flag of Tibet - another view of its origins

"The Tibetan national flag is intimately connected with the authentic history and royal lineages of Tibet which are thousands of years old. Furthermore, in the Tibetan Royal year 820 or in the seventh century of the Christian era, at the time of the Tibetan religious King Song-Tsen Gamp the Great extensive land of Tibet was divided into large and small districts known as "gö-kyi tong-de" and "yung-g'i mi-de". From these large and small districts, an army of 2,860,000 men was chosen and stationed along the borders of Tibet, and the subjects thus lived in safety. The bravery and heroism of the Tibetan people at that time in conquering and ruling even the adjacent empire of China is well-known in world history.

"At that time, it is recorded that the regiment of Yö-ru tö had a military flag with a pair of snow-lions facing each other; that Yä-ru mä had a snow-lion with a bright upper border; that of Tsang Rulag, had a snow-lion standing upright, springing towards the sky; and the flag of ü-ru tö had a white flame against a red background, and so forth. In this way. the regiments of each area had its own individual military standard. Continuing with that tradition up to the beginning of the twentieth century, various regiments within the Tibetan army have had military flags with either a pair of snow-lions facing each other, or a snow-lion springing upwards and so forth.

"In the latter part of this period, during the rule of His Holiness the Great Thirteenth Dalai Lama, this eminent spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet enacted many modifications in administrative policies in accordance with international customs. Based on the formats of previous Tibetan military flags, His Holiness improved upon them and designed the present, modern national flag. With an official proclamation, He declared that this would be the uniform, standard flag to be adopted by all Tibetan military defence establishments. Since the time of that proclamation, all Tibetan regiments have likewise adopted this flag as their standard.

"The colour scheme of the Tibetan national flag gives a clear indication of all aspects of Tibet in its symbolism such as the geographic features of the religious. snowy land of Tibet, the customs and traditions of Tibetan society, the political administration of the Tibetan government and so forth.

Source: www.tibet.com

Eddy29 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(Untitled)

The article reads:

"the surrounding border of yellow adorning the perimeter represents the spread and flourishing in all directions and times of the purified gold like teachings of the Buddha."

The picture must be wrong, because yellow border is not present in one of the sides. That would mean the "spread and flourishing" don't really happen in all directions.  :)

Robertmh 13:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I recall reading the gold border represents the spread of Buddha's teachings and was left open to represent Tibet's (Buddhism's ?) openness to other ideologies. Though, I don't recall the exact pamphlet in which I saw that description. --Jaybeeunix 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Tibet flag proportions are 3:4 and not 2:3. Reference FOTW [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.247.14 (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 The proportions on the website of Tibet goverment is 2:3 Nimdil2 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Status in PRC

"It is banned in the People's Republic of China, including the Tibet Autonomous Region and the other regions which formerly constituted the independent Tibetan state." -- Please fix if there's anything incorrect here. -- 201.51.215.113 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The TAR corresponds to the area of control of the government at Lhasa before 1950. -- ran (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well.. more or less, not 100%. — Instantnood 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Move request

It is not of neutral point of view to use the term "Tibet" to refer to either the the Government of Tibet in Exile" or the Government of the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China. I think a more neutral title would be "Flag of the Government of Tibet in Exile". -Alanmak 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag was used by the Tibetan government before 1950. While used by the government-in-exile, the flag is clearly an icon of cultural Tibet (or Tibet as a geographical region). Meanwhile, please be reminded to log this request at Wikipedia:requested moves. Thanks. — Instantnood 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

The Government of Tibet in Exile page has been moved by Adam Carr to Central Tibetan Administration. Should we still have the same name for the proposed page move? --Khoikhoi 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against the move as per Instantnood. —Nightstallion (?) 11:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

===>I ain't fer it I'm agin it. For the same reasons. This is the (one and only) flag of Tibet (not just the CTA). And, if we had this web site prior to 1950 (somehow), there would be no doubt about it. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Related to the move request is the template:TIB [2]. — Instantnood 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

is it just me, or does this flag look like the Japanese Imperial Army flag?

How ironic.

personally i think it looks like two ligers high-fiving, POWERFULLY. - DaoKaioshin 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms

There should likewise be an article on the Coat of arms of Tibet. Chris 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But the "coat of arms" originated with the "government in exile" and does not have the same status as the flag. Flag, but not coat of arms, existed prior to the association of Tibet with the People's Republic of China, and was designed by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama in 1913, before there was ever a PRC, let alone a government in exile. Tom129.93.17.66 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your source for the lack of arms before exile? Chris 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

undiscussed move by revisionist

This is a sensitive subject. Soman, before you make swweping changes like that, discuss them here first. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what sense I'm a revisionist. The rationale for my proposal; This flag was the army flag 1912-1950s, not the national flag. The Tibetan government were quite explicit on this issue, in negotations with the PRC during the 1950s. The flag was used at army functions, but not flown at government buildings. It is today claimed as a national flag by exiled tibetans, is used by the CTA. But the flag has no official status inside Tibet at the moment. Thus the wording 'Flag of Tibet' is somewhat misleading. It could be called 'flag of the CTA', 'Tibetan army flag 1912-1959', etc., but snow lion flag (the name of the flag) covers all these descriptions, and is the most accurate title. --Soman (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

i feel references to earlier tibet flags should be added. this article feels incomplete. Akinkhoo (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this?

I head that the snow lion flag was granted by Chinese Emperor Qianlong of the Qing dynasty as Tibetan army flag, the 2 lions symbolize Chinese central government, just as those stone lions in front of traditional Chinese houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.52.199 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes by Quigley

I have undone the massive and undiscussed changes by Quigley. This is a controversial topic, bring the changes you want to make here for discussion. Baby steps.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a controversial topic. What specific objections do you have to the changes that I made? Quigley (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the changes, because you have not explicated your objections, or if you even had any, a week after the changes (and this is not a very active page; other editors have not commented). If you have some refinements to make, you can make them or discuss them here. Quigley (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Quigley's edits, except that I think both versions of the article over-emphasize the Japanese connection by putting it in the lede. Ideally, I'd like to have a better source for that fact, although I don't advocate removing it because I have no more specific objection than a gut feeling that Berzin is not entirely reliable.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you revert my edits, Kintetsubuffalo, bringing no new rationale, but strengthening and making more inflammatory language such as that you "suspect POV". That's not enough. I ask you again for specific sentences, phrases, etc. which you think are POV in my edit, and in which way you think they are that, and then we have a basis for a discussion. Otherwise, continued guarding of this revision will continue to feed into perceptions of page ownership, or at least incivility. I can't read your mind, so you must be clear and discuss with what you want, content-wise, and be willing to accept other editors' contributions to this article. Quigley (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You have that backwards-you have brought nothing new to the discussion. Lay out your points here, one by one, they can be added or passed as needed. I don't care whether you "perceive" ownership on any article-you're not adding POV here. In fact this has been a controversial article, we're not going down that road again.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't continue to menace me about "adding POV" when you refuse to explain what "POV" it is you are objecting to. I'll try to bring back some of my extended reasoning for the changes, which may have been lost in the two months of stonewalling.

1. Snow Lion Flag: As has been said before but never addressed by you, the Snow Lion flag was not the only flag in Tibetan history, was an army flag rather than a national flag when used in Tibet, and not a legitimate flag of contemporary Tibet as the name "Flag of Tibet" implies. Therefore, if the article is to be written with a neutral historical perspective, and not with that of a Free Tibet activist, the name Snow Lion Flag should come first, and "Flag of Tibet" (which does not appear in any of the sources used in this article, by the way) second.

Put the sources here first-don't bury them in the text-I think the fact that you are slinging "Free Tibet activist" around shows your own bias.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsu, please re-render your unwarranted personal attack. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

HXL49-you're the one making the attacks in your edit summaries, and I would be delighted to report you. Please keep going.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

where is evidence of that on 'this page? lying does amount to a personal attack --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the record shows your edit summary as the attack "Kintetsu, stop being such a pain with your ridiculous advocacy of Tibetan independence," and tagging my userpage won't change that. Who's lying, here?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"this page" means THIS TALK PAGE. I take things literally, so in this case you would be the liar. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1. 1. Maybe this is the controversial change to you, seeing as you called someone a "revisionist" for proposing it before. If this was the only change of mine you had objected to, you should have done a selective revert rather than a full revert, or at least mentioned this objection by name.

Or conversely, you can use multiple edits which can be kept or undone, as was already stated above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestion above to use multiple edits, and they're not necessary. If you're only objecting to one or two things, such as the order in which the various names for the flag appear, then take two seconds and do it manually instead of repeatedly provocatively doing wholesale unexplained reverts that force me to initiate another round of glacial dialogue to make any edit. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. "Symbolism" section: was a total cut-and-paste job from savetibet.org. Suspending disbelief in savetibet.org's credibility in explaining the symbolism of the flag, there is no indication on that website that the text is licensed under the public domain. Therefore I have summarized it and placed it in a picture caption.

If true, and that's a big if, okay. Copyvios have no place here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to equivocate; the copyvio text is there in the article history, and remains in a 1:1 copy on the webpage cited as a source. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Removing the Kaohsiung picture. The article is short enough, and one picture is adequate for pop culture. Of the two pictures, Hsiao Bi-khim's was the best because we can display it in the context of her politics.

There's no limit to the number of photos that can be in an article, and if the photo illustrates the use of the flag in context, it is not disruptive to leave it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That the "Tibet street" flag demonstrates the flag's use "in context" is questionable. Hsiao Bi-khim's picture (being that she is at a Free Tibet gala) is more representative than close-up of a street sign that happens to have the flag on it, incidentally without any context. Keeping that in mind, there should also not be so many pictures as to overshadow the text, of which there is very little. You can find hundreds of novel uses of many other flags, but they should not inserted into the flags' articles without a compelling reason. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Removing the national flags template. The Snow Lion flag is not a flag flown in an official national capacity by the government or citizens of a country, now or in the past. The removal of the Flags of Asia template falls under the same rationale, which as an {{Asia Topic}} links to the current flags for current countries and territories.

Again, cite your source.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The imperative is on you to cite a source if you want to claim that this flag is used in an official capacity by some country; otherwise it is original research. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Removing the category "Flags of Indigenous peoples". First of all, it has not been established that this is a flag of the Tibetan people. Isn't the claim that it was a flag of an unrecognized state, not an ethnic flag? The other wrong thing is that Tibetans are not an indigenous people. China doesn't use the term, and exile Tibetans and their laywers don't either, for the category's uncertain boundaries and the difficulties it would create with some of their legal arguments. Basically, the category is original research.

Again, cite your source. We're not concerned with what China does, we're concerned with what Tibetans do, and my knowledge of them shows quite the opposite.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

“ Although Western opinion leaders sometimes refer to Tibetans as "indigenous people,"187 the emigre administration does not use the term, and international law scholars sympathetic to the emigre cause find it uncertain that Tibetans come under its rubric.188 The Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been occasionally cited in connection with the Tibet Question189 and one emigre activist has proposed that Tibetans "take the indigenous route."190 However, emigre leaders see that label as conflicting with their insistence that Tibet is an occupied state since, in popular conception, indigenous people were mainly stateless before the advent of the colonizers.191 They may also be influenced by the social evolutionism still pervasive in India and China. One emigre scholar has said about most of China's ethnic minorities that "such pre-literate tribes cannot be compared with Tibetan people" and that "[a]s far as the Tibetans are concerned, they are neither a tribe nor an ethnic group; they constitute a distinct civilizational category . . . ."192 Because claims to indigenous status are eschewed,193 the concept of ethnocide and a delinking from intentionality are not relevant to Tibetan emigre discourse, which from the outset has been framed in terms of genocide194 and, latterly, cultural genocide. ” — Barry Sautman, "Cultural Genocide" and Tibet, Texas Journal of International Law 38:2:173-246

Quigley (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Instead of a general {{refimprove}} tag, I put inline {{citation needed}} tags where needed. This is an aesthetic change.

That's okay.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And there they are. Pleasantly surprise me by finally explaining what changes you would like made to this list, or if you just wanted to see them all laid out like this, allow them pass. Quigley (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your tone is just as it is in the article, which is why I reverted it all in the first place. Lay off the snide. We don't have to like each other to talk to each other, but we do have to be WP:CIVIL. Now that you've laid it out, and it's past the new year bustle, it's appropriate and timely for me to address what works and what doesn't. I've reverted it again, as unilaterally replacing earlier text because your comments received no reply is no good during the busiest time of the year.

You seriously need to avoid the word "allegedly", it drips with POV. I take it English is not your first language, but that is a loaded word.

I think at this point we are at an impasse. I do not trust you to be impartial, and you likewise want to label me a Free Tibet activist. It is better to bring in the WP:3O boys-let an uninvolved third party sort this out.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to confirm my suspicion that this article would be hijacked were you given free rein, I checked the Flags of the World website, considered to be authoritative and a reliable source, at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xt.html . Lo and behold, no mention of the name "snow lion flag", the page is titled "Flag of Tibet", just as this one is. Imagine my surprise! It does go on to say that yes, it began as a military flag and later evolved for national use out of necessity.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I never called you a Free Tibet activist; (although you do display a "this user supports a free Tibet" userbox on your userpage) I actually said that to put the modern separatists' preferred name in front of the historical name is to non-neutrally ground the article in the perspective of a Free Tibet activist. Civility requires that you suppress your suspicions of bad intentions by other people, so you are well advised not to continue to sing your dislike and distrust of me, and start talking about the content of my edit rather than the content of my character. And between your last two edits here, on 28 December and 14 January, you made 1317 edits, and not all of them trivial, so forgive me if I'm a little skeptical that you were too busy to reply here.

About the use of the word "allegedly" to describe modern interpretations of the symbolism, it's completely fair to use "allegedly" when we don't have any descriptive documents from the government (which is not the same as the CTA) that supposedly instituted the flag, and when as the FOTW page says, the folklore surrounding the flag in Tibetan settlements in India vary in every telling. And speaking of the FOTW page, imagine my surprise when I found that unlike the section title of the page (generally subject to broad website policies and editors), the actual text sourced to actual people do not use "Flag of Tibet", but "Tibetan Flag", or interestingly, "Tibetan flag", lowercase. As for the flag's use as a "national" flag, the only example mentioned on that page was a dubious one of the military flag's one-time hasty conversion for use in the Asian Relations Conference, a gathering not of states but of various independence movements. An alternative lead in could be, "While there have been many Tibetan flags used throughout Tibetan history, the term "Tibetan flag" today usually refers to the Snow Lion Flag which was used by the Tibetan army from 1912–1959 and since 1960 by the separatist movement". Quigley (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As 3O has not yet been addressed, reverted again.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Quigley-if you look at the bulk of my edits, they're reverting vandalism. You are many things but I would not call you a vandal, so addressing you here takes lower priority.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your bad attitude again. First off, that is a sneaky, not to mention dumb, attack; of course none of us here are vandals. Secondly, this involves potential quality work, much more than mere vandalism reversion. Certainly you would want more quality work on your record? It shows your lack of caring, and if you claim a position, it is your responsibility to defend it, which you have done a poor job of doing. Since Quigley is doing well on his own, I am merely here to watch what the hell is going on; other regions of China and other topics concern me more. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsu. Immediately withdraw your attack(s) ("apologist" and "certainly not HXL"). I had no intent on re-writing this article to begin with, and came here only as an observer, yet you think I would try to rewrite it? funny. And I ask you not only to apologise to me, but to Quigley as well. You know nothing of my true position on Tibet, and yet you claim to. I know that the following will consist of soaping, but it is in response to your soaping (remove your attack, and I will remove this response). Opposing independence does not make one an apologist, and this is *often* the problem with those independence advocates such as you: don't deny or lie about it—you state it on your user page. And no offence to Quigley, but I am the one who far less on politics and history. Look at our contributions for proof. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

More disturbing to me than the fact that he called each of us "apologists" is that he called us "Chinese". Just recently, an editor who did essentially the same thing on another topic—attacking users' neutrality on account of their race ("A third Jew")—was blocked for his race-baiting. The comments in the discussion reviewing his block should highlight how grave a breach of civility that this racially charged type of comment represents. Quigley (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the position Kintetsu staked out below is mostly commenting on behaviour, not so much content. Is it because he has little to say on content and is trying to hide that fact? Kintetsu, it would behoove you to comment more on content. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, in your case commenting on behavior is the most appropriate thing to do.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, when I read "Chinese apologists", I didn't think it meant "apologists who are Chinese" but "apologists for China" or "apologists for the Chinese". It's still uncivil, but I didn't think it was an ethnic description.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Greg-you're right about the lack of ethnic meaning, but my comment is no more uncivil than "Kintetsu, stop being such a pain with your ridiculous advocacy of Tibetan independence," and accusations of lying being bandied about.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that your comment has a strong likelihood of having an ethnic meaning, and if others accuse you of having that meaning, then you are GG-ed. This is compared to my attack, which has no ethnic meaning; my attack is based on the truth, and something you admit through a funny userbox of yours. You have shaky, even non-existent, evidence for your claims of us being apologists; in fact, I have not expressed any opinion regarding the flag, so stop conjuring up flagrant bullshit — you are not Dumbledore. Stop trying to draw attention away from your own conduct and onto other users who have admitted to wrongdoing. You are treading dangerously on the record of ActuallyRationalThinker.

And apparently, it is evident that you are the one who is trolling around, and not giving serious attention to every dispute that you are in, instead caring more about vandals who can be dealt with by other users and ClueBot. Because of your poor job at defending your positions, you have a poor likelihood of winning this dispute; your insistence on using the FOTW site, which has even been debunked at a large discussion as being unreliable, will make you go down. Plus, even those who are intensely critical of the PRC government, such as Greg, don't "see what is wrong with Quigley's edits".

This is something I just noticed... I see you as the person who casually slaps on an insult without any evidence or just because he disagrees...look at your post "revisionist" up there.

--HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm willing to provide a third opinion on this issue but must admit that, after reading the text above, and after examining the diffs in question, I'm unclear as to what exactly the bone of contention is. If the two of you, Kintetsubuffalo and Quigley, could summarize your positions below, that would be very helpful. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Flags of the World website, used by User:Kintetsubuffalo to justify his position, was deemed to be an unreliable source by Users at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Дунгане (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In short, Kintetsubuffalo does not have any sources to back up his claims, he reverted to using a volunteer-run Yahoo mailing list on flag information, and is constantly stalling when confronted with logical arguments, giving no justifications for his own positions, instead, resorting to personal attacks against the other editors, accusing them of being xxx without any proof.Дунгане (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for stating your positions. I'm going to use the diff between the current protected version and Quigley's most recent version as the best indicator of what the two alternative texts are but this is a complicated situation so please bear with me as I figure things out. Thanks, in advance, for your patience. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Position of Kintetsubuffalo

• This article has been hijacked by two Chinese apologists to say exactly the opposite of what it said previously, and to look like an attack piece.
• I am not taking a position in this article about Tibet sovereignty or autonomy, neither do I think Tibet should be discarded and swept aside. Quigley uses attack words like "allegedly" and "by some" which serve only to denigrate and cast doubt on the users of that flag.
• I will not accept a revision such as Quigley keeps forcing, parts I can accept as stated above, but if the article is to be rewritten, it must be done by an impartial third party-not me or Quigley, certainly not HXL.
• I cannot separate the editors from the edits, if the editors are forcing a POV. POV is POV, and there is clearly an agenda at work. It is not an attack to say so, it is what it is.
• In summary, the article should

1. be locked to further edits until agreement is reached, and agreement is not to be assumed by lack of discussion-I'm busy and cannot cater to pedantry in a timely manner
2. be rewritten by a neutral third party and agreed upon before unlocking
3. certainly must be locked down while this 3O is ongoing

Position of Quigley

Content:

• The sources say that "Tibetan flag", and not "Flag of Tibet" should be used. Further, because "Flag of Tibet" and "Tibetan flag" are ambiguous, (as there have been many flags in Tibetan history) the first sentence should make clear that we are talking about "Snow Lion Flag" specifically.
• The text about the symbolism of the Snow Lion Flag is a copyright violation from savetibet.org. It should be summarized and not copied, with the summary marked as folklore and not definitive, because it does not come from any official law that defines the symbolism as laws do with other flags.
• There are hundreds of pictures that we could use of people using the flag for political activism, but only one representative picture is necessary.
• This article should not have a template that places it in a series of flags of modern states and territories, because this is not a flag of a modern state or territory (or even a historical state, as it was a military flag, although there is room for debate on this point).
• This article should not have the category "Flags of indigenous people", because it is not and was not a flag of a people, but of a movement, and in the past, a military [and supposedly a state]. Even if it were a flag of the Tibetan people, which it is not, Tibetans are not considered by China, by themselves, or by most outsiders as an indigenous people.

Behavioral:

• Kintetsubuffalo should not continually revert my changes without discussing his objections.
• Kintetsubuffalo should assume good faith and discuss the contents of the edit, and not his suspicions about me.
• Kintetsubuffalo should not maintain that we are at an "impasse" when he simply won't answer my arguments.

Quigley (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

Note: I am basing this opinion on the statements provided above and on the content that was removed in this edit.

• It is important to understand that wikipedia articles do not exist in a vacuum but rather that they exist in a context that is provided to us by the real world. In this real world context, the Tibetan people exist as an indigenous people and they are assumed to subscribe to the goals of the Tibetan government in exile, including the choice of flag Since that government is a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, it is credible that the flag can be represented as that of the indigenous tibetan people. Including that particular category merely states that the flag is acknowledged as representing the indigenous people of Tibet and says nothing about whether or not they, as in the case of Berbers, should or should not live in an independent nation.
• The inclusion of the template "Flags of Modern States and Territories" is a gray area that I think needs further discussion, preferably on the talk page of the template. Tibet is not currently a sovereign state, nor is it partially recognized (no government recognizes Tibet as being an independent nation), nor is it a dependent territory or a micronation. Therefore, the flag is included in a section titled "stateless" which includes three groups and appears to be a placeholder for ill-defined entities. If there is consensus that the "stateless" subcategory be included in the template, and that is what seems less than obvious to me, then the inclusion of the template is fine.
• The flag of tibet is largely about the political aspirations of a people, and about the recognition of those political aspirations by non-Tibetans, and therefore the inclusion of multiple pictures representing that activism is certainly warranted. I note that the current version of the article contains only two example pictures and assume that many more were included in an earlier version. Many more pictures of that activism is definitely not out of place because activism is an important aspect of this particular flag.
• The content of the 'symbolism' section is likely a copyright violation. I suggest reducing it to less than a quarter of its current length and rewriting it.
• While it is fine to make it clear that this flag is the 'snow lion flag', it is fairly unambiguously accepted as the 'flag of tibet' and there is no reason to qualify that statement in the first sentence. The genesis of the flag, as well as the fact that it is the 'snow lion' flag is clearly presented at the end of the first section.
• I'm not sure why the external link http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xt.html was removed, its inclusion seems appropriate.
• The use of "allegedly" in describing the flag in the lead is unwarranted. The symbolism section (removed by quigley) clearly indicated that the description was from the government in exile website and unless a credible rival interpretation is available I would eschew the use of words that cast doubt. Rewriting that section briefly and leave the text that makes the source clear is the way to go on this.
• The use of "known to some as the Tibetan flag" seems dubious as well. It seems fairly clear that this is the Tibetan flag.
• I think it is ok to say that it is used to advance the tibetan independence movement. That seems fairly obvious. Though I suggest removing 'used by some' because I assume it is generally true that no activist uses any other flag. 'Used by some' would imply the existence of multiple competing flags that are used by independence activists which does not appear to be the case.
• Restructuring the "under the peoples republic" section into a "history" section is a good idea. The current version is clumsy. However, the "Decline" section introduced by quigley seems dubious. The text itself implies the opposite, that the flag has blossomed in use since the tibetan government in exile was formed so I'm not sure why the section is title decline (decline of what?). BTW, I looked through the referenced text by Patrick French and was unable to find support for the statement that Through the diaspora's and international protesters' use of the flag, the Snow Lion flag that was previously obscure in Tibet became known and used in protest by the Tibetan public. Also, the publication date of that book is 2003, not 2009. May I suggest inclusion of specific page numbers rather than the use of generic references?

Thank you for the patience during the delay in writing this third opinion. --rgpk (comment) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the deadline was pushed back to 1 February, there is no delay. Thank you for providing this full opinion. The major issue that I have with it is that Flags of the World has already been decisively written off as an unreliable source in general. If I have time I may read the rest. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags of the world is not used as a source in the article but rather was included as an external link. Were it used as a source, I'd agree with you. --rgpk (comment) 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo was using the title of the Flags of the world page to support the claim that this flag is referred to as the "Flag of Tibet", as opposed to "Tibetan flag". Quigley (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am concerned by how the third opinion begins as an opinion about the Tibetan independence movement, because the key dispute about this flag relates to how it was used in history. Also, many portions of the opinion do not consider or even acknowledge my arguments—I hope this oversight happened because the formatting was unclear, and not because of neglect. For example, you assert that "in this real world context", Tibetans "exist as an indigenous people". Yet I have documented what is already common knowledge to longtime observers of the Tibetan independence movement; that the designation of "indigenous people", which has different connotations and legal meanings than simply being native to an area, is not generally sought by or applied to the Tibetans.

• The string of contentious political opinions continues with the agency-stripping assertion that "Tibetan people... are assumed to subscribe to the goals of the Tibetan government in exile". That's the kind of language that the TGIE loves, but such a statement has no legitimacy. There are over 5.4 million Tibetans; the TGIE's own (probably inflated) numbers only indicate less than 130,000 Tibetans living outside of Tibet. How could a selection from this small and self-selected population represent, as you assert, "the political aspirations of a people"?

• This flag is not "unambiguously accepted as the 'flag of tibet'". First of all, the only flag that flies over Tibet is the Five Star Red Flag. And from the moment of the flag's inception, the flag's status was disputed; even the Dalai Lama, as one of my changes showed, considered it to be an army flag. It has been called a "Tibetan flag", reasonably so because it is used by ethnic Tibetan emigrants, but "Flag of Tibet" implies that it is or was an official state flag, which it is not and was not. I do not want to call it the Tibetan flag, because as some of the text I have added has shown, Tibetans have used the Chushi Gangdruk flag to protest, and even today wave the PRC's own flag during protests.

• The word "allegedly", which might have a negative connotation, can be replaced with "According to the Tibetan Government in Exile", but it should not go unqualified, because this TGIE, which was created in 1960, is speaking about a flag that they themselves did not create, and which has no description set in law.

• As I have said, there are variations on the descriptions of the symbolism, if you will compare the text on the TGIE's website with Pierre C. Lux-Wurm's earlier description in Flag Bulletin, via Flags of the World [Note: although the original research by FOTW's volunteers is discredited; this is directly from the authorities that they quote]. The changes are extremely interesting.

• Inventing a tradition of tolerance to non-Buddhists [despite historical persecution of Christian missionaries and present tensions with Muslims]. Prof. Lux-Wurm: "The yellow border is not a mere ornamentation. It indicates the spread of the golden ideals of Buddhism. But, as I was told, the fact that it only covers three sides of the flag is due to a practical observation: the fly of the flag is left free because, when waving, the cloth gets rid of dust or snow." TGIE: "Furthermore, the side without a yellow border represents Tibet's openness to non-Buddhist thought."

• Erasing ethnocentrism. Lux-Wurm: "The white triangle at the bottom is a snowy mountain and represents the geographical location of Tibet in the heart of the Asiatic continent." TGIE: (no mention)

• Erasing theocracy. Prof. Lux-Wurm: "The two lions (in white, with green manes and tails) symbolize the twin system of the temporal and spiritual rule or, in other words, harmony between religious and earthly government." TGIE: "On the slopes of the mountain a pair of snow lions stand proudly, blazing with the manes of fearlessness, which represent the country's victorious accomplishment of a unified spiritual and secular life. "

• It is well-known that the Dalai Lama and the TGIE are extremely savvy at tailoring the Tibetan independence movement to a Western vocabulary, using non-native concepts such as "self-determination" and "human rights". I would wager that the first two sources are more closer to the truth of the flag's symbolism and the TGIE's interpretation a revisionist interpretation to pander to the ideals of Western patrons. Now that we have at least one other source that describes the flag, we could retain a symbolism section that draws from all sources, rather than quoting and promoting the TGIE's interpretation as the sole and correct interpretation.

• The Patrick French quote comes from p. 230, "A protester had gone there and managed to pull down the Chinese flag from one of the tall flagpoles in the [Potala] square, and had started to raise the Tibetan flag in its place—the illegal flag with the snow lions and stripes, promoted by the exiles but now adopted inside Tibet as the mark of nationhood and protest—when he was spotted by a traffic cop." Additionally, the part of that sentence that said that the flag was "previously obscure in Tibet" was also supported by at least two previous references.

• There are some useful new suggestions in this opinion, such as to pursue the removal of the "stateless nations" gallery from the flag template, which I will, but this article's indirect inclusion on that template does not mean that this article needs to include that template. More pictures of the flag in activism, now that I think more about it, would be useful to accompany text about the flag's use today, for which we would have to write more.

• I presume that the changes not mentioned, such as documenting the flag's use in the Asian Relations Conference, are fine as-is. Quigley (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags of the World is NOT a reliable source

Flags of the World contains numerous factual, grammatical, and other errors, and some of the things in there are just plain wrong.

an example of plainly ridiculous claims, if not outright lies and outrageous grammar and spelling is found on the FTOW's page on the Xibei San Ma (China)

is not a reliable source since it is self published, and in addition to that, it is full of misinformation claiming that Ma Hongkui fled to turkey (in reality, he fled to taiwan, then the united states, he had zero connections with turkey). And ma bufang never proclaimed himself sultan. And the Qinghai was not ruled by Ma Bufang until 1937, the website says 1911, in addition, the grammer on the website is horrific, an example here- "together with his brother Ma Buqing, and has the power until 1950 when it fell to Saudi Arabia because of the communist advance." (would anyone mind explaining how the province "fell to Saudi Arabia", if the communists took over it?)

On the Ma Hongkui article, i have sources which explicitly say he fled to the UNITED STATES and he did not set one foot in turkey'. Go look at the references on the article. In fact, i'll post them right here, which say Ma Hung-kwei (old romanization for Ma Hongkui) fled to formosa, and then to San Francisco in the USA.[3][4][5][6]

In addition, his entries at the rulers . org website note that he moved to america, not turkey

On the FTOW website, it claims Ma Hongbin was proclaimed sultan of ningxia in 1912. since reliable sources on the Ma Hongbin article note he was a suboordinate commader in his uncle Ma Fuxiang's army, how he got promoted to sultan? His entry at the rulers website indicate he was a military officer, never a "sultan", of a "sultanate", which never existed in real life. NO entries for "ma hongbin sultan" come up on google books if you just type in "ma hongbin", numerous sources will say he was a provincial governor and general, and say nothing about sultan

the entry contains numerous spelling errors, like Taso Tsung Tang, which should be Zuo Zongtang, "first months of 1878 chine completed the conquest", should be, "first months of 1878 china completed the conquest", "Tu Wen Hsiao", should be Du Wenxiu or Tu Wen Hsiu, according to proper chinse romanization

this whole sentence from the entry is just atrocious in spelling and grammar- "Yakub Beg was born in Kokand and was send to East Turkestan by Kokand Khan acompanying to burzurg Khan kodja in 1865 and with conquered the last Chinese positions"

Also this totally made up, non existent claim was posted on the FTOW entry- "The last sultanate that I know of is Kweichow - that seems that has a white flag. The sultanate also was born from a Muslim revolt directed by the sect of White Lotus."

I didn't know that the Budhist White Lotus sect was really into directing muslim revolts, especially in alleged "sultanate" of Guizhou province (kweichow is an old romanization of guizhou), which never existed.Дунгане (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent massive replacement of "Snow Lion" with "Tibetan"

@Some IP: Considering that in the vast majority of cases, "Snow Lion Flag" and "Tibetan flag" are equivalent, your changes were (no offence to you yourself) downright pointless and distracting. Wording such as "Few Tibetans knew about the Tibetan flag" is utterly idiosyncratic. You have not provided a reason for your changes, and "more well-known as..." is not a reason because we have made it clear, at the very beginning of this article, that the two are equivalent. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is perhaps one of the last things you wanted to hear after that nasty dispute, in which I was there only to troll Kintetsu, not to make substantive changes on something I know little about, but it is what it is. I don't think there is a point in massively, without explanation, replacing "Snow Lion" with "Tibet" when this article has already clearly established that the two are equivalent. Conversely, others may argue that my reverting was equally pointless, but one should note that many of the replacements are wordier and, as I put it, "idiosyncratic". Thanks much --HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is to push the POV that (1) the Snow Lion Flag was a state flag, and not a military flag; (2) the Snow Lion Flag has some legitimate historical basis rather than being a CTA invention, and that ultimately (3) the Snow Lion Flag is The flag of Tibet (Tibet-under-illegal-occupation, the implication is), regardless of the fact that it has no official basis there. You are right in that the blanket changes result in illogical and anachronistic constructions. However, Snow Lion Flag and Tibetan flag are not equivalent (nevermind "Flag of Tibet"; we established before that this was not used in the reliable sources). There are many flags used in Tibet, past and present (including the 1920–1925 one shown on the page), and this article only refers to one. You could probably concede "Tibetan flag" on the caption and the Wangye conversation, as it would only be a accommodating a POV shift, but to change both the "members of the public" sentence and the CTA adoption sentence really bends over backwards to defy logic, so they should stay as they are. Quigley (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of this, if you disagree with me anywhere, I will not re-revert, as, I said above, I do not know as much as I would like to on this subject... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't take what I said as an endorsement of the IP's actions; if you didn't revert the changes, I would have (but much later; I am a slow editor). Disengaging from edit wars is always good for your stress levels, but please don't do it on account of disagreements with me: I'm not Li Hongzhi after all; I'm fallible! It is the philosophy of many editors to preemptively revert and to ask editors to justify their changes on the talk page in advance; it is just not my philosophy. Quigley (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The article is called Flag of Tibet. So the flag would be the Tibetan Flag.--121.220.41.102 (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it did not occur to you to click on the "discussion" on that page. And so what...the article is called that? Quigley, I, and many other users have the power to change the article title. You don't.

And I don't see how you cannot read what Quigley said. It is like the ROC. Commonly (falsely) known as Taiwan today, but it was the real ruler of the mainland for 37 years before Chiang was defeated. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with having "Snow Lion Flag" as the main form used in this article. "Tibetan flag" might be acceptable as an alternative to avoid repetitiveness, but I think "flag of Tibet" pushes a POV because it implies some kind of official status. That would also mean that the title of this article would change.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Work it out

Discuss/work it out here please. There was a substantial amount of disruption going on so I have protected the page fully for 3 days. Please discuss the differences, get dispute resolution if you need it, but just resolve the issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will copy parts of the conversation I had with Quigley onto this talk page. But firstly, as a (presumably) outside viewer, is it not your responsibility to revert to the reversion before any edit warring occurred? I didn't challenge that rationale once Kintetsu, who I am on ill terms with, cited it, so... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

if the "exile government" does not exist, how can it be the flag of tibet?

according to the dalai lama... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XlgfSgIeI so how can it be a national/government flag? rather if he establish that the CTA is an NGO entity, shouldn't it be call an organisation flag? Akinkhoo (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

7th-century standard?

The image captioned "7th century snow lion standard of the Tibetan Emperor, Songtsen Gampo" is a modern rendition of an image found on this web-page, captioned "Ancient lion standard – courtesy of Tenzin.G.Tethong and AMI". The text on that page (an historical piece about Tibetan independence) includes "According to an eminent vexillologist, Professor Pierre Lux-Worm, the national flag of Tibet was based on an older 7th century snow lion standard of the Tibetan Emperor, Songtsen Gampo. [18]" but does not say "as shown above" or anything similar. There are no footnotes on that web-page but the piece appears on several other sites including this one which does have the footnote "18. Lux-Wurm, Pierre C. “The Story of the Flag of Tibet.” Flag Bulletin: Vol. XII – No. 1. Spring 1973." The modern image was created by Jkwchui who picked up a request at WP:GL/I.

I don't have access to Flag Bulletin - does anyone else? Without it, can we be confident that the original image is a picture of a 7th century object or a even a later version of it? That is, can we assume the text refers to that image when it does not do so explicitly? NebY (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

First published reference

@NickdiPrima: is the claim that Teichmann's description is "the first published reference" a verifiable claim for which you will provide reliable sources? Remember, your own research wouldn't be good enough unless it had been published and qualified as a reliable source in accord with Wikipedia's requirements. Also, Teichmann appears to be describing a known earlier flag but not the same flag, so it's not clear why you say Teichmann describes "the" flag. Why insist on that? NebY (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@NickdiPrima: will you provide sources for either (a) the claim that Teichmann's description is the first published or (b) the claim that he's describing the same flag that is the subject of the article and not one of the earlier flags or banners shown in the article's illustrations? NebY (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We still have no evidence that this is the first published reference to the flag discussed in this article. We still have no evidence that it's even a reference to that flag; indeed, it's described as yellow with a sun and moon in the corner. I've pulled that claim and integrated the remaining text into the article. NebY (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)