User talk:Szupie

Welcome!

Hello, Szupie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hi. While editing, I've found a blockquote attributed to Radio France International, but cannot verify the text since it's included in their Chinese language program. The general statement from Tsering of Central Tibetan Administration is quite credible, but I'd like to verify the exact statement. Here's a copy of the text and RS: ^[1]

blockquote|First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan has been non-violent throughout. From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder.

If you are able to verify that the text is accurate, I'd really appreciate the effort. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasdecomplot: Yes, that is an accurate translation of part of the audio clip – specifically, from 6:20–7:07. szupie (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I'll link this to the page's talk. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for another clarification: Did you by chance happen to translate the question, to which this was the response? Apologies for asking. Best Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasdecomplot: Caveat: I’m not a native Mandarin speaker and I am not familiar at all with the background info around this, so I may have missed a couple words. But basically the host/reporter’s prompt was: “China has repeatedly questioned the Dalai Lama’s principle of non-violence, and if he really supported non-violence, then why didn’t he criticise/condemn the incident?” szupie (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again! Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ "西藏流亡政府回应北京的指控 (Tibetan Government-in-Exile respond to Beijing accusations)" (in Chinese). Radio France International. 2008-04-02.

[1] "西藏流亡政府回应北京的指控 (Tibetan Government-in-Exile respond to Beijing accusations)" (in Chinese). Radio France International. 2008-04-02.

[1]