Talk:Serfdom in Tibet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Tibet. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Section header

This article still needs editing and more information. Thanks for your input. Foxhunt99 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I rather see this article completely rewritten or deleted altogether. The tone reveals that the author is out to make a point about the current status of Tibet, not illuminate the history of Tibet.--Amban (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The author mentioned no current status of Tibet at all. It is just some history that some people choose to forget. I am glad that it is here. It does needs a bit more editing, the tone is fine. Guox0032 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? A single edit account that is three days old if I were the judge.--Amban (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to be balanced, this article needs give a more complete picture of Tibetan society. For instance, the article fails to me mention the fact that Melvyn Goldstein shows that not all serfs were destitute, but could amass considerable wealth and even own their own land. Furthermore, in the book that Charles Bell points out that slavery in the Chumpi valley, were of a comparatively mild type. Finally, I do not think Anna Louise Strong can be quoted as a scholarly and neutral authority on Tibetan society. It is up to those who want to keep the article to improve it, I will propose its deletion if nothing happens.--Amban (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On what page did Goldstein say that, I will look into it. Anna Louise Strong's report is well known in Tibet history studies. Guox0032 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On page 5 in Goldstein's History of Modern Tibet. Also read his article from 1971.--Amban (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] torture

I know there are torture chambers used by slave owners (lamas), and there are pictures of those, I would like to see some of those. 98.240.20.14 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are pictures on the web, google it. 129.59.150.62 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article seems to be sourced entirely from Parenti, Tom Grunfeld, and Anna Louise Strong. Of these three, only Grunfeld is a serious historian of Tibet, and his biased attitude toward the subject is well-known. Parenti and Strong should not be cited at all in an encyclopedia.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have to disagree. Parenti is a well known historian as well, and Anna Louise Strong's book give much more insight that a normal historian can't because she was there at the time when it happened. Plus she is a third party, not from Tibet or China. Foxhunt99 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Grunfeld is indeed a serious historian, but as many reviewers of his book has noted, he has not made any use of Tibetan language sources whatsoever, neither has he availed himself sufficiently of Chinese language sources. Another egregious omission is his complete failure to interview Tibetans on their own society. As for Parenti, what can I say? As far as I can tell, he has no credentials in either Chinese or Tibetan history. If no improvement of this article takes place soon, I will nominate it for deletion.--Amban (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It comes to what you are trying to dispute, the existence of serfdom and slavery, or the source? I don't think there is any doubt that serfdom or slavery existed in old Tibet. If you want to argue to what degree were the serfdom and slavery then I can understand. Most the Tibetan in exile won't talk about this, a lot of the sources about the serfdom and slavery was obtained by Chinese, but I don't think if I used any publication from the Chinese would convince you anyway. Only source would work here is from third parties like Anna Louise Strong. 129.59.8.10 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Tsering Shakya's book was quoted, Tsering Shakya is a Tibetan, who escaped from communist government. His view is probably biased. If you can use a Tibetan source, there are plenty Chinese source to be found too. I think it is best we use third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.8.10 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RV

If someone wants to do a RV, please give a reason, I don't think POV is a reason, how about why you think it is POV. Guox0032 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute what?

I have some people who are trying to dispute this article. I like to make something clear first. The only purpose of this article is to show that slavery and serfdom existed in old Tibet, it is not about if Chinese government invaded Tibet to free them or enslave them or any other political ideas. It is meant to provide some evidences about this part of history which is not commonly known. Foxhunt99 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is meant to denigrate and demean the Tibetan people before the period of Chinese occupation. The article, its contents and all of its references are all in flagrant violation of NPOV and if all that material were removed, this article would be little more than a sentence long. There is no reason to have any of this information in a seperate article outside of Tibet except to use it as a platform to try to justify the Chinese invasion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I never tried to justify Chinese invasion. This is a history article, it shows part of history. Why are you so against this. You say all the references are all in flagrant violation of NPOV, but why? You need to give a reason, is any of the author who wrote the source books a proven liar? I don' think you can prove it. Many of the pro-Tibet source are from Tibet historian only, I tried to only use western historians, not Chinese historians as source, yet you claim it is a NPOV problem. If some people pointing out something you don't agree, then it is a good thing, if everyone agree with you, then why do we even need NPOV rule? Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And please be reasonable, if you read the article carefully, it present 2 sides, one side saying serfs and slave were treated badly, the other saying serfs and slaves condition were not as bad as it seems. It is presented in both ways. If you really have some other concerns I will gladly to address them. Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can explain this edit, where you removed information that questions the view of China as liberators. As for the "western" sources you quoted, each of those people are known sympathizers of communist China and they are very likely to have opinions which closely align themselves with the communist Chinese government. Anna Louise Strong, who is quoted extensively in this article, campaigned vigorously on behalf of communist China during her life. Her writing on Tibet is therefore highly suspect and cannot be included here since it is not neutral.

This part was edit out, probably because it has nothing to do with serfdom. After 1960, many things happend, cultural evolution etc. Many areas of China suffered poverty and other human rights issues, not just Tibet. That quote was also from a Tibetan author was escaped from communist rule, as you stated, source from communist sympathizer are biased, but something from a Tibetan historian is not. This article has avoid citing many sources from Chinese historian, same should apply to Tibetan historian. Also Tomas Laird, Melvyn C. Goldstein are pro-Tibetan. You can't just pick and choose which source you like. Even some of the authors are communist sympathizers, that doesn't mean their word is any lesser reliable than a pro-Tibet historian. Anna Louise Strong may have only see the good side of communist party, but her interview with the locals provide some insight aspect of this part of history. Guox0032 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also more sides to this than the two you've trade to frame here. It isn't a question of saying "serfs were treated badly" and others saying "serfs aren't treated as poorly," but more of a question of whether there were serfs, to what extent where they use and by whom, comparisons with other feudal socities and historical context of Tibetan feudalism. Conditions of the serfdom are only a minor factor in all of that. Instead of going to those lengths, however, you've attempted to use this article to assail the government and people of Tibet as slaveowners and vicious feudal lords. This topic also does not need to have this article created, since you've said little beyond the bounds of what you wrote in Tibet. If I do not see improvement soon I'll nominate this article for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a section based on Melvyn C. Goldstein's book, he argued how Tibet serfdom was different compare to European's. And he said Tibetan serfs sometimes were not bound by land, but I think either you or someone edit it out. I have to look for it again. And in this article, there is no mention tha Tibetan government were slave owners, in fact, did you read about one comment that slavery was mild in certain area? Guox0032 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I put the Melvyn C. Goldstein's section back, actually he claimed serfs can obtain certain degree of personal freedom. I don't know why you want to edit out something to suppor your view. Guox0032 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: first if you're trying to make a case that you aren't a sockpuppet of Foxhunt99, it would be less obvious if you didn't respond to questions posed to that account after logging into the other. Secondly, the sources you mentioned had tags on them requesting verification and many of them had been altered or removed as being either unsupported or nonexistant by User:Amban. You or your sockpuppets reverted those edits and replaced the bad sources, so the only claims you have that are truly being supported here are those by Anna Louise Strong, whose bias is so great it may be discounted or disqualified under WP:FRINGE. Once again, if these concerns are not remedied (and I don't see how they could be), I will seek to have this article deleted or merged with Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading some Tibetan articles in Wiki, and back track some of this one’s editing.

I fail to see your reasoning, Cumulus Clouds. It seems you are judging the quality of the sources based on your personal preference. You claim “so the only claims you have that are truly being supported here are those by Anna Louise Strong”, but that is not the case, after reading this article, there are obviously a lot more than just Anna Louise Strong. Melvyn Goldstien, Michael Parenti, Gelder, Charles Bell, Tomas Laird. Charles Bell was another westerner who traveled to Tibet himself, so did, Tomas Laird, Gelder, and Epstein. If you could claim Anna Louise Strong to be biased, then why not claim all pro-Tibetan sources to be biased too? Easymem (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, checkuser requests will come up with all accounts related to the IP of the puppet master. Just because you've created a new user account after the request was put in doesn't mean it won't register. Your best bet is to remain logged in to one account until they decide whether to block you or not. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be desperate that no one share the same bias as you? Easymem (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

haha, I could say the same to you, my friend. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are getting nowhere Cumulus Clouds, last time I checked, you were being checked at one time too. Foxhunt99 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true, I was. That request came up negative. We'll wait and see how yours turns out, I guess. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait.Foxhunt99 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

This article is irredeemably incoherent and should be deleted.--Amban (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any examples of incoherence. The topic is critical and has been the topic of scholarly sources. I don't understand your objections at this point and have removed the prod tag.--Gimme danger (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a fringe article written by a single party to advance their own biased point of view. The sources are either unverified or highly biased, to the point of being outwardly unreliable. The original title of the article -Slavery in Tibet- should make the contents within it suspect, and even under a different name it still fails NPOV. It is unsalvageably unencyclopedic and should be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out specific instances of bias or unreliable sources so that I could try to correct them? --Gimme danger (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call to editors

I've put messages on both the Tibet and China WikiProject pages asking other editors to contribute to this article. If you've stopped by to contribute and see a specific task that needs completing, but don't have the time to do it yourself, please add it to the to-do list at the top of this page. Gimme danger (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

don't know how to use this to-do-list, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to add the Tibetan words for slave, serf etc. That is, unless we can be sure Tibetan feudal society was close enough to the feudal societies of Europe. Yaan (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lamas

which class did they belong too? serfs or aristocratic land owners? Yaan (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about lamas that did not live in the monasteries? Yaan (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to make a guess? Because either way I'll probably give you the same answer. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a quiz, but it certainly could be mentioned in the article. From what one hears here and there, lamas were a considerable part of Tibet's pre-"liberation" population, so it certainly would be interesting to know how they fit into that "the main classes were the serfs and the aristocratic land owners" stuff.

Also that "taking away the children" stuff is interesting. In Mongolia, children also were (and are) given away if the parents have difficulties raising them, but usually to relatives or comrades, not to the slave owner next door. IIRC this happened to one of Sükhbaatar's siblings. Danzanravjaa was given to a monastery when his father was unable to feed him anymore. ~~Choibalsan may be a similar story, but I don't know for sure.~~Tsedenbal's eulogy for Choibalsan held in 1945, published in 1951, translated in Urgunge Onon/Owen Lattimore, Mongolian Heroes of the Twentieth Century, New York 1976, says Choibalsan was sent to the monastery out of piety. Yaan (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there is nothing to suggest the Tibetan Lamas were either. You're taking very literally the information in this article and treating as if it were factually accurate. It is not. That "main class were the serfs..." stuff is also highly inaccurate and there are no reliable sources to back up that information. Nothing within the section about child slavery has been verified either. So right now you don't need to worry about clarifying or expanding those sections because they are so poorly written and sourced. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you are just not getting my point. Don't you think the status(es) of lamas shold at least be mentioned in an article like this? Yaan (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my issues and related sources

I find this article wholely problematic, because it lacks proper context for discussing wealth and power inequities in the larger socio-economic situation in that region or as it relates to agrarian and nomadic economics generally. Instead it focuses on power inequity to such a degree as to lose it's context. If we already had articles on the socio-economics of that region through different periods, and there were enough material to then expand beyond that, i could then see articles focusing on specific kinds of inequity. But without the larger context first, this shows up for me as merely a way to denigrate a culture.

yet even if that was possible, i'm not sure there is enough material specifically about Tibet that is not really about socio-economics of agrarian and nomadic tribalism generally in asia. In the following paper, Di Cosmo discusses different views on that tribalism as "feudalism" or not in nearby Mongolian steppe cultures and I think the lack of consensus over whether that term is appropriate also applies to Tibet just as well.

Di Cosmo, Nicola, State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History Journal of World History - Volume 10, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp. 1-40

but then drawing the comparison between western feudalism and asian structures is also wholely problematic, this article points out the different ways of looking at the two systems and why the comparisons are so problematic and the term might not fit. I highly recommend it, he discusses economic, racial, class, statehood, and process effects and argues against using the feudalism ontology more widely:

Barendse, R. J. The Feudal Mutation: Military and Economic Transformations of the Ethnosphere in the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries Journal of World History - Volume 14, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 503-529

given that, if this article does survive the delete discussion about it, I'd suggest putting significantly greater context in so it's clear this is not just a Tibetan phenomenon but merely a Tibetan instance of a more general situation and one that has aspects that continue even today. we'd need to include discussions of slavery and power inequity in the region generally for comparison, from children and women pressed into the sex trade (which is occurring to many thousands each year in china even today), even historical foot binding, to modern worker inequities in Chinese factories which by UN standards were described recently as bonded servitude or slavery violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See:

Chan, Anita. Labor Standards and Human Rights: The Case of Chinese Workers Under Market Socialism Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 20, Number 4, November 1998, pp. 886-904

also:

Paddle, Sarah. The Limits of Sympathy: International Feminists and the Chinese 'Slave Girl' Campaigns of the 1920s and 1930s Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 4, Number 3, Winter 2003 - Article
Kent, A. E. (Ann E.) China and the International Human Rights Regime: A Case Study of Multilateral Monitoring, 1989-1994 Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 17, Number 1, February 1995, pp. 1-47

We'd also need to include more background into tribal history and diversity of economic systems across tribal regions. But that might not yet be possible, because so little is known or recorded. The records were not nearly as centralized nor systematized as say in Beijing at that same era for comparison. I can find some discussion of specific regions, ruled by different tribal chieftans but not with specific details about how land and labor was managed, such as:

Dai, Yingcong. The Qing State, Merchants, and the Military Labor Force in the Jinchuan Campaigns Late Imperial China - Volume 22, Number 2, December 2001, pp. 35-90

According to that source, it seems that tribal obligations included providing laborers or military to various invading forces or more powerful nearby regions to keep the peace. This is, I think, pretty common in tribal (non-state based) pre-industrial society and not something specific to Tibet. Is that an example of serfhood and feudalism? Doesn't seem Tibetan particularly to me. If we went that far, we might as well for comparison mention how the poor chinese were treated like serfs in 19th century america:

Jung, Moon-Ho, Outlawing "Coolies": Race, Nation, and Empire in the Age of Emancipation American Quarterly - Volume 57, Number 3, September 2005, pp. 677-701

but as i mentioned earlier, using serf and feudalism ontologically in this way is misleading. in my opinion putting the socio-economics in context and taking more care with the ontology of terms just makes it all the more obvious that this is less something specific to or worth highlighting about Tibet and its various tribes and ethnic groups. Doing so puts wealth and power inequities there too out of context and tries to make a pejorative point about Tibet or Tibetans that is not neutral nor warranted. But if we started instead an article like Socio-economics of Tibet and discuss that more generally, framed by the different historical periods and tribal situations, it would be a truly different article to undertake. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Better, Socio-economics of pre-industrial Central Asia since these features are really about the whole region. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am for keeping it focused on Tibet, and maybe even keeping some feudalism-related title, or maybe something like Society in pre-modern Tibet. I have not read any of the articles you mention, but the fact alone that some societies are agrarian, while others are nomadic, and that some (Tibetan Buddhists) have a rather big monastic sector while others (Muslims) don't, leads me to believe that there are sufficient differences to look into each society on its own. I agree this article should focus on Tibet's pre-modern society, not on similar structures that may exist in Tibet or elsewhere today. Yaan (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:thanks for your input Owlmonkey, but I don't know if this one will survive, it has been edited by Cumulus Clouds greatly, most of the sources are out. Do you believe that if a source says "serfs or slavery existed in Tibet" then the source is unreliable like what Cumulus Clouds says? All the things you mentioned can be fixed, but the problem is Cumulus Clouds denies the existence of serfs, even giving him all the resources. I don't know how to convince him.Centrallib (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry for the wordy replies. even though the question was struck for being banned, this is a large topic for me. with respect to slavery: is there anywhere that slaves did not exist if we go back far enough in time? i'm not sure there's enough agreement that it is a notable feature of Tibetan history compared to everywhere else. and slavery is still a worldwide problem, in particular of children and the sex industry. so then what's the point being made specifically about Tibet? Describing scholarship for how slavery was viewed and the timeline for it's discouragement in comparison to the rest of the world might be interesting and more neutral, but we'd need to find that scholarship first. But to just say that there were slaves there at some point is meaningful how? i suspect it's coming up because of a mythology in popular culture that tibet was some sort of shangri-la: which is just mythology. Or that the religious ideals of Buddhism would have magically trumped the social and political reality to create a shangri-la, also a silly idea though seemingly in popular culture.

Similarly, making points about power inequity in agricultural regions of Tibet is interesting but a blanket statement characterizing the entire region as feudal is probably incorrectly applying a European ontology onto a different situation: it ignores nomadic tribes (where there is no "land owner" at all), kingdoms that were not under any central authority (necessary for a uniform "system" to be imposed by the nation or state), and generally tries to draw a comparison of the social systems there with Medieval Europe instead of discussing what it really was like there (it's starting with the metaphor instead of with the facts basically).

A scholarly comparison between poor people and legal systems in Asia and Europe is interesting for sure, and in those I do find some scholars using the term serf. For example, Christopher Isett in Village Regulation of Property and the Social Basis for the Transformation of Qing Manchuria (Late Imperial China - Volume 25, Number 1, June 2004, pp. 124-186) uses the term to discuss Manorial-bound labor in Manchuria in the 17th century. That seems to much more closely match the European situation and character, but that was not universal to China as a whole. Goldstein in Serfdom and Mobility uses the term serf when discussing nomadic tribes in Tibet but he as much uses the term to discuss tribal obligation as to detail how it was really unlike European feudalism with greater mobility and not based on agricultural obligations. I'm not sure how he can really use the term "serf" then but he's contrasting the term by using it? I find the term serf probably as skewed as the idyllic mythology of monasticism, because of a pejorative tone in English that is deep in the collective European and English language psyche. It implies slavery and complete bondage, not necessarily tribal association and obligations. My guess is it is chosen for slight shock value more than for accuracy. Wei-chin Lee in The Courage to Stand Alone: Letters from Prison and Other Writings (review) (China Review International - Volume 6, Number 2, Fall 1999, pp. 550-553) for example uses "serfdom" not to describe pre-modern Tibet but to criticize the modern, soviet-style socialism that was imposed upon Tibet. Wei writes of Chinese communism as, "nothing more than a hybrid of Western serfdom and Asian bureaucratic commercialism, which ends up being the type of feudal socialism that Marx once said was still ‘tattooed on rear ends’". He seems to use the term as more a pejorative criticism than a neutral, scholarly comparison to European social systems. But the pejorative usage is something we need to avoid to be encyclopedic.

Maybe using the Tibetan terms would be better, and then comparing them to European or other socio-economic systems for similarity and differences would be more neutral. But the article would then be more about how they are and also are *not* serfs in the European sense, and the article's title and topic would need to change. We might want to make comparisons to the Indian caste system, nomadic societies and tribal obligations in the Middle East and Africa, Chinese and Russian land ownership and poverty, etc. to show the range of land ownership systems and how societies relate to poverty and production. But generally we need to take care in comparing a European view of socio-economics and trying to stamp it onto the Central Asian situation or we start off on the wrong foot, as well as care in comparing different time periods and cultures out of context. If this article was titled "Caste systems of Tibet" it would have similar problems. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

It is important to maintain civility (WP:CIVIL) in all discussion. It is a necessity for writing good articles; which, in Wikipedia, is a group project. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you have something specific in the discussion above you were referring to? - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the subject of this article is close to the heart of some editors involved in writing the article. Because of that, it is for them easy for them to assume the bad faith editors who want to include material that seems contrary to their personal beliefs. In such situations there probably is no real solution; and the best that can be hoped for is that all editors will act fairly, and that all editors will maintain civility. There is no getting around the simple fact that editing Wikipedia is a group project, and that we must at least try to get along. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the concept and ethos. I'm just curious if you were referring to anything in particular to my analysis above — or to something else earlier in the discussion — but in particular if you had a concern with my comments since you started this section just below my comments. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am always at a loss at how to deal with an editor like Cumulus Clouds, who thinks that he/she has a right (responsibility?) to delete any material thought unworthy of the subject [1], or [2]. I could continue to try to explain how neutrality is achieved in an article by a variety of sources, but Cumulus Clouds does not seem interested, and I hate getting pulled into a situation where the choice seems to be between letting one editor control an article, or getting involve in an edit war. Any suggestions? In my view, in addition to civility problems, the editing of Cumulus Clouds amounts an effort to establish ownership of the article WP:OWN. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that doesn't strike me as a particularly civil thing for you to say. Your attempts at forum shopping for your POV aren't especially appreciated either. You've insisted on including a handful of obviously biased sources so you can push your agenda here and then you insist it's incumbent upon everyone else to provide countersources as a way to even out your POV. This is just as easily done by removing your POV entirely and eliminating any sources which give undue weight to a particularly biased field of view. This includes both Israel Epstein and Michael Parenti. You're not really interested in adhering to those guidelines, however, so you just readd the quotes from Epstein anytime they're removed and then come here and complain that I'm owning this article. If you expect some degree of civility from others, you should first demonstrate some degree of civility yourself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to move the article toward more balance. You have consistently attacked, and removed, all sources that are contrary to your POV. I have made no attempt to remove any sources at all, and would encourage you to add even more that contradict Parenti, etc. If you have good sources that can show that Tibet before 1950 was a heaven on earth, please add them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Without sources contradicting Epstein et al, we're simply left with silence on one side versus claims on the other. Generally when a theory is disputed there are sources refuting it. I could come up with sources that say the earth is flat, but it wouldn't take more than one page of a google search to find a preponderance of sources on the other side. If this is really a fringe theory as you claim, Cumulus, it will be trivial to come up with opposing sources. I'll see if I can pull anything up on the social situation pre-20th century from what I have laying around in scholarly books, but I won't be able to do any specific research until after finals. Gimme danger (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole claims vs. silence argument is exactly why this article needs to be deleted. There are no sources from opposing viewpoints because this is a POV being taken only by one side to further their agenda. Both of you keep insisting that it's everyone else's responsibility to find contradicting sources, but since there are none, this article fundamentally violates NPOV. If you yourselves can't find opposing sources to balance out your own POVs, the article needs to be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Clouds. You are the one who insists that one point of view is over-represented, so the burden is on you to present the point of view which you think is under-represented. You're trying to suppress the topic altogether, and you will not succeed. If the facts and published research support your point of view, then you have to do the homework to get them into the article. WP policy supports that. Bertport (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Epstein

Is far as I know, membership in the Communist Party does not disqualify Israel Epstein as a good source. It would not be proper to use him as the only source, but since there are other sources (and still more can be added), there should be no difficulty in obtaining balance in the article...as long as editors refrain from edit wars in an effort to enforce their views as the only possible valid views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to ignore his association with the communist party, but unfortunately this association put his report beyond the boundaries of a reliable source. He was very clearly trying to advance the agenda of the People's Republic. His comments are, therefore, about as useful as Goebbel's propaganda fliers in the Second World War. We don't use those as sources and we shouldn't use this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A controversial topic is not covered by excluding all non-neutral sources. We present the assertions of the various sources and identify their agendas. Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is a good model to follow for this article. Bertport (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds, all sources come with a POV, and having a POV is allowed (and assumed) for sources.... but not for Wikipedia articles (WP:NEU, WP:POV). Articles achieve neutrality by including sources with a variety of different views on the subject. So, if you think the article is not balanced, the solution is to include other sources, and not deleting the sources you personally do not like.

Also I want you to refrain from accusations, (such as, "I'm sure you would like to ignore his association with the communist party...") that I am editing in bad faith, because that is incivil and violates Wikipedis standards (WP:CIVIL). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any other sources available to present on this issue. So including a report from a member of the Chinese Communist party gives undue weight to those assertions without providing any alternative. Thus we have an article which is now, and probably always will be, biased towards the views of the communist Chinese. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to quote WP:CIVIL to me anymore, I'm familiar with the protocol and I know when I've violated it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did oppressive “feudal serfdom” exist in Tibet before the Chinese arrived?

For more details and discussion on this very controversial subject, please see the notes under this heading on the Talk:History of Tibet page. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources

I was asked to comment. Frankly, I agree with a good deal of Parenti's view of the situation,. But he's no more a reliable source than I am. There are I hope better sources for that point of view. They have to be published sources, not someone blog. DGG (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::see correction below

Michael Parenti is a respected scholar in social science and history who has published twenty books [3]. In his WP article, one of his specialties mentioned is issues of class and power, and fudalism would certainly fall within that area of interest. [4]. I think he easily qualifies as as source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At the same time though, he's not necessarily an expert on Tibetan... whatever you like to call it, feudalism. The title here is problematic in that the social structure in pre-modern Tibet isn't entirely analogous to Western feudalism. Parenti is probably just as much out of his league talking about Tibet as an expert on Victorian Era women's dress would be talking about Tibetan fashion. Not that we can't use him for now, but I think the goal of this article should be to phase out non-expert sources, at least non-expert Western sources. We'll have to use dead-tree sources, but at least we can get the full picture of scholarship on the topic. Dealing with Chinese and Tibetan sources will be a bit trickier. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Parenti's article well sourced, and his very extensive references include Melvyn C. Goldstein. The subject of serfdom is within his area of specialty, and he did his research. As for the feudal nature of Tibet before 1950, even writers who strongly support Tibetan Buddhism have discussed it in their books. I recall a number of such mentions in Lama Govinda's Way of the White Clouds, as well as by Nicholas Roerich (who considered himself much more a Buddhist than a Christian by the time of his Asian expeditions) who discusses some of the degraded nature and corruption of Tibetan society that he saw first hand [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

correction: Yes, he is a reputable commentator. But his unpublished essays are not reliable sources in the sense that his academic publications are. Second, he's is this field a general political commentator, not an academic, and makes no pretense and being unbiased. Of course, everyone who writes on this subject is probably biased somewhat. Perhaps we can quote him after all, if we make it clear it's an essay. But I'd still hope for better sources. Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I think his Wikipedia bio needs some work in the direction of objectivity, and rewriting the parts copied directly from his web site.

Concerning Melvyn Goldstein: since Goldstein is an anthropologist I fail to see how he is qualified to be used as a source on issues that are quite outside his specialty. Also, since Goldstein did not even complete graduate school until 1968 -- long after the 1950 Chinese invasion ended serfdom in Tibet -- anything he has to say about the conditions of Tibetan serfs can not be based on his field work (the foundational research method of anthropology), but his facts and conclusions must have been based on other methods than the ones he was actually trained to use. I am, as a result, considering removing those parts of the article that use Goldstein as a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

At least Goldstein speaks Tibetan, though, which IMO alone makes his contributions more valuable than most contribbutions of authors who have no grasp of the language. I'm afraid I don't really understand your point, though. Are you saying we cannot cite authors that did not experience their topics firsthand? Then we should probably remove from wikipedia anything that modern authors ever wrote about ancient history, or much of the stuff about physics. Yaan (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that I do not think Goldstein more qualified on the subject of serfs than Israel Epstein, or Michael Parenti...both of whom have been removed from the article as unqualified sources. We are going to have to apply a uniform standard, and not reject just those sources who show Tibet before 1950 as being a terrible place for serfs, while allowing the source that said it may not have been so bad for serfs. I would like to see a uniform standard, and Goldstein speaking Tibetan does not indicate superior knowledge about the conditions of serfs in Tibet at a time befor he had been there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course someone who is able to interview witnesses, has access to the primary sources etc., should be more qualified to comment on Tibet's history than someone who can not even help confusing the fourth and the sixth Dalai Lama. Wouldn't you think so? Yaan (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire system had been ended by the Chinese long before he got there. I am not saying he has no value as a source, just not more value than other sources that have been rejected. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are saying an author who confuses different Dalai Lamas that lived roughly a century apart, or Mongols and Chinese, one who has probably never interviewed Tibetans and is unable to access the primary sources in their original language, should be considered just as valuable as one who speaks Tibetan and has published several very well-received books on Tibetan history? Yaan (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather, you tell me what qualifies Goldstein has to write on economic exploitation of slaves and serfs, or on feudal economies, and social stratification under a theocratic government. All we get from Goldstein is that it may not have been so bad, or maybe not in certain sections of Tibet....all based on informants who were no longer serfs, and may never have been. The Chinese actually collected documentation that Goldstein goes not use, and which Free Tibet activist editors here want excluded from the article because (they say) communists are not allowed. What they really want excluded is information that shows just what a corrupt and exploitative society the Tibetans suffered under when it was ruled by its theocratic government -- a government that still exists in exile, but which is benign and beautiful now that it is without a country to harm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Rather, you tell me what qualifies Goldstein has to write on economic exploitation of slaves and serfs, or on feudal economies, and social stratification under a theocratic government." Is Parenti an economist or a sociologist? Yaan (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Parenti's degree is in Political Science, and it would have been natural if his studies included included work in economics and sociology.

But, before we go further with this discussion, I would like to know if you think that Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth is substantially correct in its discussion of the situation of Tibetan serfs, but with some historical errors; or if you think the substance of the article is incorrect? In other words are you trying to disqualify Parenti on points (because he does not know Tibetan, and the mixed up two different Dalai Lamas, etc), or are you prepared to show that Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth is defective in substance? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Parenti's discussion of the situation of Tibetan serfs is substantially correct. I do know that his discussion of Tibetan history has so substancial errors that, yes, it makes the text as a whole look like the product of shoddy research. And I am not going to sift through all his claims and sort out which ones are "substancially correct" and which are not.

But since you have tried to disqualify Goldstein on the point that he is just an anthropologist: Wouldn't it be equally "natural" that as a historian he also has a grasp of sociology and economics? Maybe we can get back to the beginning of the argument: What exactly is the reason we should treat Parenti's polemic about feudal Tibet as equally valuable as Melvyn C. Goldstein's 1971 paper? Yaan (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yaan, it is not the job of WP editors to decide what is the truth, but, rather, to write a balanced article. I do not see how the article can be balanced without some inclusion of Parenti. But discussing any of this is a waste of my time while Cumulus Clouds reverts every edit I make to the article (and you stand by without any effort to uphold WP neutrality). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Parenti belongs in the article for the same reason that http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=424 posts the Parenti essay and a rebuttal by Schrei (http://studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=425). As Schrei says, "I have chosen to dissect this thesis because it houses many of the common arguments presented by Chinese government propagandists on Tibet, as well as many of the arguments that modern day Marxists and Maoists regularly hurl at Tibet activists on internet chat rooms and at protests." This Wikipedia article should set forth representative arguments, and set them in sufficient context for readers to understand who says what, and why, and possibly to see how much validity there is in any pertinent POV. Sources do not have to be neutral, or perfect. In fact, on a controversial topic like this, it's pretty near impossible to find neutral sources. And on any topic under the sun, it's hard or impossible to find perfect sources. Bertport (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)