Talk:Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China

Proposed deletion

Propose deleting this article, since there is already a section that covers this topic under "political protests" in the article about self immolation. It might be easier to just up date that one....

There is enough content for an article on self-immolation in China as can be seen in the French Wikipedia aticle fr:Immolation de Tibétains depuis mars 2011.--Cattus ^talk 11:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

-Okie dokey then, We just have to translate and import it here then, whenever is convinent. Samcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

More sources: [1]

possible suggestions for this stub

cacttus, is it a good idea to list individual protestors?, and do you want just immolators (as in seriously injured, or only perished ones)? Will be working on this when I get a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend against it. As a general principle, Wikipedia is not a memorial service. Part of the motivation for copycat suicide is the desire for recognition and martyrdom, like that which these folks are getting from the extravagant processions, funerals, and press releases in Dharamsala and Geneva. However, the spirit of policies like BLP are clear: Wikipedia respects the privacy of even public figures and exhibitionists, and the standard for sources is higher than hearsay by advocacy groups (I am talking about those immolations not confirmed by Xinhua, or where details about names etc differ from it). Shrigley (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Geography and differences in autonomy legislation implementation

It's pretty hard to write about a topic when it's ongoing, because the activism tends to displace the dispassionate analysis. Originally I thought a good name for this article would be "Kirti monastery self-immolations" or "Aba county self-immolations", but then the copycats came out in force. Maybe some exciting development will again force us to broaden the scope of the title.

Once the flame dies down, a major element that historians will write (and already have written) about is the geography of the acts. Of course, some pundits have noted it has to do with the erosion of local identities - helped by the Chinese state with its unified "Five Provinces and Regions" curriculum - and the concurrent growth of pan-Tibetan nationalism since 2008. Wikipedia still lacks the vocabulary to describe this phenomenon, and could use articles like "pan-Tibetan nationalism", "Greater Tibet", and "Five Provinces and Regions".

However, a more interesting aspect of the geography is the difference in implementation of China's autonomy laws between the provinces, the unification and expansion of which is always trotted out as a solution to these extremist acts. This article could include more reactions from officials in Lhasa and Beijing, such as Padma Choling's boast that almost all of the self-immolations occurred outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), and that the one immolation within it came from a Qinghainese monk who traveled to the Tibetan capital for the express purpose of auto-pyrotechnics.

The Chinese government keeps records on the number of ethnic autonomy legislation that local governments pass, and these numbers bear out the fact that autonomous counties and prefectures are more "autonomous" than the regions, in terms of setting ethnic quotas and modifying the central government's laws. But if you prefer stirring anecdotes to authoritative data (as many critics of China's human rights situation do), I'll quote the report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's 2011 visit to Greater Tibet, Tibet: Seeking Common Ground on the Rooftop of the World.

Perhaps two million Tibetans live in Tibetan regions of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces in western China. These Tibetans mostly reside in Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures... On the last SFRC staff delegation to focus on Tibetan issues in 2002, staff found that Tibetans in these prefectures often enjoyed greater freedoms than those living inside the TAR, and also seemed to have more voice over their own affairs than those Tibetans in the supposedly "semi-autonomous" TAR.... China [might] learn from its own successes in parts of the Tibetan world, districts where it has afforded Tibetans greater latitude to manage their own affairs, and apply those lessons to the Tibet Autonomous Region itself.

If anyone could find some publication that tests or addresses the obvious hypothesis that follows from these facts (more autonomy = more Tibetan officials sympathetic to separatist activities = more self-immolations), it would be a very good addition to the article. Shrigley (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What the Dalai Lama said and didn’t say

The article stated that the Dalai Lama has praised the courage of those who self-immolate (present tense). This is incorrect and misleading. He praised those who DID this (past tense) for their courage because it doesn’t make sense and it would be insensitive to condemn them AFTER they self-immolated. The Dalai Lama does not at all praise a courage to self-immolate in general as the use of the present tense suggests. In fact the Dalai Lama has condemned such drastic means as hunger strike to death and self-immolation in 1998 when Thubten Ngodrup self-immolated. From the perspective of the Dalai Lama, he can neither condemn nor encourage self-immolation because to encourage it would be against the Buddhist teachings and it is also senseless because it doesn’t bring a positive change on the large scale or for a majority. He can also not condemn those who chose to give their lives for the freedom of Tibet in such a drastic manner. Actual, the Dalai Lama made this clear himself, when he said to the Hindu, that he wants to remain neutral. I added the respective passage to the article to make this more clear:

This is a very, very delicate political issue. Now, the reality is that if I say something positive, then the Chinese immediately blame me. If I say something negative, then the family members of those people feel very sad. They sacrificed their own life. It is not easy. So I do not want to create some kind of impression that this is wrong. So the best thing is to remain neutral. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3617428.ece

This passage is needed because the sentence given misleads the reader subtly about how the Dalai Lama thinks about it. It might be good also to add more external links than those who are linked. Here is for instance an three part interview with the director of TibetInformationNetwork:

• Self-immolations of Tibetans, an interview with Thierry Dodin Part 1: Why are Tibetans doing that?
• Part 2: Self-immolations and Buddhism
• Part 3: Reactions and Consequences

117.241.9.182 (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate representations and not really neutral

The text claimed, "The Dalai Lama has told an Australian journalist that self-immolations are acts of non-violence." However, he explicitly said in the past that he considers hunger strikes as acts of violence against one-self – in general it depends on the motivation if sth is considered violence or non-violence in Buddhism and Hinduism. You need to understand the meaning of ahimsa which basically means not to have the wish to harm. So, based on that doubt I checked the o-source. And as you can see, the Dalai Lama only said this when comparing self-immolations with using "bomb explosive". If you restrain from using bomb explosive (against others) and you 'only' burn yourself – with the intention not to harm others – then this could be included in the practice of non-violence because you don’t have the wish to harm others. Therefore, the claim is a type of a mis-respresentation of the context. To avoid this, I included now the full quote and and context. Here again:

LEIGH SALES: Since February, 2009 there've been more than 100 Tibetan self-immolations to oppose Chinese rule and policies. Does that mean that Tibetans are losing patience with non-violence?

DALAI LAMA: No. I think the self-burning itself on practice of non-violence. These people, you see, they easily use bomb explosive, more casualty people. But they didn't do that. Only sacrifice their own life. So this also is part of practice of non-violence. – http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3781436.htm Kt66 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Also the Stephen Prothero passage was not neutral and lacked balance. It said:

"Stephen Prothero stated that in a very real sense, blood of the victims is on Dalai Lama's hands."

But this is not neutrally put nor balanced. First of all Prothero didn’t use the term "victim" for "self-immolators", secondly its an opinion (of a Westerner), thirdly he was opposed by a Tibetan on the same CNN blog who was not quoted. This all together made the whole one-sided and not neutral. I changed that too. Kt66 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I added also an anthropologist voice to make it more neutral. Actual the article didn’t explain much and was one-sided in attributing "bloody hands" to the Dalai Lama… French anthropologist Katia Buffetrille comments:

During the hunger strike of Thubten Ngödrup in 1998, the Dalai Lama expressed his disagreement with this kind of practice, which he considered as violence against oneself. However, he cites often Gandhi, for whom hunger strike was a non-violent act. He expressed his admiration for the courage of these people and attended prayers for them. But he questioned the effectiveness of such actions, he said, [these actions] lead to increased repression. Now he does not want to say anything about this [topic] any more..

Kt66 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Reverting edits by an anonymous editor.

The edits made by 2602:30A:C05F:B060:B9F5:3AAE:E2B2:527E (talk) are copied from [2]. -Mys_721tx (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Protests Rage Across Tibet as China Responds with Brute Force ~ Tibetan Clash with Chinese Troops in Lhasa as Unprecedented Unrest throughout Tibet 抗議怒火延燒西藏 - 圖博 而中國則以殘暴武力對付西藏 - 圖博人民.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Protests Rage Across Tibet as China Responds with Brute Force ~ Tibetan Clash with Chinese Troops in Lhasa as Unprecedented Unrest throughout Tibet 抗議怒火延燒西藏 - 圖博 而中國則以殘暴武力對付西藏 - 圖博|nomination page]]. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Second time editor reverted NYTimes RS on 156 self-immolations to date, as of July 2020, without justification or stated reason. Furthermore, ICT inline citation SOLID per RSN since Outside RS cites ICT and their Fact Sheet as previously explained. Editor seriously needs to examine what WP:HOUND describes. Reverting NYT, twice now, is NOT an example of good faith editing. Please stop @CaradhrasAiguo. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, Not only was NYT RS reverted twice, but the quotation from Outside RS was reverted twice. Again, if the RS info is disturbing to editor, then other pages may be more appropriate for editor's attention. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The above editor "seriously needs to examine" the outcome of the relevant RSN discussion on their partisan sources (the 'Free Tibet' source, seen in the paragraph In 2011, a wave here, is implicitly included), or risk an un-appealable site ban. @Valereee: CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Free Tibet is from another editor, which is very clear from edit history. Why would that simple fact not be clear before misrepresenting it?

Misrepresenting the edits also occurred at Chen Quanguo [3] which was not retracted as requested, as a sign of a good faith error on editor's part. There's no response from editor on the talk at all.

Another no-response from editor at talk is for Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture [4] which are also not signs of good faith, as per WP.

Due to those unanswered talks, I attempted to use revert reasons to get the message through "NYT is RS; Outsideonline is RS; Outsideonline refers to International Campaign for Tibet factsheet, which is included only as a reference NOT quoted. Repeated reverts by editor indicate a problem of editor, not of the RS nor the edits. Strongly recommend editor review status of NYTimes and Outsideonline at RSN. If editor has a problem, maybe editor should edit other pages. Undid revision 984179289 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk)". But, that didn't work either to build WP:CON.

NYT RS and Outside RS are not "partisan sources" @CaradhrasAiguo, not to Wikipedia and its RSN. And, the inline ICT is only their name in Wiki links, and a ref to the article Outside quotes. Period. Nothing else. Meets the RSN discussion.Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Time and place section

The ICT ref [5] has an incredibly well documented list thru to December 2019. Date, location, current status, links to sources. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)