Talk:1959 Tibetan uprising

Article POV

Despite the theme of the article being Tibetan, the article describe the entire event from Chinese perspective and fails to explain cause and effect of the event from the angle of Tibetan. Reader trying to understand the 5W1H of the event in term of Tibetan would left themselves confused after reading the article. C933103 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you read academic sources on the topic. This article does not reflect the official Chinese view at all. Applodion (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Khampa"

Regarding this edit, I accidentally pressed the "Enter" key which prematurely submitted my edit before I finished my edit summary. I removed the adjective "Khampa" from "Tibetan and Khampa protestors and militants", because to my understanding, the distinction is between Lhasa and Khampa Tibetans (i.e. Tibetans from Lhasa and Tibetans from Kham), not that Tibetans and Khampas are two different peoples (or more specifically, that the latter is not a subgroup of the former). CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: Actually, as far as I understand it, Khampa and Tibetans are (or at least were) related but distinct groups, although Tibetans have historically claimed that Khampa are just eastern Tibetans. The Khampa, for their part, fought against the Tibetans a lot in the early 20th century, as Tibet tried to impose its rule on Kham. At the time of the Battle of Chamdo, the Khampa actively aided the Chinese in defeating the Tibetan Army. Basically, the Khampa only started to regard themselves as Tibetans in the 1950s, when the Chinese policies drove them into rebellion. As everything related to Tibet, this is a problematic topic to say the least. Applodion (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the main issue is the lack of a proper "Chushi Gangdruk insurgency" article. The 1959 Tibetan uprising and Chushi Gangdruk's activities influenced each other, but were ultimately disctinct events with very different backgrounds. Perhaps the berst course of action would be to remove Chushi Gangdruk & its supporters from the infobox, and to remove the ethnic terms as well, and just write "Protesters and militants in Lhasa". Applodion (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion: I did not mean to restore the change to Chushi Gangdruk, although I also find its placement in the infobox odd no matter how it is displayed. Having just "Protesters and militants in Lhasa" is kind of odd though in my opinion, as similar articles are not as vague. If the infobox says "Lhasa, Tibet", then I do not think "in Lhasa" is necessary either. After reading your comment, I will not insist on removing "Khampa" from "Tibetan and Khampa protestors and militants", so we can conclude that matter. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: Ok. I think that the best course of action will be that I create an article for the Chushi Gangdruk insurgency, so we can remove them from the infobox here. Applodion (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Tibetan" is an ethnicity and "Khampa" is a local identity in Kham. Van Schalk writes, People from the eastern regions of Kham and Amdo have always identified themselves as Khampas and Amdowas rather than Tibetans, and have sometimes been more closely connected to their Chinese neighbours than to Central Tibet. I don't think this means that the Khampas stopped speaking Tibetan, but rather that they started seeing "Tibetan" also as a local identity, which was separate from theirs. In contrast, the people of Ngari never had this problem. They remained "Tibetan" throughout. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, if a group does not consider itself part of a people, it is not part of said people - regardless of language or descent. As long as the Khampa did not see themselves as Tibetans, they were not Tibetan. Applodion (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)