This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 Tibetan unrest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2011 and March 14, 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on 2008 Tibetan unrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=475143When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Sweet lord, this article needs a lot of work.
Citations 1-3 do not contain the information associated with them.
As has already been pointed out on this talk page, the fourth citation is from the Chinese government, and I have seen no independent source to support the “eighteen” number. News articles from the time seem to report a couple incidents at best.
Citation 6 is a dead link.
Citation 7 does not give the “May 4” date and does not say they explicitly “held talks on the riots.”
James Miles did not say that the “police response was tame” nor hint that he felt that way in Citation 10 or anywhere else I can find. And even if he did, I would question the value of including one person’s view on the matter in the summary paragraph. That he was the only foreign reporter present is notable, but he was only in part of Lhasa for part of the duration of the unrest so his statements shouldn’t be taken as conclusive and representative of the entire issue. But again, he didn’t say it was “tame” anyways.
Citation 11 does not support the claim made in the preceding sentence.
These are the problems I’ve seen just in the article summary so far. I pray that the rest of the article is more accurate and better sourced, but I don’t have high expectations. I’ll do what I can to start cleaning things up, but it will take a lot of time. I’d certainly appreciate help if anyone comes across this and shares my concern.
The reason I’m mentioning this on the talk page instead of just going ahead and making the edits is that, while clearly this is a sourcing issue, it seems to be a POV issue as well given that the errors systematically cast the Chinese government in a somewhat more favorable light. Each instance isn't egregious, but taken together, they add up to a skewed introduction. I might consider adding an appropriate article template to make clear that this article has issues while the work is done to fix it. PortentPainter (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot I have restored the December 21 lead (this revision) which is substantially less problematic than the current one. There are POV and sourcing issues abound still, but there were so many more unreferenced and misreferenced claims in the lead that you added (this revision).
It also represents a better organized summary following MOS:LEAD. The lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs (5 is better than 9). The first paragraph should also only briefly define the topic as a whole per MOS:OPEN.
For an example of the referencing issues, you can't write strong statements like
Mass arbitrary arrests of monks, nuns, and lay Tibetans, lethal shootings by Chinese forces, and reported forced disappearances of Tibetans continued for several months afterwards.
in WP:WIKIVOICE when nothing cited for that sentence and nothing referenced in the article body even mentions Mass arbitrary arrests
. Similarly, Another arbitrary arrest of monks at Labrang Monastery occurred
was cited to a a NYT article that makes no mention whatsoever of the claim.
You need to check that 1) your additions are referenced to an RS and 2) that the cited source directly supports what is claimed. This is explained by WP:V and WP:CITE and also concerns several issues with the article body. — MarkH21talk 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The rewrite of the lede isn't per the page's main topics and most important incidents. These I will readd:
See other talk for supposed RS issues. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence is not mentioned in the article body nor referenced. The mentions of the Drepung and Sera incidents are WP:INTEXT attributed in the body but stated in the lead in WP:WIKIVOICE. The Riwoche mention is not referenced nor is it even mentioned in the article body.The Drepung Monastery monks were also protesting the earlier arrests of their monks from a year before. Violence in Lhasa began when Chinese Public Security forces and the Chinese People's Liberation Army units beat and arrested groups of monks from Drepung and Sera Monastery during non-violent marches and protests, and spread after Tibetan laypeople later clashed with security forces in defense of the monks at Riwoche Monastery.
MarkH21, please halt the massive number of deletes and reverts until you read all the refs. Not every statement and word has a ref associated, but the body of refs support the edits. I learned the topic while editing over a period of time, which is responsible editing and should be done before deleting and reverting. These edit summaries are not accurate. A WP:EDITWAR warning to stop edit warring was placed on your talk hours ago. Maybe another warning for WP:HOUND is also needed, following Nyingchi. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Your justification ofThe burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
the body of refs support the editsdoes not satisfy the requirement for an
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Fixing blatant WP:V violations in misreferenced additions is not WP:HOUND, which requires
an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. You continue to baselessly accuse other editors of misconduct. — MarkH21talk 22:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)