Talk:Cultural repression in Tibet

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tibet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Afc reviews, and page moves

This page has a bit of a complicated history, and after two Afc declines and several page moves, was moved to mainspace by the creator. More details here. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The title should be in sentence case. Mathglot (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks to CambridgeBayWeather for taking care of this. Mathglot (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Sinicization of Tibet and other articles

There is considerable overlap between this article and Sinicization of Tibet. It is not clear to me whether this topic deserves a standalone page or not. Alternatives are deletion, merger, or a better scoping of this topic to distinguish it from Sinicization of Tibet. Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot,

Thanks for the feedback.

While Sinicization is mainly about government policy and cultural assimilation, my article focuses on broader issues such as international law, human rights violations, religious suppression, freedom of speech, as well as responses from the UN and NGO. These aspects extend beyond the scope of a domestic policy like Sinicization of Tibet.

I'm open to any suggestions on how to better differentiate the content if needed. CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other overlap is with Human rights in Tibet. I just don't see that there is space for all three as separate articles, and I don't know how you define what properly belongs in this article, and neither in Sinicization of Tibet, nor in Human rights in Tibet. In short, I don't see a valid reason for the existence of this article. The cultural suppression part of it is clearly in scope at Sinicization of Tibet, and the human rights part of it is in scope at Human rights in Tibet. What exactly are the subtopics that belong here, and in neither of those two articles?

I don't find your examples of different focus in this article persuasive. International law is covered in in Human rights in Tibet (HRiT) and (SoT). Religious suppression is covered both of those, plus extensive coverage in Freedom of religion in China; ditto freedom of speech. Responses from the UN and NGO are covered somewhat in your article, mostly in passing regarding unnamed NGOs, but HRiT has more detailed information about several NGOs, such as Asia Watch, Friends of Tibet, Free Tibet Campaign, Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and Committee Against Torture.

Another way to look at the standalone-article question is from the point of view of other Wikipedias. At Wikidata, the SoT topic is Wikidata item d:Q957074, and links to eleven foreign language Wikipedia articles about that topic. Likewise, HRiT is item d:Q1850158, and links to seven Wikipedia foreign articles. What Wikipedia articles is this one linked to (or likely to link to in the future)? Answer: none. Imho, this article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and should be merged and the page redirected. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CHANMUNKIAT, I am still considering various options, including boldly redirecting this page, or nominating it for deletion. Would you like to comment first? Mathglot (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot,

I feel that overlap is practically unavoidable on Wikipedia. The world is interconnected, and it’s normal for similar points or facts to appear across multiple articles. For example, someone mentioned in a biography might also appear in articles on their field, achievements, or controversies. In fact, the other 2 articles you mentioned are focusing on different aspects, and they are not entirely the same. The article can sometimes become disorganized, inconsistent, or lose the original intent or clarity if it is merged. Wikipedia even encourages a bit of redundancy when it helps readers, and I feel this topic deserves a standalone page. Thank you. 42.60.248.5 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you that overlap is unavoidable among Wikipedia articles; there is no question about that. However, a new article must have some kind of topic that is unique to it, as defined by its title, otherwise there is no reason to have the article. To me, there is no single fact or assertion made in this article (or that could be made according to the the topic domain circumscribed by the article title) that isn't already covered either in Sinicization of Tibet or in Human rights in Tibet, or could be covered there. (And sometimes also in one of the other linked articles.) This is not a new topic, it is just a mashup of two existing topics, which gives its author the ability (or excuse) to provide a different viewpoint than the ones provided in the existing articles. That is not how we do things at Wikipedia, and is, in my opinion, the very definition of a redundant fork. Putting it another way: why add any content to this article, but not to the other two? What belongs here and not there?

In addition, there is an issue with the ANDed title. Quoting from article title policy, regarding § Titles containing "and":

Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research.

I share those concerns about this article, and so did at least one other user, who tagged it for {{synthesis}} last March.

By the way, are you new to this article, or are you a registered user that forgot to log in? If the latter, please make your comments while logged in. If not, how did you find out about this article? Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot,

I renamed the article to “Cultural repression in Tibet” for the following reasons:

• Neutrality, focus & policy compliance

The current title combines broad themes using “and,” which can suggest undue synthesis or original research. By contrast, “Cultural repression in Tibet” is concise, clearly focused, and reflects how the phenomenon is referred to in reliable sources like the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, international media, etc.

• Distinction from existing articles

This article addresses primarily cultural repression in Tibet, distinguishing it from:

“Human rights in Tibet”, which covers a broader range of abuses (e.g., arbitrary arrests, torture, political prisoners)

“Sinicization of Tibet”, which focuses on government-led assimilation policies including migration and resettlement programs

Unless there are compelling objections or a better title that clearly separates these topics, I recommend moving forward with “Cultural repression in Tibet”. CHANMUNKIAT (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it does look like they have taken only a collection of what they want to add or repeat from HRiT and SoT and are trying different titles to see which one can make this a standalone article. But it can have potential, so I would say draftify first. Vacosea (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general my concern is that China-related articles are getting more and more bulletin points and hatnotes under various sections linking to other articles that cover generally similar issues but with different "takes". While overlaps may be unavoidable, we should minimize them as much as we can. Vacosea (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains some points and perspectives that are not represented on the Human Rights in Tibet page. It has the potential to be more expansive than the comparable sections on HRiT, but it falls short right now. Being a new article, I hope to see new sources, but most of the references are pretty old. My own scholarship on Tibet hasn't kept up since creating the HRiT page, so I would love to see some other editors pulling in new academic and news sources. @CHANMUNKIAT I sincerely appreciate your dedication to this topic, and I think the article has the potential to stand on its own if you and others continue refining it, but in its current form, it doesn't deliver enough distinction. I don't think it should be deleted or merged just yet. Let's see if it gets shaped up more in the coming months. My suggestion is to focus on adding new scholarship and reports that aren't found on other pages. —Zujine|talk 16:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]