Talk:CIA Tibetan program

Changed importance from top to mid on WP:Tibet and WP:China

While the article’s subject certainly deserves mention, the amount of intervention was relatively small and doesn’t seem to have had a great effect on Tibetan history.Wikimedes (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's controversial. The cia clearly knew that tibetans couldn't win. Hence giving them weapons, funding Etc and enabling them to fight china.. What did you expect? Chinese to just stand there while tibetan using American procured guns and rpgs shooting at them. And then later pointing and saying that Chinese massacred them. But leaving out the awkward part that CIA was no stranger to orchestrating coupes to destabilise countries via encouraging infighting. Alot of people died and the worst part is the Americans CLEARLY knew the war could never be won by tibetan rebels. They only practically used the tibetans to weaken china and get Intel. Dai lai lama critised America for allegedly using them. Hence the Cia would be motivated to downplay this.

So my question to you is how do i know you aint trying to downplay this inconvenient topic by degrading the importance level. Perhaps this is history that should not be buried to Protect transparency of information. People should be more aware considering the cia was tibetan rebels' most central and active ally. Training them, arming them, smuggling them and giving them political support via anti-communism sentiment and military scheming support.

Hence I think it should be at least higher ranked with modern Tibet articles and not hidden.

120.18.180.210 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

when did the CIA admitt this programm?

DXPIN (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear Violation of WP:NPOV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is required for all articles, yet after User:Khedroob, with an account created in December 2023, made two major edits that make the article sound more like hagiography than history. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Copy editing and reference format

I did some copy editing and found that one reference (a CIA FOIA document) has been cited over a dozen times in a variety of formats (e.g., see refs 28, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38, 61, 64, etc.). I would like to hear suggestions on the proper format of the reference. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

grammar/object missing in overview clause

The following sentence towards the end of the overview section doesn't make sense:

"It assessed whether the two countries might or might not agree to from a diplomatic standpoint."

should it be 'form' a diplomatic standpoint (dubious), 'what the two countries might or might not agree to' or is there a missing word from the reference source as their object of interest? ~2026-23212-70 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)