I do not feel it is fair to call the protesters in England (in regards to the torch relay) and else where as "anti-China". I am sure most of them don't have anything wrong with the Chinese people (maybe the people in Tibet do, but I don't know that for sure), and it is the ruling party of China that has changed, not the land or ethnicity of the people. It would be more NPOV to state that they were against the policies of the Peoples Republic of China, and not "China" as a whole. Just a thought, because it makes them seem like (to me, and maybe a few more) they hate Chinese people and that is why they are protesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgPyth (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC) So now, China is now split into multiple countries by multiple sovereignties? That's like saying the United States should be split into multiple sovereignties. Or better yet, 50, because after all, China comprises of 56 ethnicities, so China too should be split into 56 states. The PRC is a majority of China. Unless you want it split into 56 parts, that is. I'm sure if someone made fun of, say Californians, or I don't know, people from Massachusetts (lived in both before btw, no offense intended), from another country outside of the US, Americans would see that as making fun of Americans overall. As for policies, in my opinion, from western Media NPR (paraphrased): Tibet is a autonomous region, Tibet is exempt from taxes, 90% of the government's budget is supplied by Chinese. From other western media (quoted from wikipedia page on this): 'Tibetan rioters appeared to be targeting shops and vehicles owned by Han Chinese, the predominant ethnic group in China, and Hui, who are a Muslim minority. According to the BBC and the Wall Street Journal, rioters focused on setting fire to and looting businesses owned by them, before Riot police arrived. From Eastern media (cause that makes SUCH a difference, rolls eyes): rioters injured 623 people including 241 police and armed police and killed 18 others. They also set fire to more than 300 locations, mostly private houses, stores and schools, smashed vehicles and damaged public facilities....I fail to see how that's "repressive" policies (although I acknowledge anything done wrong previously, no country is free from mistakes, see American treatment of Native Americans/republic of Hawaii). If the Tibetans riot (which btw, Pro-tibet people are SUPPORTING them rioting cause your saying that it was wrong to send in riot police), why the heck is sending in riot police wrong? It's the same thing as rabble rousing, overall, the reason there is "pro-tibet" is the same reason there is "anti-china", its because of economic and discriminatory reasons. It'll probably be changed though, because its seen as "not neutral" (and I agree it isn't, but still, pro-tibet is a wide term too, some protesters, I know 100%, do it not because of Tibet, but because they see it as another chance to be anti-china (predominantly those paid by the US government/other groups), so there are people on both sides, perhaps include both "pro-tibet" and "anti-china" would be more accurate.) and there is no proof of my opinion anyway (cause you can't tell what others think) Noian (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)