Wikipedia

Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China/Archive 2

< Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China
Latest comment: 13 years ago by 108.7.241.222 in topic article title
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Simplify name

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I propose to simplify the name to Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) as it was in the beginning. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be best if the name of the page would be The Invasion of Tibet 1950-1951. Even more accurate would be "The Invasion and Annexation of Tibet 1950-1951". --Sean Maleter (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is moving to PLA military occupation of Tibet (1950-1951) as per above discussion. There was no consensus with the invasion name. The move will probably happen in a few days. Benjwong (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no annexation, since Tibet was under Chinese sovereignty both before and after 1950, and no government has ever said otherwise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I left messages earlier on the talk pages of a number of users. So far only user Littlebutterfly has proposed a new name. These objections do not help. We need name proposals. Benjwong (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no justification for saying occupation because one contingent of users decline to accept anything else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
When you say contingent of users, are you implying we can't move because 1 user refuses? Sorry I am trying to understand better what you were saying. Benjwong (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see what is wrong with the current name, which was voted on and agreed upon. Are we going to have a referendum every week on this? Yunfeng (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above. Alot of people had a problem with the invasion name. If there is one thing I agree with you is that this has been a huge waste of time each week as people cannot make up their mind. Therefore it probably is stuck as an "invasion" with no true consensus. Benjwong (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Suggested Name

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What about PRC Annexation of Tibet (1950-1951)? For example, many would call the US War in Afghanistan the US Invasion of Afghanistan, but most just call it War in Afghanistan, since invasion tend to have a negative tone to it, on the outset.Children of the dragon (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Name results so far

Latest comment: 15 years ago35 comments16 people in discussion

Here are the results so far. Please propose more names. Otherwise the most supported candidates will soon be the name of the article. Benjwong (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC) PLA invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)

  • Many support. Many do not support.

PRC diplomacy in Tibet (1950-1958)

  • No supporter.

PRC military reclamation of Tibet (1950-1951)

  • No supporter.

Military establishment of the Tibet Autonomous Region (1950-1951)

  • No supporter.

PLA entry to Tibet (1950-1951)

  • No supporter.

People's Liberation Army occupation of Tibet (1950-1951) <---- Candidate

  • Many support. A few do not support.

People's Liberation Army military occupation of Tibet (1950-1951) <---- Candidate

  • Many support. A few do not support.

Chamdo war

  • A few support. Many do not support.

Invasion of Chamdo

  • A few support. Many do not support.

Chinese occupation of Tibet (1950/51) (or Chinese military occupation) Yaan (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This will likely not work. According to UN Resolution 2758 the ROC was Chinese until 1971 in the international eye. If they feel Tibet is on international soil, then ROC/other Chinese had nothing to do with this event. Benjwong (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We can mention "People's Liberation Army" in the first paragraph. That a number of countries found it convenient to uphold the fiction that China was ruled from Taibei should have no relation to this article. Outside Wikipedia everyone refers to this as something that Chinese did. Yaan (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing People's Liberation Army occupation of Tibet (1950-Current)Oiboy77 (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't either, but that would be a different article (although this one already has a lot of extraneous crap about the 1959 uprising). Yunfeng (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This title is not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CcLao (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How about "PLA's Expedition in Tibet", just like how wiki has an article on "British Expedition of Tibet". I think "Expedition" is a lot more neutral than "invasion" or "liberation", since it can mean both depending on who's reading the article. Gnip (talk) 6:44, 03 May 2008 (UTC)
Expedition implies going out of your country into another country, e.g. Chinese Expeditionary Forces in Burma in the Second World War. Tibet was clearly not part of British sovereign territory, but all government sagree that it was and is a part of Chinese territory, whether you call it sovereignty or suzerainty.
"PRC assertion of control in Tibet" is one of the most neutral descriptors I've seen used in the news media. Any takers? Maybe PRC assertion of control in Tibet (1950-1951)?
Rationale: this term does not assume anything about whether Tibet was independent, whether the PRC had title to Tibet, whether the ROC still had title to Tibet, whether the PRC invaded or Tibet surrendered, the nature of the PLA's operations, whether the PRC represents China, whether Tibet is p art of China, whether the ROC represents China, etc. It is accurate in that 1) the PRC had never had actual control in Tibet before, and 2) afterwards it did have (some degree of) control. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The reasons for calling it an invasion rather than an expedition have been rolled out I don't know how many times on this very page, and they boil down to this:
IT'S CALLED AN INVASION IN ENGLISH
This article is about that event. It's not about the political process by which Tibet was annexed, and it's not about other non-invasion-related activities that the PLA may have undertaken in Tibet. It doesn't matter if you think that some other word is more neutral, because we don't use that word when we talk about this event when we are speaking English. To make the article NPOV, it's enough to state that some people don't think it should be called an invasion in the intro, which, last I checked, this article does. Yunfeng (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Invasion" clearly does not enjoy consensus or majority support. That the article is currently where it is is the result of an unfortuante conjunction of circumstances and is illegitimate. A move poll that should have been closed as "non consensus" was closed - by a participant in the present discussion, no less - as "move" in disregard to the entire discussion. It was then involved in an illegitimate move-war and finally protected - but not moved back after the end of protection. However, there is no point to argue about that process because it was in the past and the need now is to find a new point of best consensus.
Please just accept the fact that your "invasion" thesis is not getting consensus support and work constructively towards a solution instead of destructively shouting in caps and bold. Not good form.
Now, what do others, apart from User:Yunfeng, think? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There is not an "invasion thesis". There is no need for an invasion thesis. There is no need for a vote on names proposed with no reference to naming policy. The reality is that this is the English Wikipedia, where the Invasion of Tibet is known as the Invasion of Tibet, because it is the name of the Invasion of Tibet in English writing on the subject. The references are on the page. John Nevard (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Assertion of control" sounds pretty neutral, I'm fine with that. As for the use of "invasion" because other sources use it... they also use "occupation", "incorporation", "annexation", "liberation", etcc... even in English. So I think a word that could mean all of these things should be fine. Gnip (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Assertion of control" name definitely works for me. Benjwong (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[offtopic]I disappeared for a while because I had some quality control that I felt was more important on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (i.e. making sure the page recognized it was propaganda)[/offtopic] It was an invasion, and if the page mentions that there is some dissent against it being an invasion, (as Yunfeng stated) it should remain where it is. It is unfortunate that the first move request ended early, but that does not deter from the fact that a substantial majority of the votes were in support for the move to this title Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has reached a circle and is likely not going anywhere. I don't have a problem with it being called an invasion as long as there was balance on both pages, such as calling the British expedition to Tibet an "invasion". In the ideal world this page should match the neutrality all the way across. At least the users above are admitting this is English wikipedia and will bend to an English audience perspective. Benjwong (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Invasion" is clearly POV (even if also calling British expedition an "invasion", which implies both are really invasions), whereas "Assertion of control" sounds much neutral. Why not change it right now?--207.112.34.108 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Assertion of control is... awkward. The title here is going to have to take a point of view, since we have to pick one title and it should probably be the least awkward one that's acceptable to all parties. Besides, are there any sources that call the even that? It seems somewhat arbitrary. I don't think we should concoct an entirely new name to avoid apparent bias. Gimme danger (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Then we should consider change to "occupation" (as listed), which is not awkward. And it's more neutral than "invasion". Plus, it is actually used by some sources, so it's not arbitary. Even if we have to take a point of view, we cannot not take a view that is obviously and extremely biased.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I like "occupation" as well, but other editors are concerned that the date range make the article scope unclear... there's a discussion in the archive about this if you'd like to read the gory details. But definitely, invasion is probably out of the range of acceptable names. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of examples of "assertion of control" or "asserted control" -- from a Google search, but I've only listed the ones where the passage directly calls the events of 1950/51 "assertion of control" or "asserted control". I skimmed the sources to see at least where they are from.

  • [1] Not sure what this is
  • [2] New York Times
  • [3] Encyclopaedia Britannica
  • [4] Johns Hopkins University
  • [5] Asia Times
  • [6] Cal Tech
  • [7] Canada-Tibet Committee
  • [8] Tibet Today

A fair mix of pro- and anti-China sources and neutral sources, from my skim read.

Not trying to prove that "assertion of control" or "asserted control" is the most common phrasing. Just trying to show that it is also used, sometimes by respectable organisations, and perhaps as a compromise between the more emotive "invasion" and the more propagandist "liberation". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I supported the title change above. But there is not enough supporters still. Benjwong (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You might as well claim the British Army invaded Northern Ireland. As far as I can tell, in human terms, the geographic area called tibet had no single overall polity. The land had many so called regional rulers. The PRC naturally brought everything back under the control of Beijing after the chaos of the 19th and 20th centuries. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, "naturally".PRC POV!EaswarH (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is a a PRC POV? It is also the ROC POV and the POV of the Qing Dynasty. As far as I know, it is also the POV of the UN and of every country in the world. 86.134.236.70 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


How about:"Consolidation of the territories of The People's Republic of China'. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very much PRC POV.Akin to saying annexation of Austria by Germany in WWII was a "Consolidation of territory"In short,outrageous.EaswarH (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A strange suggestion, as Germany at the time was ruled by an Austrian called Herr Hitler. 86.166.122.209 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
By that time, Hitler had not been an Austrian citizen for quite some time. Yaan (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So the dalai lama is not a Tibetan because he has not been a citizen of Tibet for quite some time? 86.166.122.209 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you want to argue Hitler was an ethnic Austrian, do you? Yaan (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Was he not, at least partially? 86.166.122.209 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is silly. Let's imagine that Lee Teng-hui is granted French citizenship, and then becomes President of France, and then France invades and conquers China. Oops, that wouldn't be an invasion, would it? It would be a consolidation of territories of France, because France is ruled by a Chinese. Bertport (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No, as you say that would be an invasion, as there was never a claim that China was ever a part of France, nor France a part of China. The intention therefore, was from the start an invasion and not a consolidation. Given the distances involved, it would be impossible to consolidate such two territories, although it had been done fleetingly in the original Pakistan. 86.166.122.209 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind everyone involved that this is a Wikipedia talk page, not 4chan. Let's keep discussion on topic and resist the temptation to have the last word. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "Chinese Annexation of Tibet". That sounds more neutral than "invasion". Even though many Western media sources called it an "invasion", while many Chinese sources (independent or otherwise) call it "liberation", neither term are NPOV, if you ask me.
Annexation would not be accurate, as the geographical area refered to as Tibet was already a part of the various forms of a polity known as China in the West. The full name of this polity is now The People's Republic of China, which is again simply called China in the West, and as Zhong Guo (The Central State, and often erroneously as The Middle Kingdom) by the Chinese and in China. 86.166.122.209 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Did oppressive “feudal serfdom” exist in Tibet before the Chinese arrived?

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is a very controversial and complex subject so I have added a section on it in the article itself. However, because some readers will likely be unsatisfied with my brief summary, I thought I should give more evidence here and have, therefore, decided to quote fairly extensively from Robert Barnett’s careful and (I believe) balanced examination of the evidence:

“Melvyn Goldstein, an American anthropologist who carried out research within Tibet into pre-1959 social relations, concluded that most Tibetans before 1959 were bound by written documents to the land on which they were based and to the lord who owned that land, and so he argued that they could be described as “serfs” (Goldstein 1986, 1988). Most Western scholars accept that this was broadly the case, but query the extensiveness of the practice and the politics behind the terms used to describe it. . . . W. M. Coleman (1998) has pointed out that in practice the Tibetans had more autonomy than appears in the written documents, and that Tibetans could equally well be described simply as peasants with particular kinds of debts and taxation responsibilities, rather than using a politically and morally loaded term such as “serf.” Other scholars have noted that such social categories, Marxist or otherwise, are in any case rooted in European history and do not match the social system of pre-1951 Tibet, let alone the very different arrangements found among the people of eastern Tibet.
These scholars do not disagree with the Chinese claims that Tibet had a particular form of social relations that differed from those later found in democratic and Communist countries. What is contested is whether later scholars or politicians should use terms that imply a value judgment about the moral qualities of these relations. This is a matter of intense dispute because the Chinese claim about serfdom, on the surface a factual account of social relations, in fact depends for its effects on its linkage to two other elements which are highly contestable–feudalism and extreme oppression. It is taken for granted that these are inseparable from serfdom. A conscious effort of the intellect is required to recall that one does not follow from the other.
There is no question that Tibet was an extremely poor society for most of its members, or that the poorest were the most likely to exploitation and abuse. This was true of most sectors of any society in Asia and elsewhere until recently, including China, and is still true today in many areas. So even if it was agreed that serfdom and feudalism existed in Tibet, this would be little different except in technicalities from conditions in any other “premodern” peasant society, including most of China at that time. The power of the Chinese argument therefore lies in its implication that serfdom, and with it feudalism, is inseparable from extreme abuse.
Evidence to support this linkage has not been found by scholars other than those close to Chinese government circles. Goldstein, for example, notes that although the system was based on serfdom, it was not necessarily feudal, and he refutes any automatic link with extreme abuse. “I have tried to indicate that the use of the term ‘serfdom’ for Tibet does not imply that lords tortured and otherwise grossly mistreated their serfs. . . . There is no theoretical reason why serfdom should be inexorably linked to such abuses,” he writes, noting that extreme maltreatment was unlikely since it would have been against the interests of the landowners, who needed the peasants to provide labor (1988: 64-65).
There seems to be limited evidence of the systematic savagery described by Chinese writers, at least since the late nineteenth century. There was a famous case of mutilation as a punishment in 1924, but the officials involved were themselves punished by the 13th Dalai Lama for this action, he had banned all such punishments in a proclamation in 1913 (Goldstein 1989: 123-26, 61). A case of judicial eye gouging in 1934 as a punishment for treason was clearly exceptional, since no one living knew how to carry it out (Goldstein 1989: 208-9). On the other hand, there are hundreds of reports, many of them firsthand accounts of Tibetan political prisoners being severely tortured in Chinese prisons during the early 1990s, as well as almost ninety cases of suspicious deaths in custody (see, e.g. TCHRD 2005), none of which have been independently investigated.” From: ”What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform?” By Robert Barnett in: Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, pp. 81-83. Eds. Anne-Marie Blondeau and Katia Buffetrille. (2008). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-520-24928-8 (paper). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged problematic statements in the section. The whole section seems designed to slant towards one amongst a number of points of view. In particular, it sets up the point of view it seeks to refute as an idiosyncratic, isolated, and above-all partisan view ("Chinese Communist Party view", not a balanced label and not accurately reflecting the currency of the view), before purportedly refuting it with statements supporting the favoured point of view, without offering any criticism of the favoured point of view. This is not NPOV. In particular, the refutation uses a number of weasel words, such as "many" and "they". Whereas the pro-feudal view is attended by high quality sources, the so-called "Communist Party" view is referenced to (mostly) a hodge podge of pro- and anti-Chinese propaganda. There does not seem to be an effort to seriously understand and represent the so-called "Communist Party" point of view. For example, reference [39] (Gill/Dalai Lama) is a source that does not even pretend towards historical accuracy or neutrality, especially in its misrepresentation of the opposing view. It is inherently unreliable as a source for what the Communist Party thinks.

The use of UN resolutions as a source in this case is also not unproblematic. Given that the PRC was barred from participation in the UN, these early resolutions are anything but apolitical or neutral. Without context, references to these UN resolutions lends to this perspective a respectability that in reality is tainted by the political motivations behind them.

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research nor original synthesis.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we should not be referencing viewpoints from sources opposed to those viewpoints. We don't reference creationist writing in our evolution articles and we should not settle for pro-Tibet sources portrayal of the Chinese point of view. I'm not sure what the solution here is, aside from replacing references. I think part of the problem is that this article has deviated from its original topic and contains information better suited to other articles. Gimme danger

(talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Tibet was de jure part of Republic of China before KMT fleed to Taiwan! 203.218.71.187 (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

name again

Latest comment: 15 years ago51 comments10 people in discussion

Current name is simply retarded. Its just faaaaar too long and complicated. How many readers are going to search article by such name? Logical solution would be Chinese Invasion of Tibet.--Staberinde (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed long ago. This is not a Chinese invasion of any sort. There are KMT Chinese and quite frankly many Chinese groups elsewhere that had nothing to do with the event. Please look into archive. Also the English wikipedia audience still struggle to call it British invasion of tibet for an earlier invasion. So the problem does not stop or start here. Benjwong (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The PRC is Chinese, no? This kind of argument makes one wonder why we have articles like Korean wave, when North Korea has nothing to do with it and is clearly much more significant vis-a-vis South Korea than Taiwan is vis-a-vis the PRC. Yaan (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding like wikipedians could pull new titles out from their ***** and then vote over them and that's it. Well, fortunately its not supposed to work that way for events which actually have established name already WP:NC(CN). I am fully aware of Republic of China and disputed legitimacy and all that, but we still have articles like Sino-Indian War, Sino-Soviet border conflict and Sino-Vietnamese War. Mainstream usage overrides such details in naming. Now few comparisons:
Google Print test:

Google Scholar test:

Amazon.com test:

Ordinary Google test (Least relevant of all 4. Also while wikipedia can be removed, its mirrors will still disort picture.):

I think statistics are self-explaining. Its not only about wording, its also about that who uses that wording. We may all agree for some supercool title here, but if its used nowhere else except wikipedia, then that title will be completely worthless. I really cant be assed to put all n+1 titles proposed in all discussion throught these test, but most of them would probably fail as miserably as current one. If you think that Chinese Invasion of Tibet is unfit, then please propose some real alternatives, which are actually used by someone else than wikipedians.--Staberinde (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the argument against "Chinese invasion of Tibet" was not that it is less common, but that it is not NPOV. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, probably the all too familiar theme of Chinese folks saying "Tibet is part of China! Tibetans are Chinese! You can't have a Chinese invasion of Tibet, any more than you could have an English invasion of England!" which is nonsense, of course. I agree that "Chinese invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" is a better title. Bertport (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The above analogy is not perfectly correct. It should be, Tibet is a part of The People's Republic of China. The Tibetan people are Tibetan Chinese. You can't have a People Republic of China invasion of Tibet, anymore than you could have a British invasion of Wales, whose people are Welsh British. The trouble is when you start to shorten full terms, you start to get ambiguities which could be played with by politicians. For example using the word England to mean The United Kingdom, will create play on the exclusion of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Another mis-applied term is pro-Tibet to mean pro-lamaist; there is no one more pro-Tibet than The PRC, afterall it regards Tibet as a part of itself. Hopefully Bertport now understands the nonsense he created and espoused. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
To point out Bertport's nonsense, the English did invade England, but of course the land wasn't called England prior to the arrival of the English. The English also invaded Scotland, Wales and Ireland. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland form today's United Kingdom. The People's Republic of China, the Republic of China before that and The Great Qing Empire before that consists and consisted of Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, Muslim areas (Hui and Uighurs) including Xinjiang, and of course Han areas. People who want to make a political play, equates China to Han areas only, when this was and is not the real meaning. 81.155.100.213 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
All those guys writing about the Rhineland invasion simply don't have a clue. Yaan (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If majority of respectable sources call it an invasion, then its perfectly neutral to call it an invasion. It would be POV pushing if we start calling it in a way nobody else does. Also current title already has word "invasion" in it, so its not any different in that point.--Staberinde (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok let's get this out of the way and save time. Many English sources will call it a Chinese invasion of tibet. And the British military version is unanimously called a picnic/lunch/expedition in tibet. So you are wasting time on google. Maybe try Baidu on this one for some fairness. Worse is the people who want to put all the British blame on Younghusband and call it Younghusband invasion of tibet. Yawn.... With respect to the tibetans, both are about the same type of military engagement. You are bringing up an old discussion again, but we have heard this before. Benjwong (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, maybe you should discuss other names at other talk pages, not here? Btw. even expeditions undertaken by Chinese are not always picnics... Yaan (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion was opened to name it the British invasion of tibet. That lasted only 7 days with no agreement. I am fine with calling everything an expedition if that is your solution all the way across. Benjwong (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No, my solution is, once again, to use common names. Just because you have difficulties with understanding the meaning of "expedition" in a military context does not mean it is inappropriate to use. It seems, however, inappropriate to use in this article because "expedition" just does not seem to be part of any common name for the event(s) discussed here. Yaan (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what "Chinese invasion of tibet" is in Chinese and Tibetan. I'll look it up on a non-English-speaker search engine and tell you whether it is actually common. I bet you "Peaceful liberation" is far more commonly used, even though most of us disagree with it and will likely never use it. Benjwong (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked this was English-language wikipedia. But thank you for the kind offer. Yaan (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
We can all agree here that Westerners want to make the Chinese look as Draconian as possible while the Chinese wants to justify this war. Let's just called this the Sino-Tibetan War or something. I swear to god, I am gettign sick and tired of this these useless arguments. Casualties range from 85k (Chinese) to 1.1 Mil (Tibetan). Both sides have their personal agenda while the West seems to accept the 1.1 million figure. We should just makes this the "Sino-Tibetan War 1950-1951" and perhaps learn something from it and not cause another meaningless war such as in Iraq.Jetsamjetsam (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that even 85,000 could have died directly in the fighting during the invasion. There was not a lot fighting. Calling it a war seems like a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying this kind of conflict could never be called a war, but, since that's not the most common name for this subject, I don't see really see a benefit to using that title.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
How about the Sino-Tibetan Conflict (1950-1951)?Jetsamjetsam (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I dont really care how old this discussion is, wikipedians cant pull new titles out from their asses. If Chinese Invasion of Tibet is considered POV, then another widely used(in English sources) alternative needs to be proposed. If such alternative does not exist, then Chinese Invasion of Tibet is most suitable title.--Staberinde (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Btw, as I already said, current title already includes word invasion.--Staberinde (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For an event that involves 2 territories in the east, this article name is already leaning way too west. Let's not make this more biased. After all we disagreed with the "peaceful liberation" name. Benjwong (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a POV objection not only to "invasion" but also to "Chinese", since it implies that only one side is Chinese. Why not simply Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)? There were no other invasions of Tibet during this time. Naming conventions (events) suggests we should use the most common description even if it is somewhat controversial, but it also points out that it's better to avoid unnecessary additional words.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This can solve 1 problem. Benjwong (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951) would be acceptable solution.--Staberinde (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
"Invasion" itself is clearly POV and unacceptable. There are more neutral terms such as "takeover", which is used by many sources.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The advice we get from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is that "If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as 'massacre' or 'genocide' or 'war crime'" and "A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public." I would suggest that, then, we should be discussing whether "invasion" is a term which is agreed to be the consensus of scholars, rather than discussing our own views of its POV implications.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't Wikipedia:Naming conventions say that "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications"? The names containing "takeover" (instead of "invasion") is of course descriptive, and are neutrally worded. You are suggesting to discuss whether "invasion" is a term which is agreed to be the consensus of scholars, but I don't really think so, and "takeover" is often used by scholars. That is, there is a split of usage of words to refer to this event by scholars, but some are more neutral than the others.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Chinese", I hope no one is going to be silly enough to claim that the PLA is (and was) not Chinese. As for the Tibetans, on the other hand, we have Mao himself distinguishing between Tibetans and Chinese. In Mao's collected works (Ma'o tse tung gi gsung rtsom gces bsdus), vol 5 we learn that he once told his generals, "Tibet and Xinjiang are different. In Xinjiang in the old society there were 200,000-300,000 Chinese but in Tibet there was not even a single Chinese. So our troops are in a place where there were no Chinese in the past." (pp43-44 of The Snow Lion and the Dragon, by Goldstein, who is generally pro-Chinese.) But abbreviating the title to "Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" might work. As for "invasion", Goldstein finds that word apt (Snow Lion pg. 41 and passim). Bertport (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this is probably caused by a problem of translation. His original quote in Chinese was "西藏情况和新疆不同，无论在政治上经济上西藏均比新疆差得多。... 新疆有几十万汉人，西藏几乎全无汉人，我军是处在一个完全不同的民族区域。" ("the condition of Tibet is different from Xinjiang. It is much worse both politically and economically compared with Xinjiang... There are a few hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese in Xinjiang, but there are almost no Han Chinese in Tibet, so our troops are in a place where the nationality is completely different") He distinguished between Tibetans and the Han Chinese ("汉人"), not between Tibetans and Chinese. The Chinese counterpart of "Chinese" (中国人) never appeared in his quote.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the correct translation. Political play in this subject often arise out of incorrect translations, unintentionally or deliberately. For example if we use the English word 'England' to mean the UK, does it mean the UK does not include Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Most people in the world are aware of England, but I would say many people are not aware of a Wales. 81.155.100.213 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Goldstein knew what he was doing when he correctly translated it as "Chinese". Bertport (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein did not know his front end from his back end. How would he like it if someone translated Jews as Israelis or vice versa? Goldstein had shown himself to be a poor translator and I certainly would say he was no scholar of Chinese or Chinese history for committing such a fundamental mistake, and as such his work cannot be taken at face value.86.157.233.184 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's see ... on the one hand, we have Melvyn Goldstein, one of the premier academic Tibetologists of the world and widely acknowledged authority on Sino-Tibetan relations. On the other hand, we have some faceless, nameless troll who doesn't even know how to set up a Wikipedia account. Any contest here? I don't think so. Bertport (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, well, so goldstein is a premier academic tibetologist. I think bertport has his wires crossed. People here are pointing out goldstein was not such a good Sinologist, not tibetologist, since he could not even give the correct translation for a Hanren. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Now, now bertport, insults are not allowed on wiki. Always accept defeat with grace. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the point is that Mao did not make a distinction between "Chinese" and "Tibetans", he makes one between Hànrén and Xīzàng. There is no 1-to-1 correlation between the English word "Chinese" and any single Chinese word (except in reference to the Chinese language).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is. The one-to-one correlation in translating the word 'Chinese (person not language)' is Zhongguoren. Imagine this conversation between someone from Scotland visiting a country far away and a person of that country.
     Native to Scot: So where do you come from? 
               Scot: From Scotland.
     Native to Scot: Ah. I know. You are English!!!!
               Scot: No. I am Scottish. I am British, and so are the English, but it doesn't mean we Scots are English.

A Hanren and a Tibetan are not from the same community, just as a Scot and an Englishmen are not from the same community, but in The PRC they are both Chinese. A US citizen of Scottish descent in the USA may not feel he is British even though he may still feel he is Scottish, just as a Tibetan born in India or the USA may feel and say he is Tibetan but not Chinese. It is just that people like you do not accept that Tibetans in The PRC are Chinese. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. All languages overload word usage. In English, "Chinese" is commonly used to mean "ethnic Chinese", and you claim it can only mean "Chinese national". As for the Scots, well, they don't much like being called English, but the Tibetans object much more to being called Chinese. In any case, "Chinese invasion of Tibet" is valid either way, because the PLA worked for the nation and was largely composed of ethnic Chinese. Bertport (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And what exactly is an "ethnic Chinese"? 86.157.233.184 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"Ethnic Chinese" for "hanren", "Chinese national" for "zhongguoren", and "Chinese" can be either. When the context makes it clear, or when both are meant, it is sufficient to say "Chinese". Bertport (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
So Bertport, are you now saying an "ethnic Chinese" is only identified as "Hanren" in English? 86.157.233.184 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ethnicity classification is totally artificial. Below report shows that in the USA, there is an ethnicity called Asian American and Pacific Islanders. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7692322.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.233.184 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And "Chinese" is the most sensible translation of Hànrén in this context; similarly, "Chinese invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" is perfectly sensible and will be understood (by those who are not pushing a POV) as a matter-of-fact, neutral title. Bertport (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "Chinese invasion of Tibet" is a neutral title, and I don't think that I am pushing a POV here. Please explain which POV that would be and how you came to the conclusion that I am pushing it.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I wasn't trying to say anything about you, Nat. I already summarized, above, a snapshot of a PRC POV, which objects to "Chinese" as well as "invasion" (and would probably object to "Tibet" and even the existence of Wikipedia too). Why do you think that "Chinese invasion of Tibet" is not neutral? Bertport (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bertport's view that Chinese is the most sensible translation of Hanren in this context is his own POV. If Mao wanted to say Chinese he would have use Zhongguoren. The translation of Hanren into Chinese simply reflects the ignorance of China by westerners. The same could be said if in China, 'British' is translated as 'English'. 81.155.100.213 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Bertport. But saying Hanren = Chinese is like saying White people = American. The majority group does not automatically make it the same as the group name itself. Anyhow we can move this article to "invasion of tibet (1950-1951)" and solve 1 problem if no one disagrees. Benjwong (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many racist white supremists, and average whites who would say American = white. At least the Han people accept Tibetans as Chinese and equals, which is more than could be said for the views of some white Americans towards their black, brown, Hispanic and Asian fellow compatriots. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't argue with me, argue with Goldstein, it's his translation. The point is that it's commonly, and correctly, understood what is meant by "Chinese" and "Tibetan" in such a context; and in the context of this article, too, it's commonly and correctly understood what a "Chinese" invasion of Tibet is. Bertport (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bertport, of course we can argue with you, you are quoting Goldstein as if it were correct. If Goldstein would himself or his editor would post on these pages, we would also argue with them. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

name again (part II)

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Your point - and any discussion of England ;-) - is irrelevant in this argument anyway. The "Chinese" specifier isn't necessary, since Tibet wasn't invaded by anyone else during the time period. If we have to use a descriptive title, we may as well use the shortest one. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, "Chinese" part can be left out, simple "Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" is fine.--Staberinde (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If this is fine, then why is there no corresponding article in Wiki titled '(English) Invasion of Northern Ireland'? Is it because Yellow people should not tread the toes of White people, and Yellow people are not allowed to do what White people do? 86.157.233.184 (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
'Invasion' is POV. The PRC calls it 'The liberation of Tibet' which some of the people here would also say is POV. As both 'invasion'and 'liberation' could both be POVs, neither should be used in Wiki. As for Gimme danger's remark about 'England', be reminded it was bertport who used the argument about the English invading England as being nonsense. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Gimme danger said "English can't invade England" and also "The British expedition to tibet is not relevant." But IMHO these are important comparisons. Afterall how does a British group that clearly has no heritage with the tibetans call their invasion an expedition? I am as much against "expedition" as I am against "liberation". Both totally violate POV. Benjwong (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and it has been pointed out that the English can invade England, and did invade England, and so pointed out the nonsense of the remark. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Title options

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I would like to ask each editor involved in this discussion to list their preferred outcome for this debate. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For first step we all agreed to shrink down to "invasion of Tibet (1950–1951)". Maybe we should make this move before the next step. Benjwong (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, only change related to current one would be removing "People's Liberation Army" part, which in my opinion does not change POV/NPOV-ness of title compared to current situation. So such move seems logical.--Staberinde (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A first move request has been made here. The admins have to make this move. There are too many page links to this article, they wont allow me. Benjwong (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article has been changed. It is still POV, though less than the previous title, because 'invasion' is POV. To counteract this, an article titled 'Liberation of Tibet (1950-51)' should be written. 86.155.214.87 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
What you are proposing is called a "POV fork" and is against Wikipedia policy.--Gimme danger (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes "invasion" is still POV because there is a great deal of disagreement. However POV fork is really not allowed. "Liberation" should only be mentioned as a view presented by Mao, period. It is no way ever going to be acceptable. Benjwong (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Are POV titles allowed by Wiki? 86.155.214.87 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. See Gasoline (versus "petrol"). There can only be one title, which necessarily reflects a Point Of View. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have several NPOV suggestions for the title:

"Tibet's incorporation into the PRC" -neutral wording already used in the introduction part of Tibet), as incorporation can be an outcome of both, illegally, military aggression and, legally, peaceful sovereignty transfer/re-exercise.

"Sino-Tibetan relations in the 1950s" -little bit offtopic, but worth discussing.

"PLA Military Operation in Tibet (1950-1951)" -both military invasion and peaceful "Liberation" can be classied as, neutrally, Operation

218.189.215.150 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Incorporation" is non-NPOV, because it infers that Tibet was not part of the PRC before the military operation. According to the legal position subscribed to by the PRC (and accepted officially by most other governments), Tibet was part of the Qing Empire, which was succeeded to the sovereignty of China by the Republic of China, which was succeeded to the sovereignty of China by the People's Republic of China. Under that theory, the occupation of Tibet was not "incorporation" but re-assertion of direct control.
"Sino-Tibetan" pre-supposes that "Sina" (China) and "Tibet" are two separate concepts. Not NPOV.
I think "PLA Military Operation in Tibet (1950-1951)" has the best chance out of these suggestions.
For others, what about my "assertion of control" idea (see above discussion for sources)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
We debated alot to not mention the PLA or any other name associated with the action. Benjwong (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Requested move - January 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved due to lack of consensus, and failure to address concerns about ambiguity and NPOV. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) → Chinese Invasion of Tibet — Common Name — Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I would like to propose the name Chinese Invasion of Tibet for the following reasons: 1) It is the common name in English literature, 2) The word "invasion", while POV, is not uncommon in WP article names, 3) The word "invasion" is far more reflective of a worldwide view than "liberation", which is supported only by pro-PRC sources, 4) "Chinese Invasion of Tibet" most closely follows WP naming conventions for such events (see rule #1).

Note the following Google test results:

"Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" 0 books
"Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" 0 articles
"Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)" -Wikipedia 9 web sites
"PLA Invasion of Tibet" 7 books
"PLA Invasion of Tibet" 2 articles
"PLA Invasion of Tibet" -Wikipedia 35 web sites
"Chinese Invasion of Tibet" 644 books
"Chinese Invasion of Tibet" 193 articles
"Chinese Invasion of Tibet" -Wikipedia 19,000 web sites
"Chinese Liberation of Tibet" 110 books
"Chinese Liberation of Tibet" 10 articles
"Chinese Liberation of Tibet" -Wikipedia 476 web sites
"Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" -Agreement 629 books
"Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" -Agreement 23 articles
"Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" -Agreement -Wikipedia 14,800 web sites (top results are mostly Chinese web sites)
"Chinese Takeover of Tibet" 339 books
"Chinese Takeover of Tibet" 54 articles
"Chinese Takeover of Tibet" -Wikipedia 1,250 web sites

Note: I eliminated "Agreement" from the "Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" results to eliminate confounding references to the "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet", "17 Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet", and "Agreement on the Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet". Since these are references to a document and not to the event itself, these are considered confounding results. It is also worth noting that there is an overlap of 6 books, 10 articles and 118 web sites that include both phrases "Chinese Invasion of Tibet" and "Peaceful Liberation of Tibet". Also, "Hanren Invasion..." and the like are totally under the radar. As for the argument that this was a "Han" invasion and not a "Chinese" invasion, the argument is ridiculous. This was an act committed by a political entity (i.e. the nation of China - thus "Chinese"), not by an ethnic group or tribe.

The word "Invasion" is used in 40,854 WP article names, including 28 Articles (excluding redirects) named "Invasion of [place]" in direct reference to an actual historical event. "Takeover", on Wikipedia as well as in mainstream literature, is used primarily as a business term and rarely used in reference to a military invasion. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, takeover is defined as "an act of assuming control of something, especially the buying-out of one company by another" (emphasis added).

The word "invasion", in reference to this particular event, is more reflective of a worldwide view than the word "liberation". As cited in the article, the United Nations, the International Commission of Jurists, and other notable organizations have, since the 1950s, regarded the Chinese actions in terms ranging from "violation" to "invasion" to "genocide". While Chinese readers may find the use of the term "invasion" objectionable, it is reflective of the international view of the event. Thus, while the neutrality of the word "invasion" is arguable, it is preferable to the less neutral "liberation", which represents only the POV of the aggressor and not that of the international community, and "takeover", which is arguably inappropriate to the subject matter. And again, "Chinese Invasion of Tibet" is the common name.

The name "Chinese Invasion of Tibet" most closely follows accepted naming conventions for such events. According to naming conventions for events, a generally accepted word among scholars "may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public." Thus, "invasion", being part of the common name of this event, is not objectionable per se. Among the 54 articles listed in Category:Invasions, five articles are named "Invasion of Y" while fifteen articles are named "X Invasion of Y". Thus, "Chinese Invasion of Tibet" (besides being the common name) may be preferable to "Invasion of Tibet". Furthermore, the use of the dates as a disambiguator is unnecessary and runs against naming conventions. According to NC (numbers and dates), "<time indicator> is used only as a disambiguator, giving no more detail than is needed for disambiguation," which in this case is not needed at all, since there was only one Chinese invasion of Tibet (the Chinese occupation of Tibet enduring to present). According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, the word "Invasion", being part of the common name of the event, should be capitalized. Thus, the best name for this event, in accordance with WP:Naming conventions (common names), WP:Naming conventions (events), WP:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), MOS:CAPS#Military terms, and common practice, is Chinese Invasion of Tibet. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. There's been more than one Chinese invasion of Tibet, though—Qing troops marched into Lhasa in 1910. I'm not sure there was anything that would match a description as Chinese invasion before the 20th century, but there are some possibilities.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How big of a force was it in 1910? Would it really be called a "Chinese Invasion of Tibet", or more of a failed coup? I'm asking because I really don't know that much about it, and it seems to be so strongly overshadowed by the 1950 invasion. The question is essentially this: Is there any other invasion that is notable enough to necessitate a time indicator for disambiguation? The Qing actions circa 1910 don't seem to constitute a unified or decisive "invasion", and may be disambiguated with a hatnote or even incorporated into the article. Or have I underestimated the notability? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There were actually two significant military operations which happened at about the same time, both involving Zhao Erfeng, who was the last Qing representative in Lhasa. I'm not sure whether they would considered part of the same invasion or whether there was more separation in time than that. I don't know much about the troop levels involved in either. The first was when Chinese troops entered Lhasa, which resulted in the Dalai Lama going into exile for a couple years and not returning until the Chinese troops had been expelled from force. The other was the occupation of Kham by Zhao Erfeng's troops, which resulted in a lot of killing of civilians by the soldiers. The latter is hard to see as a coup, because there was no established government that it was replacing. As for the former, there are a lot of people who would describe the mid-century invasion as a coup, etc. (something other than an invasion), and likewise the 1910 invasion could also be described a variety of ways, but the basic fact of it is that a Chinese army hostile to the Tibetan government marched across territory in order to take control of the capital. As for notability, the mid-century invasion gets a great deal more attention, but notability is in the eye of the beholder. Given that there are also other events over several hundred years before the 20th century that might also be called Chinese invasions, and there were several other military clashes between China and Tibet during the 1911-1949 period, the title "Chinese invasion of Tibet" seems a bit too ambiguous to me. What's more, Chinese Invasion of Tibet and Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951) both involve a disambiguator, and the latter is better on POV grounds.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Complete embarrassment

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It's embarrassing how much this article is biased in favor of the Tibetan separatist/Dalai clique POV. Sadly, this is not a unique case for WP. From topics ranging from Falun Gong to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, almost all China articles are written in an anti-China perspective. --Tocino 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect? These pages are in English and the users are dominated by the USA and UK, ie English language users. The people in these countries have been conditioned, if not brain-washed, by their respective governments and media. 81.156.182.33 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I would argue the Falun Gong article is a lot worse. Colipon+(T) 20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
To see you coin the term 'Dalai clique' gives you away. How's that for 'objectivity'?Qwrk (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) → Invasion of Tibet — Unecessary dab — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

  • Strong oppose. I agree totally with the reasons given above by User YeshuaDavid above. And I think it is important to keep the dates in the title of the article as there were other invasions of Tibet by Chinese and Mongol/Chinese armies in the past and it is good to keep the subject of the article clear. John Hill (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment. You might wish to have a look at the similar proposal I made a while back at #Requested move - January 2009. The main reason it didn't carry was because of the Chinese military actions in Tibet earlier in the 20th century. It seems to me that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives us some legroom here, as nearly all sources (that I have found) discussing the "Chinese invasion of Tibet" refer to the 1950-51 invasion, not the 1910 actions. I would still support dropping the dates if anybody can show definitively that this article's topic is the PRIMARYTOPIC of the non-disambiguated term. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Chinese restoration of Tibet"

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Chinese restoration of Tibet was recently created as a redirect to Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951). I have proposed that the new page be deleted, as the phrase "Chinese restoration of Tibet" does not appear anywhere else on the internet. See the discussion page. Bertport (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV again

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I intend to mainly highlight the introduction. Over half of its text is propped up by the separatist movement, and all the 'third parties' listed are the warmongering imperialists or so-called 'human rights' organisations. I would remove the entire sentence if it did not occupy half of the introduction. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 12:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

and the title itself has NPOV issues. By international law, due to the bloodthirsty Britons' carving away of Tibet, Tibet was not fully independent from 1911 or so to 1950. Thus the term 'invasion' itself is an illegal term. How is it invasion if the troops are taking military action against a region of their own nation? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

at Sinicization of Tibet the 1950 section is tagged for NPOV. thus the NPOV flag here is not entirely unwarranted. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 13:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. So your point is that you are a troll. I wonder how you know I am a European. Yaan (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
no I am not a troll, as I actually read most of the article. 'This user comes from Berlin' is partial evidence of your being a European. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
whether you read the article or not does not imply whether you are a troll. And Berlin has plenty of non-Europeans. That you seem to have a special problem with human rights is not really reason enough to flag the article. Neither is that you don't like the POV of the political leader of Tibet at the time. Yaan (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
re. the word "invasion", I don't think the word is illegal in any part of the English-speaking world. I believe it is used as the title of this page because it is the word most commonly used in English-language literature (you may want to look into the archives). And just that someone tagged some other article does not mean you have to tag anything that is somehow related. Yaan (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
my problem is NOT with human rights, thank you very much. My problem is with the separatists characterising the invasion as illegitimate or wrong; the conduct may not have been perfect, and they are more correct to comment on the conduct. By 'illegal' I mean 'improper usage'. And you may well be a citizen of an EU country. I was referring to 'European' in a political meaning, NOT ethnic meaning.
to clarify once more, I think the REAL problem with this article is with the introduction. but you cannot flag an introduction as POV. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you can flag a specific section as POV, with {{POV-section}}. The problem is, just placing the tag there won't solve anything. On neutral articles, it will just be ignored. On articles like these, it will be vigorously disputed. You need point out the specific words that are biased, and then we can have better discussions.
I think the whole article is biased, but it's a bit more nuanced. If you want to talk about the intro, here are some obvious starting points.
  • "The invasion marked the beginning of Beijing's campaign to integrate Tibet into PRC". Totally ignores the fact that China (and PRC, under succession of states) had sovereignty over Tibet at the time, gives no context of China's lack of central government and how the PLA had to "invade" every province as revolutionaries do.
    • Conveniently leaves out the essential fact that the "Tibetan army" and "Tibetan government" was not a legal internationally recognized state as it implies! It wasn't even a rebel government based on popular sovereignty. I struggle to find historical parallels to make my point, because most of these pseudo-states are footnotes in history books and Wikipedia—toppling them is considered a police action, not an invasion!
  • It cites the US government as a reliable source for determining whether it was an "invasion" or not, ignoring U.S.'s interest in saying so, its political interest in Tibet and against China. There are problems with the other sources. They are handpicked to support the Lamaist point of view, and given disproportionate representation.
The tough thing is that we can't fix this article just by erasing the POV text. We have to add text of the opposite POV to make it balanced, because when it comes to Chinese/Tibetan history, as many noticed, there is no neutral story. It's either a Lamaist or PRC narrative. I see from your user page that you can speak Chinese (I can't). Can you get some Chinese language sources for use? English language sources are overwhelmingly anti-Chinese because the Lamaist court lives in India. WilliamWater (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead is already written for NPOV. "integrate Tibet into the PRC" is studiedly neutral, as it does not make any assertion one way or the other about Tibet's independence from pre-Communist China. We can discuss here whether there should be some mention of China's history leading up to the invasion in the article. There is no implication made as to Tibet's international status. There is no assertion that any of the cited sources are the "right" ones or neutral or uninterested. It simply gives a brief description of how the events are described by various sources. Bertport (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And we are not going to stick a bunch of Chinese-language references in this article. This is an English language wikipedia for English-speaking readers, and WP policy discourages use of foreign language materials when English language sources are available. Bertport (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the article does not cite the U.S. government as a reliable source about whether or not there was an invasion; it simply cites it as a party that has an opinion on record. This implies that the opinion might be notable, but it leaves it to the reader to judge whether it is reliable.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction of title date

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The title of this article is "Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951)". However, the fighting at Qamdo and the marching seems to have all happened in 1950. With the signing of the 17 point agreement in 1951, any further troop movements could not still be considered invasion. The article would be better titled, "Invasion of Tibet (1950)". Splittist (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather unbelievable

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Wow—maybe I'm missing something here, but this entire article seems to have been written by the PRC government. Do they come in regularly and revise it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAvailableName (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, their stooges do. Bertport (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The irony is that the propagandistic slant ensures that no one outside the PRC would believe any of it, including the parts that are true. Do you think it's being edited for domestic consumption? Wikimedes (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Any specific complaints?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite a few. I'll propose 2.5 changes to the introductory paragraphs momentarily (see below). Thank you for moving this discussion to a more productive path. Actually, I'd like to expand the opening paragraphs and start a "background" section, but I need some more time to make sure of my facts and references.Wikimedes (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Subject of article

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this article about the invasion of the Tibetan ethnic region or about the invasion of the main Tibetan state, the territory of the Dalai Lama's government? This sentence refers to occupation of Tibetan areas in Qinghai:

"During the invasion, the Communists mistakenly believe that because the Kuomintang Muslim General Ma Bufang subjected Tibetans to harsh military rule and destroyed Buddhist shrines during the Kuomintang Pacification of Qinghai and Sino-Tibetan War, that the Tibetans would welcome them as liberators.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com, etc. etc.|title=China's campaign to "Open up the West": national, provincial, and local perspectives|author=David S. G. Goodman|year=2004|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=|page=72|isbn=0521613493|pages=204|accessdate=2010-6-28}}"

but it appears that the article is almost exclusively about the latter.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the material was inappropriate, and I removed it. Quigley (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2.5 proposed changes to the introductory paragraphs

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

1. Remove: "that happened in the context of negotiations" from the 1st sentence ("The Invasion of Tibet, known to Chinese nationals as the peaceful liberation of Qamdo,[7] was a military action in 1950 that happened in the context of negotiations between the government of the new People's Republic of China and the government of Tibet.")

This is POV because it implies the conflict was caused by a breakdown of talks, which further implies that both parties wanted essentially the same thing but couldn’t agree on details. I believe that a more accurate POV is that the conflict was due to the incompatible goals of the PRC wanting unification and the Government of Tibet wanting to remain independent ("The Invasion of Tibet happened in the context of incompatible goals between with Tibetan Government and the PRC"). There are other POVs that would be more controversial and inflammatory. I appreciate that negotiations were attempted before military action was undertaken, and it may be appropriate to mention negotiations in the opening paragraphs, but let's not commit to a particular POV in the opening sentence.

2. Remove: "though crucially, the Dalai Lama was a supporter" from the second paragraph ("The Tibetan government was divided about the agreement, though crucially, the Dalai Lama was a supporter.")

This is POV by omission because it does not mention what the alternatives were to accepting the 17 point agreement (e.g. hostile military take over and rebellion, fleeing to exile, etc.) and reasons for support (e.g. hope for aid in technological and economic advancement, but probably not a desire for unification). Also it’s not really fair to say that the Dalai Lama was a supporter of the agreement when he had just gone to war to prevent it. I think that this cannot be adequately summarized in the introductory paragraphs. It's better just to say that the governments signed the agreement and explore motivations in the main body of the article.

2.5. Remove: "The Tibetan government was divided about the agreement" from the second paragraph. ("The Tibetan government was divided about the agreement, though crucially, the Dalai Lama was a supporter.")

This is not as big a problem as saying that the Dalai Lama was a supporter of the agreement, but it still makes me uneasy.
  • What parts of the agreement were the divisions about? Unification itself? Degree of autonomy? The amount of territory to cede to neighboring provinces? The makeup of the governing council? How many PLA troops should be allowed to occupy?
  • Who were the divisions between? The Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama? (Could the Panchen Lama be considered part of the Tibetan Government at the time?) Other members of the government?
I don't think that there's adequate space in the introductory paragraphs to treat the issue of divisions without giving undue weight to division over unification. Although I do think that it's appropriate to mention that the Panchen Lama supported unification (I think that this was the case), and it would be even better if it were also mentioned that the Panchen Lama was living in PRC controlled territory prior to the invasion because of a tax dispute between his predecessor and the previous Dalai Lama.

I'm pretty new to editing, although I have spent many enjoyable hours reading Wikipedia over the years. I hope these edits (if implemented) will improve the article, and subtract from the controversy among editors rather than adding to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimedes (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Forgot to sign. Wikimedes (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To improve the article and subtract from the controversy, the best thing you could do would be to add or propose the addition of well-sourced and neutral content to even out what you see as the article's flaws. Not that there isn't material in the article worth deleting, but in two of the three changes you propose, the problems that you want to solve with deletion are actually problems of incompleteness. I give feedback on your proposed changes:
  • Re. (1): The material is necessary; the military action was launched in response to a breakdown of talks. I don't see how negotiations imply that "both parties wanted essentially the same thing". Examples of coerced negotiations, or negotiations where parties cannot agree on what they are talking about come to mind: the six-party talks for one. To not mention the negotiations in the opening paragraph is POV by omission because it lets stand the connotations of the word "invasion", which are of separate and sovereign state actors, which if there was ever a possibility of that for Tibet, was crumbling at that moment. Also, the opening paragraph serves to disambiguate this "invasion" from other events that are inaccurately called the "invasion of Tibet"; the suppression of the 1959 rebellion in particular. So setting the stage is important, because short sentences speak loudly. And I think your impression of a Tibetan government unified for independence dulls a lot of nuance, because there was a substantial pro-China and pro-PRC reformist element in the Tibetan government that was strengthened by the upheavals of the time.
  • Re. (2): Fix this by adding what you think is omitted, rather than deleting good information. It could be mentioned that the Dalai Lama actually did spend some time on the Indian border mulling exile, and debating some of the specific points of what would become the 17 point agreement. Prefer contemporary accounts if you are going to write about the DL's thought process because the DL's post-1959 reflections are obviously going to serve the exile cause. Also, if the Tibetan government perceived a further military threat, that may be added, but the official PRC intentions should also be represented. Do some solid research on the topic: you said that it's "not really fair to say that the Dalai Lama was a supporter of the agreement when he had just gone to war to prevent it"; but he had not. This invasion happened in October, while the Dalai Lama did not reach the formal age where he could exercise political power. He was given the crown on November; during the lead up to and the time of the invasion a conservative regent ruled on his behalf.
  • Re. (2.5): The questions you ask are ripe material for the body which can be summarized in the lead, instead of deletion. As it stands now, the lead does not unduly weigh any merits or issues in the "debate"/"controversy" about the negotiations since the issues simply aren't mentioned. Certainly if you can't, someone else with the information left in could supplement it if they have the relevant sources. As a starting point, renouncing a(n albeit unrecognized) claim of sovereignty, the degree of autonomy, and the number of PLA troops to be stationed were a matter of controversy. I'm interested to hear why you think any territory was ceded by the DL's government "to neighboring provinces", because as far as I know, despite casting some wide claims on lands they had not ruled for centuries, in actual control they gained some territory after this deal from Xikang province. Mentioning the Panchen Lama is fine, but watch out for an anti-Panchen Lama tone. The PL felt traditionally entitled to a certain amount of land to rule east of the DL, and this DL's government did not recognize him because of a religio-political controversy to do with his selection, not unlike the current Panchen Lamas'. Also, in case you're not doing it intentionally, using the words "division" and "unification" implies that China and Tibet were already separated, and so they are words to be avoided. Quigley (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2

If we're going to be mentioning things, it would be better to mention that the Dalai Lama was barely 16 at the time that the decision was made. He was in a situation where it was very difficult for him to have a meaningful opinion, although that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't have one.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2.5

As far as I'm aware, from reading Goldstein and Tsering Shakya, the only division within the GOT over the Seventeen-Point Agreement was whether it was a better idea to accept the agreement as written or to go to war against a vastly stronger opponent. I don't think there were any other options that seen as possible (I guess the Dalai Lama could have gone into exile and protested the "peaceful liberation" through nonviolent means. I think it was pretty much assumed that he would have to go into exile anyway if there was a war). Notable opponents of accepting the agreement were the two Acting Prime Ministers (sitshab), Lukhangwa and Lobsang Tashi (after the fall of Chamdo, the Dalai Lama left for the Indian border along with the top leaders of his government, the kashag, so the Acting Prime Ministers were appointed to remain in Lhasa and run the government from there). I think most of the kashag supported accepting the agreement, but I'll double check. The big Gelug monasteries near Lhasa were very willing to accept the agreement; they apparently thought they would also be the second most powerful bloc in Tibet, regardless of who was #1. The Panchen Lama was definitely not part of the discussions, and, for his part, he enthusiastically supported unification. The Panchen Lama might be considered someone who should have had a say in the matter, since he was traditionally the Lhasa government's most important vassal. I don't get the impression that any of the vassals or local leaders were actually consulted about this decision.

Give or take some land here or there, I don't think that the Tibetan government gained or lost any territory that they actually controlled. They gave up claims to a much wider area of land, and the Chinese provinces gave up claims to some of their land. As far as I can recall, the border issues were not mentioned in the Seventeen Point Agreement. The border settlement might have been entirely tacit.

I don't think the word "unification" implies that Tibet was legitimately separated from China. If anything, it implies the opposite. "Unification" usually has a positive ring to it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I read Wikimedia's proposals as meaning, not to remove content from the article, but to improve the balance of the lead. This is important, because some readers will get no further than the lead. His point is valid, that "the Tibetan government was divided about the agreement, though crucially, the Dalai Lama was a supporter" gives the wrong impression. If we are not going to remove it, then a revision along the lines of Greg Pandatshang's comments are needed - something like, "the Tibetan government was divided as to whether it was a better idea to accept the document as written or to go to war against a vastly stronger opponent. The Dalai Lama supported accepting the document". Bertport (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your feedback. My main goal is, in fact, to add content to balance what I perceive to be a bias, which I will work on as I have time, (I also expect some wording should be changed.) I agree with Quigly that “short sentences speak loudly” and that it is important to “set the right stage”, and this is part of my reason for wanting to edit the introduction.

In terms of semantics, I believe that the Tibetan government and the PRC were in a state of “division”. I don’t think that using the word “division” has to imply that they were legitimately separate countries. Or is that not the problem with the word? Similarly, I also believe that “unification” can be used in a NPOV way without implying legitimacy of the separation of the Tibetan government from the government of the PRC. There was certainly some sort of disunity between the Tibetan government and the PRC. Since Quigley has flagged these as sensitive words, I will be careful about using them in the article itself, but I may continue to use them in the discussion section as a short way to describe the events or situation. I don’t mean to elevate one POV over another by doing so.

1)I think I did not explain my reasons well. My concern is with the words “in the context of”. This incorrectly limits the context of the conflict to negotiations, when the context is in fact broader that just negotiations. I agree that negotiations should be mentioned prominently in the first paragraph, and using “following failed negotiations” instead of “in the context of negotiations” would accomplish this without incorrectly limiting the context. However, since “following failed negotiations” is already in the 2nd sentence, it’s probably better to remove “in the context of negotiations” from the first sentence, or alternatively, change the wording of the first sentence and remove it from the 2nd sentence. What do you think?

Quigley, it appears that you have 2 other concerns that I will attempt to address, in case these concerns affect your opinion of my suggested wording change. In terms of addressing the sovereignty connotations of the word “Invasion”, I do not see how mentioning negotiations accomplishes this, since negotiations are very common between sovereign states. Also, mentioning that the local name (i.e. within China) for the conflict is “the peaceful liberation of Qamdo” in the first sentence already makes it clear that there is a significant alternate POV to the characterization of the event as an invasion. In terms of disambiguating this conflict from other actions described as “invasions” of Tibet, I admit to not understanding your concern. It seems that the “(1950)” in the title accomplishes this, and that someone who is still confused will not be set straight by mentioning negotiations. Perhaps if you explained what you have in mind, I could understand better. But as I mentioned above, I believe that negotiations should be mentioned, I just want to change the wording.

2,2.5) Bertport has made his suggested change, which I think is a good one and addresses my concerns. BTW, I apologize for not getting my facts straight on the date of the Dalai Lama’s accession. As Quigley pointed out, the Dalai Lama did, in fact, attain his majority in November 1950 after active hostilities had ceased, not before they had commenced as I had implied.Wikimedes (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Negotiations" does not have the same problem as "invasion". Granted, "negotiations" is used for sovereign states. However, attacks against separatist groups and the land they seize are usually described as police actions, and not as invasions. In the long term, I am unsatisfied with the use of "peaceful liberation of Qamdo" (or even "peaceful liberation of Tibet") as a synonym for the invasion, because the peaceful liberation is much broader, involving the establishment of a civil society and the concomitant campaign for hearts and minds. Possibly a separate article should be written for that.
The other event most confused for an "invasion" of Tibet is the 1959 Lhasa Rebellion. It is often used a news media oversimplification of history, e.g. "the Dalai Lama fled the 1959 invasion of his homeland". This confusion of dates was (and to an extent, is) repeated on a lot of Tibetan Buddhist biographies on Wikipedia. I am apprehensive that Bertport made the change without referencing a reliable source on what the Tibetan government thought. Did they really evaluate and consider a full-fledged war, and consider themselves "vastly" weaker, or this is a modern projection of the Chinese human wave attack stereotype onto the past? I understand that subsequent Tibetan nationalist militias had some distinct operational advantages, such as not needing special oxygenation equipment. With regard to changing the first sentence, how do you say that it is broader than the context of negotiations? The invasion was strategic; it was not an endgame, not a takeover and conquest despite popular characterizations. To the extent that it brought the Lhasa government back to the negotiating table, it was successful, and the military operation had no more ambitions than that. I think we may be straying into material that would better serve the Seventeen Point Agreement's own article. Quigley (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentence currently in place, "The Tibetan government was divided as to whether it was a better idea to accept the document as written or to go to war against a vastly stronger opponent", is based on Greg Pandatshang's reading (above) of Goldstein and Shakya. I just re-read pp. 46-52 of Goldstein's The Snow Lion and the Dragon, and agree that this is a better summary of the decision-making process than what was previously there.
Wikipedia style guidelines say that everything in the lead should be elaborated, amplified upon, and provided with citations as needed, in the body of the article. Here, we actually have more in the lead (about the decision to sign the document) than in the body. We can improve the article by filling in that gap in the body. Even Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet does not have much to say about how and why the Tibetan Government decided to sign the document. So there is some work to be done, when someone finds the time and motivation to do so.
"Peaceful liberation of Qamdo" is cited, so it looks legitimate to say that the event is known to the Chinese by this phrase. Bertport (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
And, regarding the title, "(1950)" distinguishes the topic from many other invasions, including the Dzungar invasion of 1717 (known in Dzungaria as "the peaceful liberation of Lhasa") and the Gurkha invasions of 1788 and 1792 - known in Nepal, of course, as "the peaceful liberation of Tashilhunpo". Bertport (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


  • Re-reading Goldstein 1997, p.46-52, I find that the division in the Tibetan Government was over whether to “denounc[e] the agreement and flee[] into exile” or have the Dalai Lama “return to Lhasa and abide by the terms of the accord” (p.48). Skimming through Shakya 1999 (for the 1st time), I find much the same the same thing on p.83, though there is a long and detailed description of events, so I may have missed something. I suppose it’s understood that the Tibetan Government thought that if they decided to fight, Tibet would soon be overrun and they would have to flee, but it’s better to convey what the source says, rather than what might be inferred.
  • Similarly, I find no mention of the Dalai Lama’s support for the agreement. Goldstein 1997, after describing pros and cons of accepting the agreement or not, writes only that “the Dalai Lama did not denounce the agreement and flee into exile" (p.49). Shakya 1999, p.83 writes that the fact that 2 of the Tibetan delegates sent to Beijing to negotiate (Kheme and Lhawutara) did not receive an audience with the Dalai Lama on their return “reflected the Dalai Lama’s disapproval of the agreement”.
  • The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says that the lead section has the same verifiability requirements as the rest of the article, with some exceptions. It also says that many citations may be needed for complex or controversial subjects which I think applies here, and that contentious statements about living people (i.e. the 14th Dalai Lama) need to be cited every time. For such a controversial and complex topic, I recommend erring on the side of too many citations, rather than too few.
I will update the article to reflect the first two points: “The Tibetan government was divided about whether it was better to accept the document as written or to flee into exile. The the Dalai Lama chose not to flee into exile.“ and add citations.Wikimedes (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your changes make the lead reflect the source material more accurately. Thanks. Bertport (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Quigley: Your explanation has helped make things clearer for me. I can see now that since the military operation into Chamdo was for the purpose of bringing the Government of Tibet to bargaining table (and had been planned with this objective in mind since December 1949), that it could been seen from the PRC perspective as being in the context of negotiations. However from the Tibetan perspective, it could be seen as being in the context of defending the homeland against a foreign invader. I think even from the PRC perspective, there are broader contexts that apply: It could be in the context of returning Tibet to the motherland; in the context of unifying China, Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet into a greater China with a strong central government in order to defend against European and Japanese imperialism; or in the context of liberating Tibetan serfs from a theocratic feudal system of government. All of these contexts should probably be explained in the article, but I still don’t think that it is right to commit to one of them in the first sentence of the article.
Completely disambiguating from the 1959 rebellion for people who are still confused after reading “1950” may be difficult to do in a single phrase. Someone reading to the end of the lead should be able to see that the 1950 conflict is different from the 1959 rebellion, although I’m not sure how much description of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising really belongs in the Invasion of Tibet (1950) article.
This discussion has been fruitful so far (at least for me), but I think that soon it will be time to walk away from the dead horse. If you still think “in the context of negotiations” is necessary, I won’t take it out without adding additional wording to address your concerns.Wikimedes (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Great discussion above. I've been re-reading Goldstein's coverage of this topic in 'A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 2. You guys are right to say that the options the Tibetan government was deciding on were basically for the Dalai Lama to accept the agreement or for him to go into exile. War was not seriously considered. In answer to Quigley's question, Goldstein talks about how the Chinese forces were seen as overwhelming at the time:

Militarily, Tibet, in fact, still had several thousand troops in the field, as well as perhaps a thousand more in Lhasa. These theoretically could have been organized to set up a new defense line or reorganized to engage in guerrilla operations in the rough mountain terrain between Chamdo and Lhasa. But no such plans existed or were ever discussed, and morale was terrible. [Two primary sources are quoted to the effect that officers were thinking about fleeing in case of a confrontation]. Moreover, the troops returning from Chamdo said there was no hope of overcoming the PLA in battle ... "People were saying that first the Chinese sent five, then ten, then one hundred, then one thousand and that even if we fight them they come at us endlessly (Tib. gyashi tonglang)." ... Militarily, therefore, the Tibetan government had no plan to use its remaining troops should it reject the agreement. In Yadong the only issue was whether to accept the agreement or go into exile. No one saw a military option.

— pp. 111-112
I was also wrong about the two sitshab opposing the agreement. In fact, they supported having the Dalai Lama return to Lhasa. I'm not sure that squares with their almost immediate refusal to implement the Seventeen-Point Agreement once the Chinese arrived. Perhaps their plan all along was to keep the Dalai Lama in Lhasa and then hope to overturn the agreement by political maneuvering.
Goldstein lists the leading supporters of going into exile as the following: the kashag minister Surkhang Wangchen Gelek, "senior lay officials Shakabpa and Namseling, the Dalai Lama's lord chamberlain Phala, and the Dalai Lama's relatives (e.g., his brothers Lobsang Samden and Taktse Rinpoche)." (pg. 139)—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Background section begun

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have begun a background section to the article in order to give some understanding of the situation and events leading to the military conflict, and specifically to address the questions of why they fought, and why the PRC won. I have referenced it as well as I was able from Shakya 1999, Goldstein 1997, and to a lesser extent Feigon 1996. There remain a few unreferenced statements that seemed warranted from my readings of the sources, but that were hard to directly reference. I have marked them as “citation needed” in the hopes that someone who agrees that they deserve inclusion will reference them properly. I was unable to to combine the 3 Goldstein 1997 p.44 references into a single reference using the "ref name=" format (see Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once). Perhaps someone else can give it a go?

A couple uncertainties:

  • Dalai Lama’s age: I calculated the Dalai Lama’s age to be 15 during the Invasion based on the birth date 6 July 1935 given in his Wikipedia article and using the western method of calculating age as 0 years old at birth, which I feel is appropriate for the English language Wikipedia. Shakya 1999 p.48 lists his age at 16, not 15. If my calculation was in error please correct it and give a reason.
  • Regent’s name: I am not confident that I have the name of the Regent correctly. Shakya 1999 p.5 writes only a single name “Taktra”, which for all I know could be a title and not a name. The timeline section of the article mentions “Regent Dagzha”, which may be a different transliteration of Taktra, but I really don’t know. Could someone check this? (Odd that the name of the head of government should be so hard to find.)

I would have liked to have added information about the Panchen Lama, the PRC radio campaign for hearts and minds using Tibetans from PRC-controlled Ethnic Tibet, factions within Political Tibet favoring and opposing unification (if there were such), and more detailed information on military matters such as local and total troop strengths and dispositions. There may be other major omissions of which I am unaware, and I hope that the information (light) included in this beginning of a background section makes those omissions (shadows) easy to spot so that they can be added.Wikimedes (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dagzha is definitely an alternate spelling of Taktra (it's basically the Tibetan Pinyin version, although I would think it should really be Dagzhag — transcriptions often end up leaving off the final g/k). As for the Dalai Lama's age, Tsering Shakya may be using the Chinese-Tibetan system, which counts a person as 1 year old at birth. I would stick with the age you figured based on his birthdate.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up.Wikimedes (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bertport for fixing the named references.Wikimedes (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead expanded

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have expanded the lead to improve balance and coverage. I removed very little from the previous version of the lead and have added citations, except as noted below. This makes the lead pretty long, and it may be possible to pare it down a bit, but some expansion was necessary to add balance and give a better picture of events.

I had originally planned to include a paragraph to give a brief explanation of the factors that allowed the PRC to win the military conflict, but left it out in the interest of space. Most of the information in this paragraph is in the background section. Here is the omitted paragraph in case someone finds it useful:

Although the Tibetan terrain would be difficult to attack and the high elevation favored Tibetans who were used to it, most other factors favored the PRC. The PLA was much larger, better trained, better lead, better equipped, and more experienced than the Tibetan army. Due to the young age of the Dalai Lama, Tibet was under regency rule, which is traditionally a period of weakness and division in the Tibetan Government. Furthermore, the Tibetan Government was diplomatically isolated, not officially recognized by any foreign country, and did not have sufficient international relations to make its position on the issues generally known.

I did remove “in the context of negotiations” from the first sentence for reasons stated above in 2.5_proposed_changes_to_the_introductory_paragraphs. (I believe the points in that discussion became clearer as it progressed and it may be easier to find the "in the context of negotiations" portion by reading it in reverse.) I hope that the expanded lead addresses Quigley’s concerns about this removal and that anyone who reads the 1st paragraph will be able to infer that negotiations occurred prior to hostilities, that fighting was very limited in time and space, and that Lhasa was peacefully occupied by the PLA. Anyone who reads the 2nd paragraph will see that both the PRC and the Guomindang claimed that Tibet was part of China. As in the previous version of the lead, “1950” disambiguates the Invasion of Tibet (1950) from the 1959_Tibetan_uprising and further disambiguation comes at the end of the lead when the 1959 uprising is specifically mentioned.

I left “Tibetan troop buildups” uncited. Although there is plenty of mention in Shakya, Goldstein, and Feigon of Tibet’s attempts to enlarge its military, I don’t remember seeing anything saying the military had actually been enlarged, or that troop strength had increased in the Chamdo region in particular (I may well have missed something that was there). Feigon 1996 p.144 even writes that Ngabo had dismantled most of the fortifications the previous regional commander had put up. I did not want to use the citation for troop buildups used in the body. ((53. ^ a b c "Beautiful Tibet". China Internet Information Center. 2010-09-14. p. 3. http://www.china.org.cn/video/2010-09/14/content_20926836_3.html. Retrieved 2010-09-25) because it is not a “published scholarly source from an academic press”. (Does Feigon qualify? I don’t recognize the publisher.) It appears to be a Chinese Government website, which may be considered a “political party publication” and definitely qualifies as “partisan” if used in this article (though completely non-partisan sources may not exist) . Also, the cited text is titled “Beautiful Tibet” so it appears to be promotional in nature. Having said that, I don’t think that the Tibetan forces just happened to be there, and I expect that a better source can be found.Wikimedes (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox edits and questions

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Because the Dalai Lama had not yet ascended to the throne at the time of the military conflict, I removed Tenzin Gyatso from the infobox. In some military history featured articles I’ve seen, (Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu and the Polish-Soviet War), heads of state are not in the info box, only military commanders, so I have not replaced him with the Regent or Prime Ministers. (I believe Mao was head of the armed forces as well as head of state, so it’s appropriate to keep him in the info box.)Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Reading one of the cited references for the casualty figures in the article, Shakya 1999 p.45, I see “a total of 5,738 enemy troops had been liquidated”, and “180 Tibetan troops killed or wounded” referring to an announcement made by the PRC. In Lee Feigon’s ‘’Demystifying Tibet’’ 1996 p.144 I see “The Chinese reported no casualties while they claimed that only 180 Tibetans were killed or wounded.” When referring to people, the word “liquidated” usually means “killed”, but then why report only 180 killed or wounded? Based on what I know of the battle, a >50% casualty rate seems pretty high. Could the 5,738 number refer to captured soldiers, rather than killed soldiers? Can anyone shed light on this?Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Because Shakya’s casualty estimate is from a PRC announcement and the writing of one of the PRC generals, Zhang Guohua, I have made a note in the reference that this is a PRC casualty estimate. I don’t have access to Laird. Could someone check to see what his sources were for the casualty estimate?Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Was there ever any estimate of PRC casualties? Shakya 1999 p.43 says that the Tibetans were able to repel the PRC attack at Dengo, so I assume there were some PRC casualties.Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Partial reverts to wording changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Restored “Peaceful occupation of Lhasa”: I’m sorry, but the initial occupation of Lhasa by the PLA in 1951 was peaceful – check the cited references. The fighting had been over for about a year, and the occupation remained generally peaceful until 1959.Wikimedes (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted 2 instances of “annexed” to “invaded”: While I have no problems with describing the incorporation of Tibet into the PRC as annexation, the term just doesn’t apply in these cases.

“The PLA did not go on to annex the whole of Tibet however.” This sentence does not make sense with the word annex. Annexation is not a military action, it is a political one. (There may be a way to reword this sentence with the word “attack” or “advance” instead of “invade” so that it still makes sense and is accurate.)
“Mao in December 1949 ordered that preparations be made to annex Political Tibet’s province centered at Chamdo, in order to induce the Tibetan Government to negotiate.” “Annex” does not accurately reflect the cited source, which says “in December 1949 Mao ordered preparations for an invasion”. Mao was ordering preparations for a military action, not a formal incorporation of territory. If you want to make a wording change to cited text, I’d be happy to check for you to see if the cited source supports the change (as long as I have the source readily available). There’s an online version of this source here http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft2199n7f4&chunk.id=d0e631&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e631&brand=eschol .Wikimedes (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
“Take control of” is an improvement over “annex”, but still does not adequately convey the military nature of the plans. Also, the author (Goldstein) uses the word invade, and I’d like to accurately reflect the cited source. However, Goldstein does not imply that Mao used the word “invade”, and I expect that 173.206.168.177 is correct that Mao did not think of it as an “invasion”. Could someone provide a reference for what Mao actually did use to refer to the military action planned? There are probably several ways to make this sentence work. The best I can think of right now is to use the word invade and follow it with the term Mao actually used (English translation, pin yin, and character) and a citation. I could also put a note in the Goldstein citation that Goldstein uses “invade”, but does not imply that Mao did. Any thoughts?Wikimedes (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know enough on the topic to comment, as far as I'm concerned do what you think is best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I don't have a source that says what word Mao used, I put "cited author's word" in parentheses after the word "invade".Wikimedes (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Found the following Chinese sentence which is said to be written by Mao in mid-December 1949: "为不失时机地解放西藏，打击帝国主义侵略扩张野心，促使西藏向内地转化，进军西藏宜早不宜迟，越早越有利，否则夜长梦多". Meaning: "In order to seize the opportunity to liberate Tibet, crack down the wild ambitions of imperial powers, and make the transformation of Tibet into inner areas, it's better to march into Tibet as early as possible, the earlier the better, otherwise the long delay may become trouble.". Basically he used the word "march into" for his military action, as part of his plan to "liberate" Tibet. Just google this sentence, you will find a lot of references. --205.189.152.231 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

More POV problems

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I moved the following from Putting "invasion is POV" on firmer ground to a new section. If it was meant to provide references in support of the argument that the word "invasion" is non-neutral, feel free to put it back.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

At a first read the article looks like it was written from a Sinocentric political POV. The first line itself is intolerably crass.

The Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China was a process that happened between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the government of Tibet.

'A process that happens between two entities' implies a mutual accommodation between equals, of almost biological osmosis, if not a smooth diplomatic engagement. That reunified China 'invaded' Tibet (the word 'invaded is used in the text), and then incorporated it cannot be described as a mechanical process between two bodies. That is not NPOV. It is an example of bureaucratic manipulation of language to give the appearance of neutrality while actually phrasing the fraught events of that day as a matter of reciprocal give and take.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition to being intolerably crass, the opening sentence does not say what the subject is. WP:BEGINNING ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Since renaming the article a month or so ago, no one (myself included) has really stepped up to reword and reorganize the article to reflect the new focus. I think the problem you bring up with the first sentence is that after renaming the article, the word "process" was substituted for the words "military conflict". Probably a better first line would be something along the lines of "The incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China was the process by which the People's Republic of China gained control of Ethnographic and Political Tibet, ending Politcal Tibet's latest period of de-facto independence."--Wikimedes (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. The trouble with articles that are a POV minefield is that the process of consensus building involves, not commonsense, a gift for clear straight-forward encyclopedic prose, but satisfying different POVs. This result is all over the page. Basically one needs an experienced copy-editor with a strong background in WP:NPOV just to review this. The alterations you suggest, though reasonable on one plane, reflect the POV-clash, and this, ideally, should be precisely what a reader coming to wikipedia should not be compelled to notice ('Ethnographic and Political Tibet', for example). If you read the Encyclopedia Britannica or any other encyclopedia of world standing, this is the primary object of drafting, and a point the general editors usually insist on. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reworded and restructured article to conform with new title

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

It’s been about a month since the last attempt to rename the article, so the article is probably stable enough to rewrite it to conform to the new title. I did a quick (several hours) rewrite to accomplish this, though the rewrite could benefit from some copy editing. A few explanatory notes are below, or just read the article and see how it stands on its own without justification.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kham and Amdo I know almost nothing about the incorporation of Eastern Kham and Amdo into the PRC, so aside from a sentence in the lead mentioning it, I will have to leave adding content on this topic to someone else.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead The lead was getting long, and would probably be too long if info on Eastern Kham and Amdo were added, so I moved most of the lead to the body.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Morality debate and behavior of the PLA Much of the article read like a morality debate justifying or condemning events rather than just describing them. Things that I felt were relevant I incorporated in the appropriate sections of the article. Things that seemed to add little to the article or belabored points that were already covered I left out. In particular, there was quite a bit (generally favorable) about the behavior of the PLA. Since the behavior of an army towards POWs and civilians is of interest in any conflict I moved a few lines to a section I expediently titled “Behavior of the PLA”. There may well be a more neutral way of presenting this.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet I called the section on the military conflict “Invasion of Tibet”. This is what it is called by most of the world outside China, and IMO accurately describes events. I know this won’t stand without further discussion, but before changing the name because “a country cannot invade its own territory”, please at least provide a reference to support your contention in putting "Invasion is POV" on firmer ground above.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort, Wikimedes. I think it provides a helpful pared down basis on which to reconstruct and build a fuller account. In reading the earlier version, I could not, personally, recognize Shakya's book, though it was used as a source, since the citations were highly selective and favouring one point of view. I've done a little work there to thicken the account of the decisive negotiations in a timeline, but haven't much time to do any more. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 
The UN map of the world in 1945
I have no problems with other points except for the last one of Wikimedes's comments above. Whether "Invasion" is POV or not, there definitely exists disagreements about this word. Why not try to use more general words (e.g. military campaigns, etc) instead whenever possible? The UN world map published in 1945 for example (on the right) showed Tibet as part of China. In such cases, there are certainly problems to describe the use of "invasion" as accurate. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but at the time the UN made that map, China claimed all of Mongolia, not only Inner Mongolia, and only yielded ground on this some years later? Maps are not how we write history, but what archives tell secondary source writers about the diplomatic and eventive play. One could write a whole section here on the diplomacy of why the main actors, India, the United States, Great Britain and France refused to back the Tibetans. It wasn't a matter of technical arguments about sovereignty or suzerainty. It was a matter of the logic of national interests etc. This is missing, and the article would be much improved were wikihands to work on it.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Nishidani - Thanks for your (continuing) edits. I agree that the article needs some filling out. Also, I second your motion about adding material addressing why Tibet was not recognized internationally. I may not do it myself, but it would add to the article.
64.56.230.166 - Thank you for providing evidence in support of "Tibet was a part of China". Unfortunately, the legend of the map says "The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or any area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries". I think in light of this disclaimer, the map is not evidence that anyone considered Tibet to be a part of China. On a more minor point, this map was created in 2010, not 1945. Although it is "rev 3", I am unable to trace its history on the referenced UN website back to a 1945 map.
As to your suggestion that we should use a different word because there are disagreements about the word "invasion", this sounds like a variation of I just don't like it. A referenced argument on why it is inaccurate would be a much stronger reason not to use the word, especially some references showing why invasion is the wrong word if Tibet was already Chinese territory. Even then, a naturalness reason may carry the day (does anyone think the Great Leap Forward was a leap forward?), but I would like to see the objection to the word invasion evolve beyond 'I don't like it, take it out'. Thus the subsection putting "Invasion is POV" on firmer ground above.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and a few remarks (including the issues regarding the map). However, it's not a "I don't like it" just because of the existence of disagreements. True, I have noticed that that map may not used to directly show other nations considered Tibet as part of China, but there are also other sources showing it. It's well known that Tibet was subordinated to Qing Dynasty until the fall of the latter in 1912. Republic of China also continued to assert Chinese sovereign over Tibet since its founding (although had no real control over it), and Goldstein's "The Snow Lion and the Dragon" also explicitly states that (p40) "In contrast, Tibet's political subordination to China was repeatedly validated by the West throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and particularly in the critical years during and immediately following World War II. Despite lofty rhetoric about freedom and self-determination, Western democracies maintained a consistent policy of yielding to Chinese sensibilities, accepting the official Chinese position that Tibet was one of the territories comprised by the Chinese nation.". Clearly this does show that they considered Tibet to be a part of China, particularly in the late 1940s, immediately before the establishment of PRC and entry of its forces. In such cases labeling it an invasion is problematic at best and it's certainly beyond "I don't like it, take it out". --64.56.230.166 (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It's unfortunate for your argument that you cite Goldstein's "The Snow Lion and the Dragon". For Goldstein throughout his book describes the events of 1950 as an "invasion".Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This may not be really true. For example, in the whole section "Chinese Communist Rule: The Mao Era" which directly deals with this event, there are only a few instances of "invasion", but there are also other words like "(military) attack" etc. The appearance of "invasion" may only because of the reasons similar to the use of "Great Leap Forward" etc, but not that such use is accurate. Furthermore, Goldstein's book also makes other comments like "The United States was willing to send its troops to Korea, but not even to recognize Tibet was an independent country, let alone arm and train Tibetans to launch a guerrilla war in Tibet.". I'm not saying that "invasion" should never appear anywhere (for reasons similar to "Great Leap Forward"), but there are certainly problems to describe this word as accurate, and may also use other words whenever possible. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The sources Shakya, Goldstein and Laird use 'invasion', because factually, a long-standing border was crossed and the only reasonably equipped army under Political Tibet's control was 'wiped out', leaving the hinterland open, were it not winter, for a military march to the capital, unless Lhasa capitulated after calculating the loss/gain probabilities of declaring a defensive war. The language used is not, optimally, determined by editors but by the preponderance of usage in quality sources with an imprint that suggests academic obligations to history rather than to political or national implications. Not to use 'invasion' as it is in the sources, is to espouse a national perspective. Look, Goldstein is critical of the confused use of the phrase 'invasion of Tibet' because, as I have edited in, Tibet was two realities: one 'Political Tibet' and the other 'ethnographic Tibet', and the Chamdo debacle occurred in the latter, to which China had some strong traditional claims. Notwithstanding this, he chooses to use the word 'invasion', as do many other scholars in English academic works, and this being the English wiki, guidelines oblige us to follow customary usage. I have edited this point in to clarify an ambiguity that existed. It would be helpful if editors avoided selected quotation. Good articles deal in nuance. Both the British and the US legal offices, when asked at the time, came firmly down on the side of the view that, in international law, Tibet had strong claims for qualifying as an autonomous state, as that was defined by the UN charter. The legal opinion was not followed through by a political decision for geostrategic-and political calculations. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you may miss the point. What the previous message targeted as is mainly regarding the "Invasion is POV" issue (and related references) but not that whether "invasion" should ever appear or not. Yes, we should try to follow the use in typical English academic works (for example Goldstein uses "invasion" alongside with "(military) attack"), which I have no problems with it, but this is not the messages are primarily dealing with. Probably the previous message should be placed in the "Putting "Invasion is POV" on firmer ground" section, in order to avoid such misunderstanding. But to make it clear here, your message is in fact mainly targeting about a different (although related) topic than my message was. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
We have a link to the previous section, which was briefer than this one. I reply, as precisely as I can, to what I see in each section. If I've missed a point, please feel free to explain where. You suggested at the outset 'invasion' was inaccurate, citing the UN map, and I have addressed the reasons why I think it is appropriate as per the customary choice of term employed by the sources used to build the page.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I was originally trying to collect references to point out the disagreements and that Wikimedes wanted to support that "invasion" is POV, and thus provided a UN map. He pointed out that map is not a good reference (which I then agreed with), so I provided others. What I was trying to is mainly regarding the "Invasion is POV" issue, and provided related references (yes, I have noticed that it may be better to be placed on a different section). On the other hand, I have no problems with your comments regarding customary usage etc. Thanks for understanding. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

article title

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

This page was recently moved from Invasion of Tibet (1950) to Annexation of Tibet (1950) with the description: Invasion is POV, as Tibet was arguably Chinese sovereign territory before.. First, this article title has been discussed very extensively so far, so I don't agree with moving it now without discussion. Second, "annexation" is worse than "independence". As Wikipedia, says,: "Annexation ... is the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous)," i.e. if China annexed Tibet in 1950, it means that Tibet became part of China at that time.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In July of last year I held views similar to Eraserhead, hence I brought up a section that Yaan , who is not to be trusted at all in terms of intelligence or civility, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gantuya_eng/Archive accused me as being trolling. Now with this move, and the definition of annexation, my concerns over "Invasion" POV have been quelled. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Invasion and annexation are not the same thing; invasion is a military action, while annexation is a political action. Often invasion and annexation are directly connected, but this was not the case in Tibet in 1950. The People's Liberation Army did not march into Tibet and take over the government by force. The power transfer was a negotiated civilian agreement where the political pressure was more diplomatic isolation than military threat, and the border skirmish at Qamdo was just one event in a long run-up to the end of Tibet's experiment in self-government. The "Annexation" of Tibet (if it is to be called that, which I disagree with, as it implies that Tibet and China were legally separate) covers a broader span of events than the "Invasion of Tibet". If this article is to remain at "annexation" (or an equivalent, more neutral term) it needs to cover more history and it cannot continue to be characterized as a purely military event. If this article is to return to "invasion" (or an equivalent, more neutral term) it needs to cut out some of the "annexation" stuff afterwards. Quigley (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Its now been moved back, and I've added a POV title tag. What would be a good neutral title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
What about Chinese takeover of Tibet? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That title is ambiguous, because there have been many dynastic "Chinese takeovers of Tibet". Quigley (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the 1950 invasion was only one necessary part of how Tibet came under control of the PRC, how about starting a new article titled "Incorporation of Tibet into the PRC 1949-1952" or something similar? Relevant parts of the current Invasion of Tibet (1950) article could be copied or moved to the new article after it is created. Wikimedes (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a better title, but a focus on 1950–1951 is best, and limited coverage of the background and future can be placed in the respective sections. Establishing the date as "1949" indulges TGIE irredentist fantasies about expanding the definition of political "Tibet" into Qinghai and the like. "Tibet", as in the common "incorporation" use (from which Wikipedia should not deviate to be clear), meant the autonomous government and its controlled territories. Quigley (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think "Incorporation of Tibet into China (1950-1951)" would be an even better title, otherwise its getting rather long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that 1951 is a better end date than 1952, since the 17 Point Agreement was settled and PRC troops first entered Lhasa during 1951. However several things happened during 1949 that deserve inclusion in the main article: The PRC declared it's intent to "liberate" Tibet and Tibet took several steps to retain it's de-facto independence, including attempts to expand and modernize its military, attempts to gain diplomatic recognition, and sending a letter to Mao saying that the government of Tibet would use all possible means to defend itself against troops sent by Mao. As far as I know, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to shape TGIE political thought and we should not exclude or de-emphasize pertinent information because the TGIE might misinterpret it.Wikimedes (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I had proposed "Incorporation of Tibet into the PRC 1949-1952" (now ...1951) as a new article, rather than as a new title for the present article, but I suppose that's an option as well.Wikimedes (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Possibly "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" would be even better (I don't like PRC as its an acronym) as that doesn't require any dates, and is more neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Leaving off dates would broaden the scope of the article, as there are degrees of "incorporation", including the PRC gaining political control in 1951, more direct control in 1959, Sinicization of Tibet, or anything that would make Tibet seem less independent. I expect you're right that it's better to use People's Republic of China than PRC in the title.Wikimedes (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Even so, surely the name would be better than the current one, which doesn't get the dates "right" and is clearly POV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorporation

I think the title and focus of this article should change to Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. The current title "Invasion of Tibet (1950)" actually implies a pretty narrow focus, which could basically just be called the Battle of Chamdo. If we called the article "Invasion of Tibet (1949-1950)" we could also include the largely unopposed occupation of eastern Tibetan areas in Amdo and Kham, although people don't usually think of that as "the invasion of Tibet". The "incorporation" title would allow us to focus on the whole process from driving Guomindang and warlord forces out of Kham and Amdo up to the signing of the Seventeen Point Agreement and its ratification by the Ganden Phodrang.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Works for me with or without dates. Looking back at the article's history, its focus has always been broader than the 2 weeks of military hostilities in 1950, and IMHO should be. If there is enough information available for a separate article on the invasion itself, it can be created later.Wikimedes (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved without the dates, its pretty long as it is :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that "people don't usually think of that as 'the invasion of Tibet'" is exactly why the transfer of power in Qinghai and Sichuan should be out of the scope of an "incorporation of Tibet" article. For even most mainstream pro-exile sources, the "invasion of Tibet" began at Qamdo. We can extend the current article; the process up until the ratification by the Ganden Phodrang is fine, because it is often included as part of the "incorporation" narrative. However, to regard the pre-1950 machinations in Qinghai and Sichuan as the "incorporation of Tibet" is ahistorical, serving only to bolster quite recent and not fully transparent expansionist claims to a Greater Tibet. Quigley (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that people think of the "invasion of Tibet" as beginning at Chamdo because they think of an "invasion" as involving a confrontation between two significant military powers, and that required the PRC to go up against something resembling a state, i.e. the Ganden Phodrang Tibetan government. But "Greater Tibet" is what the Wikipedia article on Tibet is about. The eastern areas were incorporated without an invasion, at least without an invasion that resulted in very much fighting. I do think those eastern areas are part of the same narrative. Some individuals who made contact with the CCP during the occupation of Kham and Amdo quickly became important in dealing with the Lhasa regime: e.g. Geda Tulku, Taktser Rinpoche, and Phüntso Wangye. A few years later, the rebellion began in eastern Kham, so, while that is not part of this story, it fits into the larger narrative of Tibetan history in the early Communist period.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Inclusion of Ethnographic Tibet in the article is warranted:
  • There has so far been no agreement to limit the article to Political Tibet, so the incorporation of Ethnographic Tibet into the PRC falls within the scope of the title.
  • This article is no longer confined to the invasion of Tibet, even in name, so “people don’t think of that as the invasion of Tibet” is now irrelevant.
  • I’m not sure what you mean by “quite recent”, but in November 1949, the Tibetan Government wrote to Mao demanding that Tibetan territories annexed by the Nationalists be returned to the control of the Tibetan government (Shakya 1999 p.27). Claims to a Greater Tibet are certainly historic and occurred during the period of interest of this article.
A concern: Quigley - your last sentence seems to say that because certain facts may support a particular POV, they should not be included in this article. Although there are certainly considerations of undue weight to be taken into account with this or any article, eliminating verifiable facts because they may “bolster…expansionist claims” would be information suppression. I hope that that was not what you had in mind.Wikimedes (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Greg Pandatshang put out a proposal for discussion, and I replied with a critical argument exploring the implications of a major POV shift in the article. If that's "information suppression", then your comment is "discussion suppression". The focus of my argument was concern for the representation of a minority, if not fringe, viewpoint as a majority viewpoint: that it may advance a political POV is a secondary, but not unimportant consideration. I don't want to belabor the point about terminology, because it is a problem across the whole range of the Tibet and China-related articles that will require deep thought and discussion. This is the wrong forum to pursue such concerns, and so because Greg unveiled some facts that have assuaged some of my concerns about improper synthesis, I will leave this page marinate. Quigley (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The old intro that call this event "Invasion of Tibet" and then present the PRC version of "Liberation of Tibet" is actually the more accurate presentation of how both sides see the event. Right now the article just say "Incorporation of Tibet". Who thinks Tibet is being incorporated like a new province? Not either side. Benjwong (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as the title isn't changed by all means change the introduction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that outside China there are at least 2 versions of events. The "popular" view is that the PLA conquered all of Tibet and immediately began a program of religious suppression and genocide. Historians that I've read (Shakya, Goldstein, Feigon) understand that the invasion was mostly limited to the Chamdo region, the initial occupation of the rest of Political Tibet was peaceful, and the occupation remained peaceful until 1959. Historians do call the military action an invasion. For me, the title change is not so much about making the article less POV as moving the focus to what historians believe actually occurred. Since most people outside of China think of the whole process of incorporation as just an invasion, I think there should be a redirect (there is) or a link from a separate Invasion of Tibet article (possible future work) so that they can find this article.Wikimedes (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If another article is needed in the future Battle of Chamdo or Battle of Qamdo seem like the most neutral title for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed: Tibet was part of Qing China and her successor states ROC/PRC... restoration of de-facto administration is very different from enforcing de-jure rule (annexation) of a territory that was fully sovereign and independent to begin with.108.7.241.222 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_2&oldid=1140571475"