Talk:Tibet/Archive 7

NPOV

After reading and studying this page over several weeks, I became very interested about this subject of "Tibet controversy" with respect to modern politics and nationalism. Before I tagged this as an biased article, I took the time and pleasure of doing research by reading many history books and articles on such a topic. Mostly, I tried to locate books regarding the history and culture of the Tibetan region and its people. Books concerning the politics of this issue were generally avoided. Upon completing my "concise" research project, I came to a conclusion that this article about the history/culture of Tibet is very biased and tends to especially lean toward the perspective of the Western political world. I will state my reasons below.

1. In Wikipedia, facts and quotes are often backed up by appropriate and reliable sources of information. The location and whereabouts of the sources can be found by scrolling to the bottom of page. By examining the sources of all information concerning Tibet, we can determine for ourselves if any bias exists. I did this and found an overwhelmingly large proportion of articles that came from pro-Western politics websites and articles. Almost none of the sources came from the perspective of the government of the People's Republic of China. In addition, I failed to find any historical website linked to this topic and yet, the article is supposed to speak about the "history and culture" of Tibet. Not surprisingly, many sources of information have either direct or indirect links to websites supporting Tibetan independence and western politics. Thus, many sections of this article on "Tibetan history and culture" speak about politics from the Western perspective. For instance, this articles includes the three topics of "Perspective of Tibetan Exile Community", "Perspective of Western Governments", and "Perspective of the People's Republic of China." If you actually scroll to these subsections, you will find that the "Perspective of the People's Republic of China" is almost FIVE times SHORTER than the other perspectives! Tibet is a province in China and Tibet is almost 9,000 miles away from the coast of California. One should definitely expect more sources from the People's Republic of China but that is not the case. In fact, those with ulterior motives who edited the article never even bothered to provide credible sources to the section of the "Perspective of the People's Republic of China."

2. This article is also structured in a fashion, which is written to have single SOLE purpose of branding the People's Republic of China as a horrific human rights violator. By reading an article about Tibet "HISTORY and CULTURE", one may expect to learn more about the customs and history of the Tibetan people. Instead, most of the main points of this articles try to prove that Tibet was "invaded" by communist China. IF YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS, THEN DO SO ON ARTICLES ABOUT "TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE", WHICH EXIST ALREADY. But, keep the BIAS from historical and cultural articles. Few actual facts from this article are about Tibetan history and culture. Ask yourself these questions. How do Tibetans pray? Where do they pray? How does Tibetan food differ from Chinese food? How doe Tibetan etiquettes differ or have in common with Chinese etiquettes? and so forth.. IN FACT, nothing from this article states anything about this! Read it once and ask yourself those questions!

These are my mains reasons of coming to a conclusion that there is some serious bias in this article. If you have opinions about Tibet from a political perspective, then go to a blog or write about it on "Tibetan Independence Movement" wikiarticles . But, please DO NOT do this on an article about the history and culture of Tibet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the PRC is a major HR violater. :http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41640.htm

Look at the reference section on Human rights in the People's Republic of China.

Google china human rights violations, you'll get lists of sources.

Tibet was invaded by the PRC, historically Tibet has not been part of China. Historically it has been its own nation.

My reply to your "reply". So far, no refutable academic non-political group has even found any evidence to state that Tibet was never part of China historically at one point or another. In fact, a search on Encyclopedia Britanica would have a very comprehensive time line of Sino-Tibetan history. Furthermore, the Dala Lama also stated that Tibet was historical part of China in a speech this 2007. I even believe that this wikiarticle has it quoted! Again, humans rights violations is really something inappropriate to be discussed in Tibetan history and culture. Such events and information should belong on "Tibetan Independence" blogs and wikiarticles. So please remove your bias from a political standpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historychaser, you're right that this article tends to rely on English-language sources, which is not desireable but normal, since the article is written by people who understand English. I'm afraid I don't understand your other complaints. Looking at the version of the article before you started editing, I don't see any sections on "the views of Western governments" and the sections such as this one or this one are certainly not five times shorter than the ones representing the Tibetan exile view. Also, the section on culture does actually only mentions the occupation briefly.

There are a lot of political issues involved with Tibet, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be discussed in this article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems of systematic bias throughout Wikipedia, especially on controversial issues such as Tibet.

It is very easy for any of us to reject anything said by the Chinese government, because everyone knows it is a tyrannical homocidal dictatorship, so of course anything it says must be propaganda. Some fall for that temptation so completely that they lose sight of any of Wikipedia's guiding principles. I myself have just come back from a block incurred when User:Blnguyen baited me past 3RR for my crime of trying to achieve balance on the Panchen Lama articles.

On the other hand, this article is remarkably balanced. Though it still has a lot of uncited "some say..." and "Tibetan independence groups reject..." it generally presents all sides of the argument in a fair and balanced manner, which is a credit to the long term and dedicated contributors here.

The article is not without problems, but it has the good fortune of being in the hands of a group of rational, balanced, and dedicated editors, and we should all work together to improve it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MY REPLY AGAIN... I fail to see any reason why POLITICAL and NATIONALISTIC writings should be POSTED on articles about CULTURE/HISTORY and in fact, much of the "facts" used are sourced from incredibly pro-Tibetan independence and their imperialistic Western governments. Lhasa, Tibet is over 11,000 miles away from Washington, DC. Shouldn't we be expecting more articles from the People's Republic of China? The People's Republic of China has over 70 million English students and the government provides many websites and historical sources but none are used at all.

KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE "SOURCES" YOU ARE USING AT BASICALLY HEAVILY BIASED. They are filled with utmost hypocrisy and serve as puppet as the Western government. Ask yourself why Russian Federation, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Serbia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Iran, and many African countries DO NOT have anything or any major groups related to this "cause." The reason is simple... these are pro-Western government groups. I HIGHLY DOUBT THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE GROUPS. For instance, the United States has fought many wars for its self interest. Take for example, the incredible genocide of Native Americans, war crimes committed against Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese civilians during those wars. So, even if you do write about "FREEDOM", then please get some more reliable sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE "SOURCES" YOU ARE USING AT BASICALLY HEAVILY BIASED. They are filled with utmost hypocrisy and serve as puppet as the Western government." That's a strong claim, and you're going to have to prove it before anyone accepts it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.32.3.241 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your response seems to have shifted toward political invective at this point—there isn't much here to reply to.

I think it is not exactly right that this article is about culture and history to the exclusion of other subjects. The note at the beginning says that it is about "Tibet" and it defines "Tibet" as a historical/cultural region. This means that it is not about a particular political entity called "Tibet", such as the Lhasa state or the TAR. I don't think it is supposed to mean that the political status of the region will not be discussed at all.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Historychaser - While I completely disagree with your politics, motive, rhetoric, methods, blind accusations and wild rantings, I do tend to agree that the general article on Tibet may be too politically loaded. For comparison, consider the article on Sudan. The Darfur conflict is every bad as contraversial and politically charged as the situation in Tibet, but yet the only mention in the general Sudan article is the link to "War in Darfur". Other similar cases include Rwanda and Burma. The base article on Tibet should focus on people, culture, traditions, geography, history and notable events with links pointing to dedicated articles on the broader conflict and politics around it.

POV by both anons and registered users

Maybe some anon/registered users are not too professionally familiar with this topic, but like it or not, there are tonnes of NPOV information showing Tibet did have some forms, loose or tight, of subordination to the Chinese state before the establishment of the People's Republic. I with no doubts reverted all those copy-and-paste pro-Dharamsala POVs.

maps as primary sources:

• Map published in Japan, 1908
• Rand McNally & Co. map published in 1914, See "Image:LA2-NSRW-1-0148.jpg" on Wiki.
• Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd in 1923, See "Image:India_shepherd_1923.jpg" on Wiki.
• "The Growth of European and Japanese Dominions", by W.R. Shepherd, 1923
• Map published in Japan, 1933
• "Administration Divisions of Shina", Japan, 1933
• History and Commercial Atlas of China, Harvard University Press, 1935
• Map published in Japan in 1942

(FYI, the People's Republic was established in 1949)

other info/sources

• Simla Convention 1914
• Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet, University of California Press, 1989

Commemorating the 49th Tibetan Uprising day doesn't mean we the editors should greenlight those Dharamsala propaganda these few days.

MainBody (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How ironic that someone would invoke Japanese maps to validate Chinese imperialism. Maps also show the Manchukuo, but that doesn't mean it has a historical fate/obligation to be part of the Japanese Empire. That these earlier maps show Qing dominions as "China" i.e. part of the Qing Empire, is simply an expression of Japanese endorsements of Qing claims - maps are inherently political in nature, same as old US maps showing the Oregon Country as already part of the United States before that was actually the case; (there's also Chinese documents in British Columbia describing that British colony as a "colony of T'ang", but nobody ever took it seriously that BC was a Chinese colony, or at least no one else did...). Japan wheedled on Tibet in the same way the governments of Canada and the US do today; these maps mean nothing except a Japanese endorsement of Qing presumptions. And to boot, that the post-Maoist Imperial China condemns the Qing legacy, but invokes it as a way to extend claims to "Chineseness" far beyond Han China is not just ironic, it is rather sick. Tibetan Uprising Day - that's when the slaughter of monks and the raping of nuns and burning of monasteries was launched, huh? And the ground set for the mass immigration of Han into an area they're not even physiologically suited to live in, overwhelming the real Tibetan population: Some liberation...pointing at mperialist maps to justify genocide is, well, all too typical of Han/Maoist logic.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflamatory language like "imperialism", and quasi-racist condemnation of "Han/Maoist logic" is not helpful here... Your disagreement with a multi-ethnic conception of China does not make it "sick". Intolerance of others' beliefs is much "sicker".

MainBody, what are you trying to prove? I think it's fairly established that Tibet was never "independent" in the 20th century, and the article makes no such claim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism is imperialism, and that's what Chinese policy about Tibet and other non-Han areas is. Period. "Imperialism" is not a POV word, it is a statement of fact with clear definitions, which Chinese poltical behaviour and ambitions fully lives up to. PRC imperialism uses Qing mperialism to justify itself, to justify its territorial claims and violent repression and genocide. That's not inflammatory, it's a statement of fact. Never saying the truth directly is one of the practices that allow those who wish to twist truth to get away with it. Oh, "genocide", that's another inflammatory word that's probably "not allowed"....I guess in writing histories of Germany we should avoid the term "holocaust" as inflammatory, too....Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes you "sick" that people who do not share China's multi-ethnic conceits - all a cover for Han expansionism - suggests you are in need of a reality check. The rest of the world doesn't have to buy Chinese historical propaganda, even if you've been breastfed on it. If you feel sick, maybe that's because you're confronted with the reality that your country has determinedly sought to deny. China's vision of multi-ethnicity is all about having cute little non-Han groups to help sell tourism with, and to say "see, these people are Chinese too, just because we made them be part of China, isn't that great?". The Tibetans do not share your concept of a multi-ethnic China - and they are sick of being told they don't have a right to define their history, insteadof having Han propagandists do it for them....and Han propagandists who get huffy when somebody calls them on their newspeak and twisted history. "Self-determination" sa principle of ethnic self-governance; somethinig denied to the Tibetans and Uighurs and others....be sick all you want, I'm unsympathetic.Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, this sort of Imperialism crap/analogy in your sophomoric language doesn't work in the case of Tibet/China. Imperialism is unquestionably imperialism, but it basically doesn't not exist in the Sino-Tibetan relationship. If it exists, Han Chinese should have easily became the majority group for several decades or even a century in TAR. Honestly, as you may not acknowledge, Han Chinese are not interested in living on the Plateau at all, needless to say "imperialist ambitions"

Like it or not, the multinational feature of China is developed naturally since at least the Tang Dynasty. In the case of Qing case, we Han Chinese never forced the Manchus to claim their country China and we have never (and not intestested) assimilate them into Han Culture by force. Moreoever, it's the Manchu Emperor, while in the height of power, voluntarily claim their regime as China on the world stage. It's similar to ethnic-German Catherine the Great crowned herself Tzarina(-Regant) of Russia.

I think MainBody's Japanese maps (Can't you see this detailed map is quite NPOV?) rather successfully rebut those Dharamsala's brainwashing claims that there is no historical connection between Tibet and China "before the PLA invasion". The maps show that all foreign countries, both ROC's allies and adversaries, with no limitation, acknowledged Tibet as part of a Chinese Nation.

Nuns raped, civilians killed, human rights violations exist, yes, frequently in Tibet and other part of the Chinese Nation. However, I don't see there is any credibility and justification for the Dharamsala propagandists pointing fingers. Actually such kind of violations (even more serious) did exist under the pre-1951 Lamaist Government(Sources: Bessac, Frank, "This Was the Perilous Trek to Tragedy", Life, 13 Nov 1950, pp130-136, 198, 141; Ford, Robert W., "Wind Between The Worlds", New York, 1957, p37; MacDonald, David, "The Land of the Lamas", London, 1929, pp196-197) while the ROC was torn by civil wars, for example, do you know how Tibetan Commander-in-Chief Lungshar was punished by the Dalai government that he pledged allegiance to?

"Greater China", Han Chauvinism....Han Expansionism...blahblah, please feel free to invent more terms like these, but please note that having made friends with some ethnic Tibetans residing in the North American cities doesn't automatically award you basic knowledge on the Tibet issue.

Let's focus on improving the Wikipedia article itself, if you are so eager in expressing your special love for your Tibetan friends, please feel free to do so on TPT. Anyway, you have my sympathy.

Hey, wait! Here is my IMPERIALIST PEOPLE"S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IP ADDRESS -> :-) 219.79.27.241 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Snide putdowns and personal innunendo are stock-in-trade for Han chauvists and anti-Tibetan propagandists, you're nothing new. Likewise the ability to admit to rape and killings, and then baldly say it's just "Dharamsala propagandists pointing fingers". All the rest of us are wondering when Chinese fascism wakes up to the smell of its own doodoo, and realizes that by "callng white black" you're not savng face, you're humliating yourself by your embrace of illogic and the typical personal attacks you throw at your critics; a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you is, after all, a sign that you know your logic cannot stand, so you have to discredit the source, or try to. It's avery old game, and very childish. "Sophomoric" was teh term you used on me; it's far more applicable to you.Skookum1 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC) You're so stock-in-trade I'm surprised you didn't call me a running-dog lackey as well as a patsy of the "Dharamsala propandists". Qiang qing would be proud....Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

yawn...is that all you can say? Thanks for displaying such kind of thousand-word literary grace on this talk page , but, sorry, I don't really see how it works in improving the article with your, if exist, knowledgeable and constructive edits.

And, btw, stop being paranoid on this heated topic. Mentioning human rights violations, killings and rapes, in historic Tibet/China doesn't represent brainlessly following those Dharamsala stories of (pre-1951) Tibet as Shangri La and happy/benevolent serfdom. The argument you used above is nothing but nitpicking.

Once again, it is a talk page for discussing improvement of the wikipedia article. please go to newsgroups for pledging your political allegiance to CTA in Dharamsala.(where your literary talent would help :-)) 219.79.27.241 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Err... yes. Hope you both feel better after that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As PalaceGuard implies, this kind of pseudo-conversation is not fit for Wikipedia. I don't mind if the conversation wanders a bit off topic for a while, as long as it is generally productive, but this flame-war serves no useful purpose at all.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Text and Broken Refs

The section Evaluation by the Tibetan exile community needs repairs by a knowledgeable editor.

--Juanco (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

POV- THIS ARTICLE IS SOMEWHAT BIASED...

After reading this article carefully, I came to a conclusion that a severe problem of bias is present in this article. Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral POV on most articles and I believe that this article should be no exception. Although the issue of Tibet may cause controversy in modern politics, I strongly believe that political "propaganda" on both sides should not exist in this article. As for this particle, propaganda or biased language often come from "Pro-Tibetan" groups. One can clearly examine the tone of the language and the sources used for this article to discover this. When people are interested in Tibetan history and culture, they should be learning about Tibetan history and culture, not human rights abuses around the world. I really don't think that Tibetan etiquettes and language has anything to do with the perspective of the "Tibetan government in exile" or the "People's Republic of China." Furthermore, I believe that it is entirely wrong to "stereotype" or "brand" some as a "COMMUNIST" just because they do not believe in the "Tibet cause." Ironically, those who brand or label others as "communists" are in fact threatening the freedom of speech of others on Wikipedia. If you believe in the Tibetan cause, then please go ahead and blog on "Pro-Tibetan" websites but keep it away from Wikipedia. Wikipedia tries to serve as an unbiased source of information for millions of readers around the globe and I believe you guys (regardless of which "side" you're on" are tarnishing Wikipedia's image. Just go to Encyclopedia Britannica and read their articles about Tibet and see what "unbiased" means.

IN THE MEANTIME, I HOPE NO ONE WILL REMOVE THE "POV" SIGN AND EVERYONE ON BOTH "SIDES" CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A BETTER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! I have already contacted the administrator in order to settle such debates and controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you are running around tagging Tibetan articles with the POV tag, and then pasting a message on the talk page which does not address what your specific concerns are. Post specifics, or the tags will be reverted as your own POV. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

REPLY I feel very compelled to uphold the Wikipedia standard of keep articles unbiased and very educational and useful to many users. Much of what I said were unfortunately deleted by some users. I will not try to state what I said before. But, my main point is that we should remove bias in articles especially controversial ones. Primarily, my interest are in East Asian and Slavic history and cultures. It's very hard to judge history at times and even history books can be somewhat biased at times. But, I believe that by staying away from modern politics, history can be become "history" again. Thus, I recommended that the Administrator and fellow users delete parts of the article unrelated to TIBETAN HISTORY AND CULTURE. For instance, "Perspective of Tibet from a Tibetan Government in Exile, China, Human Rights groups perspective" are completely unrelated to Tibetan history and culture. An overwhelmingly high percentage of the sources used are directly linked to Pro-Tibetan websites and such. One may also doubt sources and facts put out by the Chinese government as well. Thus, in order to come to an agreement, I believe we should first take away all POLITICS from a HISTORY/CULTURE article and use academic sources instead. If you have strong feelings concerning Tibet from a political perspective whether supporting Tibetan independence or not, then please post on blogs or write about them on Wikiarticles related to Tibetan independence. But, keep away from HISTORY/CULTURE articles. It really damages the reliability and prestige of Wikipedia.

Can you point to the instances where your comments were removed from talk pages by other editors? They're not supposed to do that. I looked at this history of this page and didn't see anything.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is EXTREMELY biased (as of March 2008). It would be better titled "Why Tibet has always been part of China". This point was made, remade and made again before anything about the actual subject, Tibet and its history was mentioned. I made an atttempt to rebalance it, but obviously there are a lot of Chinese "patriots" who will swiftly revert any such attempts. So I give up. Ministry of Truth has won. Continue to revise history to justify your imperialism and genocide. Barsoomian (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Friend, you use the word "genocide" too lightly. You have no idea what a real genocide is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.164.228 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read more than the intro, Barsoomian? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there not a section about the customs of Tibetan people?

Tibet is not just a spot on the map. It is where the Tibetans lived. To understand its people will perhaps help people understand the reason for the recent riots.

Maybe these pages can be pasted or linked to the main Tibet site? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantweather (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This article does already have sections on Tibetan culture and cuisine. By the way, they still live there.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth behind the Younghusband Massacre

Knowing nothing about Tibetan history, I was nonetheless struck by the Younghusband 'massacre' as seemingly out of character (based on his Wiki entry) and the fact that such a serious incident seems to have generated no repurcussions. Currently the article states that he "slaughtered 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangzê, because the locals feared that the British would force an unequal treaty on the Tibetans. Younghusband first tricked them into extinguishing the burning ropes of their basic rifles before opening fire with the Maxim machine guns."

However, a brief click on the 'reference' (the Chinese Government's official website for Tibet: which is IMO far from the best NPOV source for historical analysis: http://en.tibet.cn/) already changes the story. According to that version, the British did 'trick' the Tibetan soldiers into extinguishing their fuses, but in order to disarm them: and the shooting only started when a British soldier was killed trying to take the gun from a Tibetan soldier. There is no talk of maxim machine guns either.

While we are in both cases describing an ugly and deeply unfortunate incident/massacre, the current wording gives the improper impression that Younghusband deliberately slaughtered 1,300 lightly armed Tibetans(effectively civilians) with machine guns, after tricking them into lowering their weapons.

A more proper construction might be: 'Younghusband's men were involved in a massacre of 1,300 Tibetan soldiers at Gyangzê. A British attempt to trick the Tibetan forces into laying down their weapons failed when shots were fired, and 1,300 mostly unprepared Tibetans were killed in the ensuing chaos.'

This seems altogether more honest, and more fitting, than something poorly culled from an already controversial source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.97.130 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A PRC source is POV. Documents from a authoritarian "communist" government generally don't fit the bill for npov. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A common misconception is that "NPOV" means using neutral sources. It does not - editors are not required nor equipped to assess the neutrality of a source. NPOV means presenting all points of view disclosed by reliable sources. A Chinese government website is a reliable source -- of the Chinese government's view of the situation. If you can find other sources that argue against this version of events, then both should be presented. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Robbers are robbers, the Younghusband massacre was even documented in source favoring CTA's position including "Red Flag over Tibet" by Orville Schell. Denying the British massacre is as ridiculous as CCP denying killings in Tiananmen Square in 1989. (I'm not sure whether this source can be used as Reference.)

Observation by Arthur Balfour, then-British PM, implies that British operation was not simply expedition:

"If the lama refused to even consider our very reasonable and moderate offers, we have no choice but to turn the expedition from a peaceful into a punitive one...(and) to destroy such buildings as walls and the gates of the city and to carry (off) some of the leading citizens as hostages"[Grunfeld A.T., quoted from Peter Fleming's Bayonets to Lhasa, 1961]

219.79.27.241 (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Younghusband did use Maxim machine guns and there wasn’t fatal casualty to his soldiers, according to his own report. Younghusband maintained communication with his superior in India by telegraphs. His telegraphs are included in a book titled “The British Invasion of Tibet: Colonel Younghusband, 1904” which can be found on amazon.com at this address: http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Invasion-Tibet-Younghusband-Uncovered/dp/0117024090

The following statement, Younghusband’s report of the incident, is on page 235. “The Lhasa Depon (Tibetan officer) firing the first shot and the Tibetans (1,500 strong) firing point blank and charging with swords; they were, however, so hemmed in that they coul not make use of their numbers, and after a few minutes were in full retreat under a heavy fire of guns, Maxims and rifles, which caused them heavy loss.”

Younghusband reported the casualties as “our casualties are—Major Wallace Dunlop slightly wounded; Mr. Candler severely wounded, and seven sepoys wounded.” What a great success! He, of course, said nothing about tricking the Tibetans.

The Chinese government is so incompetent; you should not trust their material. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the minor casualties the British suffered and the disproportionate heavy loss of the Tibetans, these poor guys were tricked. Who should be blamed? Maybe the Tibetans should blame their “uncivilized” minds. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether there are any serious historians who argue that a massacre of civilians or captured soldiers during the Younghusband incident. Most accounts agree that the British force entered Tibet and met with resistance from the Tibetans, whose bravery in some cases resulted in them taking heavy casualties fighting against a much stronger opponent. There's no "massacre" there, just a one-sided result to a battle. As for the Balfour quote, I think it's indisputable that the Younghusband invasion had the goal of winning political concessions from Tibet, and that they were willing to use violence toward this end. But the quote refers to tactics such as destroying government property and kidnapping influential persons. There is no indication that the British would attack ordinary people, and I don't really see what they would have stood to gain by that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a massacre, read the words of British soldiers who pulled the triggers. “From three sides at once a withering volley of magazine fire crashed into the crowded mass of Tibetans,” wrote Perceval Landon. “Under the appalling punishment of lead, they [the Tibetans] staggered, failed and ran…Men dropped at every yard.” The British soldiers mowed down the Tibetans with Machine guns as they fled. “I got so sick of the slaughter that I ceased fire, though the general’s order was to make as big a bag as possible,” wrote Lieutenant Arthur Hadow, commander of the Maxim guns detachment. “I hope I shall never again have to shoot down men walking away.” [Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood, page 195] http://www.amazon.com/Virtual-Tibet-Searching-Shangri-Himalayas/dp/0805043810 If this is not a Massacre I don’t know what is.

Colonel Younghudsband had a mutual agreement with the Tibetans for not firing at each other. To avoid bloodshed the Tibetans pledged that if the Tibetans make no attack upon the British, no attack should be made by the British on them. Colonel Younghusband, on December 6, 1903 replied that “we are not at war with Tibet and that, unless we are ourselves attacked, we shall not attack the Tibetans.” [The British Invasion of Tibet: Colonel Younghusband, page 189] Younghudsband apparently did not keep his word but the Tibetans did. And they were killed.

In his telegraph to the headquarter in India on April 1, 1904, the day after the massacre, Younghudsband said the following: “I trust the tremendous punishment they have received will prevent further fighting, and induce them to at last to negotiate.” [The British Invasion of Tibet: Colonel Younghusband, page 237] He was trying to break the fighting spirit of the Tibetans.

It is true that there aren’t many people talking about this massacre in the West. It has been swept under the rug, too embarrassing I guess. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

a section on China and Tibet

Because of the known dispute, the relationship between China and Tibet should be given more weight in this article. Tibet has a long relationship with China which begins with Tibet’s military aggression into China in the 8th century. This article only talks about the recent part of this relationship which begins at about 1900. To help people better understand the history of these two, this article should have a section on China and Tibet that covers the full length of this relationship. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adding a new article would be a better idea...Prowikipedians (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1600 and Post-1600 China tibet relation should not be mixed up. They are very different issues. There are wars between dynasties all over the history, and Tibet is historically Theocracy, as some dynasties around the World does. However, the difference is, at the time of Qing, colonization becomes global trend and Qing is one of them which starts colonizing over China and Tibet as well. This kind of imperialism conflict is rather different than the previous dynastic war. Both of them should be documented, but under different sections.--203.186.20.219 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In Geography Section: Source for Ganges is not in Tibetan Plateau, please correct it.

Source of Ganges is Gaumukh/Gangotri in Garhwal Himalayas which I think is not a part of Tibetan Plateau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.134.68 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

autonomous region

if tibet is autonomous then what is their quarel with the chinese govt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.134.113 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The quarrel, at least from the Dalai Lama's official perspective, is the level of autonomy. The level of autonomy enjoyed by Tibet is, in many respects, less than that enjoyed by, for example, Hong Kong.

Another perspective is that Tibetans disagree with the cultural worldview of the Chinese government. There is a good article in today's China Times of Taiwan written by its mainland correspondent, which points out that for many Tibetans, religion, a peaceful life, and preparing for the afterlife is more important than material wealth. Thus, while they welcomed the Communists' reform of Tibet's previous feudal socio-economic system and theocracy, to them the infrastructure and economic investment by the Chinese government does not come close to compensating for the exclusion of the Dalai Lama, control and disturbance of religious practices and their way of life.

Added to this is the high-handed way in which appointed Communist officials treat the local populace. Anyone who has been to China will know that this happens everywhere in the mainland. However, in Tibet, this is easily elevated into a Dalai Lama vs Beijing, or Tibetan vs Han issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In just one day, this article has become a Pro-Tibet Advertisement

I am kind of disappointed in many wiki editors today. They took notice of the growing attention on Tibet in the past week, so they decided to edit this article to paint their own story here. No, a pro-tibet website is NOT a source. Good lord. Also, if you're going to source an article, don't just snippet pieces of it that makes the article seem even more pro-Tibet. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be CNN or FOX here. Keep it objective and verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashkenazi78 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

has any country ever objected to China's rule over Tibet?

I recently added the following neutral and factual statement “No country in the world has ever objected to China’s rule over Tibet.” It was removed twice by different editors without good explaination. What is your opinion on this? Has any country ever objected to China's rule over Tibet? If your answer is none then this statement should be included. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "object". Many countries have expressed various degrees of criticism of Chinese policies in Tibet, occasionally vociferous but more often relatively mild. When the PLA began moving into Tibet in 1950, it is certainly the case that Britain, the United States, and India suggested that China should not use military force and made their opinions on this point very clear. The government of El Salvador was less circumspect, proposing a resolution by the UN General Assembly to the observing that "... the peaceful nation of Tibet has been invaded, without any provocation on its part, by foreign forces" and deciding "to condemn this act of unprovoked aggression against Tibet". This resolution was, of course, not passed, but, later, in 1959, the UN did pass a resolution calling "for respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life"; and, in 1961, the UN clarified this by "solemnly renew[ing] its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination." I don't know how much of this rises to one's standard for "objecting the the rule over Tibet", but I would think that the statements by the government of El Salvador do, at least.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

India! Giving a city(Dharmashala) to Tibetians to form and run their own in-exile Govt. So cut it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.251.209 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn’t Beijing and Tibet reached an agreement, something like seventeen points agreement? Didn’t the Chinese entered Tibet without a war? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by an "agreement". The Lhasa government showed no interest at all in agreeing to anything of the sort until after the PLA captured Chamdo by defeating a Tibetan army (Chamdo was inside the territory of the Lhasa regime and deep inside the ethnic Tibetan area). Even after the fall of Chamdo, the Tibetans' opening negotiating position was "please return the territories you have taken." The 17 point agreement was negotiated in Beijing and, regarding the more contentiuous points, the Tibetan party had to be cajoled and pressured into accepting it. In the most contentious case, point #15, their hesitancy was met with an explicit threat that the PLA would march on Lhasa.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was a war in Chamdo and the Tibetan army was defeated, but that has little to do with the signing of the seventeen point agreement. This agreement was reached in Beijing in May, 1951 and was passed by the Tibetan national assembly in Tibet in September, 1951. This agreement, negotiated and confirmed by Tibetans, makes Tibet officially a part of China.

The Tibetans was pressured, no doubt, but they were not “cajoled and pressured into accepting it.” They signed it voluntarily. The Dalai Lama was in a small town near India during the negotiation. Despite the repeated persuasion from the U.S. government which pledged to give him support and asylum in the US, he refused. Instead he returned to Lhasa and signed the agreement. He even went to Beijing in 1954. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't seem to have quite gotten your argument. How could the loss of Chamdo possibly have nothing to do with the 17 point agreement? Before the battle, the government in Lhasa had no interest at all in agreeing to anything of the sort. After an army marched into their territory and seized Chamdo, poising itself to march directly on the capital with no chance of serious resistance in between, they decided to start negotiating. The cause and effect seems crystal clear.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Tibetan delegation was not cajoled and pressured, or that they signed voluntarily. As I said, they were directly threatened with a renewed offensive by the PLA. According to Melvyn Goldstein, the Tibetan delegation's objection to point #15 "irritated the Chinese, who angrily replied, 'Are you saying that you are against China? If that is the case then you can go home, you need not stay. We will send the People's Liberation Army.' The Tibetans then tried to calm the Chinese and suggested taking a break. During this period they talked among themselves and decided they had to acquiesce."

It's true that the Dalai Lama's government at length decided that they were better off accepting the 17 point agreement than going into exile. So what?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The distance between Chamdo and Lhasa is about 1081 km or 670 miles. The high altitude, the lack of roads and the mountainous terrain provided plenty of difficult obstruction for the advancing Chinese army. To say that there was “no chance of serious resistance in between” is not convincing. Aside from this minor issue, what country would give up its sovereignty over one defeat? This is why I said the Chamdo defeat means little.

The Tibetan delegation was not cajoled and pressured into signing that agreement because they did not have the final word. It was the Tibetan government in Lhasa and the Dalai Lama who approved and signed it. Surely the signing of the agreement was done after the thorough evaluation of the situation. People who are not aware of Tibet’s history with China often say that the agreement was signed under threat. Could the Tibetans sign the agreement because of the benefits of being a part of China? Tibet enjoyed being a part of China over two centuries before claiming its independence in 1911. China gave it food and protection during that period, maybe the Tibetans wanted to become a part of China because of that.

The quote from Melvyn Goldstein is silly. He wasn’t there. Was he? That statement, if true, makes the Tibetans cowards. During the Russian invasion, Afghanistan was weaker than Tibet and the Russian military was much stronger than the Chinese one. Yet, the Afghanistan people fought and won. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the quote is silly? Were you there? Just wondering. Actually, the Chinese had caught a number of high officials, the army was completely demoralized, there are a number of other good reasons why resistance after fall of Chamdo could have become infeasible. I wonder what the basis for the statement "Afghanistan was weaker than Tibet" etc. is. And of course the Russians did not lose, they just retreated. Yaan (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways you can view the situation: perhaps the Tibetans were demoralised by the defeat of the pride of their forces; perhaps they were very keen to join New China and the fight was all a mistake; perhaps they put up a token fight in order to strengthen their bargaining position; perhaps the more advanced weaponry and tactis of the People's Liberation Army impressed them.

The only version(s) of events that we should present here, however, are those backed by reliable sources. See WP:OR and WP:RS for why. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly, my main source for information about this sort of thing is Melvyn Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet, 1913 - 1951. What's yours? Here's how Goldstein describes the situation after the fall of Chamdo:

With the main Tibetan force destroyed, the Chinese pushed on, meeting no resistance. On 22 October, they took Lho Dzong, Lhalu having already fled west to Pemba Dzong; on 27 October, they took Shobando; and 31 October they captured Pemba Dzong, again meeting no resistance, for by this time Lhalu had moved still further west to Giamda. It had taken just two weeks to destroy the main Tibetan defense force totally and, in the process to capture a shape and other important officials. The central road to Lhasa was wide open to the Chinese; they could easily have taken Giamda, where Lhalu commanded a small number of new recruits recently sent from Lhasa, and have moved into Lhoka and Lhasa.

So, yes, I think this meant a great deal in terms of the Tibetans' interest in negotiating, to say nothing of the fact of the post hoc, that it was at this point that they in fact did begin negotiating in earnest (although they did still try to delay, so it's actually a bit more complicated).

The Tibetan government ratified the Seventeen Point Agreement after it was signed. That doesn't change the fact that the circumstances under which they agreed to it involved a vastly superior sitting in their territory which clearly could and would have occupied the entire area regardless of whether they agreed or not. You ask, "Could the Tibetans sign the agreement because of the benefits of being a part of China?" They could, yes. Do you have any evidence at all that they actually did do it for this reason? Let's not forget who it was that negotiated the Seventeen Point Agreement: five aristocrats who held high positions in the Tibetan government. Ngabö himself was a shapê, meaning that he was one of the four highest-ranking persons in the government below the Dalai Lama or the regent. These were the last people people who would ever have any motivation to voluntarily cede authority over Tibet to someone else.

Melvyn Goldstein was, of course, not present at the negotiatons—A History of Modern Tibet is not a memoir. Goldstein is a historian, and so his job is to report accurately on things which he did not actually see himself. In this case, he cites as his main source an interview with Sambo Rimshi, who actually was there: he was one of the Tibetan negotiators. Tsering Shakya in Dragon in the Land of Snows also describes basically the same incident, citing one of the other Tibetan negotiators, Lhautara. This is interesting because Tsering Shakya spends a bit less time on the negotiations than Goldstein does, and his account relatively de-emphasising the pressure put on the Tibetan side; but he still includes mention of this particular threat.

Whether or not the quote shows the Tibetans in a negative light is immaterial to the question of whether or not it happened. In fact, a lot of people would say that Ngabö really was a coward, although I take a bit more favourable view of him than that. I'm curious as to how brave you would be in the face of a credible threat from the PLA to march into your house and take over.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nat, the Chinese military threat was the primary factor, sure. What I disagree with you is that you seem to discount other factors—the lack of international support, the benefit of the union, etc. The more important point I have been arguing for, with you and others, is that it was the Dalia Lama and other Tibetan officials in Lhasa who signed off Tibet’s sovereignty. The negotiation in Beijing became valid only after it was confirmed by those in Lhasa, so don’t blame the delegation in Beijing.

Are Tibetans cowards? I don’t know. All I know is that they were reluctant to defend their homeland. Countries raise and fall throughout the history, only those who can stand up to the tests (invasions, natural disasters…) deserve to have their own countries. Americans fought the British for their independence. The Chinese resisted the Japanese invasion for more than a decade. They suffered a casualty of 30 million deaths and the lost of their capital Nanking, and yet, they continued fighting. Maybe the Tibetans do not deserve a country of their own.

It is not a case of the Tibetans were reluntant to defend their homeland; the Tibetans know that they were a part of a larger entity, as they were already a part of the Qing empire, which after all the turmoils of the 19th and 20th centuries re-emerged as The People's Republic of China. 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am in favor of forming big countries, provided that there is not much bloodshed in the process. A room with many small boys is chaotic; a room with just one big boy is free of conflict. Beijing incorporated Tibet into China without much bloodshed; I have no problem with that. After all, the great majority of Tibetans don’t seem to mind. Very few Tibetans joined the 1959 uprising and the struggle that followed.

What I care about is the human rights of the Tibetans. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly, in which case you must be concerned about how little or even no human rights Tibetans enjoyed under their clergy. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibet invasion or not discussion

You do not WP:OWN the article so please do not take absence of replies as a sign to include the fact article. Your edit has apparently been reverted twice, a stronger indicator that you should instead discuss the reversion on the talk page. This behavior, especially an article like this, can encourage an edit war. Your edit included a WP:WEASEL phrase ("It should be noted that") which compromises the neutrality of the article and does not allow the facts to speak for itself. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for remindng me that I don't own the article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one actually "owns" articles on Wikipedia. Prowikipedians (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Taiwan has made statements regarding to China's invasion in Tibet. Prowikipedians (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What kind of statement, something like Tibet is part of China? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NO. WHY WOULD TAIWAN STATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? Taiwan wants it's independence and seat in the UN, just like Tibet. Candidates Hsieh and Ma have stated their opinions on the issue. (which I don't think it should be discussed here since it's POLITICS.) Prowikipedians (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No country has doubted China's sovereignty over Tibet post-World War II. However, as you will see at Simla Convention, there were debates about the exact nature of Imperial China (and Republican China)'s authority over Tibet.

That said, I agree with Nat that "object" is too inexact a term to be used here. That no country has doubted China's sovereignty over Tibet does not mean that no country has objected to the nature and manner of China's ruling of Tibet.

To give an example that illustrates the difference: the Dalai Lama accepts Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, but he objects to China's ruling of Tibet in the sense that he objects to the lack of or insufficient level of autonomy in Tibet, and the Chinese government's religious and political policies in Tibet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean Republican China? There's PRC and there's Taiwan. They're separate nations. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't really "accept" it. What he wants know is peace and preservation of the Tibetan Culture. He doesn't lack the insufficient level of autonomy either. If you lived in places like Mongolia, Tibet or TAIWAN, you would understand this issue a bit better. China, here, is like the BIG BULLY here. Would China be prepared to take over the United States at any time? specifically this moment? NO. As you can see, China's trying to take over "weaker" countries. Read some information about Taiwan's sovereignty and such more. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't *quite* understand what you are getting at there... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For years, Taiwan has been rejected from the United Nations. If YOUR country was rejected from the UN, wouldn't you think that human rights / freedom of speech has been wrongly taken away? Prowikipedians (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the exclusion of the Republic of China government from the United Nations has relevance for Tibet.... how? This is not a soap box for your political views. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For information about "Republican China", see Republic of China. If you have any further questions about the history of China from 1911 to 1949, please post on the talk page of that article. An expert will be along shortly to answer your queries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this statement: “Concerns over the rights of Tibetans have been raised, however, no country has ever objected to China’s sovereignty over Tibet.” --Littlebutterfly (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's problematic in both directions - the first part is weasel-wordy, and the second is imprecise. If you really wanted to make a statement about this, just say "No modern foreign government has recognised Tibet as being independently sovereign", then back it up with reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I will quote a reliable source. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I added this statement--Although Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911, no country has ever recognized it as a sovereign nation. “Indeed, at no time did any western power come out in favor of its independence or grant it diplomatic recognition.” [Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood, page 24] --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that statement can be reconciled with the information in Nat Krause's post above, and I certainly don't think you should have added to the article without establishing consensus on the talk page first. It's not clear what your motivation for putting it in there was, either, and the fact that you can find a citation doesn't mean it is necessarily worthy of inclusion in the article. Alexwoods (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd not to have any statement addressing the international attitude towards Tibet’s sovereignty. That statement fixed that problem. If you don’t like that statement you can suggest something else as long as it covers the issue. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Western propaganda may well refer to an invasion, but if you move your troops within your claimed territory, is it an invasion? You might as well say the United Kingdom army invaded Northern Ireland. 81.133.196.180 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you move your army into a territory controlled by another power, it is usually called an invasion. Otherwise, Iraq's attacks on Iran and Kuweit in 1980/1990 resp. would not count as real invasion either. And of course anyone is free to make up his favourite claim, so this is pretty meaningless. I think yoone could make a case that the UK has controlled Northern Ireland for some centuries now. Yaan (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello we are having a similar discussion over at Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951). The discrepancies are so far off between the 1904 British engagement and the 1950 PRC engagement. We could use more expertise since one is classified as an "expedition" another as an "invasion". Yet the overwhelming sources are so controversial, we could use more people for discussion. Benjwong (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet proclaimed its independence in 1911. At the same time many warlords in other parts of China divided the country up. To the Chinese the Tibetans and other warlords were the same, they exploited the chaotic situation. The priority of the ROC and PROC was the unification of the country. Anyway, no country recognized Tibet as an independent nation then and now, unifying a country is not an invasion.

To Yaan, Iraq's attacks on Iran and Kuweit were invasions because both were sovereign nations recognized by the international community. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing the move of British expedition to Tibet to British Invasion of Tibet. Or move the 1950-1951 invasion of Tibet to PRC expedition to Tibet. I am open to which ever move of your choice. You know is bad when a pro-Taiwan independence source like this one is saying the 1904 British engagement was a butchery of tibetans. Some more of the previous discussion was here. They should both be treated equally on wiki. Benjwong (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should just use whatever term is used in English-language literature? No-one cares about whether Free French and their allies can actually invade their own country, so maybe you should really let scholar.google.com and books.google.com decide. Yaan (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If we go by the books it is definitely an "invasion" both ways. 1904 British Invasion of Tibet and the 1950 PRC Invasion of Tibet. I will leave a message on the British expedition to Tibet page. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NPOV, I think. Whatever the books say. Personally, I think calling it an "expedition" when a column of armed men march uninvited into another country is a tad apologist and biased, since it takes the view only of the invaders and not of the invaded. I would call it an "expedition" only if it was 1) into unknown wilderness and without clear objection from the local government, or 2) at the invitation of the local government (at law). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the II Marine Expeditionary Force always wait for an invitation. Nor were the people who took part in the expeditio sacra (pl?) of the early second millenium. You might also want to look up the term "punitive expedition". I actually think there is established english usage of "Younghusband expedition" (though not "British expedition") and "Chinese invasion" ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Just because some people may think this is politically incorrect (or may not really understand the different possible meanings of expedition) is no sufficient reason to change the names of the respective articles IMO. Yaan (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Yaan is right. An 'expeditionary force' can go in and burn stuff and kill people without invading. The raid against the Summer Palace in Beijing is an example of this. The European powers had no intention of actually conquering China, but rather were making a show of force. I think, at the level of which is the correct English term to use, the question is whether the English force intended and expected to conquer Tibet and rule it alongside the Raj, as they did with, for instance, Afghanistan and Burma, and as the Americans did in Iraq, but not in Somalia. The convention of referring to the Younghusband incident as an "expedition" is an important secondary argument. Alexwoods (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am trying to see what you mean. You suggest the British expedition was not an actual invasion because they basically released control by 1908, and didn't stay according to the Anglo-Chinese convention. Essentially that is correct. However the US is currently in Iraq, but not forever. Yet it is still called an invasion? You see the contradictions. If you wanted to go by source counts, there are plenty to suggest it was also a "British invasion", specifically under Francis Younghusband. Also keep in mind we are digging currently into English text. Is like digging into Chinese text, all you will find is "Peaceful liberation of tibet". Which is not something I would ever consider naming that article. Benjwong (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pushing one or the other points of view (unlike Littlebutterfly). I am trying to make sure that we frame the debate as clearly as possible so that we don't have an edit war and so that we have an article that is in clear English and as apolitical as possible. You folks know a lot more about Younghusband than I do, so I'm going to leave the terminology question to you. But, again, the source count should not be our primary concern - the intent of the British to directly govern the region was. To respond to your Iraq example, the Americans do not intend to permanently govern Iraq but certainly went in with the idea of running the country, whereas they obviously did not in Somalia. Also, it's important that all the editors on this contentious page examine their own motives for making changes. Littlebutterfly, for instance, clearly strongly supports the Chinese presence in Tibet, and that is the motivation for his/her edits. That's an unacceptable reason to change an article. This is an encylcopedia, not a soapbox. Ben, I appreciate your taking the time to think this through and I'll support whatever decision is reached through reasonable consensus. Alexwoods (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexwoods, my motivation is to make this article as encyclopedic as possible. I will only use material from creditable sources. Some editors here are editing with an anti-Chinese government attitude which makes this a soapbox. My position is not different from that of Dalai Lama’s regarding the sovereignty of Tibet. He said Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence. I would argue for the human rights of the Tibetans but not Tibet independence. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great that you would so argue, unfortunately an encyclopedia is not the place to make that argument, which is exactly what you are doing when you intentionally try to skew the article in favor of your point of view. You are too emotionally involved in the subject matter of this article to be objective and you should recuse yourself from editing it. Alexwoods (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The brief military conflict between Beijing and Tibet can not be called an invasion for two reasons. First, it was very brief. In comparison the British expedition was more like an invasion. The British, in a few months, fought its way to Lhasa by killing thousands of Tibetans. The PLA army on the other hand did not go all the way to Lhasa and did not kill many Tibetans. When brief military action takes place it is usually called military conflict between X and Y. Second, Tibet was recognized as a part of China by the Chinese, every country in the world and even some Tibetans before and after the event. According to international standards it was an internal conflict and therefore can not be called an “invasion.”

The title of the article is inconsistent with its content. Invasion refers to military action; to be consistent the article should just cover the war at Chamdo. The article now includes the signing of the 17-point agreement and incorrectly credits it to the Tibetan defeat at Chamdo. Are you sure that the Tibetans signed the agreement because they lost that war? Who has the authority to make such a conclusion here?

This article should just cover the Chamdo war with titles like “Chamdo war" or Chinese and Tibetan military conflict at Chamdo.” The material about the signing of the agreement should be moved to the main page or it can be part of an article on the signing of the agreement. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What were the troop levels of Younghusband in 1904 vs. the PLA in 1950? The PLA in 1950 marched in four columns, in how many columns did Younghusband move? I guess you could find plenty of differences on the operational level, and I don't think you can find any WP policy calling for consistency or political correctness in article names. I still think there is sufficient evidence that Younghusband expedition is the most common name, if you insist on moving the article it should be moved there. Re. whether the Tibetans signed that treaty because they lost at Chamdo, I propose you look up the relevant literature. My impression is the reason was not that they desperately wanted to join the PRC. Yaan (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well from the tibet-army view. The 100% most direct source possible.... is Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme. He was the commander of the Tibetan army. In a rare 1998 interview with SCMP, people in Tibet considers him a traitor who gave up Tibet to the communist party. He signed the agreement easily, and released without a problem. They keyword in the interview is "DISBAND". You can see he gave up the tibetan army due to the conditions. I don't know if you want to believe him, since he lives comfortably in Beijing after the signing. While the tibetans are obviously in misery. I am very open to the idea of renaming Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) to "Chamdo war". Opinions anyone? Benjwong (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The British call Younghusband’s mission into Tibet as an “expedition.” But The Tibetans, the Chinese and others call this mission an “invasion.” See here The section titled British Expedition should be changed to British Invasion.

Yaan, we should both look up the relevant literatures regarding the signing of the agreement. Saying that it was signed over the Chamdo defeat makes the Tibetans look cowardly. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The document was signed in Beijing if you want to re-check references again. Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme signed it under the custody of the PLA forces basically. Benjwong (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The agreement was signed in Beijing in May, 1951 and was passed by the Tibetan national assembly in Tibet in September, 1951. It was the confirmation from Lhasa that makes the agreement official. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, there was nothing cowardly about the signing. He admitted to "disbanding" from the military given the situation. Went to Beijing, signed the paper. He was not doing it under pressure on the battlefield while being invaded etc. Maybe pressured by PLA custody. The "Chambo war" title is acceptable since it was a focal point. Benjwong (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme is a scapegoat. The agreement was ratified by high level officials, including the Dalai Lama, in Lhasa a few months after the signing. Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme did not signed Tiebt away, it was Lhasa’s confirmation that signed Tibet away. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will answer this after Easter Holiday, as right now I am nowhere near my library. I did not succeed in gaining any google scholar hits for chamdo-war, but I am actually open for terms used in US or British academic literature. Yaan (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme is not the only person responsible. But to say he is a scape goat, can be POV. In the scmp interview he admits to having taken part and have some responsibility. That might be material for his article, the 17 point agreement, or the invasion itself. At least 1 source claimed he was actually classified as a POW under the PLA. But just about every source saids he is treated pretty well. For many years he was on board for many political positions under the CPC for years to follow. Benjwong (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It was the ratification of the Tibetan government in Lhasa that signed Tibet’s sovereignty over to Beijing. Let me give you an example here. US President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, because it has not been ratified by the US Congress it has not been adopted by the United States. Signing a treaty or an agreement by the delegation is meaningless without the ratification of the congress/representatives of the nation. Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme and the rest of the delegation did sign the agreement, but if it had not been ratified by the Tibetan national assembly a few months later in September, 1951, it would not have been official. It was the ratification in Lhasa that signed Tibet’s sovereignty to Beijing. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. Benjwong (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet invasion or not discussion:continue

I don't think either article should be titled "invasion", for different reasons. In the case of the British in 1904, I think that it does meet the narrow definition of an "invasion", so, titling it an invasion would not be inaccurate. However, I think that, as Alexwoods argues, "invasion" also implies that the invader intends to occupy the country or something along those lines, which was not the case in the Younghusband incident. So, "expedition" would be a preferable title. In the case of the PLA in 1950, we have the opposite situation. There is no doubt that they came to occupy. But, the term "invasion" means that we are talking about one country violating the territory of a separate country. Wikipedia cannot take sides on whether China and Tibet were separate countries in 1950.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well even the word "occupy" or "occupation" is very tricky. There is the intent to occupy and the intent to occupy permanently. The british had some intent to occupy tibet. The communist party had intent to occupy permanently forever, if you want to be technical. I am leaning farther away from the word invasion currently. However I have a hard time justifying the PLA 1950 engagement as an "expedition". Which is why "Chamdo war" is ok for me. But I won't push this until there is unanimous agreement. Benjwong (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw. , what about the 2008 invasion of Anjouan article? Yaan (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are getting unnecessarily complicated.

Since the mid-18th century, during the George Bogle years, the Britons had acknowledged the Tibetan(and Chinese) authority in the region. As they afterwards crossed the Tibetan boundaries forcibly without latter's permission, such act can already regarded as invasion(no matter it is by narrow or broad definition).

"Although the Chinese and Tibetan delegations urged them not to cross the frontier, the British mission persisted and reached its destination on 7 July 1903. They settled in there to wait for high-level Tibetan plenipotentiaries and the amban. The Tibetan/Chinese position remained constant throughout this ordeal: there could be no negotiations while British troops occupied Tibetan/Chinese territory illegally. Younghusband could do nothing but wait for further instructions. While he waited, the Tibetans sent three lamas to pitch a tent opposite the colonel's, and they proceeded to spend an entire week cursing the invaders in an apparent attempt to exorcise them. Unilaterally calling a tripartite conference, invading a sovereign nation without prior provocation, and then having no one to confer with put London in a very embarrassing position. The British were being snubbed"[Grunfeld, A.T., The Making of Modern Tibet, 1996, p55] 219.79.27.59 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

China did not invade Tibet. What emerged after all the troubles of the 20th Century was a new nation called The People's Republic of China, of which Tibet is a province. As the new sovereign power, the PRC had to send troops to all the borders of it territory to consolidate and defend. Put simply, this was the equivalent of scent-markings in the animal kingdom. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

I just found this mess of a discussion, but is this a joke? The article has called this thing an invasion in the opening sentence since its creation in 2006[7], why is it even named "expedition"? Pro-Tibet websites call it an invasion[8][9][10], books call it an invasion[11][12][13][14][15], there's even a BBC Radio report that calls it an invasion[16]. Also, hits on Google Books and Google Scholar:

• "British invasion of Tibet" - 245 on Google Books[17], 42 on Google Scholar[18]
• "British expedition to Tibet" - 134 on Google Books[19], 31 on Google Scholar[20]

I don't imagine myself spending time on this already very involved discussion, but I have no idea why that article should be named "expedition". It's laughable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that most common name should be used. Could someone please move the article to Younghusband Expedition? 251 hits on google scholar [21] and 644 on google books [22] should be overwhelming enough. Yaan (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke, and expedition is clearly the more common term. Can you explain why you think it was an invasion rather than a military expedition? Alexwoods (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and India, late 700 and 800 AD

Current East-Hem depiction of Tibet/India borders in 700 AD.

Suggested corrections for Kamarupa in 7th-8th Centuries, AD

Current East-Hem depiction of Tibet/India borders in 800 AD.

Concerns have been raised over the Tibetan Empire borders depicted in the East-Hem maps for 700 and 800 AD. Specifically regarding whether Tibet ruled large sections of northern India, including Kamarupa, Bengal, and the Gangetic plains. There are unfortunately few sources covering relations between medieval Tibet and India. Bengal and Assam are also lacking reliable sources for that time period.

Some of my sources regarding Tibet's expansion into Bengal and India:

• 1. Google Book's "History of Tibet" makes several mentions of Nepal as a Tibetan vassal, and also says that India's Pala Empire under Dharmapala accepted Tibetan overlordship. (Page 54)
• 2. The wiki-article, History of Tibet also mentions Tibetan military power extending to Bengal, in the section about Ralpacan (815-838 AD).
• 3. Huhai.net has a [map of Asia in 750 AD] that shows Tibet ruling Kamarupa, Bengal, and Pala.
• 4. DK Atlas of World History, 2000 edition, shows Tibet's borders in 800 AD, with northern India (the entire length of the Ganges, almost to the Indus river) ruled by Tibet. It's on pg. 262.

Tibet appears to have been rather active along their southern borders. We know Tibet subjugated Nanzhao twice (from 680-703, then from 750-794 AD). Nepal under the Licchavis was apparently subjugated also. This was about the same time as the collapse of the Pyu city-states in Burma, the end of the Varman Dynasty and the beginning of the Mlechchha dynasty in Kamarupa. It's possible Tibet also subjugated part of northern India. It may not have been an actual conquest; it could have been raids for plunder or marriage alliances.

(This is also being discussed on Talk:Kamarupa (History) and History of Tibet. I've posted this here to get more input. Any assistance is appreciated! I need to find out more information before I can correct the maps, if they are incorrect. Thomas Lessman (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by India? There was no polity called India back then. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Sovereignty

Should the sentence "Although Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911, no country has ever recognized it as a sovereign nation" be followed with "at least in recent centuries", since it's an established fact that many centuries ago Tibet had at least nominal independence? --152.3.153.2 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The referenced sentence which preceeds the quote takes the quoted text out of context. The reference concerns western countries but the editor used it to include all countries. "Although Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911, western countries have been hesitant to recognize Tibet's independence." Would be a lot more accurate. 170.252.11.11 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by Tibet proclaiming independence from China? Did Tibetans have a free election, in which they were well informed enough to make a choice, to make such a proclamation? Was the China that was referred to, the Qing Empire or The Republic of China? The current sovereign power, The People's Republic of China, proclaims that Tibet is a part of the People's Republic of China. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Man, every article I want to edit is blocked to unestablished accounts.

This is taken almost verabitm form the source:

In the battle for supremacy in central Asia between Victorian Britain and Tsarist Russia, a British force under soldier Francis Younghusband eventually invaded Tibet, cut down its warriors with the Maxim gun and occupied Lhasa in 1904. [5] [6] The invasion led to a peace treaty between Britain and Tibet, a document that some Tibetan historians see as recognition of their remote mountain home as an independent entity. Imperial China was outraged by the invasion but could do nothing to stop it and waged a diplomatic battle to protect its own claims over Tibet.[6]

In 1949-1950, soon after the establishment of the People's Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong ordered the 'liberation' of Tibet by the People's Liberation Army. Many Tibetan nobles and working people co-operated with the PRC government.[6] However clashes broke out over land reform and the Buddhist religion. In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India.

The CIA funded a secret guerrilla war until President Richard Nixon decided to reconcile with Mao in 1969. Famines, followed by Chinese violence during the cultural revolution, intensified resistance to no avail.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3559353.ece Squatt (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted most of this. It doesn't belong in a lead, the article has a lengthy History section, and there is a separate article just on the history of Tibet. Squatt (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you deleted stuff that was not c&p-ed, and forgot the "In 1949-1950" stuff. Don't bother, I'll take care of it. Yaan (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why choose to be blinded to the history of tibet during Ming Dynasty?

There are many literatures and relics reveal and prove the history of Tibet during Ming Dynasty(1368-1644) [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozg (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you try and find some reliable sources and write something yourself? I actually did write some paragraphs about Yuan dynasty and the early 17th century, but not much about the time in-between, although it is probably interesting as well. But please keep in mind that "tributar relationship" or "appoint x to prince of y" by the ming did not necessarily translate into real influence. At least this was the case with the mongols, I assume Tibet might have been not too different. Yaan (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty of Tibet

In 1951 the Tibetan government signed an agreement that officially incorporates Tibet into China. Dalai Lama himself, as late as 2006, reiterated that: “Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence.” In other words the head of the Tibetan government still recognizes Tibet as a part of China. This following statement does not reflect the reality. “In the Tibetan sovereignty debate, the government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile disagree over when, or if, Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.” It is also not supported by any source. I believe it should be removed. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaan you removed a sourced statement by saying: "no country" is not the same as "no western power", Mongolia in 1913 arguably recognized Tibet, as did El salvador in 1951 (if Nat on the talk page is correct)).” I challenge you to find any country that recognizes the sovereignty of Tibet now and then. You can not remove a statement just because you think it is incorrect. You have to approve it is incorrect here first. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the challenge is on you to find a citation for "no country" ever recognized Tibet. Mongolia and El Salvador are countries, no? I see Mongolia was not recognized by other countries in 1913 either (even that does not necessarily mean it is no country), but El Salvador in 1951 was. My problem with the particular sentence was that it created the impression that the quote ("No western power ever ...") backs up the statement "no country ever", when in fact it doesn't, and when in fact it can be argued that at least one country did recognize Tibet's souvereignity. We could of course write a whole essay about which countries did, at least implicitely, recognize Tibet's souvereignty, or we can just state those facts that do not need in-depth discussion. But in either case, we should not leave statements in the intro that are unsourced and arguably false. Yaan (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's not up to us to prove that LB's statement is wrong, and anyway Nat and Yaan have already done so, to my satisfaction at least. I don't want to get in an edit war, but I strongly feel that LB's change should be reverted. Alexwoods (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for that change, and I don't think we need to get into an argument over what constitutes a Western power. Please don't continue to make unsupported changes that push your particular point of view. That's not what this is about. Alexwoods (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia in 1913 did briefly recognized Tibet as a sovereign nation. But the El Salvador government in November 1950 only questioned the aggression against Tibet. That is not the same as recognizing Tibet as a nation. In any case there is no country today recognizes Tibet as a sovereign nation nor question China’s sovereignty over Tibet. Am I wrong on this? Even the Dalai Lama recognizes China’s sovereignty over Tibet. What do you think about that? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If Nat's quote is correct, then they did use the word "nation" when referring to Tibet. They did not use the word "souvereign", though. But OTOH the word "agression" IMO would imply that they did not regard this issue as a Chinese internal affair. Yaan (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia claimed independence from China in 1911. The Mongolian People's Republic was established in 1924. In other words in 1913, it was not a nation yet. Just one nation, El Salvador, expressed concern over China’s possible military action against Tibet. The term aggression does not imply that they regarded Tibet as a sovereign nation. Aggression means The practice or habit of launching attacks. Or Hostile or destructive behavior or actions. Neither country has ever recognized Tibet as a sovereign nation. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that I am pushing my particular point of view. I am editing the article by citing creditable sources, who said that very edit needs consensus. Plus, did you have the consensus to remove this statement? Alexwoods instead of engaging in a revert war by saying that I don’t have the consensus why don’t you debate with me over the accuracy of that statement? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can get over the sovereignty issue so the human rights abuses of the Tibetans, the more important issue, can be addressed here. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a key point in understanding what Tibet is -- or recently has been -- to know what nations (if any) recognized Tibet's sovereignty in the 20th century. Simply deleting the "no country" statement is not the answer. IF it's supportable, then write that "only Mongolia recognized Tibet's independence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.123.71 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By Mongolia, people here were probably referring to The Mongolian People's Republic (or Outer Mongolia in Chinese terminology), which was never truly an independent country but a client state of the USSR. Whenever there were domestic problems, Outer Mongolian politicians would claim that the PRC was planning to annex it. 81.132.63.38 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tufan

Why is the name "Tufan" used in the above maps, and Tufan redirects to Tibet, yet the word "Tufan" appears nowhere in the Tibet article? Can we fix this, please? Badagnani (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tufan was the chinese term for Tibet pre-seventeen century. I just added it to the article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is distinct from Turfan, correct? Just a coincidence in the similarity between those two toponyms? Badagnani (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was just wondering that. The Turfan page doesn't have any discussion of the etymology. I wonder if Turfan is pronounced something like 'Tubo' in Uighyur or other Turkic languages. Alexwoods (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be "Tubo" - the "Tufan-Tubo" confusion was dealt with in the Names-Chinese section. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Names-Chinese section of what? Badagnani (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article. See Tibet#In Chinese. I have edited the section so that both Tubo and Tufan would show up in a Ctrl+F search. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Chinese, and I've never, ever heard of the term Tufan (we were taught that it was pronounced as Tubo back in elementary school). So if you hear Tufan, there is just one possbility -- that guy needs to learn some Chinese. 157.229.111.19 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi Comment...

"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on March 21, 2008 criticized China for its crackdown on anti-government protesters in Tibet and called on "freedom-loving people" worldwide to denounce China.[94]"

First of all, this article is full of bias.. Definately needs some work, but anyways. Under the "Rule of the People's Republic of China", when I reached the end of the paragraph and read the NANCY PELOSI comment, I was disgusted. Take this US propaganda out of this article. The US is waging a war that has shattered the Geneva Convention as well as torturing "enemy combatants" in some of the most vile and inhumane ways imaginable. Nancy Pelosi is a tool whose freedom-loving comment should be dismissed as nonsense and she should take a look at HER PEOPLE in HER OWN country and try and figure out where all their freedom has gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.99.43 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if she was guilty of the freedom-violations of the party she opposes. How ironic that a PRC propagandist like you would denounce her while 5the Chinese government continues to fund the current US war which has incurred those democratic-freedom losses at hoe . What are teh Chinese government's motives for bankrolling the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? What is the Chinese government's position on torture and internment without charges? Are there no Guantanamos in China? The fact of the matter is the Chinese government doesn't care about losses of freedom in the US any more than it cares about nurturing democracy at hom. And it's all too happy to make lots of usurious money from financing US imperialism and the US' own erosion of domestic civil liberties. But pointing at someone else's failings (and/or financing them) is always so much easier than having to discuss your own anyway; this article is not about the US, it's about Tibet. Pelosi visited the DL not to arrange mutually eneficial bank loans, which is what Republicans do when they talk to Beijing; she's there because of the Chinese state violence against Tibetan people currently underway. She's discussing freedom and democracy, not how to prevent them - which is Beijing's agenda when it talks to Washington....Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"this article is not about the US, it's about Tibet." Exactly. We could debate all the issues you have just raised which are all valid. I'll admit that my first statement was a bit too rigid and very thin. But, who's "idea" of freedom and democracy is she discussing? Those words mean infinitely different things to different people. Why is it then that a statement by a US figurehead, in an article genuinely about Tibet, is given a voice? Who, is She? It shouldn't be there. It gives the reader the idea that if HE or SHE is, personally, a "freedom-loving person" that HE or SHE should denounce China. I'm Canadian, I am not a "PRC propagandist". I'm someone who thinks that people should learn the history and context of issues and develop their OWN stance before being poisoned by a sentence that can be exhaled in less than 5 seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.99.43 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that quote does not belong mainly because it is vague and not unique. You can find a quote like this everyday on a website. Benjwong (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

intro

I just radically cut the intro section. I don't think anything is gained by making sections longer and longer, or by discussing stuff in the intro that should be discussed elsewhere. Btw. this is true for the "Rule of the PRC" subsection, and actually for the whole history section, as well. Yaan (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove paragraphs from the lead, they should have been carefully merged (with consensus and discussion) into the text of the article, rather than blanked. The fact that you proposed this here *after* you blanked doesn't show good faith. Badagnani (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. The intro is so completely overblown that no-one will read it, and most of the stuff in the intro is already discussed further down. I'll re-post my version of the intro here, and then I'll discuss some of the problems with the old one.

My version (updated 4 times):

Tibet is a plateau region in Central Asia. With an average elevation of 4,900 metres (16,000 ft), it is the highest region on Earth and is commonly referred to as the "Roof of the World." Tibet is currently administered by the People's Republic of China (PRC). The heartland around Lhasa and Shigatse forms the Tibet Autonomous Region, while other areas traditionally inhabited by Tibetans form parts of Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu.

Many parts of the region were united in the seventh century by King Songtsän Gampo. From the early 1600s the Dalai Lamas, commonly known as spiritual leaders of the region, have been heads of a centralised Tibetan administration (at least nominally),. In the 18th century, Tibet came under the rule of the Qing Dynasty. With the collapse of that dynasty and the foundation of the Republic of China in 1911, Tibet gained de-facto independence. This de-facto independence was, however, never recognized by any major powers, and especially not by China. Following the occupation of Chamdo by the PLA in 1951 and the signing of the 17-Point Agreement, the PRC incorporated the area in 1951. After an uprising in 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India.

Current version:

Tibet is a plateau region in Central Asia and the home to the indigenous Tibetan people. With an average elevation of 4,900 metres (16,000 ft), it is the highest region on Earth and is commonly referred to as the "Roof of the World." Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911. However, "at no time did any western power come out in favor of its independence or grant it diplomatic recognition.” The People's Republic of China (PRC), citing historical records and the Seventeen Point Agreement signed by the Tibetan government in 1951, claims Tibet as a part of China (with a small part, depending on definitions, controlled by India). Currently every country in the world recognizes China's sovereignty over Tibet. Dalai Lama, the head of the Tibetan government in exile, does not reject China’s sovereignty over Tibet: “Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence.”-All of this can be conveniently summed up as "China now controls Tibet". Anything else is completely irrelevant to the intro.

Geographically, UNESCO and Encyclopædia Britannica consider Tibet to be part of Central Asia, while several academic organizations controversially [emph. mine] consider it part of South Asia.-The very first sentence in the intro states Tibet is in Central Asia, and while there are sources that consider it part of South Asia does not mean we need to make the intro longer. If anything, we should write something like "Tibet is a region in South/Central Asia". Also, just because there are different viewpoints about which part of Asia Tibet belongs to does not mean there is a controversy. Might be just a case of some people saying orange is red, while others say it's yellow.

Many parts of the region were united in the seventh century by King Songtsän Gampo. From the early 1600s the Dalai Lamas, commonly known as spiritual leaders of the region, have been heads of a centralised Tibetan administration (at least nominally), and are believed to be the emanations of Avalokiteśvara (Chenrezig, Wylie spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion.-This section seems to be dedicated to history, so what is the religious stuff doing here? how is this relevant to an intro to Tibet?

In 1751, the Manchurian (Qing) government, which ruled China from 1644 to 1912, established the Dalai Lama as both the spiritual leader and political leader of Tibet who led a government (Kashag) with four Kalöns in it. Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama and his regents were the predominant political power administering religious and administrative authority over large parts of Tibet from the traditional capital Lhasa.-Can be summed up as "Tibet came to be ruled by the Qing". Whether the Qing are Chinese or should not be discussed in the intro section to this article. Government structure before 1911 also seems not relevant to the intro.

P.S. : this arguably also contradicts the preceding statement ("From the early 1600s the Dalai Lamas, commonly known as spiritual leaders of the region, have been heads of a centralised Tibetan administration (at least nominally)"), and is arguably misleading (the fifth Dalai Lama was already a spiritual and political leader, and died long before 1751). What the Manchu did in 1751 was, IIRC, change the modus after which new Dalai Lamas (and similar incarnations) were to be "found". But that also belongs to the history section. Yaan (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the battle for supremacy in central Asia between Victorian Britain and Tsarist Russia, a British force under soldier Francis Younghusband eventually invaded Tibet, cut down its warriors with the Maxim gun and occupied Lhasa in 1904. The invasion led to a peace treaty between Britain and Tibet, a document that some Tibetan historians see as recognition of their remote mountain home as an independent entity. Imperial China was outraged by the invasion but could do nothing to stop it and waged a diplomatic battle to protect its own claims over Tibet.-Unencyclopedic tone and irrelevant to an intro.

In 1949-1950, soon after the establishment of the People's Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong ordered the 'liberation' of Tibet by the People's Liberation Army. Many Tibetan nobles and working people co-operated with the PRC government. However clashes broke out over land reform and the Buddhist religion. In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India. - again, unencyclopedic tone, moreover plagiarism: unattributed (no quotation marks) c&p from the source given [24].

The CIA funded a secret guerrilla war until President Richard Nixon decided to reconcile with Mao in 1972. Famines, followed by Chinese violence during the cultural revolution, intensified resistance to no avail.-Does not seem entirely relevant to the intro section either. compare the intro section of People's Republic of China - no metion of GPCR or GLF.

Generally, I think for the intro section "7th century - Dalai Lamas - Qing - post-1911 - 1950/51 - 1959" is enough history. Intro sections are not to replace the article, IMO. Yaan (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro is too long, let’s first decide what should be included then work on it together. Yaan, I reject your version for its pov wording. The intro should provide some basics of Tibet: Geographic location, population, ethnic groups, religions, administration type and economy. The sovereignty issue can be briefly mentioned here, but material about its history should be moved to the history section. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to tell me what exactly you consider POV? I really tried to be NPOV, so I'd like to know where you think I failed.

I don't think it is inappropriate to have a bit of history in the intro section, quite a number of similar articles do have some. Administrative details are covered in the (separate) TAR article, the "Tibet is where Tibetans live" is covered by mentioning Qinghai, Sichuan and Gansu. I am not so sure about mentioning the souvereignity issues (this seems to require more than one or two sentences), in any case "administer" should be neutral enough and at the same time raise eyebrows. ethnic groups, religions, and economy should of course be added, but are also mising in the current version. Yaan (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The last three sentences in your version are pushing an anti-China POV. In order to be neutral and accurate, when addressing the sovereignty issue, the intro must make clear that Tibet has not been treated as an independent nation by any country since 1911. It should also include the Dalai Lama’s position on the sovereignty issue. I find the deletion of his statement troubling. It shows your POV.

It is appropriate to include some history in the intro but it should not be just about history. Some material covers both the sovereignty issue and history. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit reluctant to add too much stuff on the souvereignity issue. If we believe the Dalai Lama, then there is no issue at all, and if we believe Beijing, then the Dalai Lama is a dangerous separatist. Of course we could add some more words on the current status, but then I'd think a good place would be behind the history stuff. I'll cull most of what is left of history in the intro for now, because in the current state this does not make much sense. But I'm definitely for adding some consensus version later. Yaan (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the changes you just made. I just removed a few more sentences. I am not asking for more on the sovereignty issue; what is there now is just right. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll let it rest for now and move it into main space if there are no grave objections over the next day(s). Now we need someone to add some words on demographics and economy. Yaan (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaan, when I said that “I like the changes you just made” I was referring to the changes you made to the article at this time 23:21, 22 March 2008. Your version above on this page doesn’t work for me. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean 23:21? Because at my computer, the 23:21 (UTC?) version reads "The heartland around Lhasa and Shigatse forms the Tibet Autonomous Region, while areas in Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu are also inhabited by Tibetans." and "In the 18th century, Tibet came under the rule of the Qing Dynasty. After the collapse of that dynasty in 1911 [Maybe better: After the collapse of that dynasty and the foundation of the Republic of China in 1911], Tibet gained de-facto independence, but China never gave up her claims on the area. After an armed conflict in 1950 and the signing of the 17-Point Agreement in 1951, the PRC occupied the area. After an uprising in 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India." - i.e. no mention that no country ever recognized Tibet's independence, two consecutive sentences begin with "After" etc. Maybe it's easier you just point to the exact phrase you do not like and tell what's wrong? Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, which wording did you like? Yaan (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaan, sorry I got sidetracked. I was referring to your change on the “Tibet” page not here. How do you like the current version? Can you build from that? It has been there for a while, ther editors might not like their contribution being replaced. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 riots and expelling of foreign reporters

I think its worth mentioning that after the riots last week the Chinese government expelled all foreign reporters and added even more military to the region; see here (by Deutsche Welle; text in English). That again is against the Freedom of Speech which again is (Quote):

under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

(As I am still rather unexperienced with Wikipedia, I don't know if this kind of arguing is considered Bias'ed or not. Please enlighten me) 210.203.62.126 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You can add whatever the report says. Your violation of human rights laws argument will be considered as original research and POV since it is not mentioned in the article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Utter b.s. "violation of human rights laws"are clearly underway, unless you've got Chinese state-approved blinkers on. Giving the article newscitations of these events is NOT POV, although LittleButterfly and other apologists want to pretend it is. The Chiense government does not recognize international human rights standards, so how could it admit to their xistence within its frontiers, period? "Who, us??" is almost as cute as"what laws??" Best to include Xinhua and People's Daily news copy along side the true stuff published in other countries; i.e. present both POVs; the one that's a lie will show itself up for what it is....my guesstimate is taht the PRC has teh equivalent of a small Canadian city in population (10-25k) working monitoring the web and pages such as this one to keep the lies hobbling the truth; an entire industry of denial , and it probably pays pretty well too....probably includes a free condo in Lhasa, too.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that there is no “human rights violation.” But we must support that claim with a citation. I believe this is how Wikipedia works. Personal attacks are incivility.--Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

March 16,2008 police search door-to-door is because riots also attacked mosque provoking Hui muslims, police confiscated swords from them and asked Akhond to appease them not to revenge on innocent Tibetans. And to see how Western media framed Chinese, CCP has every reason to forbid them to enter before everything is settled down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialsz (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing two paragraphs

The following two paragraphs interrupt the flow and they needs more context. I am removing it from the article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) On 5 June 1959 Purshottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, presented a report on Tibet to the International Commission of Jurists (an NGO). The press conference address on the report states in paragraph 26 that "From the facts stated above the following conclusions may be drawn: … (e) To examine all such evidence obtained by this Committee and from other sources and to take appropriate action thereon and in particular to determine whether the crime of Genocide — for which already there is strong presumption — is established and, in that case, to initiate such action as envisaged by the Genocide Convention of 1948 and by the Charter of the United Nations for suppression of these acts and appropriate redress;[82]

2) In 1989, the Panchen Lama was allowed to return to Shigatse, where he addressed a crowd of 30,000 and described what he saw as the suffering of Tibet and the harm being done to his country in the name of socialist reform under the rule of the PRC in terms reminiscent of the petition he had presented to Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1962.[82] 5 days later, he died of a massive heart attack at the age of 50.[83]

If you think they interrupt the flow, then it would be reasonable to move them. You are deleting them because you disagree with them, right? Also, please leave cosmetic editing to people with a better command of English. Alexwoods (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with them. They just don't belong in that section and needed some context. Why don't you find a place for it. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think they don't belong there, then you can find a place for them. Stop cutting stuff out of this article that you don't like. Alexwoods (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to do that after editing the Rule of the People's Republic of China section. I did not remove them stealthily, I created this section so others and I will be reminded. I think I deserve more credit than you think. On the other hand, you deleted the following statement without saying a word. "Establishing the educational system and health care system, among others projects, “by 1994, China had invested over $4 billion in Tibet and had initiated over sixty major new infrastructure projects there. In 1996 alone, Beijing pumped another $600 million into this essentially nonproductive protectorate. [Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood, page 28] Do you care to provide a justification for its removal?

I also removed this statement "Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet." Ironically you put it back in.--Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly

Littlebutterfly is making some really objectionable changes. For instance, he took out two paragraphys that he doesn't agree with, but that are enclyopedic and substantiated, because he claimed that they didn't 'flow', yet when I put them back he accused me of making radical changes without discussion. He only ever edits this one article and virtually all of his changes are removing things that put China in a bad light, regardless of whether they are true. I am going to keep reverting him, but it would be nice if others would help out. Alexwoods (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a section for those two paragraphs on this page, see above, before removing them. They need more context. You are provoking/inciting a revert war here. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am considering getting an admin here. 208.16.91.142 who has little history of contribution is filling every tibet article with personal comments. Also may I remind everyone that we treat this like other research topics, and not rush it. It is common for some topics to be debated for months. Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Alexwoods (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

i petitioned for a block from all Tibetan articles, i rarely edit on this article on this article but this definitely needed to be reported Rubico (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearing a confusion, the anon IP 208.16.91.142 is not me. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexwoods

Alexwoods has established himself as an aggressive editor recently. He called me names, misrepresented my edits on this page and even made lies about my edits see here.

It was the revert war he started that led to the full protection of the Tibet article. See his violation of the 3RR rules on two articles. His 4 reverts on the Tibet page: revert 4 revert 3 revert 2 revert 1

His 4 reverts on the People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) page revert 4, revert 3, revert2, revert 1

I engaged him on his talk page with good faith, see subsection fresh start. His response here was less than friendly: “I undid your changes, and I'll continue to do so.”

Such uncooperative and uncivilized attitude violates the Wikipedia spirit.--Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You have already made your 3RR report. Copying and pasting it everywhere and ranting about it will not help you, especially as you broke 3RR yourself.

I suggest you take Seraphim's advice and try to work together with him. Just because you had a disagreement doesn't mean you cannot sort something out. John Smith's (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexwoods also removed additions of pictures on Anti-CNN.com as a reference by comparing of original and CNN published portions of the pictures to the article CNN controversies about 2008 Unrest in Tibet, saying it was partisan website or website promotion. I am not associated with Anti-CNN.com in anyway. He also removed Anti-CNN.com from all of the histories of the article. This is not fair. I thought the spirit of wikipedia was the complete recording of entire revision history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.111.249 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1. We need English language sources, as this is the Anglophone Wikipedia. 2. We only trust published academic sources and well respected news agencies. Sources such as CNN and the BBC are well respected news agencies. Anti-CNN is not a news site. It is created by a Chinese college students because they don't like that CNN is more or less taking the Tibetans side (though probably do not even have access to CNN). A university student ≠ scholarly source. Removing anti-CNN from the page actually makes the page better. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-CNN has both Chinese and English captions. It is mainly an Internet archive data site. Yes, there are comments, but it's capture of what CNN did is very telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.37.248 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-CNN is a screed. It doesn't have any references, only images that it claims are from Western news sites. It also doesn't show bias, but (allegedly) mistaken labels only. The comments that it adds are mainly along the lines of "Lies!" It is not a trustworthy source, and the infractions that it details are generally supported either by Xinhua cites or by admissions by the news organizations that pictures were mislabelled, so we don't even need it. Alexwoods (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I've fully protected the article. Please discuss changes here and try to come to a compromise. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the protection of the article because there has been no discussion about the disputed changes. The protection will now last until 15:12 28th March. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archive (number 5)

This is an objective, unbiased eye-witness account of the March 14 Tibetan riots. Please look into it, whoever is writing this part. It is proof that the Chinese security force has exercised great restraint before the use of force. Also the description of the riot was sparked off.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875823 Yewhock (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"2008 Tibetan Protests"

Is there a reason it just links to the general protest Wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.167.231 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008

Please fix bad grammar + Spelling

The article seems closed to editions. The following is a grammar correction, not a contribution of substance and I hope not controversial. Would someone with edit access please make the correction?

"Tibetan exiles, in turn, consider the maintenance of this arrangement from the 18th century as part of a divide-and-rule policy."

"Consider as" is incorrect in this sense. (See e.g. Strunk and White.) It is used in contexts like "We consider Tibet as a geographical area" (as opposed to "as an issue to be discussed", "as a historical notion" etc.).

The sentence should be

 Tibetan exiles, in turn, consider the maintenance of this arrangement from the 18th century
 to be part of a divide-and-rule policy.

Fuchsias (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please make following spelling correction: "The defeat subsequently led to he signing of the Seventeen point agreement by the Tibetan Government" Correct the "he signing" to "the signing"

Tibet is not only for Tibetans

There many nationalities besides Han (Chinese) and Zang(Tibetans) living in Tibet. Who are they and what about their rights?Lie-Hap-Po (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tawang region is the only part of Arunachal Pradesh that was traditionally under Tibetan suzerainity(verified numerous times by Tibetan gov. in exile)an not the entire Arunachal(although China certainly claims most of Arunachal), which is far fetched as 90% of Arunachal lies to the south of the Himalayan watershed that has traditionally formed the boundary between Tibet and its neighbors to the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.64.216 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

and who define Tibet border to Himalayan? Pls back with creditable source instead of making geographical estimation and assumption so we can discuss. also the tibetan GiE can't really make claim on india without being kick out; i would like to see british records and map as well as those of qing for comparision, i think that should be a fair way to judge. Akinkhoo (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation Application

The Reincarnation Application article is related to the Tibet article, but I'm not sure how to tie it in. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Clerks. 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

? Provide an explanation, please. What's the "Reincarnation Application?" Prowikipedians (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Try looking it up on Wikipedia—that's often a good way to learn about new things.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC/Taiwanese admission of Tibetan soveignty

The article states currently

"Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet.[76]"

The source is from 1996.

Since then:

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/news/october_2007_update_4.htm

Therefore this should be removed since the ROC has changed its stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonykovar (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Separate entity" =/= "sovereign state". President Chen is referring to his view that Taiwan is a separate entity from China - and therefore, it is a separate entity from Tibet. Whether Tibet is a separate entity from Taiwan has little to do with whether Tibet is a separate entity from China, and still less to do with whehther the ROC is renouncing its claim to sovereignty over Tibet.

See Political status of Taiwan and related articles for all the subtle shades of meaning in terms such as "separate entities" used in relation to Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, but it was restored by Alexwoods. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed it as part of a batch edit with no discussion of why you were doing so. Alexwoods (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC since 1949 only has control of Taiwan and not any part of mainland China, and certainly not Tibet. During ROC rule of entire China, from 1911 to 1949, ROC never renounced claim to Tibet. In fact, it was only after the year 2000, after Taiwan President started to try to achieve Taiwan independence, did he start to modify ROC's stand on this. He renounced claim to mainland China before Tibet. Therefore what President Chen did should not have any standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.37.248 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

qing control reasserted

{{editprotected}}

I would like to see one of the ref's in the "Qing control reasserted" subsection (ref. no. 58, to be exact) be altered to: [begin ref text] "It may be freely conceded that China's work in Tibet had its own good points. The Chinese officials of the modern school, who came in now, lessened the bribes taken by the Tibetan officials from the poorer classes, and in the ordinary, non-political cases gave straighter justice than that dealt out by the Tibetan magistry. There was no doubt some foundation for the Amban's claim that the poorer classes in Tibet were in favour of China": Bell, Charles, Tibet Past and Present, Oxford University Press, 1924 , p93 [end ref text]. The quote is only from p. 93, Bell uses British english, the last sentence is completely in past tense.

In fact Bell goes on with quoting Tibetans as saying that the British "did not interfere with the old customs, but [the Chinese] were trying to uproot them", so his account is of course pretty compatible with the accounts of attempts at sinification, and also with the accounts on destryoing monasteries, see p. 95 and 97. Yaan (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is scheduled to become unprotected tomorrow; in the meantime, administrators like me will be hesitant to make any content changes. Take this time to discuss the changes, and try to resolve the disputes that led to protection. Once the page become unprotected, you will be able to edit it without administrator assistance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur - try to establish consensus for a change like this before using the editprotected template. Happy‑melon 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese POV

This article seems to be written seriously from a Chinese government POV. I would not be surprised if some of those editing it are official Chinese agents.

It completely waters over the genocide of Tibetans and their culture by the Chinese, the destruction of monasteries as well as the policy of settlement of Han Chinese into Tibet to alter the demographics. The introduction keeps repeating that no one disputes Chinese control over Tibet. Thou protesteth too much, PRC. 67.160.0.134 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold and add in any content that you feel is missing, backed up by Reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this recent systematic pattern occur over a large swath of tibet articles, im coming to the conclusion that its a deliberate POV pushing by a large group to put a good face on the recent tibetan protests ahead of the 2008 olimpics, which begs the question of who is doing it? Rubico (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro certainly seems to bear out that suspicion. It hops right from the seventh century to the bizarre assertion - one that is not, by the way, backed up by either the rest of the article or Dalai Lama - that the Qing government somehow invented the office of Dalai Lama. The only conceivable reason for that statement to be in the intro is to underscore the Chinese claim, an issue that is dealt with in detail later in the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Alexwoods (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That statement should be removed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that chinese culture was also trashed between 1950 and 1970s. To single out tibetan culture as the only victim is almost beginner-ish. We didn't start the People's Republic of China article with the cultural revolution. Benjwong (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Framing the Chinese

“True face of western media,” this clip on YouTube shows how major Western media are framing the Chinese for abusing the Tibetans in recent riots. [25] --Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are here for the purpose of discussing improvements to the article. In what way do you believe the preceding to be an appropriate?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This material should be added to be article. But because it comes from Youtube I am not very sure. Any opinion? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This video in providing evidence shows clearly that some western media, such as the Washington Post, manipulated information to frame the Chinese. It should not be excluded just because it is on Youtude. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)--Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1. There are print sources showing that Western media sources misrepresented Nepalese police as Chinese; the YouTube source is thus unnecessary as there are print ones.
2. Such apparent mistakes (some of which have been apologized for by the news outlets) don't necessarily show that those outlets were attempting to "frame" China
3. Evidence that in some cases Western news media misrepresented Nepalese police as Chinese ones (specifically in that they show Tibetan civilians being beaten) do not "prove" that no Chinese police have been beating Tibetan civilians.

Badagnani (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Grunfield souce

i have seen prevalent use of this book The making of modern Tibet in citing in this article. many of the citations fail to take into account that after page 255 or so the book addresses the various points of view from both the government in exile and the Peoples republic of china regarding Tibetan independence. therefore any reference taken from this section of the book without making this clear is POV pushing and out of context Rubico (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you should find a formal copy and read carefully, before Grunfeld listed the 18 Chinese counter-arguements he clearly states, on p255 which Google Books doesn't provide, that:

"The view of the government of China - whether Mongol, Manchu , or Han, whether Imperial, republican, or communist - has remained constant for centuries", p255

It is crystal clear with no POV. Okay, now your turn, tell me the exact date when the Chinese government renouncd its position on Tibet as part of Chinese Nation? 219.79.27.59 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

its POV because it is from a CHINESE COUNTERARGUMENTS PERSPECTIVE! can you not comprehend that? 160.36.193.139 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Read carefully, 'China never renouncing rights over Tibet', which comes from Grunfeld's intro on Chinese position ("remained constant for centuries") and NOT part of the 18 arguments, is itself NPOV.

"Tibet is liberated by China." is POV, but "Beijing claims they liberated Tibet" is not. Can't you see the difference?

Or you can give me the exact date when China renounced authority over Tibet.

219.79.252.210 (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text about Chinese invasion in the intro

I removed the following text. This material is already included in the Chinese invasion subpage. Plus, it contains weasel words and errors, see the high lighted parts. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) “The Chinese army of 40,000 men routed the unprepared defending Tibetan army of only 5,000 near the city of Chamdo. The defeat and occupation of Tibet subsequently led to he signing of the Seventeen point agreement by the Tibetan Government.”

this was written because there is NO reference to the annexation of tibet by china in the intro, which i think should be adressed. the tibetan army WAS unprepared in that they had inadequate training, and outdated wepons, if you want to clarify that then go ahead, but you should not remove the entire phrase

[26]

and what do you call it when an invading army occupies another... lets see, occupation? its the same chain of events when the mongols 'invaded' tibet and china, then 'occupied' it until eventually annexed them into the Mongol empire. its a statement of fact not a weasel word. im reverting these edits and will attempt to clarify them, constructive editing is always helpful Rubico (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet was recognized as a part of China by every country in the world before the Chinese army entered Tibet in 1951. This makes the PLA operation not an invasion. In any case your statement is not backed by any creditable source, this alone justifies its removal. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

what do you consider an invasion being? the PRC entered with a 40,000 strong army, i dont think they were expecting a welcoming party. further the autonomous government of tibet(at the time) managed to muster a independent force of over 5,000. which resisted the Chinese forces, if you don't consider that an invasion i would like to hear what you think is Rubico (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I smell both heavy proindependence and pro-PRC POV on the most recent edits.

We should not ignore that historical fact that, like it or not fellows, two years after they declared independence in 1912, the Tibetan government voluntarily signed the Simla Convention reaffirming Chinese suzerainty. See also what Tibetan plenipotentiary Lochen Shartra affirmed in the Simla Conference's note exchange:

"It is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory."(July 1914. Source)

Please give us one reason why a suzerain state cannot send its army to its territory or tell us when did China, both ROC and PRC, renounce its authority over the region then.

Not one single state recognized Tibet as independent, not even British or India the de facto strongest supporters of Tibet's independence movement. Since November 1949, India's Nehru had reaffirmed recognition of Chinese authority over the region saying India had always recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.(See Dutt S., With Nehru in the Foreign Office, Calcutta, 1977, p80). In the case of UK, before the PLA took action on Oct 1950:

"Our reluctance to recognise Tibetan passports arises from our long established acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet"[UK Commonwealth Relations Office, 22 June 1950, FO371/85567](emphasis added)

Tibet enjoyed defacto independence (when ROC was torned by civil wars and the Sino-Japanese war), but it doesn't mean Chinese authorities had no rights sending troops into this, in 1914 Simla's wording, 'Chinese territory'

Ever heard of the theory of Succession of states? 219.79.27.59 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that china has always had a certain amount of suzerainty over at least the eastern portion of Tibet, but suzerainty does not equate to sovereignty, you neglected to quote some other statements in the simla convention, for instance:

"The Governments of Great Britain and China recognizing that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognizing also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa."

do you really believe that this is not a formal recognition of a independent Tibetan government in western Tibet? 160.36.194.155 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

oops sorry that last coment by 160.36.194.155 was me... not signed in Rubico (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Independently-functioned governments do not necessarily represent independent states. Is Hong Kong SAR, who currently also enjoys the above terms of autonomy, now independent of China? That is autonomous, not independent.

Title of the Dalai Lama was finally granted by the Beijing government, it shows, at least nominally, Chinese authority: "After the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama by the Tibetan Government, the latter will notify the installation to the Chinese Government whose representative at Lhasa will then formally communicate to His Holiness the titles consistent with his dignity, which have been conferred by the Chinese Government."[note exchange, Simla]. And according to Simla Convention's second article, autonomy only applies to "western Tibet"[more correctly Outer Tibet], it means China had right to put Inner Tibet under Beijing's direct administration, not simply Suzerainty. And, as you maybe reluctant to read, Tibet {both Inner and Outer) "forms part of Chinese territory".

Australian journalist Gregory Clark has made some notes on said suzerainty-sovereignty and independent-autonomous distinctions (especially Point 2 in bold):

-- Rights and Wrongs --

The behaviour of the Communist Chinese towards Tibet has been criticised on many grounds. The West, including Australia, has described it as "aggression", with the implication that China acted illegally in sending troops into Tibet. To what extent is this true?

The outline of Tibet's history and status which has been given is of necessity limited. Nevertheless several points seem to be relevant. They are:

(1) Tibet, although enjoying independence at certain periods of its history, had never been recognised by any single foreign power as an independent state. The closest it has ever come to such recognition was the British formula of 1943: suzerainty, combined with autonomy and the right to enter into diplomatic relations.

(2) 'It is difficult to make a case for rejection of Chinese rights in Tibet on the ground that a distinction exists between the concepts of "suzerainty" and "sovereignty". If an area of territory is not recognised as an independent entity, then regardless of how its status is described -- colony, protectorate, vassal state, autonomous region -- some form of external control is implied. Once the principle of Chinese control over Tibet is admitted, the Chinese have the right in international practice to stipulate what form their relationship with Tibet should take.

(3) Even if the British position on Tibet's right to diplomatic relations is accepted -- and there is no reason why the Chinese should accept it -- this does not necessarily amount to reconition of Tibet's de facto independence, as is sometimes claimed. The various republics of the U.S.S.R. have in theory the same right, a right which was given some practical content in 1945 by the separate representation of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Republics in the United Nations.

(4) Finally, once the principle of Chinese control over Tibet is admitted, then the use of force by the Chinese within the boundaries of Tibet cannot be considered illegal.

["Question of Tibet" in Clark, G.'s In Fear of China]

219.79.252.210 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sloppy Formatting

Can someone fix the picture resolutions in the Culture section? I can barely read the article as it is. 92.12.48.20 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Reference [130] is only in Chinese. This should be noted.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. government recognized Tibet as a part of China in 1943

{{editprotected}}

U.S. government recognized Tibet as a part of China in 1943.

Editor, please add the above sentence into the last paragraph of introduction or into 4.8.(relations with republic of china). This sentence is a very important historical fact when we see if China's occupation on Tibet is legal from international point of view, since U.S. recognized Tibet as a part of China before Communist China appeared and before Communist China invaded Tibet in 1950.

The orgional sentence U.S. government said on 15 May 1943 is: For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that...the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims.

 Not done I can't see where this infromation would be appropriate to add. It gives undue WP:WEIGHT in the lead, and is overly US-centric if added to section 4.8. The information is covered in the phrase "All governments, however, recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Tibet today...". Happy‑melon 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Tibet ever offically declare independence from China?

{{editprotected}}

Tibetans calimed that Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911. Chinese calimed that, up to now, Tibetans did not show any valid evidence to support their calim that Tibet had ever declared its independence from Qing China.

Editor, please change the first sentence of the last paragraph in the introduction part into the above sentences. The reason this change is necessary is that, Tibet's declaration of independence is not a proven historical fact.

The two facts usually used to support the independence claim are both not valid.

The first one: Did Tibet signed a treaty with mongolia in 1913 to recognize each other's independence? As you can see from the part of "relations with republic of china", no evidence to prove that Tibetan government authorized Dorzhiev to sign a treaty, and/or ever ratified such a treaty, no matter if such a treaty existed or not.

The second one: Did 13th Dalai ever procalimed Tibet independence from China in 1913? In his speech, he condemed Chinese attemption (only attemption) to colonize Tibet and said Tibet is an independent territory. He did not say, from now on, Tibet becomes an independent country. However, if you read the context of his origional speech, it is very clear that he means Tibet has always been an independent territory, which is not true. So, this can not be used to support the calim of independence declaration. Actually, up to now, Tibetan government in exile's official view is still that: Tibet never was a part of China. There is no need to proclaim independence from China for an already independent country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple88 (talk • contribs)

Re. the 1913 treaty, wouldn't it be much more important whether or not the Mongolian side ratified the treaty? Yaan (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A substantial content alteration like this requires both consensus and reliable evidence for its verifiability. Happy‑melon 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Before American Civil War, didn't the south declare independence from the north too? 129.59.8.10 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo

..."Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911 on the eve of the fall of the Qing dynasty and it's subsequent internal turmoil,..."

The correct spelling of "it's internal struggle" is "its internal struggle".

Dave Thompson63.249.23.238 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Tibet

Well, Wikipedia Policy is to be neutral. If any statements are made in the articles in Tibet that go against anything the Dalai Lama has said or does say with regard to the situation in Tibet, that is slandering both him and Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, with regard to issues that the Dalai Lama has disagreements with the People's Republic of China (PRC) over, Wikipedians have three choices based on Wikipedia policy: 1)Side with the Dalai Lama on such issues. 2)Do not include them at all. 3)State every single one in an explicit way that lists both viewpoints up front.

It would not even be appropriate to list a PRC side, with "evidence" and a "source cited" and then lis the Dalai Lama's differing view later on in the article. It would only be alright to list his differing viewpoint immediately after listening the PRC viewpoint.

I will be coming back to check this page everyday to make sure you are all taking my advice. If I see information that is not in line with neutrality, I will do whatever I can to fix that.

Lastly, I would like to note that as for issues of independence, if in a speech a previous Dalai Lama said that Tibet was an independent "region," it is incorrect to say that doesn't count as genuine national independence. Remember, their culture was much different than anything the world sees today, so it is not fair to hold choice of words so ultimately.

I am not listing any date for this post because it is timeless and always applicable in past, present, and future.

Best Wishes, Laotzu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laotzuu (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 unrest

We have a whole page for this topic - 2008 Tibetan unrest. We don't need fine detail on this page, a summary is sufficient. If you really feel the need to comment on the recent events, please do so on the dedicated page. Alexwoods (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Order for the name origin

{{editprotected}}

As a user, when I use the English page of an article, I care more about origin of the names in English language. In the section on the origin of the name the English language origin should be atop other languages. The same way, in Chinese and Indian versions of the article the Chinese and Sanskrit origin could be atop the section as well. --Larno Man (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the Sanskrit entirely? Alexwoods (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lose the Sanskrit. Tibet is not India, the section is not sourced, and is about a functionally dead language. It's like having a section on the Latin name in the New York article.

Do not have a strong opinion on ordering, but as Chinese is co-official with Tibetan in the TAR and other ethnic-Tibetan areas, it makes sense to have it ahead of the English name section. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We can keep Chinese origin but it should be after the English origin. This part is not informative for most readers of English page who do not speak Chinese --Larno Man (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By that logic the Tibetan name should also be after the English name? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of article is "Tibet". Therefore, the etymology of Tibet should be discussed first and if 'Tibet' has other names in other languages it might be discussed. (However, I even have hesitations to mention the etymology of Chinese name of Tibet. It is not informative for people who do not speak Chinese. This part might be good in Chinese version of the article and not in English version--Larno Man (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)).

Your latter argument makes no sense. Both Chinese and Tibetan are official languages in the areas under discussion here. If your argument is that we should only (or first) talk about the name in the language that "sounds the same" as the area under discussion, should we only talk about the ancient Egyptian name of Egypt and not the Arabic one? If your argument is that we should only (or firsT) talk about the name in the language that is indigenous to the area in question, should we only tahe etlk about the Maori name for New Zealand, or talk about it ahead of the English one? It seems to me that the official languages of a place, or the languages in actual usage there, should rank ahead of any foreign language, even English.

Your other argument seems to be that English should always be first, because this is the English wikipedia - that argument is at least logically consistent, and that would imply that English should go before both Tibetan and Chinese. I wouldn't object to that, though it is not ideal in my opinion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

* It seem that you did not get my point. I do not mind what is official language in Tibet and I am not against the Chinese name. I just want to re-order the section. The etymology of Tibet should be discussed first and in the following paragraphs other variants can be disscused, because Tibet is the common English and International name of that region. Moreover, the title of the article is "Tibet" not Xizang. Even if you like to discuses other variants of the name e.g. Xīzàng . The information on etymology of the term of Xizang should come after etymology of the term of Tibet.

* The rational that Chinese is co-official language in Tibet may justify keeping the section on etymology of Xīzàng but does not justify putting it on top of the etymology of the term Tibet.

* Look at other pages in Wikipedia for example in the case of Egypt, the English name of this country is Egypt and in the section of etymology, Egypt comes first. Then, the Arabic variant, Masr comes.

Let me know if you still have any objection on the following order: First paragraph on the etymology of the term "Tibet", the second on Xizang and third section on other variants, if there is any.

[[27]] --Larno Man (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

English - Tibetan - Chinese is acceptable for me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I also agree with your suggested order. --Larno Man (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a coarse rearrangement. If you would like it rearranged further, a "replace the 'name' section with this code" is always easy to implement :D Happy‑melon 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink Dalia Lama - Request for Protected Edit

I can't link it myself, due to page protection, but can an admin wikilink this? --Xiaphias (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to do it when I found out it was protected. Good idea, It's the first time it's mentioned in the article and there is no wikilink for it. There is one a few pages down for the Dalia Lama later in the article where it talks about lineage though. --Papajohnin (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done —EncMstr 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

article's introduction

No offense, but the introduction section is too long and too politics-oriented. It is now nothing but battlefield for pro-TGIE and pro-Beijing apologists. I suggest replacing the last two(or three) paragraphs by a shorter and clearer:

Tibet was once an independent kingdom, which later became a part of China. The government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile, however, disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.

Let readers, not editors, draw conclusions. Opinions? 219.79.252.210 (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. None of this "defacto independent" business. "defacto" is not even a word. Hopefully all the random edits will end soon and we can just revert back to a more sensible version. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

de facto, however, is a valid english adverb. Yaan (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Okay, being serious now: most of the new additions to the introuction is uncited, fairly biased and inflammatory, and often consists of original research. We need to be judicious and be both balanced and rigorous in vetting new additions to such a sensitive topic.

The phrasing that I especially had problems with is the "defacto independent state" - which seems to be sourced to a non-working link at some site called defencesecurity.org. Do we even know what kind of an organisation that is? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Someone needs to go to the library and look up what relevant authors have to say. Yaan (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a distorted Tibet history

This is biased, distorted Tibet history edited by pro-Tibet acitivist. It is completely not trustworthy. This Tibet history deliberately reduces and denies Chinese sovereignty over Tibet in Chinese Ming, Qing Dynasty and Republic of China.

"Then, a Qing army entered and defeated the rebels and installed an administration headed by the Dalai Lama. The number of soldiers in Tibet was kept at about 2,000. The defensive duties were partly helped out by a local force which was reorganized by the resident commissioner, and the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before."

This statement is trying to distort Tibet history in Qing Dynasty. Furthermore, this part of history even didn't mention a very important historical document called "Twenty-nine Article of Imperial Decree" in Qing Dynasty. This decree was part of Qing's Constitution, which defined Tibet Administrative roles. In this decree, it clearly states Dalai Lama was not the head of Tibet administration, insead "Zhu Zang Dacheng" (Governor of Tibet) was the one who administrate Tibet along with Dalai Lama, only the governor is authorized to report to Qing's Emperor directly, Dalai Lama and Tibet local government officiers are not authorized to report to Qing Emperor directly, and local government affairs must governed by Governor of Tibet. Every government documents must be sealed by the Governor of Tibet. In Tibet today, several historical government documents written in Tibet language shows that Tibet local government officiers reportted to Governor of Tibet.

"Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet"

This is another example of deliberately distorting Tibet history. This part of history doesn't even mention it was the central government of Republic of China which approved the current 14th Dalai Lama. Here is what really happened during that period of time as shown in historical documents:

In 1927, Chinese National Party(Kuomintang) successively conquered and ruled the tributary of Yangtse river. Most provinces acknowledge Republic of China as the central government with capital in Nanking. Although nothing had changed just because of it.

Republic of China set up a high ranking "Commission of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs" in the government imitating Qing's "Li-Fan Yuan" (ministry of national minorities, and foreign countries). At that time, the 9th Panchen Lama (who ruled a third of Tibet) was in trouble with the 13th Dalai Lama. The 9th Panchen Lama acted in the traditional way by going to the central government. Republic of China was more than happy to receive him. As usual, he was bestowed a honorable title, given a large sum of money and a high position in the government. The 13th Dalai Lama was not very happy, and sent missionaries to the central government to complain. It was agreed that the 13th Dalai Lama should enjoy more honors, and commissions of the central government and Tibetan government should be sent to each capital, and Tibetans were sent as congressmen of the central government.

Republic of China set up the province of Xikang as planned by Qing court. The act took away the eastern part of Tibet. In 1930, Tibetan army fought in Xikang with some local warlords. The appointed governor never again tried to rule the part of Tibet, and nobody cared as long as there was no disturbance. Later on, PRC abolished Xikang, and the present Tibet was exactly the same as in Qing Dynasty. In 1931, Tibetan army fought with Qinghai troops (the so-called Ma-chia army, the army of Ma family, Moslem army). The central government did its best to arrange cease fires. In the chaotic situation of China, hardly anyone noticed the battles.

After the 13th Dalai Lama passed away (1933), Yellow branch was looking for his reincarnation. In the meantime, the 9th Panchen Lama wanted to go back and was given an escort by Republic of China to do so. However, Panchen Lama passed away in 1937 in Qinghai before reaching Tibet. In 1939, the chairman of "Commission of Mongolia and Tibetan Affairs", Wu Chung-Xin, went to Tibet to chair the ceremony of the 14th Dalai Lama(the present Dalai Lama) "sitting on his bed" (crowning) as the formal ZhuZang Dacheng of Qing Dynasty would do. The regent of Tibet Radreng requested the government of Republic of China to exempt the 14th Dalai Lama from the lottery system which was granted by a special decree. There were a lot of improvements of the relations. For instance, Tibetan congressmen wrote the Article about Tibet in the Constitution of Republic of China.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleywxc (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Tibetans claim that the ROC representative was present at that ceremony, but did not have any active role. What would have happened if the ROC had not made any "special decree"? Yaan (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you do aware THE FACT that there is a "special decree" granted by central government of ROC to exempt 14th Dalai Lama from lottery system, which has historical document as evidences.

Secondly, according to preserved historical documents, on Jan. 31st of 1940, Tibet local government sent official letter to ROC central government asking for approval of conferring 14th Dalai Lama title to “Tenzin Gyatso”.

Thirdly, according to preserved historical documents, on Februray 5th of 1940, ROC government approved this request, granted a special decree to exempt the 14th Dalai Lama from the lottery system, and allocated 400,000 yuan as its ceremonial budget.

Fourthly, after Tenzin Gyatso was conferred as 14th Dalai Lama, the chairman of “Commission of Mongolia and Tibetan Affairs”, Wu Chung-Xin, went to Tibet to chair the ceremony of the 14th Dalai Lama (the present Dalai Lama) ‘sitting on his bed' (crowning) as a more than hundred years' tradition.

Fivthly, history should be based on historical "FACTS", the fact is "the special decree exists" in history, NOT your wishful hypothesis: "What would have happened if the ROC had not made any 'special decree'". It DID HAPPEN, AND THAT'S THE FACT. And this has historical picture taken as evidences. Tibetans have to show evidences to prove their claim. Without evidences, their claim is meaningless.

Sixly, you completely removed ROC's administrative rule over Tibet from this part of history, and your reasoning is: "ROC is in Taiwan now, not in China". This logic is completely false and ridiculous. History is based on FACTS happened in the past, not today. Besides, whatever happens right now in Taiwan IS STILL PART OF Chinese history. Taiwan is still one of China's provinces.

Finally, If you want to write fair history, write it according to FACTS happened in the past, and have evidences as support. NOT YOUR WISHFUL THINKING and your hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleywxc (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not aware of making the changes you mention, but maybe I just forgot this. Care to show me where and when I did this?

Secondly: I am not asking whether there was a decree, I was asking about it's significance. For all we know, tomorrow they might decree that rivers can from now on only flow downwards, no longer upwards. And that would be a fact as well, and most rivers would even abide to such degrees! By January (not February?) 25th, 1940, the Tibetans had long decided on who the 14th Dalai Lama would be (exact date, according to Melvyn Goldstein's A History of Modern Tibet, p. 324, was August 23rd, 1939, when he was still on his way from Amdo)

According to Melvyn Goldstein's A History of Modern Tibet, p. 328f, "Considering Sino-Tibetan relations at that time, Wu's version of China's role is implausible. The Tibetan government would have wanted to show respect and courtesy to the Chinese government, but it seems inconceivable that they would ask Chinese permission (emph. orig.) to dispense with the Chinese-instituted "golden urn" selection process that had in fact already been ignored in the selection of the 13th Dalai Lama. As was indicated above (p.324), the main reason for officially recognizing the Dalai Lama while he was still en route from Amdo was precisely to avoid later Chinese claims that they had participated in his selection". Yaan (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your logic of reasoning is completely false for whatever your purposes
1. History is based on FACTS not your personal preferences of significance
The fact is: after Tibetans had decided who 14th Dalai Lama would be on January 25th of 1940, Tibetan local government DID send request to ROC central government for the approval of this special decree on January 31st of 1940. The reason why this decree is SPECIAL is because 14th Dalai Lama would exempt from "Golden urn" drawing system designed by Qing Dynasty and this "Golden Urn" is still preserved in Beijing today. This event was recorded in history and this decree is still preserved in "The State Archives Administration of China"(in Tibet)
2. The event of which Tibet local government requested central government of ROC for approval of this special decree is self proven of its significance of ROC central government
The reference you quoted from Melvyn Goldstein is wrong on this event. He obviously did not fully understand why the "golden urn" existed. There is a historical document exists today to show that "Emperor Daoguang's Decree to Holy Child Dalai Lama concerning the sending officials to Draw Lots and officiate at the Enthronment Ceremony"(Qing Dynasty)

3. I corrected my typo of February 25th of 1940, it should be February 5th of 1940

you can see those historical documents online here: http://download.xinhuanet.com/video/index.swf

HISTORY SHOULD BE BASED ON FACTS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, NOT SOME SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP'S WISHFUL THINKING

Here on Wikipedia, you are required to be polite to your fellow editors. Please be more civil in the future.

What is your historical evidence showing that that the Tibetan government made a request to be exempted from use of the Golden Urn? Melvyn Goldstein, one of the most respected historians of modern Tibet, says that this is implausible. I looked at your Xinhuanet link, and I see there a decree from the ROC "confirming" the 14th Dalai Lama, but there's nothing there which shows the request from the Tibetan government.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I believe people in this editor group should be civil to historical facts first
Any human being with integrity should be angry to these attempts to distort history. Distorting historical facts is a crime against hunman civilization and a complete civilization retroversion. To reveal the truth is one of most difficult tasks our human civilization pursue, at mean time, it is equally important to keep the truth not being buried into lies and inaccuracies. Any human being with integrity will do the same no matter which side they come from.
2. It does not necessarily mean Melvyn Goldstein is correct just because he is a respectful historian
3. Historical Documents
Historical documents show: 1. Tibet local government send the request to Wu Chung-Xin, the chairman of "Commission of Mongolia and Tibetan Affairs", for the approval of this special decree.(I will upload the photo copy of this historical document written in Tibet language, 2. a document written by Wu Chung-Xin which sent to central government of ROC for this approval, 3. and the special decree issued by central government of ROC.

Do you read Tibetan? I don't. This document will not be very useful unless we find a reliable translation into English or Chinese, or we can consult someone who reads Tibetan. I have no doubt that Wu Zhongxin sent a message to the central government or that they issued a decree, so it's not necessary for you to upload those.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, is it because this important document does not portray your interest?

Regardless of what you think, you are required to be civil toward other editors. I'll pay attention to you again when you are prepared to do that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you say. This group of editors are required to be civil to history first. They are required to be civil to human history and human civilization ,to be required to respect historical facts.

Melvyn Goldstein is, as far as I know, a pretty well-respected scholar of Tibet. If you think he has facts wrong, like that the new Dalai Lama was already recognized (not enthroned) in August 1939, or that already the 13th Dalai Lama had not been selected by golden urn, you'll have to come up with something more than just general comments or a link to a news site. Yaan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"14th Dalai Lama had been pre-selected already before he was conferred" was a historical fact. Melvyn Goldstein is right on this fact. But Melvyn Goldstein is still wrong on this part of history. There are two separate issues here: 1. Whether or not using 'Golden Urn' system to draw a new Dalai Lama. 2. Whether or not the new Dalai Lama need to be approved by Chinese central government regardless of whether or not using 'Golden Urn'. Melvyn Goldstein is only right on issue #1 in 13th Dalai Lama and 14th Dalai Lama cases. However, he mixed these two issues together, using issue #1 to prove issue #2, and this logic itself is flawed and contradicts historical facts. His conclusion on "Considering Sino-Tibetan relations at that time, Wu's version of China's role is implausible" is incorrect. Preserved historical documents shows: 1. On Janurary 26th, 1940, Tibet local government made a request to Wu asking Wu to make a further request to China' central government for approval of this exemption. This historical document of Tibetan's request is still preserved today. 2. On Janurary 31st, 1940, Wu made the request to central government for this approval. 3. On February 5th, 1940, Chinese central government approved this request and issued a special decree.

According to the procedure of finding reincarnation through Holy Child, if there were multiple Holy Children found during this process of finding reincarnation, then Tibet local government would determine which Holy Child would be the reincarnation through 'Golden Urn' system. If there was only one Holy Child found during this process, then Tibet local government would ask Chinese central government for approval of exempting the Holy Child from the 'Golden Urn' system. There was only one Holy Child found in finding 13th Dalai Lama and 14th Dalai Lama, that was the reason why they were exempted from 'Golden Urn' drawing and that was the reason why Tibet local government made a request to ROC central government to exempt 14th Dalai Lama from 'Golden Urn' system. Tibet local government followed the EXACT protocol during finding 13th Dalai Lama reincarnation.

These facts proved that Tibet local government still followed the traditional protocol on new Dalai Lama: inform chinese central government and request the approval of new Dalai Lama, Chinese central government grant Dalai Lama to Holy child, then Holy child would be conferred to Dalai Lama. As a tradition, chinese central government would generally grant Tibet local government's request without any alteration in order to respect Tibet religion.

The link, which I only have had for readers quick reference so far, is hosted on a news site. But it contains original historical documents and that flash was made by "The State Archieves Administration of People's Republic of China". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleywxc (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it also part of the traditional protocol that the Chinese representative had to travel via India? Yaan (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rivers of Tibet

I think the Brahmaputra River / Yarlung Tsangpo is there twice, under each name. If it's just one river this should be fixed.--GwydionM (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think the Ganges does not belong there. It comes from the other side of the Himalayas. --GwydionM (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink to tibetan protests

{{editprotected}}

Could the current wikilink to [[protests|2008 Tibetan protests]] (at the bottom of "4.10 Rule of the People's Republic of China") be changed to [[2008 Tibetan unrest|2008 Tibetan protests]] --Tntnnbltn (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done —EncMstr 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements and convention error

{{editprotected}}

This statement in the Cuisine section (section number 9):

"Butter tea is very popular to drink and many Tibetans drink up to 100 cups a day.[citation needed]"

should be changed to "Butter tea is very popular as a drink and many Tibetans drink up to 40 or 50 cups a day." http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/11/22/2003388990/wiki can be used as a source.

Also, the incorrect citation <ref name="Grunfeld"/> should be replaced with <ref>Grunfeld, A. Tom, ''The Making of Modern Tibet.'' ISBN 1-56324-713-5</ref>

The last sentence of the "Tibet in popular culture" section, "Brand and co-host Matt Morgan have admitted that their knowledge on the situation is very poor.[citation needed]," is both unsourced and extremely unlikely to be true. I think it should be removed unless a source is found.

Finally, in the section "World War I and the Decentralisation of China", the photo's caption should be changed to "14th Dalai Lama 1935-present". --Bowlhover (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes 1, 2, and 4 seem okay. Is there agreement for change #3? I commented out editprotected for the time being. —EncMstr 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference it or remove it.

[...] infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 [...]

This statistic is dubious, and is probably PRC propaganda based on the fact that 7 of the Dalai Lama's 15 siblings died in infancy. Conveniently, that's exactly 43.75% (7/16). --75.5.73.187 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Gimme danger (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlink "controversially"

{{editprotect}}

Please unlink the word "controversially" in the sentence "some academics controversially consider it part of South Asia" in the second paragraph. Since "controversially" also links to South Asia, the piped link is redundant and distracting. 71.174.111.205 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- it was a dead link anyhow. - Revolving Bugbear 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusingly-worded sentence

Quote: "alleged reports of human rights violation in Tibet by groups such as Human Rights Watch." Restructuring the sentence would avoid the obvious misinterpretation. 78.32.69.142 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite catching your meaning there. Which part is the misinterpretation?

It sounds as if Human Rights Watch is committing the violations, rather than reporting them. Afdsajfhdsjfh (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible solution, which also avoids the passive tense: "The PRC continues to portray its rule over Tibet as an unalloyed improvement, but foreign governments continue to make occasional protests about aspects of PRC rule in Tibet as groups such as Human Rights Watch report alleged human rights violations." Afdsajfhdsjfh (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Go for it. Yunfeng (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But the article's locked, so an admin needs to make the change. Afdsajfhdsjfh (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue between representatives of the Dalai Lama and Chinese officials

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following before the paragraph,

“ In 2005, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's offered to hold talks with the 14th Dalai Lama ...... ”

“ In 1979, Chinese government contacted the Dalai Lama's elder brother Mr. Gyalo Thondup in Hong Kong who subsequently visited Beijing and met with all top Chinese leaders, including Mr. Deng Xiaoping . As recently as February 2006, representatives of the Dalai Lama visited China and discussed the Tibet autonomy issues and visit of the Dalai Lama with top Chinese officials . ”

The reason for adding these sentences is that reading this entry gives the impression that there have never been discussions between the Dalai Lama side and the Chinese government. The reality is that there have been several such discussions, based on statements of the Tibetan exile leaders in their testimonies to the US Congress. ( reference at www.cecc.gov/pages/roundtables/2006/20060313/TashiWangdi.php ) Of course there have not been substantial progress in resolving the Tibet issue.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daqingzhao (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now, although this looks like a promising addition. See meta:The Wrong Version and WP:PPOL: all substantial edits to protected pages need a clear consensus on the talk page. If (as seems likely) this edit gains more support here, re-activate the {{editprotected}} template and the change can be made. Happy‑melon 10:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add: In 649, King of Xihai Jun was conferred upon Songtsen Gampo by Tang Dynasty

In the 23th year of Zhenguan (貞觀二十三年，A.D. 649), King of Xihai Jun was conferred upon Songtsen Gampo (松贊幹布) by Tang Gaozong (唐高宗), the emperor of Tang Dynasty. ("上以吐蕃贊普弄贊為駙馬都尉，封西海郡王。贊普致書於長孫無忌等雲：「天子初即位，臣下有不忠者，當勒兵赴國討除之。」", Source: Zizhi Tongjian). Thanks. -Hsihaijunmin (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing something in the first paragraph

{{editprotected}}

From this sentence

“ Geographically, UNESCO and Encyclopædia Britannica consider Tibet to be part of Central Asia, while several academic organizations controversially consider it part of South Asia. ”

the word "controversially" needs to be removed. It refers to a section on South Asia called "Controversy over the Definition". There never was an actual controversy over the definiton except between Wikipedians, and it eventually came to be accepted that controversy is not an appropriate word to be use (see Talk:South_Asia#April_2008). That subsection is now called "Differences in definitions". The word "controversially" in this paragraph originates from the aforementioned subsection on South Asia and it is requested that the cquote above is modified to look as the cquote below

“ Geographically, UNESCO and Encyclopædia Britannica consider Tibet to be part of Central Asia, while several academic organizations hold a different view and consider it part of South Asia. ”

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, kind of. But I made it simpler, I just removed the word "controversially". --David Göthberg (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it just me, or does the sentence "PRC scholars favor the theory that "Tibet" is derived from tǔbō" hint some bias here? Should it be changed to "Some scholars believe that "Tibet" is derived from tǔbō"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.122.192 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Map

The map cited in this article shows Sikkim, a state in India, as part of other areas within cultural sphere of Tibet. However, the accession of Sikkim in to India, has also been accepted by PRC. So please change the MAP. Shovon 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have said, the map shows the cultural sphere of Tibet. Sikkim certainly is part of that (the Sikkimese language is a dialect of Tibetan), or it was before the population shifts there. Nothing about the map claims that Sikkim is politically part of Tibet or the PRC.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

China is overly demonized

I am no fan of Communist-run countries, however, I think that the average non-Chinese and non-Tibetan have no fair reference point, nor do they have access to unbiased information from either China or Tibet in Exile. This is a problem that is shown in this article, which is clearly written with a pro-Tibet bias, and whether one agrees with the Dalai Lama or not, Wikipedia must maintain more equal representation. Although much of the article is factually right-on (history, etc), it is particularly lacking in any form of outside, third-party sociopolitical information. Therefore, all we have to go on are the pleas of that smily old monk the Dalai Lama, and the stern spokemen of Hu Jintao's politburo. 68.43.93.253 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Rex Reinhard

Seriously guys, the article makes it sound like all the negative spilled at Dalai Lama was done by Chinese government, when in fact, what is said by the government represent the true voice of the Chinese people. You can't quote 10 sentences from western journalists, and non from Chinese media or people.

Also please note, this guy says he accepts Chinese sovereignty, yet in his "future constitution of Tibet", which can be found on his website, he wants all PLA to be out of tibet, all Han Chinese to be out(when in fact han chinese makes up 5% of the population in the region), and want tibet to be able to deal freely with any international organizations it want without Chinese inteference. That's the kind of soverenty he is accepting.

One more thing. If you write about the westerners comdanmation of the chinese crackdowm in 2008, then you should include all the Chinese protest all over the world aganist the manipulation of news by western meida. We are wikipedia, we include all views right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.163.131 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

IP, if I'm understanding you correctly, then you would like a) the article to include the statement that negative feelings toward the Dalai Lama are representative of the Chinese people, b) clarification of the Dalai Lama's idea of autonomy with regards to TAR and c) Chinese protests of Western media coverage of the 2008 unrest. Is this correct?

If so, I would say that your first idea probably belongs on the Dalai Lama article itself, not the general Tibet page. This article can only be a summary of all the issues related to Tibet and is already overly long. If you can find a reputable poll demonstrating your point, that would be very helpful.

Your second point is a good one. "Autonomy" is rather vague and should be clarified. Again though, I'm unsure whether this sort of detail belongs in the general Tibet page.

Your third point also probably belongs on the 2008 unrest in Tibet article. Thank you for your suggestions. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Necessary dab?

In the dab line: "For the current anti-Chinese protests, see 2008 unrest in Tibet."

I apprecitae the desire to draw attention to the article for visitors, but surely anyone searching specifically for the protests would type in "Tibetan protests" or "Tibetan riots" or similar phrases? In my view, if it is necessary to point out the link to visitors to this page, it can be done just as effectively but without doing violence to the concept of disambiguation by wikilinking it in the lead paragraphs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oy, don't lock me out from editing or I'll go launch a quest for power as an admin, damn you!

I came across Image:Tibetan Soldier at Target Practise.jpg at work today, thought it would make an excellent addition to the article. It's a 1905 image by Landor, who spent a great deal of time in Tibet. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Highly suspicious

After reading through the whole Tibet article, there are many areas that certainly raise cause for concern. How many Chinese pro-communist editors have been toying with History on this site? Hmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaigneach (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor Source Suggestion

In reference to the recent 2008 unrest it states that among the protests in international cities around the world there were protests that backed China's response, now I don't doubt this to be true, since you're going to have people of various ideologies in big cities, I do think though that a link to a reputable news source that talks about or gives more then a quick mention of it should be provided to it to prevent future arguments about it being propoganda on behalf of pro-PRC parties. -IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[el:Θιβέτ]] in the interwiki section. --Anastasios (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done —EncMstr 05:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sven Hedin

Unless anyone can provide a good reason to keep it I propose to delete the Sven Hedin subsection for the reasons that a) it contriubutes nothing to the article overall; and b) the source cited does not support the claim that he called Tibet one of the provinces of northwestern China (it is quite clear from the text that the expedition in question was to Xinjiang, where he got caught up in the Dungan rebellion). Cripipper (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cripipper (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relations

I don't really think there is a debate about whether the Mongols and, later, the Yuan dynasty had some authority over Tibet or not. After all, they did send several expeditions there, and also took influence on religious and domestic matters. The status of Tibet under Ming dynasty is, however, under debate, that is why IMO "relations" is a more fitting word here. In any case, the guy on the right has nothing to do with Tibet. Yaan (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

establishment of the dalai lama

Can we please stop to give the impression that the Dalai Lama stuff was invented by the qing emperors? The lineage was estabished in 1578, that is long before anyone knew of a Qing dynasty, and the fifth Dalai Lama became the political leader of the country with the help of the Khoshuud, not with the help of the Manchu, and also before Qing dynasty was firmly established. What was established in 1751 was the Khashag, not the Dalai Lama . Yaan (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalai lineage appeared not established in 1578. As you said, there was not Qing at all. However, the 3rd dalai lama did send tribute to Ming china through Altan Khan, and asked for chinese prime minister's (name: Zhang-ju-zheng) permission to send tribute regularly. (Ming government only allow certain high level Tibetan officials and lamas to pay tribute to chinese government regularly.)Ming government approved. The fifth dalai has big influence, but not the official political leader of Tibet, since there was still a governor (or "king")at that time. The 1750 rebellion happened because the ambans killed the governor. Do you know why the 6th dalai lama was sent to Beijing? Because Khoshud mongol was a subject of Qing government. It was the Qing emperor's order to depose the 6th dalai and send him to beijing for punishment. Dear Yaan, please arm yourself with knowledge before talking. Remember, you should read books written by both sides, not Tibetan side only. Otherwisely, you will be poorly knowledged. I would like recommend you some books here: 1. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China Tibet and dalai lama. written by an american professor who can speak Tibetan. 2. The Historical Status of China's Tibet. written by a chinese. I don't need recommend you books written by Tibetans. You must have read tons of them. Apple88

Certainly the Khoshuud were no subjects yet in 1641, were they? And being a Qing subject does not seem to have helped them much when the Dzungars came after them, even though these Dzungars were the common enemy of both Qing and Khoshuud (but this pattern seems not so unfamiliar). I am actually much more interested in Mongol-related topics, not so much in Tibet. It's just the stubborn insistence on the rather ambigous "in 1751, the Qing established the Dalai Lama" kind of wording (previously) that got me riled up a bit. Yes, I may have sounded a bit more confident than I really should be. Yaan (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now having read some more, there are also sources that claim the idea to send the 6th Dalai Lama to Beijing came from Lobzang Khan, in order to get rid of his opponents in Tibet. The Khoshuud submission (in what form? tributary relations or something real?) was in 1698, is that correct? How do we explain the Manchu's rather ambigous behaviour towards which 7th Dalai Lama was the real one? Yaan (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Gushri Khan received an official position in Beijing in 1653. Emperor Shunzhi granted him a golden certificate of appointment and a golden seal of authority. The certificate text reads in part: "For the emperor's great task, the subject must be talked over so that its chieftain will size up the situation and pledge allegiance. The imperial court will show trust and appreciation. You, Gushri Khan of the Hoshod Mongols, respect virtue and are ready to do good things, hence enjoying high prestige in your own area. I, the sovereign, appreciate what you have done. To commend your loyalty and merits, I hereby grant you a certificate of appointment and a seal of authority." The seal text reads: "Righteous and Wise Gushri Khan." (The Records of Qing Emperor Shizu, Vol.74, p.19)

Actually Qing did not really care who becomes the next dalai lama. What they care is to protect qing government's interest. Qing always see mongol as a potential threat to their power. They are simply too happhy to see mongols fighting each other as long as it does not qing government own interest. may be that is why qing did not send troops to help north mongolians when Dzungars captured northern mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple88 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then Lobzang must have re-submitted in 1698 (or 1699?) or something like that, or my source got something wrong. Actually, I think it would be worth mentioning the fifth Dalai Lama's visit to Beijing in the artcle, I guess it is currently still missing. Yaan (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission

Also, Please add this http://www.mtac.gov.tw/pages.php?lang=5&page=131 under the Republic of China section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian 2008 April (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Yaan (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongol empire/Yuan dynasty

Tibet submitted to the Mongols in the 1240s, Yuan Dynasty was founded in 1271, so it was one of the areas the Yuan dynasty inherited from the Mongol empire, rather than one they conquered themselves. How "Chinese" the Mongol affinity to Tibet really was is probably debatable, AFAIK the confucian scholars were generally not to amused about the tantric practices followed by later Yuan emperors, and about Tibetan Buddhism in general. Yaan (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese and Tibetans were both under the same emperor, the emperor of the Chinese Yuan Dynasty. That is history. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No Yuan Dynasty existed in 1240, and the Chinese paid taxes, while the Tibetans received presents. That is also history. Yaan (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Butterfly, are you going to claim that the Mongols in 1240 had their capital in Beijing or were a Chinese state? Because people who actually met Mongol Khans in the 1240s and 1250s tell very different things. Yaan (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaan Tibetans are still not paying taxes while receiving presents from Beijing, today. All Chinese governments, ruled by Mongols, Manchus and the Han, have never exploited the Tibetans. Instead the Chinese have given them food and protection when needed. This is history too. The text in the intro says 13th century, do you know what that means? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection against Gurkhas and the British? My point was that Tibetans got privileges from the Mongols, who even adopted Tibetan Buddhism, while the Chinese were discriminated against, for example when it came to jobs in the administration. Of course one difference between Tibet then and today is that back then, Tibet was self-ruled, while today they have their CCP secretary who (I guess) usually does not even speak Tibetan. Yaan (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources Yaan and Littlebutterfly, perhaps it would be easier to solve this dispute if you each wrote here where you are getting your information. Even if it's in the article, it would be helpful to have that discussion all in one place. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My source here is Dieter Schuh, Tibet unter der Mongolenherrschaft, in: Michael Weiers (editor), Die Mongolen. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur, Darmstadt 1986, p. 283-289. As one might guess, the book is mainly concerned with Mongols, and the specific article is titled "Tibet under Mongol rule" and covers the time between roughly 1240 and 1354. And it does state that the Tibetans submitted to the Mongols in the 1240s (the exact dates are in the article), i.e. before the split-up that came with Khubilai's ascent to the throne in 1260, and before the Yuan Dynasty was established in 1271. The sources about where the Mongols had their capital before 1260 would be Carpini and Rubruck. Yaan (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this Mongolian source doesn't work here. This is an English article. We should be able to verify the accuracy of the material. --CcLao (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy does not require English sources provided that the cited passage is quoted in the footnote. I'll provide my own source though, since facts are facts after all. Snellgrove, David (1968). A Cultural History of Tibet. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. pp. 148–50. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) The relevant text: "It was not until the reign of Genghiz' successor, Ogodai, who became Khan in 1227, that the Mongols gave serious attention to Tibet... Godan [second son of Ogadai] summoned a Tibetan representative to his court... in 1244 the Lama of Sakya set out... He made full submission to Godan on behalf of Tibet, and wrote a letter to the lamas, lords and people of the whole country.... Over this administratively reunited Tibet the grand lamas of Sakya may justly claim, at least from 1261 and possibly from 1254 to have the authority of 'Kings of Tibet'" The Mongols had dominion over Tibet at least 20 years before the Yuan dynasty was founded. Gimme danger (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tthere are plenty of English materail on the issue, why a foreign language one? --CcLao (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Yaan is German and can be expected to often read German language materials. I have provided an English language source. Gimme danger (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It´s mainly a matter of accessibility. Anyway, people like Dieter Schuh, Micheal Weiers etc. are not amateurs, they are in fact cited even by english-speaking scholars [28], [29]. Yaan (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

inhonesty

Littlebutterfly, what exactly is inhonest about mentioning in the intro that Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire before the Yuan Dynasty was founded, that the early Dalai Lamas had Mongol and Oirad connections, or that the Qing took Lhasa in 1720 and installed ambans in 1727? I personally find it much more problematic to characterize the Yuan Dynasty as an "ethnic-Mongol Chinese state" and portray the inclusion of Tibet into China as some kind of historic law, rather then letting the readers draw their conclusions themselves. Yaan (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not making things up; the statements I’ve inserted are backed by western scholars. You are not providing any sources to back your material. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are all given further down in the article, and moreover generally uncontested. Dalai Lama meeting with Altan Khan should really be known to you if you feel confident enough to edit the article. That the fifth Dalai Lama was supported by the Khoshuud is likewise easily found in any relevant source, if you don't like those mentioned in the relevant part of the history section you can try Charles Bell's Tibet Past and Present p.35-40 (although Bell completely omits the conflict between Khoshuud and Zungars and just calls them all alike Oeled), and that the Qing took Lhasa in 1720,too. If nothing helps you can try Rene Grousset's Empire of the Steppes, but in fact it is even mentioned in the German version of Wang Jiawei's work that is available on google books, on p. 60 in chapter 4 (Die Herrschaft des mongolischen Hoshod-Stammes und des Zungar-Stammes ueber Tibet, die insgesamt 70 (sic!) Jahre dauerte, wurde damit [1721, Yaan] beendet - The rule of the Mongol Hoshod and Zungar tribes over Tibet, which had lasted 70 (sic!) years, thus came to an end [in 1721, Yaan].) Yaan (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the lead once more: that "ethnic Mongol Chinese state" construct really refers to the Yuan Dynasty, which was established in 1271. By the time the Tibetans submitted to the Mongols, there could really be no talk of such a thing. Yaan (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the Tibetans submitted to the Mongols before the establishment of the Yuan Dynasty? I apologize for my confusion, I'm not particularly well versed in this period.--Gimme danger (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems you already figured this out (see above). Yaan (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly, citations are generally frowned upon in the lead paragraphs for readability. It is expected that the lead is a summary of the article and that all the citations will be provided later on, in the body of the article. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

infant mortality statistics

From: x2flu@yahoo.com

There is something wrong with the statistic in "Tibet." Specifically, "the infant mortality has dropped * * * to 0.661% in 2000." Please double check. May be the decimal point is misplaced or something.

My statement:

Originally from Taiwan, I have lived in US for more than two decades.

The definition of infant mortality rate can be found in en.wikipedia.org. However, the definition is universal.

That figure, 0.661% or 6.61 of 1,000 is barely worse than Taiwan's in 2007 ("total [both male and female]: 5.54 deaths/1,000 live births," according to CIA World Factbook, the 2008 edition).

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) states in a page titled "Tibet" that "the infant mortality rate had fallen from 430 per 1,000 in 1951, 91.8 per 1,000 in 1990 to 35.3 per 1,000 by the year 2000." http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/chinadata/tibet.htm The UN figure shows infant mortality rate in Tibet is about seven times as high as that in Taiwan.

Official statistics from Beijing is similar. Embassy of the People's Republic of China in United States of AQmerica has a web page titled "Cause of Women and Children's Health Care Developing"stated that "in 1985 the infant modality rate In the Tibet Autonomous Region had decreased to 69.07 per thousand." http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zgxz/Women%20and%20Children/t37087.htm

(This comment was not written by me, it was misplaced and I moved it from here. --Slashem (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Interestingly enough, the decimal place is in the right spot. That is exactly what the source cited says... whatever that means. Gimme danger (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "other" statistic into the article. Readers can decide which they prefer, I suppose. Gimme danger (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Prose

"Tibetan forces conquered the Tuyuhun Kingdom of modern Qinghai and Gansu to the northeast between 663 and 672 AD. Tibet also dominated the Tarim Basin and adjoining regions (now called Xinjiang), including the city of Kashgar, from 670 to 692 AD, when they were defeated by Chinese forces, and then again from 766 to the 800s." -- can someone turn this into text? whoever wrote this tried his luck at sophisticated phrase structure but really shouldnt use ___any___ commas in his texts because the result is a totally unclear text in bad style. i cannot correct it myself because i would have to guess what's it supposed to mean and how to fill the gap between 692 and 766 ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.79.76 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 DoneGimme danger (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm new to this and trying to do some research on Tibet. In the introductory paragraph, can someone please clarify what happened with Tibet between the 13th and 18th centuries. Currently, it gives the impression that the region was sovereign for several centuries after the 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.25.218 (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Serfs in old Tibet

Pre-1950 Tibet was called serfdom and the majority of Tibetans were serfs. Yet this article does not mention anything about the serfs. I just created a section for this topic, please contribute to it. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that it is appropriate to create a separate article for this topic when it is already mentioned in the first paragraph of "Rule of the People's Republic of China", so I have deleted your addition. Evilawesome (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The term “Serf” is “mentioned” in that paragraph, but that is not enough. Serfs were the backbone of old Tibet, they were the majority in population and they were the ones who did most of the works. Their story deserves a section. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps a subsection under History would be appropriate? The only other place I could think to put it would be under culture, which seems like it would imply that serfdom continues. Since it's a historical Tibetan institution, it should probably be in a history section. Tibetan feudal system also needs its own article. Just another basic Tibet article needing to be written. *sigh* --Gimme danger (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would quit rewriting major sections of this article without discussing them. Any statements about Tibet being a serfdom would have to be referenced to academic sources. Anything that isn't sourced will be removed immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not rewrite this section, I created it. And its content was referenced to academic sources. There are plenty of articles about old Tibet's serfs online, all you have to do is google it. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Which academic sources are cited in the material you added? I see citations from Michael Parenti and the Gelders.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Bön section sentence

In the "Bön" section, it has the follow two sentences: "Bön is the ancient indigenous religion of Tibet. It has now eclipsed by Tibetan Buddhism in most areas." In the 2nd sentence, is it supposed to read, "It is now eclipsed by Tibetan Buddhism in most areas" or "It has now eclipsed Tibetan Buddhism in most areas"? The sentence is confusing to me as currently written. Kman543210 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done "It has been eclipsed..." --Gimme danger (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for page lock

Given the recent interest in Tibet as a result of the pro-Tibet protests around the world, wouldn't it be prudent to lock the page to prevent vandalism and misinformation? (Psychoneko (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

The level of vandalism is manageable at this point. Several dedicated and experienced editors are watching this page to make sure that nothing happens. Locking would allow what misinformation there is on the page to stay unchallenged. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just deleted some bizarre vandalism related to "The battle of French Fries" and Tibet attacking 13 countries in 1989. I suspect a lot of school children are doing school topics in this area so it is very vulnerable to vandals. Can I second the suggestion for a lock-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.78.231 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Section ?

Why doesn't the Tibet page have a section on human rights? It is a very important topic, and is particularly relevant at the moment. As an example, the Cuba article has a section on human rights, and there is also a separate article specifically on that topic. Yes I know there is a 'Human Rights in China' page, but it doesn't really say much at all about Tibet. There is a wealth of information available about the endemic abuses meted out to the Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese, which should be summarised here. Logicman1966 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to be bold and try to write such a section. We can't even settle on what to call the Chinese-Tibetan situation; a human rights portion seems... I'd rather try to climb Qomolangma. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have been bold and added a new section on Human Rights, and I welcome any constructive contributions. I have no doubt that this action will spark a lot of debate, let's please keep it civil. Logicman1966 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over your addition; thank you for making it. I'm concerned that several of the claims made are not referenced. Perhaps they are covered by the references that you already have there and I'm just confused. I've toned down some of the language but it still needs work for neutrality. The best way to deal with this issue (NPOV, that is) is probably to link each claim with the group making it in the text itself. You've done this a few times already. Well, it's a good start. You're a braver man than I. Hats off to you. Gimme danger (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted that pretty much all of the references in this section you added, except Amnesty International and Thomas Laird, came from Tibetan exile sources. Since many of these are governmental statistics from the Tibetan exile government, it wouldn't be proper for them to constitute as academic or neutral view points.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness that sources don't have to be neutral, eh? I'm a little hazy on the Amnesty stuff, but I guess that it's a respected enough organization that it can be consider pseudo-neutral. Or something. I really shouldn't edit while half asleep.--Gimme danger (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of these organizations are regarded as or even close to respected or "pseudo-neutral" by the majority of overseas Chinese immigrants and students and by many national governments including the US. Amnesty International page on Wiki itself contains a section that raises some of its selection bias etc. It is kind of sad that these kinds of propaganda often make people falsefully believe that they are neutral and just whereas the truth is that they too often cherry-pick information and emphasize on issues which tend to help to justify their point of view while completely ignoring other facts that oppose it.NeutralityFighter (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is extremely biased to add these statements from these various NGO. They certianly don't hold a neutral point of view. While you can perhaps reference where these statements come from, what contained in their statements are often false or unverifiable. Presenting their views without mentioning their political involvement or point of view is a clear abuse of the principle of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityFighter (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, good thing that sources don't have to be neutral. Check out WP:NPOV. And WP:UNDUE. We can't include a full description of every source in a general article about Tibet. We have articles like Amnesty International and United Nations for holding that information.

Also, it would be helpful you would suggest some sources of your own.--Gimme danger (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, let me make a point here about this section. Why is there so many *** claims *** here when all there claims can be basically summarized into one thing like : human rights in Tibet are bad according to numerous anti-China organizations overseas? And why is their no voice for the Chinese people in general on this section. Affirmative actions and reverse discrimination is heavily practiced in China, resulting in minorities being treated much nicer than the Han Chinese. This is almost common sense for most Chinese people, so I think they don't even want bother to argue with those claims listed in this section. So when something is so common sense that no body, no organization will officially talk about it, there is no source to quote it, then it is not in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.162.34 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The kind of unbalanced view contained in this section is hardly bearable, Tibet section on Wiki has virtually turned itself into the spokesman for these various political activist organizations. The most obvious consequence is probably that people who know the real policies will regard this page misleading and those who don't will simply be misled. There are numerous claims can be easily proved to be misleading or exaggerating. For example, minorities in China,including tibetans, require lower threshold/marks into colleges and are not bound to the one child policy as other majority races are. In particular, tibetans do pay lower income taxes and have other better social benefits. The fact that tibetans are on average poorer is deeply rooted in its underdevelopment, which I don't see how it is caused by the rest of China. Whatever the benefits to tibetans are, numerous projects and billions of dollars have been poured into tibet to help its development from the rest of China. Government officials from different provinces are encouraged by the central government to establish economic ties in an attempt to develop tibet.

Many statements contained in here have been readily refuted by the Chinese authorities with examples and facts, yet there is not a single word mentioned on this. I do realize the Chinese authority is not a neutral source of information, neither are these organizations. Here is a link that gives you a source (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceun/eng/gyzg/xizang/t420200.htm). I also agree with the previous guy who commented, that many of the facts I have outlined above (and more) are common knowledge to most Chinese and people who do serious research about Tibet. The bottomline is, the tibetans are not treated any worse (in fact, a lot better) than the rest of Chinese people as far as economic policies would suggest. NeutralityFighter (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, since this is a page for tibet in general, I don't see why this section should be restricted to human rights of tibet AFTER 1950. I suggest someone does some research on human rights issues prior to that and see what human right conditions were under the rule of the dalai lama, so that it gives a chronological sense of human rights evolved over time in tibet. One example, entire human skin of a child is often needed to carry a ceremony that celebrate for dalai lama's birthday. The skin is of course from the slaves that dalai lama possessed. Pics of these items are readily available on google images.NeutralityFighter (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a couple of paragraphs in the subsection "Human Rights under the rule of dalai lama". I would be happy to add more at a later date. Two sources were also quoted. NeutralityFighter (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone please explains to me why the paragraphs that I have added with sources quoted simply disappeared? NeutralityFighter (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a China/Tibet Controversy section

The controversy seems to have infected a great deal of this article. It needs to be banished to a page of its own. Here is an example:

This is one of the points under contention in the issue of Tibetan independence, with the pro-Tibet argument of Tibet having been ruled by Tibetan rulers, ignoring the fact that Tibet was conquered by the Mongols in 1247 and that the "Tibetan ruler" Phagpa derived the power of his rule from the Mongol Empire.

First of all, they use 1247 as the date of the Mongol invasion, when just a few paragraphs before it says 1240 (which I believe is correct). Second its interrupting the historical narrative to debate the controversy. Third, I think this is a straw man. Is there any serious dispute that the Mongols ruled Tibet from some time in the 1240s until at LEAST 1358?

I'm not going to delete this text. I AM going to propose that somebody create a controversy page on which arguments like these can be expanded upon (thus allowing the Tibet article to focus on the history of Tibet, refering anything controversial to the controversy page). It seems like there are many other such pages on Wikipedia. 24.128.51.0 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See Tibetan sovereignty debate. It's there. It's a mess. We try. We'll get there someday. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above anonymous user removed a tons of referenced materials from the opening paragraph, and added a bunch of statements featuring weasel words such as "controversial", "uncontroversial" and "highly controversial, which in itself, are unreferenced and "controversial". At least the previous revision's opening paragraphs was mostly referenced with author's name fully attached.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)