Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→name again: let's quit chasing our tails, no?
Line 253: Line 253:


Don't argue with me, argue with Goldstein, it's his translation. The point is that it's commonly, and correctly, understood what is meant by "Chinese" and "Tibetan" in such a context; and in the context of this article, too, it's commonly and correctly understood what a "Chinese" invasion of Tibet is. [[User:Bertport|Bertport]] ([[User talk:Bertport|talk]]) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't argue with me, argue with Goldstein, it's his translation. The point is that it's commonly, and correctly, understood what is meant by "Chinese" and "Tibetan" in such a context; and in the context of this article, too, it's commonly and correctly understood what a "Chinese" invasion of Tibet is. [[User:Bertport|Bertport]] ([[User talk:Bertport|talk]]) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
:Your point - and any discussion of England ;-) - is irrelevant in this argument anyway. The "Chinese" specifier isn't necessary, since Tibet wasn't invaded by anyone else during the time period. If we have to use a descriptive title, we may as well use the shortest one. --[[User:Gimme danger|Gimme danger]] ([[User talk:Gimme danger|talk]]) 05:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:19, 22 October 2008

The validity of Orphans of the Cold War and "Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" (Putting this back in)

Littlebutterfly didn't do his/her homework and blundered when he/she suggested these were self-published. Au contraire.

Orphans of the Cold War by John Kenneth Knaus is published by Public Affairs Books. It has been reviewed by the New York Times and Foreign Affairs magazine. It includes first hand accounts by the people involved in the Tibetan resistance, including both Tibetans and westerners.

"Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" by John Roberts was published in print, in The American Spectator, which has been continuously publishing for the last 40 years. It has been used by ILW, an immigration law publisher to help lawyers determine Tibetan asylum cases concerning former members of Chushi Gangdruk, a Tibetan resistance organization that formed in 1952 to fight the invasion of Tibet.

The credibility of these two -- the fact that they're from established publishers, the reputation of the New York Times and others who have reviewed them, their use of both primary (Tibetans and CIA agents directly involved in the resistance to the invasion of Tibet) and secondary sources (outside materials) -- is solid. Littlebutterfly's accusations are baseless and false. Longchenpa (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable sources noticeboard where you could ask for quick extra opinions. However, although I wish to avoid offering opinions on the content of this particular article, I would say that I think that the two sources mentioned would be considered reliable for any article for which they are relevant. CIreland (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No editor gets to pick the sources used by another editor so long as they are credible. Or else I would have Goldstein and Xinhua out of this article in a heartbeat. Longchenpa (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:RS/N if you need further input, but they're definitely reliable enough. Whether they are strictly relevant is an editorial decision. Relata refero (disp.) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA involvement with the Tibetan resistance is important to China because it's the basis for their claim that the Tibetans were CIA pawns.
The Tibetan resistance is important to the Tibetans because it demonstrates that they were against China's takeover and fought it; first on their own, then later with CIA support.
Using sources from former CIA agents and Tibetans directly involved in the Tibetan resistance sheds light on the methods of the 1950 invasion of Tibet and on the Tibetan response. Longchenpa (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Knaus, the author of Orphans of the Cold War was a CIA officer, his account of CIA’s involvement would be welcomed. I raised objection because the material you are using from this source is not about the CIA involvement but alleged atrocities against Tibetans. Such atrocities, if they did happen, would have been exposed by the Tibetans. The fact that the Tibetans themselves are not making such accusations raises doubts about these alleged atrocities. Mr. Knaus is a CIA officer not an academic, he interviewed Tibetans but that doesn’t mean he can not make up stories. Although this book meets the standards, on this subject it should not be used. Instead we should use Tibetan sources. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you're saying, though I"m not sure I agree. In theory, anyone can make up stories; the key for us as Wikipedians is to make sure it's clear who's telling which story. I agree that we should use a different for a slightly different reason, that CIA sources aren't necessarily the most credible. It's certainly easy enough to find sources which describe the atrocities, Tibetan and NGO sources (like the UNCHR) are our best bets for this info. In short, keep the Knaus source for CIA involvement but find other sources for everything else. There's an article specifically on CIA activity in Tibet where this source would be extremely useful, but the exact title escapes me now. Gimme danger (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must not know the discussion between Knaus and Conboy's books. From a scholarly perspective you can't include Conboy and not have Knaus, or else the argument is not complete. Knaus interviewed the Tibetans involved in the resistance. Conboy did not. Knaus went directly to the CIA agents involved. Conboy did not. Knaus had access to CIA information that Conboy did not have. There is no reason to include Conboy and not Knaus. In fact, that would be a mistake and misrepresentation.
As for the atrocities, the descriptions are taken from the Tibetans who were there. Unfortunately, Conboy did not interview the Tibetans so was unable to provide that information. It would be great if every piece of information in this article would have multiple sources, and I welcome that. But after Littlebutterfly's demand for ten sources for the word "invasion" in the first paragraph (have a look at the first paragraph), I said that from here on out we need equal treatment in the demand for proof/sources. She does not get to demand one source over another, so long as the source is credible -- and Knaus is -- nor does she again get to demand infinite numbers of sources where she herself provides only one. Longchenpa (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Knaus wasn't just "a CIA agent." He was the CIA's key contact with the Tibetans. He also interviewed the Tibetans for his book. His book is not a defense of the CIA, in fact, it is a regretful account of what happened when the CIA abandoned the Tibetans. The content of his book is highly embarrassing to the CIA (and sad). He is a very credible source.
We are not exclusively using scholars. I note you have a speech from Xinhua (not known for their scholarship) dated 2001, as well as journalistic accounts. Conboy is not a scholar either, he's a former political policy analyst who did not interview the Tibetan and did not have Knaus' high level access.
Also, you can't use Conboy's book without Knaus (or Knaus without Conboy). The two address each other's arguments, so in terms of scholarship, you would have to have both or you are not fully representing the issue. Longchenpa (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No editor gets to pick the sources used by another editor so long as they are credible. Or else I would have Goldstein's dinosaur and Xinhua's scholarship out of this article in a heartbeat. Longchenpa (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longchenpa, you are forgetful and argumentative. First of all I did not “demand for ten sources for the word "invasion," I demanded sources to back the word “international” you used in the lead paragraph; check the dialogue yourself. Secondly, I do not reject Mr. Knaus’s book. What I have been saying again and again is that such accusations should come form the Tibetans. You have no desire for truth, all you want to do is put muck on China. Go ahead remove all those material (Goldstein's and Xinhua's), see if I care. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Heavens, The American Spectator is not a reliable source for anything; that one-man rant differs from a blog only in the technology it employs; the internet did not exist in 1967. I know it all too well; I used to live in Bloomington, Indiana. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How sure are you on this? There is quite a bit of info from the aftermath section off that source. Benjwong (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; the name R. Emmett Tyrell is hard to forget. It is not impossible that he or his contributor has read a reliable source and is reflecting it accurately; but I wouldn't count on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not written by Tyrrell but by John Roberts. The American Spectator is not even remotely a one man rant (although I will agree it is conservative and anti-Kennedy). Articles this week (June 2-6th) were written by:

  • Philip Klein
  • Tyrrell
  • Quin Hillyer
  • David Weigel
  • Robert Stacy McCain
  • G. Tracy Mehan
  • John Tabin
  • William Tucker
  • Peter Ferrara
  • Lisa Fabrizio
  • Daniel Allott
  • Tom Bethell
  • Jeffrey Lord
  • Dawn Eden
  • Juan Carlos Hidalgo
  • Larry Thornberry
  • George H. Wittman
  • W. James Antle III
  • Andrew Cline
  • John Lomperis
  • Hal G.P. Colebatch

I don't know where Septentrionalis PMAnderson is getting his information, but the list of contributors is clear. It's not blog, it's a magazine, and there are many different writers contributing, like any other magazine. Longchenpa (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify name

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

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

Name results so far

Here are the results so far. Please propose more names. Otherwise the most supported candidates will soon be the name of the article. Benjwong (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLA invasion of Tibet (1950-1951)

  • Many support. Many do not support.

PRC diplomacy in Tibet (1950-1958)

  • No supporter.

PRC military reclamation of Tibet (1950-1951)

  • No supporter.

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

  • No supporter.

PLA entry to Tibet (1950-1951)

  • No supporter.

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

  • Many support. A few do not support.

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

  • Many support. A few do not support.

Chamdo war

  • A few support. Many do not support.

Invasion of Chamdo

  • A few support. Many do not support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I supported the title change above. But there is not enough supporters still. Benjwong (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well claim the British Army invaded Northern Ireland. As far as I can tell, in human terms, the geographic area called tibet had no single overall polity. The land had many so called regional rulers. The PRC naturally brought everything back under the control of Beijing after the chaos of the 19th and 20th centuries. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

name again

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

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

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

Google Scholar test:

Amazon.com test:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the point is that Mao did not make a distinction between "Chinese" and "Tibetans", he makes one between Hànrén and Xīzàng. There is no 1-to-1 correlation between the English word "Chinese" and any single Chinese word (except in reference to the Chinese language).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bertport's view that Chinese is the most sensible translation of Hanren in this context is his own POV. If Mao wanted to say Chinese he would have use Zhongguoren. The translation of Hanren into Chinese simply reflects the ignorance of China by westerners. The same could be said if in China, 'British' is translated as 'English'. 81.155.100.213 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bertport. But saying Hanren = Chinese is like saying White people = American. The majority group does not automatically make it the same as the group name itself. Anyhow we can move this article to "invasion of tibet (1950-1951)" and solve 1 problem if no one disagrees. Benjwong (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your point - and any discussion of England ;-) - is irrelevant in this argument anyway. The "Chinese" specifier isn't necessary, since Tibet wasn't invaded by anyone else during the time period. If we have to use a descriptive title, we may as well use the shortest one. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&oldid=246888915"