Talk:Tibetan sovereignty debate

/Archive 1

Opening, "sentence", sucks

Tibet, has been an independent country,[1] at times, and has also been divided into different kingdoms and states, in other eras, it has been a part of the Chinese empire.

Does, anyone, see, anything, wrong, with, this, "sentence"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for, pointing, that, out, I, reverted. to, the, Version: before - it, got? mangled. Bertport (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have been blind to the commas, but I saw something entirely different "wrong" with the sentence, and the lead in general. It offered a selective reading of the history (heavily slanted towards periods of Tibet's autonomy), but did not define the debates, the implications, the connections to history, etc. I rewrote the lead to do that. Quigley (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Other rights

This paragraph is based mostly on one source. When reading this source, one can read positive points which do not appear in the section. Example: "But at different stages of Tibetan history secular rulers and religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama have been eager to protect Western missionaries and their tasks of preaching Christian beliefs to the local Tibetans." On the other hand, the section pretends Christians were imprisoned in 1630. But reading the source, one can read that it only concerned "The king, the queen, and other high royals" and not the Jesuit priests. Concerning the attack of priests, it is not specified that they were attacked at the border; the source does not specify who conducted the attack. Concerning the murders or injuries of 11 priests (which are named in the section "fathers", whereas the source mentions "at least ten other lower-ranking priests"): it is not specified that "tribal peoples in eastern Tibet" would be responsible. The section (and the source), gives only the foretold story of the Qing (Manchu dynasty), claiming that the murders would have been orchestrated by the "lamaseries and their patrons". The following paragraph fail to explain the reason of the 1905 revolt, and give no detail about the fact that Zhao Erfeng, an antireligious Warlord, was sent by the Qing, and killed hundred of Tibetan monks by decapitation, and burned Tibetan monasteries. Two references are given at the end, but it is unclear which was used, as far as I can see, most can be found in the publication of Hsiao-ting Lin. To neutralize this paragraph, one should use unbiased accademics sources on this subject. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased Third-party views

This section looks like that compiled by PRC officials. It contains only views in favor of eternal Chinese authority in Tibet ignoring everything else. For example, it is a commonplace that during the Ming period Tibet was independent of China, like many other countries listed in China as 'tributaries'. Mongolia, Bhutan and Nepal recognized Tibet as independent state but it is also ignored. President George Bush signed a law in 1991 that the Congress considered Tibet as occupied country, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.11.55 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag on the article

As per my edit summary: Given the lack of coverage about Tibet being ruled by the Qing and Yuan dynasties and the possibility of rule under the Ming (as per the FA Tibet during the Ming Dynasty) this article isn't neutral.

Of note I have added neutral coverage of Chinese rule over Tibet to the lead, which improves matters a bit, but there still isn't really enough coverage further down the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the information should be added to the body first (with citations), then summarize it in the lead per wp:lead: “Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.”

Also, although the paragraph added is a start, I wouldn’t call it neutral yet. For example, scholars outside China may consider Tibet to have been ruled by the Mongol Empire during the Yuan Dynasty, rather than by China. Also, I’m not sure that the PRC and the ROC concede that Tibet was de-facto independent from 1912-1951, but rather in a state of rebellion (or perhaps a victim of British Imperialism).

Given that the nature and identity of Yuan and Qing Dynasty rule is integral to the Tibetan sovereignty debate, we may have to phrase anything said about it in terms of the debate, for example: “From 1236 to 1354, Tibet was ruled by the Yuan Dynasty. The PRC and ROC governments consider Tibet to have been a part of China from this time forward. Scholars outside China, however, consider China and Tibet to have been subject states of the Mongol Empire, and write that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty did not consider themselves to be Chinese.”

I’ve removed the paragraph from the article and placed it here for further tweaking, but really the information should get into the body of the article before it is added to the lead. (Some of it already is in the article - take a look.)

Initial addition:

"Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by China during the Yuan dynasty and the majority of the Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China."

Subsequent modification:

"Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by the Yuan dynasty of Great Mongol Empire, which included China, and the majority of the Manchu Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear, though the prevalent view is that it was not ruled by the Ming. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China."

--Wikimedes (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Also, I’m not sure that the PRC and the ROC concede that Tibet was de-facto independent from 1912-1951, but rather in a state of rebellion (or perhaps a victim of British Imperialism)." - and thus if it wasn't controlled by China during the time I think de-facto seems like a sensible word choice - what would you prefer?

With regards to the nationality of the various empires if you look at Yuan Dynasty it says that it is both Chinese and Mongol in the lead, if there is a way to capture both that seems acceptable. With regards to the Qing dynasty I think that is always considered Chinese by reliable sources, and thus claiming it is Manchu is irrelevant - especially as Manchuria is a part of China now.

With regards to the Ming Dynasty stating that its status was unclear is exactly what Tibet during the Ming dynasty states at the top, and that is a Featured Article, so I'm sure a lot of care has been taken with the wording there - I think trying to claim there is a particular prevalent view is really pushing an anti-Chinese POV. Overall I think just labelling the dynasties as dynasties should be acceptable and the following should be a reasonable compromise:

Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by the Yuan dynasty and the Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China.

If the rule of Tibet by the Chinese dynasties isn't covered outside the lead then the article is pretty poor as that is a key point, I'm sure further content can be added if that isn't acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to say:

Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by China during the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the majority of the Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that the paragraph is evolving in article space. The more I think and read about this, the more I think that the description of who ruled who and when should be in terms of the debate, i.e. the PRC claims w, the ROC claims x, the TGIE claims y, and 4th party scholars claim z. One of the reasons that there is a Tibetan Sovereignty Debate is that the history of Tibet with respect to China is, well, debatable. Below is a draft of what I have in mind:

The People’s Republic of China claims that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).(Sperling p.10) The Republic of China (1912-1949) claimed that “Tibet was placed under the sovereignty of China” when the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) expelled Nepal from Tibet in c.1793.(Sperling p.6,7; Goldstein 1989 p.72) The Tibetan Government in Exile claims that Tibet was independent from China until the PRC invaded in 1950 (sometimes the TIGE claims 1949),(Sperling p.23) and that during the Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties, the relationship between Tibet and the rulers of the dynasties was a Patron-Priest relationship that did not imply subordination of one to the other.(Sperling p.30 get better ref?) Scholars outside China claim that during the Yuan Dynasty, Tibet and China were ruled as separate administrative areas of a Mongol-ruled empire;(Feigon p.58) during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Tibet was independent from China and the Ming had little to no control over Tibet;(Goldstein 1997 p.4,5) during the Qing Dynasty, Tibet and Mongolia were ruled as colonies of the Manchu, who based their empire in China;(Sperling p.29) and that from c.1912 to 1951, the portion of Tibet now known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region was again de-facto independent. There is general agreement that Tibet has been ruled by the People’s Republic of China since 1951, but there is debate over the legitimacy and desirability of that rule.

• Feigon, Lee (1996) Demystifying Tibet: Unlocking the Secrets of the Land of Snows Ivan R. Dee Inc. ISBN 1-56663-089-4.
• Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1989) A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-06140-8.
• Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1997) The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21254-1.
• Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1964) The Chinese, Their History and Culture 4th Ed. Macmillan Company. New York, USA. Library of Congress catalog card number 64-17372.
• Shakya, Tsering (1999) The Dragon In The Land Of Snows Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-11814-7.
• Sperling, Elliot (2004) The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. East-West Center. Washington, D.C. USA. ISBN 1-932728-13-9.
• Spence, Jonathan (1999) The Search for Modern China, 2nd Ed. W.W.Norton & Company, Inc. New York, USA. ISBN 0-393-97351-4.

One thing I could use help with is the ROC’s position. The newly formed Nationalist Government’s position paper at the Simla Conference cited in this paragraph may be out of date. Has the ROC’s position on when Tibet became part of China changed since then? Is the ROC’s position notable enough to mention in the lead?--Wikimedes (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I'm about to hit revert as I don't agree that my points are "the Chinese view". With your sources do you have any non-US sources? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tibet's de-facto independence from ~1912 to 1951 probably isn't "the Chinese view". I think Tibet being part of China during the Yuan Dynasty is - scholars outside China tend to think both China and Tibet were part of Mongolia at the time. From what I've read, Chinese during the Yuan Dynasty didn't consider Tibet to be part of China so it is the view of the present-day China, and not that of China during the Yuan Dynasty.

It does look like all my sources have been published in the U.S., though they are academic sources. I plan on adding info (or at least support) from A History of Chinese Civilization by Jaques Garnet, who is French, and from The Historical Status of China's Tibet by Wang Jiawei & Nyima Gyaincain, which should give the PRC's perspective. Additional reliable sources are always welcome:)--Wikimedes (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, so that will be one Chinese source, one French source and seven American sources, that hardly seems likely to produce a neutral overall view of the subject.

With regards to US sources, I took a look at the British Museum and the Met's view on the Qing dynasty. The British Museum barely mention the fact that the dynasty is Manchu, whereas the Met cover it in great detail. Even though both of these museums are among the most highly respected in the world and both of them are from relatively similar cultural backgrounds there is still a significant difference in the impression that you get from reading their different perspectives.

I think we must be extremely careful to make sure we are expressing an accurate neutral viewpoint, which will therefore necessarily have to consider sources from different nationalities in reasonably equal numbers and to take that into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to your suggested text it quite clearly violates WP:UNDUE as it gives far more weight to the non-Chinese view than the Chinese view. The BBC for example have done a piece explaining the two viewpoints, and they have given equal coverage to both. I see no reason for us not to do the same.

With regards to the my text calling the Yuan dynasty the "Mongol Yuan dynasty" seems to be a reasonable compromise that covers how both the British Museum and the Met view this time period as well as taking the obvious modern Chinese view (that it was entirely Chinese) into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)