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

Clarify "liquidated" remark

There's a parenthetical in both this article and the Battle of Chamdo that "5,000 Tibetan soldiers were 'liquidated' according to Thomas Laird". It's completely unclear what this means. Liquidated is often used as a euphemism for execution, but that contradicts the rest of the article. If there is legitimate scholarly disagreement as to what happened to Tibetan POWs, then the article should detail it more. Otherwise, the parenthetical should be removed, as it is confusing and contradictory. MarcusGraly (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Added contradict tag to the section. MarcusGraly (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tracked this down a bit. Laird is himself rather confusing and contradictory on this point, so is not a good source. His source for the 5000 liquidated is Tsering Shakya's The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947, which is clearer. On page 45 it says, "Later the Chinese announced that 'a total of 5,738 enemy troops had been liquidated' and 180 Tibetans troops killed or wounded." I would interpret that "liquidated" refers to prisoners, presumably paroled in the manner described by Laird and others. I will update the article to make this clear. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Tsering Shakya's footnote. He's quoting Zhang Guohua, writing in 1962. "Altogether 21 large and small scale engagements were fought and over 5,700 enemy men were destroyed." Does anyone else think this quote probably refers to the 1959 revolt? It would be seriously revisionist to apply in to Chamdo, which clearly did not have flighting of this scale. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate source is Zhang Guohua's "Tibet returns to the Bosom of the Motherland, Revolutionary Reminiscences", published in 1962, which I do not have direct access to. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It can be found in the Survey of China Mainland Press, no. 2854. My personal view is that even if Zhang is talking about the 1950 campaign, he should not be considered a credible source, given that all other accounts differ substantially. MarcusGraly (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of 5,000 Tibetan soldiers being "liquidated" was brought up a few years ago [1] (by me). My inclination would be to take it out of the article entirely, since it's misleading, if not downright incorrect. The best reason I can see to keep it in would be that readers will have encountered the 5,000 casualty estimate previously so it might be worth having some explanation in the article about where it comes from. It might be better to mention it in the article than having to repeatedly revert adjustments to the casualty estimates and re-discuss it on the talk page. But I still lean towards taking it out at the moment.

Interesting idea that Zhang Guohua could be writing about the 1959 rebellion (or perhaps all the PLA's activities in Tibetan areas up until the report?). Or it could be that "liquidated" has a different meaning in PRC military reports, that the translation is misleading, or that it was part of the hyperbole that ruled PRC reporting from about 1958 until after the death of Mao. I wonder if a reliable source has tracked this down.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I went to a University library and read the article. Zhang is very clearly talking about Chamdo and not later actions. (He gives a rather vivid account of the whole campaign, including acclimating his troops to high altitude.) Anyway, Ill update the articles to make it clear that he said it and not the later authors who cite him directly or indirectly and let the readers decide for themselves. MarcusGraly (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Annexation

Where is the reference to annexation? This may only be one way of framing this "incorporation", but the failure even to refer to it seems to be a political choice. Presumably there are people paying a lot of attention to this article... --Human fella (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While there has been a lot of political wrangling over what goes into this article, the PRC was very clever not to call its acquisition of Tibet a "conquest" or an "annexation". History texts and news sources call formal annexations annexations, but I don't recall seeing one call an undeclared annexation an annexation. If reliable sources can be found that call it an annexation, this can be mentioned in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the PRC's choice of terminology determine how the issue is presented on Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, the word "incorporation" is just a euphemistic way of trying to make what was unambiguously a takeover by military force sound neutral. For what it's worth, both Google Books and Google Scholar turn up hundreds of hits for "annexation of Tibet", most referring either to 1950-51 or 1959. This study from the Emory International Law Review may be of particular interest if you're specifically trying to establish "credibility" on those terms. The author writes: "Why then does every state continue to validate China’s sovereignty over Tibet, when its only conceivable claim, as shown repeatedly by historical and international law scholarship, is military annexation?" and "By continuing to denominate Tibet a “part of” China, the international community and its constituent states validate China’s military conquest, annexation, and colonization of Tibet." --Human fella (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you are finding reliable sources that call it annexation. Feel free to mention annexation in the article as long as you provide citations. (And thanks for the law review reference; it should make interesting reading.)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise to anyone how many chinese nationalists are going around blatantly inserting PRC government sanctioned versions of fictional history and 'balanced' version of chinese historian 'analysis' that actually seeks to whitewash anything that makes the chinese 'lose face'. Many people have been quietly noticing these trends with china-related articles, where titles and contents are not-so-subtly influenced into something more euphemistic or outright revisionist. For instance, 'Invasion of Tibet' has been changed into something along the lines of 'Incorporation of Tibet into PRC'. Chinese propaganda and revisionist claims don't always outright seek to reverse the contents, but they also seek to again not so subtly feign ignorance or claim 'lack of sources' whenever it suits their whims - as if attempting to insist that materials backed by evidence which clearly displays negative chinese conduct are 'biased' and is in need of revision. Recent edited sections of clothing and equipment are but one of such numerous examples where insistance of positive portrayal of chinese take precedent over presentation of opposing viewed backed up by far more numerous evidence, not to mention blatant lack of even basic citation.

There does exist a tendency of such groups that fools the 'balanced' editors into thinking they are somehow representing a 'fair' view when accepting such biased notion as a valid entry. I encourage wikipedia editors to exercise greater caution and understand that simple and obvious revisions on entries are not the only way for an individual to attempt and influence opinions of those who read the articles.

As it stands now, the whole articles almost sound like an apologist revision history sanctioned by the chinese government. Invasion of Tibet (1950) just redirects to Battle of Chambo that includes a blatantly obvious nationalist smear campaign against those who fought against china, while the entire tibet invasion is referred to euphemistically as 'incorporation'.

I am still waiting for some fool to pipe up and mention the favorite excuse about 'native americans'. As if they cared about Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.61.181 (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources that call it 'annexation' or 'invasion':

• Melvyn C. Goldstein; Gelek Rimpoche (January 1989). A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State. University of California Press. pp. 638–. ISBN 978-0-520-06140-8. Chapter 18 is titled The People's Liberation Army Invades without calling it annexation.
• Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. calls it 'annexation'.
• Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (October 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. pp. 9–. ISBN 90-04-17732-9. calls it 'annexation'. The title of chapter 20(p. 915) of the book is Chinese Communist Invasion of Tibet

So there are multiple reliable sources to support changing the name of the article. Unless better sources are found, I'll move the article to 'China's annexation of Tibet'. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How about the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China? Don't just move this article, please. --Cartakes (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

'Annexation' would WP:NPOV since parties dispute the nature of this event.--Pbsavon (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Leave the NPOV part, "incorporation" is also used by various reliable sources, such as "Taming Tibet: Landscape Transformation and the Gift of Chinese Development" by Emily T. Yeh (p2), "Tibetans in Nepal: The Dynamics of International Assistance Among a Community in Exile" by Ann Frechette (p66), and "A History of Modern Tibet: The calm before the storm, 1951-1955" by Melvyn C. Goldstein (p502). --Cartakes (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding other sources. The question is which one is the majority view of scholars on this; e.g. the lead section of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) says "The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states covers the period from the Soviet–Baltic mutual assistance pacts in 1939, to their invasion and annexation in 1940", so "invasion" and "annexation" can be used in an article. I'd like to see proof "incorporation" is the majority view of scholars. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you search for "China Tibet incorporation 1950" in Google Books, there are 3,950 results. On the other hand, there are 3,520 results for "China Tibet annexation 1950". There are slightly more results for "incorporation" than "annexation" in Google Books. As for the "invasion", it was part of the incorporation/annexation process and there is a separate Battle of Chamdo article. Furthermore, there is a unified use of "incorporation" for the articles of both Xinjiang and Tibet, i.e. Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China and Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A more relevant phrase search of Google Books turns up unambiguous results. A Google Books search with the phrase "incorporation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 1,430 results; a search for the phrase "annexation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 3,640 results. The difference between the Soviet and Chinese cases here is presumably the current power of the Chinese government? i.e. History is written by the victors, etc. It's time for this politically manipulated travesty of an article title to be revised.Human fella (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding results from Google Scholar. "Incorporation of Tibet" gets 154 results; "annexation of Tibet" gets 402 results. There will clearly be POV disputes over many such situations, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to choose a term suggesting smooth inclusion when the reality is violent conquest. Human fella (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to mention that "incorporation" and "annexation" don't contradict with each other, so "History is written by the victors" etc does not apply here. For example, the book "Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America by Simon S. C. Tay (p88) mentions that "China incorporated Tibet by annexation, albeit as an autonomous region, in the 1950s". --Cartakes (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The article cites one-sided sources and uses emotive, non-neutral terminology with insufficient balance. I am no apologist for the Communist government, but this article skews too far in its tone, which damages its credibility. Some examples:

• In the lead: "... under duress...", which reflects the view of one side of the debate.
• In the lead: "when the Dalai Lama fled into exile and after which the Government of Tibet was dissolved", not even sure which POV this is trying to push but clearly a partisan interpretation of the facts.
• In the "Background" section: "In 1846, the British Empire converted Nepal into a semi-autonomous protectorate, in 1853 conquered Sikkim, in 1865 invaded Bhutan, and in 1885 colonized Burma, occupying by force the whole southern flank of Tibet, which remained the only Himalayan kingdom free of British influence": say what you wish about Tibet in 1705 or 1925, but I challenge the author to say with a straight face that the balance of sources regard Tibet as a kingdom as of 1885. And why is it being listed in parallel with Nepal or Burma?
• In the "Background" section: "thus converting Tibet into a British protectorate": one of the few strange claims that actually gets a citation. But really? Had the author looked beyond the solitary POV source, surely they would not have written this down as if it were a fact.

I will stop here. The issues run throughout the article. It's not only non-NPOV, it's a very strange POV, as if the author thinks Tibet is rightfully British, rather than Tibetan or Chinese. Very strange.

I'd say you need to present your argument better with justification. What are the reliable sources that back up your POV? That's how to improve this article. I'm removing the POV tag until you can clearly present your case. --Happyseeu (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lhasa Treaty

As to how to phrase the part of Lhasa Treaty, I'll refer to two authoritative sources:

1. Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. states the Lhasa treaty was signed 'under constraint', because the Tibetans had just been defeated by the Younghusband expedition. This book is the collective effort of 15 Tibetologists to respond to PRC's version of Tibet history and represents the field well.
2. The other source is Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (October 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. pp. 657–684. ISBN 90-04-17732-9., which describes the events around it well. Shakabpa wrote the history of Tibet referencing numerous Tibetan sources and from a Tibetan perspective, and is a standard reference for Tibetan history. His book was banned in China because it deviates too much from PRC's official version of history.

None of these use the term 'unequal treaty', and it seems that only Chinese sources use this term. So 'unequal treaty' shouldn't be used here since it's not the majority view of scholars, to say the least. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the terms of the Treaty, it's absolutely an unequal treaty by any standard. Why do you want to hide that? Can you find us a source that says Treaty of Lhasa is not an unequal treaty? STSC (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect the majority view of scholars/experts based on reliable source, not the opinion of editors. That's what an encyclopedia is for. If you want to express your opinion, go to BBS or blog about it, do not abuse Wikipedia.

If you do want to hear other editor's opinion, here is mine. I see at least another problem with this: both the Treaty of Lhasa and 17 point agreement was signed after militarily defeat the Tibetan army, so why would you call one an unequal treaty, but not the other? It is unfair. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2015

Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China → Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China – Google Scholar and Google Books search results with appropriate phrases clearly indicate that the dominant scholarly usage (in English) describes the operation that led to Chinese government power over Tibet as an "annexation," not an "incorporation." A Google Scholar search for "Incorporation of Tibet" gets 154 results; a search for "annexation of Tibet" gets 402 results. A Google Books search with the phrase "incorporation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 1,430 results; a search for the phrase "annexation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 3,640 results. Using a term that suggests smooth integration rather than conquest is not a legitimate way to resolve POV issues, since it favours a certain view (to test your intuition on this, consider an unambiguous case of conquest of your choice and imagine labeling it as an "incorporation"). This page should be labelled according to the dominant scholarly formulation, as an "annexation," not an "incorporation." Human fella (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV. sst✈ 16:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Annexation" means that an internationally recognized sovereign and independent country becomes part of another country after formally agreeing to forfeit its sovereignty and independence. This is not what happened with Tibet. From 1720 until 1912, Tibet was ruled by China. From 1913 to 1951, while China itself was in turmoil, Tibet was independent only de facto, not de jure, an unrecognized state, with China never relinquishing its sovereignty over it. I suppose that's why the word "incorporation" was chosen over "annexation". Now there's an official Chinese designation for China reasserting its sovereignty in 1951, it's "liberation of Tibet" (10,300 results in GoogleBooks, 2,080 in Scholar). So, the dominant scholarly usage is not what is being claimed above. To avoid the likely prospect of edit warring, let's stick with "incorporation". --Elnon (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply The "official Chinese designation" on this is not germane, unless we assume that a colonizing power has a right to control the language used to describe its colonial actions. Not surprisingly, many scholarly publications have cited this official phrase, often with scare quotes. I will venture that the vast bulk of sympathetic citations will be by Chinese authors. Admittedly, this means that the case requires arbitrating between scholarly uses, and not merely counting them. If our purpose is to avoid edit warring by appeasing a dedicated set of editors who favour a certain political power, that seems to speak very ill indeed of how Wikipedia is dealing with these issues. Human fella (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply To be more specific, here are some examples of uses from the first pages of responses on Google Scholar, among those accessible and disregarding Chinese authors:

• Mere citation of the title of the 17-Point Agreement, as in Nomads of western Tibet: the survival of a way of life (Goldstein and Beall 1990)
• 'the so-called 17-Point Agreement, which purported to “reunite” Tibet with the Chinese “Motherland.”' followed by a footnote that again merely cites the official title of the agreement ("The Changing Face of Recognition in International Law: A Case Study of Tibet", Sloane 2002);
• '"Before the peaceful liberation of Tibet, the Lhoba nationality was regarded as a bunch of barbarians."... The above quote is typical of pronouncements made on ceremonial occasions, thanking the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for the prosperity they have brought to Tibet.' (Dreyer 2003, "Economic Development in Tibet under the People’s Republic of China");
• 'two days later Beijing announced the "liberation" of Tibet.' ("Tibet in Sino-Indian relations: The centrality of marginality", Norbu 1997);
• "the so-called Peaceful Liberation of Tibet by the People's Liberation Army in 1950" (On the margins of Tibet: cultural survival on the Sino-Tibetan frontier, Kolas 2005);
• "For the Chinese, the 'liberation' of Tibet merely restored Tibet's historical status as part of China" ("The nationalities policy of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist transformation of Tibet", Smith 1994);
• 'Chinese and Tibetan government officials at a banquet celebrating the “peaceful liberation” of Tibet' (Goldstein 2007 - Goldstein also uses the phrase without scare quotes when portraying the position of Mao and his government; he also uses it when referring to Tibetan resistance and their pursuit of an end to Chinese sovereignty [see below]);
• "A year later, 40,000 Chinese soldiers of the Liberation Army entered Eastern Tibet and began their so-called 'liberation' of Tibet." (Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement: The Sacrifice of Tibet, Arpi 2004);
• 'A delegation went to Beijing in 1951 and reluctantly signed a "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet"' ("The Impact of China's Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet", Goldstein and Beall 1989);
• 'Their primary aim was to persuade Chinese readers of the moral justification for the "liberation" of Tibet' ("The waterfall and fragrant flowers: The development of Tibetan literature since 1950", Shakya 2000)

Some of the uses specifically refer to the liberation of Tibet FROM China:

• as in this letter from a member of the Tibetan resistance movement in 1963: "you must constantly work with inflexible determination for the liberation of Tibet, even at the cost of your lives." (Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed TIbetan Freedom Fighters, the Chinese Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet, Dunham 2004);
• and in this reference to Indian support in the 1960s for Tibetan independence from China: "Tibetan leader Gyalo Thondup is reported as recounting that Intelligence Bureau head B. N. Mullik in December 1962 told him that India had now adopted a policy of supporting the eventual liberation of Tibet." (India, China, The United States, Tibet, and The Origins of the 1962 War, Garver 2004)

These are not cherry-picked examples. They are all of the examples available in the first four pages of Google Scholar results that are accessible online and are not from Chinese authors or .cn domains, and excluding the first result from a book entitled "Tears of Blood: A Cry for Tibet" as well as one from an article on UNESCO and tourism in Tibet that refers to "a high modernist monument built in 2001 commemorating the liberation of Tibet" (i.e. built and so presented by the Chinese authorities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human fella (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply In the United Nations' current list of "non-self-governing territories", Tibet is markedly absent and China appears nowhere as one of the "administering powers." So your implicit characterisation of China as a "colonizing power" is baseless. --Elnon (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Annexation includes any area added to an expanding state, not only "sovereign" states. This has very little to do with Tibet's prior status. Dimadick (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV and Elnon. "Liberation of Tibet" is Chinese POV, while "Annexation of Tibet" is Western POV. Let's stick with "Incorporation" as the neutral term. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply as both POV terms are more common than the neutral one (which shows the power of propaganda). -Zanhe (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply "Incorporation" is not a neutral term, it is a term with clearly (and here misleadingly) peaceful connotations. Again, without citing distracting examples, consider any act of clear military conquest and imagine describing it as an "incorporation." One does not have to view the takeover of Tibet in this way to realize that the term itself is not neutral. Human fella (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply I must point out that "incorporation" and "annexation" don't contradict with each other, so "'Incorporation' is not a neutral term" does not really apply. For example, the book "Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America by Simon S. C. Tay (p88) mentions that "China incorporated Tibet by annexation, albeit as an autonomous region, in the 1950s". Also, PRC control of Xinjiang was not entirely peaceful either, but it is also titled Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  This is a circular argument, the Xinjiang page was moved using the Tibet page as reference!--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe it's because I don't get my history from a 1997 Martin Scorcese film, but I don't recall the PLA ever marching into Lhasa. Aside from a single border skirmish in an area that wasn't even regarded as part of "Tibet" until after exile (now here's a complicated issue that deserves it's own article...), we're actually describing a boring diplomatic affair that happened in Beijing. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course the PLA marched into Lhasa – that was right after the peace was signed, so it was not a military offensive. What was militarily significant prior to the peace agreement was that the PLA could march on Lhasa, the latter having been left virtually defenseless after the Battle of Chamdo. This battle was indeed fairly small, one-sided, and abortive and so I guess one might call it a skirmish; but it was a skirmish that ended in a full-scale rout on one side. I'm not sure how you concluded that the site of the battle was not yet considered Tibet at that point. The engagement began when PLA troops crossed the Jinsha, which was the de facto border during the later de facto independence period. Chamdo was governed by Ngapö, the domé chikyap (governor-general of the east) appointed by Lhasa. His writ didn't carry much further east than Chamdo, but Chamdo is where the battle was. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• If we're not being anachronistic, "annexation" is not even the Western POV. Dalai only started his campaign to propagandize Westerners in 1987, targeting certain "vanguard" populations such as environmentalists. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title is in a common format used to describe the territorial expansion of nations. The current title creates an artificial distinction between the expansion of China and the expansion of some other country. "Annexation of Tibet by China" would be more concise. Gulangyu (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply: While I am fine with either "incorporation" or "annexation" (although I prefer being consistent with the other article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China), I don't think "Annexation of Tibet by China" would be better. The article Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) may also be considered as an incorporation/annexation of Tibet by China, so it would be more accurate to title it "into the People's Republic of China", in line with the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  "Annexation" is the act of extending the law of the annexing country to the territory annexed. Chinese territory had zhou, magistrates, provinces, and governors. Tibet never had anything like that. What was established in 1720 was more like a protectorate -- and even that didn't last long. Whatever happened in 1720, Chinese law did not extend to Tibet between 1913 and 1951. Gulangyu (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that Chinese law did not extend to Tibet between 1913 and 1951, but what I was saying is that Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) may also be considered as an incorporation/annexation of Tibet by China, no matter it was more like a protectorate or not as you said. Not to mention there is also Chinese expedition to Tibet (1910) which attempted to rule Tibet directly. As a result, "Incorporation/Annexation of Tibet by China" may refer to the event in either 1720 or 1950 (or even 1910). Thus, it would be more accurate to title the 1950 event as "into the People's Republic of China", in line with the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China occurring about the same time. --Cartakes (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  By that definition, "annexation" did not even happen in 1951. The Kashag continued to govern the Lhasa environ until 1959, albeit now without the British and Russian and Kuomintang advisors. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  This is no different than the situation in China proper. There was Zhou Enlai or some other hapless "legal" authority who accepted petitions and heard grievances as rulers had under earlier regimes. Meanwhile, the real power was exercised by party bosses and army commanders. (In the case of Tibet, Zhang Guohua (1950-52) and Zhang Jingwu (1952-65) were both.) But this is not the way the Qing or the Nationalists did business, so you can't project this idea onto earlier time periods. Gulangyu (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is neutral and has been stable for a long time. "Annexation" is absolutely a wrong description. STSC (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply: I strongly disagree with the claim of neutrality and fail to see how the time of existence of the current title is relevant. Perhaps you wish to present some argument to counter the findings from Google Scholar presented with the request? Human fella (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply: If talking about neutrality, there should be no doubt that "incorporation" is a neutral word, although "annexation" may also be applicable in this case. As pointed out earlier, the two words don't contradict with each other; the book "Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America" by Simon S. C. Tay (p88) for example mentions that "China incorporated Tibet by annexation, albeit as an autonomous region, in the 1950s". The meaning of the word "incorporation" is wider than "annexation", and if "incorporation" is not neutral then "annexation" is not neutral either, not to mention that the other article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China also uses "incorporation". --Cartakes (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of "common name", the 'liberation of Tibet' beats the 'annexation of Tibet' hands down. The current title has been very stable because the consensus had been reached to use such title in previous discussions, due to incorporation is relatively neutral amongst invasion, annexation and liberation. STSC (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Staberinde (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no evidence that there is an established common name for this event. The fact that one wording is used more commonly than another is insufficient to imply that there a fixed name in general use. “Incorporation” is a word chosen for the purpose of neutrality. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Greg Pandatshang and some others, there is indeed no need to make such a title change when the use of "incorporation" is neutral and stable (per WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."). Also for consistency with the other article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Tibet was nominally part of the Qing Empire, so it would be like saying the annexation of Hainan into the People's Republic of China, but Hainan just changed management, as did Tibet, since that was under Nationalist control. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Tibetan government certainly didn't see things that way. It repeatedly asserted its independence throughout the 1913-1951 period. Gulangyu (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • You could say that about Transnitria, Somaliland, South Ossetia today, if Georgia or Moldova or Somalia puts down the rebel forces, then it isn't annexation, it's suppression of rebellion. Or historically, the Confederate States of America. Did the Union annex the South, or did it put down a rebellion? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Am I to understand from these tortured analogies that in your view the Dalai Lama's government was never legitimate? How far do you want to go with this idea? Was the 17-point agreement signed by an illegitimate government? This is from the Dalai Lama's 1913 declaration of independence: "During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Ch’ing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship....the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."[2] Gulangyu (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I consider that Somaliland is a legitimate state, that is discriminated against because the world hates making new nations and prefers civil wars, enforcing colonial decision-making like Sykes-Picot instead of accepting the reality of the world. But it is still a portion of Somalia that has fallen out of central control. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "Annexation" is much more appropriate than "incorporation" when the agreement to (re)unify is one-sided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "Incorporation" isn't terrible, but "annexation" is better. It more aptly describes the sequence of events, better fits the historical context, is NPOV, and is commonly used to refer to what happened. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. While "Liberation" is clearly a propaganda terminology, both "Annexation" and "Incorporation" can be regarded as neutral and factual, and both would match with the content of the article. Incorporation has the advantage of not having a (usual) negative connotation (thus being perceived as more neutral), but it is a very vague terminology ("the act of including something within something else" as per Cambridge dictionary) that is very rarely used in this context by scholars or in common language. It is not the task of Wikipedia to impose new terms. On the other side, annexation is the usual term to describe the process of "incorporating (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state" (Merriam-Webster), "taking possession of an area of land or a country, usually by force or without permission" (Cambridge), "Add (territory) to one’s own territory by appropriation" (Oxford) . Our Wikipedia article on Annexation does say the same: "political transition of land from the control of one entity to another". Whatever title is retained, I am more worried about the gradual conversion of many Wikipedia articles into a PRC-friendly rhetoric usually found in Chinese schoolbooks. Let's, at least, retain the terminology widely used by scholars, if not in the title, at least in the article content.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)