Talk:Tibet under Qing rule

POV pushing and original research

This article is written like a Chinese schoolbook and contains a lot of original research. The title itself (Tibet under Qing rule) is a POV, and sources are often diverted from their original meaning.

Just to give a couple of examples, the sentence "Tibet is often considered as a protectorate of China during this period" does not reflect the source, which says "The protectorate that China had established over Tibet in the eighteenth century remained into the twentieth century. By the late nineteenth century, however, given the weight of China's domestic and foreign-related burdens, Chinese hegemony over Tibet remained in theory but in actuality was a dead letter." (Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Change in Modern Chinese History, by R. Keith Schoppa, p341). The claim that 2,000 imperial troups were stationed at Lhasa is does not concern most of the period in question. The maps are original reseach too and have been discribed as "modern fantasy with no historical basis".

The whole article should be rewritten with a new title and a more neutral approach.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I must mention that the lead paragraph is only supposed to be a summary. The section "Gorkha invasions" of this article already mentions in details that "Tibet was clearly subordinate to the Qing by the end of the 18th century. But with the arrival of the 19th century, especially with the weakening of the Qing dynasty itself in the later half of the 19th century, Qing authority over Tibet gradually weakened to the point of being minuscule, or merely symbolic. Chinese historians argue that the ambans' presence was an expression of Chinese sovereignty, while those favouring Tibetan independence claims tend to equate the ambans with ambassadors." Clearly, it is not written like a Chinese schoolbook at all as you said by simply looking at this sentence; what you described as POV pushing above really makes completely no sense (and why should we repeat the almost same block of sentence in the same article at all?). As for the map, please look at reliable secondary sources (which are what Wikipedia is based on per WP:RS) such as the map in "The Cambridge History of China", volume 9, page 280-281. It is clearly not a modern fantasy with no historical basis. Furthermore, Tibet is mentioned as a "Vassal and region of the Qing dynasty" in the infobox, which no doubt reflects the reality -- virtually all unbiased reliable secondary sources would consider Tibet to be a part of the Qing, so the title is not POV either, nor it is original research. It is also consistent with similar articles such as Taiwan under Qing rule. --Cartakes (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here a few points that illustrate the general biais of the article in general, and the introduction in particular:

1. POV title. Nobody denies the fact that, for certain periods of the Qing Empiry, Tibet can be described as a dependency, a vassal state or a protectorate of this Empire. There were however long periods during which there was no effective control and no direct administration, as you have yourself acknowledged. You defined 1720 as the starting point for the Qing "rule" over Tibet, however the Qing dynasty started in 1644... "Tibet (1720-1912)" might be a more factual title.
2. POV lead: "During the Qing rule of Tibet, the region was structurally, militarily and administratively controlled by the Qing dynasty established by the Manchus in China. In the history of Tibet, the Qing administrative rule was established (...) in 1720, and lasted until (...) 1912. (...) the Ambans to Tibet, who commanded over 2,000 troops stationed in Lhasa". There was clearly not two centuries of continuous military and administrative control. What about the British invasion in 1904, where were the Qing troops at that time? What about the fact that the Tibetan government was not obeying to the treaties signed between the British and the Chinese in the late 18th century regarding Tibet? What about treaties and conventions signed directly by the Tibetan government with foreign government? Clearly there were no 2,000 troups stationed in Lhasa during the whole period. All reputable sources do acknowledge that the Chinese rule, for extended period, was at best theoretical or symbolic, a point that was did not appear in your introduction.
3. Distortion of sources. See above my initial comment.
4. "those favouring Tibetan independence claims tend to equate the ambans with ambassadors" That is the usual rhetoric trick tending to discredit all scholars who do not embrace the PRC point of view and terminology. So what about contemporary sources, such as Auguste Desgodins, who in 1904 talks about the "Chinese Ambassador" and mention that China seems to be "relegated among the foreign powers" during the negotiation of the "Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet". You may certainly not accuse him of "favouring Tibetan independance claims"...
5. "Golden urn section". The golden urn had an anecdotal relevance until put in the spotlight in 1995. I wonder how this could become the title of a section...
6. The article sections, both in their content and subdivisions, denote a clear sinocentric approach of the Tibet history during this period. History is read in the light of the interaction between the Qing Empire and Tibet, almost nothing is written about Tibet as such. One would have expected the chapters to reflect the chronology of the different rulers during this period.
7. As already mentioned, the maps are indeed modern fantasies and are not based on historical maps as you claim. You will find the full discussion here.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with above. Even you have acknowledged yourself from the source saying "The protectorate that China had established over Tibet in the 18th century remained into the 20th century", whether there were more symbolic or not. The point when the Qing dynasty itself started is irrelevant, but this article is simply about the period when Tibet was part of the Qing. There is nothing wrong with the title "Tibet under Qing rule" as with similar articles such as "Taiwan under Qing rule". Qing rule in Taiwan also did not start in 1644, but in 1683, so your point about this makes no sense. The title "Tibet (1720-1912)" would make it more like Tibet was independent between 1720 and 1912, which is definitely a POV push. The sentences following your ambassadors statement was "The relationship between Tibet and (Qing) China was that of patron and priest and was not based on the subordination of one to the other, according to the 13th Dalai Lama. (The 13th Dalai Lama was deposed in 1904, reinstated in 1908 and deposed again in 1910 by the Qing government, but these pronouncements were not taken seriously in Lhasa.)", which really sounds like pro-Dalai Lama POV push according to your logic. Your cherry picking-style pointing of evidence makes it sounds somehow like it is biased towards one direction, when in fact this is definitely not the case. Also, sections such as "Golden Urn" were split from other articles coming almost completely intact, so I don't know how they were titled so either. However, all unbiased Qing maps (such as those from Cambridge already mentioned) would consider Tibet to be part of Qing, from the late 18th century to the early 20th century. Whether there are some small differences among them (such as the inclusion of Aksai Chin) don't matter, the important point is that Tibet proper was considered part of Qing by all these reliable sources. In fact you are the one who is trying to make some kind of POV push. --Cartakes (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to understand the link between the seven specific points I mentioned and the comment above. It seems we are talking about different things. Regarding the title proposal, what about History of Tibet between 1720 and 1912 is you believe my previous proposal can be misunderstood as a POV push?--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about title first. For the title, why not try to be consistent with similar articles such as Taiwan under Qing rule and Xinjiang under Qing rule? I see no reason to title it different from others, and consistency is an important deciding factor of article naming per Wikipedia:Article titles. Even if there is something special about Tibet, it was still a part of Qing (just like Taiwan etc) as shown by all unbiased reliable secondary sources available, and anything specific to Tibet can be easily solved by mentioning it in the article text. --Cartakes (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There is one major reason: Taiwan was considered a fully submitted country/state/region, while Tibet was considered a vassal country of the Qing Empire (see here and here), you cannot compare pears and apples. As for Xinjiang, you are the creator of the article (and I believe you are also the creator of the Tibet article under another user name), so it is a bit like citing yourself. Cheers,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This article was initially created under the name Tibet under Qing administrative rule, modeled on the similar article named Tibet under Yuan administrative rule (created by someone else). This article was moved to current title by User:Srnec for the reason of consistency with other articles ([1]), which I agreed with. Also, I agree that Tibet was a vassal (as mentioned in the infobox), but please note that virtually all unbiased reliable secondary sources would also consider Tibet to be part of Qing, just like Xinjiang etc. Similarly, Korea (Goryeo dynasty) was a vassal country of the Yuan, but it was also considered part of Yuan by reliable sources. In order to show proof for your argument, I would expect at least one unbiased reliable secondary source stating Tibet was not part of Qing (thus suggesting the title is POV). Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read what I wrote, and instead you keep making assumptions and associations on your own. Back to square one, please read point 1 above.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)