Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.144.161.51 (talk) at 00:38, 16 March 2023 (→‎In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet

see also "Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China/Archive 3"

Currently in the lead of the article it is stated that "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet". It is supported by one citation:

  • "Tibet Through Chinese Eyes", The Atlantic, 1999

In this context I will assume that West means Western Powers

Even if it were true in 1999 (which I doubt) it is not true now. There is an article called Simla Accord (1914) in that there is a section called "2008 British policy change". In it it is stated:

Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view.[1] David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century.[2] Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet...

References

  1. ^ Staff, Britain's suzerain remedy, The Economist, 6 November 2008
  2. ^ Lunn, Jon. Tibet (SN/IA/5018), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, 20 March 2009. p. 8

Therefore I am removing the sentence from the lead. Do not put it back without citations that are less than a decade old. Ideally if it is true that there still is significant support for the view that "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet", then add a paragraph or more into the body of the article citing sources and summarise the POV in the lead based on that text. -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Happyseeu you reverted my edit without explanation (Revision as of 20:10, 25 June 2019). Given my explanation above please explain why. PBS (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS:I've changed the phrase to mean this is the majority view of Western scholars, Tibetologists in particular. I suggest you to read books by Tibetologists instead of coming up with your own WP:OR. If you don't know who or what to read, I suggest you not to edit Tibet related articles before you have read enough academic material. --Happyseeu (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented a source that clearly states that no government of any sovereign state supports the view that you are putting forwards, and I have quoted a British Foreign Secretary, so how why do you say it is "your own WP:OR"?
Do you have any modern sources that are post the reassessment of the sovereignty issue by the UK government?
Do you have a reliable source that states this is a majority view among Western scholars (what does Western mean in this context and what does scholar mean in this context?). -- PBS (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 37–55. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. You had better read a good part of the book to educate yourself about the subject. Your position was original research because it blows an event out of proportion of its significance, out of historical context which you are not aware of.
The phrase in the article was pretty clear that it was the opinion of scholars, not governments. If you feel compelled to add the position of governments, I don't object. Governments come from the political angle with emphasis on politics, while scholars come from academic angle with emphasis on logic, history and law. They don't need to be the same. --Happyseeu (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the content of the book through Google Books, please quote the specific sentences you think are relevant from a book published over 10 years ago and therefore written before Britain changed its position.
To be clear (for any third parties that read this thread) you have changed the statement from "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet" to "In the West, scholars generally believe that China annexed Tibet". However the sources you have used to back up this assertion are:
So far you have only presented news sources that over 10 years old and pre-date the British Government changing their position. All of the sources are old opinion pieces in newspapers not academic articles, most importantly of all not one is a contemporary article that states that this is the view of most western scholars. (1) Do you have a modern source that states this is the opinion held by most Western scholars? (2) Why are the opinions of scholars more important that those all UN states? (3) Why is this POV statement is only in the lead and not in the body of the article "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." (MOS:LEAD)?
-- PBS (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Authenticating Tibet (2008) is a translation of the French-language book Le Tibet est-il chinois ? (2002). The Englisn version is an updated version of the French original. --Elnon (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS:Authenticating Tibet is an academic book. If you believe there is significant change in opinions on the matter since 2008, it's your responsibility to prove it, not mine. And you haven't cited any academic book yourself. I didn't said academic opinion is more important than government. They are just different perspectives. I simply clarified the original statement. To be blunt, you have only demonstrated your ignorance about the subject so far, but you probably don't know you don't know much. It would be a waste of everybody's time unless you can cite better source to back up your opinion.
Why the British statement in 2008 is not such a big deal? Because no major country had ever recognized Tibet as a country, so this was not a significant development, and just a continuation of historical trend. But if the article stops there, it would give the reader the impression that Tibet shouldn't be a country, or had no desire to become independent, which is not the case. This is why the subject is complicated. If one doesn't have this basic knowledge, one shouldn't pretend to be knowledgeable about the subject. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The change by the British Government is important because it undermines the arguments of annexation based on the concept of suzerainty. While Britain held that position anyone could build an argument along the lines that the British had done—to the extreme of arguing that the removal of internal self-determination (which suzerainty recognises), amounted to a form of annexation. Once Britain changed its position it pulled the legal rug from under that argument. In you last reply you go off on a tangent about the right of minorities to secede from a state. This is sort of recognised as a right under the preamble to the UN charger as "self-determination", but is very badly defined (deliberately so), because it also impinges on the rights of state sovereignty. This is why third party state recognition is important (see Kosovo as an example), as states are very leery of recognising the right to self-determination by minorities within a state. However theoretically whether Tibet was annexed or not does not affect the population from having the right to self-determination (and to choose independence if that is their wish).
  2. User:Happyseeu you have not addressed my observation about WP:LEAD. Please do so.
  3. I do not have to prove anything User:Happyseeu, because I am not trying to put anything into the article. You are supporting a sentence that says "scholars generally believe" yet you have not produced one source that supports that assertion (see WP:SYN and WP:BURDEN). -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: I don't need to address your WP:OR that the event in 2008 is important and sources must be later than that. Your opinion or mine doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Unless you can find a reliable source that makes the argument that the event in 2008 changes the situation/debate, it's all your opinion and WP:OR, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've already cited source to support the statement in the lead section, so if you want to remove it, you have to cite sources to say that it's obsolete.
The statement is important to show the controversies involved; this is important to achieve WP:NPOV. In the "Background" section, it already said: "At the time Political Tibet obtained de facto independence." So the independence and sovereignty of Tibet was already factual before 1950, despite Chinese claim over Tibet. The lack of international recognition was what made it not de jure. Maybe the lead section can be re-written to show two competing views on the subject clearly: PRC view that Tibet has always been part of China since Yuan dynasty, and Western scholar view that that's not the case, and it's annexation. I need to review sources and think about it.
If you pay attention to discussion in the section "Invaded and gained control", you will see a similar issue has been debated before. --Happyseeu (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Scholarship is not stuck in apsec, it evolves over time.
  2. You clerly do not understand what the policy WP:No Original Research means Please read the first sentence of the policy that states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." My opinon is not relevant as I am not including it in the artilce. Instead I am Challanging you to provide sources to support the current content of the artilce.
  3. You have only provided one book as a source (in this thread) which it has been pointed out in this thread was initially published in 2002. All the other sources, included in the artilce are old news sources. Which of those sources you have cited do you believe supports the current sentence: " "In the West, scholars generally believe..." Please quote the sentence that supports the statement from the current cited sources. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: The Historical Status of China in Tibet clearly states there are three POV wrt. the status of China in Tibet. The event in 2008 is only relevant to the British POV. The Tibetan POV is that the relationship between the emperor of China and the Dalai Lama is only a "patron priest" relationship, which has nothing to do with British recognition of sovereignty of China over Tibet. So your insistence on the event of 2008 is invalid. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are citing an artilce published in 1975, that is over 40 years old!
The British POV is important for international relations, because it was the only remaing state that supported the viw that China held suzerainty over Tibet. It is not important that the last state was Britiain. It could just as easily have been Russia, India, or Pakistan. The important point is that with that change no soverign state now supports the contention that Tibet ever had suzerainty in the early 20th century.
  1. Which of those sources you have cited in the article do you believe supports the current sentence: " "In the West, scholars generally believe..." Please quote the sentence that supports the statement from the current sources cited in the artilce.
-- PBS (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added quotation in citations and additional citations. If there are still disputes. be specific why the phrasing doesn't adequately reflect the citation. I'm not interested in some editor's personal opinion. --Happyseeu (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


        • Note -- the fact that Western governments do not press the issue of Tibet (independence) does not mean that Western POPULATIONS do not consider Tibet to be occupied by China. Whether unlawfully or or not -- the people in those Western nations do very much see Tibet as being occupied by force in 1950 and 1959. The Dalai Lama is on the run around the world because of it. Tibet being a suzerain or vassal -- means it is not an integral part of China. Wallachia was a suzerain of Ottoman Turkey. Meaning of suzerain ---

What's the meaning of suzerainty? suzerainty (countable and uncountable, plural suzerainties) A relation between states in which a subservient nation has its own government, but is unable to take international action independent of the superior state; a similar relationship between other entities. quotations ▼ The status or power of a suzerain. 

If Tibet is or was a suzerain, it means it had partial autonomy.   And that makes sense -- 1720 Qing China never actually controlled Tibet.   It forced Tibet to show suzerainty to Qing China.  That is a very different thing than how modern China views it.     Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is now clear, and the proposed title is notably consistent with other article titles addressing similar circumstances. The proposed target title is permissible as one used in external sources. BD2412 T 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China → Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China – As per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSISTENT this article's title should be renamed to reflect the general convention followed in the articles of similar subject as the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, Annexation of the Jordan Valley and the Annexation of Hyderabad etc. The alternative title could be the Annexation of Tibet. Given the military nature of the Chinese campaign in the Tibet region, it can't be titled "incorporation" as no referendum or popular vote was ever held in Tibet to approve and upheld the military action of People's Liberation Army in this area. There is a cloud over the actions by People's Republic of China even to this date, as no democratic norms and international convention were followed for this action. The ongoing separatist movement in Tibet also adds the complexity and dispute over this action by People's Republic of China. Hemant DabralTalk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The policy at WP:SOAP advocates neutrality, and "Incorporation" is the most neutral term here, as opposed to "Liberation" or "Annexation", both more commonly used in literature (see Ngram below). -Zanhe (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I would prefer Annexation of Tibet if there are no ambiguity issues because it is more concise and fits better with the titles of similar wikipedia articles. A quick news search suggests that the WP:COMMONNAME term is annexation not incorporation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the common name is actually Liberation of Tibet by far, followed by "annexation" and then "incorporation", see Google Ngram. This shows the power of propaganda and why it is important to stick with WP:NPOV on politically charged issues like this. -Zanhe (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading it wrong? "Search for "Incorporation of Tibet" yielded only one result. Search for "Annexation of Tibet" yielded only one result.” would suggest that the sample size is simply too small for us to use Google Ngram. The same is true of google trends [[1]]. No need to get hyperbolic about spreading propaganda when you haven't thoroughly reviewed your own source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not aware of any WP:RS which use the term “Liberation of Tibet,” are you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're reading it wrong (seems that you're not familiar with Ngram, which analyzes trends in published books, which are far more reliable than web searches). Click the bottom links to see detailed lists of books for each search term, grouped by period. For example, Melvyn Goldstein, probably the most renowned historian of modern Tibet, quotes the Chinese term "liberation" but adds in parentheses the neutral term "incorporation", see [2]. -Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You sidestepped the question about usage by WP:RS, let me be specific: what reliable news organization uses Liberation of Tibet? I still think that Ngram warning means the sample size is too small but I’l respect your apparent expertise. As for Goldstein correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t doing so a requirement of conducting long term fieldwork in China? Its not a country that allows open access to either domestic or foreign academics. China regularly deports or bars entry to foreign academics who fail to toe the party line and locks up domestic academics who do the same[3][4]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sidestepped the question? Didn't I already give you instruction on how to check the Ngram results, and provide a specific example? And your self-doubt was right: your aspersion against Goldstein is baseless. Like Goldstein, Elliot Sperling did not toe China's line on the Tibet issue but was never blocked from the country because of that. He was even a visiting scholar at Peking University. He was later denied entry for his outspoken support of his personal friend Ilham Tohti, which is unrelated to his academic research. -Zanhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t realize that Zanhe also referenced the Goldstein book, but I don’t think this is an example of his book not being an RS because he had done field studies in China in the past. China’s stances towards foreign academics is not so restrictive that anyone who has gone there for a field study is no longer reliable, plus Goldstein has still been able to write past works giving the perspective of Tibetan refugees and dissidents in India. The publication of this book also doesn’t involve Chinese publishing houses, Chinese government funding, or any other Chinese government affiliations either; the book should be fine. — MarkH21talk 01:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Precisely as Zanhe describes, the PRC took control of Tibet de jure from the KMT in the Chinese Civil War after a long period of internationally recognized Qing control. It wasn’t internationally recognized as independent nor part of another country when this happened, so using the word annexation here literally doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, reliable sources don’t refer to it as such. — MarkH21talk 19:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets keep an open mind, the Tibetan sovereignty debate does appear to be a debate rather than a decided fact of history. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh absolutely. But the use of the word annexation here is a term in international law. Tibet was de jure and internationally recognized to be part of China, even if it wasn’t de facto so (which leads to the debate about modern post-1950s sovereignty). Annexation isn’t used in international law to refer to territory being taken from an unrecognized state.
    Using incorporation does not deny any sovereignty claim, but using annexation asserts a sovereignty claim which is not accepted by any recognized country in the world:
    "Even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial or republican..." – Bradsher, Henry S. Tibet Struggles to Survive, Foreign Affairs, July 1969 Vol. 47 Issue 4, p.753.
    There may be a better word than incorporation, but annexation certainly asserts a POV. — MarkH21talk 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the page the argument is that they had limited international recognition, which would squeak by if you want to be technical about the legal definition of annexation (limited recognition is also technically the category the PRC would have fallen under when they took/retook/liberated/annexed/incorporated/whatever Tibet). Sources check out as reliable if not exactly neutral. The Annexation of Hyderabad is another were both sides of the conflict had some level of limited international recognition but the naming consensus seems to hold. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see that? I see

    Thomas Heberer, professor of political science and East Asian studies at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, wrote: "No country in the world has ever recognized the independence of Tibet or declared that Tibet is an 'occupied country'. For all countries in the world, Tibet is Chinese territory."

    and the passage about the United Kingdom being the only country to not explicitly acknowledge Chinese sovereignty (only suzerainty), until they revised that position to Chinese sovereignty in 2008. The only other exception is the Treaty of friendship and alliance between the Government of Mongolia and Tibet, of which the then-Dalai Lama and Tibetan government denied recognition. — MarkH21talk 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas Heberer might not be a neutral party when it comes to the Tibet-China debate. Can we address the Annexation of Hyderabad though? In comparison to Tibet Hyderabad State was much less recognized by any standard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know about him in particular (although I don’t see evidence that he isn’t), but other RSes also suggest the same (e.g. The Economist).
    I didn’t partake in the three-person move discussion only a few months ago and I don’t know if I agree with the move. At a cursory glance, I see a princely state (vassal/suzerainty) that was internationally recognized for 149 years, followed by 12 months with no international recognition for any state’s sovereignty over the region. But I’m not here to comment on that move. Here we had internationally recognized de jure & de facto Chinese sovereignty for 535 years, followed by 46 years of de jure & internationally recognized Chinese sovereignty with de facto independence. It’s a different situation. — MarkH21talk 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate being a stickler for using the correct political science terminology as I’ve often been that stickler and I generally agree with you on the definition of annexation. What, however, is the political science definition for incorporation? Its used by other encyclopedias like the Encyclopedia Britannica

    "Tibet’s incorporation into the People’s Republic of China began in 1950 and has remained a highly charged and controversial issue, both within Tibet and worldwide. Many Tibetans (especially those outside China) consider China’s action to be an invasion of a sovereign country, and the continued Chinese presence in Tibet is deemed an occupation by a foreign power. The Chinese, on the other hand, believe that Tibet has been a rightful part of China for centuries and that they liberated Tibet from a repressive regime in which much of the population lived in serfdom. There is truth in both assertions, although public opinion outside China (especially in the West) has tended to take the side of Tibet as an independent (or at least highly autonomous) entity. There is no question, though, that the 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual and temporal leader, has become one of the world’s most recognizable and highly regarded individuals. Area 471,700 square miles (1,221,600 square km). Pop. (2010) 3,002,166."

    [[5]] but its not a super common term in political science or international relations. On an side note I think the britannica does a good job NPOV wise. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorporation is a general term that isn't different here than the common meaning of the word. There may indeed be better words for it, but incorporation is at least acceptable and relatively neutral.
    The Britannica entry is pretty reasonable, although I think the public opinion outside China (especially in the West) has tended to take the side of Tibet as an independent (or at least highly autonomous) entity does require more qualifying, since the public opinion here does not refer to the public positions (i.e. government stances, world leader statements, official recognition) outside of China (even in the West). Of course, public positions don't always align with public opinion nor even internal government stances, and this is also just a 5-sentence blurb. But I've gone off-topic now... — MarkH21talk 21:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorporation for me implies a lack of violence and regime change. Would you agree that in general and not in the legal specific annexation also works well to describe the events? At least in the same spirit that Texas annexation uses is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a reason for using a term that has an incorrect technical use here for its broader use in this case. If the majority of reliable sources used the term, like with Texas, then maybe there's a case. — MarkH21talk 06:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repeatedly asked Zanhe above to name even a single reliable source (preferable among the reliable mainstream news organizations) with uses Liberation of Tibet, they have not been able to do so. NYT uses annexation[6], as does The Daily Beast [7], AFP (in this case carried by the SCMP)[8], the SCMP [9], The Economist [10], and The Diplomat [11]. There are more but I think thats enough to get the point across. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Zanhe agrees that Liberation of Tibet is only used by PRC-aligned sources. Incorporation of Tibet is also prevalent in reliable sources though, e.g. Reuters, DW, The Diplomat, The Indian Express. But due to the international law usage of annexation being incorrect here, it would require a substantial demonstrable majority of reliable sources using the term to describe the event to justify using it in the article name by a WP:COMMONNAME argument. I'm not even sure there is a plurality that uses annexation, but I haven't done a careful comparison yet. Maybe I'll do that if I have time, but so far I don't see a clear case. — MarkH21talk 06:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that the international law usage of annexation is incorrect here, the PRC argument is that Tibet was a protectorate under the ROC (a continuation of their status as a protectorate of the Qing)... The process by which a protectorate becomes a part of the protecting power *is* in fact known as annexation (see Korea under Japanese rule#Japan–Korea annexation treaty (1910) etc). Even per the PRC reading of history the events in the 50’s ended a process that started in 1720 and Tibet was a protectorate from 1720 until 1950. If we want to break the debate down into its two main parties both sides agree on who’s sovereignty was usurped, Tibet’s, they just disagree on the year with one saying 1720 and the other 1950. If you want to argue legal formalities we can, are there other acceptable terms for the unification of a protectorate with its protector? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you are misrepresenting those sources, for example The Diplomat piece says "In China’s far west, that history reveals imperial China’s subordination and incorporation of Tibet, which the Communist Party organized into the state under the Marxist-Leninist doctrine on nationality.” the words used for the PRC’s actions are "organized into the state,” while "subordination and incorporation” are used to describe the Qing’s actions. BTW its an opinion piece. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zanhe and MarkH21, that the polity of Tibet from the establishment of the Republic of China in 1912 until the PRC actions in 1951 was never given de jure international recognition (which is the only thing that matters in annexation) is mentioned prominently, with scholarly WP:RS, at that article. Also worth reading are Esiymbro's remarks in a post-RM discussion related to terminology in Sep 2017. This move request smacks of WP:POINT, too CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the opposite conclusion to the one I came to w.r.t. the move request for Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China, for which I've made a longer statement. Tibet had an independent government and the article describes a military invasion, making annexation more appropriate than incorporation. Jancarcu (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMON_NAME. Importantly, such terminology is used in academic books [12], for example here, the book is entitled "Tibet, the Position in International Law". My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of a single book doesn’t demonstrate anything with regards to COMMONNAME. Look, here’s one that uses “incorporation” and another by Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein. — MarkH21talk 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe already brought up Goldstein (is he the only Tibet studies guy the two of you know?) and I explained the issues with using his language to make a determination on WP:COMMONNAME, did you miss that bit? You do seem to have missed the bit about annexation being what you call the merger between a protectorate and its protector, which per the PRC is what happened when Tibet joined the PRC. Still waiting for your response. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've also read Sam Van Schaik's Tibet: A History (Yale University Press, 2011), who, like Goldstein, also avoids the inaccurate word "annexation" and uses "liberation" but in quotation marks (p. 209). I only mentioned Goldstein because he's more famous and I hoped you might have heard of him. Van Schaik went on to say that Tibetan commander Ngapo announced on radio that Tibet had agreed to "peaceful liberation", which he calls a "stunning propaganda victory" for the Chinese (p. 215). -Zanhe (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Tibet wasn't a protectorate under the ROC then what was it? Please use the most accurate and specific language you can. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV - The word "annexation" is not neutral, besides being historically false, its use implies that Tibet was a sovereign state between 1912 and 1950, which was not the case since the Republic of China never renounced her sovereignty over Tibet in that period. For Tibet to have been a de jure independent polity in those thirty-eight years, international recognition (and membership of the League of Nations) would have been necessary together with China's abandonment of sovereignty. Neither happened. How can a country "annex" a region that has been part of it since at least 1720? --Elnon (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no implication of sovereignty or independence from annexation, Tibet was a protectorate not an integral part of China from 1720-1950 in the PRC’s official history (everyone agrees that Tibet was a Chinese protectorate from 1720-1912, the debate is whether they were protectorate or an independent country between 1912 and 1950). The process by which a protectorate merges with its protector is called annexation. Don’t get all hyperbolic about whats "historically false” before you learn either the history or what the words involved mean. 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Horse Eye Jack (talk)
You would be well advised to keep your admonestations to yourself and refrain from calling other contributors "hyperbolic" because they disagree with your proposal. Besides, intimating me "to learn the history" [of Tibet] does not reflect well on your ability to debate serenely. --Elnon (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On March 7, 1912, the Chinese Republic was proclaimed by General Zhong Yin in Lhasa, a Provisional Representative Council took power and a constitution was drawn up (see Laurent Deshayes, Histoire du Tibet, Fayard, 1997, p. 264). So whatever Tibet was under Qing rule, it stopped being such on that date. Calling Tibet a "protectorate" between 1913 and 1951 is simply anachronistic. --Elnon (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope it was a protectorate of the Republic of China, literally see the lead of Tibet (1912–1951) "The Tibetan Ganden Phodrang regime was a protectorate of the Qing dynasty[7][8][9][10] until 1912,[11][12] when the Provisional Government of the Republic of China replaced the Qing dynasty as the government of China, and signed a treaty with the Qing government inheriting all territories of the imperial government into the new republic, giving Tibet the status of a "protectorate"[13][14] with high levels of autonomy as was the case during the Qing dynasty.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, what is the point of the above quotation? Besides, the second occurrence of the word "protectorate" in the lead ("a treaty [...] giving Tibet the status of a "protectorate"[13][14] with high levels of autonomy as was the case during the Qing dynasty") is traceable to the troublesome IP 1.170.18.230 inserting it on 21 March 2017 (see here and here)? --Elnon (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that policy... I was informing you of common knowledge. I note that the quote you provided does nothing to establish that Tibet wasn't a protectorate under the ROC, as the source is in French I cant really check it. If as you say from 1912 to 1950 Tibet was part of the ROC and Tibet ceased to be a protectorate in 1912 then there is no need for the page "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China” to exist at all as an independent page. Is there another source you would like to use? Preferably in english? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Deshayes, Histoire du Tibet, Fayard, 1997, p. 264:
"Au début de 1912, le général Zhong prend la tête du mouvement et suspend l’amban Lian Yu. Un conseil représentatif provisoire, dirigé par un président élu par les Chinois, Ho Zeyi, assume alors le pouvoir en lieu et place des représentants impériaux déchus (février). Selon la nouvelle constitution élaborée à la hâte, le Conseil, dont ne fait partie aucun Tibétain, doit réformer la société et l’éducation, établir un contôle des finances, voter les budgets, nommer les officiels civils et militaires et, enfin, superviser les décisions de l’amban dont la fonction est maintenue. C’est sur de telles bases que la république chinoise est proclamée à Lhassa le 7 mars."
Translation into English:
"In early 1912, General Zhong seized leadership of the movement and suspended amban Lian Yu. A Provisional Representative Council chaired by Ho Zeyi (a president elected by the Chinese) then took over from the deposed imperial representatives (in February). As per a hastily drawn-up new constitution, the Council (from which Tibetans were barred) was meant to reform society and education, establish control over finances, vote on budgets, appoint civil and military officials and eventually vet decisions made by the amban (who continued in his functions). It was along these lines that the Chinese Republic was proclaimed in Lhasa in March 7." --Elnon (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t say what you think it does, if the Amban “continued in his functions” then Tibet remained a protectorate. If they had ceased to be a protectorate then the position of Amban would have immediately become defunct. You seem to be getting caught up in the line "It was along these lines that the Chinese Republic was proclaimed in Lhasa in March 7“ despite that proclamation having no impact on Tibet’s status as a protectorate (Republics can have protectorates just as Empires do). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are unreferenced, personal assertions and deductions you're putting forth as proofs, which goes to show how vacuous and inane the "republican protectorate" charade is. Even the UK eventually gave up the protectorate and independence myths. Didn't the British government, after almost a century of recognizing Tibet as an autonomus entity, recognize Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China on October 29, 2008? See The New York Times.
Thats an opinion piece and it doesn't support your argument. Just to be clear you’re arguing that the protectorate ended in 1912 not 1910 right? Your source isn’t explicit in that regard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Annexation better describes the 1950-1 inclusion of Tibet in China. gidonb (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I want to point out that focusing on the meaning of "annexation" in international law prevents from forming a consensus, and invovled the debate about sovereignty, etc needlessly. According to Webster's, "annexation" means "the addition of an area or region to a country, state, etc.", and that is exactly what happened. There is no need to complicate the matter by debating about Tibet in international law and sovereignty. The other thing is such notions are applied backwards to history in this case, since neither China nor Tibet back then had the concept of sovereignty or international law. These terms are used only because they are familiar to a modern reader, not because they were historic. Since Tibet is landlocked, and only two major countries neighbor it (China and India), international recognition wouldn't seem important to Tibetan rulers before the 20th century - only China and India mattered to Tibet. That's why British India's position of China's suzertainty over Tibet is the only position that mattered in history - no other country had enough stake in Tibet to bother with a sovereignty debate with China. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another batch of worthless personal assumptions and deductions.
My paper version of Webster New World Dictionary of American English (Third College Edition, 1988) gives a different definition of the word "annex": "to incorporate into a country, state, etc. the territory of another country, state, etc." A little surprising, isn't it? --Elnon (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does etc. mean to you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elnon: I looked at your editorial record and it seems that you took Chinese communist propaganda as face value. Look at Tibet Mirror created by you, and the corresponding Chinese article by me, I cited 46 independent sources while you cited less than half of that. And why creating an article for pseudo-expert Barry Sautman, when he hasn't published any academic books on Tibet, unless you want to make citing him look credible? --Happyseeu (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would not occur to me to look into a dissenting contributor's editorial record and accuse him with taking exile propaganda at face value just to besmirch his reputation. It seems you're showing your true colours. --Elnon (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect WP:CIVIL, that second sentence was uncalled for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at one's editorial record is one way to measure one's subject knowledge. Let's just say I'm underwhelmed. --Happyseeu (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on an editor rather than the argument is an ad hominem, and making disparaging comments about an editor’s knowledge is a personal attack by WP:WIAPA. I’d advise you to retract your comments and refrain from making similar comments in the future. — MarkH21talk 23:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on the international law terms is very relevant, especially since this event occurred from 1950-1951 after the foundation of the UN in 1945. It's not an obstruction to consensus. — MarkH21talk 19:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If one insists on applying international law to Tibet, it should be remembered that Tibet didn't recognize international treaties in the 19th century. An example is the Tibetan government refused to implement articles of Convention of Calcutta of 1890 signed by China after Sikkim expedition. Treaty of Lhasa signed by Tibet in 1904 was the first treaty that Tibet honored. It was followed by Simla Convention in 1913-14 to try to demarcate the boundaries between Tibet, India and China. Both were protested by China since it jeopartized China's claim over Tibet. Regardless, Tibet joined the international treaty system only in the 20th century. --Happyseeu (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Annexation" is the usual word to use when a country adds to its territory. Here is Merriam-Webster: "Annex, to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state 'The U.S. annexed Texas in 1845.'"[13] So "annex" means the same thing "incorporate." But there is a difference in nuance. To use "incorporate" leads the reader to ask, "Why would you use a different word for Tibet than the one you would use for Texas?" Whatever the KMT told the world, the Tibetan government asserted its independence up until 1951. Colin Gerhard (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, there are some nuances and debates about what exactly the relationship Tibet had with the KMT government, but that can be covered in the article. For reasons of neutrality, if Wikipedia is willing to call other controversial annexations an "annexation", it needs to do the same here. Incorporation is just a euphemism. SnowFire (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Tibet was already annexed by China during Yuan Dynasty and again reconquest to Mongolians by Qing Dynasty, this is so a reintegration, of part of Western part of Tibet (1912–1951), Eastern part, then called (Xikang) was not independent for centuries either. Popolon (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, Popolon is here as a result of canvassing by Elnon[14]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because we both worked on history of China for long time now, and speaking of annexation about the last reintegration is clearly a non-sense in regard of history of China. 82.225.234.108 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... Who are you? You aren’t either Popolon or Elnon but you said “we.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I really can't see how this would not be more accurately described as an annexation, as it has been in many sources. The Tibetan government asserted its independence until the Chinese decided to "incorporate" it. That's an annexation by any definition of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just wanted to point out something that I wasn't aware of until now: even the de facto independent government of Tibet used "incorporation of Tibet" and did not use the word "annexation" at the time. From the formal complaint by the Tibetan government to the UN (stable JSTOR link): The armed invasion of Tibet for the incorporation of Tibet in Communist China through sheer physical force is a clear case of aggression.
    It's difficult to run a thorough search for what the WP:COMMONNAME should be (since both terms sometimes refer to events in the Qing dynasty or even earlier), but there are plenty of reliable sources that use both. — MarkH21talk 19:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that MarkH! It doesn't sway my opinion buts its a valuable addition to the discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's very difficult to assess the common name in reliable English secondary sources, as there are such well organised propaganda machines on both sides that both the reliability and the independence of most sources is problematic. But annexation does seem more accurate and less POV to me. Incorporation is a weasel word, albeit a widely adopted one. Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction

I think that it should be mentioned that Tibet was not de jure independent, and that the Chinese claim had not been dropped since the end of the Qing Dynasty in the introduction. This is a critical piece of historical context that is definitely necessary in the introduction to give a proper summary of the topic.

2601:600:A37F:F111:FCC1:6CD1:F604:CD5D (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few at Tibetan sovereignty debate, where this is described in more detail, including:
  • Sperling, E. The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. - Policy Studies 7, 2004. Pages 6–7.
  • A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn Goldstein, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1989. Page 72.
I haven’t checked the original sources though. — MarkH21talk 04:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source: Tsering Shakya (1999). The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947. Columbia University Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-231-11814-9. & p. 24. p. 15 also states that "neither had the British recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet", which was the case when the book was published in 1999. --Happyseeu (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the British Invasion

There is a significant treaty that is missing in the current article that should really be in the "background section", right after the British invasion of Tibet. The British sold Tibet back to the Chinese domain for a fee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Between_Great_Britain_and_China_Respecting_Tibet

In 1906, Britian and China signed a treaty in which in exchange for a fee, Britian promised not to annex Tibet or interfere with Tibetan administration. In 1907, Britian also signed a treaty with Russia, in which both countries agreed not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government. https://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html For Tibet to become a British protectorate or be under British laws, would actually be a violation of that treaty that britian had made with china. And such history should be added to that Background section. 49.179.144.133 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "in exchange for a fee, Britain promised not to annex Tibet" is WP:OR. Britain demanded Tibet to pay for the cost of Younghusband Expedition in the Treaty of Lhasa, and China, in order to claim sovereignty over Tibet, wanted to pay instead, since allowing Tibet to pay Britain directly would implicitly admit that Tibet was an independent entity with its own agency. From the British POV, it would get the money either way, so why "selling out Tibet" when it didn't get anything in return? Keep in mind that Tibet would still owe the money if Britain refused China's proposal to pay. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&oldid=1144865966"