Talk:Chinese expedition to Tibet (1910)

Zhao Erfeng, 1905_Tibetan_Rebellion#Retaliatory_expeditions

http://mcx.sagepub.com/content/34/2/210.short

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20062699?uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21104393026907

The Men Who Would Not Be Amban and the One Who Would: Four Frontline Officials and Qing Tibet Policy, 1905-1911 Dahpon David Ho Modern China Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2008), pp. 210-246 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20062699

Rajmaan (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent move without discussion

The page has been moved twice (1 and 2) from Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910) to Chinese expedition to Tibet (1910) without discussion. The original title seems more appropriate as the term Military expedition usually implies "the deployment of a state's military to fight abroad", while a military invasion can concern a country own territory ("An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory"). In the context of the sensitive Tibet-China issue, using the term "invasion" is far more neutral than "expedition", as it does not imply that China is a foreign force.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You also moved the page Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) to Chinese invasion of Tibet (1720) without discussion. It is not about the meaning of these words in the way you put them, but how they are usually used by academic sources. For example, "The Tibetan History Reader" by Gray Tuttle, Kurtis R. Schaeffer (p404) mentions that "Immediately after their expedition of 1720 the Chinese organized a postal relay system on their usual model ..." and "Tibet. Ediz. Inglese" by Bradley Mayhew, Robert Kelly, John Vincent Bellezza" (p35) mentions that "He responded by sending a military expedition to Lhasa in 1720". And for the 1910 event, "Faiths Across Time: 5,000 Years of Religious History" by J. Gordon Melton (p1627) for example mentions under the section "1910-1912" that "The Qing emperor sends a military expedition to Tibet, and the Dalai Lama flees to India." --Cartakes (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• On the first point, you have created the article “Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) “ as a copy/edit of another article (in violation of wikipedia rules) just 1 minute before you renamed “Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910)” into “Chinese expedition to Tibet (1910)”, using your copy/edit creation as a reference for the renaming of the 1910 article. Difficult to do better in terms of creating your own justification for your initial move.
• Secondly, your cherry picking is a typical case of fallacy of incomplete evidence. You will obviously always find a few example of what you look for with a google search… You don’t need to go very far to find opposite examples using the terminology “invasion”. The first book you are quoting does indeed states “General Zhao Erfeng invades Tibet” in 1910 (page xxxiii). Your second book states “In 1910, the mandchu invaded Tibet” (page 33). Your third book also contains “China’s invasion of Tibet in 1950” (p.1436). Melvin Goldstein and other reputed academic sources do also use the terminology invasion. “Expedition” does refer to something slightly different, as this is the case for the 1904 British military expedition. So let’s stick to the usual military terminology that, besides being used by many (most?) Tibet scholars, has the advantage to be precise, factual and neutral. Thanks, --6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, while I agree that parts of the article Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) was copy/pasted from other articles when I initially created it, I did attribute them within two days in its talk page Talk:Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720). As mentioned elsewhere, according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template". So it was not a violation of WP rules. The naming of the 1720 article was modeled on the British expedition to Tibet article, which was created long time ago in 2006. As for this 1910 article, it was only created in 2013, and its text only contained two sentences (a super-stub article) before I edited it (see [1]). Also note that it is/was described as "a Qing military expedition sent to establish direct rule in Tibet in early 1910" in the first sentence. Clearly, "expedition" is/was used to describe the 1910 event too even from the original text, contradicting to your claim that "expedition refers to something slightly different". Furthermore, almost all your quotes containing "invasion" refers to the 1910 event, which it is now clear might be described either as expedition or invasion. However, for the purpose of consistency "expedition" should be preferred as the title. --Cartakes (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not very constructive to continue your cherry picking: the same sentence you are using was starting with "the 1910 Chinese invasion of Tibet" ... I don't understand your insistence of not using the usually accepted military terminology, see again Military expedition and Military invasion.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

So what? The same sentence described it as "a Qing military expedition sent to establish direct rule in Tibet in early 1910". Your point to "usually accepted military terminology" makes absolutely no sense. As I already pointed out above it is now clear that the 1910 event "might be described either as expedition or invasion. However, for the purpose of consistency "expedition" should be preferred as the title." --Cartakes (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please no personal attack. The original and current title are indeed consistent with the usual definition of Military invasion. You may have to reword both Military expedition and Military invasion before proposing a new title move. Until then, over and out from my side.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)