Talk:The Historical Status of China's Tibet

Note

This article overbooked a book. The reader may think this is like promoting this book.Most of the reference sources are proof that the book is published.This needs to be rewritten to improve, and the list of chapters of this book is unnecessary.--O1lI0 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean exactly by "This article overbooked a book". Writing in an encyclopaedia implies avoiding giving English words meanings they do not possess. --Elnon (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What is Book?

"Instrument that record, analyse, summarise, organise, debate and explain information that are illustrative, non illustrative,hard bound paper bag jacketed, non jacketed, with forward introduction table of contents, index that are intended for the enlightenment, understanding, enrichment, enhancment and education of the human brain through sensory route of vision... some times touched"

Can you understand Overbook after this explanation?With a simple description is that you advertise for this book.--O1lI0 (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Airlines are known "to overbook flights" and hotels happen "to overbook rooms" but I fail to see how "books could be overbooked". My Webster dictionary defines overbook as "to issue reservations for something (such as an airplane flight) in excess of the space available." Surely you mean something like "vaunting a book" or "writing a puff piece for a book". --Elnon (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation of NYT article

I have reverted My very best wishes's removal of the Anecdotal section about the diplomatic reception in 2009. Unfortunately my edit summary was garbled so I will explain here. The text was:

In January 2009, the New York Times reported that the Chinese Government had highlighted its diplomatic priorities by placing copies of The Historical Status of China's Tibet among other official publications at a reception following the opening of celebrations marking the 30th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the United States and China, attended by former US President Jimmy Carter, diplomat Henry Kissinger and Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao.[1]

My very best wishes's edit summary was "This is a misrepresentation of the source. It only tells: "piles of government-published books with titles like..." . These piles of ... do not belong to encyclopedia."

The text is based on of these sentences in the cited NYT article:

• "But at a reception afterward, the Chinese government quietly underscored its own priorities. Prominently placed on a table were piles of government-published books with titles like "The Historical Status of China's Tibet."

Although a pedantic reading of this is that the books had titles similar to this, in colloquial English it is clear that the author means that this was the title of one the books that were there. It strains credibility to assert that the author made up a name that is coincidentally the name a real book. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is the meaning of the text? One should read whole last paragraph. Journalist of NYT tells sarcastically that instead of debating real problems, the Chiniese government "underscored its own priorities", namely it presented the piles of government-published books with titles like "The Historical Status of China's Tibet". First of all, the publications tells there is nothing in this book except the telling propaganda title. Second, word "piles" in this context was probably an allusion to the piles of shit. Regardless, this text tells nothing of substance about the book. Why it should be at all included? My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The meaning is that the Chinese government chose to offer this book at a top-level diplomatic reception, and thereby underscored its diplomatic priorities. This indicates that the book is endorsed and highly regarded by the Chinese government. The NYT author is also contrasting the up-front diplomatic style of Brzezinski from the quieter style (on this occasion) of the Chinese. I see no reason to conclude that the author was referring to piles of shit, but even if he was he is still telling us that the book was offered at this reception Verbcatcher (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• According to this article in NYT, the book is a propaganda publication by Chinese government that does not deserve any mention beyond noticing that it is a propaganda publication by Chinese government. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Propose rephrase: The NY Time article mentions the book only as an example in passing, and to expand on it as above is undue.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Everyone, please use polite language here and in the edit summaries, per WP:CIVIL.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I rephrased it on the page [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Section: Co-authors

The current section "Co-authors" is presenting the book as if it is written by two Chinese historians named Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, the latter one supposedly of Tibetan ethnicity as his name is also given in Tibetan script:

The co-authors Wang Jiawei (王家伟) and Nyima Gyaincain (Tibetan: ཉི་མ་ རྒྱལ་ མཚན་, Wylie: nyi ma rgyal mtshan or, Chinese transliteration, Nima Jianzan or Nimajianzan (Simplified Chinese: 尼玛 坚赞 pinyin: Nímǎ jiānzàn), are Chinese historians

The average Wikipedia reader will think that these are the names of two "real" historians existing in flesh and blood, while there is no evidence whatsoever that these authors do really exist.

It is the norm for such official books to be written by some specialized government departments, rather than being the work of a clearly identified author or group of authors. These official publications are usually inspired by previous publications on the topic, and further edited in both content and style to match with the intended purpose. This is obviously the case here, with a rhetoric that does not belong to peer-reviewed publications or history books published by historians, see for example the introduction:

"The historical status of China’s Tibet is clear as clean water and the blue sky—a fact known to the world (...) One loves clean water and a clear, blue sky. This book has been compiled to allow readers to clearly witness the historical status of China’s sovereignty over Tibet through settling the muddied waters and sweeping the mist from the sky."

It is common practice in academic papers to quote Chinese government publications by naming, for purely convenience reasons, the given/fictional/alleged authors, regardless of the existence (or non-existence) of these authors; such practice cannot be considered as an endorsement that these supposed authors do really exist.

The absence of any biographical information about the two alleged authors should lead us to be more circumspect before making such highly speculative claim that the book has been authored by two Chinese historians named Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, see also Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY. --Tiger Chair (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"There is no evidence whatsoever that these authors do really exist." This unsubstantiated claim of yours is bound to elicit a counter-claim: "'There is no evidence whatsoever that these authors do not really exist."

What we have above is obviously your own personal opinion, not an undeniably proven fact. Scholar Anne-Marie Bentz clearly states that Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain are two historians, and this is what counts. The pair are mentioned by various recognized authors (John Powers, Melvyn C. Goldstein, Peter Schwieger, Heidi Fjeld, Warren W. Smith, Julie G. Marshall, etc.) and nowhere is a disclaimer to be seen as to Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain being true flesh and blood historians, and this is what matters. In library catalogues Wang Jiawei is mentioned as "author" and Nyima Gyaincain as "other author/contributor". No reservation is expressed.

Not even Radio Free Asia journalist Warren W. Smith, who authored a 29-page rebuttal of The Historical Status of China's Tibet, calls into question the existence of Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain.

You are just content with issuing groundless claims and generalizations: "It is the norm for such official books to be...", "It is common practice in academic papers to...", "The absence of any biographical information...", but you fail to supply any evidence or proof thereof.

Beside being original research, this sounds like just another conspiracy theory: the Chinese regime has invented two so-called historians to conceal the fact that The Historical Status of China's Tibet was written by its propanganda arm. Do you really believe that anyone will buy into such conspiratorial stuff? --Elnon (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks if you can remain civil and focused on the topic, rather than accusing me of trying to sell "conspiratorial stuff". You are clearly trying to revert the burden of proof (see WP:BURDEN) by claiming that "There is no evidence whatsoever that these authors do not really exist."

I gave sufficient Evidence of absence in the deletion talk page of Nyima Gyaincain ("No information available about his/her birthdate, gender, languages spoken, academic background, publication list, conferences, current or past academic affiliation, etc.") so that one can reasonably assume that these "two co-authors" do not correspond to two real persons existing in flesh and blood.

As I wrote, it is common practice in academic papers to quote Chinese government publications by naming, for purely convenience reasons, the given/fictional/alleged authors, regardless of the existence (or non-existence) of these authors; such practice cannot be considered as an endorsement that these supposed authors do really exist.

In your above comment, you are just listing some authors citing those two names, but you have failed to provide any single biographical information that would indicate that these two persons do really exist.--Tiger Chair (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Elnon, with regard to the two historians who purportedly wrote the book, the existence of an academic can normally easily be proven. Find out what university or institute they work, and send us a link of the members, including the names of the two historians. Google Translate will do the rest. Even less-developed countries such as certain African countries have university websites, so I find it unlikely that a nation like China does not have such pages. The burden of proving the validity of content in Wikipedia articles rests on the person who placed it there, per WP:BURDEN.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Tiger Chair, Farang Rak Tham. It's not up to me to prove or disprove anything about the material existence and academic credentials of these two authors. To start with, this page is not a biography and should not be mistaken for the page dedicated to Nyima Giaincain. Secondly, I can only report on what has been published about the authors in scholarly publications. If I ever come across reliable claims about them being in fact two pseudonyms, one Chinese and the other Tibetan, conjoined in dual minzu harmony, I will include it without any qualms. The authorship of The Historical Status of China's Tibet is of little importance as this is an official publication which is meant as a reply to van Walt van Praag's The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law and is deemed by Western scholars to reflect the position of the Chinese government. --Elnon (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. The fact that something is attributed to , roughly, the equivalent of Uncle Sam or Betty Crocker is certainly a valid point if someone is trying to pass the book off as actual history, which tends to be written by actual historians. Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, something written specifically "to reflect position" of government X is not scholarship. I quickly looked at few first pages of translation, and it tells that Chinese communist army made Tibetans free and happy, while the reality was exactly the opposite [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Elnon It is definitely your responsibility to support your controversial insertions with adequate sourcing, rather than accusing me of "issuing groundless claims", "another conspiracy theory" and concluded with "Do you really believe that anyone will buy into such conspiratorial stuff?".

I will repeat myself, the fact that there a total absence of evidence of their existence is sufficient to assume these ""authors" do not exist in flesh and blood. I have refrained to mention sources explaining that these authors do not exist, because:

• this would be reversing the principle of burden of proof, see WP:BURDEN;
• there is no need for a source explaining that these two people do not exist in order to safely assume that they don't exist, using common sense is more than enough.

In order to cut short this lengthy discussion, here is for example one source explaining the fictional nature of these two names:

"It seems that the (fictional) names of the authors to whom this work is attributed were created from the names of the contributors to the text, as underlined in the following list of authors: Wang Gui, Tang Jiawei, Wu Wei, Xirab (Sherab) Nyima, Yang Gyaincain, which when combined yields the names: Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain. As these latter pseudonyms are listed as the authors, I will refer throughout this article to Wang and Nyima as the authors of the work. The joint Chinese and Tibetan authorship of this text is a rarity in the world of Chinese publications about Tibet but was probably an attempt to lend some legitimacy to an obvious propaganda effort. (Long Live the Emperor!, Uses of the Ming Founder across Six Centuries of East Asian History, Society for Ming Studies, Minneapolis, 2007, Ming Studies Research, No. 4, 508p, Publisher: Center for Early Modern History (January 1, 2008), ISBN-10: 0980063906, ISBN-13: 978-0980063905, page 414.).

I would like to add that a research for most of the alleged primary authors (out of which the book is derived) will show a similar absence of evidence of existence/notability.

The problem is not to have a Wikipedia article about this book: we can obviously discuss whether Wikipedia:NBOOK are met or not, I personally acknowledge a certain level of notability, but while the topic itself (PRC official view on Tibet history) is notable, I believe that the book itself still cut short of the notability criteria.

It is however a major issue to use this book, which is clearly a propaganda book rather than a history book, as a general source for historical content on Tibet related Wikipedia articles, as this is clearly not an independent and reliable source that can be used according to WP sourcing policy. We can find these fictional authors being quoted in several articles, e.g. "Some Mainland Chinese scholars, such as Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain assert that" (1), "According to Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, leading officials of these organs were all appointed" (2), "However, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Shakabpa are "fallacies" (3), "Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain disagree, stating that" (4), "Patricia Ebrey, Thomas Laird, Wang Jiawei, and Nyima Gyaincain all point out that" ((5), "Tibetan historian Nyima Gyaincain and Wang Jiawei point out that" (6).

I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, as this book (as well as other propaganda publications) is widely used in Wikipedia articles (and without any warning to the reader) to describe highly controversial statements as mere "historic facts".--Tiger Chair (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This two author names should be kept in wikidata and marked as "group of author surname" or something like that. If the real list of author is given in the Postscript of the book as mentioned in "Long Live the Emperor!", this list should then be used. Perhaps we should look at what was used for Homer, Heteronym (literature), and the real list of author should then be added in the book page and in the wikidata. In the other cases, other contributors and reader will search again for the same things. Popolon (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I must say Tiger Chair scared me stiff with my Wang and Nyima not being made of flesh and blood, two fictional characters invented by a wily Chinese regime bent on stuffing down our throats the notion that Tibet has always been subservient to China. Rather than believe Mrs Bents's claim that Wang and Nyima are two "Chinese historians" as she calls them, I should have read their book's postscript: "The Introduction and Chapters 8-9 were rewritten by Wang Gui; Chapters 1-4 by Wu Wei; Chapters 5 and 7 by Yang Gyaincain; Chapters 6 and 12 by Xirab Nyima; and Chapters 10 and 11, as well as the Concluding Remarks by Tang Jiawei." In other words, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain are pseudonyms or nom de plume for a team of five editors.

In the midst of this rampant pseudonymy, enters, on Tiger Chair's prompt, a Gray Tuttle with more revelations up his sleeve: the book was written jointly by Chinese and Tibetan scholars, the lead author being Chinese; one of the editors, Sherab Nyima, was a Tibetan historian who taught in Beijing. So, after all, we are dealing with real, although mysterious, editors and not fictional figures. At that point in time, I realize that I have been led along: from the outset Tiger Chair knew about the pseudonyms and Gray Tuttle's clarification, but as he admits, he refrained from mentioning Gray Tuttle earlier because he believed that "this would be reversing the principle of burden of proof" and "there is no need for a source", "using common sense is more than enough." So much for collaboration in Wikipedia. --Elnon (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@ User:Elnon Thanks if you can refrain from using straw men in your contributions. You are the only one keeping introducing conspiracy stuff about a wily regime etc. After accusing me of spreading "just another conspiracy theory" and asking "Do you really believe that anyone will buy into such conspiratorial stuff?" when I questioned the existence of these two persons, I would have expected an apology from your side rather than another attack.

Whether I knew or not about Tuttle article is another red herring from your side, as I clearly explained that you should not reverse the principle of burden of proof as per WP:BURDEN. We are now back to square one: among the five (an no longer two) alleged contributors, there are again some names that probably refer to non-existing persons. But here again, it is not up to me to prove their non-existence, but up to you to prove their existence if you want to portray them as real persons; this time I won't take again the bait and demonstrate that some of these alleged persons do not exist.--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We are told by Tiger Chair that The Historical Status of China's Tibet "is clearly a propaganda book rather a history book". He is entitled to have his own personal opinion on the nature of the book but it is irrelevant in Wikipedia. What matters is the opinion of prominent historians or tibetologists. Since Gay Tuttle is close at hand, let's examine what he says:

"As noted by Wang and Nyima in their introduction, this text was explicitly written to counter what the authors call the theory of “Tibetan independence” put forward in two popular English language assessments of the status of Tibet, Tibet: A Political History by W. D. shakabpa and The Status of Tibet, by Michael C. van Walt van Praag. To be fair, these accounts, like those produced in the PRC, are largely propaganda: they too set out to convince the reader of a particular political perspective, often ignoring pertinent evidence that runs counter to their argument, in this case for Tibet’s historic independence. In fact, the historiography associated with the “Tibet is a part of China” argument and with the “Tibetan independence” argument both project anachronistic ideas of nation-states and even western international law back into the past."

So if Wang and Nyima are to be removed from the Encyclopaedia, then Shakabpa and van Walt van Pragg must be suppressed too. --Elnon (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It was not my personal opinion, it is actually the description made in the first sentence of the only review existing for this book:"The Historical Status of China’s Tibet is the title of a Chinese Government propaganda publication that attempts to substantiate China’s claim that Tibet is an inalienable part of China" [4]. Tuttle says the same ("The joint Chinese and Tibetan authorship of this text is a rarity in the world of Chinese publications about Tibet but was probably an attempt to lend some legitimacy to an obvious propaganda effort."), as well as all the other authors (with their own wording) that are cited in this article. I believe there is a rare unanimity to qualify this book as propaganda, and I haven't seen any diverging opinion among independent authors. I have no problem if you want to quote this book with the purpose to explain the point of view of the People's Republic of China on a specific topic (as long as it has encyclopedic relevance and does respect WP:PROPORTION), but you cannot use such partisan sources in Wikipedia articles to insert (potentially controversial) historic content. There are sufficient independent scholar books on Tibet not to rely in Wikipedia articles on this piece of - sorry but I cannot find a better word for it - propaganda.--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Whether you call it propaganda or not, the source is not independent of the Chinese government, and therefore is a primary source with regard to Tibet-related content. I do not think any discussion about this is required anymore. The source can only be used to explain how the Chinese government thinks, and must always be attributed inline ("according to..."). It cannot be used to accurately state anything in the "voice of Wikipedia", without inline attribution, and must always have a minor role in an article, per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Award winning book (and afd discussion)

In earlier versions, this article had an "Award" section, which stated that "The book was widely distributed in China, where it received the "Book of Excellence" award in 1996." This supposed award was mentioned by several contributors as a (main) argument in favour of keeping the article in the recent Afd discussion, e.g. Elnon stating that "The book is credited with having won a major Chinese award: the 1996 "Book of Excellence" award". Not only has no one provided any source regarding the notability of this award, but Elnon has now changed the publication date from 1995 to 1997 (while keeping the same source). This would mean that the book would have won this mysterious major Chinese award one year before it was published!

In reality, the book "The Historical Status of China's Tibet" is derived from earlier Chinese works, such as:

• Xizang zizhi chu “Xizang zhengzhi shi” pingzhu xiaozu, Xiageba de “Zangqu zhengzhi shi” yu Xizang lishi de benlai mianmu, 1994 (short book was compiled by a team of critics based in Tibet and published by the state-run Nationalities Publishing House in Beijing). The title means "Shakabpa’s “Tibet: A Political History” and the True Face of Tibetan History." I could not find any reference to the attributed authorship, page number or ISBN.

• 西藏历史地位辨 : 评夏格巴《藏区政治史》和范普拉赫《西藏的地位》(Xizang li shi di wei bian : ping Xiageba "Cang qu zheng zhi shi" he Fanpulaihe "Xizang di di wei") (with short English language cover title "Comments on the Historical Status of Tibet"), attributed to 王贵 (Wang Gui) as main author and 喜饶尼玛,唐家卫著 as contributors (Xiraonima, Tang Jiawei zhu), Beijing : Min zu chu ban she, 1995 , 746 pages, ISBN 7105024577, The title means "Debating Tibet’s Historical Status:Critically Commenting on Shakabpa’s “Tibet: A Political History” and van Praag’s “The Status of Tibet." This book was granted the "1996 Excellent Book Award".

The subject of the present page "The Historical Status of China's Tibet" is an English language book (no previous editions in Chinese or Tibetan language) derived from these earlier Chinese publications, but it is clearly not an English version or an English translation of the above mentioned works, but was written according to the publisher "to meet the needs of foreign personnel showing a concern about Tibet". Here below some differences:

1. The three authors mentioned in the 1995 Chinese book have only written 6 (6,8,9,10,11,12) out of the 12 chapters of the 1997 English book, the other 6 chapters being attributed to new additional authors (Wu Wei and Yang Gyaincain)
2. The 1997 English book is 333 pages versus versus 746 pages for the 1995 Chinese book
3. The 1997 English book was compiled in a way “to reflect foreign reading habit[s]” by removing the “sections focused on academic theories”

IMHO, several of the contributors that have expressed their opinion in the Article for Delegation talk page may have been mislead by the erroneous attribution of an "Excellent Book Award" to the book which is the subject of this Wikipedia article.--Tiger Chair (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The comments that I found yesterday in a contribution by tibetologist Gray Tuttle to a scholarly journal will certainly help clarify the background and genesis of The Historical Status of China's Tibet. That there may be inconsistencies in dates and titles and names of authors is unavoidable considering the complexity of what we are discovering. The page should be viewed as a work in progress and susceptible to improvement, not as a means of attacking and dissing the work of its main contributor who is facing a daunting task.

By the way, why did you not give the name of the author and an external link when inserting the reference (Long Live the Emperor!, Uses of the Ming Founder across Six Centuries of East Asian History, Society for Ming Studies, Minneapolis, 2007, Ming Studies Research, No. 4, 508p, Publisher: Center for Early Modern History (January 1, 2008), ISBN-10: 0980063906, ISBN-13: 978-0980063905, page 414.)? --Elnon (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a section about the claim that this is an award winning book, let's not confuse everything. I had already inserted the tag work in progress and will be working on fixing the numerous inconsistencies and incoherence if you let me the time to do it. The article about Gray Tuttle you are mentioning is the same I had introduced earlier (sorry if I have forgotten to insert his name in the reference). Part of the information I have given above is extracted from Tuttle.--Tiger Chair (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not only did you fail to insert Gray Tuttle's name in your reference but you also forgot to give a link to the pdf file made available by the website of Columbia University. That was not helpful, was it?

The claim about the book's award is not mine, it is Warren W. Smith's:

"The Historical Status of China’s Tibet" is the title of a Chinese Government propaganda publication that attempts to substantiate China’s claim that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. This book was originally published in Chinese and distributed widely within China. It was awarded the Excellent Book Award in 1996. It was published in English in 1997 in order to publicize China’s version of Tibetan history to an international audience."

In this cursory and ambiguous presentation, there is no explicit mention of the previous academic monograph Comments on the Historical Status of Tibet and its receiving an award. --Elnon (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with your recurrent comments with me failing to insert Tuttle's name (1 2). I already apologized for this omission. If this can clarify your concerns, I am not Gray Tuttle and I have not quoted my own publications, neither in this article nor in any other Wikipedia article. It seems your are just flooding the discussion with irrelevant comments about other users, this makes this talk page almost impossible to read.

I was not accusing you of maliciously misleading the readers of this article (I used the terms "erroneous attribution"), I simply stated that "IMHO, several of the contributors that have expressed their opinion in the Article for Delegation talk page may have been mislead by the erroneous attribution of an "Excellent Book Award" to the book which is the subject of this Wikipedia article". I hope that we can at least agree on the fact that a book published in 1996 cannot have been awarded a prize in 1995.--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent Revert

The Historical Status of China's Tibet is a book published in 1997 in Chinese, Tibetan and English by the government of the People's Republic of China. It is a historical review of Tibet's legal status that supports China's official view on the subject. It criticizes the legal interpretations of lawyer Michael van Walt van Praag and questions the historical analyses of Tibetan historian W.D. Shakabpa.

I recently reverted this material. By itself, it appears to imply that the author accepts it as simply a scholarly piece; the edit summary is (Substituted scholarly description by historian José Elías Esteve Moltó for the previous unreferenced description.). The cite as a whole is a little more critical...in fact, IMS, Esteve views China's actions in Tibet as genocidal. Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

In my view the lead is insufficiently neutral. The phrase revises the history is a contentious opinion that is not adequately supported by the article. I suggest adapting a phrase from later: The book presents the official Chinese position on the legal status of Tibet. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Leave unchanged: I think it is justified by the sources quoted, and per WP:FRINGE opinions that go against established scholarship should be described as such.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE addresses issues such as pseudoscience, fringe medicine and conspiracy theories, and does not apply to political disputes involving major countries. WP:NPOV is relevant here: we should avoid stating opinions as facts. I am not saying that we should be even-handed between truth and falsehood, but that we should not make a judgement about which of these rival positions is true, see WP:ASSERT. We should however indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. The lead section should indicate that the book is disputed outside China, perhaps with:

• The book presents the official Chinese position on the legal status of Tibet. This history presented in the book is disputed by many scholars outside China.

Verbcatcher (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE addresses issues such as pseudoscience, fringe medicine and conspiracy theories, and does not apply to political disputes involving major countries. Where do you base this on, if you don't mind me asking?

the book is disputed outside China What makes you think this is mainstream opinion among Chinese scholars? A government publication need not reflect mainstream scholarly opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult not to see an unfortunate breach of neutrality in the sentence "The book revises the history of Tibet to claim it always belonged to China" as its wording - "revises" - postulates that one of the two historiographies is correct and valid (and conversely the other is not). I concur with Verbcatcher's suggestion. --Elnon (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Wikipedia is a summary of reliable mainstream opinion, it cannot give undue credit to minority opinions, per WP:DUE.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham:, while I accept that WP:FRINGE does not explicitly exclude political or historical issues, none of the examples in its Identifying fringe theories section are of this type. Note that WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, whereas WP:FRINGE is a guideline, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Regarding 'the book is disputed outside China', this is supported by the sources published outside China (Praag and Shakabpa) that are disputed by this book, so it is reasonable to say that it is disputed, even though these sources predate the book. We don't actually say that Powers disputes the book. We have no disputing sources from within China, and my (unsourced) understanding is that Chinese authorities would probably suppress any publications that gave such views, and that those holding such views would self-censor. This does not allow us to add content based on speculation about what their views are. I wrote 'China' meaning the PRC, scholars of Chinese ethnicity or citizenship outside the PRC may have expressed different views.

On reflection, I don't think that the current content supports adding 'the book is disputed outside China' to the lead until we introduce more well-sourced content to the body of the article to establish this. I return to my initial suggestion: The book presents the official Chinese position on the legal status of Tibet. Also, the current phrase always belonged to China may not accurately reflect the Chinese view that Tibet is an integral part of China, not a separate place over which China has sovereignty.

You mentioned WP:DUE, which is a section of WP:NPOV. This starts with 'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources'. The official Chinese view is a significant view, and dismissing it in the lead does not give it due weight. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be misleading to state that WP:FRINGE is just a guideline, since an entire paragraph is dedicated to it (and very similar to WP:FRINGE) in the section WP:PSCI of the WP:NPOV policy. This section states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Therefore, not too much credence should be given to a view on history which is only propagated by the government of one single country, especially when there is no evidence that this view is supported by the scholarly community in that country.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not appear nearing agreement, so I will raise the issue on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and tag the lead with {{POV lead}}. Please do not take this personally – I am seeking help from the wider Wikipedia community to improve the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your attempt at asking other, uninvolved editors for their opinion, but I wonder whether this noticeboard is the right place to do this. I feel an RfC is more appropriate, or simply posting the discussion at related Wikiprojects.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham:. You write that "not too much credence should be given to a view on history which is only propagated by the government of one single country" – in other words the Chinese government. This reasoning may be applied just as well to the kind of historiography produced by both a former Finance minister of the government of Tibet – W. D. Shakabpa (1939-1950) – and a legal adviser – Michael van Walt van Praag –- to the 14th Dalai Lama, former head of the Tibetan government in exile. Presenting the official historiography of the Chinese government as a pseudoscientific theory while at the same time refraining from casting in a similar light the historiography produced in connection with, and in favour of, the Tibetan government (before and after 1950) would be tantamount to taking sides. Let me recall here Gray Tuttle's telltale comment on these opposing theories : "As noted by Wang and Nyima in their introduction, this text was explicitly written to counter what the authors call the theory of “Tibetan independence” put forward in two popular English language assessments of the status of Tibet, Tibet: A Political History by W. D. shakabpa and The Status of Tibet, by Michael C. van Walt van Praag. To be fair, these accounts, like those produced in the PRC, are largely propaganda: they too set out to convince the reader of a particular political perspective, often ignoring pertinent evidence that runs counter to their argument, in this case for Tibet’s historic independence. In fact, the historiography associated with the “Tibet is a part of China” argument and with the “Tibetan independence” argument both project anachronistic ideas of nation-states and even western international law back into the past." --Elnon (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Elnon, those are valid arguments. At this point, however, I wonder whether this discussion still is about the neutrality of the language used in the article, or rather, to form a consensus on what mainstream scholarship has to say about the history of Tibet. If we wish to discuss the latter, Talk:History of Tibet or Talk:Tibetan sovereignty debate would be better venues, and we should move the discussion over there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, a check on Wikiblame shows that the sentence about revising was introduced by My very best wishes. I have now asked him to explain his edit.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I can't check all these sources, but ready to WP:AGF. I am looking at the first phrase in "Reception and analysis" ("According to Tibetologist John Powers, the book by Chinese authors was written to persuade Western readers that Tibetan claims of independence are unfounded"). OK. This seems to be the only academic secondary RS about the book (John Powers, History As Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China, Oxford University Press, 2004, 224 p.). So, I do not see neutrality problems. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge

After looking at the AfD and other discussions, I would suggest merging content of this page to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China and making this page a redirect. This is really not a notable book to deserve a separate page. BTW, is this page the only page about a book on the history of Tibet? I am looking at the Category:History of Tibet, and do not see any other pages about books. Why this book? My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this has some merit. Avoids having to belabor the OBVIOUS EFFIN' F...oh, excuse me, the possibility that this document is little more than propaganda. Anmccaff (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although this book has been described by some authors as a "propaganda book", the subject of the book is not Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. I cannot see any reason for merging the two articles.--Tiger Chair (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The notability discussion has already been closed. And it might be useful to have this article around for debunking purposes, and as an explanation of what kind of source this is: a notable (?) primary source that represents the views of a government, as opposed to a secondary reliable source about Tibet-related subjects.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. After the neutrality discussion we have had, it is apparently not possible to find reliable sources about the subject of the article to conclude whether it is fringe or mainstream. Considering this new outcome, in my opinion either a new notability discussion should be opened, or the merge proposed should be performed. In other words, I support the merge now, and I propose to also link the merge discussion to related WikiProjects.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, but you both just voted "delete" on the AfD a few days ago [5]. Why did you change your mind? Whatever. Having a page about a non-notable book as a hall of shame ("it might be useful to have this article around for debunking purposes") is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not change my opinion regarding the admissibility of the book, but I accept and respect the decision of the community. You have the right to nominate again this page for deletion if you believe that you have some new/additional elements that may influence differently the decision taking process. I believe that you have not understood well the purpose of a merge proposal. --Tiger Chair (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Having a discussion about merging does not mean disrespect to community. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that. Please check Wikipedia:Merging, in particular WP:MERGEREASON.--Tiger Chair (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Reasons #2, #3 and possibly #4 of WP:MERGEREASON apply. Content of this page is sub-subject of another bigger subject. As about additional reasons to merge or delete, I am simply looking at your recent discussion above [6]. Anonymous authors? Informally speaking, I have seen a lot of garbage books published by Soviet propaganda. None of that is notable. None of that deserves a page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Although I voted for deletion, I now respect the consensus of the notability discussion that took place. We can keep the article as a proof that the book is not independent of the government, and thus cannot be used much (if at all) in articles about Tibet, the Dalai Lama and what not. I believe it currently is still quoted in a number of such articles, so as of right now, this article helps me and other editors to prove it cannot be used, or at least can only be used per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The book is not notable and good only for one purpose: to source the opinion by Chinese government on the subject. But their views are already included on the page Tibetan sovereignty debate. I think this page is a POV fork, among other things. BTW, you tell "I respect consensus". But there was "no consensus" on the AfD according to the closing admin. There is nothing to respect. My very best wishes (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, My very best wishes, you have now heard everyone's opinion. If you want more editors involved in the decision to merge or not, tag the page, i'd say. Or leave it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, this does not fit comfortable in Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, and the community has decided that it is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The notability discussion which as taken place was undecided, with neither a conclusion on the pro nor on the con side with regard to notability.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. As noted above, the book's subject is not propaganda in China and the book has been found by a majority of contributors to be of sufficient note to deserve an article. --Elnon (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The notability discussion which as taken place was undecided, with neither a conclusion on the pro nor on the con side with regard to notability--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger or deletion discussions for politically disputed articles should be [correction: should not be] local discussions on an article talk page but made in a more visible forum such as Articles for deletion or Proposed mergers. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion says: * Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.

The earlier deletion discussion ended on 7 October with a decision to keep the page based on no consensus. I realise that this is not a consensus in favour of keeping the page, but it is nevertheless too soon to reopen this issue.

We could follow the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers route, but merging a small article into a much larger article has a similar effect to deleting the smaller article by deleting most of its content and burying the rest in the larger article. Many AfD discussions result in a "merge and redirect" decision, and this "merger" discussion appears to be a reopening of the earlier deletion proposal. AfD is the appropriate forum for this discussion, but only after a "reasonable amount of time" has elapsed. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That's useful information. However, with regard to reopening the AfD or proposing a merger, please note that I have opposed both before on similar grounds as you are now. However, the fact that in the noticeboard discussion it was stated that no reliable sources could be found to find evidence of even basic information such as whether the subject of the article reflects mainstream scholarship or not, is new information and is indicative that the discussion should be reopened.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Merge}} and {{POV lead}} tags

Are they any objections to removing the {{merge}} and the {{POV lead}} tags from this article?

I added the {{POV lead}} tag because I thought a phrase in the lead was insufficiently neutral. After discussion this phrase was removed, and I think the current lead section is neutral.

The 2017 discussion of a possible merge was not concluded. If editors feel that this article should be merged or deleted then then I suggest they raise the issue at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Otherwise we should remove the tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This book is published by PRC arm for propaganda

This book is published by China Intercontinental Press. It is under the authority of the State Council Information Office, is a multimedia, comprehensive foreign communication institution, whose main function is to make propaganda products. This is the official page for China Intercontinental Press that says the same thing in Chinese(五洲传播中心（五洲传播出版社）隶属国务院新闻办公室，是以对外宣传品制作为主要特色的多媒体、综合性对外传播机构。). So the nature of the book is for PRC propaganda. Any objections to this characterization? --Happyseeu (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As long it is sourced.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No uniform standard for Propaganda

The first line of this article states, "The Historical Status of China's Tibet is a book published in 1997 in English by China Intercontinental Press, the propaganda press for the government of the People's Republic of China."

However, the word propaganda is not uniformly applied. While the Historical Status of China's Tibet is called a propaganda, none of Author John Alexander Armstrong's books are called "propaganda" despite the fact that his books were commissioned by the CIA.

I don't believe neutrality means "following the state department line." It should been providing even-keeled analysis and objectivity to issues and to use the same standards for classifying similar things.

Multiple American academics have been funded by the CIA, yet they do not get called "propaganda." https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP89G00720R000600620004-3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4200:29A0:2055:15B:93F2:D193 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda doesn't carry a negative connotation for communist parties, and the organization says the function of itself is to 'make propaganda products'. Unless there is an established standard (supported by WP:RS) for what is propaganda, the current treatment will do, just like we don't need to debate whether Chinese Communist Party is actually communist according to some uniform standard. Wikipedia can just acknowledge that it calls itself such. --Happyseeu (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)