Talk:Tibet/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

History section

The history section is incomplete and must include Rinpungpa Dynasty and Tsangpa Dynasty which ruled considerable parts of Tibet between 1435-1642 even though the Phagmodrupa Dynasty ruled the rest of Tibet form 1354 to 17th century.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And it also needs to mention the Ming Dynasty and their possible control of Tibet at that time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not find any source Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet stating Ming directly ruled over Tibet. Rather most of the sources there state otherwise and the debate is about the amount of influence it wielded over the rest of the dynasties which directly ruled over Tibet. I find Tibet during the Ming Dynasty too complex for my understanding and I would be unable to comment on it. However from what I get there is a reason the article is titled Tibet during the Ming Dynasty and not Tibet under the Ming Dynasty.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And the British didn't rule the whole of India - the thing is they had influence, and that point of view has to be included as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if British had 'influenced' or 'Ruled' India, a fact is that Indian soldiers still fought for the British across Asia and beyond on one side and the Japanese on the other side.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And if you said Tibet under the Ming Dynasty that would be making the claim that Tibet wasn't independent, which as it was uncertain wouldn't be acceptable - during leaves it ambiguous and neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said I found no source on Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet clearly saying Ming ruled Tibet and the debate only consists of the amount of "influence it wielded over the rest of the dynasties". On the page Ming_Dynasty#Relations_with_Tibet only one non-English Chinese reference remotely claim that "itinerant commanderies overseeing Tibetan administration". It must be noted even that purely non-English Chinese reference that must not have been placed on English wikipedia does not say that the Chinese commanderies administered Tibet themselves while clearly stating they were itinerant and did not possess any main HQ of administration office. All the other references counter the claim in different ways. The section goes on to state a Mongol-Tibetan alliance was formed, something that can only be formed between 2 separate nations. I don't where is the doubt except in the minds of some editors that could read Chinese sources written in Chinese on English wikipedia.

95% of the sources on Tibet_during_the_Ming_Dynasty say the same thing and ones hinting the opposite(all of which are Chinese) do not absolutely and clearly state Ming directly ruled Tibet and instead say that Ming had influence over dynasties that ruled Tibet. I would like to mention here, that even according to WP:FRINGE and administrators on WP:FTN along with my experience a fringe theory can be added if there around 4-5 highly reliable references all of whom should clearly state the fringe theory with possibly neutral descriptions of claims. I however think this is clearly a case of WP:COATRACK--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I just think this article should say the same thing that the Featured article does, but I'm prepared not to push this point too much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions, neither of you have presented a single source on here, and UplinkAsh especially is too content on touting his minimal knowledge of policy. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear before I'm content not to include this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further NPOV issues

From the lead "In 1950, the newly established Communist China led by Mao Zedong invaded independent Tibet claiming it to be a part of China.[2] Today, most of cultural Tibet is ruled as autonomous areas by the People's Republic of China, while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama represents itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet with a Tibetan independence movement active throughout the world."

Firstly given it is impossible to invade your own sovereign territory the claim that Mao invaded Tibet is POV as it strongly implies that Tibet wasn't Chinese sovereign territory. Probably saying something like "Mao's troops entered Tibet" would be better, the use of the word invaded also needs changing further down the article as well.

Secondly the exiled Central Tibetan Administrator only claims to be the only legitimate government we shouldn't take its claims too seriously which the current text appears to. I think "while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama claims itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet" is better.

Finally given the Tibetan independence movement isn't at all supported in the rest of China (which makes up a good chunk of the world's population), that it is entirely unrecognised by the world's governments and that most of the world's population probably doesn't give a damn about Tibet either way I think the statement "with a Tibetan independence movement active throughout the world." should be removed entirely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Revisions 1 and 2. Not so sure about the last one, as the movement is still significant, yet we don't want to attract WP:UNDUE weight on it. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the independence movement still significant, even outside of Tibet? I would say no, because for the last few decades, the exile government and lackey advocacy groups have been saying that it's okay for Chinese rule to continue and that they just want more autonomy. The CTA-as-government-of-Tibet is fringe beyond fringe; no government recognizes CTA rule over Tibet instead of China's. I support both changes with no prejudice towards further cleanup. Quigley (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should say "independence/autonomy" movement? Wikipedia has an article titled Tibetan independence movement, but maybe that should move, since some activists argue for independence while other pretty closely associated activists do not.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The movement seems pretty centralized around the dictates of the Dalai Lama, and the full independence people like the Tibetan Youth Congress have been marginalized and treated as radicals as of late. I was thinking of moving that article to "Free Tibet movement", which is vague enough to incorporate both independence and autonomy desires. Quigley (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made changes along the lines discussed here to Tibet Autonomous Region. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the word "invasion of Tibet" should be changed. It is exactly the word used to described by the media groups and other reliable sources to describe Chinese aggression in Tibet except Chinese media which calls it as "Liberation"

Secondly, no one is implying that China "invade it's own sovereign territory". The line states "China invaded independent Tibet claiming it to be a part of China". This was certainly the case as Tibet was independent before the Chinese aggression and is even mentioned in the article presently. I could include more reliable references if required and requested by other editors.

In the sentence "while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama claims itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet", the sentence was "while the exiled Central Tibetan Administration led by Dalai Lama represents itself as the only legitimate government of Tibet" before the wording was changed and the grammatical error was introduced. I think the wording "represents itself" can be safely reintroduced since "represents itself" already means "claim" while implying that other countries may not recognize it.

Lastely, "with a Tibetan independence movement active throughout the world. should be removed entirely." I do not see why it should be removed if it is active, even if the rest of the world does not recognize it officially. It is equivalent to saying that all mention of Cuban rebels and Taiwan should be removed since the the rest of the world does not recognize them officially.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is Tibet was only de-facto independent before 1950 and as China had been chaotic since the end of the Qing dynasty there is a legitimate point of view that Tibet was actually sovereign Chinese territory at the time. You cannot invade your own sovereign territory, and thus the word invaded doesn't meet NPOV as it implies that Tibet was legitimately independent before 1950. Our sources don't have to meet neutrality criteria, so they can state that Tibet was invaded.

Secondly you realise that no country recognises the CTA? I would prefer that we say they are unrecognised too, but I feel that could be POV pushing the other way. The issue with "represents itself" is that it implies to me that Wikipedia thinks their claims have significant weight.

Finally as shown above the Tibetan independence movement is very fringe, so they shouldn't be included here - even the Dalai Lama only wants greater autonomy.

Fundamentally the thing you have to recognise is that on neutrality grounds we have to take the Chinese version of history seriously - and that states that China has ruled Tibet for 700 years - so we cannot write text that implies or states that we don't take that view of history seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are saying a country can only become independent by law if it takes permission form China before going independent otherwise it is illegal and de-facto?? This might the POV of Chinese government but the rest of the world and historical sources recognizes that Tibet was independent before Chinese invasion and continue to mention it as an invasion. Also the 700 rule statement only highlights your own bias and again only Chinese government has this POV. Reliable sources outside China do not support. You can mention the Chinese POV specifically stating as Chinese view but POV of the rest of the world should not be censored. You for example can say China calls it an liberation rather than invasion.

Regarding CTA the discussion is not about whether it is recognized whether it is active around the world or not and whether it has received due weight on the page. The article for Cuba for example still contain information about Cuban rebels even though their organization no longer exists. Completely removing any mention it is certainly against wikipedia policy.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but which foreign powers recognised Tibet as being independent between 1912 and 1950? To be independent you are required to be recognised by foreign powers. And did the Tibetan government even say they were independent of China during that period? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it is indeed strange why UN did not recognize Tibet then itself and why would British fight Tibetan forces but Chinese did not fight invading British, why would Tibetans not participated in WW2 in spite of Japanese invading Chinese, why would China invade Tibet in anyway after WW2, why would the Dalai Lama had to move out of Tibet to anywhere in spit of the fact that Ethnic Tibetans present no threat to China or PRC in any cultural way, why after more than 60 years after 1950 there is still a kind of silence of Ethnic Tibetans from Tibet here in Wikipedia the way we are discussing this. I would really like to have independent reliable sources to discuss all these.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would guess the reason the UN didn't recognise Tibet is that one of its founding members (the Republic of China) claimed Tibet, and that its other members didn't recognise it as being independent of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(out of line just commenting of behavior of UN) Yes I am amused how UN, again like war crimes in Sri Lanka, has to take this conditional approach of doing things only if members agree or veto etc. So at UN for Sri Lanka it seems silence is more convinient instead of work in spite of war crimes in Sri Lanka.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, you are bordering dangerously on WP:FORUM here. With your questions I don't think you were considering the events in the the rest of China during this period. Firstly, most Chinese were contending with a transition from monarchy to a republic/warlord state (answers Q1). About WWII, the Tibetans had, until 1950, minimum contact with any Chinese government, and since the Japanese failed at penetrating into areas like Sichuan and Gansu, Tibetans would not have been highly concerned. As far I see it, the PLA invaded Tibet as part of its greater "liberation" campaign of the mainland. --–HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just on a side note I would like to say that Tibetans and Indians were also dealing with the transitions. In fact Indians were dealing with much severe effects of partition, then later also absence of Industry and so on so I would say everyone was dealing with the same.Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not discussing whether Tibet was a part of China or not, with Chinese editors here, specially who have only provided only theories and personal analysis rather then references flouting WP:FORUM themselves. I could provide multiple reliable sources along with the one already present, defining the aggression as invasion. Other editors could provide sources where it is called liberation and both can be added. It must however be remembered that editors cannot themselves create or invent names for events around the world on wikipedia.

Regarding the attempts to completely censor the Tibetan independence movement, I would say this is the height of bias and POV pushing. On one hand an editor wants to add a whole section of data based on absolutely unconfirmed and doubtful events and sources that if wrong would have not affected Tibet at all and correct would at most have indirectly affected Tibet. He however wants a single line of mention absolutely conformed and live event that directly and presently effect Tibet and can be backed by multiple neutral sources to be removed. I don't see how a civil discussion is possible with such an editor. I would request the editor to tone down his bias and approach the article in a neutral and balanced manner.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any foreign power recognised Tibet as being independent, thus to say the Chinese invaded the territory breaks WP:NPOV. That is the point we are making here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no instances of unambiguous foreign powers unambiguously recognising Tibetan independence in the 20th century. There are plenty of examples of foreign powers treating Tibet ambiguously. Mongolia explicitly recognised Tibet's independence in 1913 in the Treaty of friendship and alliance, but Mongolia's own status as a sovereign power at the time was questionable. Another example is that in 1951, El Salvador raised Tibet's case before the United Nations using language that clearly seemed to assume that the military conflict was an international incident, which seems to mean that the government of El Salvador did believe Tibet was an independent country, despite the fact that El Salvador had never established diplomatic relations with Tibet. In general, the world treated Tibet as a special case between 1913 and 1951.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, why has the word annexation of Tibet has been used when no reliable source uses it. As already stated China calls it Liberation while the rest of the world calls it Invasion. Either one or both can be used but no original research should be done by editors. The following are reliable sources which call it Invasion.

• [1]

Also why has the 200k figure again, based on original research, have been added without sources and the "one-fifth of the population" statement been removed. I have already stated I could provide sources to back up both data.

I would also repeat again, the hat note should mention either only disambiguation or should state that the article is main article. This article is certainly not only about economy and culture of Tibet.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the UN website gives a range. So we should too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Manchu Qing" and Hatnote, revisited

UplinkAsh, I will allow you to explain yourself here. I am willing to discuss some of the minor wording and the hatnote (even again), but not the 1 million issue.

• "Manchu Qing" and "Mongol Yuan"

Is this really necessary? As I said in one edit summary, the Qing Dynasty is the Qing Dynasty, and the Yuan Dynasty is the Yuan Dynasty. Your versions of these two headers are both wordy, complicated (and thus confusing to the reader), and purely pushing POV and WP:POINT.

It was accepted by everyone except you. Read carefully.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Manchu Qing" certainly was not. And with Mongol Yuan, it could be said that Eraserhead does not agree with you. And...Yuan Dynasty is Yuan Dynasty. Surely we can mention the origins in the respective sections, but "Mongol Yuan" implies a POV and reinforces the viewpoint on Tibet (full) independence activists that the Yuan was not Chinese at all. Titling the section "Yuan Dynasty" does not imply much, and certainly does not 'comment' on whether it was Chinese or Mongol. In short, adding no qualification to the dynasties gives no implicit POV. That which you cannot (and refuse to) see.–HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well put. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hatnote

The purpose of linking to the TAR at the very top of this article is one, to serve as disambiguation (which you may or may not understand), and to make it (in my interpretation) especially clear to the reader that Wikipedia does not equate Tibet with TAR, at least when "Tibet" is not listed alongside other PRC province-level divisions. Same thing with China and the PRC articles. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the main article not an article for economy and culture. A link to disambiguation would be enough. This has also been discussed above.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussed, but only you seem to wish to simplify the hatnote.–HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it seems pretty likely that people would be confused between Tibet and the TAR, and it should be explicitly included in the hatnote here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

need editing of english grammar

did english changed in the last 10 years or so because I do not remember using words such as tibetan people seem to be correct. it should either be tibetans or indiginous people of tibet. please correct me if I am wrong. keep reading this article seeing worlds such as han people or hui people. should the correct terms be hans or hui muslims? {{unsigned|Eastern2western|09:40 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and change it :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)