Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

typo

In footnote 27 there's a typo - "Position" is spelled "Possion" see below:

^ Robert McCorquodale, Nicholas Orosz (eds.) The Posiion of Tibet in International Law, Serindia Publishers.

Should be ^ Robert McCorquodale, Nicholas Orosz (eds.) The Position of Tibet in International Law, Serindia Publishers.

wording

The wording of this article is highly pro-TGIE. We need to fix it until NPOV is reached. For example, the PRC government and even ROC claims/ed Tibet according to the Succession of states principle. Wording like PLA invasion is accepted while "Chinese invasion" and the table are unquestionably POV--218.189.215.153 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

article title

Title changed as the original one is unquestionably POV.

  • The Tibetan government-in-exile of course considers PLA's action as invasion, BUT
  • Beijing insists that the PLA crossed Tibet-Xikang border after the seventeen-point agreement was signed
  • Tibet's acceptance of subordination to Chinese suzerainty predated the founding of the PRC. E.g., Simla Convention of 1914 and Kashag's Ten-point statement during the Huang Musong Mission
  • PRC claimed Tibet Region according to the internationally-accepted Principle of Succession of States. MainBody (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
the word invasion is the best describe. Please discuss before changing again--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"the word is the best describe" and it is your argument? Obviously, as MB clearly stated, having invasion in the article title obviously violates NPOV(per points [2],[3] and [4] above) 219.79.27.241 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have moved it back to operations for a wiki middle-ground name. West/Tibet side is calling it an invasion. PRC side is calling it a peaceful liberation. I guess both have their intentions. Benjwong (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Invasion is the most descriptive and encyclopedic name. See, example 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is not POV. When troops enter another country it means invasion (it isn't biased, it's descriptive) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure Why you would use an Iraq-US comparison? You are better off comparing the CCP storming into Shanghai. At least that was the same party followed by some kind of negative anti-cultural campaigns. If you are actively researching this topic, you should read this piece also available at google books. Basically Xagabba and Van Praag said nothing of the British invasion of Tibet in 1888 and 1904. Interestingly on wiki there is a British expedition to Tibet article. On pg 183 the author Jiawei Wang said they created the name "theory of Chinese Communist invasion of Tibet" to shock the world. This is exactly why I am having a hard time with the "invasion" title. Shouldn't we label either both articles an invasion, or both an expedition for consistency? Benjwong (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like "expedition"... You know, by saying invasion, we are not accusing PRC, only saying facts- entering a foreign country in war or peace is both invasion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Who said they were entering a foreign country? Clearly read point 3 above which implies it was no longer foreign country, once the principle of Chinese control over Tibet was admitted (in 1914 and 1934), then the use of force by the Chinese within Tibet's boundaries cannot be considered invasion. FYI, this is what Tibetans, represented by Lochen Shatra, voluntarily signed in 1914: "It is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory."(3 July 1914) 158.182.31.185 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't take anything Wang Jiawei says too seriously. He gets off to a bad start by contradicting himself: "the Central People's Government planned the peaceful liberation of Tibet" and "the Chinese People's Liberation Army ... put to rout the resistance by Tibetan separatists" and "China thus succeeded in the peaceful liberation of Tibet". Was it peaceful, or did they have to put rout to somebody in the process? In any event, I don't think it is very likely that the concept of "invasion of Tibet" was coined by a specific person for a specific purpose. However, "invasion" does introduce a bias in this situation. As the Fear God points out, "When troops enter another country it means invasion"—and it would not be neutral for us to assume one way or the other that the parties involved were or weren't two separate countries.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I was trying to show this has been debated before some 10 years ago in the 1990s by Wang Jiawei. The discrepencies are so far off. On the tibet side, coming from the Dalai Lama himself he is providing death statistics of the occupation in a span of 26 years. On the PRC side, they implied they practically walked in to do paperwork. Even in the Tibet page, it saids "the British expedition did take the lives of a few thousand unprepared Tibetan soldiers and civilians. The biggest massacre took place on March 31, 1904 at a mountain pass halfway to Gyantse near a village called Guru." Can we get some expertise on how the 1904 massacre doesn't count as an invasion, but the 1950 event does? Benjwong (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a move at the main tibet talk page. Feel free to take a look. Benjwong (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The weird analogy of US invasion of Iraq obviously doesn't work as Iraq had historically never accepted any form of subordination to Washington. After a lengthy discussion I recovered the move. - MainBody (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We are still in discussion technically at Talk:Tibet#Tibet invasion or not discussion and Talk:Tibet#Tibet invasion or not discussion:continue. Benjwong (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


See Tibet#Rule of the People's Republic of China: "Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet". Like it or not the newly-formed Communist Government of China possessed uninterrupted dejure rights entering Tibet and other parts of the Chinese state per Succession of states principle.

Also take a look at Tibetan sovereignty debate for a good example of balancing proindependence, pro-Beijing and third-party viewpoints 219.79.27.59 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess all these news outlets are using the term "invasion" incorrectly? Yaan (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as I'm throwing my two cents in here, I think it fits the definition of an invasion, but barely. It's pretty PC to call it "operations", given that in English it is virtually exclusively referred to as an invasion. Here's the funny thing - at the time, I don't think it was perceived as an invasion by a lot of Tibetans, but in hindsight it's become clear that that is what it was. So what do we call it? Again, I vote for "invasion", based on common usage and hindsight, but I'm not going to get overly exercised about it either. Alexwoods (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I am not saying the use of <invasion> is completely wrong and, being realistic, it has been very common in western media sources, but at least it is soft-POV. BTW, kindly note that the Anjouan invasion involves foreign parties. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best wording would be "occupation". This is because China gave Tibet 8 years to make adjustments, and Tibet did not progress towards economic growth or democracy.

motivation/causes

This is enormously frustrating. I posted changes after seeing that this encyclopaedic entry runs contrary to any normal description of an invasion. There is reference to an invasion and then it segues in a nonsensical way to the 17 point agreement - gibberish without clarity for anyone who is not a Tibet-China scholar. We have the right to read about an invasion and its details clearly and succintly, not in code that normal elementary school students wouldn't understand, or anyone else for that matter. There needs to be a clearly writeen section describing the run up, the motivation behind, the execution of and finally the results of the invasion. An invasion, by the way, even if some may apparently be loath to hear, is only rarely not an act of agression under international law, and is proscribed in modern times.

Here is what I tried to enter, and then it was almost immediately taken down.

" In 1949, the People's Republic of China was formally proclaimed. On 7 October 1950, the PRC carried out an armed attack against the neighboring independent country of Tibet. As a consequence of the invasion by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Tibet lost its independence - a condition that continues to exist."

Someone keeps changing it back to the cryptic stuff that is currently posted. I am not going to suggest I did a great job, it was a quick edit, but it is true and it is to the point, it does not obscure what happened. I wonder who it is among Tibet's neighbors who is interested in obscuring what took place? The near-instantaneous reversions of the text to confusing prose is impressive, someone very badly wants what transpired in Tibet to not be told on Wikipedia.

Everywhere else in Wikipedia belligerents are countries, here it keeps getting changed back to armies! Talk about ham-fisted propagandistic obfuscation! As if China had not been the belligerent on one side and independent Tibet on the other.

I refer the reader to Wikipedia itself for a no-nonsense description of Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939: this is a good example of a way to tackle the job, in place of the tendentious and substandard "Invasion of Tibet (1950-1951) that currently drags down the reputation of Wikipedia.

I quote: "The invasion of Poland marked the start of World War II in Europe, as Poland's western allies, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand,[6] declared war on Germany on September 3, soon followed by France, South Africa and Canada, among others. The invasion began on September 1, 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and ended October 6, 1939, with Germany and the Soviet Union occupying the entirety of Poland. Although the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany soon after Germany attacked Poland, very little direct military aid was provided (see Phoney War and Western betrayal).

Following a German-staged "Polish attack" on August 31, 1939, on September 1, German forces invaded Poland from the north, south, and west. Spread thin defending their long borders, the Polish armies were soon forced to withdraw eastward. After the mid-September Polish defeat in the Battle of the Bzura, the Germans gained an undisputed advantage. Polish forces then began a withdrawal southeast, following a plan that called for a long defense in the Romanian bridgehead area, where the Polish forces were to await an expected Allied counterattack and relief.[7]

On September 17, 1939, the Soviet Red Army invaded the eastern regions of Poland in cooperation with Germany.[8] The Soviets were carrying out their part of the secret appendix of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence.[9] Facing the second front, the Polish government decided the defense of the Romanian bridgehead was no longer feasible and ordered the evacuation of all troops to neutral Romania.[10] By October 1, Germany and the Soviet Union completely overran Poland, although the Polish government never surrendered."

I rest my case--Sean Maleter (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the intro to this article as it stands is not very clear. But, wouldn't the language you suggest show a clear political bias?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BIAS!

I could not believe this article! Has no body else noticed the extreme pro-china bias that i have? The whole thing sounds like something that would come out of Beijing. I mean all you have to do is take a look at the sources cited to see what i mean! Sources: 1, 2, 8 and 10 can all be immediately discredited via this article: [1]

I think that this site needs a serious revision and should have a warning until that is done. Thank you.

--76.28.211.85 (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Honestly, not too many WIKIPEDIA editors regard the politcally-motivated "Students For a Free Tibet" as neutral sources. In order to reach NPOV, viewpoints from all sides, proindependence, pro-unification or third-party, should be presented. Clearly read the webarticle you posted yourself, there is no evidence showing any connection between the Tibetologists and CCP as you claim. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just a ridiculous comment by 76.28.211.85. The xinhua source was used to dig up the name of the event in the Native characters. Benjwong (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look if you weren't so ignorant and you would actually READ the article i linked, you might understand. i never suggested (and neither did the article i posted) that Goldstein or Parenti (who's information is all cited from Goldstein) were connected to the CCP, only that they're claims and "facts" are one-sided and heavily chinese in POV. Any fair minded person could see this from reading the cited article [2]. Parenti starts out attacking Buddhism then goes on to attack Tibet itself. Is anyone going to say that THAT is a NPOV source? He literally paints pre-1950 Tibetan leaders as cruel, greedy slave owners with a "professional army" to "hunt down runaway surfs". It's disgusting the way he insults the entire Tibetan culture. I urge you to read the article i linked and tell me why it cannot be trusted and how you can still use Parenti and Goldstein as the primary sources in this article! you say that viewpoints from all sides should be presented yet you disregard the viewpoint apposing the ONLY viewpoint presented (that of Goldstein's and Parenti's). This whole issue is well stated by -208.16.91.142. The fact of the matter is that what the Chinese did was repulsive and this article has nothing to say about that. The pursuit of third-party and NPOV information should not dull down the severity of what happened. Wikipedia shouldn't be afraid to say something was wrong just because it is a point of view not shared by all (the chinese). With events like what happened in Tibet, there is no way to present the history without taking a side. All i'm asking is that we don't take the side of those commie pigs.

--76.28.211.85 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ranting on the talk page is not how things get done around here. If you think something is wrong with an article, then you should follow Wikipedia guidelines, make a username, and start make careful edits that improve the article as well as the quality of debate. Whatever else you can say about the rabidly pro-Chinese editors, they are at least superficially following the rules. Alexwoods (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You really need to calm down. This is wikipedia. We'll call a pig, a pig. But your source Studentsforafreetibet from "Joshua Michael Schrei" is too obvious. He is basically saying don't use a "Parenti" source because this Yale scholar has limited materials and doesn't know Chinese or Tibetan. This is a weak argument regardless of what actually went on in Tibet before 1950. We can say that about every English-only scholar who studied Chinese culture. For the sake of keeping this debate short, there is only 1 paragraph in this article to user a Parenti source. It isn't that controversial, if you want to delete it, go right ahead. Benjwong (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Although, it does tend to corroborate the earlier racist comment that Westerners don't understand Tibet. Seriously though, Parenti has a PhD from Yale, but he is not a Tibet scholar or a China scholar and is primarily known as an author of poorly researched screeds. He is a terrible source by any definition. Alexwoods (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


The word "invasion" is not vandalism

If you think it is, then you are missing the point in Wikipedia. We freely refer to the U.S.'s "army operations" in Iraq as an invasion. Why are you so unwilling to to give on this one point? I've noticed that those admins that watch articles like hawks usually have a vested interest in having their version of the truth pushed in these articles. How convenient. I guess Wikipedia has become the "Ministry of Information." In case you don't get the reference, the Ministry of Information in the book 1984 is in charge of misinformation. --208.16.91.142 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this was already mentioned at Talk:Tibet#Tibet invasion or not discussion and Talk:Tibet#Tibet invasion or not discussion:continue. Benjwong (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Alexwoods - sorry for any flack I threw your way. I just get a little angry when -- well, you know. I guess we're still fighting the Chinese. Better with words than bullets.

--208.16.91.142 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

May I recommend you get on a mainland forum and tell the people what you really think in their language. You are yelling at the wrong people. Benjwong (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Parenti

Ben, it looks like the China Quarterly supports the statement in the text just as well as Parenti does. Would you be ok with keeping the body text the way it is but removing the Parenti cite so that just the Orleans article is cited? Alexwoods (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is best if you recite the Parenti source the way you prefer. I was never that critical of that paragraph. The problem is that people think Parenti is pro-PRC. If you have ever read books pushed out by people like Andy Zhang like this, it may appear even more pro-PRC. He mentions the Xikang-Tibet and Qinghai-Tibet highways, Damxung airport, water conservation projects, modern banks and all the modernizations are put into Tibet by China. The best way to tackle this article is have a pro-China-modernization section, and a pro-old-Tibet-culture section. Benjwong (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood. The problem with Parenti is not that he is pro-PRC, it's that he's not a reputable scholar. Alexwoods (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just removed that whole section from Parenti. Benjwong (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. See my change. The text for which Parenti was cited is a valid and important point, but Parenti is a bad source. What do you think? Alexwoods (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see what you mean. You just recited with the original source. Thats fine. Benjwong (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly

This user's game is that he takes out cited material without explanation and then accuses other editors of revert warring when they put it back. I plan to continue reverting him until he stops. Alexwoods (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to split the aftermath section to PRC perspective and Tibetan perspective and European perspective. We are squeezing too many non-relevant views into 1 aftermath. Benjwong (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. You can probably combine the non-PRC perspectives into one section. Alexwoods (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Let’s see what I did
1)I added citation to the following statement “The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1969 when the CIA abruptly withdrew its support.[citation needed]”
2) I added the following material backed by a source “However, according to Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, the estimate is not reliable. The Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. French says this total was based on refugee interviews, but prevented outsider access to the data. French, who did gain access, found no names, but "the insertion of seemingly random figures into each section, and constant, unchecked duplication." [1]”
3) I removed this phrase “under PLA military pressure” which is not supported by any material.

Alexwoods (talk), care to point out what "cited material" I removed? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We have the Dalai Lama stats only because they are the victim. The general person knows it probably isn't 100% accurate. That would be my only support of putting the Patrick French view in there. Is like asking the people suffering and running away to count statistics, they are in no shape to do it. Benjwong (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

LB's recent changes are in the wrong section (supposed to be for world opinion), include weasel words, and are of questionable relevance to the military action that is the subject of this article. Not a constructive contribution, IMO. What does everyone else think? Alexwoods (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The cites are also wrong (Felix Greene was not writing about events in 1996 in his 1968 book). The changes to the aftermath section are not about the aftermath either. This editor has accused me of 3RR violations so I'm not going to revert these changes right away, but I note that they were not passed by the talk page first, they contain inaccuracies, and they do not add to or fit with the rest of the article. Alexwoods (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
So much material on this page, including those added by me, are not directly related to the military actions. They should all be moved elsewhere when we reach a consensus. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's my contribution to consensus. I think the changes are irrelevant and make the article into a mess, and I think they should be pulled. Also I find it very hard to believe that they were made in good faith. Alexwoods (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article is “People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951).” Anything not related to military action between 1950 to 1951 should go—-that means a big portion of the page. Why single out my material? Should we start making a list? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that LB has just nominated me for a 3RR block, and reinserted his pro-Chinese paragraph about the 1959 uprising into an article about 1951. This change is really offensive, as I have pointed out repeatedly. It is not relevant to this article and it's being put in purely out of a desire to make China look good, which is not the point of this encyclopedia. It would really be great if some of the other editors that have been working on this article would chime in on this issue, as I am both tired of reverting this crap all the time and not interested in getting a block. Thanks in advance. Alexwoods (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben's Changes

Good edits, Ben. I will try to get in there and do some cleanup later. Glad to see this article is getting somewhere. Alexwoods (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems.

"A system of serfdom of an appallingly repressive nature actually prevailed there until it was abolished by the Chinese government in 1959." "The happiness and prosperity promised under Chinese communism were realized to be slogans of lies and deception." Are you kidding me? This isn't how to write an encyclopaedia article. Instead of edit-warring, change the tone, please. And avoid articles from the 1960s like Goldstein and his ilk who are now considered thoroughly outdated and have been repeatedly debunked. Relata refero (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article needs major clean up. In my opinion, anything that is not relate to the military action in 1950 and 1951 should go. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive contribution! A good place to start would be for you, personally, to stop adding stuff that is unrelated, and to delete the unrelated paragraphs you added yesterday. Also, please don't let your enthusiasm for making this article relevant be a reason to cut anything that you perceive as anti-PRC out of the article. Thanks in advance. Alexwoods (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your bias is so apparent and your action is so …pity. I am going to put those paragraphs back until there is a plan to remove all “unrelated” material. Opinion from other editors are also needed, so far, you are the only one complaining about all of those paragraphs. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Alexwoods, when you single out an editor and his contribution you are not editing with good faith. I am going to show you the unbiased/conflict free approach for fixing the problem. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Vote

A lot of material in the article does not relate to the topic of the article which is “People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951).” They also provoke conflicts as we can see on this page. To improve the article’s readability and eliminate conflict, I suggest that everything not related to the topic be removed. If you support this approach please vote yes, if not please vote no. To show your cooperation and respect for others please refrain from removing anything until an agreement is reached here. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Does anyone know what we are voting on? Is this going to give LB carte blanche to remove anything that they think is not relevant? I don't see anything irrelevant in the article as it stands right now. Does anyone else? Wikipedia has a policy on relevance - in brief, we're supposed to remove anything irrelevant - so are we voting about whether that is a good policy, or whether it should apply to this article maybe? LB, instead of making this absolutely asinine poll, maybe you should show your "cooperation and respect for others" by not introducing irrelevant material into articles in the first place, and by leaving your racist rants off of the talk pages. Alexwoods (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for Ben and Sean to vote. Once we have a consensus on removing material irrelevant to PLA action in 1950 and 1951, we can then make a list of this irrelevant material.

Alexwoods, you are so annoying and so incredible biased against China and its people. Apparently it is ok to call China brutal and the Chinese uncivilized, but pointing out the brutality of Britain and U.S. is “racist rants.” I am beginning to think that you don’t have the intellectual capacity of recognizing right from wrong. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. You are having a hard time understanding that Britain and the US are not on trial in this article. If you feel like trashing those countries - and apparently you do - then go vandalize Opium Wars, Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs, or Kurdistan. This article is about a historical event, and our aim in editing it is to make sure that it is as fair and true as possible. It is emphatically not about making China look good or bad. Irrelevant and chauvinistic statements will be summarily removed by me, and I hope by other editors as well. You have repeated made it clear, both through your actions and through explicit, bigoted statements on this talk page, that your purpose in editing this article is to make China look good and other countries look bad, and that you think Westerners are, by virtue of their being Westerners, not qualified to try to understand this problem. Let me tell you something - you don't know a god damned thing about me, or what I think or feel about China, or what qualifications I have. I think you have no credibility as an editor. Alexwoods (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Britain and the US defeated the Nazis. The US helped Asians in fighting Japanese invaders. I give them a lot of credit for that. All the material I’ve ever added comes from western scholars. I am not trying to make China look good or bad. I am trying to present the facts. Between you and me, I think I am better qualified to edit these articles. I am not angry, I don’t use personal attacks against opponent and I am not presumptuous.--Littlebutterfly (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support In particular, the entire 'Statistics' and 'Perspective' sections should go. Both sections are attempts to turn the description of military action during a specific time period into a referendum on the Chinese presence in Tibet since 1950. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not supported Although the principle is correct, I do not support littlebutterfly's motivations for bringing this poll. He seems to be using it to justify editing activities which he has not detailed. As such this attempt to gain consensus is completely unhelpful and cannot be used as an excuse for editing behaviour. Also, please note that there is no "polling" on Wikipedia - it is not a democracy.

I have removed additions per Alex's comments above. The text removed is heavily POV in that it appears to have been added simply to give a blanket justification for the PLA's activities in Tibet, which is completely inappropriate, and does not attempt in the slightest to give a different interpretation to events.

Furthermore I am not sure if the subject matter is relevant to the article. LB, if you don't want irrelevant material in the article don't add it/restore it. John Smith's (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Smith, at least half of the material in the article are not related to the topic. The material I added is no more irrelevant than others, why just remove mine? This material comes from western scholars—they are not pro-PRC propaganda. Trying to reach a consensus is what we must do when there is a conflict. Although you do not have the consensus to remove this material, I only restored one small part of it. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Disapprove. Is there another article about the totality of the PRC's actions in Tibet between 1950-1 and 1958? If not, then this one should be moved to a more appropriate title. Relata refero (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not supported because there is not really anything being voted on, this vote on 'irrelevant information' is ineffectual and is is comparable to being "pro-puppies, anti-hitler" while at the same time giving a perceived license to blanket edit to an obviously biased editor (look at LB's contribution history, while we are on the subject, take a look at Apple88's and all the 219. and 220. anon IPs... see a pattern?) Rubico (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I support at the least moving the article to "Resumption of Chinese administration in Tibet (1950-1951)" or "(post 1950)". Also the information about the spanish court is somewhat a contradiction. Here we are saying Tibet was not recognized internationally, but we have international reactions?! Benjwong (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since much material do not directly relate to action in those two years, I suggest that we remove “(1950-1951)” from the title of the article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make that change until other people have discussed it. I don't think it's a good idea - this article should be about the specific incident, referred to in the English-speaking world as the "invasion" of Tibet, not about all PLA activities in Tibet throughout history. Alexwoods (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure removing the constraint of "1950-1951" is a good idea. While we can have later analysis of the events of 50-51, I fear removing it will start making this article a duplicate of other Tibet articles. Longchenpa (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

other perspective section

The following statement in “Other perspective” section is not a perspective. I just removed it. “Charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, state terrorism and torture were investigated by a Spanish court in 2006.[2]”--Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added it back in, although I agree that it was too skimpy. I've added the 1987 Human Rights Caucus that Tom Lantos is referring here.[3]. Longchenpa (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this source is that it hears from witnesses and it plans on filing claims. But there are absolutely no results listed. Every person suspected might have walked out innocent in 2006. You are better off finding another source that is similar, preferably one with results. Benjwong (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was there for the testimony in 1987, I just need Tom Lantos' final findings. Also, Amnesty International's report is pretty thorough. ETA: Oh, you removed the investigation in Spain? Longchenpa (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone else have readded it. Better talk to that user. I would personally prefer a source from Amnesty International's final report. Benjwong (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Yes, Amnesty International is very specific. I also have the three UN General Assembly resolutions in 1959, 1961, and 1965. The German Federal Parliament passed a resolution on October 15, 1987 stating that since 1950 China had deprived the Tibetans of self-determination. There's the May 1991 US Senate resolution that declared Tibet an occupied country. In November 1991 the Australian Human Rights delegation invited by China determined there were human rights violations in Tibet (they weren't invited back in '92). The January 1993 Conference of International Lawyers on Issues Relating to Self-Determination declared that since the military action of 1949-50, Tibet has been under the alien occupation.
The Australian report might not belong in this article because it was really addressing the situation as of 1991, rather than the 1950 invasion. Longchenpa (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PRC Perspective section

Ben, please explain what you think the new language adds to the article. I am going to take out "to acheive equality" because the motivation of the action is not proved by the action and also probably not relevant. Alexwoods (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it. The original view from Mao should be expressed for historical purpose. Yes I know, we can all 100% agree that the outcome of the actual campaign has a complete opposite result. But views like this explain why so many people in the PRC has a hard time seeing the operation as an actual invasion. Benjwong (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it so that it reads neutrally. Please discuss the change here before reverting it. Thanks. Alexwoods (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The following sentence is invalid “International and Tibetan sources generally refer to the event as an invasion.[4][5][6][7][8]” Has any government identified the PLA action as an invasion? Do Tibetans living in Tibet call it an invasion? Longchenpa, you need to provide sources to back this statement before putting it back in. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the five sources I've provided. So far. Yes, the Tibetans call it an invasion. Yes, the German parliament calls it an invasion. Yes, the US congress calls it an invasion. Yes, the International Commission of Jurists refers to it as an invasion (http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3415&lang=en). It's referred to in the media as an invasion (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/094gntoy.asp?pg=2). Military analysts call it an invasion (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/tibet.htm). The Center for World Indigenous Studies calls it an invasion (http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/Eurasia/whitepap.txt).
No other point in this article has required five sources of reference, let alone the eight I've provided here. I've now put seven in the article. Longchenpa (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the word "international" here is the list of commissioners for the International Commission of Jurists, with their countries:
Abdullahi An-Na'im, Sudan
Solomy Balungi Bossa, Uganda
Julio Barboza, Argentina
Ian Binnie, Canada
Alexander Bröstl, Slovakia
Juan Antonio Carrillo Salcedo, Spain
Christine Chanet, France
Arthur Chaskalson, South Africa
Rajeev Dhavan, India
Vojin Dimitrijevic, Serbia and Montenegro
Louise Doswald-Beck, Switzerland
Unity Dow, Botswana
John Dowd, Australia
Vera Duarte, Cape-Verde
Paula Escarameia, Portugal
Elizabeth Evatt, Australia
Jochen A. Frowein, Germany
Gustavo Gallón Giraldo, Colombia
Stellan Gärde, Sweden
Ruth Gavison, Israel
Jenny Goldschmidt, Netherlands
Lord William Goodhart, United Kingdom
Asma Jahangir, Pakistan
David Kretzmer, Israel
Kazimierz Maria Lankosz, Poland
Gladys Veronica Li, Hong Kong
Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Chile
Kathurima M'Inoti, Kenya
Karinna Moskalenko, Russia
Pedro Nikken, Venezuela
Manfred Nowak, Austria
Andrei Richter, Russia
Michèle Rivet, Canada
Mary Robinson, Ireland
Nigel Rodley,United Kingdom
A.K.M. Sadeque, Bangladesh
Claes Sandgren, Sweden
Jerome J. Shestack, USA
Hipólito Solari Yrigoyen, Argentina
Raji Sourani, Palestine
Daniel Thürer, Switzerland
Oji Umozurike, Nigeria
Vilenas Vadapalas, Lithuania
Yozo Yokota, Japan
Leila Zerrougui, Algeria
Granted, quite a few are from western countries.... Longchenpa (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the last time I'm giving over a half a dozen references for one sentence without requiring the same of you. It would look ridiculous if every single sentence were followed by [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Longchenpa (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The German parliament and US congress both call it an invasion. Western media and Military analysts as well as the Center for World Indigenous Studies have called it an invasion. But this still does not justify the term “international.” Let me give you an example, the US invasion of Iraq is called an invasion worldwide by the media, Military analysts, human rights groups, governments and even some American politicians. However it is still inaccurate to say that the international community calls it an invasion. The international community is not monolithic on the issue, there are many countries supporting this war.
The PLA action has been called an invasion by some but most countries in the world have not called it an invasion. The International Commission of Jurists did not call it an invasion, the source you provided is a report written by one individual submitted to the Commission. http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3415&lang=en
The Tibetans themselves are divided on the issue. While those outside of China call it an invasion the majority of the Tibetan population in Tibet did not call it that. The majority of Tibetans did not support the 1959 uprising against the Chinese. If they perceived it as an invasion wouldn’t they fought the invaders?
To avoid inaccuracy this article should use the qualifier “some.” --Littlebutterfly (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
By that definition, any number other than "all" equals some.
The Tibetans were divided on the uprising because thought they would lose -- and they were correct. They did lose. Your logic on that point is flawed. "Not fighting" does not equal "support."
As for the ICJ report, it was investigated by committee, quote, "It was with this mandate that I organized a team of experts to examine closely and objectively -- as lawyers -- the Tibetan situation." The report written by the person who headed the committee. The committee referred to it as an invasion. You are incorrect there as well.
Lastly, how many sources are you going to require? We're up to seven in the article. I have more. But at this point it seems you are going to request an infinite number. Longchenpa (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What I can do is list who has referred to this as an invasion. It seems long and cumbersome though. Longchenpa (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
By China's terms it was not an invasion. By everybody else's terms it was indeed an invasion. It should be presented exactly the way you are arguing it. Benjwong (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Benjwong. Longchenpa (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ben, who is “everybody else?” Is it nations like the US or media like the CNN?--Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I am going to respond to your statement point by point.
1. The Tibetans were divided on the uprising because thought they would lose -- and they were correct. They did lose. Your logic on that point is flawed. "Not fighting" does not equal "support."
This is your own assumption. How do you know that the majority of the Tibetans did not fight because they were afraid of losing? The majority of Tibetans were serfs to the aristocrats and monks who initiated and led the uprising because they were losing land, serfs and monopoly of power in the reform. The Tibetan majority who were suppressed by their own people were given land and equal social status after 1951. Why would they fight for those who suppressed them? Why would they fight to give back their land and freedom? Isn’t this a more logical explanation for their refusal to support the uprising?
In your original research no doubt you can argue for this. But you are not a credible spokesperson for the Tibetan perspective given what you're quoting is the Chinese party line. You're not attempting to squeeze out opposing views, are you? Longchenpa (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not my original research; this argument is presented in a book written by a western scholar. Until I located that quote I will not put it in the article. I welcome opposing views, that is why I am squeezing you for citation. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Goldstein's way out of date and he's been discredited. You're drawing your own conclusion based on... I'm not sure what. He doesn't say that Tibet wanted China to liberate them, he just argues that they had a feudal system which is just a colonialist projection of western governmental systems onto a Asian system. They say the same of the Chinese T'ang dynasty, ignoring actual land use policy and mistaking corvee for feudalism. (Totally off topic, but did you know that even according to Goldstein, serfs could buck the system by becoming monks?)
ETA: And Snellgrove refers to China's takeover as an "armed occupation."
From the military side Margolis calls it an invasion as well. Longchenpa (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, the 270+ demonstrations against Chinese rule by the Tibetans in Tibet since 1959, the flood of refugees from Tibet into India (don't say these were upper class Tibetans because I worked with a Tibetan nomad refugee, it was all classes who fled Tibet), the current demonstrations in Tibet, all occurred after the Chinese takeover. Film footage of Tibetans beating Chinese businessmen doesn't suggest that Tibetans have warmly embraced the Chinese. Longchenpa (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously some Tibetans did not embrace the Han-Chinese. But enough Tibetans do--there has not been any serious riots and rebellion. The fact that only a few Tibetans participated in the recent riot shows that the millions of Tibetans--the great majority—do embrace the Han-Chinese. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don’t want to start another debate with you here. But if you like we can talk about this
Using the same logic: you say that Tibet had an oppressive serf system prior to China's takeover. Yet from 1911-1950 there was not one single rebellion against the Tibetan nobles or the Dalai Lama. By your own logic, they must have embraced the Tibetan government.
Compare this to the Tibetan response to China. There was an armed rebellion against the PRC throughout the 50s, there was an uprising against the PRC in 1959, there has been a steady outpouring of Tibetan refugees into Nepal and India over the last 60 years, there are regular protests and arrests documented by Amnesty International, Tibetans have testified to parliamentary groups, NGOs, and human rights groups against the PRC. In 1987 at the congressional hearings on Tibet I heard--live--the testimony (among others) of a Tibetan Buddhist nun who had been raped with a cattle prod by Chinese soldiers after her arrest for protesting the Chinese government. I don't know where you're getting your information but it's not from the Tibetans. Longchenpa (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is not me who said that Tibet had an oppressive serf system before 1951. It is an established fact by the findings of scholars from the west and east. Why no rebellion against the Tibetan nobles before 1951? The majority of Tibetans were kept down by the most brutal punishment which was not seen elsewhere on earth. Let me give you an example by quoting the 13th Dalai Lama. In his proclamation of Tibet Independence he also said: “The Tibetan government's civil and military officials, when collecting taxes or dealing with their subject citizens, should carry out their duties with fair and honest judgment so as to benefit the government without hurting the interests of the subject citizens. Some of the central government officials posted at Ngari Korsum in western Tibet, and Do Kham in eastern Tibet, are coercing their subject citizens to purchase commercial goods at high prices and have imposed transportation rights exceeding the limit permitted by the government. Houses, properties and lands belonging to subject citizens have been confiscated on the pretext of minor breaches of the law. Furthermore, the amputation of citizens' limbs has been carried out as a form of punishment. Henceforth, such severe punishments are forbidden.” Doesn’t his own statement show that ordinary Tibetans were suppressed and brutalized? Doesn’t his own statement show that the Tibetan aristocrat was not embraced by their people but rather feared?
The suppressed and terrorized serfs were set free from the Tibetan nobles and monks in 1951. And they did not support the rebellions organized and led by the very same people in the 50’s. Yes there have been riots against the Han-Chinese; all I am saying is that these riots and rebellions are not supported by the majority—the millions of Tibetans in Tibet. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


2. As for the ICJ report, it was investigated by committee, quote, "It was with this mandate that I organized a team of experts to examine closely and objectively -- as lawyers -- the Tibetan situation." The report written by the person who headed the committee. The committee referred to it as an invasion.
The International Commission of Jurists did not issue any formal statement calling the PLA action an invasion. All you have here is a report submitted to the organization. Plus, even if this organization calls it an invasion, its position certainly do not represent the international opinion.
It does call it an invasion, and those are the findings of the committee appointed by the International Commission of Jurists. You are not only demanding seven sources to support one sentence, you are also demanding that we ignore the findings of the commission and look instead for... what? I'm not sure how high your burden of proof needs to be, but it's definitely far beyond the norm. Longchenpa (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This report does call it an invasion, however, it is merely a report submitted for review. The International Commission of Jurists itself has not called it an invasion. A lawyer filing a lawsuit at court against someone does not make the defendant guilty.--Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Their conclusion was that China's actions were tantemount to genocide, "It is a question of conduct which shocks the civilized world." Their conclusions were also that by virtue of China's systematically ignoring their side of the 17 point Agreement resulted in the legal "release of the Tibetan Government from its obligations, with the result that Tibet regained the sovereignty which she surrendered under the Agreement." Longchenpa (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Genocide? This is the accusation of one man and those work for him. The fact that the ICJ itself did not officially issue a statement using this language shows that the report was not taken seriously. Many in the west have tried to accuse the Chinese of being guilty of genocide. As far as I know none of these accusations have been verified by any courts. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One man? No. You asked for the conclusions of the 1959 ICJ after the report was issued. That was their conclusion and offical statement. The language was very harsh -- harsher than what I've put in the article. Longchenpa (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Lastly, how many sources are you going to require?
None of the sources listed are good enough to support your position. The German parliament and US congress call it an invasion; however Germany and the United States, as nations, have not called it an invasion. The parliament/congress is just one branch of the government. IT does not have the power to sign treaties with foreign countries and its position does not represent the position of the nation. Germany and the United Statesand others in the world recognize Tibet as a part of China before and after 1951. There is no invasion when military action is taken within one’s border.
You list a number of countries, but, which government of any of these countries has called it an invasion? Can you provide any statement from the State Department of any of these countries? Only until then you can list them. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read the entry. Nowhere does it claim anything that is not supported by those sources. Longchenpa (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The list is dull and misleading.--Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's dull all right. But you can't say it's "the west" or just "western politicians" or "English-speaking" because you also have the Japan Parliamentary Group for Tibet, founded by Mr Seishu Makino while he was member of the house. Indonesia has another group, iirc. Nor can you say it's just politicians because military analysts also call it an invasion. And the popular press calls it an invasion as well. Longchenpa (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok why don't we just say English-speaking world calls it an invasion. I mean really, both of you guys are not researching direct with native langauge names anyways. So these translations into English from NGOs and alternate organizations is pretty meaningless. Benjwong (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do read Tibetan. We normally use English sources for the English language wiki. That research isn't meaningless at all because a lot of the research on Tibet human rights abuses has been done in English. There is no translation issue. Longchenpa (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok you might want to tell us what this event is in tibetan then. Also it would help if you know what they call the seventeen point agreement in tibetan. Do they call it by the Chinese name? If they did, then they agreed they were "liberated". As conflicting as that might be. Benjwong (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That's an absurd argument. By that logic, if I speak the same language as president George Bush, I agree with the invasion of Iraq. Canada must also agree with the invasion. They do speak English over there. I suppose by virtue of speaking French, all Quebec residents must agree with the French position on Iraq?
ETA: Oh dear... what about people who are multi-lingual? They must be really confused. Hahahahahaha! (Invasion in Tibetan is bTsen aDzul.) Longchenpa (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well no. I am following the logic of the Chinese name. It is called a "Peaceful liberation" in Chinese, naturally people who only read Chinese have unanimously agreed it was indeed a peaceful liberation. Is it? Probably not. But if the tibetans also call it a "Peaceful liberation" and signed it in their own language, then this is seriously disturbing. Why not call it a "War peace treaty" etc. Benjwong (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
China signed all kinds of unequal treaties with the British, filled with similar language that was highly questionable when it came to China's national interests. No serious scholar thinks that China ever agreed with those treaties. And no serious scholar on Tibet thinks Tibet agreed with this unequal treaty. Politics is filled with such euphemisms. Longchenpa (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Your response is very understandable. However, Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme is described in every text to have continued on to Beijing to have a good and wonderful career. He wined, dined, and was treated very well according to 99% of the sources. I can't think of one person who signed the unequal treaties for China and went on to become a major politician in the British parliament with a good career. It stands out too much. Benjwong (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ngawang Jigme was captured and his tiny 8,000 man army defeated in 1950. The Tibetan government after his defeat wrote to the UN General Assembly on November 7, 1950, that "Tibet recognizes that it is in no position to resist the Chinese advance." Ngawang had no real power. He was just a figurehead under the Chinese government. He could make no decisions without the consent of those under him. This is similar to the situation with the British in India, where Indian "officials" were really controlled by their British "advisors." A similar situation exists with the Panchen Lama. Longchenpa (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion touches an important question--how many Tibetans supported the “Liberation of Tibet?” Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme represents the majority of Tibetans who embraced the unification. Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme complained about the excesses during Cultural Revolution but he also recognized Tibet’s development in the last five decades. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Littlebutterfly, you are a Johnny one note in this discussion. You insist on ignoring the refugees, all the protests against China, the imprisonment of Tibetan protestors, every study done by an NGO (because they're western they must be... what? Lying? Not talking to the Tibetans?), and every report from human rights groups. And you ignore the physical evidence of torture and abuse of Tibetans. Why did the PLA torture Tibetans? Surely if you argue on behalf of Tibetans you must have read Amnesty International's reports. I've personally heard direct testimony from Tibetans, I've seen the wounds inflicted by torture -- one Tibetan could barely walk because the PLA soldiers had broken the bones of his feet so often.
What evidence do you offer besides vague theory and pointing to Tibetans who had no power and saying "they went along with it like good do-bees (nevermind they had no choice), so the majority must be happy about China's peaceful liberation"? Only a small minority was tortured into submission! The torture and abuse of Tibetans had no impact? Seriously? Longchenpa (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A big number of Tibetans left Tibet, however, a much bigger number stayed. Are they being coerced into submission like you are suggesting here? To answer this question we need to first answer a few questions. Are Tibetans cowards? How many PLA soldiers are needed to coerce a population in the millions? If they were tortured why didn’t the majority of Tibetans fight in the 1959 rebellion? Where is the physical evidence for this torture? Also show me any evidence that the majority of Tibetans want to remain serf suppressed and tortured by their Tibetan masters.
Let’s not ignore that Beijing has built schools, hospitals, housing, etc, in Tibet. The living standards and health of Tibetans have improved in the last fifty years. Surely they have an impact on people. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's absurd -- or apologetics -- to say or imply that there's no oppression unless a majority of the inhabitants try to leave. People don't want to leave their homes, their ways of lives. Or risk getting shot by superior forces.
It is also quite possible for an invader to overthrow an oppressive regime and even make some material improvements while still being oppressive itself. The former regime does not have to have been shiny and good for the current regime to be evil. -- Mindstalk (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Both past and current regime can be oppressive. The old regime was oppressive towards all of its citizens. Many scholars from the west and east have attested to the evils of the world's last Feudal Serfdom. The new regime can be oppressive towards those who call for Tibet independence. In all fairness, Beijing have built the infrastructure and improved living standards of Tibetans in the last 50 years. You can choose to ignore this but you can not represent the majority of Tibetans living there. Tibet independence argument is a dead end. Chinese and Tibetans can work together for their human rights if the independence issue is set aside. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the older discussion, Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme is the only major figure to have taken both sides. He was part of the tibetan people and part of Beijing's NPC. Littlebutterfly if you can find any sources to suggest Ngapoi himself said "tibetan people were treated wonderfully", that would help balance this article. Dalai Lama is obviously pro-tibetan from the start. Benjwong (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme was a prominent Tibetan leader and he was not the only one supporting the unification with China. The Panchen Lama, the second-most important leader in Tibet, sent a telegram to Beijing expressing his support for suppressing the 1959 rebellion. “He also called on Tibetans to support the Chinese government.” [Lee Feigon, Demystifying Tibet, page 163.] I jsut added this text to the article. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I had to restore the section on the statistics to distinguish who was saying what. Anyhow the Panchen Lama asking for beijing's help 9 years later is very strange. It does not belong in this article technically. Benjwong (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
His statement verifies what I have been saying, a good number of Tibetans do not reject the Han-Chinese. His statement is about the 1959 uprising and it is being placed in a section about the event. Ben, did you ask me to provide something like this to "balance this article?" --Littlebutterfly (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense to have it in there, your racist concerns of 'balance' aside. It's possibly relevant to the 1959 article, and I see you put it there too. Yunfeng (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you calling me a racist? I don’t totally disagree with you on that statement, let see what others say about it. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I removed a statement in the Timeline section. The debate over Tibet’s independence should be reserved for another article. Plus, Dalai Lama, the head of the Tibetan government in exile, does not reject China’s sovereignty over Tibet: “Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence.” --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's back in. Adding a date--1996--of the Dalai Lama's online statement implied that this is a new interpretation by the Tibetan Government in Exile. The UK parliamentary finding is to make it clear that it is not a new interpretation but dates back to the invasion in 1950. "Not seeking independence" is not the same as "was never independent." Do not conflate the two. Longchenpa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The source you provided is published in 2006, ten years after the Dalai Lama changed his position. Can you provide something before 1996 to back your argument and please find a source comes directly from the Tibetans. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The source that you publish for the Chinese position is dated 19 July 2001: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20010719/431559.htm. I have provided nine sources where you've provided only two -- at your request. Now you're demanding materials come from a certain date period that you are not requiring of yourself? The inequality of this is unacceptable. I'm no longer bending over for it. I have never encountered this from any other wiki editor. If you take that out, then in all fairness I should remove everything in the Chinese sources that are later dates or are not dated. And replace Goldstein's out of date scholarship. Longchenpa (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah... Correction. You required ten sources. We can make it eleven. I have more. Longchenpa (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My two cents. The statement in question is confusing. At the begining it sounds like it was made by the UK parliament's Select Committee on Foreign Affair but at the end it finishes with a quote from the Tibetan Government in Exile. This reprot is released in 2006 and yet it does not reflect the Dalai Lama's position since 1996. Did the UK parliament's Select Committee on Foreign Affair intentionally left out such information? Anyway, it would clear up the confusion if someone can provide a source from the Tibetans. --CcLao (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have two sources listed for it, one from the British, the other from the Tibetans: http://www.tibet.com/Status/statuslaw.html Longchenpa (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The British was quoting the Tibetans so I removed that link. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The British were supporting the Tibetans after a visit to examine human rights abuses in Tibet. It's back in. Longchenpa (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Having 250+ demonstrations after 1959 doesn't mean they regarded the PLA operations in 1950/51 as invasion. Tibet scholars including M. Goldstein and A. Grunfeld confirmed that there were Tibetans welcoming the Hans/PLA.

I thus reverted this OR. 219.79.252.210 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein is 20 years out of date, and Grunfeld's book, while only 12 years old, did not have access to recent information released by the CIA. Replaced with scholarship from 2006 and 2008. Longchenpa (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
They are established scholars, their material should stay. I removed material from Babayeva, Yuliya. "The Khampa Uprising: The Khampa Resistance Against The Chinese Invasion." This source of information does not meet Wikipedia standards. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption on A. Grunfeld and M. Goldstein is blatantly OR as earlier publication dates don't represent sources outdated. And you didn't actually read what you added. Citations I added are about Tibetan positions on the eve [Pre-17-Point] and during the years of PLA operations ("when communists first arrived in Lhasa"), i.e. 1949~1951, but the source you quoted is only about the uprising/reform in Kham in 1953 when the 17-point agreement had been confirmed for couple of years.

Reforms/uprising in Kham and PLA operations in Tibet are two totally different events.219.79.252.210 (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


BTW, please do some factchecking. In John B. Roberts article "Inside Story", not one single verifiable sentence proves that all Tibetans regarded PLA operations as "invasion". So please stop pushing politically-motivated POVs.

I suggest using "many" to replace "some". 219.79.252.210 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect move

Someone moved the article to Battle of Tibet with no discussion. If it must use a real name, it should be the official name of Chamdo war. Benjwong (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect move II

How did this information get moved to the reference section? Longchenpa (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Samdhong Rinpoche & 14th Dalai Lama

According to Samdhong Rinpoche and the 14th Dalai Lama, by 1962 only 70 of the original 2,500 monasteries in the Tibet Autonomous Region were left after 93% of the monks were forced out. The loss of life as a direct result of the invasion and occupation from 1950 to 1976 has been estimated as follows: 173,221 Tibetans died in prisons and labor camps; 156,758 by execution; 342,970 by starvation; 432,705 in battles and uprisings; 92,731 by torture; and 9,002 by suicide.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Fixed the missing ref syntax. Benjwong (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In the “Statistics of Casualties” section there were two sets of numbers identical to each other. I combined them in order to prevent confusion. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

The following material in “Timeline section” is out of context. “An article releasd by the Tibetan Government in Exile in 1996 states that the treaty was imposed on Tibet by force and it "was never validly concluded and was rejected by Tibetans."[22] After a visit to determine human rights abuses in Tibet, UK parliament's Select Committee on Foreign Affairs' Seventh Report on Human Rights supported the Tibetan position.[23][24]” This section should include just a list of events that took place in 1950-51. The material above should be moved to another article. What do you think? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair, thats 40 years after the event. Though you might want to move that to another section. Benjwong (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

After reading this section, I think it's missing the Lhasa battle. Yes, the operations in Tibet were relatively bloodless, but from my memory, didn't the PLA fight at Lhasa? From what I remember, once the PLA arrived at Lhasa they sent a monk diplomat into the city to have diplomatic discussions. Well, for one reason or another, the monk died in the city and the PLA thought he was poisoned to death from an English diplomat who's also there at the time. Thus, the PLA got pretty pissed, took the city by force, and expelled the English diplomat from Tibet(whether the monk diplomat really was poisoned we'll never know, let's just say it's what the PLA believed for neutrality's sake). This may be a rough summary because I'm just talking from my memory. However, the article mentions that there's no fighting in Lhasa, which to me would be inaccurate. I didn't change anything because first off I can't find a source as of now and second off my memory might have been wrong. Maybe it's not at Lhasa, but I'm positive it happened in Tibet. (Gnip) ((talk) 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The PLA did not fight its way into Lahsa in 1951. It entered the city after Tibetans’ signing and ratifying of the 17-point-aggreement. There was no battle in 1951 in Lhasa. Your memory is wrong. The British fought its way into Lhasa in 1904; maybe you have the two confused. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone should seriously rewrite this article from the ground up. I'm fairly neutral when it comes to tibet/china relations, but Christ, I've never seen an article on wikipedia this retardedly biased pass off somehow. This is the kind of stuff I'd expect to see on government issue pamphlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.187.148 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There's a reason it has the bias template. Longchenpa (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This article needs serious work. However, all of its material comes from the Tibetans and western scholars. There is nothing in the article comes from Beijing. Maybe the Chinese did something right. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Result: No consensus
{{{2}}}

New article name proposals

  • There are complaints on "Operation", "Peaceful liberation" and "Invasion". We are not calling this one "Expedition". Because the discussion Comment-You can't invade your own country never ended, many editors believe Tibet diplomatically was always part of China. I am going to try and propose renaming the page to "PRC diplomacy in Tibet (1950-1958)". The article should change to include the actual invasion of "Chamdo war 1950". Followed by all the atrocities and mishandling of Tibetans, CIA reports up until the uprising of 1959. Please propose other names if you like. Benjwong (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I apologize for just criticising, but I can't think of what else to call this article. "Diplomacy" is, I think, both inaccurate and non-neutral. For one, moving troops doesn't constitute diplomacy. Second, diplomacy implies negotiations between two independent actors and I don't think we can take a stance here on whether Tibet was an independent actor in 1950. This is a tricky one; I'll try to think of something better. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not supported "Diplomacy" does not represent a military action. "Operation" is too broad since in military terms an operation can be anything from a deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops lasting years (like the invasion of Iraq) to a single battle involving one unit. "Expedition" doesn't apply. "Peaceful liberation" is a euphemism.
Your date range is a big change as well, and specifically excludes the information Littlebutterfly and I added to the Aftermath section which is vitally important to people understanding why the Tibetans are upset. I note that the inclusion of the Aftermath section was acceptable to yourself, Benjwong, and to Littlebutterfly while it was positive towards the PRC. You suddenly changed your minds about its inclusion once new information came to light that was not so positive (such as the 1959 shelling of a crowd of 30,000 Tibetan civilians). No. Unsupported, partially because it goes beyond just changing the word "invasion." We already have a vote that doesn't change the date range, and we need to come to a consensus there. Longchenpa (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment P.S. The CIA did not provide weapons, training, or financial support to the Tibetans until 1959. Based on the literature I was handed at a PRC rally against the Dalai Lama, the CIA support for the Tibetan rebellion is and important part of their claim. Longchenpa (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Opposed based on reasons given above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Ok this one is done. Actually I was thinking of rearranging the date so it doesn't overlap. Right now the aftermath section sounds like it belongs in the Tibetan resistance movement or the 1959 uprising. Benjwong (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about PRC military reclamation of Tibet (1950-1951)? This one basically suggest PRC is reclaiming the territory with the military. Whether it is part of the PRC or not, is entirely open. Benjwong (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am also open to PLA occupation of Tibet (1950-1951). This actually matches some of the other occupational events. Occupation has been used by some sources. Benjwong (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Bingo. I like that one. It makes no claims of Tibet's status, since a military can occupy bits of it's own territory, but also someone else's territory. The date range ensures that "occupation" doesn't refer to the present day. It doesn't involve that ever irritating "invasion" word. It's more descriptive than "entry" and less patently ridiculous to English speakers than "peaceful liberation". Well done sir. Gimme danger (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support That conveys both the military sense, the scale of it, and the result. Yes. We'll never come to a consensus on either invasion or operation. This is a good alternative. I'm impressed. I was wracking my brains for an alternative. Longchenpa (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Good name, Benjwong. Whether it can be supported by every one or not, you are really an aggressive editor to promote this article. Thank you! I had thought the title as "The change of authority( or jurisdiction?) in tibet(1950~1951)", but I think this one is very nice. Leechiryo (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Doesn't "occupation" suggest "illegal occupation" as much as "invasion" suggests "foreign invasion"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment OED has this definition for "occupation": "The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to such action." Reading through their quotations, the first one from 1325 I have no idea... Out of the rest, I count: "wrongful occupation": 2; foreign occupation: 7; occupation in the private legal property sense: 3; occupation by a government, unclear whether wrongful or foreign: 1. Almost half the quotes have to do with Roman or German occupation of other countries. I don't know if "occupation" adequately accomodates the view of "occupying" part of one's own country. Was the Union army "occupying" bits of the South in the end stages of the American Civil War? Though I guess in the Chinese context during the Warlord Era, warlords have often been said to "occupy" Beijing or some city or region. I guess my unease really is about the timing implied. I think an "occupation", in the military/act of state sense, is almost always a temporary event. So the German occupation is called an occupation - and not a conquest - because it ended several years later. Palestinians and sympathetic views would say that Israel is "occupying" East Jerusalem - implying that it is temporary, whereas Isreal and sympathetic views would say Israel has annexed it - which implies it is permanent. The PLA has "occupied" Tibet ever since and does not look like giving it up, so I'm not sure "occupation" is accurate. The PRC clearly has no intention to ever give it up, which means that "occupation" leans slightly towards the contrary viewpoint, imo. Sorry for the streatm of consciousness post - hope you'll excuse the rambling. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Good point. Although, as in your American Civil War example, an occupation can also end with reunification. I suggest you take this around to other Tibet related articles with this naming problem. As the OED defines it, the situation is indeed an occupation. The PRC is maintaining possession and control of a region and has military forces involved to do so. You can spin it either way (Evil oppressive occupiers or liberators maintaining state integrity), but that's the straight truth of the matter. Granted, "occupation" has attracted some baggage over time, but it certainly seems to be the least bad of all possible options. And you've provided as solid a justification as anyone could possibly ask. Thank you! Gimme danger (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think one problem here is that to occupy can mean both to take possession and to maintain possession. What we want to imply here is the first meaning, but I think there is a danger that insuspicious readers may interpret the title as "China occupied Tibet in 1950 and left in 1951" (think of the difference between "the Allies occupied Germany in 1945" and "the Allies occupied Germany from 1945 to 1949 or 1955"). Otherwise the name is perfect for me. Yaan (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Another good point. It didn't occur to me before, but the proposed title does imply that the occupation ended in 1951. I can't think of a better way to phrase it. Maybe "entry into" or something like that, since that doesn't imply leaving. Well, I'm sure we'll eventually come up with something. There are only so many words in English, after all. Gimme danger (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Heh. The English lexicon has over a million words. Why don't we just say PLA occupation of Tibet (1950)? The PLA didn't withdraw in 1951 so I don't see the reason for the date range. Longchenpa (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I read some Chinese articles today, and found that the term of "occupation" is also used by CPC before they take action to Tibet. For example, January 1950, when Mao Zedong was in his visitation in Soviet, he took a telegram to the Central Committee and Southwest Bureau of CPC from Moscow, and said, “Although the population is small, Tibet has a very important standing in the world. We must occupy it and transform it to a democratic Tibet of people. ... If it's not so difficult that we can't cover, I think PLA should start marching forward Tibet at the mid of May, and before October we should occupy all regions in Tibet”. Collection of Mao Zedong's Articles on Tibet, Central Document Press and China Tibetology Press, P6-P7.
By the way, it seems that the term of "occupation" is very widely used by CPC when it was fighting with Kuomintang at that years, and is not used to Tibet especially. They "occupied" Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and many other regions, and now only Taiwan is left not be "occupied". (a joke)
Anyway, if some one like Yann think that the title is obscure between take possession and maintain possession, maybe we can add some term to clarify our meaning, such as um..."action?" or something else... I don't know, I'm no good at English. Leechiryo (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We could also use the very first sentence for clarification. Yaan (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Why don't we say PLA occupation of Tibet (1950)? The PLA didn't withdraw in 1951 and that solves the problem of it seeming like the PLA was only there for a year. Longchenpa (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Or ... (1950/51). With a slash instead of the hyphen it looks much less temporary. Yaan (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised the occupation name was so well received. I thought the military reclamation was actually the best name. If I am ok with any of the occupation is simply because the tibetans showed little signs of ever wanting PLA in their territory. I think PalaceGuard008's concern is very good. In fact I can't tell if he is opposing? I am going to invite a few more people to the page to see if they have any last minute opinions. Benjwong (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As for me, People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) is correct. You can find an article on the unbiased Encyclopædia Universalis [3] in french explaining the invasion was ordered by Mao --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out, there's "occupation" in the sense of "taking and holding", and then there's "occupation" in the sense of just "holding". I think we could clarify it with "People's Liberation Army military occupation of Tibet (1950-1951)", since power in Tibet was transferred to a civilian government after 1951, no? A Dalai Lama-led government until about 1959, and then a Communist-led government from 1959 onwards. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The PLA or CPC was indeed acting on its own accord. Mao zedong called the majority of the decisions. You can even debate Kuomintang was technically still a chinese army at the time, and had nothing to do with the event. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1950-1, Mao was not only head of the Army, but also of the Party and the government. Are you saying the PRC's state organs had no involvement? That there was no civilian input? (And unless I'm mistaken, Mao at this point was a civilian, as he was no longer wearing the uniform.) That the state and party, in any case, weren't fully behind the invasion? Could be, but I'd be quite surprised.
As for the PRC/Kuomintang bit: sure, "People's Republic of China invasion..." could also work, but just as we use Sino-Indian War, Chinese invasion of Tibet is not unprecedented either. At any rate, it won't confuse anyone into thinking Chiang Kai-Shek was invading. Biruitorul (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The PLA engagement in 1950 was very Mao Zedong driven. More so than Younghusband representing the British side. If you want to be realistic, the PRC was established for less than 1 year in 1950. How much do you want to hold the billions of people accountable for an operation that nobody even knew existed? Benjwong (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Final decision - It sounds like "People's Liberation Army military occupation of Tibet (1950-1951)" is the final choice. User PalaceGuard008 made the last suggestion of adding the word military in. If there are no further objections, then this is it. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Provided that the alternate titles are made into redirects. Precious few English speakers would call this event exactly "People's Liberation Army...." Gimme danger (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Invasion is not neutral. “Military occupation” is ridicules. Millitary occupation implies that the Tibetans were up against Beijing while the latter relies on a heavy PLA presence to maintain control. The fact is, there was just one short war in 1950 and the PLA entered Lhasa in 1951 after the signing of the 17 points agreement which makes Tibet a part of China, again, officially.-Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Littlebutterfly you need to propose some names if you are unsatisfied with "military occupation" or "occupation". It is basically one step down from invasion. Most of the wikipedians here agree it is not perfect, but enough to get by. Benjwong (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How about “PLA invasion of Chamdo?” The war at Chamdo is the only one fought between 1950 to 1951. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Objection This title suggests a much more limited scope than the article actually has. This article needs to describe the entire movement of PLA troops into historical Tibet and the events surrounding that.Gimme danger (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I am really surprised you want to call it invasion again. This likely will not work. The end result is that the entire tibet was affected by the 17-point plan, not just 1 city. LB if you have more suggestions, please let us know. You have at least been a pretty big contributor to this article. I see your concern still except most of us are satisfied with the occupation name. Benjwong (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Invasion of Chamdo is different from invasion of Tibet. This article should focus on the Chamdo war and finish with the signing of the 17 points agreement. This article should not describe “the entire movement of PLA troops into historical Tibet” whatever that means. The suppression of 1959 uprising has its own page. The 17 points agreement has its own page. Plus the Tibet issue was resolved mainly by political means, the PLA did not play a big rule. Furthermore Tibet is not west bank. Tibet has been regarded as a part of China before and after 1951 by most countries in the world, therefore, the use of “occupation” is wrong. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Chamdo is at the eastern edge of tibet, and yes they did not go further. I suggested "Chamdo war" earlier, which has shown up in multiple sources. Still I did not get a singe person to support before. Anyone else with any comments on LB's recommendation of Invasion of Chamdo? Benjwong (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment on article scope I think that this article ought to cover all the events of 1950-1951 in an overview form. Battle of Chamdo and other specific events should have their own subarticles. Therefore "Invasion of Chamdo" is too specific. Gimme danger (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There is not enough support for any of the Chamdo names. There never was. I will wait a few more days for comments. If nothing else is said, this topic is closed. Benjwong (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Will that mean that the article will be moved?Gimme danger (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been following the discussion recently - I would support "Chamdo war" or "War in Chamdo" or whatever for being precise - provided, of course, there are reliable sources for the name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment-You can't invade your own country

Tibet was never reckognised by international community as independent country(IIRC only Mongolia did and also due to its break out during Chinese Civil War). It was seen and reckognised as part of Chinese state. It is improper to name this "invasion". It was just a remote region that due to civil unrest and war in China became loose from central authority. Communists in China view themselfs as the country's rulers and decided to restore order in the region as one of the last regions that weren't yet stabilised after the unfortunate Chinese warlord era. This was reckonised by internationa l community-after all Republic of China claimed Tibet as its own territory during its membership at UN as well.--Molobo (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia declared independence even before the Qing abdicated. The treaty with Tibet was signed in early 1913, before any civil war. Yaan (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very different discussion. Mao's New China/PRC was declared purposely as a completely entity than the republic form. But that depends on like 50 things. Benjwong (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a valid discussion. The fact that it was part of China and reckognised as such by the world, changes the view if it was invasion or not.--Molobo (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a valid discussion. I am just saying this angle is really hard as you are looking for some consensus from the international community. Benjwong (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well if only Mongolia reckognised Tibet as country(and Mongolia itself was breaking away during Civil War) and the rest of the world reckognised Tibet as part of Chinese state, then its really not an issue. The issue would be which government did the world reckognised as legitimate one, but that debate is over by now.--Molobo (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read McMahon Line before trying to squeeze Asian realities into the categories of the Treaty of Westphalia; it's more complex than that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually since the modern international system works since end of the WW2 on laws respected by United Nations and its members it is clear that we can't talk about "Tibet" as a country. As to per McMahon Line-no official reckognition of Tibet as state-no reckognised state, sorry. International law works like this.--Molobo (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
One regime taking over territory preivously controlled by the old regime(s) under succession of states is not an invasion. I don't care what you think of it privately -- but that's what international law says. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"One regime taking over territory preivously controlled by the old regime(s) under succession of states" is what you think of it privately, and it is precisely your point of view, however well-founded, that is irrelevant (although I note that by the same logic China could invade Korea or Vietnam, two indisputably independent countries to which China has a historical claim). This event is called an invasion in English. You don't like that. But trotting out concepts from your international law class does not change reality. Yunfeng (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, the analogy of Korea/Vietnam doesn't work as China had long renounced their claims, simply nominal, over these two vassals in the Qing dynasty. Since the imperial era China's claim of sovereignty (effective control) over Tibet has remained continuously. - MainBody (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Schirokauer, in 1720 Quianlong sent a garrison to Tibet, but shortly afterwards abandoned attempts to incorporate Tibet into China, persuing a strategy of presenting himself as an incarnation of Manjusri to Tibetans and Mongolians instead. Tibet never had a Chinese administration (the Yuan stuck existing systems), never implemented the system of Neo-Confucian exams, and even under the Qing Tibet has few mentions in the Chinese dynastic histories. Longchenpa (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1793, Qing government carried out, with Dalai Lama and Panchen's cooperation [Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon], 29-point reform directing and regulating _internal_ affairs of the Tibet region, implying a loose form of Chinese sovereignty. Possessing a different system (which also existed in many other parts of Qing China like Sinkiang, Outer Mongolia and even Manchuria [homeland] itself) doesn't necessarily present independence. Furthermore, the Manchu court continued to represent Tibet internationally in the name of "Government of China", including the 1906 Anglo-Chinese Convention which, according to Warren Smith's "Tibet Nation" and Alastir Lamb's "McMahon Line", (re-)affirmed Chinese sovereignty.
"There can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the 6th and 7th Dalai Lama in the first decades of the eighteenth century." - Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet, p44
- MainBody (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That's Goldstein in 1989, twenty years ago. There are few scholars who take Tibet as their main focus (it's a career dead end) but Schirokauer is a more recent China scholar:
* In 1720 Kangxi's armies entered Tibet and installed a pro-Chinese Dalai Lama. (pg 242) (Yongzheng was the general, by the way.)
* He [Qianlong] again sent armies in Tibet and firmly established the Dalai Lama as ruler, with a Qing resident and garrison to preserve Qing suzerainty." (pg 244)
* Other than that, no further attempt was made to integrate Tibet into the empire ... To foster the loyalty of Mongols and Tibetans, Qianlong drew on the Buddhist tradition. Six tangkas (Tibetan religious paintings) survive, portraying the emperor as Manjusri. (pg 244) - Schirokauer, A Brief History of Chinese Civilization, Thompson, 2006
Longchenpa (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


That is what most countries in the world think. Even Mongolia, after its brief reckognition during Chinese Civil War.--Molobo (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Bollocks. Show me one government or international body that recognised Tibet between 1912-1950. It is what I privately think, and it is also backed up by every government in the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet indendence de facto was recognized by British India. At the Simla conference, Plenipotentiary from Tibet and China were present, showing Tibet was recognized as independent de facto. In addition, only Tibet was requested to sign an agreement with the RPC in 1951, the 17-points agreement, showing again Tibet status was indeed independent from china. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a seat in the Simla Convention means nothing. Belarus and Ukraine, both parts of Soviet Russia, had their own seats in UN, the top international organization on this planet.
You picked a bad example to promote your argument. They were parts of Soviet Russia (another brutal, dictatorial, communist regime, now thankfully gone), but now they are independent countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.172.254 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Further note that the Simla Convention itself could do nothing but reaffirm the international game rules, the Convention's articles and appendix state that:
- Tibet is under Chinese suzerainty
- Tibet forms part of Chinese territory
- The Sino-British Convention of 1906 (except Article III) remains valid
Before the PLA marched into Chamdo, London had already reaffirmed their "long established acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet" (Foreign Office Records: FO371/85567, dated June 1950)
Have a nice day MainBody (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Tibet please show us any document reckognising Tibet as a country. Also British India ? That was indepedent country ? The fact that British officials due to chaos of Chinese civil strife and war made deals with local rulers doesn't mean those chieftains represented independent countries. And a agreement between local leaders and government doesn't speak of country either. Polish Solidarity in Gdansk shipyard signed agreement with Soviet backed Polish government-it doesn't mean Gdansk was seperate country.--Molobo (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jane's military analysts call it an invasion. That's it. Among military analysts they have the final word.

Jane's, the highly regarded non-affiliated military analysts, calls it an invasion. The military knows what an invasion is. This is definitive. Jane's publishes the bible of military armaments along with analysis of military situations all over the world. Their reputation is impeccable. "Since invading the then-independent Tibet in 1950, Beijing has ensured tight military and political control over the strategically important area." Reborn supremacy: China's control of Tibetan reincarnation, 21 January 2008 Longchenpa (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • What Jane's says would have no relevance in the sense of international law. It's just a matter of personal/commercial organization's opinion. Government/legislative body is a different mater in this sense that should be included. Jane's? No. -munford (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
'Jane's' is the premier organization of military analysts. You don't seem to understand their standing in the military community. They produce the analysis that the defense industry relies upon, tracking arms sales, military build-ups, intelligence analysis of the defense capabilities of every country in the world... Jane's is *the* source.
As far as the legal case for Tibet, that's already in the article. But we're just arguing for something far simpler -- does the military define this as an invasion? The answer is yes. (Note: Jane's does not play favorites. They also define the US "operations in Iraq" as the US-led invasion of Iraq.) Longchenpa (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did the operation take place?

I wonder, what were the motivations for the operation/invation? How did the Chinese motivate their action, and what do modern scholars claim that the reason was? I would really like to know that. Samulili (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasserting Chinese sovereignty which was not effectively exercised from the 1910s to the 1940s. MainBody (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Which should, of course, be put within quotes in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A brief background needed

We need a brief background to explain why Chinese military moved into the region. It could start with description of state of strife in China and loss of control of the region, civil war and finally the winning side regaining control of Chinese territories.--Molobo (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm worried about mission creep. Wouldn't we end up overlapping a lot of other articles? Longchenpa (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disagree. I too came here to find out why the operation/invation took place in the first place (see above). It is important to know the history of things if one is to understand what is going on today. Samulili (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd consider it. But not now. This article is already in hot dispute and expanding the scope would exacerbate the problems to a degree that we might not be able to resolve. Longchenpa (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section

Material from the following sources have been added to the article: Knaus, Orphans of the Cold War] and Roberts, John. "Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet." The American Spectator. The first one is self-published online and the second one comes from an unknown writer published on an unknown site. These material do not meet Wikipedia creditable sources standards Citing sources and therefore should be replace with those from the Tibetans. Please voice your opinion. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" is not "on an unknown site", it is published in print in the The American Spectator which has been publishing for the last 40 years. This is not subject to a vote, Littlebutterfly. It's not on a site. It is published in a magazine that is not an online magazine. The link goes to an online copy of a print article.
Orphans of the Cold War is published by Public Affairs Books and is not a self-publisher. Have a look here.

Here is a list of upcoming books from PublicAffairs for Spring 2008. Just the hardcover books:

A CHOICE OF ENEMIES America Confronts the Middle East by LAWRENCE FREEDMAN

AMERICA BETWEEN THE WARS From 11/9 to 9/11 by DEREK CHOLLET AND JAMES GOLDGEIER

BY HIS OWN RULES The Story of Donald Rumsfeld by BRADLEY GRAHAM

DEFENDING IDENTITY Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy by NATAN SHARANSKY WITH SHIRA WOLOSKY WEISS

GUSHER OF LIES The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence" by ROBERT BRYCE

LAST CHANCE The Political Threat to Black America by LEE DANIELS

LONG AFTER MIDNIGHT AT THE NIÑO BIEN A Yanqui's Missteps in Argentina by BRIAN WINTER

MR. ADAMS'S LAST CRUSADE John Quincy Adams's Extraordinary Post-Presidential Life in Congress by JOSEPH WHEELAN

MY GUANTANAMO DIARY The Detainees and the Stories They Told Me by MAHVISH KHAN

MY THREE FATHERS And the Elegant Deceptions of My Mother, Susan Mary Alsop by BILL PATTEN

OBD: OBSESSIVE BRANDING DISORDER The Illusion of Business and the Business of Illusion by LUCAS CONLEY

THE AGITATOR'S DAUGHTER A Memoir of Four Generations of One Extraordinary African-American Family by SHERYLL CASHIN

THE LONGEVITY REVOLUTION The Benefits and Challenges of Living a Long Life by ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D.


THE NEW PARADIGM FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means by GEORGE SOROS

THE PLACE TO BE Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News by ROGER MUDD

THE TRILLION DOLLAR MELTDOWN Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash by CHARLES R. MORRIS

THE ZOO ON THE ROAD TO NABLUS A Story of Survival from the West Bank by AMELIA THOMAS

UNDERSTANDING AMERICA The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation by PETER H. SCHUCK AND JAMES Q. WILSON, EDITORS

WELCOME TO SHIRLEY A Memoir from an Atomic Town by KELLY MCMASTERS

WHAT DOES CHINA THINK? by MARK LEONARD

WHAT HAPPENED Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington by SCOTT MCCLELLAN

I trust my point is clear. Or should I list the spring 2008 paperbacks as well?

You don't get to selectively choose what sources you like and do not like. Longchenpa (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to the material; I just don’t believe such serious accusation should come from two white guys who weren’t there. If the Tibetans are making such accusations then their material should be used instead. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
What does their being white have to do with anything?Yunfeng (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't object to the material.
I choose to take it as an honest mistake, since that link didn't go to the Spectator website. And you must have made an assumption regarding PublicAffairs without researching it carefully.
One question: I note that you have no objection with quoting Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison when it serves your purposes, nor Melvyn C. Goldstein, nor Tom Grunfeld, nor Robert W. Ford. What is the difference between your "five white guys" and these "two white guys" ... other than the fact that they say what you would like to quote?
Regarding "two white guys who weren’t there," surely you don't believe that the authors of the Tang Dynasty article can produce an eyewitness? That's why we rely on articles such as these. Longchenpa (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Longchenpa , authors like Kenneth Conboy are reporting the statements of westerners that were involved, statements that are neither Chinese nor Tibetan. Knaus and Roberts were not there; their material can only come from the Tibetans. It seems strange that you are not introducing material directly from the Tibetans. It raises the question of creditability. People who write about a subject have to be an expert on the subject. These two guys are no experts on Tibet in 1959. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"John Knaus, ORPHANS OF THE COLD WAR: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival, Public Affairs Press, 1999, 184pp. The next issue of AFIO's INTELLIGENCER newsletter will carry Joe Goulden's review of this book by a fellow AFIO member which ran in the August 8 Washington Times. Meanwhile, some excerpts: "On the practical level, according to agency veteran [and AFIO Member] Samuel Halpern, who served as FitzGerald's executive officer, 'The primary objective had little to do with aiding the Tibetans. It was to impede and harass the Chinese Communists.' In terms of political warfare, the effort succeeded. China's posturing as a champion of "peaceful coexistence" self-determination for the Third World was exposed as hypocritical blather, and four decades later the Dali Lama remains a potent symbol of anti-communism." .... "Inevitably, superior Chinese military ground down the resistance, and the guerrilla war ended with many of the Tibetans dead. Knaus interviewed many of the survivors for his book; to a man, they praise the United States for coming to their aid." Read it here: AFIO.
Once again you are careless in your research. You seem to be making claims without reading anything about the book whatsoever. Longchenpa (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see, so Mr. Knaus’s book was a part of the “political warfare” to “impede and harass” the CCP. That is why he is making accusations that the Tibetans themselves have not made. Longchenpa, I got it. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that Knaus' motives for this book is his regret that the Tibetans were abandoned by the US, and paid with their lives. The book is not even remotely flattering to the CIA, documenting the CIA screw-ups and eventual abandonment of the Tibetans. You seem to be unfamiliar with investigative journalism. While every text has a perspective, not every text is a distortion. Longchenpa (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Your editorializing and desperate reframing is pointless, Littlebutterfly. Mr. Knaus interviewed the Tibetans directly and this is what they have said. That's research. Here's another review of John Knaus' book by Foreign Affairs magazine. That's a well-respected magazine.


So far you have:
1) accused me wrongly of using self-published material
2) insisted that the writings of "two white guys" can't be used, despite the fact that you've used them yourself
3) insisted that the writings of "white guys" can't represent the Tibetan view, suggesting only Tibetans are appropriate sources, despite the fact that you've used these white guys and Xinhua which doesn't represent the Tibetan view
4) insisted that the writings of "white guys" that you have used "are reporting the statements of westerners that were involved, statements that are neither Chinese nor Tibetan" -- so your sources aren't Tibetan? Weren't those the only appropriate sources by your last argument?
5) when it was pointed out this book does use Tibetan sources and western sources directly involved -- since Knaus was the key case officer for Tibet -- you say that the Tibetans... didn't say the statements that are reported in the book?
What is this special inside knowledge that you have of what the Tibetans did and did not say? Longchenpa (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


The American Spectator is not usually an online magazine, and that online version might be posted without permission. I'd be willing to remove the link to the possible posting of The American Spectator's copyrighted article. Nonetheless, The American Spectator is a well-established print magazine. Your accusations, Littlebutterfly, are unfounded. I've already told you this on your talk page, we've had a conversation about it, and I'm surprised you've ignored that. Longchenpa (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is from some extremist pro-tibetan website etc, all sources on the atrocities should be fair game. Though things that happened after 1958 doesn't really belong here. Benjwong (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We should always use good sources. As I said below, removing the aftermath section now that less flattering information has come to light would smack of partisan censorship. I've left the inclusion of Conboy's book in place. Longchenpa (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
One might wonder what "extremist pro-tibetan" website means, or why one such should not be fair game, vs. PRC statements. What if the reality is extreme? -- Mindstalk (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well if a group was spawned to complain about tibetan human rights, and it never existed before prior to the Beijing olympic bid, it probably isn't really there for human rights. Nothing is worse than winning a political cause at the expense of tibetan's suffering. Benjwong (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to penalize people for when they decided to support the Tibetans. Obviously press coverage brings more attention (look at the expansion in the number of editors here). But I agree that there are definitely iffy sources in this world. :::::Littlebutterfly's flub notwithstanding, it seems to me that the editors of this article have a good handle on what makes a credible source. Actually, I wouldn't even mind LB making a mistake. It happens to the best of us. It's LB's persistence after the fact that is a matter of concern. Longchenpa (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Statistics of Casualties

This section should only talk about the casualties in the 1950-1951 period. The current version is trying to cover the much broader aspect of the casualty which is not directly covered by this topic. -munford (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly added to the Aftermath section with information from the Conboy book, expanding the scope in this direction. Longchenpa (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The figure was not added by me and I have no objection of removing the whole section. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Color me unsurprised. However, I have left your edits and expansion intact with your quotes from Conboy. To remove them now when other, less favorable facts come to light smacks of partisan censorship. Longchenpa (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I did some checking. Here you insisted that the Aftermath information should stay. Now that it does not represent your view, you have changed your mind and want the entire section gone. That is the definition of bias. Longchenpa (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Peaceful liberation"

I feel the quotes I'd added would be more in line with China having called the invasion a "peaceful liberation"; they alert the reader that something's up with the words. Without the quotes, it seems like a POV, like Wikipedia is calling something which ended in shelling crowds a peaceful liberation. If China is being quoted, quote marks should be used. Relying on the reader's sense of irony is fun for essays and the Economist and maybe the 1911 Britannica but probably bad policy for Wikipedia. -- Mindstalk (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be all right with that. Previous editors however have objected to the use of quote around "peaceful liberation" and around the word "invasion." Will we end up with quotes around both words? Longchenpa (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to recent edit warring and move warring, this page has been protected for a week. Please use this time to come to a consensus on what should be included and what title the page should be at. Please bear in mind the neutral point of view policy and remember to ensure that you use reliable sources. If you have agreed on everything before the protection expires, please drop by WP:RFPP to request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And remember WP:WEASEL as well. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My sources have been completely reliable and I'm amazed at Littlebutterfly inability to accept this in the face of overwhelming evidence. The book was reviewed by the New York Times, not self-published at all. The article has been used by US INS to determine asylum cases for former Tibetan resistance fighters, and it was published in a magazine that's been continuously published for the last 40 years. Longchenpa (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The validity of Orphans of the Cold War and "Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet"

I'd like to sum up the above post.

Littlebutterfly didn't do his/her homework and blundered when he/she suggested these were self-published. Au contraire.

Orphans of the Cold War by John Kenneth Knaus is published by Public Affairs Books. It has been reviewed by the New York Times and Foreign Affairs magazine. It includes first hand accounts by the people involved in the Tibetan resistance, including both Tibetans and westerners.

"Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" by John Roberts was published in print, in The American Spectator, which has been continuously publishing for the last 40 years. It has been used by ILW, an immigration law publisher to help lawyers determine Tibetan asylum cases concerning former members of Chushi Gangdruk, a Tibetan resistance organization that formed in 1952 to fight the invasion of Tibet.

The credibility of these two -- the fact that they're from established publishers, the reputation of the New York Times and others who have reviewed them, their use of both primary (Tibetans and CIA agents directly involved in the resistance to the invasion of Tibet) and secondary sources (outside materials) -- is solid. Littlebutterfly's accusations are baseless and false. Longchenpa (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a reliable sources noticeboard where you could ask for quick extra opinions. However, although I wish to avoid offering opinions on the content of this particular article, I would say that I think that the two sources mentioned would be considered reliable for any article for which they are relevant. CIreland (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No editor gets to pick the sources used by another editor so long as they are credible. Or else I would have Goldstein and Xinhua out of this article in a heartbeat. Longchenpa (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RS/N if you need further input, but they're definitely reliable enough. Whether they are strictly relevant is an editorial decision. Relata refero (disp.) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The CIA involvement with the Tibetan resistance is important to China because it's the basis for their claim that the Tibetans were CIA pawns.
The Tibetan resistance is important to the Tibetans because it demonstrates that they were against China's takeover and fought it; first on their own, then later with CIA support.
Using sources from former CIA agents and Tibetans directly involved in the Tibetan resistance sheds light on the methods of the 1950 invasion of Tibet and on the Tibetan response. Longchenpa (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Knaus, the author of Orphans of the Cold War was a CIA officer, his account of CIA’s involvement would be welcomed. I raised objection because the material you are using from this source is not about the CIA involvement but alleged atrocities against Tibetans. Such atrocities, if they did happen, would have been exposed by the Tibetans. The fact that the Tibetans themselves are not making such accusations raises doubts about these alleged atrocities. Mr. Knaus is a CIA officer not an academic, he interviewed Tibetans but that doesn’t mean he can not make up stories. Although this book meets the standards, on this subject it should not be used. Instead we should use Tibetan sources. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying, though I"m not sure I agree. In theory, anyone can make up stories; the key for us as Wikipedians is to make sure it's clear who's telling which story. I agree that we should use a different for a slightly different reason, that CIA sources aren't necessarily the most credible. It's certainly easy enough to find sources which describe the atrocities, Tibetan and NGO sources (like the UNCHR) are our best bets for this info. In short, keep the Knaus source for CIA involvement but find other sources for everything else. There's an article specifically on CIA activity in Tibet where this source would be extremely useful, but the exact title escapes me now. Gimme danger (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You must not know the discussion between Knaus and Conboy's books. From a scholarly perspective you can't include Conboy and not have Knaus, or else the argument is not complete. Knaus interviewed the Tibetans involved in the resistance. Conboy did not. Knaus went directly to the CIA agents involved. Conboy did not. Knaus had access to CIA information that Conboy did not have. There is no reason to include Conboy and not Knaus. In fact, that would be a mistake and misrepresentation.
As for the atrocities, the descriptions are taken from the Tibetans who were there. Unfortunately, Conboy did not interview the Tibetans so was unable to provide that information. It would be great if every piece of information in this article would have multiple sources, and I welcome that. But after Littlebutterfly's demand for ten sources for the word "invasion" in the first paragraph (have a look at the first paragraph), I said that from here on out we need equal treatment in the demand for proof/sources. She does not get to demand one source over another, so long as the source is credible -- and Knaus is -- nor does she again get to demand infinite numbers of sources where she herself provides only one. Longchenpa (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Knaus wasn't just "a CIA agent." He was the CIA's key contact with the Tibetans. He also interviewed the Tibetans for his book. His book is not a defense of the CIA, in fact, it is a regretful account of what happened when the CIA abandoned the Tibetans. The content of his book is highly embarrassing to the CIA (and sad). He is a very credible source.
We are not exclusively using scholars. I note you have a speech from Xinhua (not known for their scholarship) dated 2001, as well as journalistic accounts. Conboy is not a scholar either, he's a former political policy analyst who did not interview the Tibetan and did not have Knaus' high level access.
Also, you can't use Conboy's book without Knaus (or Knaus without Conboy). The two address each other's arguments, so in terms of scholarship, you would have to have both or you are not fully representing the issue. Longchenpa (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No editor gets to pick the sources used by another editor so long as they are credible. Or else I would have Goldstein's dinosaur and Xinhua's scholarship out of this article in a heartbeat. Longchenpa (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, you are forgetful and argumentative. First of all I did not “demand for ten sources for the word "invasion," I demanded sources to back the word “international” you used in the lead paragraph; check the dialogue yourself. Secondly, I do not reject Mr. Knaus’s book. What I have been saying again and again is that such accusations should come form the Tibetans. You have no desire for truth, all you want to do is put muck on China. Go ahead remove all those material (Goldstein's and Xinhua's), see if I care. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Heavens, The American Spectator is not a reliable source for anything; that one-man rant differs from a blog only in the technology it employs; the internet did not exist in 1967. I know it all too well; I used to live in Bloomington, Indiana. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How sure are you on this? There is quite a bit of info from the aftermath section off that source. Benjwong (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely; the name R. Emmett Tyrell is hard to forget. It is not impossible that he or his contributor has read a reliable source and is reflecting it accurately; but I wouldn't count on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland perspective

{{edit protected}} This material was added to torch relay page, not by me incidentally, please add to this article or other relevant articles, thanks Tom (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify the nature of the edit you wish to be made? You need to be more specific and provide the actual content you wish to be added. Remember, if it is even vaguely controversial, it is unlikely to be added by an administrator. CIreland (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 Not done CIreland took the words right out of my mouth: 1) be absolutely specific about what should be added, and where, including properly formatted references using cite templates if possible, and 2) if it's not completely uncontroversial, get support here before adding the template. Happy‑melon 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The validity of Orphans of the Cold War and "Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" (Putting this back in)

Littlebutterfly didn't do his/her homework and blundered when he/she suggested these were self-published. Au contraire.

Orphans of the Cold War by John Kenneth Knaus is published by Public Affairs Books. It has been reviewed by the New York Times and Foreign Affairs magazine. It includes first hand accounts by the people involved in the Tibetan resistance, including both Tibetans and westerners.

"Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" by John Roberts was published in print, in The American Spectator, which has been continuously publishing for the last 40 years. It has been used by ILW, an immigration law publisher to help lawyers determine Tibetan asylum cases concerning former members of Chushi Gangdruk, a Tibetan resistance organization that formed in 1952 to fight the invasion of Tibet.

(Actually, "Inside Story of CIA's Black Hands in Tibet" was NEVER published in The American Spectator. The article published in The American Spectator was titled "The Secret War Over Tibet," by John B. Roberts II, Dec. 1997, Volume 30, No. 13. The title you reference in Wikipedia is from a website in Thailand and has no relationship whatsoever with the article which was published by The American Spectator. John B. Roberts II is a former White House official, has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, and New York Times, and is a consulting television producer with more than 2,000 nationally-broadcast programs to his credit. Most recently, he co-authored "Freeing Tibet: 50 Years of Struggle, Resilience, and Hope," AMACOM, March 2009, for which he interviewed Tibetans and Americans. He is also the author of "Rating the First Ladies: The Women Who Influenced the Presidency," Kensington/Citadel, March 2003. His academic credentials include an MA from Oxford University in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. His first reporting on Tibet appeared in George Magazine, published by John F. Kennedy, Jr., in 1996. You can read more about his credentials on his website, www.FreeingTibet.com -- contributed by J.B. Roberts II) [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.219.208 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The credibility of these two -- the fact that they're from established publishers, the reputation of the New York Times and others who have reviewed them, their use of both primary (Tibetans and CIA agents directly involved in the resistance to the invasion of Tibet) and secondary sources (outside materials) -- is solid. Littlebutterfly's accusations are baseless and false. Longchenpa (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a reliable sources noticeboard where you could ask for quick extra opinions. However, although I wish to avoid offering opinions on the content of this particular article, I would say that I think that the two sources mentioned would be considered reliable for any article for which they are relevant. CIreland (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, something should be said for so-called reputable publishers and newspapers such as the New York Times. First of all, a publisher's foremost duty is not to ensure the validity of the information presented within a book, especially within a book where the facts cannot be easily reviewed or proven. A publisher, reputable or not, wants to sell as many copies as possible; the author also has the same motivation. A book is a publication where profit is the foremost consideration. As such, it is not inconceivable that both author and publisher could have invented "inflammatory" information to promote sales. Certainly, this has happened before.
Secondly, scholarly publications refer to those documents that have been peer-reviewed by other scholars, not "fact-checked" by an editor holding a MBA, no knowledge of history, and looking for profit. The problem with the book being reviewed by the New York Times and Foreign Affairs magazine is that a book review is as much an opinion-piece as an editorial. Book reviews do not fact-check, they do not look for alternate sources, or verify other scholarly content: they are reviews, a single editor's personal opinion of the book, no more, no less.
As such, Longchenpa, your arguments are moot. The fact that Knaus' book has been reviewed by publishers, newspapers, and magazines does not ascertain the validity of the information presented within it. Only peer-reviewed scholarly information that has been verified by an academic authority should be used as a source for factual statements. Other sources such as Knaus, Roberts, and Goldstein (if you like) should either be not included, or, if the information is to be presented, then the reader should be made aware of the low-credibility and possible bias of the source.
Given this, I suggest that the information based on these sources should either be removed, or should be designated as points-of-view/one-sided information that cannot be confidently verified. TheJammingYam (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No editor gets to pick the sources used by another editor so long as they are credible. Or else I would have Goldstein and Xinhua out of this article in a heartbeat. Longchenpa (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RS/N if you need further input, but they're definitely reliable enough. Whether they are strictly relevant is an editorial decision. Relata refero (disp.) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The CIA involvement with the Tibetan resistance is important to China because it's the basis for their claim that the Tibetans were CIA pawns.
The Tibetan resistance is important to the Tibetans because it demonstrates that they were against China's takeover and fought it; first on their own, then later with CIA support.
Using sources from former CIA agents and Tibetans directly involved in the Tibetan resistance sheds light on the methods of the 1950 invasion of Tibet and on the Tibetan response. Longchenpa (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Knaus, the author of Orphans of the Cold War was a CIA officer, his account of CIA’s involvement would be welcomed. I raised objection because the material you are using from this source is not about the CIA involvement but alleged atrocities against Tibetans. Such atrocities, if they did happen, would have been exposed by the Tibetans. The fact that the Tibetans themselves are not making such accusations raises doubts about these alleged atrocities. Mr. Knaus is a CIA officer not an academic, he interviewed Tibetans but that doesn’t mean he can not make up stories. Although this book meets the standards, on this subject it should not be used. Instead we should use Tibetan sources. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying, though I"m not sure I agree. In theory, anyone can make up stories; the key for us as Wikipedians is to make sure it's clear who's telling which story. I agree that we should use a different for a slightly different reason, that CIA sources aren't necessarily the most credible. It's certainly easy enough to find sources which describe the atrocities, Tibetan and NGO sources (like the UNCHR) are our best bets for this info. In short, keep the Knaus source for CIA involvement but find other sources for everything else. There's an article specifically on CIA activity in Tibet where this source would be extremely useful, but the exact title escapes me now. Gimme danger (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You must not know the discussion between Knaus and Conboy's books. From a scholarly perspective you can't include Conboy and not have Knaus, or else the argument is not complete. Knaus interviewed the Tibetans involved in the resistance. Conboy did not. Knaus went directly to the CIA agents involved. Conboy did not. Knaus had access to CIA information that Conboy did not have. There is no reason to include Conboy and not Knaus. In fact, that would be a mistake and misrepresentation.
As for the atrocities, the descriptions are taken from the Tibetans who were there. Unfortunately, Conboy did not interview the Tibetans so was unable to provide that information. It would be great if every piece of information in this article would have multiple sources, and I welcome that. But after Littlebutterfly's demand for ten sources for the word "invasion" in the first paragraph (have a look at the first paragraph), I said that from here on out we need equal treatment in the demand for proof/sources. She does not get to demand one source over another, so long as the source is credible -- and Knaus is -- nor does she again get to demand infinite numbers of sources where she herself provides only one. Longchenpa (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Do not claim that Knaus is credible. Did you strap the man to a lie-detector or an MRI machine and ask him questions about the validity of the information he presents in the book? How do you know he is more credible than Conboy, or Xinhua, or Goldstein? Unless you can provide two or three peer-reviewed, academic articles stating the irrefutability of Knaus, then he is unfortunately not credible.
Mr. Knaus wasn't just "a CIA agent." He was the CIA's key contact with the Tibetans. He also interviewed the Tibetans for his book. His book is not a defense of the CIA, in fact, it is a regretful account of what happened when the CIA abandoned the Tibetans. The content of his book is highly embarrassing to the CIA (and sad). He is a very credible source.
We are not exclusively using scholars. I note you have a speech from Xinhua (not known for their scholarship) dated 2001, as well as journalistic accounts. Conboy is not a scholar either, he's a former political policy analyst who did not interview the Tibetan and did not have Knaus' high level access.
Also, you can't use Conboy's book without Knaus (or Knaus without Conboy). The two address each other's arguments, so in terms of scholarship, you would have to have both or you are not fully representing the issue. Longchenpa (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that Mr. Knaus is a credible source because he wrote a book that is embarrassing to the CIA? That does not sound credible at all to me. The fact of the matter is, we get this information from Mr. Knaus, no one else. The book is not penned by multiple authors, nor is it verified by any academics; it is not peer-reviewed, nor is it fact-checked. Mr. Knaus may be a high-leveled contact, as you claim, but that does NOT make him credible by any stretch of the imagination. If you believe that sources such as Xinhua and Conboy are not scholarly, then by all means, remove the information based on them, or tag them as one-sided/biased. But do not pretend that Knaus is somehow more credible than any other non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, non-scholarly article. TheJammingYam (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No editor gets to pick the sources used by another editor so long as they are credible. Or else I would have Goldstein's dinosaur and Xinhua's scholarship out of this article in a heartbeat. Longchenpa (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, you are forgetful and argumentative. First of all I did not “demand for ten sources for the word "invasion," I demanded sources to back the word “international” you used in the lead paragraph; check the dialogue yourself. Secondly, I do not reject Mr. Knaus’s book. What I have been saying again and again is that such accusations should come form the Tibetans. You have no desire for truth, all you want to do is put muck on China. Go ahead remove all those material (Goldstein's and Xinhua's), see if I care. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Heavens, The American Spectator is not a reliable source for anything; that one-man rant differs from a blog only in the technology it employs; the internet did not exist in 1967. I know it all too well; I used to live in Bloomington, Indiana. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How sure are you on this? There is quite a bit of info from the aftermath section off that source. Benjwong (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely; the name R. Emmett Tyrell is hard to forget. It is not impossible that he or his contributor has read a reliable source and is reflecting it accurately; but I wouldn't count on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was not written by Tyrrell but by John Roberts. The American Spectator is not even remotely a one man rant (although I will agree it is conservative and anti-Kennedy). Articles this week (June 2-6th) were written by:

  • Philip Klein
  • Tyrrell
  • Quin Hillyer
  • David Weigel
  • Robert Stacy McCain
  • G. Tracy Mehan
  • John Tabin
  • William Tucker
  • Peter Ferrara
  • Lisa Fabrizio
  • Daniel Allott
  • Tom Bethell
  • Jeffrey Lord
  • Dawn Eden
  • Juan Carlos Hidalgo
  • Larry Thornberry
  • George H. Wittman
  • W. James Antle III
  • Andrew Cline
  • John Lomperis
  • Hal G.P. Colebatch

I don't know where Septentrionalis PMAnderson is getting his information, but the list of contributors is clear. It's not blog, it's a magazine, and there are many different writers contributing, like any other magazine. Longchenpa (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barry Sautman, June Teufel Dreyer, Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, And Society In A Disputed Region pp. 239
  2. ^ The Independent on-line
  3. ^ http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dalai-lama-cant-bring-peace-to-capitol-hill-2007-10-18.html
  4. ^ www.FreeingTibet.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_1&oldid=1136522433"