Talk:Tibet under Qing rule/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge proposal

In line with this comment, I would propose to merge both Tibet under Qing rule and Ganden Phodrang into Lhasa state. See discussion here.--6-A04-W96 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Such a merge doesn't make anything right, add confusion, Ganden Phodrang continuated after Qing Dynasty and Lhasa state isn't a recognised name.Popolon (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing and original research

This article is written like a Chinese schoolbook and contains a lot of original research. The title itself (Tibet under Qing rule) is a POV, and sources are often diverted from their original meaning.

Just to give a couple of examples, the sentence "Tibet is often considered as a protectorate of China during this period" does not reflect the source, which says "The protectorate that China had established over Tibet in the eighteenth century remained into the twentieth century. By the late nineteenth century, however, given the weight of China's domestic and foreign-related burdens, Chinese hegemony over Tibet remained in theory but in actuality was a dead letter." (Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Change in Modern Chinese History, by R. Keith Schoppa, p341). The claim that 2,000 imperial troups were stationed at Lhasa is does not concern most of the period in question. The maps are original reseach too and have been discribed as "modern fantasy with no historical basis".

The whole article should be rewritten with a new title and a more neutral approach.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I must mention that the lead paragraph is only supposed to be a summary. The section "Gorkha invasions" of this article already mentions in details that "Tibet was clearly subordinate to the Qing by the end of the 18th century. But with the arrival of the 19th century, especially with the weakening of the Qing dynasty itself in the later half of the 19th century, Qing authority over Tibet gradually weakened to the point of being minuscule, or merely symbolic. Chinese historians argue that the ambans' presence was an expression of Chinese sovereignty, while those favouring Tibetan independence claims tend to equate the ambans with ambassadors." Clearly, it is not written like a Chinese schoolbook at all as you said by simply looking at this sentence; what you described as POV pushing above really makes completely no sense (and why should we repeat the almost same block of sentence in the same article at all?). As for the map, please look at reliable secondary sources (which are what Wikipedia is based on per WP:RS) such as the map in "The Cambridge History of China", volume 9, page 280-281. It is clearly not a modern fantasy with no historical basis. Furthermore, Tibet is mentioned as a "Vassal and region of the Qing dynasty" in the infobox, which no doubt reflects the reality -- virtually all unbiased reliable secondary sources would consider Tibet to be a part of the Qing, so the title is not POV either, nor it is original research. It is also consistent with similar articles such as Taiwan under Qing rule. --Cartakes (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here a few points that illustrate the general biais of the article in general, and the introduction in particular:

1. POV title. Nobody denies the fact that, for certain periods of the Qing Empiry, Tibet can be described as a dependency, a vassal state or a protectorate of this Empire. There were however long periods during which there was no effective control and no direct administration, as you have yourself acknowledged. You defined 1720 as the starting point for the Qing "rule" over Tibet, however the Qing dynasty started in 1644... "Tibet (1720-1912)" might be a more factual title.
2. POV lead: "During the Qing rule of Tibet, the region was structurally, militarily and administratively controlled by the Qing dynasty established by the Manchus in China. In the history of Tibet, the Qing administrative rule was established (...) in 1720, and lasted until (...) 1912. (...) the Ambans to Tibet, who commanded over 2,000 troops stationed in Lhasa". There was clearly not two centuries of continuous military and administrative control. What about the British invasion in 1904, where were the Qing troops at that time? What about the fact that the Tibetan government was not obeying to the treaties signed between the British and the Chinese in the late 18th century regarding Tibet? What about treaties and conventions signed directly by the Tibetan government with foreign government? Clearly there were no 2,000 troups stationed in Lhasa during the whole period. All reputable sources do acknowledge that the Chinese rule, for extended period, was at best theoretical or symbolic, a point that was did not appear in your introduction.
3. Distortion of sources. See above my initial comment.
4. "those favouring Tibetan independence claims tend to equate the ambans with ambassadors" That is the usual rhetoric trick tending to discredit all scholars who do not embrace the PRC point of view and terminology. So what about contemporary sources, such as Auguste Desgodins, who in 1904 talks about the "Chinese Ambassador" and mention that China seems to be "relegated among the foreign powers" during the negotiation of the "Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet". You may certainly not accuse him of "favouring Tibetan independance claims"...
5. "Golden urn section". The golden urn had an anecdotal relevance until put in the spotlight in 1995. I wonder how this could become the title of a section...
6. The article sections, both in their content and subdivisions, denote a clear sinocentric approach of the Tibet history during this period. History is read in the light of the interaction between the Qing Empire and Tibet, almost nothing is written about Tibet as such. One would have expected the chapters to reflect the chronology of the different rulers during this period.
7. As already mentioned, the maps are indeed modern fantasies and are not based on historical maps as you claim. You will find the full discussion here.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with above. Even you have acknowledged yourself from the source saying "The protectorate that China had established over Tibet in the 18th century remained into the 20th century", whether there were more symbolic or not. The point when the Qing dynasty itself started is irrelevant, but this article is simply about the period when Tibet was part of the Qing. There is nothing wrong with the title "Tibet under Qing rule" as with similar articles such as "Taiwan under Qing rule". Qing rule in Taiwan also did not start in 1644, but in 1683, so your point about this makes no sense. The title "Tibet (1720-1912)" would make it more like Tibet was independent between 1720 and 1912, which is definitely a POV push. The sentences following your ambassadors statement was "The relationship between Tibet and (Qing) China was that of patron and priest and was not based on the subordination of one to the other, according to the 13th Dalai Lama. (The 13th Dalai Lama was deposed in 1904, reinstated in 1908 and deposed again in 1910 by the Qing government, but these pronouncements were not taken seriously in Lhasa.)", which really sounds like pro-Dalai Lama POV push according to your logic. Your cherry picking-style pointing of evidence makes it sounds somehow like it is biased towards one direction, when in fact this is definitely not the case. Also, sections such as "Golden Urn" were split from other articles coming almost completely intact, so I don't know how they were titled so either. However, all unbiased Qing maps (such as those from Cambridge already mentioned) would consider Tibet to be part of Qing, from the late 18th century to the early 20th century. Whether there are some small differences among them (such as the inclusion of Aksai Chin) don't matter, the important point is that Tibet proper was considered part of Qing by all these reliable sources. In fact you are the one who is trying to make some kind of POV push. --Cartakes (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to understand the link between the seven specific points I mentioned and the comment above. It seems we are talking about different things. Regarding the title proposal, what about History of Tibet between 1720 and 1912 is you believe my previous proposal can be misunderstood as a POV push?--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about title first. For the title, why not try to be consistent with similar articles such as Taiwan under Qing rule and Xinjiang under Qing rule? I see no reason to title it different from others, and consistency is an important deciding factor of article naming per Wikipedia:Article titles. Even if there is something special about Tibet, it was still a part of Qing (just like Taiwan etc) as shown by all unbiased reliable secondary sources available, and anything specific to Tibet can be easily solved by mentioning it in the article text. --Cartakes (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There is one major reason: Taiwan was considered a fully submitted country/state/region, while Tibet was considered a vassal country of the Qing Empire (see here and here), you cannot compare pears and apples. As for Xinjiang, you are the creator of the article (and I believe you are also the creator of the Tibet article under another user name), so it is a bit like citing yourself. Cheers,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This article was initially created under the name Tibet under Qing administrative rule, modeled on the similar article named Tibet under Yuan administrative rule (created by someone else). This article was moved to current title by User:Srnec for the reason of consistency with other articles ([1]), which I agreed with. Also, I agree that Tibet was a vassal (as mentioned in the infobox), but please note that virtually all unbiased reliable secondary sources would also consider Tibet to be part of Qing, just like Xinjiang etc. Similarly, Korea (Goryeo dynasty) was a vassal country of the Yuan, but it was also considered part of Yuan by reliable sources. In order to show proof for your argument, I would expect at least one unbiased reliable secondary source stating Tibet was not part of Qing (thus suggesting the title is POV). Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read what I wrote, and instead you keep making assumptions and associations on your own. Back to square one, please read point 1 and 6 above.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me do this instead, i.e. trying to answer your point 1 and 6 above directly:

Point 1 (POV title): Nobody denies the fact that, for certain periods of the Qing Empiry, Tibet can be described as a dependency, a vassal state or a protectorate of this Empire. There were however long periods during which there was no effective control and no direct administration, as you have yourself acknowledged. You defined 1720 as the starting point for the Qing "rule" over Tibet, however the Qing dynasty started in 1644... "Tibet (1720-1912)" might be a more factual title.

Reply: Qing rule in Tibet, just like Qing rule in Outer Mongolia, Xinjiang and Taiwan, did not start in 1644, but instead started in 1720, 1691, 1759, and 1683 respectively. These articles are all about Qing rule in this areas (only) in these periods. The naming of these articles are similar to that of for example Taiwan under Japanese rule, which started in 1895 instead of 1868 when the Empire of Japan was formed, so the said article is focused on Japanese rule in Taiwan between 1895 and 1945. This article (Qing rule in Tibet) is similarly only about the rule in Tibet starting in 1720, and focus is about the rule of the Qing dynasty during the period. As for the Tibet regime itself, there is already a separate article for that, which is Ganden Phodrang, similar to the Korean Goryeo regime which was once under Yuan rule. Clearly their focuses are different.

Point 6 (The article sections): both in their content and subdivisions, denote a clear sinocentric approach of the Tibet history during this period. History is read in the light of the interaction between the Qing Empire and Tibet, almost nothing is written about Tibet as such. One would have expected the chapters to reflect the chronology of the different rulers during this period.

Reply: As mentioned in the reply to your point 1 above, this article is supposed to be focused on the Qing rule in Tibet, and thus an emphasis of the interaction between the Qing Empire and Tibet was indeed placed, similar for the Korea under Yuan rule article, an emphasis of the interaction between the Yuan and Korea (Goryeo) was placed. For the Tibet and Korea themselves during those periods however, Ganden Phodrang and Goryeo are supposed to be the articles for them. There should be different focuses on these different articles. However, I agree that even more can be said in these articles. --Cartakes (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

By stating that this article is supposed to be "focused on the Qing rule in Tibet" (rather than the "History of Tibet during the period between 1720 and 1912"), you have proven once more the sinocentrist approach of this article. Acccording to the infobox, it was supposed to be part of the chronological serie on Tibet history.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by "supposed to" is that this article was in some sense meant to focus more on the Qing rule in Tibet (and thus the relationship between them; the infobox is a relatively new addition), and the other article Ganden Phodrang was meant to cover the Tibet regime itself. This approach is not limited to this article; as mentioned above in the Korea under Yuan rule article for example an emphasis of the interaction between the Yuan and Korea (Goryeo) was also placed. Maybe this article should be moved to Qing rule in Tibet instead so that it is more obvious to focus on the Qing rule instead of the Tibetan history during that period, similar to the article British rule in Burma. Or maybe we can restructure this article to make it less about relationship about them. But since the separate article Ganden Phodrang already exists, there still should be some emphasis on the Qing part. --Cartakes (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tibet was not treated as a foreign country. The Qing made a clear distinction between external vassals 外國 (foreign countries) like Korea, Ryukyu, and Vietnam, and internal "feudatory" "vassals" 外藩 (or 藩部) who were part of the Qing state, like Tibet and Mongolia. Tibet and Mongolia were NEVER considered 外國 by the Qing, unlike the foreign tributary vassals like Korea, Ryukyu and Vietnam. If you can read Qing documents you would know the difference.Rajmaan (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A balanced view of History would require to also analyse how Tibet was considering itself during this period, how Tibet perceived its relations with the Qing Empire, as well as how other countries/historians view this period. For your information, I can read Qing documents, but to the difference of some conributors, I am also able to understand other historical accounts.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The maps you cited were [2] and [3]

It appears you have no idea what the colors on Brue_Atlas_Universel signify. Taiwan is the same color as the provinces of China, because Taiwan was a part of Fujian province, and western mapmakers often showed the Eighteen Provinces 內地十八省 (郡县) and the Qing "feudatories" 外藩 (藩部), which westerners called Chinese Tartary in different colors, while making it clear that both were part of the Qing state. Xinjiang's Tarim Basin is not shown on that map as part of the Qing and more importantly, is not colored or portrayed within the borders of the Qing because in 1875 Yaqub Beg was ruling it as an independent emirate.

The same is the case with Carte generale. The Eighteen provinces (China proper) and the outer feudatories (Chinese Tartary) are shown with internal borders marking each other off while there is a general yellow border around the whole Qing Empire/

This map makes it clear. There is a yellow color and yellow boundary around China in general, while Tibet, Mongolia, and Xinjiang are shown with purple borders which says in the color key "Land under Chinese suzerainty (oberhoheit)". China and "Chinese Tartary" (Tibet, Mongolia, and Xinjiang) are shown with internal yellow borders as well as external yellow borders, with purple borders delineating the different Tibetan provinces and Mongol leagues under the Qing's suzerainty.

It was a common western practice to show Chinese Tartary and China proper in this manner, and does not show Tibet as independent from the Qing.Rajmaan (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that your comment is not related to this talk page. I have not mentioned any map other that this modern fantasy in order to illustrate the OR affecting this article, so you are preaching for the converted with your endless talks about Tibet being formally a dependency during part of the Qing dynasty. If we can go back to the topic, my point is that this article is written as a sinocentric essay (not to say a Chinese schoolbook), oversimplifying the complex and fluctuating relations between the Qing and Tibet during the period covered, with a lead section showing a clear POV for describing Tibet fully under direct Qing administrative and military control while most authors agree that this control was at best of symbolic nature for part of the period covered in the article. That's all, please try to refrain from further digressions. Thanks, --6-A04-W96 (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You clearly mentioned those two maps here in a straw man attempt to compare Taiwan (part of the Qing's Eighteen provinces) with Tibet (part of "Chinese Tartary").Rajmaan (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I oversaw it. But that was certainly not a straw man from my side, to the opposite I was explaining Cartakes that he could not compare Taiwan and Tibet as they had different statutes during the Qing empire, at least we agree on this point. It seems that you and other editors are desperately attempting at creation diversions in order not to address the main issue affecting this article, so let me try to put it a last time on the table: this article is written as a sinocentric essay (not to say a Chinese schoolbook), oversimplifying the complex and fluctuating relations between the Qing and Tibet during the period covered, with a lead section showing a clear POV for describing Tibet fully under direct Qing administrative and military control while most authors agree that this control was at best of symbolic nature for part of the period covered in the article. That's all, please try to refrain from further digressions. Thanks,--6-A04-W96 (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that while I agree there was some kind of oversimplification in the original lead, the very point you mentioned (i.e. more symbolic during part of the period) was not biased in the article as a whole since it was already explained in details in the main text (as mentioned earlier). And now the lead has been changed as well, so this specific point is no longer applicable. As for your description that this article being written as a "sinocentric essay", I still don't think it is a good idea to say so -- it is more like an article focus issue; the other article Ganden Phodrang I created spanning the period from 1642 to 1959 in fact may be described as a "Tibet-centric essay" according to this same standard of yours. --Cartakes (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it is clear that it is in fact the above user (6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38) who makes POV push and tendentious edits. He has been blocked on the Commons: [4]. For more information see File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png#Removal of "Disputed factual accuracy template". --Cartakes (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mullin" references

There are several references in the form Mullin 2001 p. X... but there is not source authored by Mullin. The same happens in Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720).--Hienafant (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See Glenn H. Mullin, a Canadian Buddhist writer. --Elnon (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue and etc in Tibet

@Kautilya3 and Zanhe: @Tibet Nation: Did the Tibetans wear the queue at any time? Did they pay taxes to the Manchu enperor? Was the imperial examination system (keju) extended to Tibet? I have a source saying they never did these things and plan to add it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I know, China only exercised influence on Tibet through an amban placed in Lhasa. This was up to 1908 or so. After that, the Tibetans declared independence. There was never any direct administration of Tibet by China. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the probem with this page is that it describes a highly debatable and contentious topic, viz., Qing protectorate over China, as if it is a settled issue, and overblows its importance as "Qing rule". It is quite off-putting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The answer is 'no' for all three questions. Qing had no tax collector in Tibet; tax was collected by each Dzong then sent to Lhasa. See Shakabpa's book for details (he was a finance minister in Kashag). That's why Tibet is a money-losing proposition for Qing, and part of the reason why Qing reduced its military presence in Tibet since mid-19th century. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)