Talk:Battle of Chamdo

Page Title

Shouldn't this page be named something more than just the "Battle of Chamdo" if it includes a section about the preceding resistance by warlords in the Kham region? Also, the exactingly-worded page on the "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" includes a section called "Invasion of Tibet" which links here - where there is another section called "Invasion of Tibet" (which describes the Battle of Chamdo). Surely the section on this page should be called the "Battle of Chamdo", and the whole page called the "Chinese Invasion of Tibet". Furthermore, citations [9] and [10] make no mention of an official Chinese usage of the "Liberation of Chambo", only a "Liberation of Tibet", or a "Peaceful Liberation of Tibet". The citations would serve as well - better, in fact - if the title were changed. 87.114.154.10 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

reverted edits by 200.33.161.74

200.33.161.74 made a number of edits moving the article towards the PRC POV. Some of the edits were wording changes that reasonable people can (and have) disagree(d) on, for example invasion vs. liberation. Probably 200.33.161.74 should have discussed these first.
However other edits changed wording to direct quotes and statistics without regard to the sources, and a few of the wording changes created dead links from live ones: 8,500 -> 850,000 Tibetan troops, 5,000 -> few Tibetan casualties, "...Quamdo Battle..." -> "...Quamdo Skirmish...", Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China -> Reunification of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. Because of these, I reverted before discussing back to the 5Aug11 version by Davin.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP has repeatedly added pro-Chinese POV additions without any discussion, despite having been warned by other users. I have reverted his most recent edits to article. If he does so again, I will report him.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you as this page is giving a completely different perception of the Battle of Chamdo. I've found recently this tendency - favouring PRC - in several articles directly or indirectly related to China. And this is very serious.--Gicacoca (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

military campaign?

Was the campagn (= internal campaign name in PLA) really "Battle of Qamdo"? Sure not. Please rename the article to the PLA's campaign name, or maybe just change the word "campaign" or just "The Battle of Chamdo was the result of a Chinese campaign to invade Tibet." ? Cheers! --129.132.191.142 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The battle is part of the campaign. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies

It says in the article that "Britain wanted talks in India", and "Britain wanted no talks at all". Which one is true? If there are any more contradicting statements also put them here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yny501 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Britain preferred no talks at all, fearing that once the two sides discovered the irreconsilability of their positions, war would quickly follow. But if talks were to occur, Britain preferred that they take place in India. This comes from the Shakya Tsering reference cited at the end of the paragraph.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

5,000 "liquidated" needs to be reconciled with the rest of the text. What's meant by liquidated? Is there legitimate disagreement between scholars? If so, what and why? MarcusGraly (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page appears not to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I have tagged it as such.

1) For example, the page is entitled "Battle of Chamdo", whereas I believe a historically correct description is "Chinese invasion of Tibet."

2) In the description, the event is described merely as "The Battle of Chamdo (Chinese: 昌都战役), or known officially in China as the Liberation of Chamdo". I believe this is plainly written from ROC's point of view, and not a NPOV, e.g. "Chinese invasion of Tibet" is not mentioned at all, and "Liberation of Chamdo" can only be a reasonable decription from one entity's point of view, namely ROC's.

3) It refers to "de facto independent Tibet" which implies that Tibet was not an internationally recognized nation, but one which was de iure not independent, but only independent de facto. This again is not NPOV.

4) The page claims that the invasion ("liberation") only took after "months of negotiations". I believe that months of demands for a nation to surrender its independence to a foreign invader, following an invasion by the said invader, can hardly neutrally be called "negotiations".

5) Tibet's territorial integrity is written in quotation marks ("territorial integrity"), implying that the author considers the territorial integrity of a sovereign (and internationally recognized as sovereign) nation as being fake.

Etc. The whole of the rest of the article is written in this way, i.e. not from a NPOV. Perhaps someone else can add to my observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarian.liber (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Though I did not contribute to this article, I feel able to answer some of the points:

1)What some calls "Chinese Invasion of Tibet" is the set of events 1949-1951 that eventually resulted in Tibet's incorporation in to the PRC, while "Battle of Chamdo" is the main military action in this period. They are not the same.

2)The terminology of "Invasion", "Annexation", "Incorporation", or "Liberation" should not be a topic of this battle, and has already been discussed in detail at Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. For this article, the neutral term "Incorporation" is fine.

"Liberation of Chamdo" refers only to this battle, the same as "Liberation of Peking", "Liberation of Shanghai", etc. From the CTA's standpoint "Invasion of Chamdo" should also be theoretically possible, but I'm not going to add it as I cannot find this usage anywhere.

3)The unwillingness of Britain and India to recognize Tibetan passports, even after the CPC has taken over China, is exactly one of the main reasons that prevented the Tibetans from making any effective contact with the Chinese before the attack in Kham.

4)You may suggest that the Chinese "dictated" their terms to the Tibetans. But that is not true.

5)Removed, though I don't think it is inappropriate for an unrecognized state.

For reference: Goldstein, 1989, A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 1: 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State.

Therefore I suggest the NPOV tag be removed if no objection. Esiymbro (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, see no objection in the tag being removed.--Elnon (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ removed. Esiymbro (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's be honest: This article drips with pro-CPC disinformation, and is definitely not NPOV.

#1 The "Battle of Chamdo" was the pivotal battle during China's invasion of Tibet: PLA Troops entered Amdo in 1949, and moved to the north of Chamdo, the Do Kham administrative center of Central Tibet; other PLA troops then entered Kham in Oct1950 as Tibet and China were holding diplomatic talks in India. The troops joined around Chamdo and attacked, decimating the Tibetan army, disappearing the Kalon (Governor), and killing lots of civilians. Tibet's UN complaint was dated Nov1950, and was written and signed by a fully independent nation. #2 The whole de jure disinformation issue began after 1961 when Tibet was found to be "at minimum a de jure nation in 195" 0 by the UN's advising lawyers, whom clearly stated that their job did not entail ascertaining moe " (paraphra after quotation marks s e). The words de jure in regards to Tibet's nation state status have been misinterpreted ever sin:ce " ' de jure at minim"um cannot and should not be reinterpreted as only de jure ','since no maximum legal status was found. . #3 and the list could continue, so removing the NPOV flag was not appropriate. The article should be reflagged. 103.146.218.84 (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

there's a formatting "bug" in the reply above - see the weird punctuation and spelling errors.. 103.146.218.84 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting; unexplained removal of "De facto independent"; for the second edit, please provide the page number of the International Commission of Jurists report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Battle of Chamdo is a part of Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China.--36.234.29.139 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Chamdo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923204622/http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/TheKarmaofTibet.pdf to http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/TheKarmaofTibet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualty figure for China seems to be from propaganda outlet

Check the source cited for the casualty total. Definitely not a neutral article TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually never mind, I was thinking of the other article linked in the source TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)