Talk:Tibet/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Disagreement

Please sort out the disagreement here. Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to engage in edit warring you will be blocked, which I don't want to happen. _Please leave the article alone until you can discuss the issue you are concerned with.. Himalayan 14:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the 1st communication. My points are:

• The 13th Dalai Lama did make a pro-independence declaration, while it's "not precisely a declaration of independence" in modern terms and 14 provinces of Inner China also did the same thing. So I think no one will say there existed dozens of "independent countries" in China during that time. We need no more to mention that the Dalai Lame also made some pro-unification speeches later.
• The fact that the 14th Dalai Lama was elected to be the Vice Chairman of 1st NPC is very important because it means he did totally accept the fait accompli of CCP's government--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources to back up the claims? Himalayan 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the article? Every edit I made was always sourced. OK, I show you here so that you won't be lost:

• "not precisely a declaration of independence" -- Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989-1991), p. 62
• "14 provinces of Inner China" -- a complete list of these independent provinces: Hubei, Hunan, Shaanxi, Jiangxi, Shanxi, Yunnan, Guizhou, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangxi, Anhui, Guangdong, Fujian, Sichuan
• "the Dalai Lame also made some pro-unification speeches" -- Liu Manqing / dByangs can, A Mission to Xikang and Tibet (The Commercial Press, 1934), p. 118-120.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Himalayan. My impression is that those 14 inner Chinese provinces declared independence (from the Qing?) in 1911, not 1913. Additionally, I think by 1913 had all taken part in the National Assembly elections. Of course I might be wrong. But that Chinese provinces and later warlords used declarations of independence as a political tool does not mean all other declarations of independence are mere political tools, too.

I also believe that none of these 14 promises mentioned "driving out the Chinese" as part of their agenda in their declarations of independence. But I'll admit that I have read none of those other declarations of independence.

Re that NPC stuff, I don't think Tibet and the 14th Dalai Lama are the same. E.g., they do have separate Wikipedia articles. Yaan (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You speak of the National Assembly elections, the photos at your right are representatives of Tibet during 1946-1948. As fot the exact date of 14 provinces' independence, I'm not sure for this moment but I can give them out later and please pay attention that I said "at the same time", not "in the same year".

Moreover, in your opinion a declaration of independence = "drive out the Chinese"? OK, the declaration of independence of Jiangxi ever said "According to the principle of Self-determination, ... the army of Jiangxi should be organized by Jiangxi people, ... any foreign armies should quickly withdraw in a limited time."(爰本民族自決之義...應由贛人整編贛軍...此外無論何方軍隊，速行限期撤回)--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that the Korean war did not happen at the same time that Mao won the Chinese Civil War? Or that at least 1948 is not 1913?

Does the Jiangxi contain any words on the relation between Jiangxi and China? Just curious. Yaan (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between Tibetan independence in 1913 and other provincess independence in other years, earlier or later. The fact that they declared independence, from foreign political entity is the point. However, we'll never say there were dozens of countries in China then, since a country is not that easy to found. As for Jiangxi's independence declaration, the citation I quoted is politically sufficient I think, since Tibet's independence declaration is not precisely correct in modern terms.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the Tibetan declaration of independence sufficiently clearly states that Tibet is not part of China, and that the subsequent behaviour of the Tibetan rulers confirms this opinion. Those Chinese provinces, OTOH, even if they should have ever claimed to be not part of China, proceeded to take part in the national assembly of the Republic of China. Yaan (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't find the text of Tibetan declaration, but according to Goldstein, Melvyn C's interpretation, it's not precisely a declaration of independence in modern terms itself. Secondly, Tibet also took part in the national assembly of the Republic of China in later years. Frankly, I wonder if you read what I said or not.--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "vice chairman of NPC" stuff implies that the Dalai Lama was awarded an influential position in the Chinese government. But if you know anything about how the Chinese government works, you know that the party and military positions are the ones that count. NPC vice chair is a big nothing. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that the NPC vice chair is a big nothing, that's why the Dalai Lama decided to flee in 1959. However, he (the reprensentative of Tibet since there were no referendum) accepted this post, which means the government of PRC in Tibet from 1950-1959 is surely legal.--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So you can lay claim to a piece of territory by dispensing meaningless titles to the local poobahs? This strikes me as an idiosyncratic point of view, one that have to cite an authority for notability to be established. Besides, what would it imply about Tibet's status post-1959? Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of this material may or may not belong in some article somewhere in Wikipedia, but not in the lead of the Tibet article. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the contents of the article. Bertport (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Kauffner & Yaan have nothing to say right now, so M. Bertport now stands out, saying my edits are just at the wrong place. HaHa, thank you all the same.

Nevertheless, I wonder who is honored to write the lead of articles. Why your guys' arguments can show off on the top, not the mine? Personally, I find my arguement hyper important for presenting Tibet's history, and I also know well they won't please pro-independentists.--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If those facts are as hyper-important as you think, you can probably also find them in other general-purpose reference works. Yaan (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change subject. If you have no more objections against my arguments, I'll consider the consensus has been reached and I'll change the article back as it was at the beginning of the day, except the "14 provinces of Inner China" since I haven't find their independence day.

Some opinion like "wrong place" is absolutely not convincible, but, on the other hand, if you remove all political descriptions in the lead of the article, I'll also change my arguments' place.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked "Why your guys' arguments can show off on the top, not the mine? Personally, I find my arguement hyper important for presenting Tibet's history", I answered "If those facts are as hyper-important as you think, you can probably also find them in other general-purpose reference works.". I don't see how this is a change of subject - you asked who decides which facts are important enough to be included in the lead section of an wp article, I answered that if facts are mentioned prominently in other encyclopedias, they are probably important enough to be mentioned prominently on wp (and vice versa). I don't think this NPC stuff or those other 14 or 15 provinces from some time before 1913 are mentioned very prominently anywhere. Yaan (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, you want to say what should be included in the lead section of an wp article, it should be mentioned prominently in other encyclopedias. However I think Wikipedia tries to avoid self-references so that each wp works independently, furthermore English wp is often the reference of other wikipedias. All in all, I think at present we have only the problem where to place my/ur arguments. Whereas it's a subjective question, I propose to remove all political descriptions and then we talk about them in the specific section. Do you agree?--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you aware that there are encyclopedias that do not work like wikipedia, for example printed ones? i haven't checked that many myself, but I would be quite surprised if you can find a few that lose a lot of words on the 14th Dalai Lama's position with the NPC when covering Tibet. I.e., I believe most encyclopedia editors find this factoid rather unimportant. If you are into WP policies, the relavant one is WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. [...] [...] Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.".

Last not least, if this is so important, shouldn't this also be added to the lede of the National People's Congress article? Yaan (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding LaGrandefr's three points:

• "not precisely a declaration of independence". According to the English translation of the 1913 declaration we are linking to, the 13th Dalai Lama declared that "we are a small, religious, and independent nation". I haven't read the original Tibetan version, but this means that either a) it has been mistranslated; or b) the declaration declared Tibet to be independent in no uncertain terms. The fact that this is not precisely a declaration of independence in the modern Western sense does not seem very relevant, since Tibet in 1913 was not a modern Western country.
• "14 provinces of Inner China". I don't think this is very relevant, either. Tibet's relationship to Beijing, as well as Tibet's overall social and political situation, was quite different than that of the provinces both before and after Xinhai. The fact that some of the provincial governments had unusual motivations for declaring independence during the Xinhai Revolution doesn't say much about the motivations of the Dalai Lama for declaring Tibet's independence a year after the revolution. In the absence of some evidence to the contrary, it seems natural to assume that the Dalai Lama's declaration meant what it said.
• "the Dalai Lama also made some pro-unification speeches". Goldstein mentions Liu Manqing's claims in a footnote and says specifically that he thinks they are misrepresentations that she made for her own reasons. Outside of Simla, the 13th Dalai Lama seems to have pursued a consistently nationalist policy.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DL's proclamation was translated by Shakabpa. Goldstein's version is a reprint of Shakabpa's, so this appears to be the only version commonly available. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

recognized as an independent nation

This is a phrase from the lede:

nor was Tibet officially recognized as an independent nation by any country

First of all, this is not technically true since the 1913 Tibet-Mongolia treaty states that Tibet is independent. Also, there is diplomatic correspondence by British Foreign Minister Eden from 1943 which states: Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence. But more importantly, it gives undue significance to something that is not remarkable. Governments don't usually give official opinions about the status of other countries relative to disputes that don't directly effect them. The phrase "official recognition" misleadingly implies that it is a standard official procedure for states to express opinions concerning the independence of other states. Nowadays, this is done via UN membership, but this is a recent development. (Nepal wasn't a member until 1955, Mongolia not until 1961.) Perhaps the writer is confused with the issue of diplomatic recognition. Kauffner (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that is generally regarded as close enough for government work, but you're right that it is not precisely correct. Tibet also had regular foreign relations with Nepal, and Britain's position was ambiguous (probably more ambiguous before the 1940s—Britain and China were allies in a war at that point, after all). I think the point we're trying to get across is that Tibet had insufficient diplomatic recognition to do it any good in 1951—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree some governments (even at different levels) might had ambiguous positions. Tibet's engagements with Nepal, Britain's position are all worth mentioning in the article "Tibetan sovereignty debate", probably with details. But none of those countries recognized Tibet as an independent country through diplomatic methods. (The original sentence I restored here almost two months ago was "nor was Tibet officially recognized as an independent nation by any country through diplomatic channels.") I don't think Britain ever treated Tibet as an equal as itself in terms of sovereignty in the international community. "Suzerainty" seem to be the closet to independence in terms of UK's official position even before the 1940s.

Tibet-Mongolia treaty (1913) is worth mentioning in "Tibetan sovereignty debate" as well. However, the validity of this treaty itself is questionable. the 13th Dalai Lama denied that he had authorized Dorjiev (a Buryat, i.e. citizen of Russia) to negotiate a treaty with Mongolia. More importantly, neither the cleric nor the Tibetan government appeared to have ever ratified the treaty. [Bell, Charles, Tibet Past and Present, 1924, pp 150f, 228f, 304f.] The Russian government maintained that, as a Russian subject, Dorjiev could not possibly act in a diplomatic capacity on behalf of the Dalai Lama. [UK Foreign Office Archive: FO 371/1608] Not mentioning Mongolia itself was mostly likely not commonly recognized as an independent nation by the international community back then. Hypothetically, if Alaska and Hawaii declared independence without agreements with the US government, then there's this treaty that says Alaska and Hawaii recognizes each others' independence, but the person who signed on the treaty supposedly on behalf of Alaska's, is an Eskimo from Chukotka Autonomous Okrug of Russia, who was a study partner and close associate of the Alaska religious and political leader, a minister of his government, and his diplomatic link with the Russian Empire, but was not authorized by this leader to negotiate the treaty, and the treaty was never ratified by the newly founded Alaska government, how much viability is there?

By the way, Kauffner, when you said "Governments don't usually give official opinions about the status of other countries relative to disputes that don't directly effect them" and refer to Britain's opinion about Tibet and China as "don't directly effect them (UK)", did you forget it was the UK, who was engaged in the Great Game with Russia in Asia, that tried to include Tibet in its sphere of influence, both during and after the Great Game? Here's a direct quote of British Empire officer Charles Bell in 1924, [Bell, Charles, Tibet Past and Present, 1924, pp 150] although 19 years before this diplomatic correspondence, but it does give us some ideas whether this dispute effect the UK or not. It may be hoped, in the interests both of Tibet and ourselves, that we shall not endeavour to follow any such policy in Tibet. We should but increase our responsibilities very greatly without an adequate return: the Himalaya and Tibet would no longer form our northern barrier. But it showed clearly once again how necessary and urgent it was in our own interests to have an autonomous Tibet as strong as possible, a barrier against outside influences.

That being said, I agree with Nat that "the point we're trying to get across is that Tibet had insufficient diplomatic recognition to do it any good in 1951." Chadsnook (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Britain in the quoted sentence. The lede says "by any country", which IMO gives undue significance to the behavior of uninvolved nations like, say, Honduras or Egypt. Even if the lede is referring to diplomatic recognition, it is still not correct. Nepal's application for UN membership lists Tibet as a nation Nepal has diplomatic relations with. Kauffner (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought this part was toned down to nor was it officially recognized internationally and we would not have to argue about this anymore, but looks like the problem remains. Since Tibet mostly isolated itself during this period. Countries like Honduras and Egypt were not likely to have any formal foreign relations with Tibet. Can you provide us a reference about Nepal's position? I could not find much information about it other than it joined the UN on 14 December 1955. According to Agreement to Maintain the Friendly Relations Between China and Nepal and on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and Nepal [1] signed on the September 20, 1956, each time Tibet is mentioned, it is referred as Tibet Region of China.

Unless I am remembered it wrong, the phrase "by any country" was either the exact words or similar phrases used by those authors that were referenced on (German) Sueddeutsche Zeitung "Die Verteufelung Chinas" [2], Grunfeld, A. Tom, "The Making of Modern Tibet", Third-party views on page 258, ect... Chadsnook (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is link that discusses Nepal's 1949 UN application. Grunfeld is a very pro-Chinese author, which is fine, but to use him creates a need for balance. Kauffner (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Grunfeld is not the only one in the reference section for this, is he? But it's not to balance him, as there's no such thing as to balance a reference. If there's a different opinion, that opinion should also be mentioned with it's own references. I referenced his book because he has a detailed section for third-party views in that book, if any other scholars wrote a detailed section for third-party views as he did, we can sure cite them as well. The link you provided is the official website of the Tibet govt in exile. Can you provide a reference for this claim as it is not exactly clear about diplomatic recognition by Nepal. An agreement between Tibet and Nepal govt back then would be the best, if not, other articles from journals or information from scholars' books would be fine as well.

The main points on that page you linked is that 1. Nepal maintained independent diplomatic relations with Tibet. Is this the same as diplomatic recognition? and when did it happen? There's many examples of cases where diplomatic relations exist but diplomatic recognition does not exist. For example, in the case of Taiwan and USA, As of today, unofficial diplomatic relations are maintained on both sides by means of de facto embassies, which are technically "private organizations" staffed by career diplomats who are formally "on leave", yet USA has switched recognition from ROC to PRC in the 1970s 2. Nepal had a full Ambassador or "Vakil" in Lhasa. On some other Tibet Independence website, they said this ambassador or Vakil stayed until 1962. But what exactly was his title? If it's Nepali Ambassador to the country of Tibet, then it sure contradicts with the official position of Nepal, which is shown in Nepal and China's agreement which refers Tibet as a region of China. Like the one i linked earlier that was signed in 1956.

It's just that this information from their website is not very clear. A good example of this kind of information would be Manchukuo, which had the exact dates of their diplomatic recognitions by other independent countries. You seem to favor "nor did Tibet receive international diplomatic recognition", I am fine with that. I used the word "official recognition" instead of "recognition" in the past, because I thought there might existed some kind of "unofficial recognition". Same goes with "de jure independence" that was used in the past, I thought it's just a way to avoid denying the "de facto independence" (of the TAR area), as it appeared in the diplomatic correspondence by the British foreign minister Eden that you referred to. Chadsnook (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nepalese envoys, namely Vakils, were simply High Officers instead of formally Ambassadors. These Vakils represented Nepal even after 1951 and stayed until the 60s, thus it had nothing to do with diplomatic recognition. The Mongol-Tibetan treaty was a joint-declaration of independence instead of a diplomatic recognition. When it was signed when both parties' status were still disputed internationally.

Although, many years later, the Dalai Lama affirmed that the treaty was entered into on his predecessor's authority, at the time in fact the Lhasa authorities denied the authority of their supposed negotiator and denied that Tibet was bound by any such treaty. Even if the treaty did exist and was technically valid as an expression of the will of the Lhasa Government, it would seem to fit more closely a classification of a secret intrigue between two parties whose status was equally doubtful than a clear declaration of independence. In view of the doubts surrounding the status of Mongolia's authorities it cannot be considered a recognition of Tibetan independence by an established member of the community of states. [Rubin, A. "The Position of Tibet in International Law", 1968]

The 13th DL, with the three Monasteries, never ratified the said document and Mongolia even signed the tripartite Kiakhta Treaty two years later reaffirming subordination to the Chinese state. MainBody (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

History section too long

This history section overall is longer than the history sections of France, Italy, UK, China, and India. Follow their model for length, especially on this 20th century subsection. For example, there is no need for a quote that is 4 paragraphs long here. Material like this belongs in a subarticle. Ufwuct (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibet/Archive_10#Put_this_article_on_a_diet.21. Bertport (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take the "Tibet under the People's Republic of China" section down to something like what we now see as the first and third paragraphs of that section, and move the rest of the material into what is supposed to be the main article on the topic, Tibet since 1950. But that target article will require considerable re-organizing. Bertport (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

declaration of independence of DL

I still insist the "declaration of independence" of Dalai Lama XIII is of false interpretation. Obeying the policy Wikipedia:No original research, we shouldn't give our own idea on it. So I found 3 interpretations of this declaration:

1. from [www.tibetjustice.org] : its version is completely from Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa in his book entitled Tibet: A Political History. I think his identity will give a more or less biased translation of the real text.
2. from Zhaxi Wangdu (Tibetan Tibetologists of China) : he points out that Shakabpa purposely translated "bod ljongs" (Tibetan region in Tibetan) in DL's declaration into "country/nation" in English, while the latter one is "rgyal khab" in Tibetan. It's a purely textual argument, so I think it's much more convincible than Shakabpa's. Moreover, he also indicates this "declaration" is actually an internal speech of DL in 1913, which was only made public in the form of a letter in 1932.
3. from Melvyn C. Goldstein : he underlines DL's proclamation is considered by Tibetans to be declaration of independence, but it isn't precisely a declaration of independence in contemporary Western terms which just shows the DL's desire for freedom and his intentions of rulling Tibet without external influence.

In conclusion, I hope someone may find some other scholarly interpretations of this text, if not, DL's proclamation is absolutely not a "declaration of independence".--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Goldstein does recognize that the statement declares independence. The caution that it is "not precisely...in modern Western terms" is an insignificant quibble. See The Snow Lion and the Dragon pp. 30-32 - Goldstein makes it clear that the Tibetans not only made their desire for independence clear ("Tibet and China have never been under each other and will never associate with each other in future" is a Tibetan position quoted by Goldstein), they also established de facto independence by expelling all Chinese officials and troops from Tibet.

Shakabpa is more reliable, objective, and authoritative than Wangdu. Even if he were correct on the point you mention, it would be irrelevant to the statement made in the article. Bertport (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Shakabpa's translation is potentially biased, since he was a politician. I also agree with Bertport that the specific issue that LaGrandefr mentions as having been brought up by Zhaxi Wangdu does not seem like a major difference. If it actually said, "Tibet is a small, independent region", that still talks about independence. I think that Goldstein is clearly the most neutral source that has been cited on this so far, and his discussion in The Snow Lion and the Dragon makes his understanding of the Dalai Lama's intentions quite clear (I don't recall anything in A History of Modern Tibet to the contrary, although I don't have my copy handy).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You drive me crazy. You guys know what is a DECLARATION? The desire implied by someone's acts can be defined as a declaration? wow, luckily it's a latin word, I think I know well its exact meaning. As for "Tibet is a small, independent region", the object "region" is the key word of the sentence while "independent" is just an attributive adjective. Thus, DL's declaration isn't not only a precisely...in modern Western terms, even nor a declaration of independence since DL said "Tibet is a region."

As for DL's pro-unification speeches, I don't see the use to metion "Chinese". Did we mention "Tibetan sources" when we cite Shakabpa's or even [www.tibetjustice.org]'s words? Haha, maybe we should say "from a former noble politician of Tibet prior to 1950s who works for Tibetan independence movement through life"--LaGrandefr (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify the meaning of your arguments? No one said that "the desire implied by someone's acts can be defined as a declaration". Isn't it obvious that there was some kind of declaration in 1913, and we are trying to figure out which kind? In that case, the intention of the person making the declaration is entirely relevant.

You have given us almost nothing of Zhaxi Wangdu's argument to go on. So, the original uses bod ljongs. In what context is it used? Looking at the English translation, the answer is not obvious. The word "nation" appears only twice: in the sentence "we are a small, religious, and independent nation" and in the sentence "our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents". In neither case would it make sense to simply substitute "Tibetan region" for "nation", so there must be some other underlying issue with the wording. I don't agree with your conclusion that "the object 'region' is the key word of the sentence while 'independent' is just an attributive adjective." There's no rule of god or man that says that the object of a sentence, rather than an adjective, must be the key word.

The reason to mention the source of the 13th Dalai Lama's putative pro-unification statements is that they are of very questionable authenticiy. I don't think "Chinese" is really a sufficient qualifier; this is a shorthand for saying that the person who initially reported them may have had personal interests in misrepresenting the Dalai Lama and then have since been repeated by researchers following a political agenda set by the Chinese government. If we were citing factual claims made by Shakabpa himself, we should certainy mention that, because he is not a neutral source. In this case, though, we are citing the 13th Dalai Lama's words (not a factual claim, either, but his proclamation) as translated by Shakabpa. Goldstein accepts the validity of the translation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, my opinion is that Dalai Lama XIV didn't describe Tibet as a country/nation in his speech of 1932, so this speech is NOT a declaration of independence, neither "precisely" nor "roughly".

I suppose Melvyn C. Goldstein might not read the original Tibetan text, but he still concluded DL's proclamation is not a declaration of independence in modern terms, especially based on Shakabpa's version. And you said "we are trying to figure out...", however, I think it's strictly disadvised on wiki according to OR policy to interprete the text ourselves.

The source of Zhaxi Wangdu's argument can be easily found on google, which is from Guangming Ribao of 2008/4/27 and the example that he cited to reveal Shakapa's wrong tranlation is just the most "critical" sentence - "we are a small, religious, and independent nation". He points out the real word used by DL is "bod ljongs" instead of "rgyal khab".

As for DL's pro-unification statements, the word "Chinese" is apparently unnecessary since the word "some" has already expressed the uncertainty. Additionally the initial reporter of DL's statements is a Tibetan woman who surely knows her language than us all (you didn't hesitate at all to say she have had personal interests in misrepresenting the Dalai Lama, while it's totally your personal guesswork. Nevertheless, Shakapa has already been proved to have purposely falsified Dalai Lama's words and you guys still say Shakabpa is more reliable, objective, and authoritative than Wangdu. Frankly I'm not crazy now, I'm irritated). Besides, Readers can also easily recognize the origin of the source, both "Chinese" ones and "Tibetan" ones.--LaGrandefr (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LaGrandefr, you are engaging in original research and far-fetched hypothesis here. And "some sources" is weasel wording. Bertport (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, villain sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. Since you undid once again my edit without any new argument, I'll keep you company any time if you like.--LaGrandefr (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LaGrandefr, your opinion that "this speech is NOT a declaration of independence, neither 'precisely' nor 'roughly'" is at odds with the opinion of Goldstein, whom you have cited. Goldstein printed Shakabpa's English translation in his History of Modern Tibet because that book is in English; I wouldn't assume that he has not read the Tibetan himself.

Your understanding of the original research policy is flawed. We wouldn't be able to write a single sentence if we refrained from all efforts to figure things out.

If Zhaxi Wangdu's argument is easily found on google, why not google it and provide the link? I searched for "Zhaxi Wangdu" + "bod ljongs" but there were no results. All you've done is restate your earlier summary of Zhaxi Wangdu's argument, which doesn't explain why it makes such a big difference in the meaning of the sentence. If the declaration were to say, "The Tibetan region is small, religious, and independent", then it is still being described as independent.

What Melvyn Goldstein says about Liu Manqing in so many words is, regarding her quoting the Dalai Lama as being in favour of "national sovereignty" and "unity" with China, "Note should be taken that while this fits the general Tibetan show of friendship with the Chinese, it is obvious that she either misunderstood the Dalai Lama or misrepresented him when she presents him talking of 'nationl sovereignty' as though he accepted Tibet as part of the sovereign Chinese state. As we can see even from Chiang Kai-shek's letter cited just below, this was not the case." (pg. 215, footnote 8). The causes of her misrepresenting or misunderstanding were my own speculation, but it doesn't really matter: if she misrepresented, then she misreprensented. As Bertport indicated, Wikipedia advises us not to simply say "some", but to specify who says what. In this case, if we decide to include the quotation, I would describe as, "According to an agent of the Republican Chinese government who met with him in 1930, the Dalai Lama said, 'XYZ ...'"—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the problem has been resolved as we present the argument of 2 sides in marking their origins at the same time.

Of course, if you still want to argue with me, I'm glad to keep you company. About Goldstein's extract, I indeed don't know whether he read or not the Tibetan version but if you turn to page 61 of his book, you'll find the origin of his extract is Shakabpa 1967: 246-47. So it's very probable he drew his conclusion from Shakabpa's translaion and it's quite funny that Goldstein still said it's not precisely a declaration of independence. XD

As for Zhaxi Wangdu's argument, firstly, I'm not supposed to give the whole texts of all my sources since I haven't acces to many arguments in the article, either(e.g., the last words of Dalai Lama XIII). Secondly, I sincerely hope none of us has ever falsified scholars' arguments and I promise I never did. Thirdly, if you search more carefully on google, you can really easily find some translation of Zhaxi Wangdu's argument, such as [3]. Thus there's almost no doubt that Dalai Lama XIII stated "Tibet is a ... region" instead of "nation/country". And the adjective "independent" is so indiscriminately abused that it's truly pathetic and helpless to Tibetan independence movement, dude.

About Liu Manqing, I'm sorry the page 215 of Goldstein's book isn't available for me, however, The making of modern Tibet of Tom Grunfeld describes "Liu Manqing was born in Tibet of mixed Han-Tibetan parentage. Liu, a government civil servant, met with the Dalai Lama during her four months in Lhasa. Although there was no evident change in the relationship, the talks must have been fruitful."(pg. 75) Being a Tibetan born in Tibet, she couldn't "misunderstand" the Dalai Lama in my opinion. And I also disapprove the accusal of having misrepresented the Dalai Lama because her report only conveyed the Dalai Lama's pro-unification wishes to some extent, that's why Tom Grunfeld just uses the word "fruitful". Besides, if you want to describe her identity, go ahead and I won't hesitate one second to describe Shakabpa's - "a former noble politician of Tibet prior to 1950s who works for Tibetan independence movement through life".--LaGrandefr (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I certainly didn't mean to imply you had falsified the Zhaxi Wangdu citation, and I apologise if I gave that impression. I just think it would be kind of you to link to it, or, ideally, an English translation, if you have it available. I looked at the Wang Guozhen article you linked to above (the link works if you use [4]), but unfortunately, it doesn't add much to your description of Zhaxi Wangdu's argument. I still want to know how Zhaxi Wangdu translates that sentence, since if it were simply, "We are a small, religious, and independent Tibet region", that wouldn't make very much sense. Wang makes himself less credible by failing to cite Zhaxi Wangdu as his source, by misquoting Shakabpa's English version, and by misspelling Shakabpa's name (should be Xagabba, not Xagaba).

I agree with your description of Shakabpa.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm not narrow-minded at all. I don't know if Zhaxi Wangdu has translated all text, maybe he just chose some important statements in DL's speech to support his arguments. I have no idea why Shakabpa's sentence is unidentical with the one in the link and I guess it's possible Wang's quotation is translated from a Chinese retranslation, instead of Shakabpa's original translation. Anyway, I don't think it matters much.

Zhaxi Wangdu only points out "the 13th Dalai Lama didn't use rgyl khab, a Tibetan word meaning "country". Instead, he used a Tibetan word bod ljongs meaning "Tibetan region". Xagaba purposely translated the expression as "country" rather than "Tibetan region" so as to provide "evidence" that the 13th Dalai Lama had declared independence then." So we have no proof he has ever translated the sentence as "We are a small, religious, and independent Tibet region" as you said. Even if he did, it maybe grammatically correct in Tibetan.

As for Shakabpa's name, China adopts a transcription system of its own (Tibetan pinyin). I even saw "Shagepa" somewhere which is totally Chinese pinyin.

I appreciate your cautious attitude, but it's somewhat over.--LaGrandefr (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to assume that the Tibetan authorities in 1913 should have been well-aquainted with modern western theories of international relations. This is not particularly convincing. Re. this region vs. nation stuff, there are languages in which there is not such a big difference between region and country, see for example fr:pays. I don't speak Tibetan, so for me, at the moment this is only something Zhaxi Wangdu claims. I think this should (and, if true, probably can) be verified independently.

More importantly though, I don't see the big problems with using geographical terms rather than political ones. Certainly if you write "Malta is a small, independent island" the meaning is still different from "Malta is part of China"? Yaan (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "over". The current version of the intro is not at all satisfactory (for one thing, it is ungrammatical), and I doubt it will last very long.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 12:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with this content is that we are working on the lead paragraphs of the article on Tibet. The lead is for a quick summary and introduction, to give readers an overview of the content which they can find in greater detail below, in the main body of the article. This kind of detailed discussion of different viewpoints does not belong in the lead. I'm not convinced that LaGrandefr's content has any place in Wikipedia at all, but it certainly does not belong where it is now. How about we change the wording in the lead from "...declared independence..." since LaGrandfr insists (based on his dubious interpretation of dubious sources) it is wrong. Instead, we can say something like, "In 1913 the 13th Dalai Lama expelled all Chinese representatives and troops from Lhasa, and Tibet enjoyed de facto independence from then until the 1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet.". Bertport (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bertport. The lede of controversial subjects quickly get filled with opposing positions and then the mess becomes impossible to fix. Please try to resort to an impartial solution that is short and sweet. Colipon+(Talk) 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to go on modifying the article and I'll also always keep an eye on it. About the content of the lead paragraphs, it's User:John Hill who added a long text of DL's last words while I just added several short clauses since the beginning of my edits. I proposed earlier not to mention Tibet's political history in the lead because of it's big controversy, however no one responded me. Since Bertport still insists his / her already-proved falsfied translation out of a crafty intention, we can simply say that, "In 1913 the 13th Dalai Lama sent national official and soldiers of Qing Dynasty away from Lhasa, and suffering from a theocratic dictatorship, Tibet was then isolated from the outside world until the 1950 CCP's peaceful liberation.". HAHA! I'm wondering if "Bertport" is a Tibetan name?--LaGrandefr (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"suffering from a theocratic dictatorship" - you forgot "while the rest of China enjoyed a vigorous competition of different political factions and opinions". :-)

More generally though, I agree that in a lead section, less is sometimes more. Maybe Bertport's text could be supplemented by something like "Chinese authors have denied that any Tibetan authorities before 1959 ever wanted independence" (+source). Yaan (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, pg. 30 (the first page of the chapter entitled "Interlude: De Facto Independence") -- "The fall of the Qing Dynasty was a stroke of good fortune that the thirteenth Dalai Lama immediately capitalized on. From exile in India he organized a military force to regain his power, and with the help of Nepalese mediation in Lhasa, soon succeeded in expelling all Chinese officials and troops from Tibet." This is succinct support for my proposed "In 1913 the 13th Dalai Lama expelled all Chinese representatives and troops from Tibet, and Tibet enjoyed de facto independence from then until the 1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet." LaGrandefr proposes another version that substitutes "Qing Dynasty" for "Chinese" and "suffering from a theocratic dictatorship ... isolated from the outside world ... peaceful liberation" for "enjoyed de facto independence". "Chinese" is better than "Qing Dynasty" here because this is the lead section for a general, English-speaking audience, who probably don't know what "Qing Dynasty" is - and as for the few who do know and care about which Chinese dynasty was relevant, then they can readily infer that from the date. "Suffering" is, I suppose, a rhetorical riposte to "enjoyed". All right, how about we change "enjoyed de facto independence" to "was de facto independent". As for "suffering from a theocratic dictatorship", maybe if someone can provide good, reliable, verifiable sources for it, we can include some mention of that point of view, too. "Isolated from the outside world" is a widely acknowledged characterization of Tibet at various times, and probably merits some mention in the lead, though it applies to other periods (including post-1950) as well, not particularly to this period of independence. "Peaceful liberation" is simply Chinese propaganda language which has no place here. Bertport (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the heading of this section. Is it a claim that Tibetans have declared that they are independent of the DL? It is certainly true that not all Tibet recognise or are dependent of the DL, but have they declared that they are independent of the DL? For example have the Sugden declared that they are independent of the DL? 86.137.252.77 (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit anal to mock Chinese (and other!) users for not writing 100% clear and correct subsection headings, is it not. Yaan (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

White people know all about anal don't they? 86.140.38.69 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you do. Yaan (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone BOLD and made a series of changes to the lede. Please edit over it if anyone sees the need. Colipon+(Talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your BOLD action of cleaning this part, which otherwise seem to be on the way of becoming a big mess. Now some points are either taken away or toned down, including a couple that I had worked on with other editors, hopefully we won't need to repeat the same arguments over the same points again and again in the future. Chadsnook (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this dictionary, ljongs can also mean "country". So for now - until someone produces a better dictionary - I maintain that what Zhaxi Wangdu writes is just a claim, not a fact, and should not be presented as fact on wp. Yaan (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it provides "country" as the first (i.e. primary) translation of ljongs. Bertport (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who actually speaks Tibetan on this, though. Yaan (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that simply having the average Tibetan reader look at it would not necessarily be productive. When political circumstances are changing quickly, it's not surprising if some relevant terms change meanings as well. In modern Tibet, the term bod ljongs is used freely (see, for example, the photograph on my userpage, where it glosses 西藏, xīzàng), so it apparently has no separatist implications today. But that doesn't tell us that much about how the Dalai Lama would have used it in a declaration almost 100 years ago. What we need is the opinion of a researcher into the history of the Tibetan language.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The declaration in the article reads: In 1913, the Dalai Lama issued a proclamation that stated that the relationship between the Chinese emperor and Tibet "had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."[29] "We are a small, religious, and independent nation," the proclamation continued.

This is clearly not a declaration of independence, but an opinion on the relationship betweeen the Chinese Emperor and Tibet. All the terms and conditions of this statement is currently fulfilled. (1) All parts of the PRC (including Tibet) is independent of the Chinese Emperor. (2) Tibet and Tibetans can still serve as priests. (3) Tibet or more precisely Tibetan is still a small nation. (4) Tibetan is still an independent and separate nationality from the Han nationality and is protected under the Laws of the PRC as such. There is no conflict between the 13th DL's statement and the current arrangements. 86.134.235.231 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved!?

There was no discussion of moving this article to a new title. Bertport (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"tibet" should redirect to "tibet (disambiguation)". Opinions ? Polylepsis (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Tibet is Tibet. What has happened since or related articles belong on a dab page not Tibet. For heaven's sake just forget it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I completly agree with Dr. Blofeld, this article should be called Tibet, should not have been moved, and it should absolutely not be a disambiguation page. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly even worth discussing the move that was made to Tibet (Xizang). An undiscussed, controversial move of a major article is disruptive and it was quickly reverted, as it should have been. Anyone is welcome to make a case for such a move on talk, of course.

As for making "Tibet" a disambiguation page, there's something to be said for that, since people seem to mean different things by the term. However, there seems to be longstanding consensus in favor of keeping this article at that title, and I don't see any reason to mess with that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Forced Sterilization

Why no mention of this? The us government thought it was worth mentioning:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41640.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the US government engaged in the forced sterilisation of negroes in the US of A. Black men were also forcibly castrated by claiming that would stop the spread of syphilis. 86.137.252.77 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. So let me get this straight: forced sterilization is not mentioned in a Wikipedia article, despite its mention in a United States Department report, because the United States government previously engaged in forced sterilization itself? I'm not going to deny that some pretty horrific things were done to black men in the US, but what does that have to do with Tibet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.31.36 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you like to get this straight, then you are claiming that because the US government does not say it forcibly sterilized black men, then the US government could not have forcibly sterilized black men. So how does what the US government say have any impact on the truth of anything in Tibet? 86.178.224.30 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Because everything the US government says is untrue. According to the US government Saddam Husein also had WMD, which as it turned out, after the event, is untrue. The US government policy is to stir up trouble abroad (away from the US) to make the people at home (in the US) feel how lucky they are, even though they are technically broke and living on borrowed money, borrowed time and for the majority on somebody else's (the First Nation People's) land. 86.133.100.22 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You lose a lot of credibility when you generalize. Saying that anyone, especially an entire government, only speaks fallacies is not only highly improbable, but just plain naive and vindictive. If you want your argument to be held with any respect, be careful with your words. The United States of America is no more corrupt or troubled than China. Both countries have severe problems both within and external to their borders. People in glass houses should not throw rocks. 74.104.109.248 (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying we should believe or not believe what the US government says? I (and a lot of others) choose not to believe in what the US government says, based on what it says on other issues. Is that naive or vindictive, or merely realistic and sensible? 86.178.224.30 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(604–50 CE)

Belive it should say (604–650 CE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.119.155.253 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's potentially confusing to leave out the 6 in 650. I just put it in. Bertport (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tibet is TAR

Tibet is Tibet Autonomous Region.

A. Tom Grunfeld: When the Dalai Lama speaks of Tibet, he speaks for an area more than three times the size of the TAR in which Tibetans live (Kham and Amdo). The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century

Melvyn Goldstein: Dalai Lama claimed all of Kham and Amdo in the Simla Convention of 1913-14 – most of these areas in fact were not a part of its polity for the two centuries preceding the rise to power of the Communists in China in 1949....The term ‘Tibet’ refers to the political state ruled by the Dalai Lamas; it does not refer to the ethnic border areas such as Amdo and Kham which were not part of that state in modern times, let alone to Ladakh or Northern Nepal. Until recently, this convention was, as far as I can discern, universally accepted in the scholarly literature"

93.139.16.65 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Grunfeld is a Sinologist, and does not even read or understand the Tibetan language. We do not need to take him seriously. In any case, both of the above quotes observe that "Tibet" is NOT synonymous with the TAR. Bertport (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Most Tibetans in those days could not read the Tibetan language nor understand Lhasa speech, so we should not take most Tibetans seriously? 86.178.229.63 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out Bertport. As obvious as it may be that Tibet and TAR are not the same thing, it's sometimes good to state the obvious. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldstein's opinion is meaningful. The TAR is close to coterminous with "the political state ruled by the Dalai Lamas". However, taking Goldstein's definition narrowly, we would have to say that Tibet no longer exists, since that state has been destroyed, and I don't think that's what we would want the article to say.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldstein is discussing the legitimacy of the Dalai Lama's claims to territories extending beyond the current boundaries of the TAR. In passing, he says that "Tibet" refers to the political state ruled by the Dalai Lamas. Is the TAR ruled by the Dalai Lamas? I think not. Bertport (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Grunfeld is a Sinologist

And? The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century That is a historical fact. 93.136.226.74 (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And your point is ... ? Bertport (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The source of the Goldstein quote is here: http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/documents/What_is_Tibet_NEW.doc. I think his opinion is a little more nuanced than what is reflected in the fragment above, although basically he is saying that "Tibet" should refer to the narrower area. "The term ‘Tibet’ refers to the political state ruled by the Dalai Lamas" is actually his description of Hugh Richardson's convention, although he approves of it. In fact, when he quotes Richardson, what Richardson says is, "In the text that follows Tibet means ‘political’ Tibet except where otherwise stated," i.e., he uses the narrower meaning by default but not necessarily exclusively. It's not surprising that Richardson would favor a political definition, since he was a diplomatic and political figure, not an ethnographer.

I don't really find Goldstein's argument about why Tibet should refer to the narrower area very compelling, but I do think we should give serious consideration to the simple fact that he says it is the convention. Normally, Wikipedia doesn't work on the basis of what the convention should be. On the other hand, he does say that the convention seemed to be changing as of 1994. I think the basic point that Goldstein is making in this passage is less about nomenclature and more about not allowing names to confuse us about political and historical realities; in other words, not to conflate political Tibet (the Lhasa state) with the ethnic Tibetan region; and on that point Goldstein is quite right.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In that document, Goldstein lays out some of the history of when Kham and Amdo in particular were part of "Tibet" - in the 1720s, according to his citation of Kolmas. Tibet covers a much longer time period, going back to the Tibetan Empire and before that. Bertport (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The general history of Tibet begins with the rule of Songtsän Gampo (604–50 CE) who united parts of the Yarlung River Valley and founded the Tibetan Empire. He also brought in many reforms and Tibetan power spread rapidly creating a large and powerful empire.

Let's get real. Doesn't the Buddha and therefore by extension the dalai lama also rule outer-space? 86.183.6.249 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If Tibet is only TAR, then what are we to make of the "Tibetan autonomous" prefectures in neighboring Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu? Kauffner (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan enclaves in traditional Han areas or areas with other Chinese nationalities; a bit like Little Italy in New York. 86.183.6.249 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet

A recent edit replaced the link to Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) with a link to Chinese restoration of Tibet. The target of this link was newly created, by the same editor, as a redirect to Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951). I searched the internet for the phrase "Chinese restoration of Tibet" and found only this newly created page. The editor appears to be expressing her unique point of view with these edits. I have nominated the new article for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese restoration of Tibet. Bertport (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the new page is a redirect, the discussion has been procedurally moved to the discussion page. Bertport (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Anna Louise Strong. 86.183.6.249 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion - Tibetan Buddhism - Schools

The paragraphs on schools of Tibetan Buddhism seem unnecessary in an introductory section like this. Moreover, they are copied from an older version of the Tibetan Buddhism article and can be read there. Do they have more than trivia value here? Moonsell (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion - Padmasambhava

The article had: "... Tibetan Buddhism, a distinctive form of Vajrayana, which was introduced into Tibet by Padmasambhava." I've replaced it with: "... Tibetan Buddhism, a distinctive form of Mahayana and Vajrayana, which was introduced into Tibet from the Sanskrit Buddhist tradition of northern India." Padmasambhava came from Swat, it is true, but arguably the bulk of the Tibetan Buddhism stems from northern Indian teachers and translators besides him and this tradition extended to Swat at that time. I feel this is more informative here. Padmasambhava among others is mentioned in the detail of the Tibetan Buddhism article.Moonsell (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

possible threats to the survival of Tibetan language

The Standard Tibetan article has a subsection to this effect that is well-written, if a bit terse. It would seem to be an issue that has been overlooked in the Tibet article. How to address it? Moonsell (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. I see the Todo list has a request for a section on education. Perhaps this material can be there. Moonsell (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Any careful reader can see this article is heavily biased against the PRC. Most of the article is controversial and much debated upon, therefore some "pro-PRC" view points should also be added alongside with the "save-Tibet" messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.138.225 (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. A careful reader can see that the content of this article does not reflect well on the PRC. That does not mean it's biased. The facts are the facts, regardless of whether they make the PRC look bad or good. Bertport (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If facts are facts, then shouldn't the article make the dalai lama look bad (or should it be good)? 81.156.180.142 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of the structure of the lama regime pre-communist times. If that's not blatant anti-PRC bias, I don't know what is. And it's not like there's no information available about it, even though Tibetans did ban all Westerners from Tibet during that period.

Tibet, past and present H Richardson - Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society, 1964

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet M Parenti - New Political Science, 2003

Tibet in the News Jude Carlson; Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 24, 1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.82.50 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that this article is heavily-biased against PRC, omitting pre-PRC conditions of slaves / serfs under the previous Theocratic Dictatorship. NPOV is lacking and balancing POV should be provided. Popular consensus "not reflecting well on the PRC" is based on heavily-biased, and no more relevant than popular consensus that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.142.200 (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is rubbish, especially regarding "Old Tibet" (Pre 1959) - the most important part. Here's a much better work, complete with footnotes and references: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.177.168 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Parenti has no expertise in Tibet, and that essay of his is riddled with mistakes. It is not an acceptable source. See [5]. Bertport (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, and your source is studentsforafreetibet. Bertport, we all know that you are pro dali lama Kkkdddiii (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Parenti essay should be a valid source, and some information should be included in the article

Aix(talk) 21:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this page is pretty bias overall. There should be some quality to this page, I am interested in reading both sides of the story, not just some 'Save Tibet' rhetoric. Quality and a balanced view is necessary in Wikipedia. Phead128 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree—I'm not interested in just reading Free Tibet rhetoric. However, to improve the article, we need specific input. I don't agree that the Parenti article qualifies as a reliable source.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Independence" section

The claim that "China's sovereignty on Tibet was not once questioned by any authority throughout this period" is supported only by a single link to a Chinese-run website. I'm not necessarily refuting this, but given the hotly disputed nature of the topic a third party source should be required to make such a bold claim. I formally request that somebody with sufficient privileges delete that sentence. If anyone objects, would you know of another source that could verify this? Snickeringshadow (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should note that the website it links to: http://english.chinatibetnews.com/Culture/The_Past/2008-06/25/content_111499.htm contains information that I would consider outright false, "The current 14th Dalai Lama was ratified by the Kuomintang Government". I could provide direct evidence to disprove this. I must seriously question the authority of this source. Snickeringshadow (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, LaGrandefr's recent edits in that section and the one below it are highly problematic. 1. One does not put weasel quotes around phrases or words to cast suspicion on them. 2. We do not use foreign language sources when English language sources are available. 3. The statements LaGrandefr makes were previously discussed and rejected on this talk page. Bertport (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ratified" is sort of correct, although potentially misleading: the Tibetans made a selection and the KMT government agreed with the selection, although the Tibetans did not agree that the ratification was necessary. What's probably wrong is that site's claim that a Chinese representative presided at the enthronement ("sitting-in-the-bed" is a confused Tibetan-to-Chinese-to-English translation). According to Melvyn Goldstein, Wu Zhongxin attended the enthronement but did not preside.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Independence" Main article: History of Tibet 1912-1949

Presently this section reads as follows: The 13th Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India in July 1912 (after the fall of the Qing dynasty), and expelled the Amban and all Chinese troops.[29] In 1913, the Dalai Lama stated in an internal speech[30] that the relationship between the Chinese emperor and Tibet "had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."[31] "We are a small, religious, and independent nation," as Shakabpa translated.[31] However, it's revealed that the Dalai Lama used "bod ljongs" which means Tibetan region in Tibetan to refer to Tibet in his speech, instead of "rgyal khab" which means nation or country,[32][33] and Zhaxi Wangdu states in 2008 that the content of the speech was only made public in the form of a letter in 1932 while Shakabpa claimed in 1967 it was posted and proclaimed in every district of Tibet [34]. For the next thirty-six years, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence while China endured its Warlord era, civil war, and World War II. Nevertheless, China's suzerainty[35] or sovereignty[36] over Tibet was not questioned by any authority throughout this period.[37]

This section was given a strong Chinese bias by user LaGrandefr who stubbornly refuses to accept my efforts to give this section a more neutral outlook. "bod ljongs" did not mean "Tibetan region" at the time of the 13th Dalai Lama, but was one of the standard words for Tibet as can be verified in any decent Tibetan-English dictionary. Only in about 1970 "bod ljongs" became an abbreviated form of "bod rang skyong ljongs" with the meaning of "Tibetan Autonomous Region". The evidence for this: Tibetan ration coupons which were issued by the Chinese for Tibet use this expression (I will soon insert some examples in an article on Tibetan ration coupons). LaGrandefr does not cite any source for his claim that the suzerainty or sovereignty over Tibet was not questioned by any authority throughout this period. I pointed out that Mongolia did not recognise Chinese suzerainty or sovereignty over Tibet. While the status of Mongolia at this time (1913-1950) was not that of a fully independant country it had an own government (authority) which concluded treaties with both Tsarist and Soviet Russia. Hence there were authorities who questioned China`s claim to sovereignty or suzerainty over Tibet. This question needs more thorough invesitagion.

Presently parts of this section read very much like taken from a text fabricated by communist Chinese propaganda and do not meet the standards of neutrality of wikipedia. --Clemensmarabu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Yes, the problems with LaGrandefr's edits include bias, weight, original research, and use of foreign language citations, as well as confusingly bad English. The best thing to do is to return to the version of 4 February 2010. Bertport (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss these edits a while ago and nobody supported them except for LaGrandefr?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see "declaration of independence of DL" section above. Bertport (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The following assertion extracted from Chinese researchers and uncritically reproduced by LaGrandefr is incorrect and should be deleted as I point out in a footnote:

However, it's revealed that the Dalai Lama used "bod ljongs" which means Tibetan region in Tibetan to refer to Tibet in his speech, instead of "rgyal khab" which means nation or country.

Since LaGrandefr will probably again delete my footnote I reproduce it here: In fact, at the time of the 13th Dalai Lama "bod ljongs" was one of the standard expressions for "Tibet" and did not mean "Tibetan region" (as can be ascertained in any Tibetan-English dictionary. See for example: Goldstein, Melvyn C.: New Tibetan-English Dictionary of Modern Tibetan, Los Angeles and London, 2001, p. 726. Under bod ljongs the following English equivalents are given: 1. Tibet 2. abbr. Tibet Autonomous Region.), a meaning which it adopted only after 1965 when it was used as abbreviated form for bod rang skyong ljongs with the meaning "Tibet Automonous Region" as is evidenced by legends found on Tibetan ration coupons which the Chinese issued for Tibet in about 1970.

The following text is also incorrect and should be deleted:

...and Zhaxi Wangdu states in 2008 that the content of the speech was only made public in the form of a letter in 1932.

The Chinese author is confusing two documents authored by the 13th Dalai Lama. 1. The one which was proclaimed in 1913 and which many Tibetans take as a "declaration of independence". 2. The document (letter) which was published in 1932 is what Charles Bell refers to as the "Political Testament" of the 13th Dalai Lama in which the 13th Dalai Lama, among others, points out that he sees Tibetan religion threatened in future, basing his fears on what happened in Mongolia under communist rule. A full English translation of this outstanding document can be found in: Charles Bell: Portrait of the Dalai Lama, Collins, London, 1946, p. 377-382.

Obviously both these documents represent stumbling blocks for Chinese hardline researchers and their supporters, one of whom is LaGrandefr. Clemensmarabu (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition by the dictionary is acceptable, but the historical usage of bod ljongs is not sourced. In fact, this arguement means to stress that the Dalai Lama didn't use the word "nation"（however it appears after Shakabpa's translation), thus your new argument is pointless.

Chinese authors are confused or not between the two documents is out of your interpretation. Meanwhile the argument I hold is clearly destined for responding to Shakabpa's translation of the Dalai Lama's speech in 1913.--LaGrandefr (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear LaGrandefr

If Goldstein gives two definitions for "bod ljongs" it is logical that only the first one "Tibet" can apply since no "Tibet Autonomous Region" existed in 1913. The Chinese authors simply and incorrectly apply the meaning which this expression has adopted after 1965 to the year 1913, thus trying to discredit the 13th Dalai Lama's proclamation, which is one of the more refined ways of distorting historical facts. By the way, I purposely chose Goldstein's dictionary as this tibetologist is known for having more sympathy with China than with the Tibetan exile Community.

It is about time that you see sense and stop supporting Chinese pseudo-historians who from the start of their work know, that they have at all cost to produce a work which "proves" by distortions of facts that Tibet has been and is an "integral" part of China, as else their "research" will not be published in China or worse: they may risk ending up in jail for having "subverted public order".Clemensmarabu (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Clemensmarabu (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Zhaxi Wangdu's argument is to prove that the Dalai Lama did not use the word "nation" (rgyal khab) in his speech while Shakabpa translated it as "We are a small, religious, and independent nation." That's the point.

Secondly, how to translate "bod ljongs" is senseless and helpless, as I said. Besides, "Tibet" or "bod ljongs" is tranditionally translated as "Tibetan region" or "Great Tibet" in PR China while CTA defines "Tibet" alone to be the entirety of 5 different parts of present Chinese division. The article clearly explains this different interpretation of Tibet between the two governments.

I don't want to talk about the censorship in China here and I consider it's not a characteristic only of China, either.--LaGrandefr (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, does Zhaxi Wangdu's explicitely state that his improved translation (something like "Tibet is small and independent"?) means that the Dalai Lama did not want his country to be independent? If that'snot the case, I don't really see how this squabbling over one word is any relevant for this article. Especially when even PRC Media sometimes seem to assert that Tibet is a Nation, for example at the bottom of this page. If Zhaxi Wangdu declares that the whole document was not meant to declare Tibetan independence, it might be interesting for the article as one (the?) POV from the PRC. But so far your whole argument seems to be that "independent" does not mean "independent". Yaan (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama may not have used the word rgyal khab for "Nation" (I yet have to find the original Tibetan text), but he definitely did not use the expression "Tibet region" which would be bod sa khul, while bod ljongs cannot mean "Tibet Region". Besides, I pointed out that the word rgyal khab is part of the legends of Tibetan banknotes which were issued early in 1913, thus the Tibetan government was well aware that Tibet is a nation and not a "region" as the Chinese would like to have it. Zhashi Wangdu who is a Tibetan judging by the name should know better, but for reasons of censorship he probably was forced to distort facts against his free will. By the way, the Great Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary (bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo) published in Beijing (1998) on p. 1848 gives the same definition of bod ljong as Goldstein: (1) bod yul (country Tibet; yul means country and never "region" ; e.g. it is the second part of bal yul (wool country), the Tibetan word for Nepal.) (2) bod rang skyong ljongs kyi bsdus ming ("short name for Tibet Autonomous Region"). I think we do not need any more evidence that the 13th Dalai Lama did not refer to Tibet as "Tibet Region" in his proclamation; that he did not use "rgyal khab" is besides the point, as this word is officially mentioned on Tibetan banknotes - more official evidence can hardly be found. I am waiting for you to eliminate the false assertion from the section "Independence" of the article, else I will do it.

Since you do not want to talk about censorship I presume that you are either Chinese or a foreigner living in China. If you do not want to take any risks, then just do not edit articles regarding Tibet, moreover you do not seem to be an expert in this field. 78.51.117.99 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lagrandefr, why should anyone take you seriously when you won't post a working link to the article you cite? Last time, I was able to find a link, but it doesn't work anymore. Actually giving us access to your source would be a good first step toward building consensus for your edits.

Yaan, the Chinatoday page you're linking to definitely means "ethnic groups", not "nations" in any normal sense. The typical word they use for 民族 is "nationality". This just evidence only of their failed attempts at using English.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Chinatoday is using the word according to meaning 1a from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation (maybe minus the "capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state"). Anyway, I guess this is an argument better left to people who understand some Tibetan. Just wanted to point out that Zhaxi Wangdu's argument as presented by LaGrandeFr seemed a bit hollow or at least incomplete. Yaan (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear La Grandefr, since my message was unsigned, I repeat it here:

The Dalai Lama may not have used the word rgyal khab for "Nation" (I yet have to find the original Tibetan text), but he definitely did not use the expression "Tibet region" which would be bod sa khul, while bod ljongs cannot mean "Tibet Region". Besides, I pointed out that the word rgyal khab is part of the legends of Tibetan banknotes which were issued early in 1913, thus the Tibetan government was well aware that Tibet is a nation and not a "region" as the Chinese would like to have it. Zhashi Wangdu who is a Tibetan judging by the name should know better, but for reasons of censorship he probably was forced to distort facts against his free will. By the way, the Great Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary (bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo) published in Beijing (1998) on p. 1848 gives the same definition of bod ljong as Goldstein: (1) bod yul (country Tibet; yul means country and never "region" ; e.g. it is the second part of bal yul (wool country), the Tibetan word for Nepal.) (2) bod rang skyong ljongs kyi bsdus ming ("short name for Tibet Autonomous Region"). I think we do not need any more evidence that the 13th Dalai Lama did not refer to Tibet as "Tibet Region" in his proclamation; that he did not use "rgyal khab" is besides the point, as this word is officially mentioned on Tibetan banknotes - more official evidence can hardly be found. I am waiting for you to eliminate the false assertion from the section "Independence" of the article, else I will do it.

Since you do not want to talk about censorship I presume that you are either Chinese or a foreigner living in China. If you do not want to take any risks, then just do not edit articles regarding Tibet, moreover you do not seem to be an expert in this field. Clemensmarabu (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed “bod ljongs” as Clemensmarabu sticks to it. I think I cannot make myself clearer that Zhaxi Wangdu's argument is to crack down on Shakabpa's false translation of the Dalai Lama's speech (He did not use the word “rgyal khab”). You may see well that I never touched your other arguments such as the wording on Tibetan banknotes which directly decribes Tibet as a "snow country, Tibetan nation".

The source of Zhaxi Wangdu's argument was given as early as 23:38, 27 October 2009, however, [6] is a dead link now. More links can be quickly find in Chinese, such as [7].--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering, but I still think yours and Zhaxi Wangdu's argument should be about the words "independent" and "independence" a few sentences later rather than about the word "nation". Or even better, the argument should be about the whole document. I thought this was a no-brainer, actually. Zhaxi Wangdu seems to be fully aware of Shagabpa's usage of the word "independent" as well as of its meaning, but he attacks Shagabpa's usage of the word "nation" as substitute for "Tibet". Yaan (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Zhaxi Wangdu didn't make any word to contradict the word "independent", but "nation". I don't understand why some people above become so restless and waste time attacking irrevelent things like “bod ljongs”.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess they wonder how Zhaxi Wangdu's "Tibet should not be called a nation" contradicts the impression that the Dalai Lama wanted independence, i.e. why this belongs into the article? Yaan (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Too much enphasis is placed on dl declaration. Chairman Mao declared Tibet is a part of The People's Republic of China. Therefore Mao's declaration must be given at least the same emphasis as that of dl, because clearly Mao was a stronger leader than dl. In the same way, when George W Bush declared Saddam Hussein be removed, he was certainly removed. 86.176.51.166 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with part of what you are saying. The main point should not be the declaration itself, but rather the fact that Tibet was de facto independent for that period. For a start, we could change the section title to "De facto independence" or "De facto independence (1912-1949)". Considering the contentious nature of the topic, I think we should wait and see what other editors have to say before we do anything. Bertport (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How did you work that one out? England was declared a Commonwealth by Cromwell, but that didn't mean English monarchy was dead. It might have been driven elsewhere for a while, but certainly not dead and buried. Just because some dl said something about his relationship with the emporer was patron and priest did not mean that Tibet was de facto independent. 86.178.77.164 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but the fact that the Tibetans expelled all Chinese from Tibet and did not allow them to even visit Lhasa again until the 13th Dalai Lama's death does indicate that the Dalai Lama had the power to enforce the declaration. Scholarship outside China is unequivocal on this: Tibet was de facto independent from 1912 until the Chinese invasion of 1950. Bertport (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So was the King of England executed by Cromwell and the royal family expelled from England, it did not mean the English Monarchy was dead and buried, nor was England de facto independent of the previous rulers. Whatever the dl may or may not have declared has long sinced been overtaken by events. If scholarship outside of China has Bertport's opinion, then it is way out of date, which is typical as so-called "scholarship" outside of China on China tends to be very anti-Chinese. 86.177.121.24 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remember events can change very quickly - witness how the royal family was ousted in England and then soon reinstated, or how quickly the British empire and the U.S.S.R collapsed. I don't think saying that Tibet was de facto independent from 1912 to 1950 has anything to do with what the present Dalai Lama says, nor does it have anything to do with being "anti-Chinese" - it is just an historical fact. Please stop trying to politicise history. John Hill (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What historic fact? The whole point of this diagreement is that people like you claim it was a fact when there are many others who say it is not. The present dl dose not say Tibet is or was independent of China in its various polities. Indeed the dl has said again and again, that he accepts Tibet is a part of China because that is the reality. His actions amounts to that he is just trying to get the best deal for Tibetans. If the Chinese people say it is not a fact then what gives you the right to impose your views on them? Sounds pretty much like being anti-Chinese to me. 86.176.188.220 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with the language used for English history, the word "RESTORATION" to Chinese central rule would be neutral and NPOV. 86.183.6.249 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't "restore" that which never existed earlier. The concept of a Chinese nation is a modern one, created by the Qing dynasty to distinguish subjugated peoples from Manchu. A emperor didn't think in terms of "Chinese central rule", but in terms of themselves, their dynasties, and their "mandate from heaven" for universal rule. From the Tibetan POV, there was a priest/patron relationship between the DL and the emperor. It cannot be considered NPOV to ignore the Tibetan POV in an article entitled "Tibet." Kauffner (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kauffner you really need to go and learn a bit about history, and read the full titles of European sovereigns. I assure you their titles carry the equivalent of "mandate from heaven" used in the Chinese terminology, and goes by something like "rule on behalf of God". The concept of a Chinese nation is not a modern one but an ancient one. How the Chinese rulers thought of themselves were not very different from how contemporary European rulers thought of themselves, ie their houses, families, lineage, birthright/ God-given right to rule, etc. By your argument the concept of many of the European nations is modern ones, be it the English nation, the French nation, the German nation, the Italian nation, the Belgian nation, the Swedish nation, the Norwegian nation, the Russian nation etc, etc. The rule over the area called Tibet in English was restored to central Chinese rule after a period of political rebellion. This is no different to historical parallel incidents in Europe or indeed in the USA. How can a notion of priest/patron have any meaning over rulership? Such a notion is now considered way out of date in Europe, where the parallel is that of the Vatican and European sovereigns. Just because a King is a Roman Catholic does not mean his rule over his country is subjugated to the Vatican, nor that the pope is the ruler over the King's country. 86.176.116.195 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100411/tuk-pope-has-no-uk-arrest-immunity-6323e80.html

Above is legal opinion that the pope, head of the RC church and over a billion followers can be arrested on a foreign visit because he is not a head of state. If follows that the dl who claims to be a religious leader of a few million is not a head of a state called Tibet under any law. 86.176.51.224 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchu

Can we get to the truth? Qing Dynasty is a Manchu Empire, not Chinese. Same as that Yuan Dynasty is a Mongol Empire. Contributions/207.233.70.52 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct English spelling of the name of the Manchu Empire is Ta-tsing. That is what was used in treaties between the USA and the Ta-tsing. "Qing" is based on a romanization scheme used in the PRC, based on the Peking dialect. It should not be used to retranscribe historical names, especially non Chinese (Han) names. Furthermore, the Ta-tsing was the name of a Manchu state or political entity that conquered the Ming, which was a separate political entity ruled by mostly Han. To treat it as a "Chinese dynasty" would be a distortion of history. In the PRC they refer to it as such but Wikipedia should avoid taking "han-centric" or "manchu-centric" views if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In treaties between the USA and the Qing, 大清 (Qing) and 中國 (China) appear interchangeably (see this and this), however in most treaties the empire refers to itself as just China(see this)Timw12 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Manchu and Mongolian emperors self proclaimed themselves to be "Emperor of China" saying that the Yuan and Qing dynasties are not Chinese is just as ignorant as saying the Stuarts were not English because the first ruler was Scottish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.122.58 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And since you talk about treaties between US and China, did you notice this:The United States of America, and The Ta Tsing Empire,...., Citizens of the United States resorting to China ... So, if you still don't understand: The United States of America and the United States appear interchangeably just as The Ta Tsing Empire and China. Here is another treaty between US and China: Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868, again: government of the United States and Chinese Government, so The United States of America=the United States, The Ta Tsing Empire=China Timw12 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Manchu are not Han Chinese, but they are no doubt Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.163.37 (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 56 ethnic groups in China, Han is one of them, no one in China refers Han as "Chinese," the word "Chinese," or "Zhong Guo Ren" is used to refer to all ethnic groups in China. It's ridiculous how a lot of ignorant Westerners keep using the word "Chinese" as an exclusive word for the Han, to try to infer Tibetans are not Chinese. In China, when referring to Han, the term "Han Zu" is used, which literally means "Han tribe." Likewise, when referring to the other ethnic groups, such as Tibetans or Manchus, "Zang Zu" (Tibetan Tribe) and "Man Zu" (Manchu Tribe) are used. When, "Chinese" is used, it refers to ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN CHINA. Do we in the United States use the word "American" exclusively for Caucasian Americans, and say that Mexican-Americans or African-Americans are not American? Because to me that's extremely racist, and is the equivalent of referring to Tibetans and Uighurs as not "Chinese." I like how the poster above now refers the Manchus as Chinese as well, but implies Tibetans aren't. So any ethnic group in China is considered Chinese but if they have a few outside protesters that want independence, they're not considered Chinese? The hypocrisy that beliefs is ridiculous. Obsilord (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the USA, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, Asia-Americans are often not regarded as "real" Americans. They are regarded as second-class citizens. That is the reality. However this view may tip when the Hispanic population overtakes that of Caucasians. Tibetans in The PRC are without doubt Chinese, and are treated much better by the state than the Hans. However, one has to remember that the Tibetan tribe also lives in India, where they are Indians. There are also Tibetans born and living in the USA, where they are Americans. As these people of Tibetan ancestry are no longer Chinese, they do not have a say inn China. 86.178.224.30 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't understand the English word "Chinese". It is NOT equivalent to "zhong guo ren". Bertport (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is you that doesn't understand the word "Chinese." It is used to refer to anyone who's a citizen of China. Such as the word "American" is anyone who's a citizen of the United States. Go look up the definition in any dictionary and encyclopedia, even here on Wikipedia. When referring to only the Han, the term Han Chinese is used. Just like how the definition of "American" can also mean Native Americans, but it in no way excludes other citizens of the United States. Whatever you believe is your opinion, but don't bring your double standard here and try to state they're facts. Obsilord (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the usage in the article should generally be neutral between the two possible usages of "Chinese".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I propose changing many of the uses the word "Chinese" in the article to "Han" instead. Examples such as "...China continues to encourage the transfer of Chinese settlers into Tibet" should be changed to "...transfer of Han settlers into Tibet." Obsilord (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not possible. "Han" is not common usage in English. The common English equivalent of "Han" is "Chinese". Bertport (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion and your opinion only. Do not tell me what the common English equivalent is or is not, since I am an American as well. Han Chinese is used all the time, and "Chinese" does not exclusively mean Han. Maybe only in your vocabulary. Like I said before, any dictionary or encyclopedia can tell you that too. Obsilord (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, the Merriam Webster on my shelf supports what I am saying. So does common usage. Try googling "Chinese immigrants Tibet". I did not say that "Chinese" exclusively means "Han". Like most words, "Chinese" has multiple meanings, which are differentiated by context. When necessary, we use more elaborate phrases to clarify or specify. Bertport (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Webster's New World Dictionary on my shelf says otherwise, and so does the Merriam Webster and Random House dictionaries online. "Chinese: a person born or living in China." Nowhere did they even mention the Han in the definitions. You cannot Google for specific words to support your claim, as the very search terms used will skew the results, such as using "Han immigrants" instead. I completely agree with you the word might have multiple meanings, that is why we need to be specific when trying to convey the idea, and be as clear and concise as possible. Using the word "Chinese" is not only ambiguous but also ignores any other (more commonly used, according to the dictionaries) meanings of the word. That is why I suggest being more specific and supporting the NPV rule of Wikipedia (right now the article only support the one definition) by changing the usage of the word Chinese to Han or Han Chinese when it actually refers to Han Chinese. BTW, thank you for being civil and objective in your replies, it is rare to have a intelligent and courteous discussion on a topic like this from what I've experienced, even here on Wikipedia.Obsilord (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's OK to say "Han Chinese" in the article where that is the meaning - in fact, the article already does so in three places. But "Han" by itself may be confusing to people, because it is not that widely used in English. Bertport (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "Han" as typically defined does not describe all of the internal migrants who are at issue. What people tend to have in mind is any Chinese-speaking persons, which in Tibet includes a lot of Huis and maybe some Manchus, Sinophone Zhuangs, etc. Perhaps we should say "non-Tibetan immigrants"?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think its more politically correct to use the word "migrant" than the word "immigrant" in this case, since Tibet after all, is politically part of the PRC. The rest sounds good to me though. That phrase is neutral and more factually correct in my opinion. You have my support to make the changes at least. Obsilord (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points: The point about Bertport's comment is that the English have the wrong perception of "Chinese". Indeed in English, the "Chinese" were at one time called the "Mongolians" (in the days of the Yellow Peril). The second point is that there are no Han or Chinese immigrants in Tibet. The Han or Chinese migrate to Tibet, not emigrate to Tibet. They are internal migrants. 86.178.224.30 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Maybe you should read Qing treaties such as this 93.136.111.145 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty was a Chinese Empire headed by a Manchu Imperial Family. Likewise the Yuan Dynasty was a Chinese Empire headed by a Mongol Imperial Family. Outside of the Qing Dynasty, Manchu peoples occupied what is today's Siberia. Likewise the Mongol peoples outside of the Yuan Dynasty occupied most of today's Siberia, Central Asia, India, Persia, Mesopotamia, parts of the Middle East etc. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Scotland also Chinese? Kauffner (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a vassal of China, just as England, France, and the US are all vassals of China. But I don't know if that means it's Chinese. Bertport (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is just the translation/ mistranslation of the figurative 'Tianxia' (under the sky/ heaven) to mock and ridicule the Chinese, and to create a trumped up reason for war with the Chinese. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Qing China had explicitly asserted sovereignty over Tibet in 1904 after the British invasion. And China also signed an official treaty with Britain respecting Tibet two years later. On the other hand, Qing China never asserted sovereignty over territories like England and Scotland.--207.112.82.223 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No Scotland belonged to Idi Amin, Conqueror of the British. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the area of the Qing Empire (Which was significantly larger than modern China) was actually forbidden to Chinese nationals. The Chinese were also forced to wear queues, a Manchu style.

The Yuan and the Qing were, without question, Chinese entities ruled by minorities. South Africa under apartheid was not a White country. It was a Black country of Zulu, Xhosa, etc. ruled by the minority White Europeans. No one ever thought of South Africa as a Dutch or English country just because the place was ruled by Europeans of Dutch or English descent. It only makes sense since, as another example, the Vietnamese didn't suddenly turn French with the local population vanishing or changing skin color during French colonial rule. Most importantly the Yuan and the Qing located their capitals inside of China, in Beijing -- as opposed to the French-Indochina relationship. The Yuan capital was where modern day Beijing is but the capital for the entire Mongol Empire was Karakorum. When the Yuan was overthrown, a Ming General marched to Karakorum and sacked it but the Ming army never stayed. If they had, it wouldn't be entirely impossible for the Ming lay claim to the entire Mongol Empire. But at the end of the day, laying claim to a territory is one thing, enforcing that claim is quite another. Daveycool (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)