Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China/Archive 4

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

Requested move 13 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus – Both supporting and opposing editors make valid arguments, and no new facts have emerged since the 2015 discussion. There is no obvious common name in the literature, and the current name satisfies all WP:AT criteria; so would the proposed name but it has not gained wide support, therefore status quo prevails. — JFG talk 06:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China → Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China – Recently, there are many one-time registration account to make strange editing, such as the use of POV as a reason to delete the reference material, or use the unusual Chinese vocabulary to call Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. So far, the most extreme situation is the use of Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China's direct translation to replace the common Chinese vocabulary. Rayming123 edit page of the day the page browsing traffic surge(3/6 views 942,3/7 views 619,AVG views 296), may be organized intentionally involved.(PS:This page 3/6 views 1,3/7 views 4,AVG views 1. ) Direct translation part, Aknanaka's （中國合併西藏） is one of the classic representatives. Based on the above, altering the name of Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China may improve the translation of Chinese vocabulary caused by direct translation, but it can not be changed into peaceful liberation of Tibet, after all, the fact of war. Even if the POV as a reason to oppose called Invasions, it is impossible to make the name of peace is justified.--61.224.0.11 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. Tibet was universally recognized as Chinese territory despite its de facto independence. Goa etc. were internationally recognized Portuguese territory while Crimea was Ukrainian. -Zanhe (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Not a good idea. That could be easily confused with Tibet under Qing rule. -Zanhe (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV - it's only been a year and a few months since the last failed move request, and all arguments can be seen in the thread immediately above. To summarize, the most common term by far is "Liberation of Tibet" (see ngram), but since neither "liberation" nor "annexation" is neutral, "incorporation" is the most acceptable term. -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. We know that this event was not an invasion or a liberation despite these terms' usages as a WP:COMMONNAME by respective aligned parties. Common Name is not a good indicator for this article due to the political interpretations of the event. Keep in mind that Wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece and cater to a state's chosen vocab. Incorporation, while not as WP:POINTY as invasion or liberation, is clearly a biased term. Annexation is a neutral term that should be encouraged. --NoGhost (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original proposal per nom. Seems that the content dispute was influenced by the current title. "Annexation" would help bring peace to both or more sides together and prompt sides to make compromises. Also, changing to "annexation" would prompt people into adding a lot of stuff for balance. Meanwhile, I strongly oppose Timrollpickering's alternative proposal as changing "People's Republic of China" to "China" doesn't match the article's scope. George Ho (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV - "Annexation" is not neutral, its use implies that Tibet was a sovereign state between 1912 and 1950, which was not the case since the Republic of China never renounced her sovereignty over Tibet. See the whole debate in the preceding thread. "Incorporation" is the best choice as the word doesn't have political connotations. --Elnon (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportTibet was the Protectorate of the Qing Empire.After the demise of the Qing empire, the Republic of China wanted Tibet to become Protectorate of the Republic of China, and finally only a small part of Tibet by Protectorate, and the rest was Terra nullius.After the Republic of China lost its territory because of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the People's Republic of China acquired Tibet through war.
ps:In international law, annexation is a country unilaterally occupying the "Independent state", "Terra nullius", "Protectorate" or other country's territory.Other countries define I do not know but in chinese,Protectorate is a kind of country,but it lost a part of its independence.--Tr56tr (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There is a Nobel Peace Prize winner from Tibet and living personal witness to this event whose own words I quote here: "Prior to the Chinese invasion, Tibet was an unspoiled wilderness sanctuary in a unique natural environment." The word "annexation" is closer to the the 14th Dalai Lama's use of the word "invasion" to characterize China's behavior toward Tibet. This quote is from his statement to the U.S. Congressional Human Right's Caucus on September 21, 1987. This 1989 Nobel Peace Prize laureate also used the word "occupation" six (6) times in his speech, including the following quotes: "...China's illegal occupation of Tibet...", "...China's military occupation of Tibet..." and "...under international law Tibet today is still an independent state under illegal occupation." I mention Kundun's repeated use of the word occupation to illustrate the point that an "occupation" usually follows an "annexation" or "invasion," I therefore support this renaming and move as proposed.[1]A ri gi bod (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
In the United Nations' list of "non-self-governing territories", Tibet is noticeably absent. So how can Tibet be "occupied territory" when it is not recognized as such by the United Nations or by any country (including India) for that matter? --Elnon (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Not to get too political, but the simple answer would be that the PRC has a lot of sway on the UN through its position on the Security Council, and is effective in its control of information. For comparison, consider the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea and imagine what the international response would be if it were any other country. Please note that I'm not a proponent of Tibetan self-determination myself, I just want to point out that the Chinese interpretation of events cannot be classified as WP:NPOV. --NoGhost (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think "Incorporation of Tibetan into the People's Republic of China" as the title is WP:UNDUE(a part of WP:NPOV).--Tr56tr (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Tell me Tr56tr, with twenty or so edits to your counter, aren't you a single-purpose account ? Are you related in any way to1.170.18.230, a recent visitor to my talk page who tried to sway my opinion in favour of the requested move ? --Elnon (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The behavior you are questioning is similar to the behavior of this link.This question has changed from topic discussion to questioning me personally.If you really care, please submit your evidence to report.--Tr56tr (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
NoGhost, on November 7, 1950, when the Tibetan government appealed to the United Nations over "the invasion of Tibet by China", the PRC wasn't a member of the UN yet (the PRC had to wait until 1971 to become one), so how can it possibly have influenced the outcome of the vote that adjourned the debate ? --Elnon (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Good question. Well, the debate about an invasion of Tibet is a bit easier to answer, and the simple response is: it wasn't an invasion. There were aspects of the annexation that could be considered an invasion (as noted in the current article), but overall the term invasion doesn't apply to the region of Tibet. But back to original comment, a territory does not need to be invaded to be considered non self-governing. Anyways, a good book if you want to learn more about China/Tibet and the status with the UN is this one from 1992: [1]. --NoGhost (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Difficult. There is no completely neutral term, but the current article title reads like propaganda. Annexation is the best term to describe the topic, and well attested in sources. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While there was certainly an invasion, a conquest and a subjugation, the case for there having been an annexation is weaker as the PRC had always considered Tibet part of her territory. The current title is clear and succinct enough. —  AjaxSmack  03:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In order to confirm whether these names are used to check the information, I can say that Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China(6,410 results) is a common word, Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China(60 results ) is almost not used.Museums and scholars use the "Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China" to call this event, see also these books (Encyclopedia of modern Asia Page 365/Art of Tibet: A Catalogue of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Collection Page 26Varieties of Secularism in Asia ― Anthropological Explorations of Religion, Politics and the Spiritual Page 72).--Tr56tr (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack, Zanhe and others. The current term is the most neutral, when compared against the Chinese term "liberation" and the Tibetan term "invasion" or "annexation", and this is no clear common name to choose.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, do you consider the word "annexation" to be a "Tibetan term" or just the word "invasion?" A ri gi bod (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the article is caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of naming; there is no neutral way to comply with WP:COMMONNAME and no commonly name that complies with WP:NPOV. This is the least-worst option. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree that it's difficult. But to me annexation, being a legally accurate and relatively obscure term, is preferable to invasion or liberation, the terms used by the propagandists on each side. Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. There are many authentic photographs (taken by official Chinese PLA Photographers) of long columns of the heavily armed PLA soldiers with horses, mules and heavy guns marching over high mountain passes into Tibet in 1950, and marching in down the valleys and into Lhasa, with astonished Tibetans standing by staring at them in wonder at the side of the road. There is also plenty of film footage of Tibetan armed resistance fighters opposing the PLA inside Tibet. I have met personally numerous Tibetans in exile who have described in detail both verbally and in written memoirs their experiences of fighting as resistance forces against the PLA in Tibet in the subsequent years; they were survivors who eventually escaped into exile afer their groups were overwhelmed by superior numbers and force of arms on the part of the Chinese, leaving numerous colleagues killed on the field of battle. There is no evidence that any Chinese were based inside Tibet for four decades before these armies entered the country as described. The Chinese authorities themselves have officially stated that as many as 1,200,000 Tibetans died in the fighting and occupation as a result of the PLA invasion and occupation of Tibet during the 1950s. There are also innumerable eye-witness accounts on the record and well-authenticated books published by reliable authors which all tell of the horrors that were inflicted on the Tibetans by the Chinese forces, horrors which by all accounts (except Chinese ones) that continue to be inflicted [under heavy security and censorship] to this day. The official Chinese policy in Tibet has been openly declared by the Chinese authorities themselves as one of "Merciless Repression" of Tibetan dissidents. All this being so, "invasion and occupation" are indisputably the correct terms for what happened, whatever the Chinese invaders and occupiers themselves and their modern apologists might claim according to their own self-serving policy of self-justification. Therefore "Annexation" is a mild and diplomatic term by comparison to the real truth, face-saving for the Chinese and there should be no question from the Chinese side that the move proposed is appropriate. If it is in any way inappropriate, it is because it is too weak. As for "Peaceful Liberation", well! LOL. MacPraughan (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "Incorporation" cannot be that bad since you are not averse to using it yourself as shown here. --Elnon (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Ha ha, well spotted, Elnon! At least I wrote in the same sentence that Ma Bufeng and "seized" the territory, before incorporating it, so that made it pretty clear. MacPraughan (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Annexation is the neutral geopolitical term for, well, annexation. "Incorporation of..." seems like a made up euphemism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The existing title is an awkward concession to pressure from biased individuals. Annexation is by far the common usage. Bertport (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, "annexion of Tibet" is more than twice as frequent as "incorporation of Tibet" in google book. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I actually thought that it might be an American spelling of the word for a second, hah! If we actually want to compare incorporation vs annexation, it looks like this: [2]. While annexation is clearly more common of a term, I don't necessarily think that WP:COMMONNAME should outweigh any considerations of WP:NPOV for this debate. --NoGhost (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Having read through all the comments so far, I find it interesting that all the arguments (for and against) seem to be the exact same. No one wants to use the terms liberation or invasion, but the disagreement seems to be focused on whether incorporation or annexation are the more neutral term. To me, incorporation comes across as a weasel word, but perhaps it's just a matter of style rather than a matter of WP:POV. I still find it hard to consider incorporation a neutral term, but it's clear that others do. --NoGhost (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Very well said. Andrewa (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments (I was notified by User:A ri gi bod of this discussion. If I decide to vote I will do so, please do not try to discern my likely !vote from these comments.)
1) WP:NPOV is first and foremost about what reliable sources say. That one interested party or another may object to a term as at best of secondary consideration.
2) Reliable sources exist on this topic. There is a tendency among editors of Tibet articles to devolve into a “he said/she said” between the PRC and the TGIE and pretend that reliable sources do not exist on the topic. Reliable sources do exist. Find out what they say.
3) Reputable scholars will have the integrity to mention different names for the event, even if this is not what the scholars themselves call it. In particular, nearly every source should mention that the Chinese Government calls the event “The Peaceful Liberation of Tibet” or “The Liberation of Tibet”, even if the source itself does not call it this. Because of this, Google scholar and other search counts will not be very useful in evaluating whether “Liberation of Tibet” is an appropriate title; the sources must be examined to determine the authors’ opinions on the matter.
4) This article has a long history of naming discussions. It was the “Invasion of Tibet” (and variations thereof) from December 2007, [3] shortly after its creation, until this discussion Talk:Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People's_Republic_of_China/Archive_2#article_title in April/May 2011, and has been “Incorporation of Tibet into the People’s Republic of China” since then. There were many naming discussions up until the transition and they are listed here [4].
--Wikimedes (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet (September 21, 1987). "Five Point Peace Plan: Address to the U.S. Congressional Human Right's Caucus". His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. Archived from the original on 14 January 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to use this as a record of these phenomena on this page.

See edit history and Page view statistics of Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China.

Found that one thing, view statistics will increase abnormally when there are users like the use of socks puppet User-4488, or other rarely make editors account in this page to make edits.

Although it is not obvious, the recent increase in view statistics has been changed to once a week, and the increase in pageviews continues to grow in weeks. Another phenomenon is that those socks puppets or other editors who rarely make editors seem to have changed to once a month.--61.224.18.84 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking for a reason

Why is there no ideas 'bout that from the People of the People's Republic of China? I mean, is that a so-called Political Correctness?I myself am, but I had my minor edit reversed. Why?天津小外杨连洲 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

When you describe something in English, please use the English reference--O1lI0 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you?You meant a "English reference"? Well then. Could you please tell me, where to find a ENGLISH REFERENCE ABOUT A NAME FOR A CAMPAIGN IN CHINA? I would be thankful for that.天津小外杨连洲 (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I viewed the ideas up there, showing the ideas of the people from the English world——sorry for being rude.But none of them viewed Tibet as an integrated part of Chinese Nation. And Could you please find a scholar who uses the view of a CHINESE to tell you guys 'bout that? Will be thankful for that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 天津小外杨连洲 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The simple way is Googling it.Remind you,ｗikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
See also: WP:FORUM and WP:NOTADVERTISING

--O1lI0 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait what? O no! We're in China, the P.R.China, OK? How can we get access to google? I ask you SINCERELY?Pardon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.80.201.22 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Come on, we all know that China has blocked WIKI also blocked GOOGLE. You can not link GOOGLE is a joke because you can link WIKI.Do not be nonsense.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

IP: 42.80.200.251 Tianjin Telecom O come on, I'm using the english version of Wikipedia, and China blocks the Chinese-languaged Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.80.200.251 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sign, please.Then we talk about looking for information.Try using a website like Yahoo or Bing, or complain to the Chinese government.
PS : Note WP: FORUM | WP: NOTADVERTISING | WP:RS | WP:EQ.--O1lI0 (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Formal request has been received to merge: Battle of Chamdo into Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China; dated: May 2017 Proposer's Rationale: Battle of Chamdo is a part of Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China.No Battle of Chamdo will no Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China. --36.234.29.139. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Chamdo is a military campaign. Incorporation of Tibet into PRC is a larger process that includes internal politics, diplomacy, military campaign etc. Let's look at how a book on modern history of Tibet treats the topic: The first 3 chapters of The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947 by Tsering Shakya are as follows:
  1. The Lull Before the Storm
  2. Tibet Prepares to Face the PRC
  3. Tibet Negotiates with the Communists

It is clear that the author treats the incorporation of Tibet into PRC as much more than a military campaign. They are also treated as different articles on multiple language versions of Wikipedia . --Happyseeu (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not merge per Happyseeu. Certainly, the Battle of Chamdo is a key event in the annexation/incorporation of Tibet. We could merge the articles if that's better from editorial perspective (e.g. if one were a stub with no prospects). But there's no reason they need to be merged. They are distinct topics of which one is a subset of the other. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Do not merge. A number of famous battles have their own pages in Wikipedia, especially if they played a major role in the outcome of a war (This is the case, for example, with the Battle of Gettysburg, which is known to have been a turning point in the American Civil War). I cannot see see any valid reason why the Battle of Chamdo − in which Tibetan nationalists were defeated and had to recognize China's sovereignty in the ensuing peace talks − should be merged into a much more comprehensive page describing the process of "political Tibet"'s incorporation into the RPC. --Elnon (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Do not merge A ri gi bod (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of Chinese terms

Main page: Wikipedia:Teahouse § ‎Need some discussion

The Chinese words ("中國侵略圖博", "中國侵略西藏", and "中國併吞西藏") appearing in the lead section:

1. They are Taiwanese terms, and not used in mainland China. Even an editor who don't know Chinese should be able see this from the .tw websites and the traditional Chinese script they used. If Taiwanese words are used in the first line, why don't we use Russian, Portuguese, or Punjab words? I see no need to include native language terms at all, as no part of the phrase "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" need a native language for clarification.

2. They all mean "invasion", or "swallowing up", none means "incorporation". If I remember it right, there was already a discussion on the talk page on why these should not be used. Even if we need foreign words here, we need a correct & neutral translation, not these independentist jargon. Esiymbro (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC) 

Talk in Wikipedia:Teahouse#‎Need some discussion.In order to avoid the Chinese users to vote each other and increase the exposure of the discussion.--49.217.133.72 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why a content-only dispute regarding this one article should be discussed at Teahouse. Esiymbro (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is deleting your Teahouse comments. Others can come here if they are interested. If you have no valid reasons then delete them yourself, and no one is going to laugh at you. Esiymbro (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Help:Using talk pages Esiymbro (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Esiymbro:In conclusion I am against you. If you mean WP:FRNG.Remind not to WP:GAME,and refer to WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Content can be moderately reduced but not all deleted according to WP:DUE. If you want to promote the Chinese point of view, please note WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:RNPOV.The positive editorial advice is not to be politically correct and to contain verifiable different opinions.I know this is not easy for everyone. The current title does not have a stable consensus, see also Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China/Archive 4 .In fact, most are considered to be renamed to annexation.As long as there is opposition must be discussed because this is not a vote war.--O1lI0 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about NPOV, or title, or anything you mentioned. I suggest they be removed because they are of no importance to this topic & are incorrect translations. Please don't distract the topic here. Esiymbro (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
we need a correct & neutral translation
Not talking about NPOV?--O1lI0 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So you think not neutral is OK? Esiymbro (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The main problem here is that it is not even correct. It should be removed or changed whether neutral or not. About why I prefer removing to changing, I already stated above: no part of the phrase "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China" need a native language for clarification. Esiymbro (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is what is neutral and WP:BALANCE.China has billions of Chinese users, this does not mean that China is neutral.If these problems can not be solved, the best way is not to use any information from the Chinese.This will avoid most of the controversyThis will avoid most of the controversy.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So finally you and I have agreed on this. Let's remove the terms when the full protection expires. Esiymbro (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You and I have not reached any consensus.If it is not necessary, the Chinese information should still be used.Unless the editor of the conflict and no consensus, to avoid the use of Chinese information is one of the options.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Then what do you mean by "avoid the use of Chinese information"? Is there any mainland Chinese information now? Esiymbro (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
All Chinese users' information.--O1lI0 (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh the Chinese should all be barred from editing Wikipedia then. I should sincerely thank you for this proposal, on behalf of those overseas Tibetans and maybe a good majority of your countrymen. And goodbye for today. Esiymbro (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
No one is no dispute is the page protection. This page disputes are from the Chinese. If we really can not solve it can only avoid the Chinese.Can not avoid Chinese unless necessary.--O1lI0 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The event occurred between China and Tibet, so how it is called/perceived in Chinese and Tibetan is an important POV. At the time the event occurs, there are two governments that claimed to represent China: ROC(which held the China seat in UN at that time) and PRC(an actor in the event). A NPOV way is to enumerate how it is called in Chinese (by PRC and ROC) and Tibetan, respectively, with English translation to represent the different POV about the event. This would let the readers understand the complexity involved about the event. --Happyseeu (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

09 2017

Please consider how many reference source can meet the unreasonable demands of Chinese racists.How about Washingtonpost?--115.82.211.220 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources for annexation

The article currently says that it is "generally believed" that China annexed Tibet. The sources cited for this scholarly consensus (?) are a book about American artists, a book about the 1950s published by a vanity press, and a travel book about sacred places. Not a single reliable source on international politics is cited. If a reliable source can be found that specifically supports that this is the general belief among some scholarly community perhaps, then the sentence can stay as it is. Otherwise, even with better sources, it should be written from those sources, probably with attribution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Only part of the PDF can be found, and other papers are not available for reference due to authorization issues. 1 2 3 4 5 67(A1) A2--49.218.84.98 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is true that using "Chinese annexation of Tibet" is quite common outside China (especially common in India, I guess) even in scholarly books and papers, but there are many influential works on modern Tibetan history where "annexation" doesn't appear even once (e.g. A History of Modern Tibet volumes 1-3 by Melvyn Goldstein). I'm not a researcher on this field, but if there is indeed the consensus among some communities, in my opinion, it should be proved by articles that include direct discussion about the terminology, or at least the legal status. Then we can say for sure that it is generally believed outside China or among certain circles/communities, etc. Esiymbro (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
In any case, the statement should be written in a way to reflect reliable sources. I've made a first pass at this (The Atlantic article describes it as a settled question in the West.) I've also removed the unreliable sources. Feel free to add other reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The question of authenticity

The event of war is called peace, even the official name of the People's Republic of China, which is also contrary to common sense. Political propaganda content and source from China suitable for writing wiki?--180.204.135.91 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It is written that it is the opinion of Chinese, not the so-called consensus of pro-slavery people. Just like you can see the expression of Dalai Lama . Don't you know that Dalai Lama ruled a Slavery Society? Why people who haven't come to Tibet are so easily Brainwashed by slaveholders?--wkbreaker 14：18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the political propaganda of China, and you have not responded to the subject.In addition, your argument is not validated.--180.204.135.91 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
That sentence was describing what Chinese thought, isn't it? So why can't we use what China say to explain what china think? Anyway, the slavery existed in old Tibet is the truth. You can say the "liberation" is a propaganda, and you can say the Communist down the slavery just for their own interest. But the common people in Tibet are no longer slaves and gain lands from their former lords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbreaker (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This means you violate WP: FRINGE.You are trying to promote the Chinese political propaganda with the wiki.--180.204.135.91 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, now we can never quote Lincoin's speech to describe what the North think. ——it's a propaganda and the truth is the US invaded the Confederacy? My Tibet classmate would be very confused why someone take Lama's words for truth than propaganda and he would be angry if Slave-owner took back the ruling place——he is a son of two so-called "liberated Slaves".--wkbreaker 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbreaker (talk • contribs)
Warning again, do not quote irrelevant topics to promote China's political propaganda.--180.204.135.91 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Your majesty have threaten me to shut up my lip at my homepage, so I have to keep silent from now on. GOOD DICTATORSHIP!AND HAPPY OWNERSHIP!--(Wkbreaker) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbreaker (talk • contribs)
In other words, can you explain that a war and a casualty can be considered a peace?--180.204.135.91 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me say a word again. I have never said that there was no war took placed between the lama and the PLA. However, all the battles was happened in Chamdo, Sikang Province. If you check out the Administrative divisions of China you would find Sikang Province was not belonged to Tibet Region. In Sikang Province there were also some Kuomingtang army besides Lama's troop.So that Sikang Province was not peacefully "liberated", but the Tibet Rigion might be, just like what took placed in Northwestern China, Kuomingtang army failed in Gansu Province and them they announced the in XinJiang Province they cooperate with PLA for "peacefully Liberation of The Northwest".--Wkbreaker 15:41, 20 Sept 2017 (UTC)
What you mean should be: a and b do not fight on each other's territory, so after the defeat, the annexation of the territory is peaceful.Your point is a special original research for promoting China's political propaganda. --180.204.135.91 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You deleted the word and thought it was came out of me, but if you check out the editing process you would find it is not firstly written by me, what I had do is just add a Chinese translation and a ref. About another question, from the document Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet you will find though such a saying you don't agreed with was ACCEPTED by the lama those days. The peaceful liberation means the PLA regard it as an part of the CIVIL WAR rather than repress a separatist warlord, and there is finally ceasefire before battles take place in lhasa. Before that sad years of lama, not thing really changed for him, he was still the governor of Tibet Region and even vice chairman of standing committee of the people's Congress of china. I understand when after Mid-1950s when the communists tried to down the slavery with the help of angry salves and the army, Lama tried to fight back and seek help aborad. But it won't changed the fact that in 1950 he agreed the name of "peaceful liberation" just like many former kuomintang generals so that he would be treat as a hero rather than a war criminal by the Communists..--Wkbreaker 16:44, 20 Sept 2017 (UTC)
Dear chief editor, I rewrite the word so that even pro-slavery in Confederacy would also accept. Would you please check it out?--Your sincerelyWkbreaker 17:05, 20 Sept 2017 (UTC)
Move to "Further negotiations and I".This is a supplement to this chapter.Will move the strange narrative to other suitable locations.You seem to want to copy that chapter to lead section.--101.13.193.206 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Invaded and gained control"

"Invasion" generally refers to a military attack on a foreign country to occupy it. The only real military action was at Chamdo, a single city in Tibet.Wanli33 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you add any source to prove that was not considered as invasion?Most of the sources now available support invasion.But not in china.--Tr56tr (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
By "Most of the sources", I believe you meant western media which are are outright biased against China and is good at using double standard. --123.161.168.251 (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Will apply for a certification system if you group of people insist on using original research and ignore the authenticity of information.--Tr56tr (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing called "certification system" for media. Btw, I neither used OR or ever ignored the credibility of info. --106.185.25.41 (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
No, this is to avoid the destruction of people like you who use the wiki as a forum.--Tr56tr (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, shouldn't talk page be some kind of place like a forum where we discuss certain issues? (WP:TALK:The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject.)--106.185.25.41 (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Military actions are only a small part of this article's subject. Using "invaded and gained control" is logically wrong because the former is one part of the latter. I would say it is not even the most important part-- Tibetan local government's reactions were determined by their limited military capacity and lacking of international support rather than the results of one battle. Esiymbro (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then I will change it. Wanli33 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So you can't change it.See other talk(Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017).--Tr56tr (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

Please change "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet.[4](Chinese: 中國併吞西藏[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] )" to ""(i.e. remove this sentence), per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Clearly this sentence merely appeared once in the leading section and is arguably not the "most important contents" of this article which should address the course and impact of Tibet's incorporation rather than giving West's general belief which is seemingly irrelevant to this article. 123.161.168.251 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your request is invalid because you assume reliable information as a prejudice.--Tr56tr (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2017
Unluckily, it's not my personal assumptions but facts (Per WP:NPOVS:"Reliable sources may be non-neutral", "Reliable sources are never neutral".). Btw, my justification for removing this sentence is MOS:LEAD, not NPOV in sources. --106.185.25.41 (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Can not recognize your assumptions, I think you are just elaborating on personal views and using wiki as a forum.--Tr56tr (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, please respond to my original proposal regarding this sentence which violates MOS:LEAD. --106.185.25.41 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You mean because you think that the content is biased, so it can not be written in the wiki, so you first want to prove, not to expound the view and disrupt.--Tr56tr (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Support the edit request. On the reason, IP user has already written clearly enough. Esiymbro (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please explain the problem of prejudice, and the time when you appear too complicated with IP.Note: This is not vote.--Tr56tr (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Can you see here?--Tr56tr (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You said it was only part and not important, so it could not be written. With the form of original research, that is your way. Assuming there is no war, this historical event will happen? This is not an important question, but the inevitability of the incident.--Tr56tr (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
All what I said comes from conclusions in Melvyn Goldstein's books and supported by recent Western books and articles on modern Tibetan history. What original research? Your original research? Esiymbro (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, I recommend you get yourself educated on this topic. Reading some academic publications should be your first step. Esiymbro (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Back to the topic, from WP: LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. If following WP's manual of style makes me prejudiced in your eyes, then I wonder what does not. Esiymbro (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Need more source verification. Only one person and a book.This is similar as the Mao quotations.--Tr56tr (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes,this is important.Because it is universal view in the West. While the West contains English-speaking countries, here is the English wiki. Is there a problem?--Tr56tr (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You told me to explain my "prejudice", and I explained. You said my opinion was original research, and I provided sources. You also claim that I "use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia" and others will check whether it is true or not. Now that you want verification as well, what should I do next? Rewrite the article and send for your approval? Actually if it were still one hour ago I would have had several questions as well. How many percent is your definition of universality, and who made the survey? How i your opinion should enwiki treat English-speaking countries differently from other countries? But now I am no going to continue this "discussion". Have fun. Esiymbro (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I know you have their own Chinese interpersonal relationships, may be friends, QQ group or classmates. So it is very difficult to check whether the socks puppet. A single source and claim that more and more people accept it, feeling like propagating original research.--Tr56tr (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That's very nice, thank you. I believe most others would immediately tag their opponent as "paid troll of Chinese government" when they trap themselves in a debate like this. Your alternative is, well, really creative. Esiymbro (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In fact, this is a political dispute. The government may indeed intervene, especially in dictatorships. But that does not mean that I think you represent the government or are employed by the government.But I am sure that these issues will cause disputes with China users.This can be confirmed from the editing history.The final question is verifiability. --Tr56tr (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The nature of 'incorporation' is very important for this article, because it is the foundation of a host of other issues (e.g. Western support for the Dalai Lama and government-in-exile, and sympathy for Tibetans as refugees, etc.), and it is hotly contested between PRC and other countries. It is odd that someone would say that the lead section should remove such crucial information. If someone thinks that there is a better way to inform the readers about the nature and controversies around the incorporation, it can be discussed. However, simple removal is not the appropriate way to go. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Another recently-created WP:single-purpose account is trying to remove this sentence. It is critical context that belongs in the lead, and there is clearly no consensus here to remove it. Citobun (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
What about these edits(1, 2, 3) ? Apparently they have different purposes. Seems that arbitrarily labeling others is becoming increasingly common.--Whoeverer (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: Whoeverer has been banned as a sockpuppet of Whaterss. Citobun (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

Please remove the "POV-title" template added in March 2017 (roughly one year ago) in this article for there is no discussion in this talkpage accounting for this template and at least providing any rationles. 223.89.144.25 (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request to the editor who added the template, Happyseeu. Spintendo      08:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Happyseeu:Why? Is this a must?--223.89.144.25 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The POV template is added by IP user 36.234.31.35, not me. I have no objection to remove the template. --Happyseeu (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

11 2017

This is sad to read in Wikipedia. the Chinese "incorporated" Tibet worse than the Nazis "incorporated" France. The Chinese conquered, executed, forced children to kill their family, tortured, intentionally starved, forcibly sterilized women and aborted pregnant women, sent to forced labor camps, detroyed nearly all temples and monasteries, and brutally opressed the living Tibetans, which is what the western people think. All this is not even special : similar level of oppression is applied throughout china to this day against dissenters - ideological, ethnic or otherwise. Chinese information control measures are as harsh as North Korean ones, but first-hand reports of this large-scale occurrence are still abundant. Why tarnish Wikipedia this way ? are there threats against Wikipedia editors from Chinese officials ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.81.18 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Word up.66.245.201.216 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is now clear, and the proposed title is notably consistent with other article titles addressing similar circumstances. The proposed target title is permissible as one used in external sources. BD2412 T 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China → Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China – As per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSISTENT this article's title should be renamed to reflect the general convention followed in the articles of similar subject as the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, Annexation of the Jordan Valley and the Annexation of Hyderabad etc. The alternative title could be the Annexation of Tibet. Given the military nature of the Chinese campaign in the Tibet region, it can't be titled "incorporation" as no referendum or popular vote was ever held in Tibet to approve and upheld the military action of People's Liberation Army in this area. There is a cloud over the actions by People's Republic of China even to this date, as no democratic norms and international convention were followed for this action. The ongoing separatist movement in Tibet also adds the complexity and dispute over this action by People's Republic of China. Hemant DabralTalk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The policy at WP:SOAP advocates neutrality, and "Incorporation" is the most neutral term here, as opposed to "Liberation" or "Annexation", both more commonly used in literature (see Ngram below). -Zanhe (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support although I would prefer Annexation of Tibet if there are no ambiguity issues because it is more concise and fits better with the titles of similar wikipedia articles. A quick news search suggests that the WP:COMMONNAME term is annexation not incorporation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the common name is actually Liberation of Tibet by far, followed by "annexation" and then "incorporation", see Google Ngram. This shows the power of propaganda and why it is important to stick with WP:NPOV on politically charged issues like this. -Zanhe (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Am I reading it wrong? "Search for "Incorporation of Tibet" yielded only one result. Search for "Annexation of Tibet" yielded only one result.” would suggest that the sample size is simply too small for us to use Google Ngram. The same is true of google trends [[5]]. No need to get hyperbolic about spreading propaganda when you haven't thoroughly reviewed your own source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I’m not aware of any WP:RS which use the term “Liberation of Tibet,” are you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes you're reading it wrong (seems that you're not familiar with Ngram, which analyzes trends in published books, which are far more reliable than web searches). Click the bottom links to see detailed lists of books for each search term, grouped by period. For example, Melvyn Goldstein, probably the most renowned historian of modern Tibet, quotes the Chinese term "liberation" but adds in parentheses the neutral term "incorporation", see [6]. -Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
You sidestepped the question about usage by WP:RS, let me be specific: what reliable news organization uses Liberation of Tibet? I still think that Ngram warning means the sample size is too small but I’l respect your apparent expertise. As for Goldstein correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t doing so a requirement of conducting long term fieldwork in China? Its not a country that allows open access to either domestic or foreign academics. China regularly deports or bars entry to foreign academics who fail to toe the party line and locks up domestic academics who do the same[7][8]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Sidestepped the question? Didn't I already give you instruction on how to check the Ngram results, and provide a specific example? And your self-doubt was right: your aspersion against Goldstein is baseless. Like Goldstein, Elliot Sperling did not toe China's line on the Tibet issue but was never blocked from the country because of that. He was even a visiting scholar at Peking University. He was later denied entry for his outspoken support of his personal friend Ilham Tohti, which is unrelated to his academic research. -Zanhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t realize that Zanhe also referenced the Goldstein book, but I don’t think this is an example of his book not being an RS because he had done field studies in China in the past. China’s stances towards foreign academics is not so restrictive that anyone who has gone there for a field study is no longer reliable, plus Goldstein has still been able to write past works giving the perspective of Tibetan refugees and dissidents in India. The publication of this book also doesn’t involve Chinese publishing houses, Chinese government funding, or any other Chinese government affiliations either; the book should be fine. — MarkH21talk 01:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Precisely as Zanhe describes, the PRC took control of Tibet de jure from the KMT in the Chinese Civil War after a long period of internationally recognized Qing control. It wasn’t internationally recognized as independent nor part of another country when this happened, so using the word annexation here literally doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, reliable sources don’t refer to it as such. — MarkH21talk 19:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Lets keep an open mind, the Tibetan sovereignty debate does appear to be a debate rather than a decided fact of history. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Oh absolutely. But the use of the word annexation here is a term in international law. Tibet was de jure and internationally recognized to be part of China, even if it wasn’t de facto so (which leads to the debate about modern post-1950s sovereignty). Annexation isn’t used in international law to refer to territory being taken from an unrecognized state.
    Using incorporation does not deny any sovereignty claim, but using annexation asserts a sovereignty claim which is not accepted by any recognized country in the world:
    "Even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial or republican..." – Bradsher, Henry S. Tibet Struggles to Survive, Foreign Affairs, July 1969 Vol. 47 Issue 4, p.753.
    There may be a better word than incorporation, but annexation certainly asserts a POV. — MarkH21talk 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Per the page the argument is that they had limited international recognition, which would squeak by if you want to be technical about the legal definition of annexation (limited recognition is also technically the category the PRC would have fallen under when they took/retook/liberated/annexed/incorporated/whatever Tibet). Sources check out as reliable if not exactly neutral. The Annexation of Hyderabad is another were both sides of the conflict had some level of limited international recognition but the naming consensus seems to hold. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don’t see that? I see

    Thomas Heberer, professor of political science and East Asian studies at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, wrote: "No country in the world has ever recognized the independence of Tibet or declared that Tibet is an 'occupied country'. For all countries in the world, Tibet is Chinese territory."

    and the passage about the United Kingdom being the only country to not explicitly acknowledge Chinese sovereignty (only suzerainty), until they revised that position to Chinese sovereignty in 2008. The only other exception is the Treaty of friendship and alliance between the Government of Mongolia and Tibet, of which the then-Dalai Lama and Tibetan government denied recognition. — MarkH21talk 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thomas Heberer might not be a neutral party when it comes to the Tibet-China debate. Can we address the Annexation of Hyderabad though? In comparison to Tibet Hyderabad State was much less recognized by any standard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don’t know about him in particular (although I don’t see evidence that he isn’t), but other RSes also suggest the same (e.g. The Economist).
    I didn’t partake in the three-person move discussion only a few months ago and I don’t know if I agree with the move. At a cursory glance, I see a princely state (vassal/suzerainty) that was internationally recognized for 149 years, followed by 12 months with no international recognition for any state’s sovereignty over the region. But I’m not here to comment on that move. Here we had internationally recognized de jure & de facto Chinese sovereignty for 535 years, followed by 46 years of de jure & internationally recognized Chinese sovereignty with de facto independence. It’s a different situation. — MarkH21talk 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    I can appreciate being a stickler for using the correct political science terminology as I’ve often been that stickler and I generally agree with you on the definition of annexation. What, however, is the political science definition for incorporation? Its used by other encyclopedias like the Encyclopedia Britannica

    "Tibet’s incorporation into the People’s Republic of China began in 1950 and has remained a highly charged and controversial issue, both within Tibet and worldwide. Many Tibetans (especially those outside China) consider China’s action to be an invasion of a sovereign country, and the continued Chinese presence in Tibet is deemed an occupation by a foreign power. The Chinese, on the other hand, believe that Tibet has been a rightful part of China for centuries and that they liberated Tibet from a repressive regime in which much of the population lived in serfdom. There is truth in both assertions, although public opinion outside China (especially in the West) has tended to take the side of Tibet as an independent (or at least highly autonomous) entity. There is no question, though, that the 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual and temporal leader, has become one of the world’s most recognizable and highly regarded individuals. Area 471,700 square miles (1,221,600 square km). Pop. (2010) 3,002,166."

    [[9]] but its not a super common term in political science or international relations. On an side note I think the britannica does a good job NPOV wise. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Incorporation is a general term that isn't different here than the common meaning of the word. There may indeed be better words for it, but incorporation is at least acceptable and relatively neutral.
    The Britannica entry is pretty reasonable, although I think the public opinion outside China (especially in the West) has tended to take the side of Tibet as an independent (or at least highly autonomous) entity does require more qualifying, since the public opinion here does not refer to the public positions (i.e. government stances, world leader statements, official recognition) outside of China (even in the West). Of course, public positions don't always align with public opinion nor even internal government stances, and this is also just a 5-sentence blurb. But I've gone off-topic now... — MarkH21talk 21:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Incorporation for me implies a lack of violence and regime change. Would you agree that in general and not in the legal specific annexation also works well to describe the events? At least in the same spirit that Texas annexation uses is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see a reason for using a term that has an incorrect technical use here for its broader use in this case. If the majority of reliable sources used the term, like with Texas, then maybe there's a case. — MarkH21talk 06:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have repeatedly asked Zanhe above to name even a single reliable source (preferable among the reliable mainstream news organizations) with uses Liberation of Tibet, they have not been able to do so. NYT uses annexation[10], as does The Daily Beast [11], AFP (in this case carried by the SCMP)[12], the SCMP [13], The Economist [14], and The Diplomat [15]. There are more but I think thats enough to get the point across. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think Zanhe agrees that Liberation of Tibet is only used by PRC-aligned sources. Incorporation of Tibet is also prevalent in reliable sources though, e.g. Reuters, DW, The Diplomat, The Indian Express. But due to the international law usage of annexation being incorrect here, it would require a substantial demonstrable majority of reliable sources using the term to describe the event to justify using it in the article name by a WP:COMMONNAME argument. I'm not even sure there is a plurality that uses annexation, but I haven't done a careful comparison yet. Maybe I'll do that if I have time, but so far I don't see a clear case. — MarkH21talk 06:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    I am not convinced that the international law usage of annexation is incorrect here, the PRC argument is that Tibet was a protectorate under the ROC (a continuation of their status as a protectorate of the Qing)... The process by which a protectorate becomes a part of the protecting power *is* in fact known as annexation (see Korea under Japanese rule#Japan–Korea annexation treaty (1910) etc). Even per the PRC reading of history the events in the 50’s ended a process that started in 1720 and Tibet was a protectorate from 1720 until 1950. If we want to break the debate down into its two main parties both sides agree on who’s sovereignty was usurped, Tibet’s, they just disagree on the year with one saying 1720 and the other 1950. If you want to argue legal formalities we can, are there other acceptable terms for the unification of a protectorate with its protector? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    Also you are misrepresenting those sources, for example The Diplomat piece says "In China’s far west, that history reveals imperial China’s subordination and incorporation of Tibet, which the Communist Party organized into the state under the Marxist-Leninist doctrine on nationality.” the words used for the PRC’s actions are "organized into the state,” while "subordination and incorporation” are used to describe the Qing’s actions. BTW its an opinion piece. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zanhe and MarkH21, that the polity of Tibet from the establishment of the Republic of China in 1912 until the PRC actions in 1951 was never given de jure international recognition (which is the only thing that matters in annexation) is mentioned prominently, with scholarly WP:RS, at that article. Also worth reading are Esiymbro's remarks in a post-RM discussion related to terminology in Sep 2017. This move request smacks of WP:POINT, too CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the opposite conclusion to the one I came to w.r.t. the move request for Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China, for which I've made a longer statement. Tibet had an independent government and the article describes a military invasion, making annexation more appropriate than incorporation. Jancarcu (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMON_NAME. Importantly, such terminology is used in academic books [16], for example here, the book is entitled "Tibet, the Position in International Law". My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    The existence of a single book doesn’t demonstrate anything with regards to COMMONNAME. Look, here’s one that uses “incorporation” and another by Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein. — MarkH21talk 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Zanhe already brought up Goldstein (is he the only Tibet studies guy the two of you know?) and I explained the issues with using his language to make a determination on WP:COMMONNAME, did you miss that bit? You do seem to have missed the bit about annexation being what you call the merger between a protectorate and its protector, which per the PRC is what happened when Tibet joined the PRC. Still waiting for your response. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I've also read Sam Van Schaik's Tibet: A History (Yale University Press, 2011), who, like Goldstein, also avoids the inaccurate word "annexation" and uses "liberation" but in quotation marks (p. 209). I only mentioned Goldstein because he's more famous and I hoped you might have heard of him. Van Schaik went on to say that Tibetan commander Ngapo announced on radio that Tibet had agreed to "peaceful liberation", which he calls a "stunning propaganda victory" for the Chinese (p. 215). -Zanhe (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
If Tibet wasn't a protectorate under the ROC then what was it? Please use the most accurate and specific language you can. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV - The word "annexation" is not neutral, besides being historically false, its use implies that Tibet was a sovereign state between 1912 and 1950, which was not the case since the Republic of China never renounced her sovereignty over Tibet in that period. For Tibet to have been a de jure independent polity in those thirty-eight years, international recognition (and membership of the League of Nations) would have been necessary together with China's abandonment of sovereignty. Neither happened. How can a country "annex" a region that has been part of it since at least 1720? --Elnon (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no implication of sovereignty or independence from annexation, Tibet was a protectorate not an integral part of China from 1720-1950 in the PRC’s official history (everyone agrees that Tibet was a Chinese protectorate from 1720-1912, the debate is whether they were protectorate or an independent country between 1912 and 1950). The process by which a protectorate merges with its protector is called annexation. Don’t get all hyperbolic about whats "historically false” before you learn either the history or what the words involved mean. 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Horse Eye Jack (talk)
You would be well advised to keep your admonestations to yourself and refrain from calling other contributors "hyperbolic" because they disagree with your proposal. Besides, intimating me "to learn the history" [of Tibet] does not reflect well on your ability to debate serenely. --Elnon (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
On March 7, 1912, the Chinese Republic was proclaimed by General Zhong Yin in Lhasa, a Provisional Representative Council took power and a constitution was drawn up (see Laurent Deshayes, Histoire du Tibet, Fayard, 1997, p. 264). So whatever Tibet was under Qing rule, it stopped being such on that date. Calling Tibet a "protectorate" between 1913 and 1951 is simply anachronistic. --Elnon (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nope it was a protectorate of the Republic of China, literally see the lead of Tibet (1912–1951) "The Tibetan Ganden Phodrang regime was a protectorate of the Qing dynasty[7][8][9][10] until 1912,[11][12] when the Provisional Government of the Republic of China replaced the Qing dynasty as the government of China, and signed a treaty with the Qing government inheriting all territories of the imperial government into the new republic, giving Tibet the status of a "protectorate"[13][14] with high levels of autonomy as was the case during the Qing dynasty.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, what is the point of the above quotation? Besides, the second occurrence of the word "protectorate" in the lead ("a treaty [...] giving Tibet the status of a "protectorate"[13][14] with high levels of autonomy as was the case during the Qing dynasty") is traceable to the troublesome IP 1.170.18.230 inserting it on 21 March 2017 (see here and here)? --Elnon (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I am well aware of that policy... I was informing you of common knowledge. I note that the quote you provided does nothing to establish that Tibet wasn't a protectorate under the ROC, as the source is in French I cant really check it. If as you say from 1912 to 1950 Tibet was part of the ROC and Tibet ceased to be a protectorate in 1912 then there is no need for the page "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China” to exist at all as an independent page. Is there another source you would like to use? Preferably in english? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Laurent Deshayes, Histoire du Tibet, Fayard, 1997, p. 264:
"Au début de 1912, le général Zhong prend la tête du mouvement et suspend l’amban Lian Yu. Un conseil représentatif provisoire, dirigé par un président élu par les Chinois, Ho Zeyi, assume alors le pouvoir en lieu et place des représentants impériaux déchus (février). Selon la nouvelle constitution élaborée à la hâte, le Conseil, dont ne fait partie aucun Tibétain, doit réformer la société et l’éducation, établir un contôle des finances, voter les budgets, nommer les officiels civils et militaires et, enfin, superviser les décisions de l’amban dont la fonction est maintenue. C’est sur de telles bases que la république chinoise est proclamée à Lhassa le 7 mars."
Translation into English:
"In early 1912, General Zhong seized leadership of the movement and suspended amban Lian Yu. A Provisional Representative Council chaired by Ho Zeyi (a president elected by the Chinese) then took over from the deposed imperial representatives (in February). As per a hastily drawn-up new constitution, the Council (from which Tibetans were barred) was meant to reform society and education, establish control over finances, vote on budgets, appoint civil and military officials and eventually vet decisions made by the amban (who continued in his functions). It was along these lines that the Chinese Republic was proclaimed in Lhasa in March 7." --Elnon (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
That doesn’t say what you think it does, if the Amban “continued in his functions” then Tibet remained a protectorate. If they had ceased to be a protectorate then the position of Amban would have immediately become defunct. You seem to be getting caught up in the line "It was along these lines that the Chinese Republic was proclaimed in Lhasa in March 7“ despite that proclamation having no impact on Tibet’s status as a protectorate (Republics can have protectorates just as Empires do). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
These are unreferenced, personal assertions and deductions you're putting forth as proofs, which goes to show how vacuous and inane the "republican protectorate" charade is. Even the UK eventually gave up the protectorate and independence myths. Didn't the British government, after almost a century of recognizing Tibet as an autonomus entity, recognize Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China on October 29, 2008? See The New York Times.
Thats an opinion piece and it doesn't support your argument. Just to be clear you’re arguing that the protectorate ended in 1912 not 1910 right? Your source isn’t explicit in that regard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Annexation better describes the 1950-1 inclusion of Tibet in China. gidonb (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I want to point out that focusing on the meaning of "annexation" in international law prevents from forming a consensus, and invovled the debate about sovereignty, etc needlessly. According to Webster's, "annexation" means "the addition of an area or region to a country, state, etc.", and that is exactly what happened. There is no need to complicate the matter by debating about Tibet in international law and sovereignty. The other thing is such notions are applied backwards to history in this case, since neither China nor Tibet back then had the concept of sovereignty or international law. These terms are used only because they are familiar to a modern reader, not because they were historic. Since Tibet is landlocked, and only two major countries neighbor it (China and India), international recognition wouldn't seem important to Tibetan rulers before the 20th century - only China and India mattered to Tibet. That's why British India's position of China's suzertainty over Tibet is the only position that mattered in history - no other country had enough stake in Tibet to bother with a sovereignty debate with China. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Yet another batch of worthless personal assumptions and deductions.
My paper version of Webster New World Dictionary of American English (Third College Edition, 1988) gives a different definition of the word "annex": "to incorporate into a country, state, etc. the territory of another country, state, etc." A little surprising, isn't it? --Elnon (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
What does etc. mean to you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Elnon: I looked at your editorial record and it seems that you took Chinese communist propaganda as face value. Look at Tibet Mirror created by you, and the corresponding Chinese article by me, I cited 46 independent sources while you cited less than half of that. And why creating an article for pseudo-expert Barry Sautman, when he hasn't published any academic books on Tibet, unless you want to make citing him look credible? --Happyseeu (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
It would not occur to me to look into a dissenting contributor's editorial record and accuse him with taking exile propaganda at face value just to besmirch his reputation. It seems you're showing your true colours. --Elnon (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please respect WP:CIVIL, that second sentence was uncalled for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking at one's editorial record is one way to measure one's subject knowledge. Let's just say I'm underwhelmed. --Happyseeu (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Focusing on an editor rather than the argument is an ad hominem, and making disparaging comments about an editor’s knowledge is a personal attack by WP:WIAPA. I’d advise you to retract your comments and refrain from making similar comments in the future. — MarkH21talk 23:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The focus on the international law terms is very relevant, especially since this event occurred from 1950-1951 after the foundation of the UN in 1945. It's not an obstruction to consensus. — MarkH21talk 19:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If one insists on applying international law to Tibet, it should be remembered that Tibet didn't recognize international treaties in the 19th century. An example is the Tibetan government refused to implement articles of Convention of Calcutta of 1890 signed by China after Sikkim expedition. Treaty of Lhasa signed by Tibet in 1904 was the first treaty that Tibet honored. It was followed by Simla Convention in 1913-14 to try to demarcate the boundaries between Tibet, India and China. Both were protested by China since it jeopartized China's claim over Tibet. Regardless, Tibet joined the international treaty system only in the 20th century. --Happyseeu (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. "Annexation" is the usual word to use when a country adds to its territory. Here is Merriam-Webster: "Annex, to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state 'The U.S. annexed Texas in 1845.'"[17] So "annex" means the same thing "incorporate." But there is a difference in nuance. To use "incorporate" leads the reader to ask, "Why would you use a different word for Tibet than the one you would use for Texas?" Whatever the KMT told the world, the Tibetan government asserted its independence up until 1951. Colin Gerhard (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, there are some nuances and debates about what exactly the relationship Tibet had with the KMT government, but that can be covered in the article. For reasons of neutrality, if Wikipedia is willing to call other controversial annexations an "annexation", it needs to do the same here. Incorporation is just a euphemism. SnowFire (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Tibet was already annexed by China during Yuan Dynasty and again reconquest to Mongolians by Qing Dynasty, this is so a reintegration, of part of Western part of Tibet (1912–1951), Eastern part, then called (Xikang) was not independent for centuries either. Popolon (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a note, Popolon is here as a result of canvassing by Elnon[18]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Because we both worked on history of China for long time now, and speaking of annexation about the last reintegration is clearly a non-sense in regard of history of China. 82.225.234.108 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait... Who are you? You aren’t either Popolon or Elnon but you said “we.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I really can't see how this would not be more accurately described as an annexation, as it has been in many sources. The Tibetan government asserted its independence until the Chinese decided to "incorporate" it. That's an annexation by any definition of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just wanted to point out something that I wasn't aware of until now: even the de facto independent government of Tibet used "incorporation of Tibet" and did not use the word "annexation" at the time. From the formal complaint by the Tibetan government to the UN (stable JSTOR link): The armed invasion of Tibet for the incorporation of Tibet in Communist China through sheer physical force is a clear case of aggression.
    It's difficult to run a thorough search for what the WP:COMMONNAME should be (since both terms sometimes refer to events in the Qing dynasty or even earlier), but there are plenty of reliable sources that use both. — MarkH21talk 19:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that MarkH! It doesn't sway my opinion buts its a valuable addition to the discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It's very difficult to assess the common name in reliable English secondary sources, as there are such well organised propaganda machines on both sides that both the reliability and the independence of most sources is problematic. But annexation does seem more accurate and less POV to me. Incorporation is a weasel word, albeit a widely adopted one. Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction

I think that it should be mentioned that Tibet was not de jure independent, and that the Chinese claim had not been dropped since the end of the Qing Dynasty in the introduction. This is a critical piece of historical context that is definitely necessary in the introduction to give a proper summary of the topic.

2601:600:A37F:F111:FCC1:6CD1:F604:CD5D (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
There are a few at Tibetan sovereignty debate, where this is described in more detail, including:
  • Sperling, E. The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. - Policy Studies 7, 2004. Pages 6–7.
  • A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn Goldstein, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1989. Page 72.
I haven’t checked the original sources though. — MarkH21talk 04:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is a source: Tsering Shakya (1999). The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947. Columbia University Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-231-11814-9. & p. 24. p. 15 also states that "neither had the British recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet", which was the case when the book was published in 1999. --Happyseeu (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_4&oldid=1217240572"