Talk:Tibetan sovereignty debate/Archive 2

Opening, "sentence", sucks

Tibet, has been an independent country,[1] at times, and has also been divided into different kingdoms and states, in other eras, it has been a part of the Chinese empire.

Does, anyone, see, anything, wrong, with, this, "sentence"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for, pointing, that, out, I, reverted. to, the, Version: before - it, got? mangled. Bertport (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have been blind to the commas, but I saw something entirely different "wrong" with the sentence, and the lead in general. It offered a selective reading of the history (heavily slanted towards periods of Tibet's autonomy), but did not define the debates, the implications, the connections to history, etc. I rewrote the lead to do that. Quigley (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Other rights

This paragraph is based mostly on one source. When reading this source, one can read positive points which do not appear in the section. Example: "But at different stages of Tibetan history secular rulers and religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama have been eager to protect Western missionaries and their tasks of preaching Christian beliefs to the local Tibetans." On the other hand, the section pretends Christians were imprisoned in 1630. But reading the source, one can read that it only concerned "The king, the queen, and other high royals" and not the Jesuit priests. Concerning the attack of priests, it is not specified that they were attacked at the border; the source does not specify who conducted the attack. Concerning the murders or injuries of 11 priests (which are named in the section "fathers", whereas the source mentions "at least ten other lower-ranking priests"): it is not specified that "tribal peoples in eastern Tibet" would be responsible. The section (and the source), gives only the foretold story of the Qing (Manchu dynasty), claiming that the murders would have been orchestrated by the "lamaseries and their patrons". The following paragraph fail to explain the reason of the 1905 revolt, and give no detail about the fact that Zhao Erfeng, an antireligious Warlord, was sent by the Qing, and killed hundred of Tibetan monks by decapitation, and burned Tibetan monasteries. Two references are given at the end, but it is unclear which was used, as far as I can see, most can be found in the publication of Hsiao-ting Lin. To neutralize this paragraph, one should use unbiased accademics sources on this subject. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased Third-party views

This section looks like that compiled by PRC officials. It contains only views in favor of eternal Chinese authority in Tibet ignoring everything else. For example, it is a commonplace that during the Ming period Tibet was independent of China, like many other countries listed in China as 'tributaries'. Mongolia, Bhutan and Nepal recognized Tibet as independent state but it is also ignored. President George Bush signed a law in 1991 that the Congress considered Tibet as occupied country, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.11.55 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag on the article

As per my edit summary: Given the lack of coverage about Tibet being ruled by the Qing and Yuan dynasties and the possibility of rule under the Ming (as per the FA Tibet during the Ming Dynasty) this article isn't neutral.

Of note I have added neutral coverage of Chinese rule over Tibet to the lead, which improves matters a bit, but there still isn't really enough coverage further down the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the information should be added to the body first (with citations), then summarize it in the lead per wp:lead: “Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.”

Also, although the paragraph added is a start, I wouldn’t call it neutral yet. For example, scholars outside China may consider Tibet to have been ruled by the Mongol Empire during the Yuan Dynasty, rather than by China. Also, I’m not sure that the PRC and the ROC concede that Tibet was de-facto independent from 1912-1951, but rather in a state of rebellion (or perhaps a victim of British Imperialism).

Given that the nature and identity of Yuan and Qing Dynasty rule is integral to the Tibetan sovereignty debate, we may have to phrase anything said about it in terms of the debate, for example: “From 1236 to 1354, Tibet was ruled by the Yuan Dynasty. The PRC and ROC governments consider Tibet to have been a part of China from this time forward. Scholars outside China, however, consider China and Tibet to have been subject states of the Mongol Empire, and write that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty did not consider themselves to be Chinese.”

I’ve removed the paragraph from the article and placed it here for further tweaking, but really the information should get into the body of the article before it is added to the lead. (Some of it already is in the article - take a look.)

Initial addition:

"Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by China during the Yuan dynasty and the majority of the Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China."

Subsequent modification:

"Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by the Yuan dynasty of Great Mongol Empire, which included China, and the majority of the Manchu Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear, though the prevalent view is that it was not ruled by the Ming. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China."

:--Wikimedes (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Also, I’m not sure that the PRC and the ROC concede that Tibet was de-facto independent from 1912-1951, but rather in a state of rebellion (or perhaps a victim of British Imperialism)." - and thus if it wasn't controlled by China during the time I think de-facto seems like a sensible word choice - what would you prefer?

With regards to the nationality of the various empires if you look at Yuan Dynasty it says that it is both Chinese and Mongol in the lead, if there is a way to capture both that seems acceptable. With regards to the Qing dynasty I think that is always considered Chinese by reliable sources, and thus claiming it is Manchu is irrelevant - especially as Manchuria is a part of China now.

With regards to the Ming Dynasty stating that its status was unclear is exactly what Tibet during the Ming dynasty states at the top, and that is a Featured Article, so I'm sure a lot of care has been taken with the wording there - I think trying to claim there is a particular prevalent view is really pushing an anti-Chinese POV. Overall I think just labelling the dynasties as dynasties should be acceptable and the following should be a reasonable compromise:

Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by the Yuan dynasty and the Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China.

If the rule of Tibet by the Chinese dynasties isn't covered outside the lead then the article is pretty poor as that is a key point, I'm sure further content can be added if that isn't acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to say:

Tibet is generally considered to have been ruled by China during the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the majority of the Qing dynasty. In between during the Ming dynasty its status was unclear. After the fall of dynastic rule in 1912 during the Republic of China era Tibet was de-facto independent, although it had no international recognition. Since 1950 Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that the paragraph is evolving in article space. The more I think and read about this, the more I think that the description of who ruled who and when should be in terms of the debate, i.e. the PRC claims w, the ROC claims x, the TGIE claims y, and 4th party scholars claim z. One of the reasons that there is a Tibetan Sovereignty Debate is that the history of Tibet with respect to China is, well, debatable. Below is a draft of what I have in mind:

The People’s Republic of China claims that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).(Sperling p.10) The Republic of China (1912-1949) claimed that “Tibet was placed under the sovereignty of China” when the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) expelled Nepal from Tibet in c.1793.(Sperling p.6,7; Goldstein 1989 p.72) The Tibetan Government in Exile claims that Tibet was independent from China until the PRC invaded in 1950 (sometimes the TIGE claims 1949),(Sperling p.23) and that during the Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties, the relationship between Tibet and the rulers of the dynasties was a Patron-Priest relationship that did not imply subordination of one to the other.(Sperling p.30 get better ref?) Scholars outside China claim that during the Yuan Dynasty, Tibet and China were ruled as separate administrative areas of a Mongol-ruled empire;(Feigon p.58) during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Tibet was independent from China and the Ming had little to no control over Tibet;(Goldstein 1997 p.4,5) during the Qing Dynasty, Tibet and Mongolia were ruled as colonies of the Manchu, who based their empire in China;(Sperling p.29) and that from c.1912 to 1951, the portion of Tibet now known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region was again de-facto independent. There is general agreement that Tibet has been ruled by the People’s Republic of China since 1951, but there is debate over the legitimacy and desirability of that rule.

• Feigon, Lee (1996) Demystifying Tibet: Unlocking the Secrets of the Land of Snows Ivan R. Dee Inc. ISBN 1-56663-089-4.
• Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1989) A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-06140-8.
• Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1997) The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21254-1.
• Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1964) The Chinese, Their History and Culture 4th Ed. Macmillan Company. New York, USA. Library of Congress catalog card number 64-17372.
• Shakya, Tsering (1999) The Dragon In The Land Of Snows Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-11814-7.
• Sperling, Elliot (2004) The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. East-West Center. Washington, D.C. USA. ISBN 1-932728-13-9.
• Spence, Jonathan (1999) The Search for Modern China, 2nd Ed. W.W.Norton & Company, Inc. New York, USA. ISBN 0-393-97351-4.

One thing I could use help with is the ROC’s position. The newly formed Nationalist Government’s position paper at the Simla Conference cited in this paragraph may be out of date. Has the ROC’s position on when Tibet became part of China changed since then? Is the ROC’s position notable enough to mention in the lead?--Wikimedes (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I'm about to hit revert as I don't agree that my points are "the Chinese view". With your sources do you have any non-US sources? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tibet's de-facto independence from ~1912 to 1951 probably isn't "the Chinese view". I think Tibet being part of China during the Yuan Dynasty is - scholars outside China tend to think both China and Tibet were part of Mongolia at the time. From what I've read, Chinese during the Yuan Dynasty didn't consider Tibet to be part of China so it is the view of the present-day China, and not that of China during the Yuan Dynasty.

It does look like all my sources have been published in the U.S., though they are academic sources. I plan on adding info (or at least support) from A History of Chinese Civilization by Jaques Garnet, who is French, and from The Historical Status of China's Tibet by Wang Jiawei & Nyima Gyaincain, which should give the PRC's perspective. Additional reliable sources are always welcome:)--Wikimedes (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, so that will be one Chinese source, one French source and seven American sources, that hardly seems likely to produce a neutral overall view of the subject.

With regards to US sources, I took a look at the British Museum and the Met's view on the Qing dynasty. The British Museum barely mention the fact that the dynasty is Manchu, whereas the Met cover it in great detail. Even though both of these museums are among the most highly respected in the world and both of them are from relatively similar cultural backgrounds there is still a significant difference in the impression that you get from reading their different perspectives.

I think we must be extremely careful to make sure we are expressing an accurate neutral viewpoint, which will therefore necessarily have to consider sources from different nationalities in reasonably equal numbers and to take that into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to your suggested text it quite clearly violates WP:UNDUE as it gives far more weight to the non-Chinese view than the Chinese view. The BBC for example have done a piece explaining the two viewpoints, and they have given equal coverage to both. I see no reason for us not to do the same.

With regards to the my text calling the Yuan dynasty the "Mongol Yuan dynasty" seems to be a reasonable compromise that covers how both the British Museum and the Met view this time period as well as taking the obvious modern Chinese view (that it was entirely Chinese) into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. While I doubt that an art museum is a reliable source for political history, I’ve also found that different sources mention different amounts of differentiation between Manchu and Chinese during the Qing Dynasty. I’m now carefully reading Spence’s coverage of the end of the Ming and beginning of Qing Dynasties and nearly every page has one or more examples of how the Manchus thought they were different from the Chinese or treated them differently or vice versa, but my memory of other sources is that they hardly mention any differentiation or focus on Sinicization of the Manchus. However, it’s not neutral to say that Tibet was ruled by China during the Yuan Dynasty, as this is simply not supported in the reliable sources (the museum links you provided, for example, describe the Yuan Dynasty as “foreign-ruled” and “foreign conquerors”). Saying “the PRC claims that Tibet was part of China during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, which ruled both Han China and Tibet” might be more neutral.

I was wondering if the different amounts of coverage of the different viewpoints in my suggestion for the lead would be a problem. (However I don’t see why the “Chinese view” should be given equal weight to all other views combined.) Part of the differing amount of coverage is because the PRC’s basic view is relatively simple: Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty. Other views look at each dynasty individually and require explanation of what it meant to be Chinese at the time and what it means to rule. But it can be simplified to give more equal coverage. How’s this?:

The People’s Republic of China claims that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).(Sperling p.10) The Republic of China (1912-1949) claimed that “Tibet was placed under the sovereignty of China” when the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) expelled Nepal from Tibet in c.1793.(Sperling p.6,7; Goldstein 1989 p.72) The Tibetan Government in Exile claims that Tibet was independent from China until the PRC invaded in 1950.(Sperling p.23) Scholars outside China claim that Tibet and China were ruled by the Mongols during the Yuan Dynasty(Feigon p.58) and the Manchus during the Qing Dynasty,(Sperling p.29) that Tibet and China were independent during the intervening Ming Dynasty,(Goldstein 1997 p.4,5) and that Tibet was de-facto independent from c.1912 to 1950. There is general agreement that Tibet has been ruled by the People’s Republic of China since 1951.

If the ambiguity about whether 4th party sources consider Manchu rule implied Chinese rule can be fit into the lead, that’s fine too. I wouldn’t mind mentioning that Tibet had no international recognition during its latest period of de-facto independence, but It might be better to leave this out, or to say that de-jure independence is a matter of debate rather than go into the details (no international recognition, view of the International Tribunal of Jurists, lack of recognition was often because of geopolitical self interest rather than legal arguments, etc.) I didn’t think that taking the signing of the 17 Point Agreement as the beginning of PRC rule would be controversial (frankly, I thought I was correcting a factual error), but “the early 1950s” works as well as “1951” if you feel it’s important.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think the Met is just an "art museum" you've clearly never visited either it or any of the other great museums in the world. They aren't just a toy...

With regards to your sources they are all American, and therefore bias in a consistent manner. We need to take Chinese and other sources into account to counteract that bias.

With the text itself it does look like an improvement on your previous content - if we were to counteract the content about Tibet's de-facto independence with some content from a Chinese POV that would probably be acceptable. Mentioning the lack of international recognition is a good start and our readers will be confused about that.

With regards to the Qing dynasty they pretty clearly did become Sinicized, that's why the British museum doesn't mention their Manchu status after the first line. I very much doubt you would treat the House of Hanover in this way and claim that the British Empire was in fact Hanoverian.

No-one claims that the US was German ruled, which is the same as claiming the Qing dynasty is Manchu ruled. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As this is somewhat independent of the brewing edit war below, I will continue our discussion by inserting here.

I’m not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that I have not been to any of the world’s great museums, but that’s an ad hominem that has no relevance to the discussion. The same can be said for your rather bizarre claim that all American sources bias in a consistent manner. If you think that the referenced content is biased, please suggest additional referenced content to balance it.

Your House of Hannover analogy actually argues that Tibet is not part of China (as the USA is not part of Germany). I suppose analogies can be instructive, but arguments by analogy tend to be inconclusive anyway. While we should be able to come to some agreement over the degree of Sinicization of the Manchus, or at least how to word the lead on this topic, your implication that the Qing Dynasty was not Manchu-ruled is an exeptional claim and would require exceptional sources for inclusion.

Anyway, if I read your comments correctly, your main objections to my latest suggestion for the lead are the omission of Tibet’s lack of international recognition during c.1912-1950 and the nationalities of the sources. Is this correct?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Causes for reverting several points:

1. The Yuan is considered as Mongol dynasty ruling China and at the same time as Mongol dynasty ruling Great Mongol Empire (Mo: Yeke Mogol Ulus or Yeke Yuan Ulus) which included Mongolia, China, Tibet etc. For example, scientists in Russia and Mongolia never consider the Yuan state as China. Neutrality requires consideration to both non-Chinese and Chinese views.
2. The Xinhai Revolution had led to the collapse of the Qing, but later there was a short monarchy of Yuan Shikai. In addition, 'fall of dynastic rule' means explicitly that Tibet indisputably was always a part of China.
3. I removed the 'Succession of states' theory because it was created only in the 19th Century and not used to the ancient history of China. I never heard that the PRC government quoted it as a proof for succession of the dynasties of China. If you will restore it, quotation of the official Chinese resource will be needed.
4. I restored two paragraphs of third-party views on the status of Tibet. Anyhow, whole that section should be changed because it expresses mainly pro-Chinese views and is not neutral
5. I removed amout the precedent of kneeling in the 17th Century as it contradicts historical data (Shakabpa etc.). If you will restore it, citation will be needed and an alternative view, also with citation.46.138.79.32 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits but I have kept some bits.

1. I have added a comment about Tibet being conquered by Ghengis Khan which adds additional weight to the Mongols point without ignoring that the Yuan dynasty was at least partially Chinese as it had a primarily Chinese capital, the Mandate of Heaven and they also restarted the Imperial Examinations (though admittedly not immediately).
2. If you feel this is implied then I don't have an issue with saying the fall of the Qing so I've kept that.
3. The whole point of the Succession of states theory is that it extends backwards in time, so I'm confused as to why it being created in the 19th century is relevant.
4. The "Tibet Justice center" is a third party view? Come on, lets be realistic.
5. I've found a source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• 1. I made your changes more neutral.

1. The Yuan dynasty adopted Chinese administrative system and ideology but it was not a Chinese dynasty (in the same way the CCP uses Soviet and Western ruling systems but it is not European or Russian party).
2. Qing was Manchu dynasty ruled in China. Aisin Gioro men were clearly Manchu and not Chinese. However, for the sake of neutrality, I omitted any national mentions before the Qing.
3. No idea what is point of Succession of states. The theory created in the 19th Century, despite various concepts of dynastic successions existed earlier. Apply this theory not only to China: thus Britain belongs to Italy? Or Asia Minor belongs to Greece? Or Hungary belongs to China (as Yuan dynasty)? I never heard that Chinese government quoted this theory. Cite relevant Chinese document.
4. Well, Tibet Justice center is not a third party. But is that Tom Grunfeld?
5. Yes, the section of third views now is better. But it needs further improvement; probably, I will propose some changes later.79.139.200.92 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I failed to find any quotation of the Succession of states theory in PRC documents regarding Tibet. Please, don't distort the Chinese view by adding results original research. Otherwise, please, provide relevant quotation of Chinese official documents.79.139.202.123 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The flaw with your argument is that the Chinese communists haven't lifted either Russian or European ways of doing things wholesale, and the Yuan ruled an empire based in China. Additionally you would be highly unlikely claim in a third party article that the Mughals were in fact Mongol and had no Indian characteristics, even though their name highlights their Mongol/Ilkhanate roots.
  • With the Qing dynasty you can make the same argument about the House of Hanover, except that no-one actually goes around calling the Queen of England a German. While obviously the Queen of England is of German descent you don't go around continually mentioning it in other articles, and it would be rather odd to claim that Britain (or the British Empire) weren't actually British due to the ethnicity of the leader.
  • With the succession of states theory, I certainly didn't add it, it was in the article since at least January 2009 and even since November 2007. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• China was a part of the Yuan empire, which formally included all Mongol-conquered lands to Hungary. Many states conquered others but this does not mean that they had transformed into these conquered states, so the Yuan was not China. Thanks for your mention of the Mughal empire. The Mughals, contrary to the Yuan, were certainly not Mongols but the Kypchaki Turkic people. On the contrast to the Qing, Moghuls did not join conquered territory to their native territory (in fact, they fled towards India).
  • To quote Mughal Empire "The Mughal emperors were Muslims and direct descendants of Genghis Khan through Chagatai Khan and Timur" - yes they were Mongols. Additionally the Yuan dynasty was after the Mongol empire had split up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, the ethnicity of the leader is not so important. Germans did not conquer England and did not join her to their own state. The Qing is not comparable to the House of Hannover (I hope you will not quote VERY strange ideas of Barry Sautman who wrote such things).

Brief summary should be neutral. Following views are controversial: (1) Tibet was ruled by China (2) Tibet was not ruled by China, (3) Tibet was ruled by or subordinated to the Qing dynasty (which, in turn, is considered either Chinese or not Chinese). Thus, the neutrality in the summary should be only 'Qing dynasty', without further contradicting comments.

• • If we don't mention China at all then we imply the seriously POV view that China never had any control over Tibet before 1950 which isn't a view shared by the PRC/ROC, the Dalai Lama, any other world government or even the Western Media. --

Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • Saying that a dynasty of Imperial China ruled Tibet carries the strong connotation that China ruled Tibet during that dynasty. This is why it is necessary to mention that the Yuan Dynasty was a foreign-ruled dynasty. Given the degree of Sinicization of the Qing and the inclusion of Chinese in the Qing government, I don't think it's necessary to add "Sinicized Manchu" or some such to the lead to emphasize that the Qing was also a foreign-ruled dynasty, but saying that Tibet was ruled by China during the Qing Dynasty is not accurate (or perhaps it's the PRC's POV alone). The body of the article does mention that the Qing were Manchu, as it should.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • in general I'd agree but not after you have (quite rightly) explicitly described another dynasty as non-Chinese. You do need to clarify that the Yuan and Qing dynasties are different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Erlier indications on the Succession of states theory here were given without quotation. Who and where invented this? You may simply check official Chinese data on Tibet. You will find that they never quote this theory. Please, don't add it because this distorts genuine Chinese view.79.139.202.123 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It has been there for 5 years, you are removing it - not anything else. I will add a citation needed to see if a source can be found. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that a citation needed tag is the correct approach. I haven't found a reference for the PRC's claim of succession of states myself, but let's give someone else a chance to find it.-Wikimedes (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• It is not correct that 'Saying that a dynasty of Imperial China ruled Tibet carries the strong connotation that China ruled Tibet during that dynasty'. Ruling at dynastic times is not the same as in nation-states. Dependencies were connected with rulers but not states they ruled. Then, as I noted, there are different views on what were the Yuan and Qing states and dynasties. The dynasties ruled China, Tibet and other territories but this does not mean that China ruled them. Regarding the Moghuls: the fact that Timur was a distant descendant of Genghis Khan does not mean that he was a Mongol. He was the Kypchaki Turkic. Refer to narrations of many other Turkic people (e.g. Kazakh, Kyrgyz etc.) many of them consider Genghis Khan and his relatives as their ancestors.46.138.73.179 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything you say about Dynastic China. My concern is that many readers will not know which dynasties were foreign-ruled without it being explicitly mentioned, and will assume that the dynasties were Chinese-ruled.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with your concern. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you. Unfortunately, detailed explanation of dynastic issues is beyond the scope of this article. Thanks for the explanation on the tag at the Succession theory. Yes, please, delete these words a week later, unless anybody will find a citation. By the way: article on this theory in Wikipedia also lacks enough sources. It looks like a special research. Let's hope that anybody will find more sources there.79.139.200.66 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Nice to see valuable citations about the succession of states! They should be kept, but the phrase in this case needs re-formulation. 'The PRC contends that according to the Succession of states theory[11] in international law the PRC succeeded the ROC as the legitimate government of all China.[1]' means that this is a statement by the PRC. However, the citations quote not PRC official documents but opinion of international lawyers.

I think following formulation will be better: 'The PRC claims its continuation from all former dynasties ruled China and the ROC. Current international status of the PRC corresponds to the theory of Succession of states in international obligations[11], and the PRC succeeded the ROC as the legitimate government of all China.[1] Or we can improve this phrase?79.139.200.17 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If the PRC hasn’t said it, it should probably go in the section on 3rd party views. Maybe this more accurately reflects what the sources say: “The PRC contends that according to the Succession of states theory (11) in international law the PRC succeeded the ROC as the legitimate government of all of China. (13)” (And maybe I’m trolling.)

I’m starting to think that you (or 79.139.202.123) are right that the PRC never claimed the succession of states theory to justify its rule over Tibet:

• Kamm (currently reference 12) does not provide a reference for her claim, so we still don’t have direct evidence that the PRC ever said such a thing. (Is an undergraduate honors paper considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia? Either way, I admire Christian Lassure’s abilities in finding it, and it does look like a good paper.)
• Grunfeld has an appendix in “The Making of Modern Tibet” where he lists the different views on Tibetan independence, including the PRC’s views, and he doesn’t mention succession of states. I think he would have mentioned it. Also this book does not have an entry on succession of states in the index.
• Sperling 2004 (listed in external links) is a paper devoted to the different views on Tibetan independence. It has a section devoted to the evolution of China's view and another section devoted to China's current view. Nowhere in the paper is succession of states mentioned.
• Perusing likely sections of “The Historical Status of China’s Tibet” by Wang Jia Wei and Nyima Gyaincain hasn’t turned up mention of succession of states either. I haven’t read every word and there is no index, so I may have missed it.
• The indexes in Goldstein “A History of Modern Tibet Vol.1”, Shakya “Dragon in the Land of Snows”, and Feigon “Demystifying Tibet” don’t have entries on succession of states.

--Wikimedes (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedes, the claim has been there so long unchallenged, I think we need to wait a few weeks or so to see if someone can find a reference. If such a source cannot be found I think the wording suggested by 79.* is fine. I'm still puzzled as to why it was never removed or challenged before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I also failed to find any official statement by PRC on the Succession of states theory. Is it so necessary to include mention of this theory here anyway? Probably, it is better to include well-known official PRC statement that China has been a multiethnic state from ancient times till now?46.138.91.202 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree with Eraserhead1: let's wait a couple of weeks for such a quotation. In regard to the inserting of the 'rule of China' it should be always deleted as it contradicts one of the views in this debate (see above). The summary should not contradict all views of debating sides.79.139.205.133 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Which non-WP:FRINGE side of the debate is that? Reliable sources accept that the Qing ruled China. The wording you appear to prefer much more obviously pushed the clearly non-neutral POV that China never ruled Tibet.
  • Lets also be clear that the included wording doesn't completely validate the most extreme Chinese position either, so its not exactly one sided, and to provide an overall summary, which is useful to our readers, to some extent the most extreme positions won't be covered by the wording. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, the Qing ruled China, and this is shared by all. But other opinions are different: (1) Tibet was ruled by China; (2) Tibet was tied only to the Qing emperors, only by 'priest-patron' relations and was not ruled by China or Qing emperors; (3) Tibet was not ruled but dominated by either; (4) Tibet was ruled by Qing emperors but not by China as a state. This article is about the debate. It is not a study to prove which opinion is right and which is not right. So the summary should contain only those points with which all parties agree. This is why the phrase was changed.46.138.76.163 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I presume you can bring high-level reliable sources to the table which backup your conjecture. For example the BBC don't even say that Tibet was ever independent from China - and in the Tibet profile they call the Qing dynasty Chinese and say that they controlled Tibet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• BBC is not authoritative source.

Alexandrowicz-Alexander C.H. The Legal Position of Tibet.-The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 1954), pp. 265-274 said: In 1911 the revolution in China banished the Manchu Emperors from Peking and established a new republic. At this time Tibet expelled the Chinese representatives and garrisons from the whole country. It is difficult to consider Tibet now otherwise than in her initial stage of independence. Personal allegiance of the Dalai Lama towards the Manchu Emperor came to an end, and as sovereignty in China now vested in the Chinese people, no new type of allegiance of Tibet towards China could have replaced the one which had been abolished.79.139.200.66 (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I suggest you actually read your own source, it makes it pretty clear that the Qing were Chinese and that they ruled Tibet before 1911. After 1911 it is covered by the "de-facto" independence statement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• No, it stated that there was allegiance to the Manchu emperor and not to China. You may find a lot of such statements in authoritative sources, e.g. "It was the Manchu Emperor, rather than the Chinese Government, who was for more than two centuries recognised by the Tibetans as their Suzerain ; and up to the last days of the Dynasty the Emperor was represented at Lhasa by a Manchu and not a Chinese" (Teichman, Travels of consular officer, Cambridge 1922 p. 2).46.138.88.47 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes the quote states that the emperor was Manchu, but that isn't all it says - if you can't understand that the quote strongly implies that Tibet was part of China before 1911 then you are simply attempting to push a POV here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• No. Your reverting POV without discussions, earlier removing of the NPOV tag with non-consesus changes of article, then removing all new documentary today means that you want to impose POV.46.138.88.47 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • All the content you tried to add today was entirely one-sided. Wikipedia has to be neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia must be neutral and reflect different views, but now this article is biased towards pro-Chinese views due to warring edits by Eraserhead1 without evidences. In the summary one-side view on 'China rule' instead of more balanced 'Qing rule' permanently restored. The section on third-party views exposes mostly pro-Chinese opinions, while much of the opposite deleted. E.g. opinions of the EU & the US Congress regarding the occupation removed, on the contrast to Heberer's quotation from censored PRC Communist source. Opinions of third-party scholars opposing Chinese view also removed. The tag of non-neutrality he removed earlier.46.138.92.239 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You clearly hold a very strong POV so your view on neutrality isn't going to reflect true neutrality.
  • If you want to contribute to the article once the protection is lifted you need to stop being so strongly POV with your contributions. Try adding one line of pro-China content for every line of pro-Tibetan independence content - that way you will show you are able to be neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Read your own statements: no arguments, all unfounded. I inserted neutral statements but you erased them to push a strong pro-Chinese POV (check at least you 'China rule' and the CCP source in the third party views). Try to provide one-line of pro-Tibetan content for every line of pro-China content. Otherwise the article is not neutral.46.138.71.215 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I’ve just reworded the lead paragraph we’ve been discussing so much. (It’s similar to what I proposed here.) Below are some key points on the reworded paragraph, but please see how the paragraph stands on its own before being influenced by my explanations.

• This article is about a debate. Now the paragraph is too.
• The paragraph now has citations.
• Qing rule: A majority of the references I looked at that I consider neutral that talked about Tibet’s status with regard to the Qing said something about Tibet being part of China or something similar, so that’s what I wrote in the paragraph. Feigon claims no subordination of Tibet to the Qing, so I’ve mentioned this in a footnote to the lead as a notable minority view. It deserves mention in the body of the article, but probably not in this paragraph, unless we want to make the paragraph very long.
• De-jure independence: Rather than pick a statement that favors one side or the other of the debate on de-jure independence during the Nationalist period, I noted that it was a matter of debate without going into details.

Minor points:

• Western scholars: Given the references used in this sentence, “scholars outside the PRC” in my earlier draft was an overgeneralization, so I wrote “western scholars” instead. At the moment I have no plans to track down references from India, Japan, etc. to see if the broader characterization is supportable, though it would be interesting to see.
• If someone has an objection to writing 1951 as the year PRC rule began, “early 1950s” is an acceptable alternative. (Eraserhead1 and I have previously discussed this a bit.)
• The last sentence is very long and should probably be broken up into 2.

--Wikimedes (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes, all new changes you made are neutral and balanced, I agree. There much more sources that Tibet was not subordinated to the Qing, though; but yes, you are right, it's not necessary to quote all them here. However, the third-side section needs editing. It remains not neutral.46.138.80.120 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • @46.138.80.120: Thank you. If more sources of sufficient quality and neutrality can be found that say Tibet was not subordinated to the Qing, the sentence can be reworded if necessary. I think the 3rd party section has improved, but agree it still needs work. I may have worn myself out just getting one lead paragraph into shape, but will watch developments with interest.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not this Patron and Priest relationship was valid. It was definitely not the only relationship. Tibet was not able to freely allow foreign armies, that weren't chinese armies inside Tibet. China had the sole right to dictate foriegn policies for tibet in which tibetan gov had no power. That's not an equal relationship and saying patron and priest relationship was the only relationship they had, is a biased amd inaccurate NPOV statement in itself. There were clearly political submission and unequal power relationship and the wiki article over emphasised it was an equal relationship, when it def wasn't.

14.202.177.65 (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

De-jure independence

• "De-jure independence: Rather than pick a statement that favors one side or the other of the debate on de-jure independence during the Nationalist period, I noted that it was a matter of debate without going into details." - providing an initial quote from Wikimedes - spun this out as the section above was getting unwieldy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Wikimedes, I like the new wording in general. However I don't agree with the point about de-jure independence. I don't see how in the context of 20th century foreign relations given the lack of international recognition, and the lack of acceptance from China that one can plausibly claim that it was more than de-facto independent.
  • To give a modern example you wouldn't say that Somaliland was de-jure independent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • @Eraserhead1: It looks like we're getting close to agreement on the paragraph. For the most part my latest edit summaries speak for themselves. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that Tibet was not de-jure independent c.1912-1950, and many people share your opinion. However this sentence is about Western scholars' claims, and I think the citations I have provided (and the citation that you provided) contain ample evidence that the issue has not been decided. Also, I do hope you'll agree that we should balance "lack of international recognition" with something favoring the other side of the debate, or leave these examples out of the lead entirely.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • So what's the logical argument which justifies the de-jure claim being dubious? I cannot think of one, and unless there is something I am missing it seems to come across as one of those black and white things like 2+2=4.
      • If the sources are good, then they will have presented such a logical argument.
      • EDIT: OK so it looks like there might have been a foreign office report analysing the situation in 1950 which says that as the British treated Tibet as a suzerainty therefore it was a UN "state" - however that wasn't official British policy and the Foreign Office accepted the Indians right to deal with the situation - and according to the source the Indians accepted Tibet was part of China, and the complaint by El Salvador (nice important country) wasn't backed up by anyone else.
      • I'm also not clear on whether the Simla accord can be taken as legally binding between Britain and China (which would surely be required for it to be de-jure) when the Chinese never signed it. And besides the Simla accord makes it pretty damn clear that Tibet was part of China (although the British clearly wanted a buffer region).
      • All in all I think the de-jure claim is unlikely to be really backed up by more than the most slanted and out of context readings of these sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • It is also worth pointing out that de-facto independence plus de-jure independence is "fully independent" so any source which says de-facto independent and then doesn't say "fully independent" or "de-jure independent" is very strongly implying that there is no de-jure independence, and I really don't see another plausible reading. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, one plausible reading would be that the source doesn't claim full independence because de jure independence is not settled.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Fair enough. However if no sources are explicitly stating that they think Tibet was de-jure independent or that some countries recognised it as de-jure independent, those sources are hardly verifying that there is a debate about Tibet's de-jure independence - that is merely your conjecture of what they are saying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mongolia's recognition of Tibet

• I have found an opinion regarding de jure independence of Tibet: recent study revealed that the Tibet-Mongolia Treaty of 1913 meant recognition of de jure independence of Tibet because earlier Mongolia was recognized by Russia in 1912 (details in Kuzmin, S.L. Hidden Tibet History of Independence & Occupation. St.Petersburg: A. Terentjev publ., 2010, p.498). It seems to has been translated into English: http://www.dkagencies.com/doc/from/1123/to/1123/bkId/DK7362332171164741685660225371/details.html I heard about a new book of international conference held in Mongolia on that treaty, with some similar conclusions (will try to find it).46.138.73.247 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So if Northern Cyprus declared its recognition of Somaliland, that would make all the difference and you would then start claiming Somaliland was de-jure independent? Come on, this isn't serious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, obviously Mongolia thought Tibet was de jure independent, though Mongolia's opinion is not binding for the rest of the world. It does pretty clearly contradict the claim that no country recognized Tibet. (Though the claim has often been repeated in Wikipedia, including by me.) Will respond to the rest later.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • • It's important to recognize that both Mongolia and Tibet were Qing Dynasty provinces that were trying to gain independence after Qing's collapse, and neither was internationally recognized as a sovereign state in 1913. The fact that two breakaway provinces recognized each other's independence is meaningless, legally speaking. It's similar to the current situation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, neither of which is considered de jure independent even though they recognize each other's independence. -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not a fan of analogies as a means of settling an issue; there are always differences in the cases which can be claimed to make the comparison invalid. So feel free to ignore the rest of this post. Having said that, as far as I can see from the articles on Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the articles do not take sides on the legality of their independence, but instead mention some of the countries that do and don't recognize them (Russia and Nicaragua, for example, recognize them) and mention that a majority of countries don't. Reliable sources would carry more weight than Wikipedia articles, and reliable sources on Tibet and China would carry infinitely more weight than sources on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This may or may not seem relevant to you, but the History of Mongolia article says that Russia recognized Mongolia in 1912, and only rescided (partially) that recognition in 1915.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
          • So they recognised it from 3 years, shortly after which the Russian Empire collapsed and China (temporarily) regained control of the territory.
          • If you go and read Kosovo, or Taiwan, both of which have far more recognition than Mongolia ever did before 1945, let alone Tibet, and they fail to mention de-jure at all. The country that you might normally argue either way about de-jure independent would be Palestine - but that is recognised by 130-odd UN member states. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) To quote Mongolia "During the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Mongolia declared independence, but had to struggle until 1921 to firmly establish de facto independence from the Republic of China, and until 1945 to gain international recognition." - so Mongolia certainly wasn't in a position for its recognition to count for anything until 1945, and Mongolia wasn't unambiguously a sovereign nation until 1961 when Mongolia joined the United Nations.
      • Surely we can cover the case of Mongolia's arguable position as a sovereign state and its recognition between 1945 and 1950 with a note? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Assuming we can find a source, and agree on how to balance the statement for neutrality (e.g. with another statement), how about saying "Tibet was only recognized by one country." and mentioning that that country was Mongolia in the footnote containing the citations?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
          • • I don't think Mongolia really became a independent country until 1945 when it gained its first real and sustained international recognition. And apparently there are doubts as to whether the Tibet Mongolia treaty was even a valid contract - and on reflection it seems unlikely that it would have still been legally valid after the 1945 Mongolian independence deal with the ROC - though we cannot be sure without seeing the exact wording of that treaty.
            • It all seems far too convoluted to be worthy of mention. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think generally the question of "de jure independence" is irrelevant. Every statelike body is legal according to its own laws; and to the extent that it is legally sovereign, then it doesn't matter what anybody else's laws say. So, Tibet was de jure independent if it was sovereign, and not if it was not; in other words, the logic is circular. What I think is relevant is: a) a given state is de facto independent if its laws have effect within its borders; and b) a given state is internationally recognised to the extent that other internationally recognised countries treat it as independent (in principle, there could be multiple competing systems of countries that recognise each other, but in practice by the 19th century, most of the world was ruled by sovereign powers which recognised each other). So, I think the article should stay away from de jure and talk about de facto rule and about recognition or lack thereof by other countries.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Greg Pandatshang. What de jure actually meant in 1913 in international law (before the UN was established) is unclear. It's better to do away with the term and just state clearly which sovereign countries officially recognized its independence. -Zanhe (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree with Greg Pandatshang. De jure independence meant no more that at least one internationally recognized state formally recognizes another state. Yes, formally Kosovo, S Ossetia and Abkhazia are de jure recognized states. Russia recognized Mongolia in 1912. Then Mongolia recognized Tibet. So Tibet became de jure independent. No matter that Mongolia in 1915 was 'downgraded' to autonomy of China: legally, this did not change international recognition of Tibet made earlier. There was no commonly accepted recognition practice in 19th-early 20th century. No, not most of world's rulers recognized each other, and especially in Asia. This article is about a debate. So different opinions should be quoted, including those on de facto or de jure recognition of Tibet.46.138.66.7 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think Greg is right, not mentioning de-jure at all seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Greg that the question of "de jure independence" is irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is the categorization as "de facto independence". A better approach is to analyse scholars' opinion under the constitutive theory and the constitutive theory approaches. Let me simply copy that previous answer of Greg to Eraserhead1 about one year ago, as it seems we are just repeating the same debate:--Pseudois (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In answer to Eraserhead's question, there are two main theories of sovereignty in international law: the constitutive theory, which is based on international recognition, and the declarative theory, which is based on governing a territory and behaving like a state. Under the latter theory, as expressed in Montevideo Convention, Tibet was an independent state de jure prior to 1950. Note that Tibet entered into a bilateral diplomatic agreement with the British Empire in the McMahon Line appendix of the 1914 Simla Convention, and briefly also had bilateral relations with Mongolia.

Anybody can declare themselves to be an independent country, but it's equally true that anybody can declare themselves to have de jure sovereignty over a territory they do not actually rule.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the text to say " Western scholars also claim that Tibet was de-facto independent from c.1912 to 1950,[12] although it had extremely limited international recognition." which fails to mention de-jure at all, as agreed, and which covers recognition by Nepal, and the potential recognition by El Salvador and Mongolia, without going into detail about whether those claims were in fact valid - something that can be discussed in more detail below the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with this summary.79.139.203.59 (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Me too. This now sounds much better, although the whole sentence does not fully reflect the content of the sources mentioned in [12] and [13]. I'll try to further simplify the sentence, in order to remove attributions not (or only partly) mentionned in the various sources.--Pseudois (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Me too, with Pseudois' tweaks. It's not easy to encompass all the ways in which Tibet was and was not independent at the time in a few short statements. IMO this does it better than my original attempt using defacto independence and conflicting evidence on de jure independence. I put the various authors' qualifiers to "independent" in the footnote, so that everyone can see what they are.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree about removing 'extremely' - merely says limited implies 10-20 countries recognised it (or it implies that an important power recognised its independence - like Britain, Russia or the US, which they didn't), rather than 1-2 which is what it actually was.
  • Another qualifier can be used instead, but we need some sort of qualifier. Even saying a couple is probably overly generous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • "Limited" is actually already a qualifier. "Extremely limited" would not reflect the sources, but constitute OR or express a POV. We have to consider the number in their context: there were not 200 countries at that time, only few on them had contact with Tibet, and Tibet only seeked contact with a few of them. Particularly relevant is to see what Tibet's relations were with its neighbours at that time (including Bhutan, which has not been discussed). In that context, the term "limited" may sound reasonably fair and neutral. "Extremely limited" seems to try to make a point.--Pseudois (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with adding the authors qualifiers, I see where you got the point of de-jure being debatable from now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Limited vs. extremely limited: 1) Given the evidence presented so far, Eraserhead1’s judgment of extremely limited seems justified. 2) In terms of what is written in the article, “Limited” would be a more encyclopedic tone than “extremely limited”. It would be slightly better to just say "limited", and go into how limited it was in the body of the article. 3) This is an “extremely” minor detail, and I’m not going to worry about it until the article comes up for good article review. If this is the only remaining point of contention in the paragraph (is it?), then congratulations to us all.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
        • You're an "extremely" good diplomat. I agree joining both of you regarding that "extremely" minor point. Thanks.--Pseudois (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I am perfectly happy if another word that means extremely limited is used instead as I agree that extremely limited isn't particularly encyclopaedic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Succession of states

I think the discussion on succession of states is getting long enough and removed enough from POV concerns that we should continue in a new section. I also think that everyone is pretty much agreed that we can leave succession of states in the article for a while while we wait to see if a reference can be found.
In response to 46.138.91.202, if a reliable source (or political or legal entity) has used the succession of states theory to justify China's rule of Tibet, it probably should be mentioned in the article. Which section it goes in depends on who said it. If no one has used it, it should be removed. If reliable sources have mistakenly claimed that the PRC has said it, things get complicated.
In response to Christian Lassure's edit summary, Dinesh Lal does not provide a reference for his claim, so we really can't tell where he picked the sentence up.
In response to 79.139.205.133's edit summary, I think if a reliable source provides a reference to a PRC document which claims succession of states to justify the the PRC's rule of Tibet, that is sufficient. But none of the 3 references currently in the article do that.
My own opinion is that we need a reference to a PRC document (or website, or official speech etc.) in order to to say in the article that the PRC claims succession of states with respect to Tibet. This reference could be second hand through another reliable source. Given the sources [1] [2] that would be expected to mention it but don't, I don't think that a claim that does not provide a reference is sufficient in this case.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, let's wait a couple of weeks for a citation.46.138.76.163 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced materials

Whatever personal opinion someone can have on the question, this page is about the "Tibetan sovereignty debate" and blanking well sourced materials like this recent deletion (repeated several times in the recent days) does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't have any personal opinion on the issue, but I always appreciate to find in Wikipedia such references for further readings. Please don't delete them.--Pseudois (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

and distortion of sources

I again reverted these recent edits, as it did not correspond to what the source was saying:

• Original source: Western countries, including Britain and the United States, did not recognize Tibet as fully independent
• WP article before edits by Eraserhead1: however no Western nation recognized it as fully independent
• WP article after edits by Eraserhead1: however no sovereign nation recognized it as independent.

The first version seems to better reflect the source, the word "Western" and "fully" having their due importance in that particular context.--Pseudois (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I accept that it is correct that the source states "Western" which is why I made this change. However is it really controversial that TIbet wasn't recognised by any sovereign nations, Western or not? Are there any other countries that aren't "Western" which recognised Tibet? (Aside from Mongolia as covered above). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's no justification for reverting all of Eraserhead1's edits. I've restored the rest of his edits that you reverted for no good reason. -Zanhe (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason for removing the referenced statement on conflicting evidence on Tibet's de jure status?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily re-added it with a disputed tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's the better approach.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Zanhe: You have actually reverted/restored the two most controversial edits, and stating "you reverted for no good reason" is certainly not a sufficient argument either. The first (de jure conflictive evidence) has now been restored by Eraserhead, I have deleted the second one (regarding the TGIE position). Thanks for using the talk page (see "Further distortion" subchapter) before reverting again.--Pseudois (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1: Doesn't Mongolia count?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See above - to summarise, not really. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nepal maintained bilateral diplomatic relations with Tibet as if it were an independent country. Mongolia formally recognised Tibet's independence in 1913 but it was in a similarly ambiguous position itself at the time. The British Empire maintained a highly ambiguous position toward Tibet after the failure of the Simla talks in 1914 — they basically did not make statements like "Tibet is an independent country" or "Tibet is not an independent country". Recognition of other countries (especially before the creation of the UN) is not so straightforward as we want it to be. In 1950, the El Salvador delegation to the UN made statements about the Chinese invasion which clearly assume that Tibet is an independent country with a right not to be invaded; but El Salvador never exchanged ambassadors, etc. with Tibet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happier to say that Nepal recognised Tibet if that is how they behaved as Nepal was unambiguously an independent state with international recognition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's more correct as however no Western power recognized it as fully independent. Another version is biased. Exchange by ambassadors is not the only condition condition for international recognition. Statement of El Salavador delegation on Tibet's independence in UN was an official opinion of El Salvador about the status of Tibet.46.138.66.7 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Further distortion of sources

I reverted again the addition "although they accept that Tibet was under the influence of the Yuan and Qing dynasties", as it seems to be a gross distortion of the original source acknowledging mutual influence between different powers (Tibetan, Mongols, Ghurkhas, Machu, British)… Here the original text:--Pseudois (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese authorities have attempted to confuse the issue by claiming that Tibet has always been a part of China. This is untrue. Tibet was a fully independent state when the People's Liberation Army invaded the country in 1949/50.

Since Tibetan emperors unified Tibet, over a thousand years ago, our country was able to maintain its independence until the middle of this century. At times Tibet extended its influence over neighbouring countries and peoples and, in other periods, came itself under the influence of powerful foreign rulers - the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu Emperors and the British in India.

It is, of course, not uncommon for states to be subjected to foreign influence or interference. Although so-called satellite relationships are perhaps the clearest examples of this, most major powers exert influence over less powerful allies or neighbours. As the most authoritative legal studies have shown, in Tibet's case, the country's occasional subjection to foreign influence never entailed a loss of independence. And there can be no doubt that when Peking's communist armies entered Tibet, Tibet was in all respects an independent state.

Given we are talking about Tibet's relations with China why is Tibet being under British or Gorkha influence at various points relevant?

Additionally how is the whole sentence "The Tibetan Government in Exile claims that Tibet was an independent state until the PRC invaded, although they accept that Tibet was under the influence of the Yuan and Qing dynasties." not backed up by the Dalai Lama's words? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Two other straw men of yours. For your first question, it seems that you missed the word "mutual" in my explanation: read again the article, and you will notice that the DL says that at times Tibet extented its influence over its neighbours, and at times it was the reverse, without entailing any loss of idenpendence. I'm not trying to discuss whether this is true or wrong, but you'll have to admit that cherry picking and assembling sentences as in your example is changing the original meaning. I think this answers question 2 as well, and brings enough evidence for a revert.--Pseudois (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So when did Tibet "influence" China? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt at turning this page into a forum instead of discussing constructively the article content? As written above, "I'm not trying to discuss whether this is true or wrong". You, instead, have apparently deliberately modified the meaning of the sources you are quoting. This is not an acceptable practice at WP.--Pseudois (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is edit warring. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hu? Are you trying to intimidate me after initially treating my edits of "vandalism" and other strong wording? You made a bold move on 9 July, two editors (myself on 10 once 13 twice and 14 twice, Wikimedes on 10) have tried to explain that this addition was off topic and out of context (check in the edit summary for Wikimedes explanation, mine are in the talk page). As an answer, your text has been restored 5 times during the same period (4 times by you, once by Zanhe), sometimes as quickly as one minute after the previous revert, sometimes without any single explanation in the edit summary, sometime simply justifying "I absolutely think the influence is worth mentioning" or "I've restored the rest of his edits that you reverted for no good reason". The only attempts of explaining your insistence in the talk page shall rather be considered as straw men and red herrings. You have simply ignored all my arguments as well as Wikimedes initial arguments, explaining you that " The article is about sovereignty, not generic influence. Also, cited source mentions Tibet's influence over its neighbors, as well as influence on Tibet by "the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu Emperors and the British in India."--Pseudois (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent restoration was with a disputed tag, which is actually the right way to handle it until the discussion resolves itself - which it clearly hasn't yet. At that point you shouldn't be removing it.

With regards to the content did Tibet at any time influence China, in the same way that the Yuan/Qing dynasties (i.e. the Mongol Khans and Manchu Emperors respectively) influenced Tibet?

Me and Wikimedes have already discussed how we describe those dynasties, so I don't think we need to use any different language. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So can this be re-added? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To quote again Wikimedes: " The article is about sovereignty, not generic influence. Also, cited source mentions Tibet's influence over its neighbors, as well as influence on Tibet by "the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu Emperors and the British in India." There is no reason to add it again (off topic), beside the fact that it represents a distortion of the source.--Pseudois (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that it defines the parameters of the debate better than they are without the comment as it makes it clear that Tibet was at least influenced by the Yuan and Qing dynasty, rather than being entirely separate.

And you haven't really explained how the sources are actually being distorted, given you cannot provide an example of a period where Tibet influenced China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on, just read again the source. How can we explain you in other words that your source is talking about generic influence in both directions? Haven't you heard about the cho-yon ("priest-patron relationship)? DL14 is not saying anything else than DL13 in his declaration of idenpendence: "During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship. [...] the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other". I am not expressing a personal opinion on this quote, I'm just quoting it.--Pseudois (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what the source actually says, it says that the Yuan and Qing influenced Tibet and that Tibet at times influenced its (unnamed) neighbours at unspecified times. I am sure that Tibet has influenced its smaller neighbours, and probably individual Chinese provinces when they were independent, but as that Dalai Lama doesn't say that they influenced the Yuan and Qing as a priest I really doubt that that is what he means - especially as he says that that influence was "in other periods". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Neighbors vs. all Chinese history vs. Yuan and Qing eras? Is that what you’ve been driving at? Then I can scratch what I was going to write about red herrings before I post it.

My own views on “although they accept that Tibet was under the influence of the Yuan and Qing dynasties” are as follows:

In the reference, the Dalai Lama mentions Tibet coming “under the influence of powerful foreign rulers” so this is a bit more than just generic influence. (This was not clear from the above wording.) However I don’t think that this or anything similar should be added to the lead for the following reasons:

1. The first sentence of the same paragraph in the reference states : ”Since Tibetan emperors unified Tibet, over a thousand years ago, our country was able to maintain its independence until the middle of this century.” (meaning the 20th Century). In the next paragraph, the Dalai Lama states “the country's occasional subjection to foreign influence never entailed a loss of independence.” The Dalai Lama is not talking about a loss of Tibetan independence, so it doesn’t belong in the lead of an article about Tibetan sovereignty.
2. If we qualify the statement on the TGIE’s position, why on earth would we say that the Dalai Lama claims that Tibet has been influenced by Mongol Khans and Manchu Emperors? (Yuan and Qing Dynasties is a significant distortion of his words.) Surely the patron-priest relationship would be more representative of the TGIE’s position.
3. Why should we single out the Tibetan position for a qualifying statement? If we do this, we probably should include qualifications for each of the preceding statements as well. With just one qualification each, these statements could read something like this:

It is generally agreed that China and Tibet were independent prior to the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368),(1) although the PRC characterizes this time as a period of growing together of the Tibetans and the more advanced Han culture.(Wang and Nyima 1997 chapter 1) It is also generally agreed that Tibet has been ruled by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1951,(2) although the Tibetan Government in Exile claims that this rule is an illegal military occupation.[3] The nature of Tibet’s relationship to China in the intervening time is a matter of debate. The PRC claims that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368),(3) though during the Ming Dynasty this rule was limited to granting titles, receiving tribute, and allowing Tibetans to trade with Han business people.(Wang and Nyima 1997 chapter 3) The Republic of China (1912-1949) (ROC) claimed that “Tibet was placed under the sovereignty of China” when the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) expelled Nepal from Tibet in c.1793,(4) but in 2007, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian stated that Tibet has never been part of his country.[4]

This is a bit long for half a paragraph. (And do we really want to start a discussion on what qualifiers to add?) (Though a more recent version of the ROC’s position might be a good idea.)

I’m going to be busy in real life for the rest of July, so I'll have to end here. Happy editing.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, it is probably something that can be covered further down the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We can't restrict views to that of politicians, there needs to more on the perspectives of historians and scholars. The Manchu Empire is an interesting case (and one that I eventually plan on writing an article on), but also very complicated. Although the Manchus maintained nominal control of Tibet, their de facto rule fluctuated. The height of Manchu control over the region includes the beginning of their political expansion into Tibet, when they began exerting influence over Tibetan economic and religious affairs, and the tail end of the Qing Dynasty, when they sought to politically suppress it and integrate it with the rest of the empire. During the intervening years of the 19th century, when Manchurian rule over all regions of the empire weakened, Tibet did enjoy a large degree of autonomy.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the past sovereignty debate

The introduction paragraph is nicely formulated by introducing the two debates: The Tibetan sovereignty debate refers to two political debates. The first is whether the various territories within the People's Republic of China (PRC) that are claimed as political Tibet should separate and become a new sovereign state. Many of the points in the debate rest on a second debate, about whether Tibet was independent or subordinate to China in certain parts of its recent history.

However the article in its current shape does almost only focus on the second debate (was Tibet sovereign and when? / what kind of sovereignty? / etc.) which is important but not essential for the first debate. Other considerations such as Self-determination princile should be given greater weight in the article. Any suggestions?--Pseudois (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Given there is no way of knowing whether the Tibetans are happy under Chinese rule or not how can we give any significant weight to self-determination?

I have no particular issue with discussing it in principle. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. It is not about assessing whether Tibetans are happy or not under Chinese rule, it is about presenting the sovereignty debate within the perspective of the self-determination principle. What is so extraordinary in my request for an article titled "Tibetan sovereignty debate"? Soryy to say, but your argument about happiness sounds like Ignoratio elenchi.--Pseudois (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you want to say? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I already said it clearly enough: the fact that "there is no way of knowing whether the Tibetans are happy under Chinese rule or not" (to quote your exact words) has nothing to do with the scope of this article. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Pseudois (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the only person who is using Wikipedia as a forum is you. I presumed you had some content you'd like to add that covers this point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hu? Sorry I don't know what you are meaning, and I don't see either when and where I have used Wikipedia as a forum to discuss issues not related to an article. Can you please keep this kind of comments out of article talk pages?--Pseudois (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lenght and structure of the current article - major clean-up needed

The current article is far too long and includes too many / too lengthy quotations for an ecyclopedic entry.

The first chapter (view of the Chinese goverments) is over 7,000 words long, the second chapter (view of the TGIE) less than 1,000 words long and the third (third party view) less than 1,500.

I have noticed a certain tendency for Wikipedia articles on (potentially) controversial aspects of Chinese/Tibetan history/politics/etc. to:

• be overlengthly

• present its content in a non-encyclopedic way

• use abundantly and excessively lenghty quotes

• includes material unrelated or only partly related to the topic

• rely excessively on online non-academic sources, or only a few selectively used ones

As a result:

1. the average reader will often stops his/her reading after the first paragraphs presenting the Chinese views
2. the average editor with limited time availability will focus on the lead section only, or will abandon any attempt at editing such lenghty and messy articles
3. the absence of balance and poor article quality will neither serve the readership nor the reputation of Wikipedia.

On a side note, a lot of information in this article is missplaced and should not belong to the chapter where it currently is. As the maintenance tag suggests, is it OK to go for a major cleanup?--Pseudois (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, can we leave it while we sort out the issues that are already under discussion? There is already a heading box talking about removing the overly lengthy quotations.

The third party views section is shorter than the others because I removed about 10000 characters of overly long quotations and rambling text. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than serious, why such question? And this is precisely the overquotation heading box (which I think you have inserted) that has motivated me to propose such big clean-up. The "de jure/de facto" related discussions seem to absorb so much energy while the article need to be improved in many other parts.

While certain anecdotal aspects need to be removed, other important points such as the treatment of the Tibetan question at the UN need to be beefed up (to compare, the French WP has two lenghty articles related to Tibet at the UN, see here and here). I also think the treatment by the International Commission of Jurists need to be presented with more details, as they have issued at least 4 reports on the issues (1959, 1960, 1964 and 1997).--Pseudois (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Because if you discuss 20 things at the same time you never achieve anything. Lets solve the problems already under discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that one of the purposes of the lead is to summarize the article, fixing the article first is the correct approach. The article’s convoluted structure makes it nearly impossible to summarize concisely in the lead, and nearly all our discussion of what should go into the lead has ignored the content of the article it is supposed to be summarizing.

Eraserhead1’s pairing down of the article appears to have been a good start. If Pseudois is willing to tackle the monumental cleanup task, the article would benefit greatly. I have access to a number of reliable sources if I can be of assistance.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Eraserhead1 has been doing a good job on this article so far and the problems currently under discussion should be solved before any "cleanup" of the page gets underway. --Christian Lassure (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Wikimedes. It is not the monumental task that freigthens me, but rather the athmosphere in which the discussions have taken place these last days. Far too agressive for me. I'm out for a while. But it would be nice if all this unrelated or semi-related stuff would be trimmed, and at the same time having the article refocusing a bit more on the first debate (self-determination principles etc.). For the second debate, it would be nice to anlysise it more in the light of the definition of Sovereign state and possibly give less importance to the recognition aspects, which although important, are not essential. I think the article and the discussions are just too much focusing on who/when/whether/how/by who Tibet was recognised, while this is in the end just a side aspect of the sovereigntly issue.--Pseudois (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the cleanup itself that makes the task monumental.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs cleanup. Another problem that needs to be addressed is that the article has different sections for different POVs. Wikipedia's policies heavily discourage this practice, because it makes an article ripe for POV pushing. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but I've noticed that there's more written for the pro-PRC POV than there is for the pro-Tibetan POV, and that's not something I can morally stomach. Ideally, all three sections (views by the PRC, views by the Tibetan government, views by third parties) should be integrated together.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A possible option would be to restructure the article with the following chapters:

1) A brief introduction defining the concept of sovereignty

2) Legal and para-legal aspects regarding sovereignty of Tibet in the present/future (e.g. discussing the right - or absence of it - for self-determination based on international laws and Chinese laws)

3) 4) 5) 6) 7) etc) An analysis of Tibet sovereignty (full sovereignty, partial sovereignty or absence of it, and possible controversy when diverging opinions are existing) chronologically in the different period of its history.

Such option might help the eliminated the current over-emphasis on politically motivated claims without historical support (such as "Tibet was always fully independent" or "Tibet was always fully part of China"). Unrelated chapters such as "unique ethnicity" or "genocide charges" should simply be deleted as they are not directly related with the topic of the article.--Pseudois (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favour of reducing the side of the "opinion" sections. That said I think the first job is probably to reduce the size of the quotes which grossly bloat some of the "pro PRC" sections, and to at least make sure everything is vaguely understandable and to be vaguely NPOV.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan passport

The passport image has been repeatedly removed by User:Eraserhead1 after he filed a deletion request. Although the initial license appered wrong (expiry of copyright), it seems that there is no copyright at all for administrative documents, based on the different national copyright laws. May I request editors not to precipiteously delete material from this page while the deletion request they have filed is ongoing? This would save time for everybody, and we could dedicate this time to more productive tasks improving Wikipedia. --Pseudois (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have considered the deletion request to have stalled, given it wasn't dealt with within 2 weeks or so. Which is why I removed it. It does seem like you have found a good solution that works. I wasn't aware that passports were exempt from copyright. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Genghis Khan, Altan Khan, and the Yuan Dynasty

I had a moment to look at the recent edit histories of the article. Given that the Yuan Dynasty was founded after Genghis Khan's death and that Altan Khan lived 1507-1582, ~150 years after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty, I don't think the 13th Dalai Lama was talking about the Yuan Dynasty. What Genghis and Altan Khan have to do with cooperation with China is a mystery to me, but I haven't read the full text.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Genghis Khan never directly met with the Tibetans. It's a historically anachronistic, but a widespread belief, even among Tibetans. It stems from confusing Genghis Khan's invasion of the Tangut kingdom of Western Xia with Tibet. Although both were religiously Buddhist, the two regions are culturally and politically distinct. More information on the subject can be found here, on contact with the Mongols prior to 1240.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that comment in square brackets in the 13th Dalai Lama quote for now. That seems like a good point Wikimedes, I've left the comments in square brackets with the other quote where it is more relevant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IP editors

Look if you want to contribute to the article you need to break up your edits from being massive to being very small, try only changing a single sentence. As it is parts of the edit were certainly non-neutral and appeared to contradict the sources but when you make such a massive change it is extremely difficult to check. Even this large 1000 character addition and groups of edits like this are far, far easier to check with a glance than this IP edit. Life is really too short to check such content changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Eraserhead1's advice. It is very difficult to keep the overview when edits include different chapters/paragraphs, especially when addition/removal/moving of material is concerned (no problem when only a few words are changed). Although it is not a compulsory WP policy that you have to follow, it would really help your fellow editors if you would split your contributions. Thanks,--Pseudois (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I included only few minor changes. Note that the U.S. President is not a 'superior official' to the U.S. Congress. Nevertheless, the section overall remains biased towards pro-China view. They are prevalent, while many sources with opposite views absent. Long citations, some of which are almost the same, reflect only the pro-China view.79.139.203.193 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Those changes were hardly minor - they have a far more complex diff than either of the examples above from established editors in the previous paragraph.
  • Before making changes press the "Show changes" link and see if they are comprehensible to another editor. If not split them up. There is no harm in making a single edit which splits the paragraphs into two, and then making a separate edit (or edits) that makes the actual content change, even if after the first edit the text doesn't particularly make sense.
  • The diff code for Wikipedia isn't particularly good, but that's what we have to work with.
  • This isn't an IP editor thing, I have checked Pseudois' edits and I'm sure he has done the same to me.
  • I did leave the POV tag though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • An example of what would be good would be to add the POV tag as one edit, then do the first set as one edit, and then to break the second part of the edit into two. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, I quite like the new structure introduced by this edit. You can't see it reading the diffs individually, by try reading the section as a whole. It first describes things chronologically, then goes on to group different issues together. The 6th paragraph is an especially good example of grouping. This reorganization would be hard to do piecemeal (i.e. one small edit at a time). I also think that the edit improved neutrality greatly. Would it be acceptable to keep the new structure and re-add the text that editors think should have remained (and continue to add text/topics that editors feel should be included)? I can help with cleanup.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
        • How much time do you expect me to spend checking edits from unknown IP editors with a known strong POV? (So much so that the page had to be locked to block them from disruption) Even with the second IP edit to actually check it I'd have had to print the diff off and go over it with a highlighter - that's a completely unreasonable burden.
        • How about just moving the sections around as a first edit and not removing any content at all and doing it slowly? That should be plausible surely.
        • If you need something with a better differ, setup an account on github and do the changes in git and then copy it back. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I took the time to carefully check the IP46 edit mentioned by Wikimedes, and must admit that it does indeed improve the article. I cannot see neutrality bias suggested by Eraserhead1 in his last revert summary. I will restore IP46 edits, as no content-based argument has been given so far to oppose these modifications. However, I would like to invite IP46 to register (even though it is not an obligation) in order to dissipate any doubt that you haven't edited this page recently under another username. As a one-time editor, IP46 seems to handle WP editing tools almost too well... --Pseudois (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So "At present, neither country recognizes Tibet's independence [86] [87] [88]. From the other hand, some governmental bodies,[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] non-governmental organizations,[98] [99] [100], experts and scholars[101] [102] [103] [104] termed Tibet as an occupied state. These statements overlap with conclusions from pro-Tibet scholars, that the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet were illegal.[105] Conflicting recognition judgments can sometimes arise also within a state. The State Department recognizes Tibet as a part of China. In 1991, United States President Bush signed a State Department Authorization Act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile as "Tibet's true representatives". The US Congress has at times expressed a different perspective, calling Tibet an "occupied country".[106] Congress stated that Tibet is a sovereign state under illegal foreign occupation, including those areas incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qingha" is neutral? Even though most of it seems to be shock after Tiananmen Square? And the rest of it e.g. [5] seems to be probably misunderstanding of the legal implication in English of the word "occupied" rather than using another more appropriate term.

Even if you think including some detail on 1989 to ~1993 opinion on China is worthwhile why does it deserve vastly more weight than coverage of opinions of the PRC from the rest of the period of their control of the country? Currently basically every opinion on Tibet seems to be from that highly atypical period.

And removing significant detail on the patron-priest relationship is an improvement? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is true that many sources date from the period you mention, but not as many as you may think if you check in detail. So what it your solution? Give more emphasis to the pre-1989 and post-1993 sources, such as the International Commission of Jurists 1960 report? That's an option. On the other side, I haven't seen a lot of Chinese sources from the pre-1989 period as well... In the end, you will find a lot o publications when the topic is hot, but it doesn't necessarily mean the arguments are biased, especially regarding the legal assessments.

Regarding the lack of detail for the choyon, I think the current summary is fair, and the details given in the previous version did not bring much.

Where I can see a weakness is that current goverments recognition that Tibet is part of China is very quickly mentioned with a simple "At present, neither country recognizes Tibet's independence", plus some statement from the EU and France. I don't think it is worth adding one by one each other country that has issued similar statements, but instead we could complete the above sentence by writing that "several/many/xx countries have issued statements in the recent year confirming their position that they consider Tibet as part of China". I'm quite sure you may find sources for that, and even without source, I think this is rather an evidence.--Pseudois (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the third party rule section here, not the rest of the article.

Foreign policy is a long term thing, initial shock after 1989 doesn't deserve to be the only thing covered as it basically is the moment.

It is clear that for ~90% of the rule of the PRC that people wouldn't have said the things they said initially based on their post 1989 reaction, as you can see from their statements in (e.g.) 2008 when the Western powers all jumped up and down and said that Tibet had always been part of the PRC. To be perfectly honest I really don't understand why you are even bothering to challenge this, frankly obvious, point.

Additionally I'm sure the Western powers (and others) regularly make statements on China which don't mention Tibet as being occupied, but they aren't going to be considered reasonable by anyone who is trying to push a one sided view.

With regards to "At present, neither country recognizes Tibet's independence" - currently no country recognises Tibetan independence, and that statement is twisting a statement from a German in China Daily where he says that no country ever recognised Tibetan independence - I have reverted that blatant source twisting for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In line with the WP:DUE weight of the time period of the early 1990's I have made this change to the relevant section - now the content seems to be actually being covered neutrally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag on third party views section

IP46... added] this tag and it has been removed twice [6] [7] by Eraserhead1 without reaching consensus for removal, the first time with no comment whatsoever. I hope that Eraserhead1 will respect the instructions on the NPOV tag, which read in part "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." However it is IP46...'s responsibility to describe what s/he thinks is biased about the section on the talk page.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping POV tags in articles when they are added by a contributor acting in good faith. When the IPs who have been editing this article mysteriously remove large chunks of sourced, relatively well written content, without explanation and by hiding it behind an overly complex diff under the claim of "neutrality" they aren't really acting in good faith.

Allowing new contributors is great, but more than enough time has already been wasted handling IP contributions to this article, and ample explanations have been given to explain how they can contribute productively.

If you, as an editor who has contributed in good faith (and who has made a large number of excellent contributions to this article), have a valid reason for including the POV tag I am more than happy to discuss the matter with you. I think we have made the article a lot better by working together, so lets try and avoid getting distracted by IP editors who are clearly just trying to waste our time.

Tags that are added by editors not acting in good faith really serve no useful purpose in the article, and actively make it worse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I think the section is still a long way from neutral, mostly I disagreed with your precipitous removal of the POV tag. If 46.138.85.51 does not explain why he/she thinks the section is non-neutral, the tag should be removed, but he/she should be given the chance first. I’ve spent more time on this article than is good for me, so I’ll let you and 46.138.85.51 work it out.

IMO, 46.138.85.51 has been working (successfully) to improve the article, and the edit you are using to try to discredit him/her improved the article. If you object to his/her having removed some material in the process of this edit, you are perfectly capable of addressing this without smearing the editor. You've done quite a bit of pairing down the article yourself (mostly for the good IIRC). I find your ad hominem attacks on 46.138.85.51 such as [8] and [9] have been entirely unwarranted and a distraction from addressing the article’s content. I’m glad that I’m not the target of your attacks at the moment, but the IP editor(s) and Pseudois deserve some respect as well.

Since you took ownership of this article almost 2 months ago [10] the article has improved. Sometimes this has been due to your own edits, sometimes in response to your edits, sometimes in spite of your vigorous opposition, and sometimes in spite of your discouraging ad hominem attacks, but I think it’s safe to say that you have been the driving force. Cheers.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think saying someone has a strong viewpoint is an ad hominem, if it is taken as such I apologise. However reading back my comments in general there are certainly cases where I have been overly aggressive, and for that I am sorry, as it isn't a good way to behave.

I also don't think my removal of excessive quotes, in a clearly non-partisan way, is equivalent to the content I re-added in the diffs in my last comment where all "pro-China" content was systematically removed.

Finally if you think there are neutrality issues with the third party sources section lets discuss and try and fix them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Now the section on Third party views looks more or less neutral, thanks to all. I agree that my NPOV tag was removed.46.138.93.181 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So the issue is resolved? In the future, if you are going to place a POV tag on a page, please offer an explanation on the talk page first. Otherwise other editors just have to engage in guesswork to figure out how to resolve the perceived problems.—Zujine|talk 14:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is resolved. OK, I will offer explanations in future.79.139.204.21 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Extremely spurious map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_1932.jpg

First of all, the alleged map shows several non existent countries, such as Java, borneo (Kalimantan), and Irian Jaya,, all of which were part of the Dutch East Indies in 1932 and never existed as independent states. And not only that, the rest of the dutch east indies are shown as the same color as british colonies like india and malaysia, implying that the dutch don't rule them but the british did.

Secondly, xinjiang was ruled by governor Jin Shuren in 1932 and was never independent. The self declared First East Turkestan Republic decalred independence in 1933 and only controlled the area around kashgar, never the entire xinjiang.

Thirdly, tibet did not control the Qinghai province, which was ruled by the Ma Clique warlord Ma Bufang in 1932. His uncle Ma Lin (warlord) was the governor, and before that, Ma Qi. Also see the Sino-Tibetan War which occured in 1932.

Fourthly, outer mongolia never controlled any part of inner mongolia. Inner mongolia was divided into the provinces of Suiyuan and Ningxia, ningxia was ruled by the ma clique warlord Ma Hongkui

Fifthly, Sichuan province was never that large until the communists took over and abolished Xikang province. The western part of sichuan on that map is supposed to be xikang in 1932. Liu Wenhui controlled that area.

Sixthly, outer mongolia did not rule Tannu Tuva, it was the Tuvan People's Republic in 1932.Seeckuer (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The source of the image is the Chicago : Geographical Publishing Co., [1932]

The 1922 map from the same company shows no such divisions

http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/asia/eastasia2_After1920.htm

http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu:9001/StyleServer/calcrgn?cat=Asia&item=/Asia1922c.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl

1911 map http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21054/21054-h/21054-h.htm#Page_83

at #6 here, a 1932 map from the chicago geographical publishing company shows no separate tibet, or xinjiang, only mongolia is shown (ignore the writings on the blog, the important part is that the image is scanned from the book

Regardless of whether that specific company recognized tibet as independent or not, the map is innaccurate for attempting to show the situation in 1932. A proper map would show only the area of the modern tibet autonomous region as out of the republic of china's control, and only outer mongolia and manchuria (occupied by japan) as separate, the fact that the map misrepresents xinjiang, qinghai, and inner mongolia makes it worthless, all those territories were not independent, and the dutch east indies is also severely distorted on the map.Seeckuer (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this map should not be used to depict the political state of affairs of 1932.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, the map depicting various Asian sovereignities circa 1870 is wholly incorrect, and was deleted for this reason. According to the release of Chiang Kai-shek's personal papers, Qinghai and Xikang remained paper dreams of his government, and the Ma Family had influence in Amdo's farming areas which are only found adjacent to Gansu, where the Mas actually ruled. The King of Nangchen's territory included Amdo and northern U-Tsang and remained as Nangchen until 1951 when China created Qinghai in Tibet. This accurate account is widely accepted by current scholars, and photographs of the coerced King with Chinese bureaucrats feature the founding date of 1951 for Qinghai (will add sources). Thus, for this reason and for so many other instances of factual misrepresentation, I agree that this entire article should be deleted. It does not meet encyclopaedic standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.250.26 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Soviet "empire thesis" on Tibet

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule, claiming that China was an "empire" and not a state.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

besides anti China propaganda due to the sino soviet split, the Soviet Union did have strategic interests in Tibet and attempted to make inroads against the British during 1912-1948.

Rajmaan (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Special administrative region

Are there claim Special administrative region status for Tibet and Xinjian?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Some facts about Yuan and Qing Dynasty

Some people say that Yuan dynasty conquered "China" and "China" was a part of Yuan - which is actually correct to a certain extent since during the southern Song Dynasty, the title of "China" belonged to Jing Dynasty: 《宋史》卷四百三十六《陳亮傳》：[其地雖要為偏方，然未有偏方之氣五六百年而不發洩者，況其東通吳會，西連巴蜀，南極湖湘，北控關洛，左右伸縮，皆足以為進取之機。 今誠能開墾其地，洗濯其人，以發洩其氣而用之，使足以接關洛之氣，則可以爭衡於中國("China")矣，是亦形勢消長之常數也。]. As you can see, Southern Song clearly mentioned that the people of Song are fighting against "China/中國". Now back to the Eastern Han Dynasty: 「若能以吳、越之眾與中國抗衡，不如早與之絕」, even Zhuge Liang/諸葛亮 clearly said that their enemy is "China/中國" (Cao Wei/曹魏). While reading and searching the history of China, we have to understand the ancient and modern meaning of China are actually different. Before the ROC, "China/中國" was never a formal name of any ancient Chinese nations, but a geographical concept (middle land) of a "rightful central regime". According to Nerchinsk Treaty, "China" for the first time was given the meaning of a modern sovereign state; in other word, during Qing Dynasty, the whole territory of the Qing/Chinese Empire = China/中國: 「大清國遣大臣與鄂羅斯國議定邊界之碑：一，將由北流入黑龍江之綽爾納，即烏倫穆河，相近格爾必齊河為界。循此河上流不毛之地，有石大興安以至於海。凡山南一帶，流入黑龍江之溪河，盡屬中國。山北一帶之溪河，盡屬鄂羅斯。一，將流入黑龍江之額爾古納河為界，河之南岸屬於中國，河之北岸屬於鄂羅斯.......中國所有鄂羅斯之人，鄂羅斯所有中國之人，仍留不必遣還...」

Now we take a look of the "Founding Documents of Yuan" - 建國號詔: 「誕膺景命，奄四海以宅尊﹔必有美名，紹百王而紀統。肇從隆古，匪獨我家。且唐之為言蕩也，堯以之而著稱﹔虞之為言樂也，舜因之而作號。馴至禹興而湯造，互名夏大以殷中，世降以還，事殊非古。雖乘時而有國，不以利而制稱。為秦為漢者，著從初起之地名﹔曰隋曰唐者，因即所封之爵邑。且皆徇百姓見聞之偶習，要一時經制之權宜，概以至公，不無少貶。我太祖聖武皇帝，握乾符而起朔土，以神武而膺帝圖，四震天聲，大恢土宇，輿圖之廣，歷古所無。頃者耆宿詣庭，奏草申請，謂既成於大業，宜早定於鴻名。在古制以當然，於朕心乎何有！可建國號曰大元，蓋取《易經》乾元之義，茲大冶流形於庶品，孰名資始之功。予一人底寧於萬邦，尤切體仁之要，事從因革，道協天人。於戲！稱義而名，固非為之溢美﹔孚休惟永，尚不負於投艱。嘉與敷天，共隆大號！」. In this document, the rulers of Yuan dynasty clearly claimed that they are the successors of former Chinese dynasties, just like every Han and Manchurian Emperors did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1lovesu (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This article must be deleted

Tibetans founded the Tibetan Empire in 618, also Tibetans are indigenous inhabitants of Tibet. So how Tibet can be Chinese land? Thoruz (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tibetans are considered as a part of the Chinese ethnics group with other Chinese ethnics such as Hun, Han, Manchurian, (inner) Mongolian... -> Tibetans are indigenous inhabitants of Tibet -> Tibet = Chinese (Tibetan) land. No1lovesu (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NPOV when reliable sources exist making cases for two sides of a debate like this Wikipedia reports the dispute rather than weighing in on what is or is not true. So, to both of you no. The article serves a purpose and that purpose should not be pro-chinese or pro-tibetan propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Both? I never agree with User:Thoruz. --No1lovesu (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ROC China's concept of 'Five nationalities of related peoples' was developed after Qing China's collapse. Tibet in 1949 disavowed the concept repeatedly when it expelled China's diplomats from Lhasa. The concept was ROC then PRC China's internal political posture, and remains nothing more.

The International Commission of Jurists has already found Tibet to have been legally independent from 1913 to 1950. Qing China's invasion itself from 1905-1911 proves that even China knew Tibet was still a sovereign nation, and its surrender to Tibet in 1912 negates all claims (and fantasies of the undefineable 'suzereignity').

Three different international treaties (Nepal, Dogra, Ladakh) predate the fourth with Mongolia of 1913. Britain signed int'l treaties with Tibet which were independent of China as well.

Eventhough UN member countries in 1950 did not provide aid against China's illegal invasion of Tibet, their individual decisions do not change Tibet's history of sovereignity, which predates the founding of its empire. Nepal did aide Tibet according to their mutual treaty, and other countries have also provided aid. (The invasion of Tibet has been compared to the invasion of Ukraine, and the wish that China's invasion had been stopped is shared more and more widely.)

Therefore, this Wikipedia article should really be removed since its bases are founded in some of the same historical inaccuracies and fabrications which were first diffused as ROC China's official "re-imaginations" from 1928-1935, and the same fabrications were adopted by PRC China by 1951. With the bombing of monasteries which began in 1956, China's genocide in Tibet's nation escalated, as did its official propaganda.

The single time period that Tibet was legally 'ruled' by ROC China was from the signing date of the 17 Point agreement in 1951 to the legally recognized revocation of the same agreement in 1959 - for China's failure to respect multiple provisions of the agreement. Thus, the invasion from 1949-1950 was illegal, and China's continued presence in Tibet continues to be wholly illegal : China's presence is defined by scholars and attorneys as an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation, and PRC China as a foreign imperialist and colonizer of an illegal external colony in a neighboring sovereign nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.250.26 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the underlying conflict? or, what is the Realpolitik? Article isn't clear.

This article seems to be filled with obfuscation and bias with regard to the core conflict. What I am wondering is this: what is the objective/unbiased root of the conflict? I'm not asking for another pro-China answer or "free tibet" pamphlet, i'm just asking what are the costs/benefits to China of having, or loosing, Tibet? They obviously invaded that land for a reason and I'm sure it wasn't just to ruffle feathers. Also, what is the cost/benefit to everyone else of tibet's situation?

All I want to know is what is the unbiased interpretation of the tibet conflict as it would be understood by, say, space aliens studying earth or people hundreds of years from now studying history?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tibetan sovereignty debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110606041756/http://www.president.gov.tw/en/prog/news_release/print.php?id=1105499543 to http://www.president.gov.tw/en/prog/news_release/print.php?id=1105499543

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cumbersome definition

The main issue is whether Tibet should be independent, and secondary issues are whether it still is independent (legally if not de facto), and whether it was previously independent.

The current definition is long-winded and cumbersome. And in fact the wording "whether the various territories within the People's Republic of China (PRC) that are claimed as political Tibet should separate and become a new sovereign state" reads very much like something that CPC propagandists would write: i.e. poor English and biased towards the conclusion (in fact based on the premise) that Tibet is not independent, and is part of Communist China.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Another voice by an expert of International and European Law that could be added

Maybe Prof Dr Klein’s statement with respect to the status of Tibet could be added too? Klein held the Chair of Constitutional, International and European Law at the University of Potsdam. In 1995 he was heard as an expert on Tibet before the External Affairs Committee of the German parliament. He states,

"I have difficulties in finding a legal title which could justify this claim to Tibet by the People’s Republic of China." – http://info-buddhism.com/Tibet_Status_Under_International_Law.html

I lack time to sum his pov up and to include it in the article. Maybe another editor could do that?. Thanks, Kt66 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove or rewrite Section 4.1

Hello,

not here to debate, just passing through. However, I would like to point out that Section 4.1, "Debate on human rights in Tibet," does not correspond to Wikipedia guidelines. It has apparently been lifted verbatim from the online article it gives as the source (feel free to verify), which is a personal opinion piece on a blogger's website (and itself not sourced) and thus unsuitable as a source in an encyclopedia. No less importantly, it has been torn out of context to the effect of misrepresenting the cited author's position.

As it is, the section is an embarrassment. It might be deleted or it might be rewritten in a neutral tone as a summary of the man's opinion (although I question whether it meets Notability criteria). It shouldn't stay up in its current form, however.

Best, 89.102.112.196 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed it too. Not sure how to flag it for moderation. JoelDick (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section. It's not written in an encyclopedic style. Removed text appears below. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Debate on human rights in Tibet

Advocates of a free Tibet make a long list of charges against Chinese oppression, largely centered upon a loss of rights and freedom. This claim makes anyone familiar with Tibetan history cough up their coffee. The only people who lost any rights under Chinese rule are Tibet's former ruling class, themselves guilty of cruelty and oppression of a magnitude that not even China can conceive. The vast majority of Tibetans, some 90% of whom were serfs, have enjoyed a relative level of freedom unheard of in their culture. Until 1950 when the Chinese put a stop to it, 90% of Tibetans had no rights at all. They were freely traded and sold. They were subject to the worst type of punishments from their lords, including gouging out of eyes; cutting off hands, feet, tongues, noses, or lips; and a dozen horrible forms of execution. There was no such concept as legal recourse; the landowning monk class was the law. There was no such thing as education, medical care, sanitation, or public utilities. Young boys were frequently and freely taken from families to endure lifelong servitude, including rape, in the monasteries.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626095547/http://www.pacificrim.usfca.edu/research/pacrimreport/pacrimreport36.html to http://www.pacificrim.usfca.edu/research/pacrimreport/pacrimreport36.html

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) 07:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tibetan sovereignty debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060724210652/http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/92roc/pdfs/01-02-02.pdf to http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/92roc/pdfs/01-02-02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025063501/http://www.fpif.org/pdf/vol5/09iftibet.pdf to http://www.fpif.org/pdf/vol5/09iftibet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106021854/http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/article/art4.html to http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/article/art4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102192638/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/167/76/IMG/NR016776.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/167/76/IMG/NR016776.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013223016/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/42/IMG/NR021842.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/42/IMG/NR021842.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106021854/http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/article/art4.html to http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/article/art4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202021442/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=8299838 to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=8299838
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030061528/http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30%3Anews&Itemid=12 to http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30%3Anews&Itemid=12

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) 22:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)