Talk:Batang uprising

The issue with sources and scope
Most of the IPs edits are summarized as "primary sources". I have not done a detailed checkbut most of the sources do not appear to be primary sources, but secondary sources from recent years. And even if they were all primary sources it is not a valid reason for blanking almost the entire article.

The major problem here is that the IP's edits are highly disingenuous. He wrote "Other Christian missionaries had already withdrawn from Batang in 1887, before the uprising began." suggesting that there were no Catholics in the region during this event. But in the source cited it is clearly stated that Similarly, in 1905 an uprising in Bathang and surrounding areas led to the death of four missionaries: they were singled out because of the mission’s supposed association with the 1903-1904 British military expedition to Lhasa. The IP chose to omit this part, and in his version of this article the death of missionaries were completely scrubbed out.

The IP also talked about this page being "a smash-up of two or three unrelated events at different locations". But this is caused exactly by their edits. If they think the current content is not reflecting the events they want, the appropriate solution should be to request a new article. At any rate, the consensus should be established before making such a substantial change.

Sorry for the delay, I hope you can revert back,. The article's quality as it is now is far inferior to the previous version. Esiymbro (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot vouch for each and every edit of the IP, but I can say that it is in the right direction. The old page had a banner on top for more than six months. Even the page title had no source. The content made it look like the Khampas (called "Tibetans" here) killed some missionaries and the Chinese came to discipline them. What hogwash? The reality is that this was in Eastern Kham, which was, and still is, part of the Sichuan province in China. China wanted to prove its muscle after the Younghusband expedition by suppressing the Tibetans under its control. There might have been violence against the missionaries too perhaps. But those weren't the key to the conflict in the eyes of historians.
 * I don't think it is feasible to go back to the old version. If you would like to bring back some of the content that is reasonable, please feel free to do so. But a blanket revert is not possible now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As a sidenote, by far the most comprehensive research into the topic was Coleman's thesis in 2014, which is also an English source. The best Chinese source outside of PRC historiography is Zhang 1981 . -- love.wh  05:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But Coleman himself is calling it a 1905 Batang uprising, and saying that it was a consequence of the 1904 Younghusband Expedition. The Christians missionaries were merely symbols of Chinese power, against which the Khampas rebelled. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit now. Your effort to define the "Batang uprising" as a "series of riots" by citing two whole chapters of a PhD thesis constitutes WP:OR. A more precise citation or a quotation is required. Even then, it would stand in contrast to the majority of WP:RS, who connect the uprising to the Younghusbane Expedition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Some basic history
So that edtors don't start making historical faux pas, let me recount some basic facts:
 * Eastern Kham (between the Yangtze and Yalong rivers) was brought under the control of Sichuan in the 18th century (at the same time that "ambans" were appointed to Central Tibet).
 * Feng Quan was a governor of Sichuan appointed as the assistant amban at Chamdo, who tried to assert authority in Batang and got killed in the process.
 * Zhao Erfeng was next appointed to the same position, who succeeded, but only by conducting brutal massacres and razings.
 * Zhao Erfeng was then promoted to a special amban in Central Tibet, and he succeded in sending a 2,000-man "flying column" to Lhasa. Tibet considered it an invasion of Tibet, and the Dalai Lama fled Lhasa. Soon afterwards, Erfeng too got killed.
 * After the Qing collapse, Tibet evicted all Chinese nationals from Tibet and declared independence. Batang continued under Chinese control, except for maybe a brief period between 1930-1940.

Thus the Batang uprising and its suppression is a key part of the Sino-Tibetan relations of the 20th century. It was through Batang that the Chinese forces could get to Lhasa. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Assistant amban at Chamdo
, I noticed you adding this footnote:

I don't see any mention of what the Emperor thought in the source. There is no mention of "bureaucracy" either even though it says "coordinated action" (not necessarily of the bureaucracy).

But you would notice that various officials offered different justifications for placing the amban at Chamdo, all of which are likely to be theoretical. The real reason is obviously, "to strengthen amban control in Kham by linking this strategic town more closely to Lhasa." Gui Lin's original purpose was to raise troops there; Kham offered fighting men. And the whole discussion is in the context of trying to subdue an unruly frontier, which was important for communications with Tibet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way, the assistant amban was not always stationed in Lhasa. Originally, he was stationed in Shigatse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the real reason why the amban stationed in Chamdo. "Support coordinated actions on the ground" was the original words of the amban but this wasn't quite useful in pointing out the big picture. The following is the source I consulted and it agrees with your source. You Tai, who had recently traveled through Kham on his way to assuming his position in Lhasa, [...] In a memorial dated February 12, 1904, he proposed that the Assistant High Commissioner’s office be transferred from Lhasa, its customary post, to Chamdo, which is roughly equidistant from Lhasa and Chengdu, so that Gui Lin could “support coordinated actions on the ground.” [...] Criticizing not only the inability of native chieftains to suppress ubiquitous brigandry in the region but also the oppressive practices of monasteries in Litang and Batang, You Tai clearly wanted Gui Lin in Chamdo. [...] Submitting his own memorial on the subject, Xi Liang also argued that having a senior official stationed in Kham would restore social order, provide better protection for foreign missionaries, and allow merchants and official communications to pass through the region. [...] In March 1904 (GX 30.2), the court approved the memorials submitted by Xi Liang and You Tai and ordered Gui Lin, who had been waiting in Chengdu, to depart for his new posting in Chamdo. --  love.wh  10:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Questionable edits
I have reverted your series of large-scale changes. Some of your changes were probably right, but many that were not. Take your change to the lead sentence for example, where you change it from an "uprising of Khampas" to an "uprising by the Buddhist monastery". Where do you get this from? Coleman says in his introductory paragraph (p.216):

There is no mention of any Buddhist monastery here. But plenty of description of what Feng Quan was doing. You really need to read this source again with an open mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure which source has prompted you to change "murder" to "assassination". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)