Talk:British expedition to Tibet

Page move
This page is being proposed to be moved to British invasion of Tibet (1904) to coincide with the 1950-1951 invasion of Tibet. If there are any comments, please join us at Talk:Tibet. Benjwong (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - In a similar discussion we are hoping to move both the article People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) and this article under the name "invasion" for consistency. Many of the points have been compared at Talk:Tibet, Talk:Tibet, Talk:People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951), Talk:People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951). Please vote below. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - but not for reasons related to other articles. The opening sentence of this article states that it was an invasion, and it has stated it as an invasion since the article was created.  It is also the more common name.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - just in case no one reads any further, it's important to point out that it is most certainly not the most common name. The most common name, in English, which I feel compelled to mention is the only relevant language to this discussion, is Younghusband Expedition.  Yunfeng (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. It was an invasion, but I think "expedition" is more descriptive.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Call it what English does: Younghusband expedition to Tibet. We are not here to score political points. We are perfectly free to state that it was an invasion in the text; almost all of the articles listed under expeditionary force are invasions of somebody. (Some of them, as here, did not intend conquest.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What's it called in English? I would support a change to "Younghusband Expedition to Tibet".  Comparison with the PLA invasion of Tibet is beyond irrelevant.  Yunfeng (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here are some statistics so far according to books.google.
 * 251 book sources call it "British invasion of tibet" here.
 * 144 book sources call it "British expedition to tibet" here.
 * 79 book sources call it "Younghusband expedition to tibet" here.
 * 1 book source called it "British expedition of tibet" here.


 * As compared to:
 * 169 book source called it "Communist invasion of tibet" here
 * 3 book source called it "PLA invasion of tibet" here
 * 2 book source called it "PRC invasion of tibet" here
 * 1 book source called it "People's liberation army invasion of tibet" here


 * If you want to just go with the English name and statistics as of today without discussing further details, this is it. Someone please double check the stats. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, there is the "Younghusband expedition into Tibet"-- 17 book sources, the "British expedition into Tibet"- - 35 book sources, among others. An interesting example of WP:POINT, this. John Nevard (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article ought to have the date in the title so (IMO) wouldn't British invasion of Tibet (1903-1904) or British expedition to Tibet (1903-1904) be more appropriate? Pahari Sahib  03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is our convention to avoid parenthetical disambiguators where we can, because they are harder to search for and link to. If there were more than one British expedition to Tibet, we might have to; but even then I would prefer Younghusband. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Younghusband might be an explorer, but he wasn't exploring to tibet. He was assigned there according to numerous sources. The expedition/invasion does not belong to him. Benjwong (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about explorers. Expedition is an entirely different word; the typical head of an expeditionary force would be General Black Jack Pershing of the AEF. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most common name in English is the current one. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. 251 is greater than 144. Benjwong (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 251 book sources call it "British invasion of tibet" here.
 * 144 book sources call it "British expedition to tibet" here.


 * Oppose: The common English name is Younghusband Expedition, and the page should be moved there instead, per 253 hits on google scholar and 643 hits on google books. Yaan (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like how you purposely avoided checking "British invasion of Tibet" on scholar.google. Which generated a whooping 10,100 hits.  This dwarfed every else. Benjwong (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange, I get only 42. Yaan (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And, I get 251 for Younghusband Expedition. It's really clear that that is the common name, and WP:name says that we should use the most common name.  Yunfeng (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand, I got 653 on Google books. Ben, I understand that for some reason this is an emotional issue for you, but you are wrong about what this event is commonly called in English.  Also, I'm not sure that you understand that the word 'expedition' in this context means a military operation, not going hiking.  Yunfeng (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I see the double quotes were needed for scholar.google. That would explain how my hits got so high. It is fair to go with the most common name then.  If I am hassling for a vote, is because the expedition title sounds like a picnic.  It's almost as bad as Peaceful liberation or Mao Zedong's expedition to tibet. We'll have to take it as is. Benjwong (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think the current name is more prevalent in English. Indeed in many ways the "Younghusband Expedition" is more common. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Tibetans and Pro-Tibet websites call it an invasion, English books call it an invasion, there's even a BBC Radio report that calls it an invasion.Also, hits on Google Books and Google Scholar:*::"British invasion of Tibet" - 245 on Google Books, 42 on Google Scholar*::"British expedition to Tibet" - 134 on Google Books, 31 on Google Scholar--Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft Oppose. It was an invasion, but based on reading Younghusband's own account, invasion implies a level of competence that didn't exist. I suppose boneheaded, ill-considered, mindless military campaign is too POV? ;) Longchenpa (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If nothing else it's too long. Maybe "Younghusband's Folly" would be a nice title. ;-) --Gimme danger (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a suspicion that our differing search numbers have something to do with placing of quotation marks. The general history books that I've read have called the event the "Younghusband Expedition". This search (with quotes) gave me 644 hits, with two books entitled "The Younghusband Expedition" or some derivative in the first thirty hits. Invasion is a bit dramatic for what actually happened. Plus, it's short and eliminates the need for a date range. Gimme danger (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Rather embarassing to have overlooked that. You're quite right. Link here. John Nevard (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I had a dollar for everytime I've done that... :-) Gimme danger (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as above-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per my comment above. "Younghusband Expedition" is the common English name, so it should be used according to naming conventions. Even if it does sound like a picnic. Gimme danger (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know this is over now, but maybe a comparison with Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions or those of the Yongle Emperor would be helpful here ? Yaan (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of genocidal Brits. Nutmegger (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DalaiLama-13 lg.jpg
The image Image:DalaiLama-13 lg.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move 2

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

Not moved since there is no consensus. The previous discussion had the same result but a much more active discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

British expedition to Tibet → Younghusband Expedition — "Younghusband Expedition" seems to be the most common name per google books ("British", "Younghusband"). Besides, the current name might be ambiguous, for example there were several (peaceful) British expeditions to the north side of Mount Everest] in the 1920s, and a failed expedition under some Macaulay in 1886, I think. Yaan (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is possible that the article was named because of the following sources:
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This may well be the case. My point was not that "British expedition to Tibet" must refer to something else. My points were that 1. the topic of this article is more commonly referred to as "Younghusband expedition" 2. "British expedition to Tibet" can also refer to something else. Yaan (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Google Scholar, "British expedition to Tibet" and "British invasion of Tibet" have 12,300 results, "Younghusband Expedition" has 3,500, "British expedition to Tibet in 1903-1904" has 124, "British expedition to Tibet in 1903" and "British expedition to Tibet (1903)" has 2,730, "British expedition to Tibet in 1904" and "British expedition to Tibet (1904)" have 3,280, "British invasion of Tibet in 1903-1904" has 85, "British invasion of Tibet in 1903" and "British invasion of Tibet (1903)" have 2,000, and "British invasion of Tibet in 1904" and "British invasion of Tibet (1904)" has 2,600.
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This may well be the case. My point was not that "British expedition to Tibet" must refer to something else. My points were that 1. the topic of this article is more commonly referred to as "Younghusband expedition" 2. "British expedition to Tibet" can also refer to something else. Yaan (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Google Scholar, "British expedition to Tibet" and "British invasion of Tibet" have 12,300 results, "Younghusband Expedition" has 3,500, "British expedition to Tibet in 1903-1904" has 124, "British expedition to Tibet in 1903" and "British expedition to Tibet (1903)" has 2,730, "British expedition to Tibet in 1904" and "British expedition to Tibet (1904)" have 3,280, "British invasion of Tibet in 1903-1904" has 85, "British invasion of Tibet in 1903" and "British invasion of Tibet (1903)" have 2,000, and "British invasion of Tibet in 1904" and "British invasion of Tibet (1904)" has 2,600.
 * This may well be the case. My point was not that "British expedition to Tibet" must refer to something else. My points were that 1. the topic of this article is more commonly referred to as "Younghusband expedition" 2. "British expedition to Tibet" can also refer to something else. Yaan (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Google Scholar, "British expedition to Tibet" and "British invasion of Tibet" have 12,300 results, "Younghusband Expedition" has 3,500, "British expedition to Tibet in 1903-1904" has 124, "British expedition to Tibet in 1903" and "British expedition to Tibet (1903)" has 2,730, "British expedition to Tibet in 1904" and "British expedition to Tibet (1904)" have 3,280, "British invasion of Tibet in 1903-1904" has 85, "British invasion of Tibet in 1903" and "British invasion of Tibet (1903)" have 2,000, and "British invasion of Tibet in 1904" and "British invasion of Tibet (1904)" has 2,600.


 * Now, I agree with Yaan that this article should be renamed as it is ambiguous and that there were other British expeditions to Tibet; therefore, I feel that this page needs to be renamed and moved. And, as "Younghusband Expedition" appears to be the most common term for the event used by scholars, I Support the merger. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I only get about 285 google scholar hits for "Younghusband expedition", and 40 for "british expedition to Tibet". Yaan (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I Oppose the page move, but I am happy that the page move is done with discussion, rather than unilaterally. I oppose it because the article's present name is more prevalent, and was the term used during the time which the event occurred. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion is the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? I wonder, though, from where you get the impression that "British expedition to Tibet" is more prevalent than Younghusband expedition? Yaan (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Younghusband had several expeditions that he is known for thus this move would be far more confusing than the current name. Also, the expedition was not his personal expedition but a Government sanctioned expedition. Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you give some examples for other expeditions that have been called "Younghusband expedition"? As to whether "Younghusband expedition" would be more conusing than the current name: Of the 40 google scholar hits for "British expedition to Tibet", only six unambigously refer to to the 1903/04 expedition. Eleven seem to refer to the travels of George Bogle, two seem to refer to an expedition in 1922/23 (probably not the one that went to the north face of Mt. Everest), one refers to some expedition in 1910 (though maybe this is a confusion with the one in 1904). 20 hits are a bit unclear about which expedition they refer to.
 * To what degree Younghusband's expedition was authorized by the British government and not Younghusband's private venture is a point of debate, I think. Yaan (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead paragraph
The new material in the lead paragraph is really awkward. The sentence is poorly written and the information is incorrect. In addition, the link to the 1904 Convention between Great Britain and Tibet was replaced, such edit cannot be justified. You should not remove relevant and sourced material; the older version is re-stalled, let's talk about changes here first. Tibetsnow (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have made a complete revert on generic claims. Worse still you complain that 'the sentence is poorly written'. Examine the reverted text you apparently think an exemplary instance of well-written English:-

(a) ‘trades’ is never used in English as a plural in such context. ‘Trades’ as a plural is recent usage referring to the discrete activities of brokering agents on the stock exchanges of this world, or in children’s games. In this paragraph it is twice used solecistically.

(b) ‘the British India’ is not normal English, it is glaringly ungainly. Native English speakers do not use the definite article before ‘British’ in such compounds

(c) ‘Conquer by force’ is a pleonasm. ‘Conquer’ in military conquests means winning through the application of force.

(d) ‘half surrounding’ is not idiomatic English: in fact, it is an abuse of the word ‘surround’ which means to encircle completely. You cannot encircle something half-way. Next we will be having people write Russia half surrounds Europe because its territories are contiguous with countries to the West.

(e) ‘Himalayan kingdom, used twice in the lead, is wildly inappropriate for Tibet, which was separated in the south by the Himalayas from the Himalayan kingdoms of Sikkim, Bhutan, Ladakh, Mustang, Nepal etc. Tibet stands on a plateau extending far north of the Himalayas.

(f) ‘The British government, during the most part of the nineteenth century,’. It is normal to place the temporal clause first in such cases, as my edit did, so that the ‘British government’ subject links directly to the main clause.

(g) But near the end of the century the British government attempted to deal with Tibet directly, however.' Using ‘but’ to open a sentence is frowned on in standard books on prose composition. To so use it, and then follow on with ‘however’ cannot stand as appropriate language for an encyclopedia article. It is colloquial and amateurish.

(h) ‘quell’ is used solecistically in para 2. ‘Quell’ means ‘to suppress,’ or ‘put an end to by the exercise of overwhelming force’. In English you cannot ‘quell’ an influence. You cannot ‘quell’ an influence that is suspected (‘possible’ but that may not exist (‘possible’). You may ‘forestall’, ‘nip in the bud’, ‘thwart’, ‘impede’ etc. etc. but as written, the sentence is gawkishly malapropos. ‘the’ before ‘Russian influence’ is also not correct English.
 * ’A secondary reason for the expedition was to quell the possible Russian influence in Tibet.’

(i)‘From Kampa Dzong’ is unlinked, as are Curzon and many other names in the lead.

(j) The sentence ‘From Kampa Dzong’ technically requires a new paragraph. Instead it leaps into the narrative without any contextual clarification, surprising the reader because no attempt has been made to speak of the way the expedition was mustered, or when, and Kampa Dzong being unlinked makes this obscure.

(k) People are ‘gunned down’ by troops, not by rifles or machine guns. The confusion in the instrumental uses of ‘by’ as agent or means creates an ugly ambiguity because it creates the silly impression that guns are agents as well as being instruments.

(l) ‘Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet (1904)’. There is no problem in linking to the text. I wished to return to that in the main body of the text, since I thought it inappropriate to the lead. I replaced it with a perfectly good RS which gives secondary source details on the convention.

If editing here is so suspicious, careless of close analysis, linguistic style, quality of sources and devoid of WP:AGF, it is difficult for an editor like myself to see how efforts to improve even the most straightforward copy-editing are worthwhile. The habit of blank reverting to a clearly defective text, withpout evaluating the many improvements made to it, on the grounds that one dislikes just one or two things, is characteristic of WP:OWN. I will wait for you to re-examine the points I have outlined above and correct the lead, which is patently unacceptable for articles aspiring to wiki's encyclopedic goals. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit that you improved the quality of the writing and my comment on your sentence is wrong. However, there are two big problems with the changes you made; they are highlighted in the following text. “Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India at the time, and who thought both that Chinese suzerainty 'a farce' and that Russian influence in Tibet, despite assurances from the Russian gfovernment that it had no interests there,[1] was to be forestalled, ordered the invasion in 1903 in order put relations on an official footing, and transform Tibet into a buffer state between Russia and Nepal.[2]” This article is not about Lord Curzon’s view on the issue thus it is irrelevant. The 1904 invasion of Tibet is about establishing trade routes to exploit Tibetan resources, something the British did to all of Tibet’s neighbors - Nepal, Sikkim, Burma, Bhutan and China. I can find you plenty of evidence from books published by British officers themselves to support this.
 * Regarding the 1904 Convention, you said: “I wished to return to that in the main body of the text, since I thought it inappropriate to the lead. I replaced it with a perfectly good RS which gives secondary source details on the convention.” The outcome of the invasion was the Convention thus I see no problem including it in the lead, especially it is just a link. What is a perfectly good RS to you, might mean something else to others. Since the original material is available there is no reason to go to a secondary source unless you want to push a particular interpretation of the event. Tibetsnow (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You 'win'. Your redraft only reintroduces further poor English ('During the most part of the nineteenth century': one 'never, never' writes 'During the most part of' etc). What are RS is determined by Wiki policy not editor's whims. The books I cited are RS, and one cannot exercise the unilateral freedom of saying 'I like this one, I don't like that one.' Lord Curzon's views, given he was overseer of the operation are important, since his dismissal of Chinese claims was indicative of a general outlook by the British imperial caste who determined on an invasion.etc.etc. etc. To counter this by saying it was about 'trade', and not also about creating a 'buffer state' against Russia, is to ignore the best historical sources. It was about both etc.etc.etc. I see there can be no productive editing here, so I withdraw. Editing in such ernvironments leads nowhere but to conflict, which is a waste of time.Nishidani (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last note. The change doesn't change anything. 'For the most part of the nineteenth century' is not correct English. 'For the most part' is acceptable as an independent phrase, but it cannot be followed by 'of.'Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether China holds sovereignty over Tibet, it is not the subject here thus Lord Curzon's views about it should not be included. Trade was the main purpose for the invasion this point can be verified by Lord Curzon's own words reported in Bell’s book. And Younghusband’s communication can also verify this point. In his letter to the Dalai Lama he said the following in the opening: “I have been sent by his Excellency the Viceroy of India to inquire into and settle certain frontier trade questions which have been the subject of correspondence between the British Chinese government.” (The British Invasion of Tibet, page 9) The British concern of possible Russian influence is included in the article.  Tibetsnow (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither Younghusband's reports nor Curzon's views in his papers are to be cited directly, exept through reliable secondary sources that cite them in context, providing a retrospective historical analysis of the period. To draw deductions directly from primary sources is to risk engaging in WP:OR Secondary sources consistently deny what you argue. Dawa Norbu, China's Tibet policy, Routledge 2001 pp.169ff. 'Throughout their rule in India, the chief British interest in Tibet was how to maintain the security of the 2,000 mile long northern frontier of their Empire in India. Tibet was essentially conceived as a buffer between India and other powers that neighbour Tibet- China and Russia.'p.172. Both Russian and English imperial interests lay in 'neutralizing Tibet'. There was nothing in Tibet resource- or trade-wise for Britain to justify any enormous, logistically impossible attempt to reduce it to colonial status. Insistance on 'trade' was the technique employed to negotiate treaties which then were phrased in such a way as to establish political interests in legal terms that would give Britain the means to neutralize Tibet and secure it as a buffer state. One could cite dozens of books to underline the point.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources on the expedition
British expedition to tibet 1904

Landon

Younghusband

Waddell

Worldwide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer, 1908

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1905

Graham Sandberg, 1904

Papers relating to Tibet, Issues 2-4

Saturday Review, 1904

Saturday Review, 1904

The Independent, 1904

Candler

Hedin, Trans-Himalya, Vol. 1 Hedin, Trans-Himalya, Vol. 1

The World Today, 1904

The World Today, 1904

Hearst's International, 1904

The Indian Medical Gazette, 1904

La Vérité sur le Congo, 1905

The Nation, 1904

Chambers Encyclopedia 1901

Chambers Encyclopedia 1901

Landon (archive.org)

http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/opentibet.pdf

Papers relating to Tibet, Issue 1

Waddell, Lhasa and its Mysteries

Secondary source

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bwi-sUw5Z24C&pg=PA14&dq=guru+britain+enemies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CdGtUNHsMoTT0wGA6ICICg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=guru%20britain%20enemies&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC) added labels -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Tibetan General at Yetung?
added some unsourced passages a long time ago, which referred to a "Tibetan General at Yetung". Somebody later changed Yetung to Yadong County. But I still can't find any source for this. Does anybody know? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Turning into British protectorate
An IP editor recently removed the comment about Younghusband turning Tibet into a "British protectorate". Even though it was an improper deletion of sourced content, I essentially agree with it. I think it was a careless remark in the source. Other scholars say something weaker, like "seemed to turn it into a British protectorate". Alex McKay (Tibet and the British Raj) has a thorough analysis of the various forces at play. But almost everybody has missed a very crucial point, viz., the Chinese ambans were still there when Younghusband left Lhasa. Nobody asked them to leave! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I should qualify the remark about Alex McKay. His PhD thesis that showed up in web searches talks about British Raj officials wanting to establish a British protectorate, even though the British government in Whitehall overruled them:
 * But the published version of the book omits all mention of "protectorate". I presume it was considered speculative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But the published version of the book omits all mention of "protectorate". I presume it was considered speculative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Lesser breeds without the law
Does the Charles Allen book Duel in the Snows, page 302, cited as note 50, actually quote Younghusband using that phrase, or does the author Allen use it editorially to characterize Younghusband's general attitude toward peoples of South and Central Asia?

The way written in this page, it implies that Allen is quoting a phrase used by Younghusband. Possible, since the poem by Kipling from which it is taken was published 1897. Was Younghusband given to quoting Kipling? I think that this needs to be clarified, since to present it as a direct summation of Younghusband's views in a quote directly from the man when it is not is editorializing on the part of this article.

If, taken the second way, it is Charles Allen's choice to quote from Kipling as a way of characterizing his own [perhaps entirely correct] appraisal of Younghusband, that needs to be made clear.

It would still be jarring even at that, since contempt for Britain's subject peoples was not what Kipling intended by the phrase, and this is wholly clear when one reads the poem "recessional" even today. It is a call to Britons not to put too much faith in the worldly power of their empire and arms as compared to their faith in the Christian God, and is full of Biblical allusions including the division of the world into Jew and Gentile, with the former expanded to include all who have faith in said God's law [including Christians] and the latter to include all others, a fairly common Christian trope even at a time when Gentile was also used in a more secular way to distinguish all non-Jewish people in ethnic/cultural terms. This would all have been understood without reflection by his audience at the time.

In that context, he is casting his call to Britons in the same mold as a prophet would have called to the Israelites, to not be like those who are without the Law, the heathen hearts who place their faith solely in "reeking tube and iron shard" [guns and bayonets, more or less]. The most likely inference then as now is that he was comparing Israel's ancient enemies like the Assyrians to some of the peoples he deemed menacing in his own time, whom he might mean to at least metaphorically suggest had been corrupted by pagan values. The usual take is that he meant the Russians, or even more likely the Germans. The Russians were Britain's chief imperial rivals and in that era considered to be excessively authoritarian, violent and cruel even by period standards, to their subjects and others. [I do not necessarily accept this characterization, but various anti-Semitic pogroms and events in Russia's wars in the Balkans had reinforced this stereotype in the British media and popular mind.] The Germans, not yet necessarily seen as an enemy, might also have been on Kipling's mind just the same, and the "reeking tube and iron shard" reference is often taken to be an allusion to Bismarck's famous speech and policy of invoking "blood and iron" as the solution to international problems. And to the current Kaiser's increasingly bombastic mannerisms.

The tl;dr would be: If Younghusband actually quoted Kipling to describe his perceived superiority over local peoples, then he mis-cited Kipling but at least it would be both an accurate quote from him and a correct depiction of his views. If it was Charles Allen quoting Kipling then that needs to be made clear, since Allen is the one mis-citing Kipling as a way to sum up what may be his correct appraisal of Younghusband. The distinctions are not trivial. Random noter (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the phrase was a reference to the Frontier tribes, but it is totally WP:UNDUE here. I removed it. I guess this page was written by some fan of Charles Allen. It needs to be rewritten entirely. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image description
The text of the original image is " La Conquête du Thibet: Entrevue d'officers anglais avec les Thibétains" which only refers to English officers and Tibetans. Please note that adding your own interpretation to an image is WP:OR. (In other words, you should self revert.) --RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The costumes of this people are clearly not Tibetan ones, as all photo and texts around the event (and this article) said, they encounter Ambans, Dalai-Lama already fleed in Mongolia and Beijing when they come. The short catching sentence at the back of a French satiric newspaper far from the event. The drawer were for sure there. Picture is in an illustrated adding of the newspaper Popolon (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to push this but we should generally stick to what is stated in the source. If the caption says Tibetans, then that's what we should use. An alternative, if you're convinced that the caption is incorrect, would be to use a different image. RegentsPark (comment) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps simply change it to read "British officers negotiating in Tibet" to avoid dispute? --Wengier (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is pretty obvious they are wearing Qing official headwear. IMO omitting the object is a good compromise here. Not sure I fully buy the assertion that we cannot deviate from original text due to OR. Should photo of "Mission Accomplished" banner say Iraq War was "accomplished?" Should picture of propaganda repeat propagandist position? --Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With images, we need to be careful what ethnicity we attach to people because we don't know who they were or were supposed to represent. For example, the current description (which is different from the French caption) says "Chinese ambans" but, even if the dress is consistent with what an Amban wore, we don't know whether the ethnicity of the person was Chinese or Tibetan. Needless to say, this is already wandering into fraught territory and it is best to be as precise as possible. I like the idea proposed by Wengier because it doesn't contain any conclusions of our own. RegentsPark (comment) 13:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually changed it to "Qing ambans" (from the earlier "Manchu ambans") because their ethnicity is not important here. But the fact that they were imperial officials, rather than Tibetan officials, is quite significant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Russia
given that Russia hated Britain at the time, who did they support? (China?) 31.104.16.148 (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Expedition to Tibet" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expedition_to_Tibet&redirect=no Expedition to Tibet] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)