Talk:Qinghai/Archive 1

Contradiction to article on Amdo
This article rewrites the pre-PRC history of today's PRC province Qinghai from the PRC viewpoint. This is not neutral. Please help to improve the article by comparing it to the article Amdo, which displays the history of this region from a more neutral perspective. Before the PRC took over sovereignty in approx. 1955, this region was Tibetan, although it was constantly challenged by Mongols, in Qing dynasty by Manchu and finally by warlords, sometimes claiming to represent the Republic of China. However, under Yuan and Qing dynasty, under Mongol and Manchu supremacy, both, Mongols and Manchu had a "priest and patron" agreement with the Dalai Lama, recognizing his supremacy in religious issues. Also due to the prevailing Tibetan dialect spoken there, it should be seen as Tibetan during most of historical times, not part of China proper. This has changed only after 1955, and extremely in 2000, when the railway was opened and Han-Chinese settlers soon outnumbered the Tibetan and other ethnic groups. Therefore, this region has a primarily Tibetan history. Helpful for improving this article and making it consistent with the article Amdo are the following resources: I can only help with a few corrections and will indicate the sources, however there seems to be a major effort necessary and I hope for your support. Please state your view here, too. --Admini Max  05:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe
 * Huber, T. (ed). 2002. Amdo Tibetans in Transition: Society and Culture in the Post-Mao Era, Brill Academic Publishers. The Netherlands. ISBN 90-04-12596-5
 * University of Cambridge. Mongolia & Inner Asia Studies Unit (2002). Inner Asia, Volume 4, Issues 1-2. The White Horse Press for the Mongolia and Inner Asia Studies Unit at the University of Cambridge
 * Laird, T., The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama. Grove Press. 2006, ISBN 0802118275
 * Gruschke, Andreas. The Cultural Monuments of Tibet’s Outer Provinces: Amdo, 2 vols., White Lotus Press, Bangkok 2001 ISBN 974-7534-59-2
 * Robert B. Ekvall. "Cultural Relations on the Kansu-Tibetan Border". Retrieved 2008-04-15.
 * Actually, I think both articles contain contents that are/were somewhat not neutral, at least before I tried to edit. While this article might contain somewhat pro-PRC content, the Amdo article seemed to also contain some Tibetan-centric contents. You cannot really say one is more neutral than the other. In case of history (which I'm primarily interested in), you cannot immediately conclude that Qinghai/Amdo was Tibetan or Chinese or so for the whole period before the mid-20th century. For example, various Chinese dynasties had controlled portions of Qinghai before the 20th century, whereas Tibetan regimes also sometimes controlled large portions (occasionally all) of Qinghai when they were strong, such as during the Tibetan Empire in the 8th century (they had even once captured the Chinese capital Chang'an). But this is not always the case. For example, since the 1720s during the Qing Dynasty, Qinghai became a separate territory under direct Qing control and outside the control of Dalai Lama. It was also not part of China proper; instead, it was largely a Mongol region during that period, and before that it had also been controlled by independent Mongol regimes such as Khoshut. The part I edited mainly dealt with the period of Yuan Dynasty, and at that time most of Qinghai was indeed considered as a Tibetan region by the Mongol court, and administrated as part of such under Yuan administrative rule. In other words, Qinghai was considered (and administrated) as part of Tibetan region (known as Amdo) at that time, but for the sake of neutrality this also does not mean Qinghai could be always seen as Tibetan during even most of the historical times. Qinghai was also controlled by the warlord Ma family during most of the first half of the 20th century, who had defeated the Tibetan army from Lhasa several times. Thus, from the respective of history it would be quite inaccurate to say Qinghai should be (generally) seen as Tibetan, and consider it as a fact only changed after the mid-20th century. We should try to seek real neutrality, instead of going perhaps from one bias to another (bias), which would not exactly result in the improvement of the article. Thanks for understanding. --Chinyin (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about population figures
How can Xining population be 5.6 millions and Qinghai total population 5.29 millions?
 * I was wondering the same thing. Is it because they are "squeezed between a long valley"? Walkerma 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe Xining has such a big area that it spills into neighboring Gansu province, so that there's urban area that's part of Xining, but not in Qinghai. Either that or there's a serious typo. I searched Xining population in Google and this link provides a more credible figure of 700,000: http://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/qinghai/xining/. I assume the figure of 1.1 million would not be for Xining city itself but for the county Xining is in, as 7,671 sq km is a huge area for a city of less than a million. I assume the urban figure would be Xining's population plus any other developments in the county that are considered urban. I could find something more official, but I'll leave that for someone else. 03:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My (old) lonely planet offers the figure of 1.1 million. The theory about the city 'spilling' into Gansu doesn't make sense; it is a) too far and b) Lanzhou is a big city on its own accord. I will change the figure to 1.1 million because leaving the figure as it is is pretty rediculous 58.67.16.99 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Tourism
I find the text in that section largely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It reads like it was copied straight out of a tour book. Please, change or cut down in length. Awolf002 11:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

pre-1724
My impression was that Qinghai was controlled by Khoshuud (and maybe some Zuungar) Mongols, not Tibetans, immediatly before 1724. Any takers? Yaan (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture Section
I think that the claim made that Qinghai was "vital" to the European Reformation and Renaissance (allegedly by transporting compasses and printing presses on the Silk Road) is dubious at best. As far as I am aware, Gutenberg independently invented the printing press. That, and the Silk Road (which was largely a shadow of its former self in the 16th century) mostly ran through Gansu and Ningxia, not Qinghai (which anyway was a part of Tibet at the time). I recommend to have this sentence deleted, unless some credible sources can be cited. This line sounds like either original research, or propaganda from a local department of tourism. Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) √—in the 10 th century period of the northern song dynasty ，government opened up the“qinghai way“to steer clear of western xia territory, which then become a new trade route. Tianshui ，Xining ，V initiate city ，and the middle piece of sol garage basin were all on the silk road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standing72 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)