Talk:Tibet/Archive 6

No new topics have recently been started on here, and the only recent messages have been replying to long gone topics, so I have archived the talk page which is now here Talk:Tibet/Archive 5. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
I with no doubts reverted this kind of vandalism-liked edits. Removing the added citation(s) is probably regarded as vandalism. - 219.73.11.127 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the user who removed your edits, but you are incorrect in your vandalism comments. Your edits were not all sourced for a start. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

-PLEASE-! Just tell me which part of my edit is unsourced! Oh, BTW, is this incorrect in the first place if someone reverts my edits including and ? --219.73.11.127 04:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to go, but by all means I will answer you tomorrow. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 04:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to go! Kindly note that I will be glad to add citations if you find out if ANY of my edits is unsourced. - 219.73.11.127 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is sourced does not allow it to be included. Sources must be verifiable and reliable.  See WP:VERIFY. Propaganda literature does not fall into this category. --Strothra 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What propaganda literature? Are these ? Point it out!219.73.11.127 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean Grunfeld? please note that Grunfeld sources have been widely used on wikipedia. And note that the book name is already listed on Reference [1]. I dont need to add book name everytime.219.73.11.127 05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be why I reverted my previous comment. --Strothra 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So? Could you please revert your own edits, so that I will not fall into the 3RR trap.219.73.11.127 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that you'll need to gain consensus before adding any additional information - I don't frequent this article or this topic, but will oppose any unilateral additions against consensus at this time. The information you are attempting to add is disputed by multiple established editors. Please propose the specific sourced information you'd like to add on this talk page (or at least any new sources). Also, refrain from calling established editors "vandals." --Strothra 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You dont know what you are talking about. I didn't add information here ! I added citation per request and you reverted. I corrected factual inaccuracy (Qing Dynasty being overthrown after the ROC was established) and you reverted. Secondly, point out what established consensus that I go against? Are you saying wikipedia editors shall claim authority over sources like Grunfeld? According to wikipedia guidelines which(and How) editors are classified as "established" and which are not? FYI, I have already forwarded this POV case to another admin who is a well-known editor on Tibet. Have a nice day! 219.73.11.127 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly your edits have been reverted on every occasion by other editors of the article. You cannot force edits into an article against consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. Further, your IP address has a history of policy violations making it difficult, if not impossible to assume good faith. You can easily remedy this by registering and forming a positive contribution history. --Strothra 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, it is you who still have not shown me what exact consensus on Talk:Tibet I have violated! Try take a look carefully of my whole History of Edits on other wikipedia articles before you make false accusation. 219.73.11.127 05:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, for example, Strothra, what kind of bias you've seen in my edit here 219.73.11.127 06:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Grunfeld's book has attracted considerable criticism as being biased - in particular in: History as Propaganda, Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China, by John Powers, Oxford University Press, 2004 - see, for example, the interesting reviews of The Making of Modern Tibet on Amazon.com. It's statements should therefore, I believe, be treated with appropriate caution. John Hill 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. I've noticed that from some of the searches I've been doing since I took interest in this little edit war. --Strothra 05:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have few questions for you all. Firstly, I read John Powers's book one and a half yrs ago, he also points out there are also many pro-Tibet bias among the Tibetan sources, including Warren Smith's "Tibetan Nation", Tibet.com, human rights organizations....etc. However, I see there are plenty of similar stuff long quoted on Tibet. Should we also remove those? Aren't these double standards?

Secondly, for example, on the case of PLA military operation in 1951, using the words "PLA entered" and "PLA invaded" are both POV, thats why I use the compromising "controversially invaded". Isn't it constructive? Why removed?

Thirdly, being heavily criticised is not a prerequisite for classification of "Bias". We can not just remove sources simply because editors don't like it. Am I right? FYI, Grunfeld's sources have existed on Tibet for yrs, all along no editors has ever proved that what exact account from him is biases?

For example, JH, what kind of bias you've seen in my edit here.

Generally you cannot claim one's sources on Tibet(e.g. Grundeld's) as bias just because John Powers says so, you have to prove by showing us the challenging/rebutting sources. If Grunfeld claims China military operation as "Liberation", then of course it is biased, but he is telling us some historical facts/events taking place on which date, then of course we should not revert with no proof.

Honestly I smell heavy POV here.219.73.11.127 06:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to 219.73.11.127
Dear 219.73.11.127:

You have given Grunfeld as the authority for the following passage in the article:


 * On 1 July 1914, London ordered Henry McMahon, their chief negotiator, not to sign solely with the Tibetans whose legal status is disputed, Tibetan representatives, however, secretly signed under the pressure of McMahon on 3 July. The pact that was signed was somewhat different from the one initialed in April and the Chinese representatives were not permitted in the room when the treaty was signed and was not informed of the changes which includes the details regarding the British annexation of territory ."

The current Encyclopædia Britannica gives quite a different slant on these same events


 * "McMahon Line
 * frontier between Tibet and Assam in British India, negotiated between Tibet and Great Britain at the end of the Simla Conference (October 1913–July 1914) and named after the chief British negotiator, Sir Henry McMahon. It runs from the eastern border of Bhutan along the crest of the Himalayas until it reaches the great bend in the Brahmaputra River where that river emerges from its Tibetan course into the Assam Valley.
 * Delegates of the Chinese republican government also attended the Simla Conference, but they refused to sign the principal agreement on the status and boundaries of Tibet on the ground that Tibet was subordinate to China and had not the power to make treaties. The Chinese maintained this position until the frontier controversy with independent India led to the Sino-Indian hostilities of October–November 1962. In that conflict the Chinese forces occupied Indian territory south of the McMahon Line but subsequently withdrew after a ceasefire had been achieved."

Now, I have no way of telling whether the McMahon Pact" was really signed in secret and "the Chinese representatives were not permitted in the room" or whether "they refused to sign the principal agreement on the status and boundaries of Tibet on the ground that Tibet was subordinate to China and had not the power to make treaties."

There is obviously a serious difference of opinion here (serious enough, apparently, to have led to war between China and India). So, it would seem to me that these differences should be discussed in a balanced way and both positions duly noted in the article.

Oh, and by the way, please use my proper name, John Hill, and not initials or other abbreviations. I make a point of always taking personal responsibility for what I say on the Wikipedia and signing everything with my real name. If I make mistakes I am happy to correct them or apologise if and when necessary. Sincerely, John Hill 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John,

Please forgive if using initial is an offense. Encyclopedia Britannica is an encyclopedia, it means it's also secondary sources like wiki. Try to read word by word, EB's content does not say the Convention was signed openly by all three parties in the single room. It means EB doesn't, at least technically, deny/rebut any Grundfeld "claim", and two sources can of course co-exist with no problems.

Here are Grunfeld account, which I found no Bias, in a more detailed way, p67:

"Even the signing was shrouded in controversy. The initialing took place in April 1914. On 1 July the India office in London cabled McMahon with instructions that if the Chinese refused to sign the agreement, he should abandon the talks, promising the Tibetans 'that if the Chinese aggression continues Tibet may count on diplomatic support of His Majesty's Government and on any assistance which we can give in supplying munitions of war'[note54]...(New paragraph) The following day McMahon cabled back that the Tibetans would be satisfied with the initialing only. London immediately responded with an order to McMahon not to sign solely with the Tibetans, but to act as instructed in the 1 July cable. This reply, however, reached Simla too late, for McMahon had gone ahead with the signing on 3 July. The pact that was signed was somewhat different from the one initialed in April. Chen was not permitted in the room when the treaty was signed and was not informed of the changes" [Note 54: Quoted by Grunfeld from W.F. Van Eskelen, "Simla Convention and McMahon Line", RCAJ, 1967]

Grunfeld provided more details, instead of opposite viewpoints. Even pro-Tibet source (as John Powers claims) like Warren Smith's "Tibetan Nation" recognizes that the Chinese knew nothing about the secret Tibeto-UK agreement on the boundaries. Interestingly, even the British government itself initially rejected McMahon's bilateral accord as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention which prevent any foreign state from signing treaties solely with the Tibetans. [Goldstein, 1989, p80]

Isn't it Secret?- 219.73.11.127 07:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear User (I don't want to use the number - it sounds too dreadful): Thank you for your detailed reply which makes the whole issue much clearer. Still, one wonders how much of the controversy was due to the Chinese representative being excluded or whether he (they?) refused to sign? It seems to me there is still a clear difference of opinion here. I don't have time to research this at the moment (nor do I have easy access to the necessary research material), but I think that maybe the passage should be very carefully examined and perhaps rewritten. The Wikipedia article should obviously be worded so the British, Indian, Tibetan, and Chinese points of view are fairly dealt with so that it doesn't become an on-going point of contention. One wonders how the positions on this issue are described nowadays by the Chinese and Indian Governments as well as the Tibetan Government-in-exile? Regards, John Hill 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TGIE mentioned nothing about the exact signing of the Simla draft as well as the status of the secret agreement, and the government-in-exile is itself hardly an NPOV source. It is however worth nothing that in 1947, when Lhasa affirmed that Britain's promise of militarily helping Tibet gain independence is no longer materialized, Lhasa sent a note exchange to the newly-independent Indian Government claiming territories south of the McMahon line.(Alastair Lamb, "The McMahon line : a study in the relations between India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914", 1966), de facto renouncing the Anglo-Tibetan "agreement". I think it is enough to provide hints for you on Kashag's (not TGIE) view on the McMahon Line. Besides, the highest authority in Lhasa even knew not much about the terms in the Simla documents. M.C. Goldstein's A History of Modern Tibet, notes that

"Not surprisingly, feeling was strong in Lhasa that Shatra had given up too much. The Dalai Lama himself was unhappy and later asked [Charles] Bell 'Why was Tibet divided into two'... "

Britain's view on the Simla documents is complicated, but there are at least some hints provided:

"The Government of India have read with interest your summary of the advantages gained by Tibet and ourselves under the Simla Convention, but that interest is necessarily purely academic since the Simla Convention has not been signed by the Chinese Government or accepted by the Russian Government and is, therefore, for the present invalid" [Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, Sept 1915]

Regarding third-party sources, in addition to Warren Smith's Tibetan Nation which clearly affirms the existence Anglo-Tibetan secret agreement. Grunfeld account's verifiability on the secret Agreement can be seen through the sources he quoted. As a cross-examination,

"the document reveal responsible officials of British India to have acted to the injury of China in conscious violation of their instructions; deliberately misinforming their superiors in London of their actions; altering documents whose publication had been ordered by Parliament; lying at an international conference table; and deliberately breaking a treaty between the UK and Russia" [Rubin, Alfref P., "Review of the McMahon Line", American Journal of International Law, 1967]

Grunfeld's own notes claim that this viewpoint, on the UK gov cheating other parties, is supported by:


 * Josef Kolmas "Some Formal Problems of Negotiations and Results of the Simla Conference", Tibet Journal (Vol. 16:1), 1991
 * Josef Kolmas "Was Tibet of 1913-1914 Fully Sui Iuris to Enter into Treaty Relations with Another State?", Archiv Orient' 'aln 'I, 1972
 * Parshotam Mehra, "Tibet and its Political Status: An Overview", Indo-British Review (Vol.: 18:2), 1990

Alastair Lamb's "The McMahon line : a study in the relations between India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914"(London, 1966), which I read two yrs ago, affirmed what Grunfeld(and many other experts) claims on p67. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy right now, but I try my best to quote it in a very near future here on talk page.

As I think the verifiability is confirmed, kindly let me quote more from Grunfeld:

"there could be no doubt as to who was conducting the conference and for whose benefit. During the entire six months of the talks, British and Tibetan officials were meeting secretly to discuss trade matters and the demarcation of the frontiers. Not only were the Chinese delegates not invited to these talks, they were not even informed of their existence. Moreover, the British were secretly monitoring all the cable communications between the Chinese delegation at Simla and their government in China. In the end, Britain pressured Chen into initialing the pact prior to his government's approval, threating to omit any mention of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet if he refused. Chen agreed, but only after making it clear that there was a considerable gulf between initialing and signing and that the latter could only be done by the government in Beijing." [Grunfeld, p67]

For reference, the Chinese view is here

219.73.11.127 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding verfiability. please read WP:VERIFY's official definition (NOT individual editor's own def.):

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

While the page number (unless it's an article instead of a book) and more details regarding the publisher/publication already provided, the cited sources can be proven having met the above requirements. Individual editors should stop further abusing the tag.

--219.73.11.127 03:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add to the above, this article contains what appears to be some sources that fail verifiability or at least appear to fail verifiability. And when I say that I mean from both pro-PRC and pro-Tibetan independence views. For instance note 44 is not a source at all, just a sentence saying "The petition of 10th Panchen Lama in 1962". That is not providing a reliable and verifiable source" certainly not the format. In addition is it not usual, as this is, after all, the English language wikipedia, for sources to be in English? (see notes 82 and 83) I fully admit I am not sure about that, bit for some reason I seem to remember reading it somewhere, if I am wrong of course then fair enough. But as this is the English language wikipedia then surely sources should be in English to be verifiable by all users, and not just those who can speak both English and a Chinese language? With regard to Grunfeld sources, the IP user has a point in that there are already sources listed for Grunfeld (notes 1, 13, 25, 30) as well as a book being included in "Further reading". If new sources using Grunfeld as a source are being removed, then surely the sources that are already included should also be removed? There are other sources which may fail verifiability. For example notes 8, 24, 26, 31, 54, 60 (which includes a link to what appears to be a personal site?) and as said before - 44. Maybe all the sources present on the article now need to be looked at and verified? ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So it's up to a Britisher to decide where the line goes? How would the British like it if the Chinese came and told them where they think the line between England and Scotland should lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

No idea what a Britisher is or what line you are talking about. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have no idea what a Britisher is then look it up in a dictionary. 86.157.233.233 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I thought this article was entitled Tibet, and about Tibet. And your initial message above about lines is still unclear as to how that is relevant to improving this article, which is what this talk page is for, and not for discussion of dictionaries or commenting on who is and who isn't allowed to decide some line. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of Tibet
The demographics section for Tibet is very limited. It doesn't provide a comprehensive account of the population of Tibet. It may be that the information simply isn't available, or that reliable data cannot be verified. It would be nice to see a map showing population density and population growth. This should not have to distinguish between ethnic groups and the political controversy relating to Chinese governance of Tibet. This would provide useful and impartial information. It would be just as useful to see population distribution and population growth data and maps for other regions of China, and like demographics for other countries of the world, should not have to focus on distinguishing between different ethnic groups of people. This improvement should be feasible, without being a threat to ethnic discrimination and political disputes. --Minotaur500 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since "Tibet" has never been a political entity but basically means "places where Tibetans live", it seems like it would be quite misleading to talk about population growth in Tibet without discussing the ethnicity of the people involved.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The demographics of most other countries and regions within countries of the world include data and information of a range of criteria, including such things as gender, age, life expectancy and not just their ethnic background. The political entity known as Tibet administrated by the Dalai Llama ceased to exist in 1959 following invasion and Chinese annexation. Should demographics be included in reference to the current population for historical "political entities" whose boundaries are not synonymous with current regions ? Would it not be more accurate to describe the demographics of a region in its current form, and that of its present political situation, than that of its former existence. Tibet demographics could be provided for Tibet in 1959, however they cease to be relevant for the current population. It seems that the records for regions in China covers solely ethnic information, and nothing else. Surely data of great importance and significance is missing from the demographics of the different regions of China. --Minotaur500 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by which region you are referring to here. This article specifies at the beginning that it is "about historical/cultural Tibet", which basically means whichever places Tibetans predominate. "The political entity known as Tibet" was only about half as large as this in geographical terms, and probably less than half in terms of population. Historians sometimes refer to this political entity as the "Lhasa state" in order to avoid confusion with the Tibetan cultural region as a whole. In fact, the boundaries of the modern Tibetan Autonomous Region are quite similar to what the Lhasa state's boundaries were for the most of the early 20th century. So, when you say, "region in its current form", I'm not sure if you are referring to the Tibetan cultural region or to the Tibet Autonomous Region. If it's the latter, then we have a separate article about it, and, yes, that article should definitely discuss its overall demographic conditions both in general and in the context of ethnicity.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would describe the Tibet region in its current form as being the seperate PRC states of Tibet Autonomous Region, Quinghai, and the parts of Sichuan where ethnic Tibetans lived within until 1959. Under the criteria "the land where Tibetans live", it is not impossible to have an albeit incredibly unlikely situation where Tibetans effectively invade an area of external land and form a new political entity that could be referred to as a Tibet. I certainly think that Quinghai, having a large proportion of ethnic Tibetans, should not be ignored when referring to a Tibet.

There is some degree of useful demographic information scattered within the article. I recommend compiling some of this information into the demographics section of the article in order to adhere to the general structure of the article. Eg,

"according to the Chinese census the total population of ethnic Tibetans in the PRC was 2.8 million in 1953[citation needed], but only 2.5 million in 1964[citation needed]. It puts forward a figure of 800,000 deaths and alleges that as many as 10% of Tibetans were interned, with few survivors.[64] Chinese demographers have estimated that 90,000 of the 300,000 "missing" Tibetans fled the region."

and also

"the GDP of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is thirty times that of before 1950, workers in Tibet have the second highest wages in China,"

as well as

"infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000, life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000"

It should be noted that the verifiability of this information is limited, judging by the references provided for the article. It is presented as this being the PRC's view of Tibet, but is not from data directly published by the PRC government, official UN bodies or reputable NGO's or QUANGO's.

Am I right to consider the Tibetan people as to be non-nomadic ? If this is accurate, they would therefore be settled peoples, forming settlements upon a land to form a Tibet and effectively administrate some form of governing power over the surrounding land, constituting a form of government ? Is it accurate to consider Tibet as being administrated from a single settlement, or rather from a number of individual settlements forming Tibets that generally merge into a region to form a single Tibet ? Is it in effect possible to have a number of divided Tibets administrated from seperate individual settlements. In my view, to state that there is only a single Tibet being that administrated from Lhasa neglects wider region encompassing the settlements of ethnic Tibetans ?

A possibly useful example to use as an analogy for Tibet is that of Britain. By definition, the term Britain refers to the land of the Britons, which it initially became following colonisation by nomadic celtic pagans. Following this, invasions by the Romans and later the Normans and Anglo-Saxons led to successive settlements being established by non-Briton ethnic groups of people. The Saxon region of Mercia for example became established. Modern Britain does not determine its population demographics on the basis of its ethnic inhabitants. To be a Briton requires you to be a registered citizen, which requires either native birth, or a successful application for citizenship of foreigners. To determine identity on ethnic grounds is now almost impossible, due to interbreeding through successive generations. How much interbreeding between Han chinese and Tibetans occurs ? In addition to this, being an island, the natural features of the coast largely determine the boundaries of the country. On this basis, Tibet could be referred to as the Tibetan plateau, so as long as the boundary of such a determinable geological feature be scientifically ascertained, a countries boundaries can be defined from their presence.

I think you are confusing the words 'Briton' and 'British'. The term 'Briton' has no legal status in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.81.146 (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, the article appears to just include information about Tibet Autonomous Region when referring to modern Tibet, and I feel that this ignores the Tibetans living in Quinghai, which constitutes a considerable representation of ethnic Tibetans and should be included in the demographic description of Tibet.

There seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity about what Tibet actually should refer to. I suggest that when a search is made for Tibet, it directs directly to a disambiguation page to distinguish between all the different modern and historical definitions of Tibet. I think that this page should be headed as Historical Tibet, and not just Tibet, which should be the disambiguation page.

--Minotaur500 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The example of Briton/Britain show that a geographic land may be named after a people. So when the 'English' invaded parts of Britain, it then became England. Some of the Britons fled to what is now Brittany in France, but of course it does not mean that Brittany is Britain. People who live in an area may very well not be its political rulers as illustrated by the Briton/Britain/England/Brittany example. The ancestors of the present Tibetans were themselves migrants to the area. The Tibetans have also lived in traditionally Han land, and they also wish to call those land Tibet. The name TAR retains the historic connection in name with its past in the same way the UK retains the use of the names Britain and England. The TAR and the Han lands are now part of the PRC. Tibetans are free to travel to all parts of the PRC. 81.157.100.44 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the boundaries you describe for Tibet are roughly correct, but a bit simplistic. I'll assume that you mean the more specific boundaries. It's worth noting that, according to government statistics, most of the Tibetan areas, even outside of the TAR, still have substantial Tibetan majorities even today. Some no longer do, such as the Tibetan autonomous area in Yunnan. Ngawa in Sichuan and Garlho in Gansu have small Tibetan majorities, although Ngawa has a large majority if you include Qiangs as well as Tibetans, and I'd imagine the half of Garlho closer to Labrang has a substantial Tibetan majority.


 * Traditionally, a lot of Tibetans were nomadic, especially in the less populated parts of Amdo. I'm not sure how many still are today. Tibet was traditionally administered from one major power center in Central Tibet (i.e. Lhasa since the mid-17th century and at various times before that; also, Shigatse and Sakya at times before that), but also from various minor power centers in Kham and Amdo. You are correct that it is misleading to talk about a single political unit called "Tibet", although since the Lhasa government has, for a long time, been by far the most powerful such power center, it is usually clear what people mean when they say "the Tibetan government".


 * Regarding the extent of intermarriage between Chinese and Tibetans, that's an interesting question, but I'm afraid I've never heard much about it.


 * This article is definitely not supposed to be about the Tibet Autonomous Region only, so, if there are parts that tend to do that, they should be corrected when possible. The article makes it quite clear that, "This article is about historical/cultural Tibet."&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan is not an ethnicity in the PRC, it is a nationality. The modern definition of ethnicity takes into account of religion, and so for example the various groups of people in the former Yugoslavia were ethnically different even though they speak virtually the same language, inter-married, were related to each other, lived as neighbours, conducted business with each other and so on, because they have different religions (and this included different Christian religions). Going by this definition, the present Tibetans and the so called Tibetans a thousand years ago were of different ethnicity because their religions were different. 81.157.100.44 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not discussing the fact that there is a major (about 1 million) demographic deficit in tibetan population if you juxtapose the estimate of in 2000 and that in 1959 [People's Daily, Beijing, le 10 novembre 1959, see : Population transfer and control. Within the same period, total population in China doubled. How do you explain this deficit? --Rédacteur Tibet 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an estimated 200million Chinese unaccounted for in the PRC. If people do not report births or deaths, then what can statistics bureaux do? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Has the famous Zhol Doring (pillar) in front of the Potala really disappeared?
There is a rumour that the famous Zhol Doring (pillar) in front of the Potala which recorded the conquests of Tibet over China leading up to the brief conquest of the Chinese capital, Chang'an, in 763 CE (see the main article and 1993 photo), has disappeared. I am hoping this is not so. Can anyone give us a recent account of it? If it is still in place is it possible to approach it closely, take photos, etc.? Many thanks, John Hill 04:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no climate section?
Most articles on geographic regions have a section on climate and weather. Can one be added here? It'd be especially interesting considering Tibet's high elevation. Moncrief 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tufan to Tibet
Why Tufan redirects to Tibet? Xinaliq.az 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seal of Tibet - experts needed.
The article currently has a "Seal of Tibet" image, with the caption linked to Seal of Tibet, a one sentence stub which serves mainly to carry the Image:Seal of Tibet.PNG image.

The stub does not make clear how ancient or modern this "seal" is - to be honest, it doesn't look very ancient. Also, Image:Seal of Tibet.PNG claims it to be in the public domain on the grounds of copyright expiration. This seems slightly dubious to me, because the image itself is clearly a modern construction, and no information is provided as to the source image from which it is constructed.

Can any experts verify whether this is a historical seal of Tibet, used say between 1912-1950? If it was used in that period, or later, then the PD tag may not be appropriate, and the image description/licensing information would need to be fixed up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear PalaceGuard: You can find here a reference to "the official government seal of Tibet" in 1950. I have no knowledge as to whether it was of the same design - though I presume so. See:
 * Sorry - that is all I could find - but a query to the official website of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile website may well get you more information. Cheers, John Hill 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the neutual term/name to used?
Blnguyen, Alexwoods and I have been undo and redo other's post for a number of time over wording, terms and names. I use Tibet Autonomous Region in this article when it applies to post communist period while they use Tibet without specifying a time period. (WannabeAmatureHistorian 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC))


 * In this particular case, the article begins by defining what we mean by "Tibet". Some of Tibet's borders are controversial, but the border with Nepal isn't really. So, I don't see any particular reason not to keep it simple and say "Tibet".&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nat. There is no need to say "autonomous region" every time - it's redundant and not common English usage, and of course we don't say "province" every time we say "Sichuan", right?  Also, I'd like to go on record as saying the reference to Qomolongma is totally unnecessary.  Not only does Qomolongma redirect to Everest, Everest is by far the more common name in English.  Alexwoods 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexwoods, too. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to mention "autonomous region." Just use TIBET. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the context is specifically related to the administration of Tibet, or disputed claims, then TAR is permissible. If we are simply discussing the geography or undisputed borders of the region, then Tibet is appropriate. Hornplease 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we say "TAR" when we are discussing this subject in English? Of course not.  We call it Tibet.  Of course we have to explain the specific political status of any entity somewhere in the article, but to refer to Tibet as TAR throughout would be tantamount to only using the term (to draw an example from a topic that you are interested in outside of stalking me) "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" - accurate, but unwieldy and not common usage.  Also, WP:HAR.  Alexwoods 15:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oy! take it easy! I've been editing China-related articles all day, hardly stalking you.
 * As I said, using TAR when we wish to indicate that we are talking about specific territorial claims not shared by other entities also claiming to be Tibet seems appropriate. The Pakistan example is not really accurate, because there is no other entity that claims to be Pakistan. If, for example, we were to say that "Kashmir includes the Aksai Chin", that would be debatable"; it would be appropriate to say Jammu and Kashmir includes the Aksai Chin, to indicate we are talking about the Indian administrative claim, not the Pakistani one. Hornplease 15:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point Mr. Hornplease, and I withdraw the allegation of stalking. I think we all need to be careful to consider when TAR is being used to highlight a territorial claim being made by the PRC and when it is being used by an editor who is keen to assert the PRC's claim to Tibet itself.  I would wholeheartedly support the use of TAR in the former case.  Alexwoods 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Hornplease 16:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I say, just use Tibet. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

GA delist
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 16, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.


 * Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

Epbr123 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam section
There is a significant chunk of text in the islam section which seems misplaced:
 * The Potala Palace, former residence of the Dalai Lamas, is a World Heritage Site, as is Norbulingka, former summer residence of the Dalai Lama.

During the suppression of pro-independence forces in the 1950s, and during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, most historically significant sites in Tibet were vandalized or totally destroyed. Since 2002, Tibetans in exile have allowed a Miss Tibet beauty contest in spite of concerns that this event is considered a Western influence. The beauty contest is condemned by the Tibetan government in exile.[citation needed] None of this seems to have anything to do specifically with Islam, and quite a bit of it, if anything, is more associated with Tibetan Buddhism. Warthog32 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agvan Dordzhi and Lamaist Triple Pact of 1913
The chapter in main article; ''In 1913 Tibet and Mongolia allegedly signed a treaty proglaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China. However, the validity of such a treaty is disputed by historians and diplomats, as there was not, at any time, nor has there been since, any offical publication of the text by either party, and the text does not appear to have been published in any language other than English.''

Only two Anglo-Saxon sources have been mentioned to state this statement. In fact the treaty was made by 1912 between three independent Lamaist States; Tibet, Mongolia and Urjanhai (Tuva). This treaty was a big diplomatic success for the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, and his legal representantive, by born a Lamaist Burjat Mongol monk Agvan Dordzhi who left Imperial Russia in his childhood and thus was not any subject of Imperial Russia as Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Sergei Dimitrrijevitsh Sazonov, lied to the British Ambassador in St.Petersburg. The reason for this was simple, Imperial Russia had its own interests in question regarding the long term object to increase its political influence in all three Lamaist states. The treaty was well known in the Asia and even Siam recogniced it. The British claim to make Agvan Dordzhi a Russian spy in Tibet is absurd. The British "arch-imperialist" Viceroy in India, Lord Curzon, used Agvan Dordzhi´s visit as full representantive of Dalai Lama to Russia as an excuse to launch his own mission led by (then) Major Francis Younghusband to Tibet. Why Agvan Dordzhi visited in Russia is told in detail at least in Finnish literature, just to mention Lähettiläänä Nipponissa by Professor G.J.Ramstedt, Helsinki 1950. What comes to Charles Bell´s claim, presumably passed to him in 1914 by a Tibetan who was not in the inner circle of 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, is clearly from person who had not seen the written Treaty text.

The versions Aguan Dorijiev, Dorzhiev, Dorijev and Aguan Dorijeff ara all wrong written. His real name was Agvan Dordzhi, and he was a personal friend to Professor Ramstedt who met him several times during his expenditures in Mongolia. Agvan Dordzhi was an respected quest and full representantive of Dalai Lama and Minister in Tibetan Government, by the Siamete Royal House when he visited in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.127.228 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the treaty was signed (if it was signed) in 1913, either on February 4th or on January 11th, and only between representatives of Mongolia and Tibet. Scholars of Mongolia are quite positive that the treaty was signed - i.e. that Agvandorj and some other (alleged?) representatives of Tibet and the Mongolian representatives Da Lama Ravdan and Mainlaibaatar Damdinsüren put their signatures on the piece of paper. They are less positive on how seriously to take the treaty, but signed it was. It was apparently published in Mongolian at least in 1982. Udo B.Barkmann gives a german translation in Geschichte der Mongolei, Bonn 1999, p.380. His source is BNMAU-yn ShUA-iin tüükhiin khüreelen, NATsKhYa-ny dergedekh ulsyn arkhivyn khereg erkhlekh gazar, Mongolyn ard tümnii 1911 ony ündesnii erkh chölöö, tusgaar togmolyn tölöö temtsel - barimt bichgiin emkhtgel (1911-1914) (he uses a german transliteration from Cyrillic Mongolian which I changed into a more english-like, so some of th letters might be wrong), UB 1982, p. 189-190. Barkmann doesn't state whether his source was in faksimile, in classical, or in cyrillic Mongolian, but the rendering of the names looks more like form cyrillic.


 * Barkmann also points to an article by P. Mehra about The Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of January 11, 1913 in Journal of Asian History, vol III, 1969, p.10. Also of interest might be Korostovets' Von Cinggis Khan zur Sowjetrepublik, Berlin 1926.
 * It's interesting that some(?) scholars(?) of Tibet seem to imply that the treaty was never signed. Do they give some points to discredit the Mongolian version - that at least something "was" signed, or do they just ignore it? Yaan 12:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * John Snelling, in his book, Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa's Emissary to the Tsar. (1993) Element Books, p. 150 says: "Though sometimes doubted, this Tibet-Mongolia Treaty certainly existed. It was signed on 29 December 1912 (OS) [that is, by the Julian Calendar - making it 10 days earlier than by the Gregorian Calendar we use] by Dorzhiev and two Tibetans on behalf of the Dalai Lama, and by two Mongolians for the Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu." He then goes on to give the complete wording of the treaty on pp. 150-151. Hope this is of some interest. Cheers, John Hill 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * English language sources are always of interest. Especially if they take note on doubts re. the existence of the treaty, which sources dealing with Mongolia apparently often don't. There is also an article by Gerard M. Friters called The prelude to Outer Mongolian independence which discusses the treaty, with less detail than Barkmann and without giving the text, but it still mentions the basic problem - that Agvandorj's authority to conclude international treaties on behalf of the Dalai Lama was .. rather weak. Yaan 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Yaan. By the way, Snelling adds quite a long discussion about the Tibet-Mongolia Treaty on page 152 (where he notes that Dorzhiev dispatched a copy of the treaty to the Dalai Lama for formal approval in January 1913) and on page 154, he notes the comment by Lönchen Paljor Dorji Shatra at the Śimla conference in 1913-14, where he said that the letter given to Dorzhiev was of a general nature only - asking him to merely work for the benefit of the Buddhist religion. Shatra claimed the letter could not be found as it was probably destroyed in a fire.


 * Snelling obviously doubts Shatra's claims and says: "Bell seems to have taken Shatra's spiel as solemn truth - another instance of his naîvété where Tibetans were concerned. Clearly the treaty did exist, and Dorzhiev had been given plenipotentiary powers to negotiate and sign it: why then did the Tibetans repudiate it? Perhaps for pragmatic reasons - in which case they would not necessarily have seen themselves as lying so much as deferring to the honourable oriental [and - I should add - occidental. JH] convention of telling others what they want to hear." Best wishes, John Hill 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to think that - although not always that devoted to historical accuracy in the past - the Mongolian academy of science in 1982 is still a much more reliable source than some Tibetan diplomat in 1913. I'll therefore change the sentence here and in the other articles to something a la "The treaty was signed, though its validity has always been disputed. Some British diplomats have sometimes even disputed the mere existence of the treaty, but Mongoian sources are very positive it exists". Yaan 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that Mongolia was a heavily ideological (i.e. Communist) state in 1982, where (speaking generally) research is often subordinated to political needs, and asserting the existence of the treaty has great ideological and nationalistic value, I don't think the reverence to that source is warranted. I think the previous version worked better. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I fail to see the nationalistic/ideologic value of a treaty with Tibet in 1913. Mongolian communists always emphasized that Mongolia owed her independence to the Soviets, not to Tsarist Russia, and certainly not to Tibet. For them the 1911 - 1919 period was a period of continuation of the old, feudal and backward order, and would end with the leading representatives almost giving up Mongoia's independence voluntarily. Even then, the 1912 declaration of independence and appointment of the 8th Jebtsundamba Khutugtu to Bogd Khan, and the military action in Khovd and Inner Mongolia, were far more significant than this rather meaningless (or as Korostovets put it, "pretty harmless") treaty. Udo B.Barkmann wrote his work in 1999, well after the 1990 demcratic revolution in Mongolia. Since he actually does speak Mongolian and spends a lot of time in the country, I think he would have taken note if information about this rather interesting piece of history had experienced major revisions. My uninformed guess is that those authors who believe those Tibetan envoys are just unaware about the Mongolian (as opposed to Tsarist Russian) side of the argument. Yaan 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my new notes on the main page where I mention that Snelling gives the full English translation of the treaty taken from a British Foreign Office report of 1913. I will now add these notes to the article on Tibetan history and Agvan Dorzhiev. Please do not remove them again without giving good reason, as they are well-referenced. John Hill 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, the treaty does not seem important enough to warrant inclusion in this rather general site. Or at least not as long as we don't explain the consequences of the treaty. Yaan 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed some sentences that seemed very much OR. The assumption that no treaty existed also might lead to interesting conclusions, for example that the Russians could make Agvandorj keep quiet for 20+ years, but could not make him sign the treaty. Maybe someone should write the Mongolian Academy of science or the relevant archive and ask for a scan. Yaan 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking around a bit at some databases, I actually wonder how big the controversy about the existence (not about the validity) of the treaty really is. Most authors, including contemporaries, seem to agree that the paper was signed. Actually, I don't think the treaty is significant enough to be mentioned in this article, esp. not with an own section. But to create a controversy around it seems completely overblown. Yaan (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Lobsang Rampa
I have added Lobsang Rampa to the See Also section of this article. Kathleen.wright5 04:17, 4 October 2007(UTC)

Links
I have cleaned up a couple of the links as they were typed in incorrectly and leading to incorrect pages. If you click on them now they all lead to their respective places. Josborne2382 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tsampa
Would these photos be good for the Tsampa article? We don't have any photo there, but I don't know how representative these photos are. Badagnani 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview with the Dalai Lama's representative
I will be conducting an interview with the Dalai Lama's Representative to the Americas, Tashi Wangdi. If you have a question you would like me to consider asking, please leave it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone/Tibet -- David  Shankbone  19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question about the Tibetan's best interests/wishes/hopes/etc after the brutal Chinese reply occurred. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's a brutal reply? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * so far the only picture i seem now (due to china censorship) is nepalese beating tibetan protestor with stick, and i don't really see much complainting about those "reply". and for whatever tourist and reporter who were in tibet before the lockdown; they tell a strangely different picture (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/asia/24tibet.html)... is china using excessive force? likely as that would be the norm of PAP behaviour. is china brutal to the tibetan? of course, at least to the level you expect riot police to use against people destory public property and kill innocent bystander. I believe the tibetan HAD suffer injustice which result in the displacement of dalai lama and his supporter; but there is also self-censorship by western media to suggest the condition of tibet has not improved over the years. i read alot of article on the exile's website, i suggest people who are interested to read it. strangely there are some conflicting theories between different scholar. some argue tibetan is economical deprived by the chinese, some argue tibetan should be taught in tibetan for all subject as it produce better result and protect their culture. i would like to ask if the tibetan if educated in tibetan be able to find jobs and compete effectively; i really think the tibetan need to have a unified direction: do they want economic growth or culture preservation, because let be realistic: there going to be trade off. i would like to know how dalai lama's cabinet plan to tackle these issue if china put him in power. Akinkhoo (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To User:Strothra concerning Altan Khan
Hi, you reversed without explanation my edit of the passage about Altan Khan of Tumet stating as if he was a subordinate of Ming China. That statement isn't supported by any relaible source. We should avoid destortion of history in WP. Altan Khan and his vassals frequently raided Ming China. When China managed to persuade Altan Khan stop his raids, his vassals still continued raiding China. China begged Altan Khan to prevent his vassals from raiding China. Altan Khan then answered he can't stop his vassals doing that as China didn't open frontier trade stations for them. I don't see any reason for Altan Khan to be a subordinate of China. When I put this comment on your talk page, you removed it. 122.201.16.22 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect you also made your edits "without explanation" (adding "never heard that" is hardly an explanation. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 16:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem arises from some authors who seem to imply think that paying tribute to China was a form of subordination. This completely ignores that, at least in the Mongol case, the right to pay tribute to the court in Beijing was usually a result of successful military action on the part of the tribute-bringer, not the receiver. It also fails to explain why on earth the Ming erected the Great Wall as we know it today, when they in fact had tributary relations with the Mongols most of the time. I guess this borders OR, but I don't think any self-respecting author would describe England or Russia as subordinate to China just because they paid tribute to the Qing court 150 years later. Yaan 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eastern and Western political customs were different at the time. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A Chinese source/Mongols
There seems to be a problem in the article re. the status of Tibet from the 17th century to 1721, and re. the role of Altan Khan. The problem seems to stem from a 2000 book referred to as "a chinese sorce". For me as someone primarily interested in Mongol history, the situation looks as follows: in the 1570s, Altan Khan invented/started/? the Dalai Lama lineage. In the 1630s, Ligden Khan tried to conquer Tibet, but died on the way, in Qinghai (this event may be more relevant to the rise of the Manchu than to Tibet). His supporter Tsogt Taij was eventually defeated by the Khoshud Oirads in 1637, who as a result became something like the overlords over Tibet. This went until roughly 1717, when the Dzüngar Oirads evicted the Khoshud. It is at this point - and only at this point - that China enters the picture. The Dzüngar had come into conflict with the Manchu in the 1680s, and the Manchu were apparently not ready to accept them gaining more power. Moreover, the Dzüngar seem to have been rather unpopular with the Tibetans, and the Manchu used the opportunities presented by this.

My guess is this narrative can be read in any good book that covers Oirad history, in particular I seem to recall Rene Grousset's Empire of the Steppes has a section on the Khoshud in Tibet. My guess is that Western accounts of Tibetan history during that time are not much different, but it would be interesting to know for sure.

Re. the Status of Altan Khan, and also the Oirads, vs. China: It is true that Altan Khan entered tributary relations to China in 1571, and also the different Oirad factions may have paid tribute to the court in Beijing at some point in time or the other. But this should never be understood as subordination, as any serious account of the Chinese tribute system under Ming dynasty would tell you. See also the case of Esen Tayisi. Yaan 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited the bit about Altan Khan for now. That he had entered tributary relations with China is irrelevant in this context. It may be relevant in the context of Chinese claims on Tibet, or of the weakness of these claims, though. Qinghai is the Chinese translation of Khökh nuur (or maybe it's the other way round), and Khökh nuur is the Mongolian name for the area where the soon-to-be Dalai Lama and Altan Khan met in 1578. Therefore, it is not "what the Chinese now consider as Qinghai", rather it is "what the Chinese call Qinghai" and accurate enough. P.S. I also deleted the reference, but that Altan Khan and the 3rd Dalai Lama met in 1578 is a pretty basic fact that should be included in any standard account of Tibetan History. Yaan 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I followed that all the way up to "I deleted the reference". Why did you delete the reference? You seem to have turned a referenced sentence into a "citation needed" sentence.
 * If you think the original sourced statement is inaccurate, I believe the usual approach is to tag it "dubious" and then find reliable sources to contradict it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sourced statement was inaccurate in so far as while it is true Altan Khan was formally a tributary of China, he definitely was no subordinate, and his status as a tributary generally seems to have little to do with Tibetan history. On the other hand, that Altan Khan and the to-be 3rd Dalai Lama met in Qinghai, that Altan Khan introduced the title Dalai Lama etc. is so undisputed that we could give any given mainstream source as a reference. IMHO it is better to give sources that are easily accessible, and sources that are rather not likely to be suspected of being biased. Also, I didn't check the reference given myself, so I wasn't really sure if it supported the new wording. Maybe I'll have a look into Grousset's work in the next few days, than I might also do some more rewriting. Yaan 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, makes sense. I'm going to restore the previous text but put a dubious tag on it until we find reliable sources to contradict it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On a second reading, the unrefernenced tag was for "The 3rd Dalai paid tribute to the Ming imperial court through Altan Khan and wrote to the Chinese prime minister, requesting to be allowed to pay tribute to the imperial court on a regular basis, and was approved.", not for the sentence about Altan Khan appointing the Dalai Lama. This particular sentence didn't seem to be sourced before. Btw. the following two sentences don't really seem to make sense to me either. Tibetan exiles contest that Altan Khan spread the Lamaist religion in Mongolia? Yaan 23:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about Tibetan/Mongolian/Chinese history to comment on the substance. I'm just making a procedural point here, that a properly sourced statement should not be changed into an unsourced statement unless a contradictory, reliable source is provided. Hence, a "dubious" tag until a source is found to contradict it. I think you are likely to be right, but to do otherwise than what is described above is WP:OR. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On a second reading - you're right about the next sentence... that makes no sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is all history. We need to deal with today, which is that Tibet is a part of The PRC. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some rewrite
I rewrote the the history between the 13th and 18th centuries. Unfortuantely, I didn't find any good english-language sources in my library (Rene Grousset was a bit of a disappointment in this regard), so I used three German authors. Weiers is somewhat of a big shot in Germany's Mongolian studies, though his Geschichte der Mongolen does contain a number of easily recognizable inaccuracies. However, most of them (with the exception of the old lamas=people who live in monasteries trap) concern 20th century Outer Mongolia, and (being from West Germany and all that) he seems to be more a specialist for pre-modern Inner Mongolia. I can't really comment on the other two authors, except that their works have fotnotes and a bibliography, and that Ms. Kollmar Paulenz is a professor for religous history in Switzerland and apparently speaks Tibetan.

I guess the new version might e a bit mongol-centric, so if you feel it should be corrected, please do (not that I could do anything about it anyway). I also left out the whole tribute thingie. To me this is more relevant in rgards to chinese claims re. souvereignity than to Tibetan History most of the time. If you think it is really important and have reliable and relevant information, feel free to add. Also I feel the coverage of the late 14th to early 17th centuries is a bit short, and the growing Manchu influence in the late 17th, early 18th century might not be treated accurately. Last not least the transliteration is inconsistent and the page number for the rene grousset quote is missing. I will add the latter as soon as possible. Cheers, Yaan 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work, Yaan. Thanks for this contribution. By the way, do you have any objection if I edit the spelling of names in the parts you added to conform more closely to the rest of the article? I think it is mostly established that we generally use (Central Tibetan-based) phonetic or conventional spellings for Tibetan names, rather than Wylie.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection at all. Yaan 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese pronunciations
I have removed the original research about "disputes in mainland China and Taiwan", and different pronunciations in mainland China and Taiwan, from the Chinese names section.

The material about different pronunciations of Tubo is referenced solely by two dictionaries, one of which is not a Chinese dictionary but a Chinese-English dictionary. Neither dictionary pretends to be only documenting Standard Mandarin "as spoken in mainland China" or "as spoken in Taiwan". Both dictionaries document Standard Mandarin as a unified language. Any statements about "this is pronounced A in mainland China and pronounced B in Taiwan" is original research not supported by these sources.

The second view, supporting the "tufan" pronunciation, requires a citation from something more authoritative with respect to the Chinese language than a Chinese-English dictionary. A bilingual dictionary is by its very nature less authoritative than a monolingual one with respect to pronunciations of a single language, all else being equal, as opposed to translations from one language to another. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
This message is for the user, Williamliew. I have now left you three messages on your user talk page asking you not to keep adding unsourced content to this article, and asked you to back up your edits by citing sources. You have thus far though ignored this advice. Please do not keep adding the edits in the way you are doing. If you have fully verifiable sources for your edits then please provide those sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page, in other words in here. Also, adding unsourced or original content violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious pro-Tibetan Bias
The deliberate attempts by some of the editors here to detach the historical Chinese political influences over Tibet from Tibet's history sections is getting hilarious. All references to the Yuan Dynasty become written as "Mongol"; all political references to Qing Dynasty become written as "Manchu." This obsession with ethnic labels by some of the pro-Tibet editors here would be pretty funny if it weren't so revisionist and fascist. Maybe we should rename the "British in Tibet" section as the "Scots, Welsh, Irish and English/Anglo Saxons in Tibet" too. It'll be more accurate, right? Don't forget, Sir Francis Younghusband was an Englishman and Sir Charles Bell was a Scot. --Naus (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsflash for the clueless and ethnic obsessed pro-Tibet editors: the 19th and 20th century concepts of fascism and ethnocentrism were defeated in WWII. Why are you so obsessed with the ethnicity of the politicians and not their actual political allegiance? What kind of history are you trying to revision? A fascist one I gather? --Naus (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Naus: I think you will find that quite often the various Mongol and Manchu tribes or factions the Tibetans were dealing with were not the same groups that were ruling China at the time. Maybe some work needs be done to make it clearer when they were dealing with the groups that were actually ruling China, and when they were dealing with other groups of Mongols and Manchus? Also, your comment about fascism and ethnocentrism being "defeated" in WWII seems hopelessly optimistic. Unfortunately, I see lots of evidence of fascist attitudes and ethnocentrism in our sorry world today - including China. John Hill (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * as well as USA, if they can't even find china on a map ;P Akinkhoo (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote much of the criticized stuff, I think it's helpful to point out that
 * what the Tibetans were facing in 1240 were indeed Mongols, no Chinese dynasty (alright, I think this is undisputed)
 * As I understand it, Tibet's status during Yuan dynasty has a lot to do with the ruling family and little to do with China. It would be interesting to know the Tibetan side of the argument, though. I understand there are some Tibetan chronicles of that era, do they refer to Mongols, to Yuan, or to China?
 * To me, Manchu is pretty much synonymous to Qing, and Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu sounds much better than Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu, and Qing dynasty (1644-1911). That's all.
 * I don't think I care enough about Tibet to qualify for the "pro-Tibet editor" label. I wonder what is the opposite of "pro-Tibet", though.

Yaan 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I think it is worth pointing out that the "Englishmen and Welsh" analogy is a wrong one. Khoshud, Dzungars and Manchu (or Qing Dynasty) definitely, although to different degrees, were political rivals, as can be seen from the article, or learnt from reading some of the more reliable offline sources. A "British and Englishmen"-like section title was only introduced with Naus' "Manchu and the Qing Dynasty" edits. Yaan 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

John Hill: " I think you will find that quite often the various Mongol and Manchu tribes or factions the Tibetans were dealing with were not the same groups that were ruling China at the time." Why don't you say that the people in Tibet in 1000 were not the same people who live in Tibet now. The people of the 2 periods had different religions. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I don't get your point. You could say the same about any people, religious or philosophical system - we all change and develop over time. This does not mean the religions or people are "different". One could just as well say that the Italian people are not the same people as they were 1000 years ago, or that their Roman Catholic religion is not the same religion it is today. While this is certainly true in some senses - it is really more accurate to say that both the Italian people and their religion have developed and changed over the years. In Tibet this natural process of change and development has been complicated, of course, by the huge numbers of Han Chinese who have moved into Tibet since the Chinese takeover and the deliberate attempts to destroy their religion and culture. John Hill (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Then by your reasoning today's Tibetans and Hans are the same people as if you go back far enough in time, they were both descended from the same Mongoloid ancestors. So by your reasoning there is no takeover of Tibet by the Hans at all. I think you might find that Western religions are the ones that are attempting to destroy (and have succeeded in destroying)other people's cultures and religions. 81.155.96.175 (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama already agrees that Tibet is a part of the PRC, but that it should be autonomous. The disagreement between the PRC government and the DL's side is how autonomous Tibet should be, not whether it is a part of the PRC or not. 81.155.96.175 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if you carefully examine the Dalai Lama's comments on this subject you will find that, rather than agreeing that "Tibet is a part of the PRC", he agrees that the political reality is that Tibet has been overtaken or swallowed up by its more powerful neighbour and that there is little Tibetans can do to change that reality. Therefore, the best Tibetans can hope for is to come to some arrangement for autonomy within the Chinese state where their human rights, and their right to freely practice their religions and culture are guaranteed. John Hill (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

....which is politic-speak for agreement. 81.155.96.175 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the History section, I can see some merits to the original complaint, in that the omission of references to "Yuan dynasty" and "Qing dynasty" means that a cursory glance through the section conveys the impression that the incorporation of Tibet and China under the same empire did not occur before 1911.

Now these issues are of course subject to frequent and heated debate, as seen here, but I think we can at least agree that (1) the "Mongols" referenced in the section about the Mongols were, at least for a significant part of the history there covered, the same as the Mongols of the Yuan Dynasty, and that (2) the "Manchus" referenced in the section about the Manchus were the same Manchus identified as the rulers of the Qing Dynasty.

The absence of reference to these sinicised dynastic names means that it creates the impression of displacing the orthodox Chinese views on this history (even if the contents may not), which, especially by contrast to the prominence given to British activities, tends to create an impression of bias. (I find, by the way, the emphasis of British activities in Tibet disproportionate - though I have no doubt this is more a result of disproportionate expertise among the editors rather than any conscious bias.) Granted this is the English wikipedia, but even in English we frequently talk about the "Qing dynasty" when we reference the government of the day.

I've modified the subsection headers to reference the Yuan and Qing dynasties. I hope my changes strike an acceptable balance. Despite these edits, however, I think many of these subsections should be cut by moving contents to the daughter page. The ToC is far too long. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the new edits make the headings read worse. Given that the history section really is too long, I'm not going to revert the changes, but in fact I think adding the Dynasty names was redundant. I don't think referring to Syria at the end of the 13th century as "under Mongol rule" rather than "under Il-Khanid rule" creates any anti-Iranian/pro-Syrian bias, esp. no hilarious one. Given that Mongol politics in Tibet seem to have been heavily influenced by the Mongol (or the ruling clan's) adoption of Tibetan buddhism - a religion apparently not very well-received among the Chinese at that time - I also fail to see how the rule of Tibet at the time was more Chinese than Mongolian.


 * Re. the Manchu, I really think the heading reads worse now. Maybe we could create another subsection about "Tibet under the Qing dynasty" or so (not in this article, though), but "Manchu Qing Dynasty" sounds terribly tautologic. Yaan (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle with your comments, Palaceguard008. I would suggest that we should disentangle the article's treatment of Manchus with its treatment of Mongols. The Tibetans had important relationships with several Mongol groups. Kublai Khan of the Yüan was certainly one of them, but I'm not sure how much influence any of the other Yüan emperors ever really had in Tibet. On the other, as far as Tibetan history is concerned, the Manchus pretty much equal the Qing. So, I would suggest that the article and its headings should tend to use "Mongols" rather than "Yuan" but "Qing" rather than "Manchus".&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yaan, yes they do read worse, but I was trying to address an objection which, to me, had some merits with regard to historiographical NPOV.
 * I agree with your comments Nat Krause. That said, the ToC is far too long and I would like to see the History section exported to the daughter article, then shortened and summarised. Would any of the original contributors who expanded the section like to undertake the task? If not, I could volunteer my time, though it might take some time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. Yuan dynasty, Tibet was always part of the Yuan empire, I think - the Il-Khanids also partially adopted Tibetan buddhism, but were, I think, too far away. The other Mongol states became Muslim, so they propably did not care about Tibet anyway.
 * But actually, I think both using Manchu and Mongols has its merits. IMO using it in a subsection heading is just as NPOV as using Yuan or Qing dynasty - headings are just a headings, the complicated stuff should be explained in the text below the heading, if at all - and in both cases Tibet was already entangled before the repective dynasties were founded, 1240 by the first Mongol intrusions, 1634 when the Manchu drove Ligden Khan and his ally Tsogt Taij into the area. I think it might also be worthy to look a bit deeper then just what empire Tibet belonged to. What were the nationalities of the ambans installed in Tibet? In what way did Tibet have contact with the rest of China? The source I have used for my expansion of the History section a while back is now back in the library, and I think did not really cover Tibetan-Manchu or Tibetan-Chinese relations in great detail anyway (it's a Kleine Geschichte, after all), but I really think there should be some material around for the Qing period. At least there is plenty of similar material available, and in English and sometimes excellent quality, for Mongolia - how the Manchu officially tried to isolate the area from the rest of China, how the country was penetrated ever more by Han-Chinese traders, and, in Inner Mongolia, settlers, at what point it becomes unrealistic to talk about the "foreign presence" as purely Manchu rather than Chinese, etc.
 * To expand my aforementioned point: Would using "Mongols" instead of "Golden Horde" ever be considered anti-anything? But of course in Russia that time is not taken as justification for anything, so it's not NPOV yet to refer to Mongols as Mongols. Yaan (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please feel free to export the text into the daugher article as you see fit. I ama bit lazy now. I'll let you know if there is something I don't like. :) Yaan (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 Spanish trial
From article: ''On 11 January 2006 it was reported that the Spanish High Court will investigate whether seven former Chinese officials, including the former President of China Jiang Zemin and former Prime Minister Li Peng participated in a genocide in Tibet. This investigation follows a Spanish Constitutional Court (26 September 2005) ruling that Spanish courts could try genocide cases even if they did not involve Spanish nationals.[61] The court proceedings in the case brought by the Madrid-based Committee to Support Tibet against several former Chinese officials was opened by the Judge on 6 June 2006.

What was the result of this case? Is it still ongoing? --Naus (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am wondering that myself --the_hoodie 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hoodie (talk • contribs)

That's good. Will the spanish court try the genocide of native Americans by the spanish? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Francisco Franco, who fought side by side with Hitler twice? Herunar (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point Herunar. And, I wonder whether there is any Basque or Catalonian blood on the Spanish government's hands?  The judges there seem awfully high-handed to me, given the country's own history of human rights abuses.Ndriley97 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This logic would seem to imply that Spanish courts shouldn't try anyone.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The logic implies that the rationale of universal jurisdiction for genocide aren't fully applicable for Spanish courts - if, that is, one assumes a continuation between the Franco regime and the present, and ignore the separation of powers between the courts and the executive government. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point, Nat Krause. Point was made more in the sense that I don't see how one particular country's judges can arbitrarily decide to start bringing human rights violation charges against persons not subject to their jurisdiction without being hypocritical.  I make this argument from an institutional standpoint, not as to their moral standing as individuals.  There is a reason that human rights trials have typically been reserved for multi-national bodies with a broad mandate from many countries.  Otherwise, any judge in any country could insist that he/she has jurisdiction over a crime committed anywhere in the world.  That is not consistent with generally-accepted international law, principles of comity, etc.  What's to stop a Chinese court from subpoenaing a bunch of ex-Franco regime officials for crimes against humanity during the Spanish Civil War?  Why does the Spanish court have more moral authority than the Chinese court?  Why can't a Chilean court bring charges against Spanish officials who collaborated with Pinochet (this actually happened)?  Please clarify why judges in Spain, who keep doing this, somehow have special rights to be the world's policemen.  Ndriley97 (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not have the Chinese courts trying the spanish cases? Absurd!!!81.155.96.175 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You present an excellent idea! Let's have PRC courts try some Spanish officials for abusing ETA members in jail.  While we're at it, we can hale some Chavistas into US court for abusing student protestors.  It will be like a commie-fascist war, and eventually the two sides will wipe each other out like matter and anti-matter leaving the rest of us semi-normal folks to go about our business. Ndriley97 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see there are many missunderstandings of what we are (Spanish) and what it is Spain. I am from Spain but live in foreign countries for more than 10 years. So here, I give my little input dispassionated, but well informed both from inside and outside Spain. I might be wrong, of course, but it is quite likely that I am mostly right (wink) : Until 1939 Spain was a democracy, a republic, it was a Democratic republic. Unluckily Franco's (and others') "coupe" and subsequent fascist regime truncated that democracy for a long period: Until 1977 when we (Spanish) recovered democracy again. Of course, Franco can not be judged because he died, otherwise he would have been. Same applies to the rest of war criminals along Franco's side: they have passed away during those long 40 years (Franco outlived practically everyone!) or went missing in exile. (Not to mention those who went to America 500 years ago!). These days (2008), Spain is safely (we believe!) well into a new vibrant monarchic Democracy. Spain counts with a strong "constitutional foundation letter" (Constitucion Espanola) that was carefully made via a consensual agreement during 1975-77. The "Constitucion Espanola" was created with participation of representatives of all parties (from left to right), and with representatives of all social institutions (unions etc ..) The Spanish Constitution is based in equality before the law for everyone regardless of sex, race,... You can imagine that it respects and promotes the most fundamental rights, and the rest. Another thing: those that have committed any crime in Spain against organized criminal groups (such as international drug dealers, different kinds of mafia, terrorists like ETA members) have been prosecuted and they are in jail (or at least justice is trying to catch them!). In particular some members of former democratic Spanish governments (from the 80's) are currently serving in jail due to the fact that they have been proof responsible for allowing (not prosecuting) torture and even murder of former members of ETA. And we are talking of some scarce criminal actions that are ilegal (of course!) and have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law (I can not say how many victims but surely few and far between, the most prominent case was the murder of 2 people (ETA members) that were shot in the country side; and they tried to cover it as "confrontation with the military police", that happened around 1980 or so). By the way ETA, as of today, is just an organized criminal band which has practically no popular support anywhere (including the Basque region). They have no more reason to exists, they started fighting against Franco (that was some reason), but now it is widely accepted by the Basque region society at large that ETA has no reason to exist, other than its lack of accepting the reality of change of times. See as a reference datum the results of the last national Spanish elections that have been recently held (9 March 2008) with more than a 75 percent of participation. There is practically no social support for the radical nationalists in Basque region. Of course, same applies to Catalonia that has always lacked of any social problem at any comparable level.

About the jurisdiction of an Spanish judge to judge genocide "anywhere". Well, think carefully of this: we are talking only of "genocide", which is defined as a crime against humanity. You have to really qualify to become eligible to "genocide criminal" (not anyone can qualify easily!). We are all human, and what makes no sense is that we cross our arms while someone mass murders our human fellows, only because there is a "border" (artificial as it is) so thin between them and we. It is the duty of humans to defend defenseless humans wherever they might be. So, if a French judge spends research time and effort to collect evidence that can be used to stop someone (whoever) to keep on doing atrocities against humans (anywhere he might be), and, in seeing this French judge, I go and comment: "who does he think he is, the world police?" I think I would be only showing off my lack of understanding which would borderline the uttermost ignorance of the most obvious things, my lack of common sense. Last but not least, this French judge would not be doing any treasppassing at all: Once this judge collects the evidence, he would ask for the deportation of such person. Everything is done legally according to international law. Deportation can be denied of course. In which case there is no one flying a helicopter in the night and kidnapping the genocide guy. Those things only happen in Hollywood ( ... Oh well, not exactly only in Hollywood ... ).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.142.143.67 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Gurkha invasions
The article currently gives the impression that the Qing central government sent troops to Tibet when the Gurkhas attacked the area in late 17th century. IIRC, Ms. Collmar-Paulenz (Kleine Geschichte Tibets, see reflist) states that the central government sent no troops at all, and that the Gurkha had to be repelled by local troops. So, who is wrong? Yaan 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wrong. Miss Paulenz says that the Qing sent a whole army in 1793, bot no troops in 1854. Yaan (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought that sounded strange that someone said there was no army sent in 1793.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TOC too long
Just a note that the TOC is too long for FA standards. Perhaps the details in the "history" and "culture" sections can be added to the relevant daughter articles and the content on this summary page trimmed to eliminate subheadings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Manchu suzerainty
"Manchu suzerainty" at the end of the lead is not NPOV. If I understand the history of Sino-British negotiations over Tibet correctly, one big sticking point was always whether China (under the Qing dynasty or afterwards) was suzerain or sovereign. Is there an ambiguous word that can cover both? What about just simply "authority"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "dominance"? Yaan (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

'Suzerainty' is a British term. Eastern political theory may not work in such a fashion. 86.163.61.178 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sovereignty" is also a British term. Of course, we are looking for an English word to describe the situation in this article.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"controversially"
Can some native speakers of English please point out whether saying "They controversially signed the treaty", taken to mean "There is a controversy on whether they signed the treaty", is good English or not? I have seen phrases like this one pop up in this article and others. I always reverted them, but I actually just recognized that, as a non-native speaker myself, I should be somewhat more humble and not too confident. So can someone please help me out? Yaan (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Yaan. It depends on what you mean by "controversy". If you mean that it is not known whether they signed the treaty or not, then you are correct to say, "It is controversial whether they signed the treaty or not." Is that what you mean by controversial? Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What I wanted to know is whether "They controversially signed the treaty" reads OK or not. I thought it does not, but was not entirely sure anymore. But now I tend to think it really does read strange. Actually, I just asked because I have seen constructions like this in several articles and got a bit unsure of myself -- but only after I had been a bit harsh in a recent edit summary. Yaan (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. No, it does not sound right to say "They controversially signed the treaty". There are similar grammatical errors in this article and others, and I've been meaning to help correct them. Anytime you have a question like that Yaan, feel free to ask me. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

color-coded map legend confusing
The approach selected for the color-coded map legend is quite confusing. Can it be improved upon, most likely by switching to horizontal bars... which align with the relevant description...? Ling.Nut (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it is not very intuitive, but I am not sure if changing the orientation of the bars is enough to fix it. Yaan (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the map legend's layout. Y'all can wrangle over further details. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear - but inaccurate now! I'm reverting it back. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that. The legend now makes it seem as if "Tibetan areas designated by the PRC" does not include the TAR.
 * Your kind of legend, in connection with shades of the same color instead of red, yellow, blue, would make sense if the areas mentioned in the legend formed an ascending (or descending) chain, i.e if "Historic Tibet as claimed by Tibetan exile groups" includes "Tibetan areas designated by the PRC" and "Tibetan areas designated by the PRC" includes "Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control)" etc. But "Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control)" includes neither "Claimed by PRC as part of TAR" nor "Other areas historically within Tibetan cultural sphere", so I think the whole thing is now a worse mess than before. Sorry, Yaan (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The map legend is not intuitive by any strectch of the imagination.. If it requires deep thought to understand, then add explanatory text. The entire purpose of a map legen is to provide clarity at a glance. I hope we can agree on that point. Later Ling.Nut (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. But I am afraid that with the current map, there is no easy way to provide a legend (or maybe there is: Yellow = TAR (uncontested), orange = Tibetan areas outside TAR, as designated by the PRC, red = areas claimed as Tibetan by Tibetan exile groups, but not designated as Tibetan areas by the PRC, etc., green = claimed by India, but controlled by the PRC as part of TAR (or is it?, turquoise = areas claimed by the PRC as part of TAR, but controlled by India, blue = Other areas historically within Tibetan cultural sphere) Yaan (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea behind what Ling.Nut has done. Basically, breaking the colour strips into blocks ensures that the reader is not "mislead" into reading the legend downwards rather than across. Perhaps lining up the blocks (if anyone knows how to do it) so that the same colour is vertically aligned, as it was formerly, would be a good idea. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps showing Tibet's historical borders
The existing historical map, {Image:World_820.png} is good but its borders for Tibet are incorrect. For Examples: Nan Zhao and Bengal were both free from Tibetan rule after 794 AD, and Tibet ruled the Tarim Basin and parts of Afghanistan, including Kabul until 812 or 815 AD.

I've got 2 maps of Asia that show Tibet's historical borders, one in 700 and another in 800 AD. I can edit the map to highlight Tibet so it stands out on the maps. Would it be okay to replace the existing history map with one or both of the maps, or at least add one of them to the article?

Ideally this article's history section should have at least 2 maps, one showing Tibet's borders in relation to other empires, and another map showing Tibet and its historical regions, battles, etc. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1913 treaty with Mongolia, again
I reiterate my previous point that the treaty does not seem relevant enough to be included in the article, but since some questions seem to emain open, I'll engage in some hairsplitting: I think part of the problem might be a misunderstanding (on my part or on the part of other authors) of what constitutes "existence of a treaty" and what constitutes "signing of a treaty". My understanding is that "no treaty exists" is a bit ambigous: it could mean both "no treaty was signed" or "there are no valid treaties". "A treaty was signed" means "a document purported to be a treaty was signed" (even if it turns out that the treaty is void from the start). In our case, the claim that the Tibet-Mongolian treaty of 1913 never was valid is well-represented in literature as well as in the article, while fewer refereneces (at least I coud not find one) make the claim that no treaty was signed at all.

If you read Charles Bell's 1937 paper carefully enough, he only asks whether the "Chief Minister of Tibet"'s government "had made a treaty with Mongolia". He did not ask whether Agvan Dorjiev had signed a certain document, so strictly speaking, I don't think this is a reference for the existence of a signed "treaty" document being put into doubt. Bell does also not give the date on which he asked the Chief Minister about the treaty, so it would be nice to know where the info that the remarks were made "years later" comes from. Yaan (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Balanced wording
Per WP:NPOV I just reverted those unbalanced wordings as I see blatantly organized POV pushing for the past months. All editors should read Tibet sovereignty debate before taking any action. - MainBody (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Qing control reasserted
Would like to add some sources providing different pictures, from both Charles Bell and A.T. Grunfeld. Please feel free to comment:


 * "the Chinese officials of the modern school, who came in now, lessened the bribes taken by the Tibetan officials from the poorer classes, and...gave straighter justice than that dealt out by the Tibetan magistry. There is no doubt some foundation for the Amban's claim that the poorer classes in Tibet were in favor of China" [Bell, Charles, Tibet Past and Present, Oxford University Press, 1927, p93, p210]


 * "Zhang (initiated) a series of developmental project, and (forced) the official to a higher level of productivity by having them work harder. Specifically, Zhang and the amban...attacked corruption and "monastic idleness" founded a four thousand-man Tibetan army, secularized the government in Lhasa, opened schools, improved agriculture, and founded a military academy. While none of these reforms lasted very long, they did go some way toward winning the allegiance of the people and the enmity of the ruling elite."[Grunfeld, A.T., The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1995, p60] --219.79.122.72 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds somewhat similar to what happened in Outer Mongolia at the time. Scholars of Mongolia usually regard these "new policies" as aiming at Han Chinese colonization and not at increased welfare for the Mongolian commoners. Indeed, Han Chinese colonization in Inner Mongolia had, by that time, already proven quite detrimental to the welfare of Inner Mongolians. These policies are also seen as the principal reason why the Outer Mongolian nobles sought help from Russia.
 * Of course Tibet is not Outer Mongolia, but I am still a bit sceptical about the alleged positive effects of these policies in Tibet, especially when the motives for these policies are not mentioned. Of course what we have in the article now does not seem very neutral either, probably because the sources given are not very neutral. I guess it should be possible to find some reliable, scholarly sources. I know Grunfeld has sometimes been criticised for missing important details because he speaks/reads no Tibetan and never went to Tibet before writing his book, but I have no idea which author could be more reliable. Just my 2ct. Yaan (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all reliable sources should be represented. Remember that NPOV does not say "find neutral sources". It says "represent all points of view", and by presenting, for example, two countering POV sources from opposite ends, we achieve neutrality and balance in the aggregate. My personal view is that any policy aimed at granting "favours" to commoners is likely to undermine the local nobility's hold on power, and the question of which purpose being dominant, or indeed which being the motivating purpose, is a question of perspective and may not be clear even in the minds of the original decision-maker. Say the Emperor in Beijing orders a new hospital to be built in Lhasa. Does he think he's bringing benefit to his subjects? Probably. Does the thought of undermining the local ruling class enter his consideration? Probably. Which is dominant? We have no way of knowing, short of reading cabinet meeting minutes - which, unfortunately, we can't. Was it great for the local populace? Maybe for some, not so for others. So presenting with due weight all reliable scholarly analysis is the best approach. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that WP:NPOV does not mean "try to achieve neutrality by finding the average between two extremes". My understanding is that first, those facts that are generally undisputed in reliable sources should be established first, and then the different viewpoints should be explained. I actually have no real idea of how reliable either Grunfeld or the sources now referenced in the article really are, but I am generaly suspicious of partisan websites, and I have read some reviews of Grunfeld that were not entirely convinced. Of course that does not mean these texts are not valid sources for POVs, but maybe not too reliable when tryng to establish facts. Or maybe they are, I have just not read enough about Tibet to know which works are reliable and which are not.
 * Regarding the "new policies", I wonder whether they were aimed at granting favours to anyone at all. My understanding is that they were aimed at tightening administration. That attacking the lamas is supposed to have created goodwill among the population seems, for example, rather strange. In Mongolia, the result was usually the opposite. On the other hand I have no problem believing that any reforms were rather ill-recieved among the Tibetan establishment. In any case, I think it would be better to establish the facts from reliable sources first. Yaan (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That policies were implemented are facts; whether the policies were well received by particular sections of the populace are disputed facts, and the motivations for the policies are, in the absence of actual records, mere opinions. In regard to the latter categories, WP:NPOV would stipulate that we represent all major points of view, weighted according to their relative importance.
 * As to attacking lamas winning popularity: I don't see why it is such an unreasonable proposition. In all societies, those at the relative bottom end of the socio-economic or political scale will, to some extent, resent those near the top. In a theocracy, if Tibet in that period can be classified as such, the intrusion of religion does not necessarily remove this resentment, or class conflict if you will. Just because the other European states were Catholic does not mean that the Papal States were sacrosanct; and no doubt the population would have resented the privileged classes just as much as the commoners of any other European state of the time. It seems a bit romantic to think that Tibetan society is homogeneous. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first section, but anyway I think using some good secondary sources (as opposed to partial quotes from secondary sources provided from an anonymous contributor, or stuff taken directly from partisan websites) would be a good idea.
 * Re. the attacks on religion, I do not think I am romantic, and I do not think Tibetan society was homogeneous at all. In fact, I think your reasoning is a bit questionable on two counts: First, you seem to imply that lamas were the top of Tibetan society, when my understanding is (and here I am extrapolating from the situation in Mongolia again) that there were large class differences among lamas, and that basically every family had a lama of some sorts within their ranks. In such a situation, where religion is deeply engrained with the people's whole way of life, my understanding is that an outsider's attack - or just a perceived attack - on the church as a whole ('monastic idleness' just does not sound to be specifically directed at the high lamas, does it?) does not automatically translate into class struggle. Examples from Mongolia include To Wang's modernization attempts in his banner during the mid-19th century, or the anti-communist uprisings in the early 1930s. An example from Europe could be Bismarck's Kulturkampf. But I may be underestimating the differences between Mongolia and Tibet on that count, or missing important details, so it would again be nice to have this all sorted out with the help of some really reliable sources.
 * The second questionable point is the comparison of commoner-church relationship in Tibet with international relations in medieval Europe. I just do not see the relevance of that example.
 * Regards, Yaan (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the first count. When I said "lamas", I was using it as a shorthand to refer to the theocratic establishment who held political and socio-economic power. Of course "lamas" is not a homogenous category, just as the Communist Party of China includes both the top political echelon and rural village officials in that country. However, I don't agree on the (seemingly) qualitative difference you draw between lamaist society, where religion is ingrained, as opposed to other religious societies. No society is homogeneous and all have conflicts. Successfully exploiting these conflicts are an important part of an outsider's strategy to obtain control, as Machiavelli might have noted. The difference between pre-modern Tibet and medieval Europe in terms of the permeation of religion into society is one of degree at most. Just as attacking the Catholic Church won the Communards support in France, it is not hard to believe that attacking the religio-socio-economic establishment would have won friends in Tibet, too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. But I would imagine that Paris in 1871 is quite different from both medieval Europe and Tibet in 1910. Had the french priests in 1871 been able to convince the attackers that they were able to put a curse on their enemies, and the families of their enemies, things might have worked out different. I can also agree that exploiting conflicts within a society is a good strategy when trying to gain control, I just can't see any references saying that this was tried - and Grunfeld gives the impression that whatever really was tried did not succeed. In the absence of good sources, this discussion is rather theoretical anyway. I propose we continue it once we have access to proper sources. Yaan (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder what is the threat-value of eternal damnation :) But I completely agree with those comments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Charles Bell's sources have been quoted repeatedly, therefore I don't see ANY reason to exclude his viewpoint, at least not "partial", on the Qing modernization in the region.219.79.122.72 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, I would like to know what the "..." is for. You seem to have access to these works, so would you mind quoting them in full instead of only partially? How are we to know that you did not leave out something important? Yaan (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally made it into my library, and Miss Kollmar-Paulenz' (whom I found not really pro-Dharamsala) take is that General Zhao's troops indeed "looted and murdered". While the text quoted from in the article is certainly non-NPOV (what the communists did 50 years later is entirely irrelevant to 1905), I think it is wrong to juxtapose this quote and the following ones in this way, as if one speaks against the other - they are not mutually exclusive at all: Yes, Zhao's troops destroyed monasteries, looted and murdered (this is not denied in the latter two quotes, and probably fits quite well with what is known about the behaviour of Chinese troops in other theatres of the early 20th century), and yes, "Zhao Erfang worked out a comprehensive scheme for the redevelopment of Tibet that covered military training reclamation work, secular education, trade and administration" (excerpt from the "pro-Dharamsala" quote). Maybe it would be better to just add a citation of Miss Collmar-Paulenz, and put the citations into the footnotes section, as there is no need for such long quotes in this article anyway? Of course I would still prefer to know what Goldstein or Bell have to say about the actual Qing expedition, but I don't have the books in my library, so... Yaan (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone is wondering, my library actually does have Melvyn Goldstein's History of Modern Tibet. I just found out that they even have Charles Bell's Tibet Past and present (and in two different languages!), so I might look up his stance of the 1905/1908 developments in the next days, too. Yaan (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed out of article
"The money funneled into cultural restoration projects is being primarily aimed at purely attracting tourists, and Tibet is still lagging behind the rest of the PRC. The first large hospital in Tibet was not built until 1985. Several of Lhasa's main roads were not paved until 1987 and the first students at Tibet University did not graduate until 1988."


 * The above statement was removed from the article. Not only is this lacking sources, but this is seriously debatable.  There are parts deep in mainland China that can be considered lagging behind Tibet.  Also eastern traditional medicine and tibet medicine needs to be compared.  The comment about hospitals is a bad way to compare modernization.  Benjwong (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Younghusband massacre
But on his way to Lhasa, Younghusband slaughtered 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangz, because the locals feared that the British would force an unequal treaty on the Tibetans. Younghusband first tricked them into extinguishing the burning ropes of their basic rifles before opening fire with the Maxim machine guns.

The first sentence makes no sense; the latter is uncited and is at odds with Hopkirk's "The Great Game".

205.181.102.108 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)