Talk:Tibet (1912–1951)

[Untitled]
Nothing in the article suggests that Tibet is a theocracy. I have removed the theocracy tag. 76.114.104.242 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmetic change
this artikel is trying to mislead the reader. in fact, there were never a tibet country in history after 13 Centry. Yuan Dynasty turned the mongol Tibet offically a part of China. in the time of 1912-1951 there was no Peoples Republic of China PRC. China had at that time " Public of China" ROC. also the official name of Taiwan Today. in the Constitution of Taiwan you can still find that Tibet is a part of PRC. in the civil war had tibet never successfully indepented. at last, Jiangkaisheng went to Taiwan, and the new PRC was found. naturlly tibet was still a part of china. Dalailama as the slavemaster, after the defeat of a rebel support bei CIA and England, under the help of CIA, escaped to India. what must be pointed out is, his follower were not normal Tibet people, most of them are nobles also slave owners. who brutally ruled tibet under the old Slavesystem. naturally these people never want to share with the 98% normal tibet people ...you can find some document about the law at that time, which england robbed from there at england invated tibet in 18 centry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocnn (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to rename the article simply Tibet (1912-1950) and include the "former country" infobox, in order to have some succession with the Qing China and PRC regimes. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on renaming the article in the absence of compelling reasons for the change. I have no objections to adding the former country infobox, though it might stir up the blood of some Chinese chauvinists, who like to assert that Tibet was not a country. Bertport (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the reason for renaming is simply for keeping in tone with the adding of the infobox, as the article would be - it already is - about a country named Tibet, which existed as an independent entity between 1912 and 1950. If we add the infobox, it will look as if there is a conflict with the title. That's just cosmetic and would not change the content one bit. It won't be much of a change for the title : if the article is title Tibet (year such and such), it will be obvious that the article is about the history of Tibet from year A to year B. As for the "chauvinistic" issue, there is no point in that, since Tibet was de facto independent, whatever one thinks of it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'm against adding the infobox. This article is a subtopic of History of Tibet. Bertport (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pity, as making the article appear explicitely to be about a sovereign state (which it is) makes it easier to add links as, for example, a successor state to Qing China. Changing the title slightly will not make it less of a subtopic of History of Tibet, since Tibet (1912-1950) is clearly about the history of Tibet during that period. The change is really minimal. BTW, why is does the title have 1949 instead of 1950 as an end date, since the Chinese invasion took place in 1950 ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, really, I don't have a strong feeling about it. At least wait a few days to see if anyone else wants to discuss it.  Then, assuming no other objections, if you want to do the work not only of renaming, but also tracking down and correcting wikilinks to the present title, I won't stand in your way.  And I agree, 1950 is better than 1949. Bertport (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. I might work on it at the end of the week when time permits. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Tibet's status is up for debate. There are sources on the 13th Dalai Lama's page that contradict Nocnn's commits on this talk page. As such I have removed the Area of China status from the infobox. Furthermore, something about his comment seems fishy to me. Does anyone know if Nocnn has any connections to China or is pro-PRC? I suspect that Nocnn may have let his or her political views or personal feelings on the matter of Tibet influence his edits and comments on this matter. It is essential that this article show no bias toward either side of the debate over Tibet. Anasaitis (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: it appears that there is currently no user named Nocnn on Wikipedia. The entire page on this user, including the talk page, has been deleted. There is nothing there. Very Strange. Stranger still, the above comment is the only contribution this user ever made to Wikipedia. I think we need to keep a closer eye on this article. Anasaitis (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is the type of goverment
The Kashag got an important role, but what role does the Dalai Lama played, in the periods when the Lama was unable to rule or they were waiting to find the next rencarnation who governed?--Tercerista (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Wibach and Auszie
Regarding the by Wibach that was  Auszie:

Please use edit summaries to explain the reasoning behind your edits, especially when you are reverting somebody. Quigley (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This article was created in American English, and because there are no strong national ties from this subject to any English-speaking country, the style should not be changed per WP:RETAIN.
 * 2) The 13th Dalai Lama's proclamation is quoted as "the Chinese intention" not the "Manchu" intention. Also, he was asserting separation from China, not the "Manchu-Qing empire", because in 1913, the latter did not exist, and the former was trying to encroach on Tibet. The ethnicity of the ruling family of the Qing should not be unduly emphasized; the Qing was widely seen both inside and outside the state as "China" or the "Chinese Empire".
 * 3) Using the warlord period as an anchor to mark history makes much more sense than the interwar period, which refers to a broader time range of events in Europe between World Wars I and II. The section itself talks about the battles between Lhasa and the Chinese warlords.


 * I agree with you, Quigley. "relations during the interwar period" would make some sense, but that section seems to be discussing a narrower period of history. I especially agree about the use of edit summaries.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Slavery
Added some information on slavery and serfdom in Tibet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabbish (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems slightly excessive, given the relatively short length of the rest of the article. TiC (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Slightly excessive is an euphemism. This one time IP editor has apparently not read the article. Just above his addition is the following paragraph: Scholars have debated the validity of characterizing the socio-economy of Tibet prior to Communism as 'feudal serfdom'. For a discussion of the debate see Serfdom in Tibet controversy. For a description of the traditional social structure see Social classes of Tibet. It seems to be a gross plagiarism of Michael Parenti. All extracts I googled redirect to the same website with almost identical wording. Needs to be deleted.--Pseudois (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The large block of material Pseudois deleted is not plagiarized. A number of references are cited. The elephant in the room is that despite being "serfs" the common people of Tibet were generally content and supportive of their government, such as it was. There are sources for that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not plagiarized? Beside the fact that this paragraph has nothing to do in this article (the previous chapter ends with "For a discussion of the debate see Serfdom in Tibet controversy", this is the most obvious case of plagiarism I have seen since a long lime. The whole piece is a direct copy from Michael Parenti. Any sentence you may type in google will lead to his website, which seems to be down (at least I could not access it from my location) Copy/extracts of his essay can be found at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Parenti_Tibet.htm and http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/articleprint16/11)_LOOKING_BEHIND_THE_TIBET_MYTH.html , frowm where I compiled this small table. 99.9% is exactly the same, references and typo included. --Pseudois (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your persistence. You are correct, of course. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC) --Pseudois (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)--Pseudois (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In reverting you made several counter-policy errors.
 * I saw, as you saw, a lot of material plunked in with a new section. Since I know several of the writers (their politics, the quality of their 'information') and writers like Lopez who was self-evidently quoted to 'prove a point' from memory he never makes, I set about systematically to revise the rubbish, by weeding out poor sourcing, and using standard academic works on the theme introduced. You just reverted everything, and here showed the original matter was plagiarized. Well I just thought it unreliable, you proved it was plagiarized. But the error you made was to confuse what I was doing, rewriting everything, and getting rid of poor sources, with what the plagiarizer was doing-
 * Your answer, in your second revert, is that there is no place for slavery here. Wrong. The article covers Tibet generally, and before these edits, gave only an account of the political history of the country. No historical articles in wiki limit themselves to politics: they cover, if they are to come up to standards, cultural, social and economic events as well. By using the opportunity to thoroughly revise what had been plunked there, I intended to provide the article with information on what was glaringly absent.
 * Which consists in (a) the claims China made for invading which, aside from sovereignty, were based on a Marxist theory of slavery and serfdom (b) the academic material on Tibetan society and the transformations it underwent from the 13th Dalai Lama to the time of the invasion.
 * You've ignored this completely, and simply reverted, arguing that none of this is relevant to the history of Tibet at that period. That other pages deal with this is no excuse for deleting two paragraphs that outline modern research on Tibetan social structures at the time of the takeover. For that reason, I will be restoring the material, unless you can provide me with sound policy based arguments on why the history of a country in wiki articles should be restricted to international diplomacy.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani. I deleted the whole chapter for obvious plagiarism, and provided evidence here above for my accusations of plagiarism (not by you, but by the IP editor who initially inserted this chapter). You have restored it by mentionning that "Nothing is obvious, except your personal opinion in reverting solid RS material, in preference for a gallimaufry of comments by unscholarly observer". I don't know what you mean with "my personal opinion", and personal opinions do not count while editing Wikipedia. Please stop attacking other editors and stop restoring plagiarized content. Thank you.--Pseudois (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, please read what I said, and examine what you did. You are quite within your rights to remove plagiarized material. You have no right to remove material which I happen to have written, which has nothing to do with the plagiarized material you objected to. You are consistently deleting material that substitutes the rubbish you object to, while implicitly claiming what I wrote from perfectly respectable RS is part and parcel of the prior plagiarized material. You have not replied to this, and I will duly report you if you revert what I wrote, as opposed to what the plagiarizer plunked in. In sum, you are treating a different editor, myself, as if he were part of the plagiarism problem you detected in another, a problem my edits sought to redress. What you are doing is simply not permitted.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, what you are inserting now goes far beyond the scope of this article. You are just starting again a full chapter on something which is extensively described at Serfdom in Tibet controversy and Social classes of Tibet. If you want to add material, please do it in thoses articles. What is not acceptable is that you have simply deleted the previous phrasing in this article at the time of making your massive additions. What have you done with this part? It seems to be gone.
 * Scholars have debated the validity of characterizing the socio-economy of Tibet prior to Communism as 'feudal serfdom'. For a discussion of the debate see Serfdom in Tibet controversy. For a description of the traditional social structure see Social classes of Tibet.
 * We do need a brief section here about the continuation and development, if any, of the traditional Tibetan feudalism during this period. Summary characterizations such as feudal serfdom have no place in Wikipedia when well-referenced facts can speak for themselves. I'll probably redirect the red link I just created at Tibet to traditional Tibetan aristocracy to Social classes of Tibet]]. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'scope' of this article is in the title. I'm afraid the evidence of parallel articles shows you are mistaken. Check out a parallel article Republic of China (1912–1949) to our Tibet (1912–1951) or indeed to History of Tibet (1950–present) I don't see any argument for the idiosyncratic veto you are suggesting here. The former has a strong section on Economy among other things, just as the last named article has. As I said, you cannot restrict articles on Tibetan historical periods to the raw political data and sovereignty dispute. Secondly, the state of its political, social and economic organization takes primacy of place in Chinese and Western analyses of the period, and therefore it is not only pertinent but indispensable background. You are making an exception to practice, and therefore, unless you can come up with policy-based reasons, I suggest you desist from objecting to the normative work you reverted earlier.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my point. I am more than supporting the inclusion of a brief chapter about socio-economical aspects related to this period. But it should be related to that particular period (and not blankly cover the past few centuries), be broad in its coverage, and be somehow independent from the whole PRC-Tibet controversy which is influencing almost every single article about Tibet in WP. Your choice for the section title ("Tibetan society at the time of the invasion") and your opening paragraph ("Chinese sources were to justify their invasion and annexation on two grounds. One is that they had in law a technical right, based on historical precedent, to exercise sovereignty over Tibet. The other is that their takeover was a liberation from the appalling backwardness in which its feudal class structure, with its serfdom and slavery, had reduced the Tibetan people") do not attempt to describe the Tibetan society on its own, but again add material related to the sovereignty dispute. I hope you can understand my point.--Pseudois (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. I can't. I've written a heck of a lot of articles, several on Tibetan matters, but I always find, distinctively here, some objection I can't fathom. You can alter the title, but the substance of what I wrote describes Tibetan society as observed after the 13th Dalai Lama's reforms, which coincide with this period, down to the society the Chinese took over. The bit about sovereignty and competing claims contextualizes why getting the details on what society we are dealing with is important.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Down to 1947, China never worried about what Tibetan society was like. It was a sovereignty issue. After the Communist takeover, the Marxist theory of history underwriting the revolution was invoked, and that is why post 1950 Chinese justifications are crammed with crap about 'feudalism' and 'slavery' imported from a primitive reading of Marx. Tibetan accounts overidealise in the other direction. So the smoke from both sides has to be mentioned, so we can give an account of precisely what Tibetan society was structured as, in this period of contention. By a pure unexpected turn of bad fortune, I just missed out becoming a Tibetan monk: people say its asceticism is difficult. I think it's got nothing on what editing wikipedia requires.:)
 * As to 'deleting previous phrasing', I was under the impression you deleted the whole section. Correct me if I err. Since your objection was to the whole plagiarized mishmash, I threshed what I had to contribute from that gallimaufry, and, under a substitute title, reincluded it. What I left out was, I believe, everything you objected to. But one can slip up. If there is anything from the plagiarized material you wish to restore, by all means feel free to add it back.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course no I don't want to restore plagiarized material. I was wondering where the paragraph had gone, but have noticed meanwhile that you have deleted it together with this edit (with an edit summary only mentioning a restoration of material). But let's just leave this out, it is not the main point of discussion.--Pseudois (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion appears to have been abandoned, but issues with this section remain. A long section full of plagiarized material offering generalities about Tibetan society over an unspecified but obviously quite long historical period, under the title of "Tibetan society at the time of the invasion", has been (replaced) by a long section full of non-plagiarized material offering generalities about Tibetan society over an unspecified but obviously quite long historical period under the same title. There is nothing subtle about the propaganda function of this section in either case.--Human fella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed for discussion
"Young Tibetan boys were taken from peasant families were raised in monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers." There is no page no., and the word 'rape' does not come up if you search this text. In Tibetan Buddhism, and monastic practice, any penetration of orifices, male or female is strictly forbidden, and the monastic practice was very much what it was in English colleges in Auden's day, intercrural intercourse, the passive partner being a 'guest' or drombo, and Tsering accepted this after being 'invited' to perform that function. Were anal sex (rape) involved and discovered, the consequence was, at least normatively, expulsion from the order. Specifically Tashi-tsering's memoir doesn't lend itself to the idea that the monastic system was into the sex-slave trade. He's quite open about all this, so a specific page ref is required before this can be restored. The relationship between monasteries and the peasantry is made out to be one of sexual predation. You need very good neutral sourcing for all this.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs better sourcing, references to England are irrelevant. A memoir, although edited, is the testimony of one person and is not a reliable source. This sort of stuff is well sourced for Islamic societies directly west of Tibet, see Bacha bazi.User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I made the ref to England here, in explanation of why I found what we read in the article very odd and have no intention of editing in what I said. As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be there. As to Anna Louise Strong she was a notorious propagandist and shouldn't be used as a source since Tibet's society, throughout history, is now thoroughly covered academically. Most of the crap here comes from propagandists or tourists or fellow travellers.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anna Louise Strong certainly had a bias but I don't know that the facts she reported were inaccurate; this is a good example of her seeing something in one light while an ordinary Tibetan would see it another markedly different light. We don't exclude her view, or the Chinese view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Strong had a bad reputation for interviewing groomed subjects, and as cited (for what in any case can be cited from Goldstein or any other number of sources) before had a WP:Undue problem as a source. It would be ridiculous to assume that, as anywhere else, shocking stories of authentic maltreatment can't possibly exist or be mentioned. But before the anecdotes were adduced as corroborations of a general sinocentric thesis.
 * As long as the Chinese view is attributed, and not, as it was earlier, presented not as the Chinese view, but as that of a chain of angles by 1960s pro-regime Western writers, I have no problem with it at all. All I insist on is the highest quality sources, which have, as far as I am familiar with them, have a reputation for close field work and historical integrity.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the part where the 14th Dalai Lama was appointed as a delegate representing Tibet for the first CCP meeting
Should this also become part of the Artical, since this did take place before 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.138.20 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete this Article or Change it Totally
This article is very biased and misleading. There is very few historical evidence that proof Tibet is an independent country, in fact, most of map published between 1912 to 1951 marked Tibet as a part of China (such as the World map published by United Nation).Tibet is just one of the local governments that gains autonomous due to lack of effective central government during the age of Warlords, the Civil War, and the WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.22.126 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The article already covers it as an unrecognized, de facto autonomous state. You are suggesting a change that is already there. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The age of Warlords (軍閥時代), the Civil War (國共戰爭), and the WWII (第二次世界大戦) only confirmed what happened to be historically the case earlier: Tibet wasn't mixed up in the large imperial world of contending powers, and essentially ruled autonomously, until China adopted the imperial model and seized and occupied it.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tibetan Communist Party
The Tibetan Communist Party was mostly formed by Tibetans from Kham and Amdo before merging with the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. It opposed the Kuomintang (Tibet Improvement Party included) and opposed the Dalai Lama. It had little presence among U-Tsang Tibetans.

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/30128/5/Luo_Jia_E_200911_ME_thesis.pdf

A Tibetan Revolutionary: The Political Life and Times of Bapa Phüntso Wangye By Melvyn C. Goldstein, Dawei Sherap, William R. Siebenschuh

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Melvyn+C.+Goldstein%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d8wgU-DkIcb10gHYsoEo&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA306#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA326#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anachronistic flag?
I've been told that this flag:
 * Flag of Tibet.svg

is actually the flag of the Tibetan Army, which was later adopted as the symbol of the Tibetan independence movement after Tibet fell to the communists, and wasn't actually the national flag of Tibet. If this really is the case, then the current state of the infobox is problematic. Is someone able to make some verifications regarding this? There also seems to be this, but it probably doesn't apply to this article, since it was used before 1912. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Emblem of Tibet article also suggests that File:Emblem of Tibet.svg was created after 1959. This one also needs proper source clarification. We cannot falsely attribute the emblem of an independence organization as the emblem of a historic nation. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article provides no date as to the creation of this emblem. It seems to have appeared fairly recently (post-1959). The talk page in the corresponding page in the French-speaking Wikipedia is quite telltale as to the issues raised by the emblem, its name and anachronism. --Elnon (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article Flag of Tibet discusses this topic. Certainly, the flag was rarely used for government purposes during the de facto independence era of the Lhasa state. On the other hand, at the 1947 Asian Relations Conference, Tibet sent representatives who apparently used the familiar Tibetan flag (this photo shows the delegates at the conference with an emblem resembling the flag). The Wikipedia article also summarises the 14th Dalai Lama's conversation with Mao about the flag: "Phuntso Wangye claims that Mao Zedong discussed the flag in 1955 conversation with the 14th Dalai Lama. According to the story, Mao told the Dalai Lama that Zhang Jingwu, Zhang Guohua, and Fan Ming told him that Tibet had a 'national flag'. The Dalai Lama replied that Tibet had an army flag. Supposedly Mao replied that 'you may keep your national flag'. There is no official recognition of this conversation in Chinese documents, though. ". So the flag was a bit obscure, but certainly in use, prior to 1951. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just one remark. Phuntsok Wangyal (as quoted by Melvyn Goldstein) reported that in 1952 Lukhangwa, a Tibetan minister, had claimed that the flag "was not a national flag at all, but rather the flag of the Tibetan military." "As evidence for this," Goldstein adds, "he stated that this flag had never been flown on any Tibetan government buildings, and technically he was correct." --Elnon (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, but that was in a context in which Lukhangwa certainly was not free to express his opinions freely: he was trying to preserve as much of old Tibet's practical and symbolic prerogatives while serving a Chinese government that he regarded as completely illegitimate. His public statements, then, were necessarily all limited by political necessity. I can't be 100% sure what Phüntso Wangye meant by "technically" in the statement you quoted, but what I think he's implying is that while Lukhangwa's argument was accurate as far as it went, he (Phüntso Wangye) does not believe it tells the whole story.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First time I found this flag in an 1926 flagbook, as the "national flag", western (german) one of course. So, the flag was widely used, by the military, and most likely not in the sense of the "national flag". But it was a symbol of the tibetan state then. Maybe adding some footnote? The emblem is anachronistic, really! That time, the Kashag government used seals like --Antemister (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Name
Was there an "official" name of that country, used on overnemnt documents?--Antemister (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tibet (1912–51). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080421215248/http://www.idsa.in:80/publications/stratcomments/AbantiBhattacharya040408.htm to http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/AbantiBhattacharya040408.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unrecognized independence?
A few days ago, an IP inserted "unrecognized independent" into the lead sentence and then another editor added it to the Short description. These assertions are untenable. Britain clearly recognized the de facto independence. That is why the Simla Conference was called and Britain insisted on a tripartite Convention (with three equal parties signing it).

Eventually, Tibet signed the Convention but China did not. And, until China had signed, no benefits from the Convention were to accrue to China. That meant that Tibet's de facto independence continued in British eyes until the 1950 annexation.

Indeed, Britain operationalised the McMahon Line agreement in the 1930's without any Chinese agreement, armed Tibet to fight against China, and stationed a British envoy in Lhasa. All these things mean Britain's recognition of the de facto independence.

When Britain says that they had "recognized" the suzerainty of China that only means that they recognized China's right to such suzerainty. But that right would come into being only if China had the signed the Simla Convention, which it never did.

-- As for de jure suzerainty that the Republic of China supposedly had, there is no such thing. De jure means "by law". Which law are we talking about here? Which reliable source authenticates such a thing? This is complete WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Chinese suzerainty over Tibet was discussed after British expedition to Tibet. See and Tibet Lost in Translation: Sovereignty, Suzerainty and International Order Transformation, 1904–1906. In the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, both Britain and Russia affirmed that business with Tibet would be conducted through the Chinese Government, which tacitly acknowledged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. It can be argued that Republic of China inherits Qing suzerainty over Tibet as a successor state, though WP:RS that states that explicitly would be better. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The title of the page is Tibet (1912-1951). So what happened before 1912 cannot be used to add POVs here. The Simla Convention was Britain's way of squaring their previous position with the new realities. But China refused to sign it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See the footnote at the Simla Convention page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that ROC continued to assert its sovereignty over Tibet even though it had no effective control over it, and no Western country directly contradicted that claim. For example, FRUS explicitly states that the U.S. would not formally recognize Tibet as an independent state. Similar pattern of behavior can be observed with Britain; i.e. they would deal with Tibet as de facto independent, but would not act in a way that recognize its de jure independence, because doing so would cause strong protests from China without accruing any benefit to a Western country. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, de jure means "by law". The concerned sources here would be those specializing in international law. Do the scholars of international law say any such thing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There are three further problems here:

1. The pro-Chinese editors want to add "unrecognized independent" as if it is some special form of independence. There is no such thing.

2. The absence of recognition applies only to foreign states. But there are plenty of non-state bodies and scholars that recognize it.

3. From Wikipedia's point of view, states and governments are not reliable sources. That is especially the case here, because scholars point out:

When states act in self-interest or in the interest of geopolitics, they are even less of reliable sources. Frankly, what they say makes absolutely no difference to Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

AP and UPI news about enthronement ceremony dated Feb 1940
I've co-authored article of the enthronement ceremony of the 14th Dalai Lama on Chinese Wikipedia, and read all the cited sources, but none referenced the cited AP or UPI news. Who were the reporters present at the ceremony? None of the several eye-witness accounts of the ceremony mentioned the presence of Western reporters. Did the news come from press release of Chinese mission in Lhasa? That was the most likely explanation, as there were no Western reporters in Lhasa at the time AFAIK. In other words, the news look more like Chinese propaganda through western news. Happyseeu (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, North China Herald, the most influential foreign language newspaper in China at the time, carries report of the ceremony by Reuters from Chungking. --Happyseeu (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * New York Times reports Dalai Lama to Be Enthroned Today; His Choice Is a Victory for Chinese; Claim of Sovereignty Over Tibet Regarded as Strengthened--Rule of Selection by Lot Waived for 6-Year-Old Boy, DALAI LAMA PLACED ON THRONE OF TIBET; 6-Year-Old Rides in a Golden Palanquin Amid Reverent Crowds in Lhasa Streets WHOLE CITY IS PERFUMED Week's Ceremonies Begin With Colorful Procession That Stretches for a Mile. --Happyseeu (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This was 1940 there were three trade agents of British India in Tibet, and plenty of staff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that. But UPI says “… received felicitations from a Chinese delegation numbering 1,000 persons. A departure from ordinary procedure was marked by display of a huge portrait of Dr. Sun Yat-sen and a Kuomintang flag in the golden main hall of the monastery.” Brits in Tibet wouldn’t know there were a crowd in Chungking, not Tibet, praying for the Dalai Lama (the Chinese delegation to Tibet certainly didn’t number anywhere near 1000; a member of the delegation listed the people in the group.) and nobody present mentioned “ a huge portrait of Dr. Sun Yat-sen ”. And why would the Brits publicize such things for China when they could have written about their own reception the next day? That’s why I don’t think it’s from the Brits. —Happyseeu (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, the only way to get the news out and published the next day is through telegraph. There was no telephone to outside Tibet. The only telegraph line was to India run by India Post. The Chinese and British Mission also had their own wireless telegraph. If the news was sent through British channels, Gould could certainly find out who sent it. News sent through Chinese wireless telegraph would be Chinese propaganda, and that’s likely. Since Charles Bell lamented about the inaccurate news in his book but nobody mentioned anyone connected with the British Mission did it, it’s probably not from the Mission. —Happyseeu (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Time zone of Tibet?
The article currently uses Chinese time zones without citing any sources. Is there any evidence that Tibet uses Chinese time zones? The 14th Dalai Lama used the clock and watch gifted by the British Mission, so what time did it keep (most likely already set when he received it)? When Radio Lhasa only broadcast at certain times, what time zone did it use? These would at least indicate what time zone Lhasa adhered to at one time, instead of mere speculation. —Happyseeu (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The original statement is WP:OR. No reliable source says two time zones were used in Tibet then, and putting two time zones there implies that. I cited a reliable source showing that Radio Lhasa uses Indian Standard Time. Since Tibet didn't have railroad then, radio broadcast is another reason that people would tune in at a known time to listen to a radio program. If the clocks are not synchronized, they would miss the radio broadcast. Ditto for radio communications between wireless units of the Tibetan army. There were few wireless operators and they communicated at previously agreed time, which also required clock synchronization across time zones. What's your reason to revert the edit? --Happyseeu (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't list timezones for former countries. So I removed it. (I was initially confused about which page we were dealing with. For the current Tibet page, a 1950 source would too old. For this page, the question doesn't even arise.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? The template says no such things. If a consensus has been reached on not listing timezones for former countries, show me the discussion. --Happyseeu (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See the syntax and examples of former country . And try not to be so abrasive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Examples of articles of former countries, especially well developed ones like the Soviet Union, do indicate a pattern of putting the time zone when there are sources for it. If there are sources that do indicate the state followed a specific time zone, it should be added. Is there any specific documentation that calls for not putting in the time zone? 117.251.199.169 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be an allowed field, please raise it at template talk:Infobox country. Otherwise, unless there are WP:SECONDARY sources discussing the issue, it should't be mentioned here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Driving side?
Someone wrote "Left hand drive until 1946" w/o citing any source. Given few cars existed before 1951 in Tibet, it's dubious that even driving customs had developed, let alone rules regulating which side to drive on. A reliable source is needed to say anything definitive here. Happyseeu (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article appears to be the subject of vandalism: Some dates are nonsensical; ie. referring to Qing Dynasty interests in Tibet in the 1980s and 1990s and changing descriptions of the pre-Chinese Tibetan state from the past tense to the present tense 172.103.208.205 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"unable to assert any authority" is wrong
Plenty of sources witness that Tibet asked ROC central government for permission to inaugurate the Dalai Lama, which was in fact the ROC preferred candidate seen as "pro China" at the time. See contemporary newspaper sources cited. 142.189.132.149 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That was Chinese propaganda when it had no actual influence. See 朱麗雙 現實與表述：國民政府的特派大員與十四世達賴喇嘛的認證 Happyseeu (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Under society and culture: "Slavery did exist... observers called it 'mild'"...wtf?
"The 13th Dalai Lama had reformed the pre-existing serf system in the first decade of the 20th century, and by 1950, slavery itself had probably ceased to exist in central Tibet, though perhaps persisted in certain border areas. Slavery did exist, for example, in places like the Chumbi Valley, though British observers like Charles Bell called it 'mild', and beggars (ragyabas) were endemic. The pre-Chinese social system, however, was rather complex."

Emphasis mine.

Seriously, what the shit? This would be grossly inappropriate in any article dealing with the topic of slavery, but the fact that the citation that leads to a book that is not linked electronically is especially wild. Even more than that, a cursory Google search came up with no electronically available copy of the cited book "The History of Tibet Vol. 1 by Alex McKay", AND all the physical copies I'm seeing are $1,000-$1200. IF a line like that is going to be included people need to be able to click through and see it in context.

This portion of the article seriously needs to be edited. Twitchyy (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

what does de facto independence mean in this article?
Does de facto independent tibet it mean that it is not recognized by the government of china and most of the international community but tibet itself recognizes it de jure or through laws they get so much autonomy and priveleges that they are effectively independent even if both governments agree that tibet is still officially part of china? UnsungHistory (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The latter AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 19:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * what do you mean? UnsungHistory (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)