Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article scope

If I read Nishidani's comments (copied below from Putting Invasion is POV on firmer ground above) correctly, he is proposing that the article's scope be limited to Political Tibet and that areas not under the control of the Government of Tibet in 1950 not be included in the article's focus. This was discussed a bit in Incorporation above, and the discussion appeared to be leaning towards inclusion of all of ethnographic Tibet, but I think the discussion wound down before a clear consensus was reached. I think this discussion deserves its own section, so I have copied Nishidani's comments and Greg Pandatshang's response below.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has corrected, in terms of what I said above, the following misleading section of the lead.

The Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China was the process by which the People's Republic of China (PRC) gained control of the Tibetan areas of Ü-Tsang, Amdo, and Kham. Ü-Tsang and western Kham, in the present-day Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), had been under the control of the Government of Tibet since shortly after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

As I understand it, following Bell, Richardson, Goldstein and many others, the incorporation of those areas in Amdo and Kham to the east of the Yangtse river, where there was a strong indigenous ethnic Tibetan population, were not contested by the government of Lhasa, when these were restored to Chinese sovereignty by the PRC down to 1949. The Lhasa government, following successive agreements, had informally disavowed any serious political claim over the areas of Tibetan society which fell into the areas of Qinghai and Sichuan, which means large parts of Amdo and Kham. These areas weren't what the Tibetan government of the day considered 'Tibet', their Tibet as an autonomous political entity, and therefore they raised absolutely not a whisper of protest when the PRC reasserted centralized Chinese control over those areas, even though they thought on cultural-ethnic grounds that they had a solid claim to them. They recognized they did not have an historical basis for a political claim to extend their 'Tibet' that far. They weren't therefore, 'incorporated' from Tibet, but reestablished as areas of Chinese sovereignty. What the Tibetan government protested was the entry of forces beyond the Upper Yangtse to wrest control over [Chamdo], take western Kham, which Lhasa considered the furtherest eastern marches of its polity. It was only these areas which, from a Tibetan government perspective, were 'incorporated' into China. The lead in making an issue of Amdo and Kham, when the Lhasa government did not, misrepresents the process. Properly speaking, the Lhasa government opposed only the incorporation of Ü-Tsang and western Kham, in accordance with their understanding of the agreements of 1932. The 17-point agreement signed in Beijing also does not deal with Amdo and Kham, but only with the 'political Tibet' governed from Lhasa.

I won't edit the lead, but lay this point before you all for examination, hoping we can arrive at a consensus for rephrasing it as the incorporation of 'Political Tibet' into China. That was the real novelty, and that was what the Tibetans were forced to sign away in Beijing.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In short, the lead confuses two distinct historical events, in which the best Western sources say there was no invasion in 1949 of Amdo, and Kham, but there was an invasion in October 1950 (in the western Kham area under Ü-Tsang's administrative and military jurisdiction. I hope this clarifies things. Goldstein is absolutely firm on the importance of this distinction, which our lead muddles.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the Lhasa government did not protest when the Tibetan areas outside their control were occupied by the PRC. I assume the reason they didn't protest is because they had become concerned about preserving any of their territory at that point. Moreover, there was nothing in particular to protest about, since the areas in question had simply passed from one Chinese government (ROC-affiliated warlords) to another (the PRC). The Lhasa government had made it clear previously that they claimed all of Kham and Amdo as part of their territory, and I don't think they ever specifically gave up that position. In fact, when the Kashak sent Ngaphö instructions for negotiating what would become the 17 Point Agreement, one of the points was "Territories that have been taken by the old Chinese Government, as well as those recently 'liberated,' should be returned to Tibet," which means that they still formally claimed at least some areas that had been under ROC rule.

The current title of this article is Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China, so that would include any parts of Tibet that had already been incorporated into other Chinese governments. I think incorporation should include not just the initial occupation by the PLA but also the earlier administrative changes. That's really where the story of "Inner Tibet" gets interesting: the ROC-affiliated warlords had generally coexisted with the local Tibetan political structures (albeit with recurring serious tensions), but the PRC moved pretty quickly to liquidate the old order completely.Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind whichever way the article goes. But it is obvious, I hope, that the lead as it stands prepares the reader for two stages (a)an account of howe 'ethnographic Tibet' (Kham and Ambdo) were reorganized into China and (b) how 'political Tibet' was then incorporated.

We have no narrative about the events and process whereby Tibetans of eastern Kham and Amdo Qinghai, and Sichuan were handled in 1949. As Greg says, the title and lead phrasing require us to realize that incorporation should 'include not just the initial occupation by the PLA but also the earlier administrative changes.'

We have everything concentrated on (b)

So either modify the lead not to give a wrong impression or expectation or retain the lead and expand the narrative to cover 1949. I'd prefer from sheer laziness the simpler task of changing 2 words in the lead to indicate we are dealing with (b), but if (a) then a lot of work on the events in Western China and its Tibetans in 1949 is required. Nishidani (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What happens if we decide not to muck about with the article's intended focus and all of Ethnographic Tibet is fair game for inclusion, but only content on Political Tibet is currently in the article. Should the lead mention Amdo and eastern Kham to define the intended topic or should this be left out so that it summarizes only the current content?--Wikimedes (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's intended focus is political Tibet, because when our sources say the invasion/entering/however-you-want-to-phrase-it of Tibet, the Lhasa regime is what is meant. If this new title does not correctly convey the strict scope of this event as given by the relevant orthodox historians, then it is being wrongly interpreted, or it should change back to the old title. Greg Pandatshang's desire to expand the scope to cover the outside ethnic Tibetan regions may have some intellectual merit, but it's original research and synthesis. Quigley (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The solution then is to cut the Gordian knot and simply elide Kham and Amdo from the lead para (1949), mand, when the article is mature, consider expanding it or not?Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking Amdo and eastern Kham out of the lead is a good temporary solution while we discuss whether the scope should include Amdo and eastern Kham and until anyone is ready to add content on those areas. Greg Pandatshang - were you planning on adding any of this content in the next few days?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't have time to add anything significant to the article until at least a couple weeks from now. Even at that point, I don't have any very good sources for what happened outside of the Tibetan government's territory. Goldstein and Tsering Shakya do discuss it a little, although their focus is elsewhere. Sam van Schraik's new book might give some more information, although that book is such a brief survey that he doesn't give many topics very much coverage, and I don't have it in front of me (Van Schraik at least covers the pre-modern history of the Kingdom of Derge in an earlier chapter).

Quigley - I think the article's intended focus is still under discussion. However I agree that the situation in Amdo and eastern Kham was very different from that in Political Tibet, and the procedure of incorporation was likewise very different. My solution was to have separate sections in the article for the two different situations. Other solutions would also work, for example a separate article on the incorporation of Amdo and eastern Kham or a section in the Chinese Civil War. What would your solution be?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, I agree that most reliable sources focus heavily on the political/military conflict between the CCP-led government of China and the Ganden Phodrang government of Tibet. Don't most of them refer to the "invasion of Tibet" or some similar phrasing? I think the title of this article gives it a somewhat different scope. That said, I think we will end up in practice weighting the article along the lines of what our sources do: they tend to mention "Inner Tibet" little and the Ganden Phodrang territory much more. This article will probably have a strong tendency to focus on the latter as well.

Here are the reasons I can think of to include some coverage of all of ethnographic Tibet in this article to the extent that we have sources covering it:

1) The main Wikipedia article on Tibet is about ethnographic Tibet, so it seems natural that other articles about "Tibet and Topic XYZ" would cover the same scope.

2) There was a certain amount of interaction between "Inner Tibet" and the Ganden Phodrang area which influenced the incorporation of political Tibet into the PRC. Most notably, the PRC sent the Dalai Lama's brother, then known as Taktser Rinpoche, from Kumbum Jhampaling on the far side of Amdo to Lhasa to try to win over the Dalai Lama (which turned out to be an own goal since he immediately turned against the Chinese and became a lifelong intransigent supporter of independence for Tibet). The Chinese government also sent the 5th Bheri Getak Rinpoche (often referred to as Geda Tulku) from eastern Kham to try to influence the Tibetan government (he was quickly assassinated, allegedly by Lhalu Tshewang Dorje). Bapa Phüntshok Wanggyäl from Bathang, just outside of the Ganden Phodrang's control, was the most influential Tibetan Communist during the early-to-mid 50s.

3) By the mid-50s, political developments in eastern Kham had become highly important to the Tibetan government's political status, since the Kham rebellion began in eastern Kham and later spread to Lhasa. That story is not part of the topic for this article, but covering the incorporation of eastern Kham and Amdo here will help set readers up to understand what happened next.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead without Amdo and eastern Kham per comments by Nishidani and myself above. I also added a sentence summarizing the aftermath. The previous version can be copied and added to if content on Amdo eastern Kham is added. (Or the lead can be rewritten again, if it's more convenient.)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion vs. liberation vs. battle

(Continuation of wording discussion begun in “article title” section above. I think that this is no longer about this article’s title. If anyone disagrees feel free to move it back.)

While I’d like to say that we can postpone this discussion until the creation of the new “Invasion of Tibet” article, we still need to decide on what to call the military hostilities described in this article. “Battle of Chamdo” may be a solution, but this debate has been going on for years without resolution and it may not be fruitful to reopen it here. Inspired by benjwong’s comment above, I’d like to suggest an alternative solution: let’s agree to disagree. I believe the disagreement is between historians as well as Wikipedians, so let’s describe the disagreement in the article and move on and not continue to rehash it in the discussion pages and reversions.

This still leaves the tricky question of what word should be used in the article. Since most scholars (and probably the rest of the population) outside China call it an “invasion”, and Chinese scholars (and probably most other Chinese) dispute this (I’m assuming based on edit histories and talk pages), I suggest we use the more widely accepted term “invasion”. The first time it is used, we follow it with a sentence or phrase like “known to Chinese scholars as … see below” with a reference and a link to a section of the article which describes the disagreement (with references), or if there’s space, discuss the dispute right there (with references). In this way we can give due weight to the alternate POV that it was not an invasion while not unduly hampering our ability to edit the article.Wikimedes (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the title "invasion of Tibet" used for this article was an attempt to "split the difference" unnecessarily between different article topics. In my opinion the only problem with Battle of Chamdo was that it did not allow us to discuss anything beyond that individual military action. The current article title has a much broader scope than that, and in reference to that specific event we can now use Battle of Chamdo.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing about calling the article 'invasion of Tibet' is that we then have to have a POV title box at the top of the page forever, which isn't really a great solution. By all means discuss the fact that people outside of China call it an invasion and people inside China call it a liberation in the article itself - that seems worth covering, but not in the title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the title could be kept as "incorporation of tibet into the PRC" if we make clear right upfront how both sides really call it. Battle of Chamdo is really a separate article IMHO. Renaming this article to Battle of Chamdo would suggest this is something like an all-out military battle when in fact only a very small percent is even a battle. Benjwong (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should keep the name "incorporation of tibet into the people's republic of China" as well. I was trying to start a discussion on what to call the military history info box and the section of the article dealing with "The Battle of Chamdo", and whether we would be free to use the word "invasion" in the article or if it should be avoided.Wikimedes (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mueshaut – you’ve said below that one of the definitions of invasion ("march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939"") and perhaps other definitions as well, make the word invasion a derogatory term. I can understand that you might think this definition is inaccurate does not accurately describe the PLA's attack on Chamdo because it says “another’s territory”. (I don’t agree, but I understand.) Could you explain why you think it (and/or other definitions) is (are) derogatory?--Wikimedes (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lexicologist as well, but I have checked some sources regarding such words. The problem is that, words may sometimes carry certain connotations (e.g. derogatory or pejorative). In "The Cambridge history of the native peoples of the Americas, Part 1" by Bruce G. Trigger, Wilcomb E. Washburnas for example, it mentions that (p115-116) "Words like "invasion," "colonization," or "civilization" now carry pejorative or ironic connotations and have become increasingly objectionable to those unwilling to regard the interaction between Indians and Euro-Americans as having had a beneficial effect or constituting a neutral process". And "Invasion ecology" by Julie L. Lockwood, Martha F. Hoopes, Michael P. Marchetti also mentions (p7) that "the connotations of such terms as "invasion" have opened the field to criticism". The meaning of certain words may not necessarily completely static, and may become agreed to have certain connotations ("invasion" is such an example). That's exactly why sentences such as "How can a country invade its own territory?" can be easily found in the web. Furthermore, I'm not saying that I think the definition of invasion as presented above is inaccurate, but it does show how the word now typically means. According to this definition ("...another’s territory...") a country indeed cannot invade its own sovereign territory. --Mueshaut (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have proof read what I wrote more carefully. I figured you wouldn't think the definition is inaccurate. I meant to say that you wouldn't think the definition describes the events of October 1950 in Chamdo. It's corrected now. Sorry about that. I'll respond to the rest after I've thought things through a bit more.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was intending to have a discussion on where objections to using the word “invasion” fall in the spectrum of Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:righting great wrongs, and Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it, but since I started this section almost 2 months ago, no one has objected to using the word invasion, so this seems unnecessary. (Eraserhead has objected to using the word invasion in an article’s title on POV grounds, and Benjwong has objected to using “invasion” in this article’s title because the article’s scope is broader than the military hostilities. We can continue this aspect if a separate article on the “invasion” is created.)

Here are links to this article’s wording discussions to date:

__Title: (I found the first eight on this list to be more informative than others)

Comment-You_can’t_invade_your_own_country

Jane’s

Name_results_so_far

name_again (google books search results, debate over whether Mao said Tibetans were not Chinese)

Title_options (suggestion for “incorporation”)

Requested_move_-_January_2009 (plea for using term most used in RS, including several RS)

article_title

A_suggestion: Chinese_Pacification_of_Tibet (I think this was a title change suggestion.) (Some subtleties of de jure and de facto independence))

break

wording

article_title

The_word_invasion_is_not_vandalism

Consensus_Vote

Incorrect_move

Requested_move

Simplify_name

Another_Suggested_Name

name_again_part_II

Move.3

Chinese_restoration_of_Tibet

break

__Other wording discussions (chronological order):

Intro (Some governments and groups that call it an invasion)

NPOV_again

2.5_proposed_changes_to_the_introductory_paragraphs (“division”, “unification”, “context of negotiations”)

Partial_reverts_to_wording_changes

Invasion_vs._liberation_vs._battle (this section)

Reworded_and_restructured_article_to_conform_with_new_title

--Wikimedes (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting "Invasion is POV" on firmer ground

I’ve often heard editors claim that it’s not neutral to use the word “invasion” to describe the PLA’s attack on the Tibetan forces in the Chamdo area. Sometimes editors offer the following original reasearch to support this claim: 1) Tibet (or Chamdo) was China’s sovereign territory. 2) A country cannot invade its own sovereign territory. Well, who says? If you can cite scholarly sources that use this argument, I’ll support your position that “invasion” is POV.

If you can't find sources that use the argument, but can cite some sources that support 1) and other sources that support 2), I may overlook that putting them together can be considered original research this would work as well. I’ve seen sources cited to support 1), for example here. But as a native English speaker whose Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989) does not mention sovereignty in any of its many definitions of “invade” and “invasion”, I’m skeptical about 2). But I’m not a lexicologist. and the English language can be tricky. Convince me.Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Having just read Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not, it's clear to me that providing independent references for each point of the argument is sufficient to put the claim that "invasion is POV" on firmer ground. My apologies for misusing the term "original reasearch".Wikimedes (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a lot of discussion generated by a reference submitted in support of point 1, so I'm creating separate subsections for points 1 and 2 and putting the references themselves in bold so that they are easier to find. (If you object to my adding emphasis to your words in this way, please remove it.) (Greg Pandatshang's already highly marked up One Hundred Thousand Moons reference already stands out pretty well, so I decided not to tangle with it.)--Wikimedes (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

References in support of "Tibet (or Chamdo) was China’s sovereign territory" and discussion

There are certainly disagreements about describing it as an "invasion", because Chinese sovereignty over Tibet did not begin only in the 1950s. It's well known that Tibet was subordinated to Qing Dynasty until the fall of the latter in 1912. Republic of China also continued to assert Chinese sovereignty over Tibet since its founding (although had no real control over it), and considered Tibet as part of China in its constitution. On the other hand, Goldstein's "The Snow Lion and the Dragon" also explicitly states that (p40) "In contrast, Tibet's political subordination to China was repeatedly validated by the West throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and particularly in the critical years during and immediately following World War II. Despite lofty rhetoric about freedom and self-determination, Western democracies maintained a consistent policy of yielding to Chinese sensibilities, accepting the official Chinese position that Tibet was one of the territories comprised by the Chinese nation.". Clearly this shows that Tibet was widely considered to be a part of China, particularly in the late 1940s, immediately before the establishment of PRC and entry of its forces. In such cases labeling it an invasion is problematic at best, and is completely different from invading another country (e.g. Burma and India). --64.56.230.166 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just on a technical point as a wikipedian. You are challenging the use of a term common in sources, not by appealing to sources, but to a putatively 'well known' fact that Tibet was subordinated to Qing China. I.e. you are appealing to a sinocentric POV with a very long, and intricate history, which excludes a priori the idea that other equally valid points of view exist. Essentially, you are arguing that if one accepts this premise, you can't say 'China invaded itself'. The problem is, scholarship is uncomfortable with this interpretation, does not accept the premise as stated, and thinks history is far more intricate than the formulae we tend to think in allow, whether we be Tibetans, Chinese, Westerners, Indians, or whoever. Wikipedia's way of resolving this is to see what sources say. Challenges to terminology should be based on a careful survey of source usage. In those I found on this page, most use the word 'invasion'. I personally think it more complex than that, as my edits suggest. But in my view, we must edit according to guidelines and not our personal take on history.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to support the point "Tibet (or Chamdo) was China’s sovereign territory" as Wikimedes asked for and provided a scholarly source. I was in fact not challenging the use of a term, but to support that "invasion is POV" as the section title suggests. No, it is not a sinocentric POV, but for example in Goldstein's "A history of modern Tibet, 1913-1951: the demise of the Lamaist state" he explicitly states that (p44) "While the ancient relationships between Tibet and China are complex and beyond the scope of this study, there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the 6th and 7th Dalai Lamas in the first decades of the eighteenth century.", i.e. Tibet was subordinated to Qing China. Note that the previous comment is simply about the "Invasion is POV" issue as this section intends, and not whether the term "invasion" should appear in the article or not. You are probably talking about a different (although related) topic than what this section asks for. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I.e. Goldstein says Tibet acknowledged a political subordination to the Manchu dynasty in the 18th century because of the long tradition in Tibet of interpreting the historic relationship between China and Tibet as one grounded theologically in a preceptor-patron alliance. What this has to do with the political developments between the two in a post-Qing, Han-Chinese republic in the 20th century is not mentioned. You are citing the former, in order to buttress a POV about the latter. The Tibetans did as their Mongol co-religionists did after the fall of the Qing, who asserted their independence with the Bogd Khaanate, until 徐樹錚 forced them to sign a document reneging their independence, just as in Beijing, according to some accounts, the Tibetan envoys were forced to abrogate their independence by signing a document with a forged seal.

The Japanese based their claims in Mongolia on the Qing model, but not for that was their imperial reach there vindicated under international law. There were two modern actors, the Lhasa-centered government, and the Chinese republic/PRC, and for the Lhasa government, as for many regional and international powers, Tibet was autonomous, and invaded. Understandably, for China 'invasion' is not accepted since they prefer the term 和平解放 or 'peaceful liberation'. Perhaps we could put in a section on these terminological differences to respect the various approaches? History is complex, and it is best done by ignoring generic POV worries and just sticking to RS details. This avoids a huge waste of editorial time, and the articles get written. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I was just citing sources to support the point "Tibet (or Chamdo) was China’s sovereign territory" as Wikimedes asked for, and the source did explicitly say "there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China (following the early 18th century)." It's only that Tibet had a traditional interpretation as a preceptor-patron alliance, but not that Tibet was not subordinated to Qing China. You were originally trying to label it as a sinocentric POV, and now trying to label it to buttress a POV about the the 20th century. But the source also mentions that after the British invasion of 1904, Qing China tried to reestablish direct control over Tibet in 1910. Yes, Tibet asserted independence after 1912, but page 65 of the book also mentions that the last Qing emperor bequeathed all the imperial territories (including Tibetan regions) to the new republic, and although all Chinese officials and troops had been expelled from Lhasa and Tibet, the fall of the Qing Dynasty produced no change in Chinese attitudes toward Tibet. In fact, the earlier cited source already says "In contrast, Tibet's political subordination to China was repeatedly validated by the West throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and particularly in the critical years during and immediately following World War II. Despite lofty rhetoric about freedom and self-determination, Western democracies maintained a consistent policy of yielding to Chinese sensibilities, accepting the official Chinese position that Tibet was one of the territories comprised by the Chinese nation." There is no problem to have a section on these terminological differences, and whether Tibet should be independent or not is also another issue, but what I'm doing is simply to support "Invasion is POV" with references as this section asks for. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you appear to be confusing many distinct issues: the 18th century, the 20th century, geography, and incidents in the period 1949-50, and cite Goldstein selectively, while ignoring the very precise distinctions he characteristically makes about 'Political Tibet' and 'ethnographic Tibet' (the latter in China). The Tibetan government of the day made no protest in 1949 over the PLA's assumption of control manu militari of Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu, where large Tibetan populations existed. It only protested in October 1950 when the 'de facto' border in Kham on the Upper Yangtse River, dividing Eastern and Western Kham, was crossed, and it is regarding that incident, with the wiping out of the Tibetan army, that all sources on the page, including Goldstein, call an invasion. Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the cites presented above at least mentioned only Tibet, whereas words such as 'Political Tibet' and 'ethnographic Tibet' etc are really casually seen. In fact, such distinctions are probably already beyond the original purpose of this section. Furthermore, the cites above did mention both 18th century and the 20th century (basically Tibet became a subordination of Qing China from the early 18th century, and only declared independence in the early 20th century after 1912). It's also clearly impossible to put everything Goldstein wrote in the discussion, but can only those major points, as the section really intends for. The word "invasion" did appear in Goldstein's work, but alongside with other words such as "(military) attack" etc. ” Nevertheless, as Wikipedians it's better not to hold a strong view, and try to avoid certain view in discussions etc (yet this precisely shows the existence of such POVs). But for the purpose of this section, I had already cited references as it originally asks for. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The ref. you cite is not adequate to the original request, since it blurs the geopolitical and historical distinction between eastern (Chinese) and western (Tibetan) Kham. In liminal areas (anthropology) where things are not defined with precision, all sorts of confusions occur. This is one because history does not hand us neat geographical categories on a platter, but only a protracted shifting in arrangements, battles and terms used to define relationships. The confusion is in the lead para itself, and therefore it is understandable that misperceptions flow from that. No one has corrected, in terms of what I said above, the following misleading section of the lead.

The Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China was the process by which the People's Republic of China (PRC) gained control of the Tibetan areas of Ü-Tsang, Amdo, and Kham. Ü-Tsang and western Kham, in the present-day Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), had been under the control of the Government of Tibet since shortly after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

As I understand it, following Bell, Richardson, Goldstein and many others, the incorporation of those areas in Amdo and Kham to the east of the Yangtse river, where there was a strong indigenous ethnic Tibetan population, were not contested by the government of Lhasa, when these were restored to Chinese sovereignty by the PRC down to 1949. The Lhasa government, following successive agreements, had informally disavowed any serious political claim over the areas of Tibetan society which fell into the areas of Qinghai and Sichuan, which means large parts of Amdo and Kham. These areas weren't what the Tibetan government of the day considered 'Tibet', their Tibet as an autonomous political entity, and therefore they raised absolutely not a whisper of protest when the PRC reasserted centralized Chinese control over those areas, even though they thought on cultural-ethnic grounds that they had a solid claim to them. They recognized they did not have an historical basis for a political claim to extend their 'Tibet' that far. They weren't therefore, 'incorporated' from Tibet, but reestablished as areas of Chinese sovereignty. What the Tibetan government protested was the entry of forces beyond the Upper Yangtse to wrest control over [Chamdo], take western Kham, which Lhasa considered the furtherest eastern marches of its polity. It was only these areas which, from a Tibetan government perspective, were 'incorporated' into China. The lead in making an issue of Amdo and Kham, when the Lhasa government did not, misrepresents the process. Properly speaking, the Lhasa government opposed only the incorporation of Ü-Tsang and western Kham, in accordance with their understanding of the agreements of 1932. The 17-point agreement signed in Beijing also does not deal with Amdo and Kham, but only with the 'political Tibet' governed from Lhasa.

I won't edit the lead, but lay this point before you all for examination, hoping we can arrive at a consensus for rephrasing it as the incorporation of 'Political Tibet' into China. That was the real novelty, and that was what the Tibetans were forced to sign away in Beijing.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In short, the lead confuses two distinct historical events, in which the best Western sources say there was no invasion in 1949 of Amdo, and Kham, but there was an invasion in October 1950 (in the western Kham area under Ü-Tsang's administrative and military jurisdiction. I hope this clarifies things. Goldstein is absolutely firm on the importance of this distinction, which our lead muddles.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the Lhasa government did not protest when the Tibetan areas outside their control were occupied by the PRC. I assume the reason they didn't protest is because they had become concerned about preserving any of their territory at that point. Moreover, there was nothing in particular to protest about, since the areas in question had simply passed from one Chinese government (ROC-affiliated warlords) to another (the PRC). The Lhasa government had made it clear previously that they claimed all of Kham and Amdo as part of their territory, and I don't think they ever specifically gave up that position. In fact, when the Kashak sent Ngaphö instructions for negotiating what would become the 17 Point Agreement, one of the points was "Territories that have been taken by the old Chinese Government, as well as those recently 'liberated,' should be returned to Tibet," which means that they still formally claimed at least some areas that had been under ROC rule.

The current title of this article is Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China, so that would include any parts of Tibet that had already been incorporated into other Chinese governments. I think incorporation should include not just the initial occupation by the PLA but also the earlier administrative changes. That's really where the story of "Inner Tibet" gets interesting: the ROC-affiliated warlords had generally coexisted with the local Tibetan political structures (albeit with recurring serious tensions), but the PRC moved pretty quickly to liquidate the old order completely.

As for Tibet's subordination to the Qing empire, it's not completely uncontroversial, since the 1913 Tibetan Declaration of Independence by the Dalai Lama asserts that Tibet had been independent all along ("It is clear that the within the preceptor-patron relationship between China and Tibet, there is no sense of subordination of one to another"One Hundred Thousand Moons). However, I think that almost all reasonably objective Western researchers (as well everyone with a pro-Chinese government bias) agree that Tibet was subordinated to the Qing.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

'Subordinate' of course begs the question of what we are to understand, in a premodern set of formal arrangements betwen polities, by this word. What is appears to be done here is to interpret premodern history in terms of the concepts of sovereignty or suzerainty deriving from Western ideas of the Law of Nations, which then develop into 'international law' whose applicability to the Far East begins only with the rise of Western imperialism. That is a fatal error heuristically. Both the Tibetans and their Qing interlocutors like Qinglong understood the relationship in terms of Buddhist categories, not in terms of the modern legal concepts which are now read retroactively into the Qing texts, thus transforming a preceptor-patron relationship (at least understood in the Qing period) into a question of obeisance to claims of sovereignty. Heuristically, scholars try not to confuse these two levels of discourse, which are historically discrete (modern/premodern) and have two regional perspectives or interpretative actors (Tibetan/Chinese), besides the community of scholars. I am more comfortable with what is the consensus of modern historical scholarship, irrespective of ethnicity and nationality.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Greg's cite from Shakabpa (the POV of the Tibetan government over the first half of the 20th century) I think Goldstein's highly concise, yet comprehensive analysis in his Change, Conflict and Continuity among a Community of Nomadic Pastoralists: A Case Study from Western Tibet, 1950-1990, pp.76-111) esp.pp.80ff., where he deals specifically with Kham and Amdo pp.80-87, which concludes: 'The Tibetan Government's understanding and use of the term 'Tibet' in 1949-50, therefore, was identical with that of Richardson in that it did not include the ethnic areas not under its control. The Tibetan Government, to be sure, did not relinquish its claims to these areas, but there was no question of where the authority of its state ended.' (p.87) His analysis places Kham and Amdo outside the 'Tibet' of those years, and inside the confines of the Chinese state, in critical disagreement with the Tibetan diaspora. At the same time, his sophisticated sketch of that area gives a picture not quite consonant with the version promoted by he PRC, and therefore, I believe, is close to what we require in terms of WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing some references (and analysis) regarding “Tibet was part of China”. There is some good fodder here for the Tibetan sovereignty debate article as well. Thank you 64.56.230.166 for providing the initial references in support of Tibet being a part of China in the 1940s and part of the Qing dynasty in the 18th century. As Nishidani especially has pointed out, the references and analysis are not perfect in their support of Tibet being part of China, and as might be expected I remain unconvinced that Tibet was part of China in the years immediately before1951. But they do succeed in providing evidence in support, which is what I had requested, and was my intent in making the request.

One of your early points I would like to respond to, and another I would especially like to continue discussing. While Western countries accepting the official Chinese position regarding Tibet does constitute evidence in support of Tibet being part of China, I think it’s overstating things to say that the Western countries actually believed that Tibet was a part of China. It’s more accurate to say that because Western countries did not believe Tibet was vital to their national interests, they chose not to directly challenge China on the issue. Much of Shakya, The Dragon in the Land of Snows p.16-32 details this, including the following quote from a British Foreign Office staffer on p.19 “We have no interest in the area sufficiently strong to justify the certain risks involved in embroiling ourselves with the Chinese on this question.”

The point that I would like to continue to discuss applies more to the next subsection, so I will continue there.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with the point that "Western countries consistently accepting the official Chinese position that Tibet being part of China throughout the first half of the 20th century" is not equivalent to say that "Western countries actually believed that Tibet was a part of China throughout this period". After all, ROC did not control Tibet directly, but it does show that Western countries at least acknowledged Tibet being subordinated to China during the first half of the 20th century, especially in the late 1940s.

On the other hand, Tibet during Qing is certainly not simply a priest-patron relation without political subordination as 1913 Tibetan Declaration of Independence by the Dalai Lama suggested. In "The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics" by Elliot Sperling it says the following (p27-28):

"As we have seen, the use of the urn was imposed in the wake of the Gurkha war with Tibet at the end of the eighteenth century. The Qing had slowly taken on an increasingly dominant role in Tibet, so much so that by the end of the eighteenth century the subordinate place of Tibet within the Qing Empire was beyond dispute. The memoirs of one of the Tibetan ministers involved in the Gurkha war and implicated in its escalation are telling. Summoned to Beijing for an inquest, he makes clear in his own account the fact he was unambiguously a subject of the Qing emperor whom he describes as "the dharmaraja, lord of all below heaven and above earth the Manjusri emperor". It is simply not possible to chalk Qing-Tibetan relations up to a priest-patron relationship on a personal level with no element of political subordination".

"There can be little doubt that the Qing had the authority to impose the use of Golden Urn. Nor can there be any doubt about the real authority in Tibetan affairs exerted by the offices and officials that the Qing posted in Tibet. It is of course true that for the most of the nineteenth century Qing authority there was weak. But that authority was still acknowledged by the Dalai Lama's government until 1912, when the thirteenth Dalai Lama declared Tibet to be free of China".

In Sarat Chandra Das's "Journey to Lhasa and central Tibet" (page 61) he described what he saw regarding the march of Chinese Amban during his journey to Tibet in 1881:

"Some men carried boards about two feet square, on which were written the Amban's titles and his commission to supreme authority over the whole of Tibet. Some of these inscriptions were in Chinese, and were carried by Chinamen; others, in the Tibetan language, were carried by Tibetans. The Shape also rode, their advance heralded by two men who warned passers-by to keep out of the way. Each was escorted by three mounted men, one on either side of him, and one marching in front, keeping off the crowd with whips, which they freely used, while two grooms ran behind holding his horse's tail. There were about three hundred dignitaries and gentlemen of the provinces of U and Tsang, besides the followers and retainers of the Ambans. The Ambans' sedan chairs were carried by eight Chinese soldiers to each, and some fifty Tibetan soldiers helped to drag them with long cords attached to the bars of the chairs. After paying homage at the sacred chapels and tombs of the departed saints, the procession came out of the monastery by the eastern gate, and, headed by the Shape Bora, marched across the market-place towards Kun-khyab ling. First came the officers of state, then followed the paymaster's (Porjpon X) party, then the Chinese officials, followed by the chief Amban in his state chair. The flags, carried in tasteful array, were all of China silk, those at the point of the lances of the guard being of brocade, and inscribed in Chinese and Tibetan. Throughout the march the Tibetans occupied a subordinate position, and the Chinese displayed their superiority in every possible way. Though the crowd had reason to fear a whipping from the Chinese, who ran on all sides, they did not suffer from the Amban's guard. The junior Amban, as he followed on horseback, seemed pleased to see the lieuvily chained prisoners, the recently punished headmen groaning under the weight of their cangues. His sedan chair was carried by the same number of soldiers as that of the senior Amban, and his retinue and followers resembled his. Then came the other Shape with their respective retinues. The guards were all armed with Chinese matchlocks and long spears..."

Also Qing clearly asserted sovereignty over Tibet in the early 20th century after the British invasion and tried to rule Tibet directly by 1910, as had mentioned earlier. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You've said that several times. It has been responded to, with new material on each occasion, several times. The point is (a) sovereignty as Qing China understood it did not mean what the word means in modern international law. So your argument is invalid (b) The Chinese initialed and then withdrew, a clause in the Simla accord of 1914. In reviewing that accord, in the hindsight of 1950 the legal department of both Great Britain and the United States denied that, in international law, China's claim fitted sovereignty in the modern sense. One example.

'At question was whether Tibet could qualify as a state. The Foreign Office's legal examination concluded that it could easily be argued that Chinese suzerainty was so amorphous and symbolic that it did not exclude Tibet's possession of its own international identity.' The key interpretation of the Simla accord said: 'As a result of this Conference, representatives of Britain, China and Tibet drew up a Convention recognizing Tibetan autonomy under Chinese suzerainty but expressly precluding China from incorporating Tibet as a Chinese province or from sending troops into Tibet other than an escort of 300 men for the representative in Lhasa.'(Goldstein p.64)

That the British and US position now is different is irrelevant. We are writing an article on 1950, not on Qing perceptions, which were based on premises the nationalist government of post-Qing China rejected. In rejecting the Qing principles, Tibet felt free to shake off its residual attachments to China. Please address new arguments with (1) documented new evidence (2) or fresh perspectives. Repetition is not an argument.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm 64.56.230.166 as above. Again you may seem to mis-focus on the original purpose of this section, i.e. References in support of "Tibet (or Chamdo) was China’s sovereign territory" as Wikimedes asks for. I was actually providing new references for the Qing periods, especially from the late 18th century to the turn of the 20th century, instead of repeating old evidences. You said that "Both the Tibetans and their Qing interlocutors like Qinglong understood the relationship in terms of Buddhist categories", but the references explicitly mentioned there were no doubt political subordinations (not just Buddhist priest-patron relationship). Qing China did clearly assert sovereignty over Tibet in the early 20th century after British invasion, but you now claim that the "sovereignty" as Qing China understood did not mean what the word means in modern international law without providing any evidences. The Simla accord you mentioned clearly cannot show this (in fact IIRC it was not ratified by China), but even that the text did acknowledge Tibet's subordination to China (although with some restrictions). The previous treaty signed between (Qing) China and Great Britain was s:Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet of 1906, and Article II explicitly stated that "The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet. The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet." Again, please try to understand the original purpose of this section, and whether British and US position now is different is indeed irrelevant. --Mueshaut (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

References in support of "A country cannot invade its own sovereign territory" and discussion

64.56.230.166 - You have said above that because China had a claim to Tibet, it would be problematic to call its military incursion into Tibet an “invasion” and that it was a completely different situation than a hypothetical attack by China on Burma or India. While I agree that the situation is a bit different, I don’t think that the situation is completely different, and I think that the word “invasion” still applies. Even if the PRC attacked and landed troops on Taiwan today (or vice versa), IMO it would still be considered an invasion even though the PRC and Taiwan both consider each other to be part of the same country. My Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989) mentioned above gives this as its 3rd definition of invade: "To enter as if to take possession". This seems a fairly accurate description of the PRC’s attack on Qamdo.
I’ve provided some explanation and a reference in opposition to the claim that “A country cannot invade its own territory” to show that the claim is at least debatable, if not outright wrong. Could someone provide references in support of the claim?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Having checking some definitions of this term (e.g. here), I think this really depends on how you interpret the term "invade", i.e. whether you interpret it as a derogatory term or a neutral term. If one Google for the phrase "invade its own territory", then he or she will find a lot of references for sentences like "How can a country invade its own territory?", "a country can't invade its own territory" etc. Clearly, they interpret the term as a derogatory one. Your Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary on the other hand interpret it as a neutral term (in fact, according to this definition you can say PLA invaded Southern China, Western China etc as well). By saying "it would be problematic to call its military incursion into Tibet an 'invasion'", it would really mean that since many people interpret the term as a derogatory one, it may lead to confusions if the term is used throughout (c.f. Goldstein's book; while the term "invasion" does sometimes appear, other terms like "(military) attack" etc are often used as well). On the other hand, if one for example say China invaded Burma or India, there is no doubt "invade" is used as a derogatory term here. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is not here = Invasion of Normandy, in which the 2e division blindée landed on its homeland beaches of Normandy at Utah beach, and assisted in the invasion of its own country. Really, we need sources for arguments, not repetition of points already exhaustively made.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was already pointed out regarding the existence of various definitions of the term "invade", and source for some definitions were already presented in the link above. For example, one definition of "invade" in the link above says "march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939", which is obviously interpreted as a derogatory term; on the other hand, another definition of "invade" says "(Military) to enter (a country, territory, etc.) by military force", which is basically interpreted as a neutral term. --64.56.230.166 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Best practice on wikipedia says, follow the majority usage in WP:RS, and nearly all the sources used for this page use 'invade'. Goldstein is very, very even handed, and yet he uses it. One can argue till the cows come home on how you, I or anyone else reads words, and this is not healthy for efficient editing, since it bogs the actual composition of text down. If our sources are virtually unanimous, we should follow their usage.I once had to muster 80 academic sources to prove the obvious about English usage. The other side wouldn't budge. It went to arbitration, and that obvious usage became the default terminology. I think this is similar. A little commonsense is what is needed to actually loosen up editors' time to edit towards the article.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm 64.56.230.166 as above. Actually I was providing references to show different definitions of the term "invade". Note that this section is about support of "A country cannot invade its own sovereign territory" and evidences, and as mentioned earlier it is not about whether the word "invade" should appear or not. Please try to avoid misunderstand the purpose of this section and supposed topic of this discussion. --Mueshaut (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And please reply to the heading request (References in support of "A country cannot invade its own sovereign territory") by supplying references to support your contention. I am accepting the invitation in that heading to join the discussion. Dictionaries are indeterminate, esp, about one word. The references required are for a proposition, not one word. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedes provided a reference showing one definition of "invade", and I provided other definitions from another source with analysis, and also replied to his messages regarding some of my previous comments. In the mean time, I also welcome anyone providing other references in direct support of "A country cannot invade its own sovereign territory". Thanks. --Mueshaut (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we've established early on, by Mueshaut's first reference link, that whether a country can invade its own territory depends on which definition of the word invade is meant. It may prove fruitful to add more references in evidence, or explore other aspects of invading one's own territory, such as how this applies in international law, but I think that demonstrating the ambiguity of the term is pretty important - no one really needs to be offended by the term, and it can be used neutrally and accurately to describe the PLA's actions in Chamdo if the correct definition is meant. The Normandy Invasion example by Nishidani also shows that invasion can be used in a positive sense, it can be used to describe troops invading their own country, and that it is compatible with the term "liberation". This is getting to be more related to the parent section than this subsection, so I will continue there (though perhaps in a few hours).--Wikimedes (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to note that sometimes we cannot just base on the original definitions of terms, but also the connotations and evolved meanings of these words. Note that the phrase "another’s territory" appears in one definition of the term given above, and according to it a country indeed cannot invade its own sovereign territory. I have replied there with more details. --Mueshaut (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The methodology is all wrong here. (a)Usage is defined by WP:RS, which are comfortable with this term for 1950. (b) The events of 1950 are not to be interpreted by us, wiki editors, talking about Qing precedents or modern political statuses. Qing 'suzerainty' is not sovereignty in Western terms, but plays a small role in polemics on the situation down to 1911. The PRC is recognized now, esp. since the 1980s, as having sovereignty over Tibet, by the UN, the US, Britain, France and many other powers. In 1950, and that is the period we are writing, the Chinese POV on Tibet's status in law was not accepted outside of China (even by India, as per the third note exchanged between the two). Political Tibet functionally was a state acting autonomously for 4 decades, all serious historians agree on this. China in that period did not exercise administrative control, military overlordship, or impose trade conditions, or extend to Tibet the international agreements it entered into with other countries. When invaded by Japan, it did not call on Lhasa to provide troops and food for the defence of the homeland etc. The legal offices of the United States' State Department, and Whitehall legal wizards, when a technical opinion on the formal standing in international law, all came out with a judgement that China's claim was unfounded, and that Tibet at that particular moment in its history fitted the requirements in the UN charter for statehood. To waffle on about the Qing dynasty, or (as in the 'Free Tibet movements') claim that the situation is the same now (Tibet is an autonomous state) - all these arguments are futile for editors who are obliged to focus their attention specifically on what RS describing these specific events in 1949-1950 say. They all use 'invasion'. To attempt to controvert this, and wriggle for describing events as not an 'invasion' but something else, is to place the narrative in a POV conflict, where considerations of China's present politics weigh in. So let's just get on editing. This is effectively settled, and should have no reverberation on articles on this area outside the time-frame of 1914-1950.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are getting more beyond the topic of this section. It's not about the usage in the article or suzerainty/sovereignty or certain POV (in fact, all comments you above are given without references). Since your comment is almost completely out of topic of this section, I'm not going to reply them. As mentioned early, whether the word "invasion" should appear in the article or not is a different issue from the purpose of this section. --Mueshaut (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The references for what I said much earlier, which are ignored in what follows, are sufficient. I have no intention of transforming this talk page into a discussion of Chinese sovereignty. I rest my case on the quite simple succession of RS adduced to support my contention that worrying about 'invasion' in 1950 ignores the simple testimony of major works under academic imprint or from major publishing groups, and that to equivocate on historical usage when the texts are clear is to overstep one's function as an editor. Thank you. My views are stated, and, beyond this point, I think it improper to repeat them, except to counsel you to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One small request - Could you specify which Goldstein work is referenced in "...expressly precluding China from incorporating Tibet as a Chinese province..." Goldstein p.64?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

'As a result of this Conference, representatives of Britain, China and Tibet drew up a Convention recognizing Tibetan autonomy under Chinese suzerainty but expressly precluding China from incorporating Tibet as a Chinese province or from sending troops into Tibvet other than an escort of 300 men for the representative in Lhasa. It was made plain by this Convention that Tibet was entitled to conduct foreign relations directly and not through China. The Convention was signed by Britain and Tibet but only initialed by China. The Chinese Government subsequently repudiated the initialing of the Convention by their representative but on occasion they have stated that they accept the terms of the Convention apart from the clauses fixing the boundary between China and Tibet. Though China did not sign the Convention, it was only on the faith of the conditions in it that Tibet agreed to accept Chinese suzerainty again. If, therefore, China repudiated the Convention in its entirety, as her present actions clearly show she has done, she has no rights whatever over Tibet, not even to a nominal suzerainty'

It's a quote from the telegram sent from the Foreign Office to the British High Commissioner in India, and can be found reproduced in M. C. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet: The Calm Before the Storm: 1951-1955, UCal. Press, 2009 Vol. 2, p.64. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction to the Google search was that it would be just a bunch of random blogs or responses to articles that didn’t deserve much weight. I tracked down the links from the 1st 2 pages of results and found that all but 2 of those hits were such responses to articles. One hit linked to a statement by Georgian President Shaalikashvilli Saakashvili that a country cannot invade its own territory in regard to the recent Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. While Shaalikashvilli Saakashvili is not a reliable secondary source, it is notable that a head of state thinks he cannot invade his own territory. (The remaining hit linked to 10 pages of photostated text that I didn’t bother to wade through.)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this (sub sub) section was to get some references in support of the contention that a country cannot invade its own territory. This has been argued for years without references (as far as I’ve been able to determine) and now we have references for and against. In the meantime, Nishidani has reminded us that what words reliable sources use to describe events is more important, and I agree.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Some would wonder whether Saakashvili is reliable, on anything regarding the events of 2008:). I worked on one of the Georgia-Ossetia pages in its great days of POV fury, albeit briefly, but can't recall which one.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above that it is certainly normal to follow the typical usage style as in other major works, which as I stated earlier certainly had no problems as well. Nevertheless, it is also not really good for anyone to repeatably try to go beyond the topic or purpose of (sub) sections when the discussion is actually ongoing, especially when one is trying to make replies to another editor within the topic of the section. Nevertheless, I agree we made progress to find references for these statements, which is exactly what the section has existed for. --Mueshaut (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: 'Chinese Pacification of Tibet'

See Kuomintang Pacification of Qinghai for more details

'Invasion' is one sided, because the Chinese could justly argue that armed Tibetan rebels "invaded" (de-jure) sovereign Chinese territory, just as the armed Tibetan rebels can argue that the Chinese use of force in Tibet was an "invasion" onto (de-facto) Tibetan sovereign territory. 'Liberation' is one sided, because the Chinese could justly argue that Tibet was "liberated" from armed Tibetan rebels seeking to split the nation apart, just as the armed Tibetan rebels can argue that they were "liberating" Tibet from centuries of foreign occupation. To avoid the issue of suggesting the legitimacy of each sovereign state's right to rule Tibet, we should look at it from a neutral picture - Chinese de-jure sovereignty and Tibetan de-facto sovereignty. Within this context, China is merely suppressing an armed rebellion within one of her provinces - the term 'Pacification' thus comes into order, since it does not suggest that Tibet was 'unjustly annexed' as if she was a legitimate sovereign geopolitical entity, since she hasn't reached that stage yet, but instead can be constituted as an rebellious province, which does not violate POV, unless interpreted as the deterministic fate of Tibet as a province of China, which is not the case since it only recognizes the facts - restoration of peace and order, whether voluntary or not, just or not, right or not.

• Dictionary Definition:

• Pacification:

a. extending the authority of national government over formerly autonomous people whether by force or persuasion." (Source)

b. Reduction, as of a rebellious district, to peaceful submission (Source):

• Pacify:

a. (Military) to restore to peace or order, esp by the threat or use of force." (Source)

b. To end war, fighting, or violence in; establish peace in. (Source) Phead128 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

'a neutral picture - Chinese de-jure sovereignty and Tibetan de-facto sovereignty.'

For that period, the British and American experts in international law (as shown above) were quite clear: there was no de jure Chinese sovereignty after 1914; China's de facto sovereignty after 1950/1959 has now become de jure. Neither of these terms helps us understand the respective POVs of the period 1911-1950.

The problem with 'pacification' is that, in English, it is a notorious euphemism, and value-charged as a POV. My generation learnt to be leery of the word in the 1960s since it was te standard jargon of American imperialism in describing its activities in Vietnam (not to speak of Central America). Many of us were reminded at universities around the Western world in the 60s to read George Orwell's famous essay, 'Politics and the English Language,' (1946). I've just rechecked it and sure enough:-

'Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheery cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.' (Sonia Orwell, Ian Angus (eds.), The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell: In front of your nose, 1945-1950, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968 p.136’.

That definition certainly in no way represents the events on the Sino-Tibetan border in October-November 1950 of course. But it brilliantly underlines the trouble with 'pacification'. I think this is just one more argument to sticking to best usage in the academic literature on that particular period, like Goldstein. Scholars of his calibre don't make their reputations by fiddling with language to help one side or another. They just try to use appropriate language to describe the events.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani - Pacification, Liberation, and Invasion are all POV terms. I agree, only incorporation of Tibet into the new government of China is the only neutral term really. Phead128 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How in the world can someone say that China didn't de jure rule Tibet after 1914? De facto is probably reasonable, but de jure seems fishy as no other country recognised its independence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You confuse the distinct concepts of suzerainty and sovereignty. I am well familiar with China's official line. The redefinition of 'de jure' (international terminology) to fit the complexities of relationships between premodern states (esp. in the Qing period) not governed by formal treaties or agreements that detailed the rights and obligations of the contracting parties is not a good move. It confuses, which our historians do not, two different systems and two different concepts of law (Western/Oriental). It may be the line of one party to an historic dispute, but sources and legal opinion see this as far more complex, and to privilege it violates WP:NPOV.

I might add that the original link Kuomintang Pacification of Qinghai to justify this argument is POV in its title and content. It wasn't the Guomindang which 'pacified' 'Qinghai' (i.e. parts of the Kham and Amdo regions). It was a Muslim warlord, Ma Qi, who provisorily sided with one party in an internecine civil-war in order to obtain political protection and arms while pursuing his own personal and ethnic interests. His policy was not 'pacification' but the seizure of the lucrative Labrang markets and the decimation of the local peoples in order to strengthen an 'Islamic' foothold. In fact when the PRC took over, it got rid of his son and their clan, and, often more than verbally, sided with the aggrieved 'minorities'. The function of that heading or article title serves, whether editors understand this or not, to create a specious claim of legal continuity with the Qing claims for sovereignty, and it is this ruling assumption, that articles on the period dealing with borderlands must contextualize the facts exclusively within China's claims, which vitiates otherwise good work. Students are consistently told not to use wiki as a resource because of the carelessness to describe neutrally the whole picture without yielding to the temptation to side with parties to a dispute. We are here to edit towards the facts of history, and not to buttress the claims of this or that nation.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, it's impossible to state Chinese never had de-jure sovereignty over Tibet, because anybody can create a law in their constitution claiming to be independent, or claiming to have jurisdiction rights over any territory, but PRC claims herself to be the successor state to the ROC/Qing dynasty, therefore it automatically gives China de-jure sovereignty over Tibet, despite the existence of the same Tibetan law that gives Tibetans de-jure sovereignty over Tibet. It's impossible to state China never had de-jure sovereignty, since the example section in the de jure page clearly shows that de jure practices may not be observed or obeyed by the people. So please update your assertion that American scholars did not believe China held de jure sovereignty over Tibet, because it's misunderstand of the use of the word de-jure.Phead128 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing suzeraintry and sovereignty - China (PRC) automatically inherited all territories of the Qing once it declared herself successor state to ROC/Qing as the new government of China - so that is why she had de-jure sovereignty.Phead128 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In answer to Eraserhead's question, there are two main theories of sovereignty in international law: the constitutive theory, which is based on international recognition, and the declarative theory, which is based on governing a territory and behaving like a state. Under the latter theory, as expressed in Montevideo Convention, Tibet was an independent state de jure prior to 1950. Note that Tibet entered into a bilateral diplomatic agreement with the British Empire in the McMahon Line appendix of the 1914 Simla Convention, and briefly also had bilateral relations with Mongolia.

Anybody can declare themselves to be an independent country, but it's equally true that anybody can declare themselves to have de jure sovereignty over a territory they do not actually rule.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why the only neutral way to approach this is to view China has having de jure sovereignty from the constitutive theory and succession of states viewpoint, and Tibet as having de facto sovereign independence from the declarative theory. Since Tibet failed to gain major international recognization of her de facto independence, her claim for de jure sovereignty simply is just that - a claim. Anyone can claim that they are an independent nation, but when faced with two competing claims of de jure sovereignty, one must appreciate that Tibet failed to get major international recognization of her de facto status, let alone make the big claim of de jure sovereign status - because it's really only in the eyes of Tibetans and their sympathizers that this is true.108.7.241.222 (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, de jure means "by law". During the 1913-1950 period, Tibet was a sovereign state under Tibetan law and it was a subordinate territory of China under Chinese law. Both are de jure statuses—there doesn't have to be a single de jure status. Compare to this example from Wikipedia's example in the de jure article: "Thus, Egypt was by Ottoman law de jure a province of that empire, by Egyptian law de jure independent, but de facto was part of the British Empire."—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Claimants	constitutive theory	declarative theory
Republic of China	de jure sovereignty	de jure sovereignty.	de facto control.
Tibetan Rebels	de jure sovereignty	de jure sovereignty	de facto control

Based on this table, it's only neutral to say that China has de jure sovereignty from the constitutive theory and succession of states viewpoint, and Tibet as having de facto sovereign independence from the declarative theory. To suggest de jure' sovereignty of Tibet in the declarative sense is redundant, as de facto independence from the declarative sense already covers the existence of separate Tibetan laws, but the fact that no nations recognized Tibetan de facto independence puts Chinese claims of de jure status in the constitutive sense above Tibetan claims of de jure status in the declarative sense. My summary and conclusion is: it's better to say Tibetan de facto independence in the declarative and constitutive sense than de jure in the mere declarative sense, sicne de facto independence insinuates the existence of separate de jure Tibetan laws int he declarative sense. Less redundancy and less misinterpretation that could lead to POV.Phead128 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Now I see we are talking about 'rebels'? Have you any sources for all of this, and the preceding?Nishidani (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Phead128, you assert:

(a)'it's impossible to state Chinese never had de-jure sovereignty over Tibet, because anybody can create a law in their constitution claiming to be independent, or claiming to have jurisdiction rights over any territory,'

(b)'I am not confusing suzeraintry and sovereignty - China (PRC) automatically inherited all territories of the Qing once it declared herself successor state to ROC/Qing as the new government of China.'

i.e. You're absolutely convinced that China's case is iron-clad, and therefore as wiki editors we are obliged to assume this conviction as a fact. I still believe you fail to make the distinction between suzerainty and sovereignty, and fail to take in what Greg Pandatshang has indicated with subtle clarity. Your problem is, there is a considerable literature we are supposed to respect which challenges your editing premise, which is a POV coinciding with one of the parties to an hermeneutical dispute. I don't think that is the way we do things round here.

I appreciate your endeavour to rewrite in legalese, but it makes several grave errors in English. Legal language can be used, but only to avoid equivocation, not to generate misunderstandings, as your attempt here does:

• ('claimed of nominal'; (solecism)
• 'Due to the stalemate .. . there have been'; (unclear, what 'stalemate' in 1949?)
• each others territory'; (genitive unmarked)
• 'The PRC claims Tibet and other ROC-held areas'; (Tibet is not a Roc-held area)
• 'consider'; (not in agreement with subject)
• 'The PRC claims Tibet and other ROC-held areas as part of its territory and consider the PRC a successor state of ROC on the mainland and whole of China' (repetition, the hammering effect. You already argued this earlier)
• 'attempts by the Government of Tibet to have de facto independent law to be internationally recognized,' ('to have . .to be' is ungrammatical, and the whole sentence very awkward; and 'law here is not what was asked to be recognized but 'status')
• 'to be sovereign replacement for Qing dynasty' (meaningless apart from being ungrammatical.)
• 'ROC laws that became desuetude after decades of disuse' (in English the idiom 'become desuetude' is unacceptable, and to use 'desuetude' with 'disuse' is tautological)

The overall effect is that the lead is unreadable and at times incomprehensible. WP:LEDE obliges us to be lucid and to take great care in synthesizing the body of the text. No reader will get past the second line, and the statement you added, while a valiant effort, does not synthesize anything in the lower main text. In fact, if you want something like this it should be worked out in the background section first, not directly in the lead, and preferably by consultation with other editors. As it stands, it synthesizes in a personal fashion several other pages, and introduces this as an extraneous body to a text that is short on such details.Nishidani (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Things are really different here from Eastern Europe. I can only imagine articles Pacification of Baltic Republics and Pacification of Poland ... My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested rewriting of lead proposed by Phead

I've reverted to the earlier lead, and placed the proposed revision to the text here for discussion.

The Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China was the process by which a new government of China - the People's Republic of China (PRC) gained control of the area comprising the present-day Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). As the legal successor state to the Qing dynasty, the Republic of China (ROC) claimed of nominal de jure sovereignty over Ü-Tsang and western Kham, comprising the present-day TAR. In practice, these regions became de facto independent, and fell under the control of the Government of Tibet shortly after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911. Due to the stalemate of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, there have been two states claiming to represent China and both officially claim each others territory, with the territories formerly governed on the mainland by ROC becoming the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. The PRC claims Tibet and other ROC-held areas as part of its territory and consider the PRC a successor state of ROC on the mainland and whole of China. These regions came under the control of the PRC after attempts by the Government of Tibet to have de facto independent law to be internationally recognized, and have her de jure law of the land to be sovereign replacement for Qing dynasty and ROC laws that became desuetude after decades of disuse between 1912-1950 when ROC failed to exercised effective sovereignty over Tibet. As negotiations between the Government of Tibet and the PRC fell through, a military conflict in the Qamdo area of Western Kham erupted between Tibetan army and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in October 1950, which culminated in the eventual acceptance of the Seventeen Point Agreement by the Government of Tibet and the PRC in October 1951. The Government of Tibet and Tibetan social structure remained in place in the TAR under the authority of the PRC until the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when the Dalai Lama fled into exile and after which the Government of Tibet was dissolved.

(a) See WP:Lede:

(1)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

The article as we have it is not about the legal situation but the succession of events.

(2)

The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

It is not clearly written, full of jargon, and throws the reader off. It is not neutral, and deters the reader from reading on.

It lacks, as required, sources.

And looks like WP:OR.

My suggestion is that the author work on this for possible inclusion in a background section below the lead which could then be summarised for inclusion in the lead) and seek consensus for the substantial change proposed, as per our normal procedures.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I’d like to echo Nishidani’s statements. I’d also like to point out that Wikipedia has an article devoted to the Tibetan sovereignty debate. While some of that information is pertinent to the Incorporation of Tibet into the PRC, keep in mind that the other article exists so we need not cover it in as much depth in this article. (There is also some coverage in Tibet (1912–1951).) IMHO it might be better to fill out the article with descriptions of events first and add complicated (and controversial) legal and moral discussions as needed after there is a very solid basis of events and perhaps a somewhat barer description of motivations. But I realize that this is completely up to the individual editors, and I don't want to discourage anyone from adding pertinent information in whatever order they have it ready.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Chamdo

Couldn't we split the Battle of Chamdo out of this article, and call that the Invasion of Tibet (or, at the very least, mention that it's sometimes referred to as an invasion)? That would be entirely neutral, and will please both POVs. I'm not comfortable with there just being an "Incorporation" article, it implies that the Chinese didn't use force against the Tibetans, which they did (although primarily in Qamdo).--SakyaTrizin (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've split off the Invasion of Tibet into the Battle of Chamdo article. Hopefully that solves the naming issues.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off the Battle of Chamdo into a separate article implies that it has nothing to do with the process of China entering Tibet, which of course is not true.

For us to do so for the sake of our own naming conventions is not appropriate. If the name doesn't fit the events, we shouldn't remove/change the events. Longchenpa (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The invasion of Tibet is covered in both articles, but the Battle of Chamdo article focuses entirely on the invasion of Tibet. Otherwise, we'd just have the "incorporation of Tibet" article, a name that egregiously implies a peaceful incorporation, which it certainty wasn't. We must not let the PRC regime, and their few sympathizers, convince the public that their actions were peaceful, when history shows otherwise.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the separate article on the Battle of Chamdo is good; the details of a military battle: personnel involved, troop movements, strategy, and tactics, or lack of them, don't belong in this article. The brief summary we retain is about right. I don't think use of military force is at issue as far as being a fact. The question you raise, the status of the nation of Tibet and its right to self-determination also needs to be handled appropriately.User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Preference for British or American English?

This series of edits converted some, but not all of the article from American to British English. Either one works for me, but we should be consistent. Does anyone have a preference?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is definitely not a case where one or the other required based on close association with the UK or with America, so we should just go with whatever the established convention on this page is. The original version of this article (link) looks like it's in American English: it contains the word "labor". So, let's stick with that.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I reverted the article to American English. I also changed Peking back to Beijing, although it was called Peking at the time (I think), so Peking would probably work too.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional content suggestions

I'd like to make some suggestions for the content. I'd like to suggest expanding the section on 'The People's Republic of China's preparations'. The article, "The Tibetan Rebellion of 1959 and China's Changing Relations with India and the Soviet Union" by Chen Jian (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/jcws.2006.8.3.pdf) found on the Cold War Studies at Harvard University's webpage gives a more detailed account of China's motivations. It also gives more detail about the "Seventeen Point Agreement", which I think there should be a prominent link to as well as a small summary of on the page. This source has also been used for the "1959 Tibetan uprising" page.

I'd also like to suggest expanding the article with more mentions of the Dalai Lama's activities around that time, either with a summary or with a link to the Dalai Lama's page.

JeanneMT (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Is how the CCP defeated the KMT relevant to this article?

A recent edit here [1] states that the CCP could not have defeated the KMT without massive Soviet aid. That's all well and good, but as written it doesn't seem terribly related to the incorporation of Tibet into the PRC. Could someone explain how it relates so that we can make it look more relevant to the article? Or if it really is completely tangential to the article, maybe we should take it back out.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The content is more relevant to the Chinese Civil War, so I've moved the content to talk:Chinese Civil War for possible use there.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Chinese Civil War page is indeed the best recipient for a paragraph that has hardly any bearing to the subject (is the purported message that the reincorporation of Tibet into China is Stalin's fault?). --Christian Lassure (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarify "liquidated" remark

There's a parenthetical in both this article and the Battle of Chamdo that "5,000 Tibetan soldiers were 'liquidated' according to Thomas Laird". It's completely unclear what this means. Liquidated is often used as a euphemism for execution, but that contradicts the rest of the article. If there is legitimate scholarly disagreement as to what happened to Tibetan POWs, then the article should detail it more. Otherwise, the parenthetical should be removed, as it is confusing and contradictory. MarcusGraly (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Added contradict tag to the section. MarcusGraly (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tracked this down a bit. Laird is himself rather confusing and contradictory on this point, so is not a good source. His source for the 5000 liquidated is Tsering Shakya's The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947, which is clearer. On page 45 it says, "Later the Chinese announced that 'a total of 5,738 enemy troops had been liquidated' and 180 Tibetans troops killed or wounded." I would interpret that "liquidated" refers to prisoners, presumably paroled in the manner described by Laird and others. I will update the article to make this clear. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Tsering Shakya's footnote. He's quoting Zhang Guohua, writing in 1962. "Altogether 21 large and small scale engagements were fought and over 5,700 enemy men were destroyed." Does anyone else think this quote probably refers to the 1959 revolt? It would be seriously revisionist to apply in to Chamdo, which clearly did not have flighting of this scale. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate source is Zhang Guohua's "Tibet returns to the Bosom of the Motherland, Revolutionary Reminiscences", published in 1962, which I do not have direct access to. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It can be found in the Survey of China Mainland Press, no. 2854. My personal view is that even if Zhang is talking about the 1950 campaign, he should not be considered a credible source, given that all other accounts differ substantially. MarcusGraly (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of 5,000 Tibetan soldiers being "liquidated" was brought up a few years ago [2] (by me). My inclination would be to take it out of the article entirely, since it's misleading, if not downright incorrect. The best reason I can see to keep it in would be that readers will have encountered the 5,000 casualty estimate previously so it might be worth having some explanation in the article about where it comes from. It might be better to mention it in the article than having to repeatedly revert adjustments to the casualty estimates and re-discuss it on the talk page. But I still lean towards taking it out at the moment.

Interesting idea that Zhang Guohua could be writing about the 1959 rebellion (or perhaps all the PLA's activities in Tibetan areas up until the report?). Or it could be that "liquidated" has a different meaning in PRC military reports, that the translation is misleading, or that it was part of the hyperbole that ruled PRC reporting from about 1958 until after the death of Mao. I wonder if a reliable source has tracked this down.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I went to a University library and read the article. Zhang is very clearly talking about Chamdo and not later actions. (He gives a rather vivid account of the whole campaign, including acclimating his troops to high altitude.) Anyway, Ill update the articles to make it clear that he said it and not the later authors who cite him directly or indirectly and let the readers decide for themselves. MarcusGraly (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The article cites one-sided sources and uses emotive, non-neutral terminology with insufficient balance. I am no apologist for the Communist government, but this article skews too far in its tone, which damages its credibility. Some examples:

• In the lead: "... under duress...", which reflects the view of one side of the debate.
• In the lead: "when the Dalai Lama fled into exile and after which the Government of Tibet was dissolved", not even sure which POV this is trying to push but clearly a partisan interpretation of the facts.
• In the "Background" section: "In 1846, the British Empire converted Nepal into a semi-autonomous protectorate, in 1853 conquered Sikkim, in 1865 invaded Bhutan, and in 1885 colonized Burma, occupying by force the whole southern flank of Tibet, which remained the only Himalayan kingdom free of British influence": say what you wish about Tibet in 1705 or 1925, but I challenge the author to say with a straight face that the balance of sources regard Tibet as a kingdom as of 1885. And why is it being listed in parallel with Nepal or Burma?
• In the "Background" section: "thus converting Tibet into a British protectorate": one of the few strange claims that actually gets a citation. But really? Had the author looked beyond the solitary POV source, surely they would not have written this down as if it were a fact.

I will stop here. The issues run throughout the article. It's not only non-NPOV, it's a very strange POV, as if the author thinks Tibet is rightfully British, rather than Tibetan or Chinese. Very strange.

I'd say you need to present your argument better with justification. What are the reliable sources that back up your POV? That's how to improve this article. I'm removing the POV tag until you can clearly present your case. --Happyseeu (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lhasa Treaty

As to how to phrase the part of Lhasa Treaty, I'll refer to two authoritative sources:

1. Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. states the Lhasa treaty was signed 'under constraint', because the Tibetans had just been defeated by the Younghusband expedition. This book is the collective effort of 15 Tibetologists to respond to PRC's version of Tibet history and represents the field well.
2. The other source is Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (October 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. pp. 657–684. ISBN 90-04-17732-9., which describes the events around it well. Shakabpa wrote the history of Tibet referencing numerous Tibetan sources and from a Tibetan perspective, and is a standard reference for Tibetan history. His book was banned in China because it deviates too much from PRC's official version of history.

None of these use the term 'unequal treaty', and it seems that only Chinese sources use this term. So 'unequal treaty' shouldn't be used here since it's not the majority view of scholars, to say the least. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the terms of the Treaty, it's absolutely an unequal treaty by any standard. Why do you want to hide that? Can you find us a source that says Treaty of Lhasa is not an unequal treaty? STSC (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect the majority view of scholars/experts based on reliable source, not the opinion of editors. That's what an encyclopedia is for. If you want to express your opinion, go to BBS or blog about it, do not abuse Wikipedia.

If you do want to hear other editor's opinion, here is mine. I see at least another problem with this: both the Treaty of Lhasa and 17 point agreement was signed after militarily defeat the Tibetan army, so why would you call one an unequal treaty, but not the other? It is unfair. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS. Arguments and votes are evenly spread, so there is no clear consensus emerging for either title. In such circumstances the existing stable title remains in place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China → Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China – Google Scholar and Google Books search results with appropriate phrases clearly indicate that the dominant scholarly usage (in English) describes the operation that led to Chinese government power over Tibet as an "annexation," not an "incorporation." A Google Scholar search for "Incorporation of Tibet" gets 154 results; a search for "annexation of Tibet" gets 402 results. A Google Books search with the phrase "incorporation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 1,430 results; a search for the phrase "annexation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 3,640 results. Using a term that suggests smooth integration rather than conquest is not a legitimate way to resolve POV issues, since it favours a certain view (to test your intuition on this, consider an unambiguous case of conquest of your choice and imagine labeling it as an "incorporation"). This page should be labelled according to the dominant scholarly formulation, as an "annexation," not an "incorporation." Human fella (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV. sst✈ 16:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Annexation" means that an internationally recognized sovereign and independent country becomes part of another country after formally agreeing to forfeit its sovereignty and independence. This is not what happened with Tibet. From 1720 until 1912, Tibet was ruled by China. From 1913 to 1951, while China itself was in turmoil, Tibet was independent only de facto, not de jure, an unrecognized state, with China never relinquishing its sovereignty over it. I suppose that's why the word "incorporation" was chosen over "annexation". Now there's an official Chinese designation for China reasserting its sovereignty in 1951, it's "liberation of Tibet" (10,300 results in GoogleBooks, 2,080 in Scholar). So, the dominant scholarly usage is not what is being claimed above. To avoid the likely prospect of edit warring, let's stick with "incorporation". --Elnon (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply The "official Chinese designation" on this is not germane, unless we assume that a colonizing power has a right to control the language used to describe its colonial actions. Not surprisingly, many scholarly publications have cited this official phrase, often with scare quotes. I will venture that the vast bulk of sympathetic citations will be by Chinese authors. Admittedly, this means that the case requires arbitrating between scholarly uses, and not merely counting them. If our purpose is to avoid edit warring by appeasing a dedicated set of editors who favour a certain political power, that seems to speak very ill indeed of how Wikipedia is dealing with these issues. Human fella (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply To be more specific, here are some examples of uses from the first pages of responses on Google Scholar, among those accessible and disregarding Chinese authors:

• Mere citation of the title of the 17-Point Agreement, as in Nomads of western Tibet: the survival of a way of life (Goldstein and Beall 1990)
• 'the so-called 17-Point Agreement, which purported to “reunite” Tibet with the Chinese “Motherland.”' followed by a footnote that again merely cites the official title of the agreement ("The Changing Face of Recognition in International Law: A Case Study of Tibet", Sloane 2002);
• '"Before the peaceful liberation of Tibet, the Lhoba nationality was regarded as a bunch of barbarians."... The above quote is typical of pronouncements made on ceremonial occasions, thanking the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for the prosperity they have brought to Tibet.' (Dreyer 2003, "Economic Development in Tibet under the People’s Republic of China");
• 'two days later Beijing announced the "liberation" of Tibet.' ("Tibet in Sino-Indian relations: The centrality of marginality", Norbu 1997);
• "the so-called Peaceful Liberation of Tibet by the People's Liberation Army in 1950" (On the margins of Tibet: cultural survival on the Sino-Tibetan frontier, Kolas 2005);
• "For the Chinese, the 'liberation' of Tibet merely restored Tibet's historical status as part of China" ("The nationalities policy of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist transformation of Tibet", Smith 1994);
• 'Chinese and Tibetan government officials at a banquet celebrating the “peaceful liberation” of Tibet' (Goldstein 2007 - Goldstein also uses the phrase without scare quotes when portraying the position of Mao and his government; he also uses it when referring to Tibetan resistance and their pursuit of an end to Chinese sovereignty [see below]);
• "A year later, 40,000 Chinese soldiers of the Liberation Army entered Eastern Tibet and began their so-called 'liberation' of Tibet." (Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement: The Sacrifice of Tibet, Arpi 2004);
• 'A delegation went to Beijing in 1951 and reluctantly signed a "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet"' ("The Impact of China's Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet", Goldstein and Beall 1989);
• 'Their primary aim was to persuade Chinese readers of the moral justification for the "liberation" of Tibet' ("The waterfall and fragrant flowers: The development of Tibetan literature since 1950", Shakya 2000)

Some of the uses specifically refer to the liberation of Tibet FROM China:

• as in this letter from a member of the Tibetan resistance movement in 1963: "you must constantly work with inflexible determination for the liberation of Tibet, even at the cost of your lives." (Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed TIbetan Freedom Fighters, the Chinese Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet, Dunham 2004);
• and in this reference to Indian support in the 1960s for Tibetan independence from China: "Tibetan leader Gyalo Thondup is reported as recounting that Intelligence Bureau head B. N. Mullik in December 1962 told him that India had now adopted a policy of supporting the eventual liberation of Tibet." (India, China, The United States, Tibet, and The Origins of the 1962 War, Garver 2004)

These are not cherry-picked examples. They are all of the examples available in the first four pages of Google Scholar results that are accessible online and are not from Chinese authors or .cn domains, and excluding the first result from a book entitled "Tears of Blood: A Cry for Tibet" as well as one from an article on UNESCO and tourism in Tibet that refers to "a high modernist monument built in 2001 commemorating the liberation of Tibet" (i.e. built and so presented by the Chinese authorities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human fella (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply In the United Nations' current list of "non-self-governing territories", Tibet is markedly absent and China appears nowhere as one of the "administering powers." So your implicit characterisation of China as a "colonizing power" is baseless. --Elnon (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Annexation includes any area added to an expanding state, not only "sovereign" states. This has very little to do with Tibet's prior status. Dimadick (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV and Elnon. "Liberation of Tibet" is Chinese POV, while "Annexation of Tibet" is Western POV. Let's stick with "Incorporation" as the neutral term. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply as both POV terms are more common than the neutral one (which shows the power of propaganda). -Zanhe (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply "Incorporation" is not a neutral term, it is a term with clearly (and here misleadingly) peaceful connotations. Again, without citing distracting examples, consider any act of clear military conquest and imagine describing it as an "incorporation." One does not have to view the takeover of Tibet in this way to realize that the term itself is not neutral. Human fella (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply I must point out that "incorporation" and "annexation" don't contradict with each other, so "'Incorporation' is not a neutral term" does not really apply. For example, the book "Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America by Simon S. C. Tay (p88) mentions that "China incorporated Tibet by annexation, albeit as an autonomous region, in the 1950s". Also, PRC control of Xinjiang was not entirely peaceful either, but it is also titled Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  This is a circular argument, the Xinjiang page was moved using the Tibet page as reference!--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe it's because I don't get my history from a 1997 Martin Scorcese film, but I don't recall the PLA ever marching into Lhasa. Aside from a single border skirmish in an area that wasn't even regarded as part of "Tibet" until after exile (now here's a complicated issue that deserves it's own article...), we're actually describing a boring diplomatic affair that happened in Beijing. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course the PLA marched into Lhasa – that was right after the peace was signed, so it was not a military offensive. What was militarily significant prior to the peace agreement was that the PLA could march on Lhasa, the latter having been left virtually defenseless after the Battle of Chamdo. This battle was indeed fairly small, one-sided, and abortive and so I guess one might call it a skirmish; but it was a skirmish that ended in a full-scale rout on one side. I'm not sure how you concluded that the site of the battle was not yet considered Tibet at that point. The engagement began when PLA troops crossed the Jinsha, which was the de facto border during the later de facto independence period. Chamdo was governed by Ngapö, the domé chikyap (governor-general of the east) appointed by Lhasa. His writ didn't carry much further east than Chamdo, but Chamdo is where the battle was. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• If we're not being anachronistic, "annexation" is not even the Western POV. Dalai only started his campaign to propagandize Westerners in 1987, targeting certain "vanguard" populations such as environmentalists. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title is in a common format used to describe the territorial expansion of nations. The current title creates an artificial distinction between the expansion of China and the expansion of some other country. "Annexation of Tibet by China" would be more concise. Gulangyu (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply: While I am fine with either "incorporation" or "annexation" (although I prefer being consistent with the other article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China), I don't think "Annexation of Tibet by China" would be better. The article Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) may also be considered as an incorporation/annexation of Tibet by China, so it would be more accurate to title it "into the People's Republic of China", in line with the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  "Annexation" is the act of extending the law of the annexing country to the territory annexed. Chinese territory had zhou, magistrates, provinces, and governors. Tibet never had anything like that. What was established in 1720 was more like a protectorate -- and even that didn't last long. Whatever happened in 1720, Chinese law did not extend to Tibet between 1913 and 1951. Gulangyu (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that Chinese law did not extend to Tibet between 1913 and 1951, but what I was saying is that Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) may also be considered as an incorporation/annexation of Tibet by China, no matter it was more like a protectorate or not as you said. Not to mention there is also Chinese expedition to Tibet (1910) which attempted to rule Tibet directly. As a result, "Incorporation/Annexation of Tibet by China" may refer to the event in either 1720 or 1950 (or even 1910). Thus, it would be more accurate to title the 1950 event as "into the People's Republic of China", in line with the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China occurring about the same time. --Cartakes (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  By that definition, "annexation" did not even happen in 1951. The Kashag continued to govern the Lhasa environ until 1959, albeit now without the British and Russian and Kuomintang advisors. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  This is no different than the situation in China proper. There was Zhou Enlai or some other hapless "legal" authority who accepted petitions and heard grievances as rulers had under earlier regimes. Meanwhile, the real power was exercised by party bosses and army commanders. (In the case of Tibet, Zhang Guohua (1950-52) and Zhang Jingwu (1952-65) were both.) But this is not the way the Qing or the Nationalists did business, so you can't project this idea onto earlier time periods. Gulangyu (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is neutral and has been stable for a long time. "Annexation" is absolutely a wrong description. STSC (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply: I strongly disagree with the claim of neutrality and fail to see how the time of existence of the current title is relevant. Perhaps you wish to present some argument to counter the findings from Google Scholar presented with the request? Human fella (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Reply: If talking about neutrality, there should be no doubt that "incorporation" is a neutral word, although "annexation" may also be applicable in this case. As pointed out earlier, the two words don't contradict with each other; the book "Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America" by Simon S. C. Tay (p88) for example mentions that "China incorporated Tibet by annexation, albeit as an autonomous region, in the 1950s". The meaning of the word "incorporation" is wider than "annexation", and if "incorporation" is not neutral then "annexation" is not neutral either, not to mention that the other article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China also uses "incorporation". --Cartakes (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of "common name", the 'liberation of Tibet' beats the 'annexation of Tibet' hands down. The current title has been very stable because the consensus had been reached to use such title in previous discussions, due to incorporation is relatively neutral amongst invasion, annexation and liberation. STSC (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Staberinde (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no evidence that there is an established common name for this event. The fact that one wording is used more commonly than another is insufficient to imply that there a fixed name in general use. “Incorporation” is a word chosen for the purpose of neutrality. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Greg Pandatshang and some others, there is indeed no need to make such a title change when the use of "incorporation" is neutral and stable (per WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."). Also for consistency with the other article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Tibet was nominally part of the Qing Empire, so it would be like saying the annexation of Hainan into the People's Republic of China, but Hainan just changed management, as did Tibet, since that was under Nationalist control. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Tibetan government certainly didn't see things that way. It repeatedly asserted its independence throughout the 1913-1951 period. Gulangyu (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • You could say that about Transnitria, Somaliland, South Ossetia today, if Georgia or Moldova or Somalia puts down the rebel forces, then it isn't annexation, it's suppression of rebellion. Or historically, the Confederate States of America. Did the Union annex the South, or did it put down a rebellion? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Am I to understand from these tortured analogies that in your view the Dalai Lama's government was never legitimate? How far do you want to go with this idea? Was the 17-point agreement signed by an illegitimate government? This is from the Dalai Lama's 1913 declaration of independence: "During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Ch’ing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship....the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."[3] Gulangyu (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I consider that Somaliland is a legitimate state, that is discriminated against because the world hates making new nations and prefers civil wars, enforcing colonial decision-making like Sykes-Picot instead of accepting the reality of the world. But it is still a portion of Somalia that has fallen out of central control. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "Annexation" is much more appropriate than "incorporation" when the agreement to (re)unify is one-sided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "Incorporation" isn't terrible, but "annexation" is better. It more aptly describes the sequence of events, better fits the historical context, is NPOV, and is commonly used to refer to what happened. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. While "Liberation" is clearly a propaganda terminology, both "Annexation" and "Incorporation" can be regarded as neutral and factual, and both would match with the content of the article. Incorporation has the advantage of not having a (usual) negative connotation (thus being perceived as more neutral), but it is a very vague terminology ("the act of including something within something else" as per Cambridge dictionary) that is very rarely used in this context by scholars or in common language. It is not the task of Wikipedia to impose new terms. On the other side, annexation is the usual term to describe the process of "incorporating (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state" (Merriam-Webster), "taking possession of an area of land or a country, usually by force or without permission" (Cambridge), "adding (territory) to one’s own territory by appropriation" (Oxford) . The Wikipedia article on Annexation does say the same: "political transition of land from the control of one entity to another". Whatever title is retained, I am more worried about the gradual conversion of many Wikipedia articles into a PRC-friendly rhetoric usually found in Chinese schoolbooks. Let's, at least, retain the terminology widely used by scholars, if not in the title, at least in the article content.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

.

Annexation

Where is the reference to annexation? This may only be one way of framing this "incorporation", but the failure even to refer to it seems to be a political choice. Presumably there are people paying a lot of attention to this article... --Human fella (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While there has been a lot of political wrangling over what goes into this article, the PRC was very clever not to call its acquisition of Tibet a "conquest" or an "annexation". History texts and news sources call formal annexations annexations, but I don't recall seeing one call an undeclared annexation an annexation. If reliable sources can be found that call it an annexation, this can be mentioned in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the PRC's choice of terminology determine how the issue is presented on Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, the word "incorporation" is just a euphemistic way of trying to make what was unambiguously a takeover by military force sound neutral. For what it's worth, both Google Books and Google Scholar turn up hundreds of hits for "annexation of Tibet", most referring either to 1950-51 or 1959. This study from the Emory International Law Review may be of particular interest if you're specifically trying to establish "credibility" on those terms. The author writes: "Why then does every state continue to validate China’s sovereignty over Tibet, when its only conceivable claim, as shown repeatedly by historical and international law scholarship, is military annexation?" and "By continuing to denominate Tibet a “part of” China, the international community and its constituent states validate China’s military conquest, annexation, and colonization of Tibet." --Human fella (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you are finding reliable sources that call it annexation. Feel free to mention annexation in the article as long as you provide citations. (And thanks for the law review reference; it should make interesting reading.)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise to anyone how many chinese nationalists are going around blatantly inserting PRC government sanctioned versions of fictional history and 'balanced' version of chinese historian 'analysis' that actually seeks to whitewash anything that makes the chinese 'lose face'. Many people have been quietly noticing these trends with china-related articles, where titles and contents are not-so-subtly influenced into something more euphemistic or outright revisionist. For instance, 'Invasion of Tibet' has been changed into something along the lines of 'Incorporation of Tibet into PRC'. Chinese propaganda and revisionist claims don't always outright seek to reverse the contents, but they also seek to again not so subtly feign ignorance or claim 'lack of sources' whenever it suits their whims - as if attempting to insist that materials backed by evidence which clearly displays negative chinese conduct are 'biased' and is in need of revision. Recent edited sections of clothing and equipment are but one of such numerous examples where insistance of positive portrayal of chinese take precedent over presentation of opposing viewed backed up by far more numerous evidence, not to mention blatant lack of even basic citation.

There does exist a tendency of such groups that fools the 'balanced' editors into thinking they are somehow representing a 'fair' view when accepting such biased notion as a valid entry. I encourage wikipedia editors to exercise greater caution and understand that simple and obvious revisions on entries are not the only way for an individual to attempt and influence opinions of those who read the articles.

As it stands now, the whole articles almost sound like an apologist revision history sanctioned by the chinese government. Invasion of Tibet (1950) just redirects to Battle of Chambo that includes a blatantly obvious nationalist smear campaign against those who fought against china, while the entire tibet invasion is referred to euphemistically as 'incorporation'.

I am still waiting for some fool to pipe up and mention the favorite excuse about 'native americans'. As if they cared about Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.61.181 (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources that call it 'annexation' or 'invasion':

• Melvyn C. Goldstein; Gelek Rimpoche (January 1989). A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State. University of California Press. pp. 638–. ISBN 978-0-520-06140-8. Chapter 18 is titled The People's Liberation Army Invades without calling it annexation.
• Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. calls it 'annexation'.
• Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (October 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. pp. 9–. ISBN 90-04-17732-9. calls it 'annexation'. The title of chapter 20(p. 915) of the book is Chinese Communist Invasion of Tibet

So there are multiple reliable sources to support changing the name of the article. Unless better sources are found, I'll move the article to 'China's annexation of Tibet'. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How about the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China? Don't just move this article, please. --Cartakes (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

'Annexation' would WP:NPOV since parties dispute the nature of this event.--Pbsavon (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Leave the NPOV part, "incorporation" is also used by various reliable sources, such as "Taming Tibet: Landscape Transformation and the Gift of Chinese Development" by Emily T. Yeh (p2), "Tibetans in Nepal: The Dynamics of International Assistance Among a Community in Exile" by Ann Frechette (p66), and "A History of Modern Tibet: The calm before the storm, 1951-1955" by Melvyn C. Goldstein (p502). --Cartakes (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding other sources. The question is which one is the majority view of scholars on this; e.g. the lead section of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) says "The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states covers the period from the Soviet–Baltic mutual assistance pacts in 1939, to their invasion and annexation in 1940", so "invasion" and "annexation" can be used in an article. I'd like to see proof "incorporation" is the majority view of scholars. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you search for "China Tibet incorporation 1950" in Google Books, there are 3,950 results. On the other hand, there are 3,520 results for "China Tibet annexation 1950". There are slightly more results for "incorporation" than "annexation" in Google Books. As for the "invasion", it was part of the incorporation/annexation process and there is a separate Battle of Chamdo article. Furthermore, there is a unified use of "incorporation" for the articles of both Xinjiang and Tibet, i.e. Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China and Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China. --Cartakes (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A more relevant phrase search of Google Books turns up unambiguous results. A Google Books search with the phrase "incorporation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 1,430 results; a search for the phrase "annexation of Tibet" and "China" turns up 3,640 results. The difference between the Soviet and Chinese cases here is presumably the current power of the Chinese government? i.e. History is written by the victors, etc. It's time for this politically manipulated travesty of an article title to be revised.Human fella (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding results from Google Scholar. "Incorporation of Tibet" gets 154 results; "annexation of Tibet" gets 402 results. There will clearly be POV disputes over many such situations, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to choose a term suggesting smooth inclusion when the reality is violent conquest. Human fella (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to mention that "incorporation" and "annexation" don't contradict with each other, so "History is written by the victors" etc does not apply here. For example, the book "Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America by Simon S. C. Tay (p88) mentions that "China incorporated Tibet by annexation, albeit as an autonomous region, in the 1950s". --Cartakes (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Scholars of international law take the line that this was an Annexation.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)