Talk:Tibet under Qing rule

Requested move 23 April 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Supposedly, the relevant policy here is WP:NPOVTITLE, but there seems to be hardly arguments related to it. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Tibet under Qing rule → Tibet under Qing dynasty – The nature of relationship between Tibet and Qing China is highly contested, but the current title is an exceeding overstatement. China did not "rule" Tibet. According to Melvyn C. Goldstein, Tibet "maintained its own language, officials, legal system, and army and paid no taxes/tribute to China." At best China exercised some form of a loose protectorate. A neutral page title would be preferable.

References

– Kautilya3 (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be WP:OR, as it is unclear if any RSs take issue with the phrase "rule" in this context. For reference, the word rule is commonly used to describe protectorate states (ex British Indirect Rule), so I see no inherent conflict with the title and the description in the nom. Per WP:CONSISTENT the title should match with Tibet under Yuan Rule, Manchuria under Qing rule, Mongolia under Qing rule, Xinjiang under Qing rule, Taiwan under Qing rule, etc. Unless there is a explicit objection from multiple RSs on the specific use of the phrase "rule," I say we keep it as is. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Our WP:NPOV commitment is to follow the terminology used by reliable sources. It is not to make up our own terminology and ask if any sources contradict it. That is quite the backwards. Goldstein himself says Qing established a "loose protectorate" and there is no mention of "rule". Please feel free to offer sources that support the current terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I did not mean to suggest that the title was "made up," just explaining that the reasoning in the nom is faulty: Goldstein's description of certain degrees of Tibetan autonomy is not in conflict with the word "rule" as is suggested. Indeed, the word "rule" is commonly used by RSs regarding the imperial history of Chinese provinces to describe a variety of degrees of imperial control over subject states as linked in the consistent articles above and including Qing rule in Tibet (one example below). As such, the onus should be on you to support the claim that the word "rule" is an "exceeding overstatement," and to do so not by extrapolating your own interpretations of RSs, but by finding RSs that support this claim.

  The Ambans of Tibet — Imperial Rule at the Inner Asian Periphery

  Sabine Dabringhaus

  In the eighteenth century, China experienced an exceptional flourishing of dynastic government. The Qing emperor ruled successfully over an empire consisting of China proper and the Inner Asian regions of Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet. The Qing state was a fairly typical example of an early-modern land-based Eurasian empire. Its state apparatus was relatively small compared to the size of Qing society and economy. In China proper, the low level of governmental presence was compensated by many quasi-governmental tasks entrusted or left to the indigenous elites of gentry, local headmen, militia leaders or commercial brokers and different social groups like lineages or villages. The emperor used campaign-like initiatives in local governments to mobilise men and resources across the divide of formal and informal institutions of rule. In the newly conquered regions of the Inner Asian periphery such a process of power-balancing between central and local (bureaucratic and sub-bureaucratic) government was more difficult to achieve. The Qing government developed new administrative structures for political control. To consolidate central rule over the multi-ethnic frontier entities new bureaucracies and new formal and informal relationships had to be created. Imperial administrators interacted between the dynastic centre and a multitude of local identities in the peripheries. Like viceroys, proconsuls or governors in other empires of the early modern world, such imperial manpower was indispensable at crucial points in the spatial networks of the polity. In Tibet, representatives of the Qing court, the imperial ambans (zhu Zang dachen), fulfilled the important task to embody the imperial centre at the periphery... https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2x3.12?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I saw that an editor added a [citation needed] tag to the title of the article, so I provided some citations for it on the page. I came across a number of other sources that casually use the word "rule" to describe the relationship between the Qing Empire and Tibet, some academic sources, some Western news outlets generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. I only cited three on the page, but I've included more below as I think they add to the discussion here by further confirming the appropriate characterization of the word "rule" in this specific context.

  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298039160_The_Qing_and_Inner_Asia_1636-1800

  https://www.thoughtco.com/tibet-and-china-history-195217

  http://cup.columbia.edu/book/forging-the-golden-urn/9780231184069

  https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28946238.pdf

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222

  http://web.archive.org/web/20210211004649/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13sperling.html

  https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/time-to-step-on-dragons-tibet-toe-india-needs-to-gather-momentum-over-china-issue/articleshow/79957888.cms?from=mdr

  https://www.theweek.co.uk/101348/the-tumultuous-history-of-tibet

  Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 04:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not necessary, so leave it alone. The word 'rule' is broad. Also, the proposed title is missing a definite article. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Srnec, so how would you word the lead sentence? Currently, it suggests that "Tibet under Qing rule" is a standard term appearing in reliable sources, which it is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  The first sentence is bad. Probably I'd write something like, "Tibet was a part of the Qing empire from 1720 until 1912". I'm not certain—this is not my area—whether 1720 or 1792 is regarded as the date at which Tibet was 'incorporated' into the Qing empire. The key, I think, is that Tibet became a part of the Qing empire in the same way many places became part of the British empire. If we would accept 'British rule', we should accept 'Qing rule'. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  But, we don't accept 'British rule' for the parts of the British empire that were autonomously governed. Only the direct-ruled parts are described as being under 'British rule' such as British India or British Burma. We don't have Nepal under British rule, Sikkim under British rule, Jammu and Kashmir under British rule, Persia under British rule and what not. The Chinese want to claim that Qing "directly governed" Tibet (see the Chinese Wikipedia listed below), but that is not supported by historians. If indirect rule or empire is all that is claimed, then my suggested title "Tibet under Qing dynasty" should be perfectly adequate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  But indirect rule has "rule" right in the name. What does it mean anyway to be under the Qing dynasty but not their rule? Srnec (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  In the case of European powers, there is generally a public concept such as "protectorate" or "suzerainty" and then a private reality, which is subject to debate. The term "indirect rule" generally refers to the private reality, which some scholars might favour, but is not universally accepted. So we rarely use it to name pages. But the official concept "protectorate" is quite widely used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. "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," according to the Tibetan Declaration of Independence issue by the Dalai Lama in 1913.[1] Update I would prefer "Tibet and the Qing Empire." If you go by Chinese records, the emperor was the ruler of the world. Britain, France, and the papacy had the same “dependent state” (属国, shuguo) or “vassal state” (藩国, fanguo) status as Tibet. 99to99 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tibet under Qing Dynasty would mean that the Qing Dynasty was a Tibetan dynasty, which I believe would be a bit far-fetched... I find the current title —- Tibet under Qing rule —- quite accurate. It would be out of character for me not to note that user 99to99 above joined Wikipedia on April 30, seven days after the beginning of the requested move and, after a few dozen edits, made his way to this page to show his support for the proposed change. Is this permissible? --Elnon (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The other parallel Wikipedias use the following terminology:

• French Wikipedia: "Tibet under the tutelage of Qing", In History of Tibet: "Under the Qing dynasty"
• Dutch Wikipedia (History of Tibet): "The period of the Chinese protectorate"
• Italian Wikipedia (History of Tibet): "Chinese protectorate"
• Russian Wikipedia (History of Tibet): "Qing Empire"
• Swedish Wikipedia (History of Tibet): "Tibet during the Qing Empire"
• Chinese Wikipedia: "History of Qing dynasty's Tibet" (Claims that the Qing dynasty sent ministers to "directly govern" Tibet)

The English Wikipedia is quite unique among non-Chinese Wikipedias to use the terminology of "Qing rule". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The two views and edit warring

As far as I can see, both the views:

• that of Tibet as a Qing protectorate, and
• that of Tibet and Qing forming a priest-patron relationship

are equally valid. There is no way that either side is going to eliminate the other. If the WP:edit warring continues, the page will get protected (or at least semi-protected). So please be considerate and engage in a good-faith discussion here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@IP editor:

• Per Kautilya3 above, from the sources so far cited, I do not see any scholarly (rather than political) dispute that needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead.
• Please stop rewritting the content of your source and other sources. Esiymbro (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Dabringhaus, Sabine (2014), "The Ambans of Tibet—Imperial Rule at the Inner Asian Periphery", in Dabringhaus, Sabine; Duindam, Jeroen (eds.), The Dynastic Centre and the Provinces, Agents and Interactions, Brill, pp. 114–126, doi:10.1163/9789004272095_008, JSTOR 10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2x3.12
• Di Cosmo, Nicola (2009), "The Qing and Inner Asia: 1636–1800", in Nicola Di Cosmo; Allen J. Frank; Peter B. Golden (eds.), The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, Cambridge University Press – via ResearchGate
• Fitzherbert, Solomon George; Travers, Alice (2020), "Introduction: The Ganden Phodrang's Military Institutions and Culture between the 17th and the 20th Centu-ries, at a Crossroads of Influences", Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, 53, CNRS: 7–28{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Goldstein, Melvyn C. (18 June 1991). A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State. University of California Press. pp. 328 ff. ISBN 978-0-520-91176-5.
• Mehra, Parshotam (1974), The McMahon Line and After: A Study of the Triangular Contest on India's North-eastern Frontier Between Britain, China and Tibet, 1904-47, Macmillan, ISBN 9780333157374 – via archive.org
• Norbu, Dawa (2001), China's Tibet Policy, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-136-79793-4
• Smith, Warren (1996), Tibetan Nation: A History Of Tibetan Nationalism And Sino-Tibetan Relations, Avalon Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8133-3155-3
• Sperling, Elliot (2004), The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics (PDF), East-West Center Washington, ISBN 978-1-932728-12-5
• Szczepanski, Kallie (31 May 2018). "Was Tibet Always Part of China?". ThoughtCo.

Bibliography on Kham

• Garri, Irina (2020), "The rise of the Five Hor States of Northern Kham. Religion and politics in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands", Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines (51)
• Prazniak, Roxann (1999). Of Camel Kings and Other Things: Rural Rebels Against Modernity in Late Imperial China. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 147. ISBN 1461639638.
• Ronis, Jann, An Overview of Kham (Eastern Tibet) Historical Polities, Mandala Texts, University of Virginia, retrieved 20 May 2021
• Tsomu, Yudru (May 2013), "Taming the Khampas: The Republican Construction of Eastern Tibet", Modern China Journal, 39 (3): 319–344, JSTOR 23483312
• Tuttle, Gray (2005). Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 45. ISBN 0231134460.

Necessary corrections to 1.lead text, 2.source in lead, 3.source quotation in lead

1. (More precise) Please delete sentence in lead citing Goldstein in wikilink (Esiymbro edit war gibberish- there are many scholars more respected than him, and Goldstein doesn't need to be in spotlights here), and replace it with this more accurate sentence (and keep Goldstein appropriately as a ref among other refs in the lead): As Tibet historically shared its military defence with "foreign" armies, scholars have considered Tibet a protectorate, first of Mongolian polities, then of the Qing Empire.

2. NECESSARY TO CORRECT ERROR: The correct source info for the sentence above in the lead was curiously deleted/reedited (by Kautilya3). Currently, the reedited ref does not include the title, publishers, etc. Please readd the correct source info (if possible add it as the first ref following the sentence above), as

Solomon George FitzHerbert and Alice Travers,"Introduction: The Ganden Phodrang’s Military Institutions and Culture between the 17th and the 20th Centuries, at a Crossroads of Influences". CNRS, CRCAO, Paris.

3. NECESSARY TO CORRECT ERROR: The source quotation from the same source above was altered to give a different meaning (by Kautilya3). The key word omitted is "part", as in part of its military, not all. Please readd this correct quotation

"[T]he year 1642 also, in another perspective, marked the beginning of a period of even greater political and cultural connectedness between Tibet and its neighbours, and in particular of increased military dependence on its northern (and later) eastern neighbours. Indeed, as a Buddhist government, the Ganden Phodrang’s choice to relinquish — albeit to a highly variable degree depending on the period --- PART of the military defence of its territory to foreign troops, first Mongol and later Sino-Manchu, in the framework of “patron-preceptor” (mchod yon) relationships, created a structural situation involving long-term contacts and cooperation between Tibetans and “foreign” military cultures.5A"

93.23.251.178 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, tentatively. Seems things have calmed down here but the editors involved can discuss these changes below if they don't work. TGHL ↗ 🍁 21:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Melvyn C. Goldstein has written multiple volumes of the History of Tibet, and is pretty much the top authority on the subject. His view cannot be overridden by a couple of scholars who are focusing on the military relationship. Goldstein has mentioned that Qing also reorganised the administration and, for about a hundred years, when there were no adult Dalai Lamas, the ambans were the de facto authority in Tibet. See Dabringhaus (2014). We can't cherry pick one source and pretend that it represents the scholary consensus. Also Sperling (2004) makes the important point that having priest-patron relationship does not negate the fact that there was also a political subordination at the same time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, as per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the body. It is not the place for argumentation and explanation of why scholars think XYZ. That is not how a lead is written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, Kautilya3, the lead should summarize - but showcasing the opinions of an outdated scholar is not summarizing, but shameless grandstanding for a known go-to historian for PRC disinformation.
• "a couple of scholars" is a gross mischaracterization of serious work by 8-12 scholars whose views are included in the ref (see quotation which you improperly reedited and changed its meaning)
• The info you keep deleting is about Tibet's pattern of joint military operations with other nations (Mongols, Qing), a strong indication of its independence and of China's false claim to sovereignity or "rule" over Tibet. Scholars and historians contest any actual "rule" by China, as your helpful comparison to the titles on sister wiki projects makes clear (see name change discussion). Only enwiki's title is still skewed, still not reflecting history accurately. And, that helpful comparison also underscores whats wrong with your disagreement to the appropriate changes: the lead is again skewed to some myopic statement by Melvyn C Goldstein, which was a change to a more historically accurate and scholar-neutral and inclusive lead.
• Goldstein (oops, did I forget his middle initial?) may have been considered an "authority" in the 1980s-90s, but has been fully eclipsed. There's even a field of scholars researching "New Qing History" which basically bebunks much of Goldstein's opinions.
• Sperling is 2004; it's now 2021. Take a look around jstor for a start.
• The ambassadors were only figureheads that Lhasa worked around, anything but "de facto authorities". Two French Marists priests visiting Lhasa in the mid-19th century wrote that the Chinese "ambassadors" role in Lhasa is comparable to the Austrian ambassadors role with the Pope at the Vatican in Rome. That's a very reliable eyewitness account. And as scholars and historians have evidenced, Qing pumped out proclaimations and wrote all kinds of things, but those proclaimations do not signify anything except that the Qing kept records, and that it definitely stepped out of line as patrons of Tibet. Historically and today, a patron of a spiritual leader has reverence for the spiritual power of the leader, which could also protect the patron. The "protectorate" went both ways. Goldstein must have also missed the fact that Tibet severed its military operations with Qing in 1846 - meaning, the protectorate aspect of the patron relationship was over then (see FitzHerbert). Qing tried to gain sovereignity over Tibet for the first time in 1904-1911, after their humiliation in the Opium Wars and before their surrender to Tibet (see McGranahan in "Frontier Tibet"; see Smith at East-West center; see Dolma Tsering on China's "century of humiliation". And, sorry, but do you know what "de facto" means?)
• Read Dudjom Rinpoche's translated history of the Nyingma School, which is loaded with accurate Tibetan history. See Warren Smith's ref here on Tibet's History. See Shakabpa on Tibet's Political History.
• China has been re-fabricating its history with Tibet since the ROC (see Tsomu in "Modern China). With the PRC, it's a real international factory of disinformation (again, see Smith's papers at the East-West Center; make a google search of "New Qing History" at least), and do stop regurgitating disproved fabrications.

___________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.106.183 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. Wikipedia summarises scholarly views. What China claims is not very pertinent. What the Tibetan activists claim is also not pertinent.

I am not sure where I have "improperly reedited". Please provide a HELP:Diff.

If Goldstein's views have been updated or corrected by later scholars, you need to provide citations for them. You can use {{sfn}} since all the sources are listed in the Bibliography section above. You can also add more sources there if you wish.

While I don't agree that China "ruled" Tibet, I see no problem with the claim that it formed a "protectorate" over Tibet. Protectorate does not simply mean a military relationship. It also means a certain amount of overlordship/paramountcy/suzerainty. The protecting power reserves the right to intervene in the internal administration if and when the need arises. It can be friendly or unfriendly. The absence of intervention at certain times does not mean that the protectorate has been dissolved.

In the case of Qing protectorate, a big question arises because it was unable to prevent the Younghusband Expedition. But political scientists do not give too much importance to this failure because Britain was a much stronger power which would have been hard to resist, and because the Qing came back afterwards to reassert their authority. And, in fact, they checkmated all further British efforts to influence Tibetan affairs. So I think we have to say that the Qing protectorate continued until the Qing dynasty itself collapsed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

More commentary

Thank you. Tibet's army and their activities are missing from the content, and are important since they illustrate the nature of the priest-patron relationship. With the readded correct source information above (an introduction to several papers on the Ganden Phodrang's army), more specific and accurate content can be added, and researched by others.

Likewise, content on the 1841 Letter of Agreement between Tibet and India regarding their border, content on a 3rd Gurkha war and Tibet's subsequent 1856 treaty with Nepal, and content on the 1913 Tibetan treaty with Mongolia need to be added. These treaties signify Tibet's sovereignity to history scholars and legal scholars. I was returning to do this when the protected status was discovered.

Although I didn't read the discussion on changing the page's name, l'd like to say it doesn't follow that a "protectorate" is "under the rule" of a protector, especially in this case where Mongol protectors predated Qing protectors, while Tibet and Lhasa retained both its political and spiritual authority, and its independence from the "foreign" protectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.251.178 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Third party (i.e. non-Tibet, non-China) sources generally consider Tibet as subordinate to or a part of Qing, similar to that Tibet or Korea was subordinate to (or a part of) Yuan. Neutral point of view (NPOV) is important in Wikipedia. For example, Melvyn C. Goldstein (very influential Tibet scholar) pointed out "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".

You mentioned "New Qing History" earlier in the section (claiming that it "bebunks much of Goldstein's opinions"). However, prominent scholars associated with the New Qing History school, such as Mark C. Elliott, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Evelyn Rawski, Laura Hostetler, Peter C. Perdue, Richard J. Smith, and Philippe Forêt, all consider Tibet as a part of Qing Empire. For example:

"The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China" by Mark C. Elliott (page 357) states "The geographical legacy of the Qing, the second of the three areas in which we can detect the distinctive imprint of Manchu rule, was referred to in the Introduction. In its most straightforward sense, this legacy refers to the Qing incorporation of much of Inner Asia - Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkestan, and part of Altai region - into the territory of the empire…"

"New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde" by ‎Mark C. Elliott, ‎Philippe Forêt, Ruth W. Dunnell (page 33) states "In contrast to their predecessor, the Ming dynasty, which had never decisively controlled even the Ordos, the arid region in northwest China lying within the northern loop of the Yellow River, the Manchu rulers of the Qing succeeded in incorporating northeast Asia, Mongolia, Tibet, the Tarim Basin, and Zungharia into their empire."

"The Wobbling Pivot, China since 1800: An Interpretive History" by Pamela Kyle Crossley (page 34) states "He (Emperor Kangxi) spent the ensuing decades until his death in 1722 securing the Qing hold over what is now Tibet and Qinghai province. Dzungaria was left in limo. The work of completing Qing dominion the west fell to the Kangxi emperor's grandson Hongli, who in 1736 became the Qianlong emperor... by 1760 Qing control of the region was firm. The emperor's officials took to referring to it as the "New Frontier". It became part of the empire - along with nearby Gansu province, Tibet, and parts of Sichuan - that was put under a special military administration."

"The Last Emperors - A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions" by Evelyn S. Rawski (page 1-2) states "The late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries saw the fixing of the border with Russia and the incorporation of the Mongolian steppe, the Tibetan plateau, and the Tarim Basin into the Qing empire". Map 1 also clearly shows Tibet as part of the Qing Empire.

"Qing Colonial Enterprise: Ethnography and Cartography in Early Modern China" by Laura Hostetler (page 35) states "The Qing made use of both secular power and religion in strengthening its hold on Tibet and Mongolia. The Qianlong emperor (r. 1736-1795) in particular exercised the political manipulation of religion by representing himself as a bodhisattva, thus fostering the adulation and compliance of adherents of Tibetan Buddhism". The Qing Map in Page 34 also clearly shows Tibet as part of the Qing Empire.

"China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia" by Peter C. Perdue (page 337) states "Xinjiang, however, was only one of many new regions that came under Qing control in the eighteenth century. From 1683 to 1760, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the southwest provinces, Mongolia, Kokonor, and Tibet all became permanent territorial acquisitions."

"The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture" by Richard J. Smith (page 448) states "'China Proper' (often designated Neidi in Chinese) refers to the core eighteenth provinces of the Qing dynasty. From a Manchu perspective, however, the concept of “China” (Chinese: Zhongguo; Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun) embraced the entire empire, including Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet."

Apparently, works from the New Qing History school actually strengthens Goldstein's statement above, that Tibet was subordinate to, and indeed a part of the Qing Empire, not the other way around as you had claimed earlier. --Wengier (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Wengier, you appear to have been a long-time editor. So I am not sure why you are extending a two-year old thread, started by IP editors that are long gone! Since the title of the page itself says "Tibet under Qing Rule" (whcih was chosen despite my objections), this point need not be debated. Please note WP:NOTAFORUM.

Debatable issues only arise in the interpretation of the term "Rule" in the title. I would have preferred something like "Tibet in the Qing Empire". Empires often have several subordinate states, each of which has its own institutions and systems of governance, which may be retained by the imperial authority, either as a necessity or as benevolence. So, terms such as "suzerainty" are used to express what the empire exercises over the subordinate states, rather than "rule". The Chinese negotiators in early 20th century denied that they were exercising "suzerainty", and maintained that China had "sovereignty" over Tibet. Some present-day scholars also point out that the Chinese language did not have a term for "suzerainty" and the Chinese negotiators claimed not to understand that term at all.That debate belongs in the Tibetan sovereignty debate page.

"Subordinate to" and "part of" have quite different meanings. And, again "part of China" and "part of Chinese empre" also have different meanings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is true that the previous comment by IP editor was left two years ago, and I had been a WP editor for some time. But unfortunately, I was not active in Wikipedia around the time when the IP editor made the comment(s), and indeed I only found his message(s) in the page more recently when I returned to Wikipedia. When looking at the comments made by the IP editor, it is very easy for me (and apparently for various other editors as well) to find out his comments were biased. There is no doubt that WP is not a forum, but the IP editor was basically doing POVPUSH in both the talk page and the article itself at that time. An important point that had not been pointed out by other editors is that he falsely claimed that Goldstein has been "fully eclipsed" because there is a field of scholars researching New Qing History "bebunked much of Goldstein's opinions". However, this is in fact not (at all) the case, and I considered it is important to point this out especially considering that parts of the article were apparently (still) biased when I looked at the article content earlier (before posting my previous comment); such contents treated Tibet during the period as if it was independent (from the Qing), which is exactly the POV that the IP editor was trying to make. Thus, I decided to speak it out here and fixed the article accordingly. I replied to the earlier comment of the IP editor in order to show that I was primarily trying to fix such POVPUSH in the article (as long as this article is concerned). I hope editors can work together (in a friendly environment) to avoid POVPUSH. And indeed WP:NOTAFORUM as already pointed out.

I agree with you that "subordinate to" and "part of" have different meanings, but they do not necessarily conflict with each other and indeed in our case they are both correct. For example, according to Sperling, "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". I personally often used phrases like "subordinate to" and "protectorate" in some articles, but expressions like "Tibet in the Qing Empire" and "Qing rule in Tibet" are of course also correct (although it may be true there are different interpretations of terms like "rule"), but I personally would not force use a particular expression, and in case of article titles factors like "Consistency" are also very important. As for "suzerainty", it was used by primarily the British in the early 20th century to express the relations at that time, but it was of course not considered undisputed, especially when discussing the whole period under Qing control. But when we talk about the 1907 treaty, of course the term "suzerainty" is to be used for it since that is the word appeared in the said treaty (although of course we can also mention that China during the early 20th century maintained that China had "sovereignty" over Tibet if that was indeed what Qing had maintained at the time and if supported by reliable sources).--Wengier (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Trying again: Delete inaccurate statement; Map is incorrect

The following statement is historically inaccurate, and should be deleted. (Only the border of Kham went back and forth between Tibet and China during Qing, but Kham steadfastly remained in Tibet from 1865 onward.<Tsomu><Ronis><Garri> Amdo also remained in Tibet, despite waves of Mongol and Chinese influence, and despite China repeatedly trying to gain political control of autonomous polities loyal to Lhasa, from Gushi Khan and the 5th Dalai Lama in 1642<Ronis><Garri> forward: in the 1720s, in 1806, 1822, 1828, 1832, 1845, 1850. Borders were established, stele were built.<Tuttle><anotherTuttle>)

Thus, the sentence, "About half of the Tibetan lands were exempted from Lhasa's administrative rule and annexed into neighboring Chinese provinces, although most were only nominally subordinated to Beijing" is a gross oversimplification, contradicts serious scholarly sources, and is simply inaccurate historically and legally - with the claims of "exempted" and "annexed" being rather more absurd than just inaccurate.

The map is also a work of fiction, where Amdo is missing, and a part of Kham appears missing. There's a lack of historically accurate freeuse maps on Tibet - I've been looking, especially since enwiki contains numerous similar computer-generated maps by, if appearances are not deceiving, the same author(s).

These efforts at making an imaginery Chinese "deep history" with maps and other documents is discussed in Tsomu's scholarly work on reimagining China's geo-body.(I'll add the source). It apparently was an activity openly embraced during the ROC era, by Ren Naiqiang, bureaucrats and intellectuals, and applied to Kham, (then applied to Amdo, and then to Tibet and its history). 93.23.251.207 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why a "no"? It was added during the edit war, deleted for its inaccuracy, but is now somehow protected yet just as inaccurate? It's simply fiction. Please share your historically accurate and sourced reasoning.

A reminder: "In 821 AD, during the reign of Ralpachen, the Third Religious King, a peace agreement was signed between Tibet and China. The terms of the Treaty were engraved on three stone pillars: one demarcates the border between China and Tibet, the second is in the Jokhang Cathedral in Lhasa and the third in Chang'an in China".<Glimpse of the History of Tibet> Tibet later retained the entire Tibetan Plateau, including Amdo and Kham. The invasion in 1910 ended with a 1912 surrender letter from the amban, meaning any lands China had invaded from 1904-1911 were returned. Thus, again, the idea that "half" of Tibet somehow became "annexed" to China, and was "exempted" from Lhasa's "administrative rule" is fiction.

I'd add "aministrative rule" takes a contrary position to the sources: the sources are clear on the priest-patron relationship where the Qing army joined with the Tibetan army as a protectorate, and that the Ganden Phodrang governmental body existed, and that Tibet signed treaties not only with China, but with Nepal, India, and the British. Signing a treaty isn't an act of "administrative rule", but it is an act of sovereignity. So, once again, why are the multiple fictional views in that one sentence being protected? (If I must resubmit the request with a lengthy list of sources proving again that the sentence is inaccurate and deserving deletion, I can do that as well, but the argument here is more than sufficient.) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.251.207 (talk • contribs)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the talk page. The page got protected since you were edit-warring with Esiymbro and there was no effort to discuss the issues. Until the protection lifts (5 June currently), you should discuss the issues with him and me (and any other editors who might participate) to work towards a WP:CONSENSUS. Ideally, you should register an account so that you can engage in long-running debates. IP editing has severe limitations.

Please make small, simple posts on each issue separately, and provide WP:Full citations to the sources where necessary. Please be as precise as possible with your statements, and avoid polemics. This discussion board is not like twitter or facebook. It has all the features available to any Wiki page. So, please feel free to use them. Also, HELP:Talk pages tells you how to indent and format posts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You are distorting and rewriting the content of your own sources and others' sources, IP editor. For this: "Lhasa reasserted its authority over all of Kham and established the Office of the Tibetan High Commissioner to govern." And this:"Only the border of Kham went back and forth between Tibet and China during Qing, but Kham steadfastly remained in Tibet from 1865 onward." I have already said for multiple times that this view, along with most of what you wrote in your post above, is purely your own imagination. Please note that fake citations will not fool others on Wikipedia. To be frank -- I do not think you have any credibility for this article until this problem is solved. Esiymbro (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To save other readers the searching, these are the actual texts from the IP's sources:

• Gonpo Namgyel's defeat paved the way for Lhasa authorities to extend their administrative rule in Nyarong by establishing the office of the Tibetan High Commissioner to govern the region and to assert their influence in other parts of Kham. Using Nyarong as a stronghold, the office extended their sphere of influence into the northern parts of Kham, ... [2]
• The Lhasa army launched military operations against Gonpo Namgyel in 1863 and pursued the warlord to his home region in Nyarong, where they burned him alive in his fort. As the Ganden Palace had ceded control of this part of Kham to the Qing over 100 years prior it took advantage of their military victory in Kham to reassert influence in the region. In 1865 it instituted the Tibetan High Commissioner in Nyarong and imposed regulations and reparations on Degé, the Hor States, and others. [3]
• The administration of Nyarong was then taken over by the Lhasa government, which appointed a high commissioner to govern Nyarong and also to superintend the affairs of Derge and the Five Hor States. This was done not only without any objections from the Qing, but was even Emperor Tongzhi’s own will (Tsomu 2014, pp. 222-224). Thus, at this time, Derge and the Hor States were considered to be under Lhasa’s control. According to Scott Relyea, the king of Derge and the rulers of the five Hor States even voluntarily submitted a bond swearing their allegiance to the Lhasa government (Relyea 2015, p. 18). However, these developments did not lead to Lhasa having exclusive authority over the region, as these rulers did not renounce the hereditary headmen or chieftains titles that the Qing had bestowed on them. [4]

As such a conflict covering an area of several chiefdoms have become a grand war in which Ganden Podrang (equated to "Tibet" by the editor) reconquered all of Kham from the Qing. But at least, their edits here are still partly based on the citations. Beginning with "Amdo also remained in Tibet ..." there are nothing even resembling those sentences in the sources. I'll not be bothered with the IP's other points. Esiymbro (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Ganden Phodrang was the governmental body of Tibet. It controlled the Tibetan army. Scholars across the world equate governmental bodies with a country, not juste me. Can you explain that particulier problem again, or is it just your problem with sources by independent scholars? Or, possible, with accurate historical accounts here, on Kham, and the previous version of Batang uprising which was so horrible even Kautilya3 reverted your work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.106.183 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

New expansion

Qiushufang, thanks for your recent work in expanding the article. However, I have some misgivings. Your citations are generally incomplete. Is it possible for you to include Google Books url's when you have them available?

I am also quite unhappy with the Schoppa source you are using. I have read through the "China in Tibet" section, which I find to be quite a serious distortion of history. For example, it claims:

In a real sense, the British were making Tibet their protectorate. China had not been a party to the convention; its Manchu official in Lhasa had refused to participate.

Whatever clauses were in the Lhasa Convention in the direction of making Tibet a "protectrate" were rejected by the British Home government and they never came into pracice. Secondly the "Manchu official in Lhasa" fully cooperated with the British India official, and he would have been ready to sign the "Adhesion Agreement" too if not for the fact that the Chinese Home government barred him from signing anything.

I recommend using this source sparingly, if at all. I don't regard it a reliable source for the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I was not the original user who put Schoppa in the article and it was already there when I started editing and continued to use it after trying to verify content citing the source. I don't think I've used it in the article for anything too controversial and it's not on my list of sources for reference in the future. I generally don't use google urls in my citations but I will try where possible in the future. Qiushufang (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Some of these books have many editions, and an ISBN would be necessary to locate the precise edition whose page numbers are being cited. An alternative would be to include a small quotation, which we can search for. That would work for multiple editions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)