This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Batang uprising article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Batang uprising be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
@ Kautilya3: Most of the IPs edits are summarized as "primary sources". I have not done a detailed checkbut most of the sources do not appear to be primary sources, but secondary sources from recent years. And even if they were all primary sources it is not a valid reason for blanking almost the entire article.
The major problem here is that the IP's edits are highly disingenuous. He wrote "Other Christian missionaries had already withdrawn from Batang in 1887, before the uprising began." suggesting that there were no Catholics in the region during this event. But in the source cited it is clearly stated that Similarly, in 1905 an uprising in Bathang and surrounding areas led to the death of four missionaries: they were singled out because of the mission’s supposed association with the 1903-1904 British military expedition to Lhasa.
The IP chose to omit this part, and in his version of this article the death of missionaries were completely scrubbed out.
The IP also talked about this page being "a smash-up of two or three unrelated events at different locations". But this is caused exactly by their edits. If they think the current content is not reflecting the events they want, the appropriate solution should be to request a new article. At any rate, the consensus should be established before making such a substantial change.
Sorry for the delay, I hope you can revert back, Kautilya3. The article's quality as it is now is far inferior to the previous version. Esiymbro ( talk) 11:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
So that edtors don't start making historical faux pas, let me recount some basic facts:
Thus the Batang uprising and its suppression is a key part of the Sino-Tibetan relations of the 20th century. It was through Batang that the Chinese forces could get to Lhasa. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Lovewhatyoudo, I noticed you adding this footnote:
Traditionally, the imperial resident stationed in Lhasa, but starting from Feng Quan, the office was relocated 1,000 east to Chamdo, which was also the mid-point of Lhasa and Chengdu, because the Qing Emperor thought it could better coordinate the bureaucracy of Lhasa and Chengdu. See Coleman 2014, p. 213, 215
I don't see any mention of what the Emperor thought in the source. There is no mention of "bureaucracy" either even though it says "coordinated action" (not necessarily of the bureaucracy).
But you would notice that various officials offered different justifications for placing the amban at Chamdo, all of which are likely to be theoretical. The real reason is obviously, "to strengthen amban control in Kham by linking this strategic town more closely to Lhasa
."
[2] Gui Lin's original purpose was to raise troops there; Kham offered fighting men.
[3] And the whole discussion is in the context of trying to subdue an unruly frontier, which was important for communications with Tibet. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
22:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You Tai, who had recently traveled through Kham on his way to assuming his position in Lhasa, [...] In a memorial dated February 12, 1904 , he proposed that the Assistant High Commissioner’s office be transferred from Lhasa, its customary post, to Chamdo, which is roughly equidistant from Lhasa and Chengdu, so that Gui Lin could “support coordinated actions on the ground.” [...] Criticizing not only the inability of native chieftains to suppress ubiquitous brigandry in the region but also the oppressive practices of monasteries in Litang and Batang, You Tai clearly wanted Gui Lin in Chamdo. [...] Submitting his own memorial on the subject, Xi Liang also argued that having a senior official stationed in Kham would restore social order, provide better protection for foreign missionaries, and allow merchants and official communications to pass through the region. [...] In March 1904 (GX 30.2), the court approved the memorials submitted by Xi Liang and You Tai and ordered Gui Lin, who had been waiting in Chengdu, to depart for his new posting in Chamdo.-- love.wh 10:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
References
I have reverted your series of large-scale changes. Some of your changes were probably right, but many that were not. Take your change to the lead sentence for example, where you change it from an "uprising of Khampas" to an "uprising by the Buddhist monastery". Where do you get this from? Coleman says in his introductory paragraph (p.216):
During his brief one hundred days in Batang, Feng Quan announced a series of radical policy proposals for Batang and Kham in general that local people stringently opposed. Feng Quan refused to compromise, and the people of Batang eventually rose up and killed him, his retinue of assistants, and a small military escort. They also killed several French missionaries in the region and destroyed their churches.
There is no mention of any Buddhist monastery here. But plenty of description of what Feng Quan was doing. You really need to read this source again with an open mind. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)