Talk:British expedition to Tibet

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - In a similar discussion we are hoping to move both the article People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) and this article under the name "invasion" for consistency. Many of the points have been compared at Talk:Tibet#Tibet invasion or not discussion, Talk:Tibet#Tibet invasion or not discussion:continue, Talk:People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951)#The word "invasion" is not vandilism, Talk:People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951)#article title. Please vote below. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - but not for reasons related to other articles. The opening sentence of this article states that it was an invasion[1], and it has stated it as an invasion since the article was created.[2] It is also the more common name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - just in case no one reads any further, it's important to point out that it is most certainly not the most common name. The most common name, in English, which I feel compelled to mention is the only relevant language to this discussion, is Younghusband Expedition. Yunfeng (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. It was an invasion, but I think "expedition" is more descriptive.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Call it what English does: Younghusband expedition to Tibet. We are not here to score political points. We are perfectly free to state that it was an invasion in the text; almost all of the articles listed under expeditionary force are invasions of somebody. (Some of them, as here, did not intend conquest.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - What's it called in English? I would support a change to "Younghusband Expedition to Tibet". Comparison with the PLA invasion of Tibet is beyond irrelevant. Yunfeng (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Here are some statistics so far according to books.google.

251 book sources call it "British invasion of tibet" here.

144 book sources call it "British expedition to tibet" here.

79 book sources call it "Younghusband expedition to tibet" here.

1 book source called it "British expedition of tibet" here.

As compared to:

169 book source called it "Communist invasion of tibet" here

3 book source called it "PLA invasion of tibet" here

2 book source called it "PRC invasion of tibet" here

1 book source called it "People's liberation army invasion of tibet" here

If you want to just go with the English name and statistics as of today without discussing further details, this is it. Someone please double check the stats. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there is the "Younghusband expedition into Tibet"-[3]- 17 book sources, the "British expedition into Tibet"- [4] - 35 book sources, among others. An interesting example of WP:POINT, this. John Nevard (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The article ought to have the date in the title so (IMO) wouldn't British invasion of Tibet (1903-1904) or British expedition to Tibet (1903-1904) be more appropriate? Pahari Sahib 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is our convention to avoid parenthetical disambiguators where we can, because they are harder to search for and link to. If there were more than one British expedition to Tibet, we might have to; but even then I would prefer Younghusband. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Younghusband might be an explorer, but he wasn't exploring to tibet. He was assigned there according to numerous sources. The expedition/invasion does not belong to him. Benjwong (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I said nothing about explorers. Expedition is an entirely different word; the typical head of an expeditionary force would be General Black Jack Pershing of the AEF. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most common name in English is the current one. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. 251 is greater than 144. Benjwong (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

251 book sources call it "British invasion of tibet" here.

144 book sources call it "British expedition to tibet" here.

• Oppose: The common English name is Younghusband Expedition, and the page should be moved there instead, per 253 hits on google scholar and 643 hits on google books. Yaan (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I like how you purposely avoided checking "British invasion of Tibet" on scholar.google. Which generated a whooping 10,100 hits. This dwarfed every else. Benjwong (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I get only 42. Yaan (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And, I get 251 for Younghusband Expedition. It's really clear that that is the common name, and WP:name says that we should use the most common name. Yunfeng (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand, I got 653 on Google books. Ben, I understand that for some reason this is an emotional issue for you, but you are wrong about what this event is commonly called in English. Also, I'm not sure that you understand that the word 'expedition' in this context means a military operation, not going hiking. Yunfeng (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK I see the double quotes were needed for scholar.google. That would explain how my hits got so high. It is fair to go with the most common name then. If I am hassling for a vote, is because the expedition title sounds like a picnic. It's almost as bad as Peaceful liberation or Mao Zedong's expedition to tibet. We'll have to take it as is. Benjwong (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the current name is more prevalent in English. Indeed in many ways the "Younghusband Expedition" is more common. John Smith's (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Tibetans and Pro-Tibet websites call it an invasion[5][6][7], English books call it an invasion[8][9][10][11][12], there's even a BBC Radio report that calls it an invasion[13].Also, hits on Google Books and Google Scholar:*::"British invasion of Tibet" - 245 on Google Books[14], 42 on Google Scholar[15]*::"British expedition to Tibet" - 134 on Google Books[16], 31 on Google Scholar[17]--Littlebutterfly (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soft Oppose. It was an invasion, but based on reading Younghusband's own account, invasion implies a level of competence that didn't exist. I suppose boneheaded, ill-considered, mindless military campaign is too POV? ;) Longchenpa (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else it's too long. Maybe "Younghusband's Folly" would be a nice title. ;-) --Gimme danger (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have a suspicion that our differing search numbers have something to do with placing of quotation marks. The general history books that I've read have called the event the "Younghusband Expedition". This search (with quotes) gave me 644 hits, with two books entitled "The Younghusband Expedition" or some derivative in the first thirty hits. Invasion is a bit dramatic for what actually happened. Plus, it's short and eliminates the need for a date range. Gimme danger (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Rather embarassing to have overlooked that. You're quite right. Link here. John Nevard (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for everytime I've done that... :-) Gimme danger (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support as above--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comment above. "Younghusband Expedition" is the common English name, so it should be used according to naming conventions. Even if it does sound like a picnic. Gimme danger (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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