22:2622:26, 13 September 2020diffhist+155
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
Added secondary source from New Advent org that backs the fact that an indemnity was indeed paid to the British in 1906, in exchange for not annexing or interfering with Tibet. Not that it is practically mirroring what other sources like the BBC article and the University of Adelaide's scholar had wrote.Tag: Visual edit
21:0321:03, 13 September 2020diffhist−270
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
To the Vandal - Your LAST warning - READ THE BBC paper before editing. Unless you have personally read the sources indepth - DO NOT FALSELY promote unwarranted doubt and MISLABEL the other reliable sources as unverified, unreliable or invalid - when a solid authoritative secondary sources confirm these facts as solid. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
20:1020:10, 13 September 2020diffhist−40
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
Remove tagging. The obvious purpose of such a tag was to create doubt about real facts and hence inappropriate since nobody disputes that in 1906, Britain pledged not to annex or interfere in Tibet in return for indemnity from Chinese government. That includes BBC and the British records - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
19:4919:49, 13 September 2020diffhist+2
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
History is not deemed original research. Western scholars solidly document that an indemnity was indeed paid to Britian in exchange for agreeing to not annex or interfere in Tibet in 1906. Do not smear the cited sources as unreliable or keep vandalizing in bad faith or I will report you to the Wiki Arbitration committee. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
05:5605:56, 13 September 2020diffhist−59
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
Removed unsupported added info.. Read the cited sources and there was absolutely nothing in both cited sources, that actually documented that very specific info. Who added that in? It's also rudimentary as Tibet and britian weren't equal partners where Britian actually needed Tibetans permission to do anything. This was more a colonial-era unequal treaty between china and britian in which Tibet was taken from them by force and then offered back to China for a vast fee.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
22:2622:26, 13 September 2020diffhist+155
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
Added secondary source from New Advent org that backs the fact that an indemnity was indeed paid to the British in 1906, in exchange for not annexing or interfering with Tibet. Not that it is practically mirroring what other sources like the BBC article and the University of Adelaide's scholar had wrote.Tag: Visual edit
21:0321:03, 13 September 2020diffhist−270
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
To the Vandal - Your LAST warning - READ THE BBC paper before editing. Unless you have personally read the sources indepth - DO NOT FALSELY promote unwarranted doubt and MISLABEL the other reliable sources as unverified, unreliable or invalid - when a solid authoritative secondary sources confirm these facts as solid. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
20:1020:10, 13 September 2020diffhist−40
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
Remove tagging. The obvious purpose of such a tag was to create doubt about real facts and hence inappropriate since nobody disputes that in 1906, Britain pledged not to annex or interfere in Tibet in return for indemnity from Chinese government. That includes BBC and the British records - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222Tags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
19:4919:49, 13 September 2020diffhist+2
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
History is not deemed original research. Western scholars solidly document that an indemnity was indeed paid to Britian in exchange for agreeing to not annex or interfere in Tibet in 1906. Do not smear the cited sources as unreliable or keep vandalizing in bad faith or I will report you to the Wiki Arbitration committee. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
05:5605:56, 13 September 2020diffhist−59
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
Removed unsupported added info.. Read the cited sources and there was absolutely nothing in both cited sources, that actually documented that very specific info. Who added that in? It's also rudimentary as Tibet and britian weren't equal partners where Britian actually needed Tibetans permission to do anything. This was more a colonial-era unequal treaty between china and britian in which Tibet was taken from them by force and then offered back to China for a vast fee.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit