![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 7 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Currently in the lead of the article it is stated that "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet". It is supported by one citation:
In this context I will assume that West means Western Powers
Even if it were true in 1999 (which I doubt) it is not true now. There is an article called Simla Accord (1914) in that there is a section called " 2008 British policy change". In it it is stated:
Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view. [1] David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century. [2] Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet...
References
- ^ Staff, Britain's suzerain remedy, The Economist, 6 November 2008
- ^ Lunn, Jon. Tibet (SN/IA/5018), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, 20 March 2009. p. 8
Therefore I am removing the sentence from the lead. Do not put it back without citations that are less than a decade old. Ideally if it is true that there still is significant support for the view that "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet", then add a paragraph or more into the body of the article citing sources and summarise the POV in the lead based on that text. -- PBS ( talk) 11:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@ User:Happyseeu you reverted my edit without explanation ( Revision as of 20:10, 25 June 2019). Given my explanation above please explain why. PBS ( talk) 20:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@ PBS:I've changed the phrase to mean this is the majority view of Western scholars, Tibetologists in particular. I suggest you to read books by Tibetologists instead of coming up with your own WP:OR. If you don't know who or what to read, I suggest you not to edit Tibet related articles before you have read enough academic material. -- Happyseeu ( talk) 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
What's the meaning of suzerainty? suzerainty (countable and uncountable, plural suzerainties) A relation between states in which a subservient nation has its own government, but is unable to take international action independent of the superior state; a similar relationship between other entities. quotations ▼ The status or power of a suzerain.
If Tibet is or was a suzerain, it means it had partial autonomy. And that makes sense -- 1720 Qing China never actually controlled Tibet. It forced Tibet to show suzerainty to Qing China. That is a very different thing than how modern China views it. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 ( talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a significant treaty that is missing in the current article that should really be in the "background section", right after the British invasion of Tibet. The British sold Tibet back to the Chinese domain for a fee. /info/en/?search=Convention_Between_Great_Britain_and_China_Respecting_Tibet
In 1906, Britian and China signed a treaty in which in exchange for a fee, Britian promised not to annex Tibet or interfere with Tibetan administration. In 1907, Britian also signed a treaty with Russia, in which both countries agreed not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government. https://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html For Tibet to become a British protectorate or be under British laws, would actually be a violation of that treaty that britian had made with china. And such history should be added to that Background section. 49.179.144.133 ( talk) 05:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 00:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China → Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet – The article not only expounds on the annexation but also delves into the invasion. The political and military activities were carried out as a unified operation. Therefore, it is imperative that the title reflects that the subject matter entails not only a mere political statement but also involves a military incursion. Furthermore, to differentiate this event from the Chinese invasion of the 18th century, when Tibet was brought under Chinese control in 1720, it may be useful to include the year of the invasion/annexation in the article's title. This will help to ensure that readers understand the specific historical context being discussed. Nagsb ( talk) 18:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The correct legal term is revoked, not "reputiated". The agreement was legally revoked in 1959 by Tibet, due to China's failures to abide to multiple provisions of the mutual agreement. This is the legal position of the ICJ, published in their 1961 findings when they reviewed Tibet's nation state status in 1950, and reviewed the legal status of Tibet's 1959 revocation of the agreement. ICJ itself also cited multiple infractions by PRC of the agreement's points, rendering the revocation legally justified and fully within Tibet's legal rights.
There's a marked lack of NPOV regarding this very basic historical truth. Please correctly edit the information. 103.146.218.84 ( talk) 05:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 7 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Currently in the lead of the article it is stated that "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet". It is supported by one citation:
In this context I will assume that West means Western Powers
Even if it were true in 1999 (which I doubt) it is not true now. There is an article called Simla Accord (1914) in that there is a section called " 2008 British policy change". In it it is stated:
Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view. [1] David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century. [2] Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet...
References
- ^ Staff, Britain's suzerain remedy, The Economist, 6 November 2008
- ^ Lunn, Jon. Tibet (SN/IA/5018), International Affairs and Defence Section, British Parliamentary Briefing Paper, 20 March 2009. p. 8
Therefore I am removing the sentence from the lead. Do not put it back without citations that are less than a decade old. Ideally if it is true that there still is significant support for the view that "In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet", then add a paragraph or more into the body of the article citing sources and summarise the POV in the lead based on that text. -- PBS ( talk) 11:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@ User:Happyseeu you reverted my edit without explanation ( Revision as of 20:10, 25 June 2019). Given my explanation above please explain why. PBS ( talk) 20:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@ PBS:I've changed the phrase to mean this is the majority view of Western scholars, Tibetologists in particular. I suggest you to read books by Tibetologists instead of coming up with your own WP:OR. If you don't know who or what to read, I suggest you not to edit Tibet related articles before you have read enough academic material. -- Happyseeu ( talk) 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
What's the meaning of suzerainty? suzerainty (countable and uncountable, plural suzerainties) A relation between states in which a subservient nation has its own government, but is unable to take international action independent of the superior state; a similar relationship between other entities. quotations ▼ The status or power of a suzerain.
If Tibet is or was a suzerain, it means it had partial autonomy. And that makes sense -- 1720 Qing China never actually controlled Tibet. It forced Tibet to show suzerainty to Qing China. That is a very different thing than how modern China views it. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 ( talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a significant treaty that is missing in the current article that should really be in the "background section", right after the British invasion of Tibet. The British sold Tibet back to the Chinese domain for a fee. /info/en/?search=Convention_Between_Great_Britain_and_China_Respecting_Tibet
In 1906, Britian and China signed a treaty in which in exchange for a fee, Britian promised not to annex Tibet or interfere with Tibetan administration. In 1907, Britian also signed a treaty with Russia, in which both countries agreed not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government. https://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html For Tibet to become a British protectorate or be under British laws, would actually be a violation of that treaty that britian had made with china. And such history should be added to that Background section. 49.179.144.133 ( talk) 05:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 00:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China → Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet – The article not only expounds on the annexation but also delves into the invasion. The political and military activities were carried out as a unified operation. Therefore, it is imperative that the title reflects that the subject matter entails not only a mere political statement but also involves a military incursion. Furthermore, to differentiate this event from the Chinese invasion of the 18th century, when Tibet was brought under Chinese control in 1720, it may be useful to include the year of the invasion/annexation in the article's title. This will help to ensure that readers understand the specific historical context being discussed. Nagsb ( talk) 18:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The correct legal term is revoked, not "reputiated". The agreement was legally revoked in 1959 by Tibet, due to China's failures to abide to multiple provisions of the mutual agreement. This is the legal position of the ICJ, published in their 1961 findings when they reviewed Tibet's nation state status in 1950, and reviewed the legal status of Tibet's 1959 revocation of the agreement. ICJ itself also cited multiple infractions by PRC of the agreement's points, rendering the revocation legally justified and fully within Tibet's legal rights.
There's a marked lack of NPOV regarding this very basic historical truth. Please correctly edit the information. 103.146.218.84 ( talk) 05:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)