Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China

In the West, it is generally believed that China annexed Tibet

 * ''see also "Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China/Archive 3"

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. David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism originating in the geopolitics of the early 20th century. Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet..."

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)

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)
 * I have presented a source that clearly states that no government of any sovereign state supports the view that you are putting forwards, and I have quoted a British Foreign Secretary, so how why do you say it is "your own WP:OR"?
 * Do you have any modern sources that are post the reassessment of the sovereignty issue by the UK government?
 * Do you have a reliable source that states this is a majority view among Western scholars (what does Western mean in this context and what does scholar mean in this context?). -- PBS (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Read You had better read a good part of the book to educate yourself about the subject. Your position was original research because it blows an event out of proportion of its significance, out of historical context which you are not aware of.


 * The phrase in the article was pretty clear that it was the opinion of scholars, not governments. If you feel compelled to add the position of governments, I don't object. Governments come from the political angle with emphasis on politics, while scholars come from academic angle with emphasis on logic, history and law. They don't need to be the same. --Happyseeu (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not have access to the content of the book through Google Books, please quote the specific sentences you think are relevant from a book published over 10 years ago and therefore written before Britain changed its position.
 * To be clear (for any third parties that read this thread) you have changed the statement from "" to "". However the sources you have used to back up this assertion are:
 * So far you have only presented news sources that over 10 years old and pre-date the British Government changing their position. All of the sources are old opinion pieces in newspapers not academic articles, most importantly of all not one is a contemporary article that states that this is the view of most western scholars. (1) Do you have a modern source that states this is the opinion held by most Western scholars? (2) Why are the opinions of scholars more important that those all UN states? (3) Why is this POV statement is only in the lead and not in the body of the article "" (MOS:LEAD)?
 * -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record: Authenticating Tibet (2008) is a translation of the French-language book Le Tibet est-il chinois ? (2002). The Englisn version is an updated version of the French original. --Elnon (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Authenticating Tibet is an academic book. If you believe there is significant change in opinions on the matter since 2008, it's your responsibility to prove it, not mine. And you haven't cited any academic book yourself. I didn't said academic opinion is more important than government. They are just different perspectives. I simply clarified the original statement. To be blunt, you have only demonstrated your ignorance about the subject so far, but you probably don't know you don't know much. It would be a waste of everybody's time unless you can cite better source to back up your opinion.
 * Why the British statement in 2008 is not such a big deal? Because no major country had ever recognized Tibet as a country, so this was not a significant development, and just a continuation of historical trend. But if the article stops there, it would give the reader the impression that Tibet shouldn't be a country, or had no desire to become independent, which is not the case. This is why the subject is complicated. If one doesn't have this basic knowledge, one shouldn't pretend to be knowledgeable about the subject. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The change by the British Government is important because it undermines the arguments of annexation based on the concept of suzerainty. While Britain held that position anyone could build an argument along the lines that the British had done—to the extreme of arguing that the removal of internal self-determination (which suzerainty  recognises), amounted to a form of annexation. Once Britain changed its position it pulled the legal rug from under that argument. In you last reply you go off on a tangent about the right of minorities to secede from a state. This is sort of recognised as a right under the preamble to the UN charger as "self-determination", but is very badly defined (deliberately so), because it also impinges on the rights of state sovereignty. This is why third party state recognition is important (see Kosovo as an example), as states are very leery of recognising the right to self-determination by minorities within a state. However theoretically whether Tibet was annexed or not does not affect the population from having the right to self-determination (and to choose independence if that is their wish).
 * User:Happyseeu you have not addressed my observation about WP:LEAD. Please do so.
 * I do not have to prove anything User:Happyseeu, because I am not trying to put anything into the article. You are supporting a sentence that says "" yet you have not produced one source that supports that assertion (see WP:SYN and WP:BURDEN). -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The change by the British Government is important because it undermines the arguments of annexation based on the concept of suzerainty. While Britain held that position anyone could build an argument along the lines that the British had done—to the extreme of arguing that the removal of internal self-determination (which suzerainty  recognises), amounted to a form of annexation. Once Britain changed its position it pulled the legal rug from under that argument. In you last reply you go off on a tangent about the right of minorities to secede from a state. This is sort of recognised as a right under the preamble to the UN charger as "self-determination", but is very badly defined (deliberately so), because it also impinges on the rights of state sovereignty. This is why third party state recognition is important (see Kosovo as an example), as states are very leery of recognising the right to self-determination by minorities within a state. However theoretically whether Tibet was annexed or not does not affect the population from having the right to self-determination (and to choose independence if that is their wish).
 * User:Happyseeu you have not addressed my observation about WP:LEAD. Please do so.
 * I do not have to prove anything User:Happyseeu, because I am not trying to put anything into the article. You are supporting a sentence that says "" yet you have not produced one source that supports that assertion (see WP:SYN and WP:BURDEN). -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't need to address your WP:OR that the event in 2008 is important and sources must be later than that. Your opinion or mine doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Unless you can find a reliable source that makes the argument that the event in 2008 changes the situation/debate, it's all your opinion and WP:OR, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've already cited source to support the statement in the lead section, so if you want to remove it, you have to cite sources to say that it's obsolete.
 * The statement is important to show the controversies involved; this is important to achieve WP:NPOV. In the "Background" section, it already said: "At the time Political Tibet obtained de facto independence." So the independence and sovereignty of Tibet was already factual before 1950, despite Chinese claim over Tibet. The lack of international recognition was what made it not de jure. Maybe the lead section can be re-written to show two competing views on the subject clearly: PRC view that Tibet has always been part of China since Yuan dynasty, and Western scholar view that that's not the case, and it's annexation. I need to review sources and think about it.
 * If you pay attention to discussion in the section "Invaded and gained control", you will see a similar issue has been debated before. --Happyseeu (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Scholarship is not stuck in apsec, it evolves over time.
 * You clerly do not understand what the policy WP:No Original Research means Please read the first sentence of the policy that states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." My opinon is not relevant as I am not including it in the artilce. Instead I am Challanging you to provide sources to support the current content of the artilce.
 * You have only provided one book as a source (in this thread) which it has been pointed out in this thread was initially published in 2002. All the other sources, included in the artilce are old news sources. Which of those sources you have cited do you believe supports the current sentence: "" Please quote the sentence that supports the statement from the current cited sources. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Historical Status of China in Tibet clearly states there are three POV wrt. the status of China in Tibet. The event in 2008 is only relevant to the British POV. The Tibetan POV is that the relationship between the emperor of China and the Dalai Lama is only a "patron priest" relationship, which has nothing to do with British recognition of sovereignty of China over Tibet. So your insistence on the event of 2008 is invalid. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you are citing an artilce published in 1975, that is over 40 years old!
 * The British POV is important for international relations, because it was the only remaing state that supported the viw that China held suzerainty over Tibet. It is not important that the last state was Britiain. It could just as easily have been Russia, India, or Pakistan. The important point is that with that change no soverign state now supports the contention that Tibet ever had suzerainty in the early 20th century.
 * Which of those sources you have cited in the article do you believe supports the current sentence: "" Please quote the sentence that supports the statement from the current sources cited in the artilce.
 * -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added quotation in citations and additional citations. If there are still disputes. be specific why the phrasing doesn't adequately reflect the citation. I'm not interested in some editor's personal opinion. --Happyseeu (talk) 17:38, 22 July 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. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note -- the fact that Western governments do not press the issue of Tibet (independence) does not mean that Western POPULATIONS do not consider Tibet to be occupied by China. Whether unlawfully or or not -- the people in those Western nations do very much see Tibet as being occupied by force in 1950 and 1959. The Dalai Lama is on the run around the world because of it.  Tibet being a suzerain or vassal -- means it is not an integral part of China.   Wallachia was a suzerain of Ottoman Turkey.  Meaning of suzerain ---

After the British Invasion
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * Saying "in exchange for a fee, Britain promised not to annex Tibet" is WP:OR. Britain demanded Tibet to pay for the cost of Younghusband Expedition in the Treaty of Lhasa, and China, in order to claim sovereignty over Tibet, wanted to pay instead, since allowing Tibet to pay Britain directly would implicitly admit that Tibet was an independent entity with its own agency. From the British POV, it would get the money either way, so why "selling out Tibet" when it didn't get anything in return? Keep in mind that Tibet would still owe the money if Britain refused China's proposal to pay. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2023

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) { {ping&#124;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)


 * Oppose. This formulation is less natural and fits the WP:criteria less well. Additionally, the hypothesized risk of confusion based on the timeline could not exist. The PRC (which is in the current article name) did not exist until 1949. It is not reasonable to believe readers will think an invasion by the PRC happened in the 18th century. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * if the risk of confusion could not exist, then Chinese invasion and annexation of Tibet is a perfect name. The title should make it clear that this subject is not only a political declaration, but also a military operation. Nagsb (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It makes sense, but I think it’s better if we split this page between the Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China and the 1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet. TankDude2000 (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A country cannot invade itself (or annex part of its own territory for that matter). Had the Société des Nations recognised Tibet's independence in 1913, then "invasion" would have been a proper word to use, but this never happened. Elnon (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per the last move discussion, this is the formulation that most closely follows the format of other similar events, such as the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Nothing about the title implies that military actions were not involved (plenty of annexations involve invasions), so keep it WP:CONCISE. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2023 (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.

Tibet's Revocation in 1959 of Agreement
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)


 * The 1960/61 ICJ report can also be found here : https://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html
 * The ICJ 1959 report on Tibet is here :
 * https://www.icj.org/summary-of-a-report-on-tibet-submitted-to-the-international-commission-of-jurists-by-shri-purshottam-trikamdas-senior-advocate-supreme-court-of-india/
 * For accurate reference material when editing topics on Tibet, and to strengthen NPOV, please use this comprehensie list of legal documents dating from Tibet's empire era to today :
 * https://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/ 103.146.218.84 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have the full ICJ report. The term used is "repudiate", not "revoke". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good. I also found another version which uses "reputiated" instead.
 * This is a very notable change. The details are:
 * The date is 11 March 1959 as the date of legal repudiation. This occurred in Lhasa during the 1959 Tibetan uprising before the Dala Lama's escape to India, where he arrived on 19 March (see ICJ, Report on the Question of Tibet..., p.18,19) ICJ and its Legal Committee state the revocation is considered legal by their panel of legal experts due to China's failure to abide by the agreement's "undertakings".< After 11 March, several additional announcements regarding the reputation where made by Tibet from India.(See, again, ICJ Report on Tibet...)
 * 103.146.218.84 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * um, repudiation 103.146.218.84 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)