Talk:South Tibet

Target?
This has targetted both Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet dispute ... seems like a disambiguation page is in order? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of the Article?
The information presented in this article is supposed to be covered in Tibet under geography(the first point) and disputes(balance). There is no need to have a separate article for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbk123 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

China vs British
, in this edit, you have changed the text stating Chinese claims to one stating "Chinese and British claims". I am afraid it is WP:UNDUE. Yes, Hsiao-Ting Lin talks about both of them with equal weight in the particular sentence quoted here. But if you read the rest of the paper, there is nothing about British "claims" much less any "professed sovereignties". For instance, he says:

Until the Simla Convention, the British had only regarded the Assam Himalaya as an "undefined buffer zone". So also did the Tibetans.

Only the Chinese make claims as to the region belonging to China from time immemorial. Fictitious claims are made by China and only China. We can't mix them up with other countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand, thank you for the explanation. But Lin himself or herself is still misrepresented by removing context right? If the United Nations said that both Armenia and Azerbaijan are at fault for their war, but someone only wrote that the United Nations said that Armenia is at fault, does that not change the meaning? It could be not worth it to write that Lin said that both claims were largely imaginary but it appears misrepresentative of Lin's statement to select only the Chinese part of that sentence. Your explanation is very informative though. Are there other scholars that can fill in the gap here, so the situation is stated but Lin is not misrepresented? Or more details to be added from Lin to fill in the gap? Duduzh (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. But in dealing with international relations, it is very common to find sources that write as if all parties are to blame even if only one party is doing the mischief. So, I am kind of used to it. I can try adding another quote that singles out China. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Guyot-Rechard's quote that I have now added explains it better. British India's control of the region wasn't "imaginary" but it was mostly "on paper" because they didn't actually administer it. But, on the other hand, this was the same in practically all tribal territories in the Indian subcontinent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the other quotes. Those look okay to me. I am still uncomfortable with how Lin is presented though, because it is still a distortion of what he/she said. If Lin writes that both are to blame, we should not only write that Lin wrote one is to blame even if others suggest that one is to blame. To me, it seems best to remove the mention of Lin and just name the other two if we do not include Lin's description of both being imaginary. Duduzh (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The line is summarising the entire article of Lin, not just one sentence. As I said, the article substantiates the "imaginary" nature of the Chinese claim, but doesn't do so for the British claim. If you read the article and find this to be wrong, please feel free to bring it up. If you don't have access to the article, please send me email and I can send you a copy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)