Talk:Tibetan sovereignty debate

UNDUE POV additions
, I have reverted your WP:UNDUE WP:POV additions made in the recent days. Please note that Wikipedia is written by summarising mainly WP:SECONDARY sources. Adding material from WP:PRIMARY sources to buttress a particular WP:POV is prohibited. You have made rather too many edits to take them apart. So blanket reversion is the only possible course at this time. You are welcome to reinstate edits based contemporary WP:SECONDARY sources, keeping in mind that this is a highly contentious topic, and a strict adherence to WP:NPOV is required. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I, without hesitation, reverted all your removals as you failed, on talk page, to list in details, one by one, which items fall under the category of primary sources and you even removed the optimized referencing i added regarding the Tang-Tibetan relation in the first paragraph. Per: wp:vandalism. MainBody (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONUS and WP:VNOTSUFF. You are now WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kautilya3's reversion of your edits. You have brought primary sources into the article without providing evidence for their relevance to the topic. Without further scholarly research demonstrating the importance of these maps they should be dismissed out of hand. Especially given European maps of this time tended to exaggerate state control over peripheral territories (look at any map of Africa from this time for example) HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Take this edit for example. You have added the British Home government's view with an elaborate quote, but entirely omitted what Lord Curzon is supposed to have said. This is not WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * yes what MainBody is doing is unfortunate. I am tempted to restore the status quo until we can come to an agreement. As currently there is a real issue with WP:NPOV Kunga1776 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)