Talk:Tibetan sovereignty debate

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Tibet High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What does that even mean?

In the lede, someone wrote in that Tibet "should re-establish themselves as they were prior to 1959". Except there's a very long history before 1959 where Tibet was never globally recognised as independent nor having its own sovereignty. Is that what Tibetan independence activists actually want? It also contradicts the earlier words saying that Tibet wants to separate themselves from China. It is conflicting and it be helpful to be more specific here like saying Tibet should separate from China and "establish a state with the Dalai Lama as their leader".[1] 49.181.90.58 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the entire second sentence in the lede is unclear and can seem contradictory.[2] I propose to improve it by writing this instead; "The first debate concerns whether the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and parts of neighboring provinces are within the People's Republic of China (PRC) and questions whether Tibet should separate from China and attain international recognition as an independent state." 49.181.90.58 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I need to mention an update that I had added that proposed edit in. [3] I believe this revision is much clearer and eliminates the ambiguity and contradictions present in the previous version. 49.181.90.58 (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising it. I reinstated the original wording. Somebody or other keeps ransacking this article forever! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add in Dalai Lama's take?

On a separate note, given how pro-Tibet-independence peoples' key goal is to have the Dalai Lama return and take his place as the official leader of an independent Tibet.[4] Is it a good idea to include in the current Dalai Lama's take in the lede's summary points? In 2005, he made a public statement that Tibet was a part of China and that he also don't support independence from China. And his given reasons was that Tibet was materially backwards and wants modernisation and be a sovereign part of China. [5] I initially considered adding it in, however he is not an official leader recognised by any state so could be undue. But then again, he is famous and a very big deal to the people who fight for independence from China as they want him to lead Tibet instead. 49.181.90.58 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 is a bit old and the context was that it was the precondition presented by the PRC to have any negotiations. That said, his official position right now is to gain autonomy without full independence. You should reference his website instead of the speech. The speech is often used out of context by Chinese state media so it's better to present something more in-depth that doesn't just make people think "oh, even the Dalai Lama doesn't want independence". In particular, he supports a peaceful resolution via a middle-way approach. Dplre (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Often used out of context by Chinese media? I don't think they even acknowledge him. The sources to support Dalai Lama making such comments are typically either Indian or western media. And if what you say is true about conditions, then there should be a source for that but don't believe there's any that says that. And as far as I know, the Chinese gov still refuses to talk to him regardless of what he says. However the Dalai lama isn't simply agreeing - he is also requesting China to consider his Middle Path approach. So we can include him as he is deemed a leader of Tibet at least by one side, and that he supports a peaceful resolution via middle way approach and elaborate on what that is - autonomy but no separation. 49.180.194.138 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added in Indian and western sources on his take in regards to independence and stated that he doesn't advocate for separatism/independence but instead for middle way approach which is striving for meaningful autonomy as part of China.49.180.194.138 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]