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

Why doesn't the first paragraph mention that Tibet was an unrecognised state, de jure part of China all the time?

The title of the article is annexation. This is a bit strange, as you can't annex a rebel bit of your own country.

The article makes it clear that during the rebellion Tibet remained de jure part of China, and that not a single country recognised its government or self proclaimed independence at any stage in its existence.

This is the reason why China took control with no objections from any other countries, and should be stated in the first paragraph, which currently creates the completely false impression that a recognised independent state with a legitimate government was invaded and annexed. 95.91.212.177 (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. See the Talk posting below.
Additionally, several neighbours recognized Tibet, Nepal fought for it, and even the Brit Lord Curzon called Qing ownership of Tibet "a constitutional fiction" . Lovely.
The ROC China never gained control of Tibet nor invaded. It lost to the PRC.
The PRC China invaded during its peace conference with Tibet in India. Why the delay and India? Tibet couldn't get into PRC China since the Brits wouldn't issue transit visas for their delegation. Rather insidious of both the Brits and Chinese. 2400:1A00:B040:3B3E:F549:BEC9:B9F4:F5AA (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the original poster; the article is written in a biased way, as if Tibet was independent and then was annexed by China - when the truth is no country, not even the USA or the UK, ever recognized Tibet’s independence, which, per Wikipedia’s own guidelines, should be explicitly mentioned. 38.146.206.12 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which document definitively proves that Tibet was de jure part of China before 1950? It should be remembered just because Tibet didn't actively engage in the game of Westphalian sovereignty (a concept foreign to Tibet before 1950), it didn't automatically made China's legal claim of Tibet valid. The British was very clear that China's claim was a legal fiction that has no factual basis. Insisting on a legal fiction is a POV. It could be argued that the 13th Dalai Lama's claim of sovereignty in 1913 is legally valid, because his government exercised actual control of Tibet. The same could not be said about China. The 13th actually tried to delineate boundaries with neighboring countries and gain diplomatic recognition (the Simla Conference and Simla Accord), as well as reclaiming land lost to China (the several wars initiated by Tibet against China). But of course the narrative taught in China is different and made them look like random acts. Happyseeu (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is biased treating Tibet as if it were independent, when no foreign government recognized it as such

The article is written in a biased way - it has a section on Tibet’s intents to “remain independent” and talks of annexation, meaning that the article treats as an undeniable truth that Tibet was independent, but the unbiased truth is that no country in the world, not even the USA or the UK, ever recognized Tibet’s independence. Per Wikipedia’s own guidelines and its policies regarding unrecognized “de facto” independent countries today, the language of the article needs to be changed to reflect that - unless we just admit we are being biased here on this article. 38.146.206.12 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Tibet_(1950%E2%80%931951)