Talk:Seventeen Point Agreement

Earlier Deletion

I found a blank link in an article and so created the page. Checking the links, I then found that an earlier page had been deleted for supposed violation of copyright.

This cannot sensibly apply to the text of an international agreement. I don't know what the earlier effort was like: maybe it broke rules. I have put up just a selection, together with links to two web pages.

--GwydionM 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Czech illustration

Saw a beautful illustration on the Czech version, [1]. Could someone please add it here as well? --GwydionM 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken away a subheading, so the wikiquote text books is now nested to the right. Zujine (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article slant?

I'll bet you dollars to donuts this article's a veritable field day for Chinese trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.216.138 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to have a pronounced slant towards the more extreme wing of the Tibetan movement, doesn't it. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's internally contradictory and implies falsehoods about international law. The "repudiation of the agreement" section gives a lot more detail than the "duress!!1" elsewhere in the article, and (probably not coincidentally) casts a lot of doubt on the Tibetan-exile version which prevails elsewhere. 205.211.141.207 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it? reading through the article I felt it had a far greater Chinese slant than Tibetan slant... The Repudiation section doesn't actually give much detail about the duress suffered by the signatories or what they could've faced if they had failed to sign, and given previous actions the PRC had taken, I'm not sure they exactly had a complete willingness to go full on independence movement while they were literally residing in the capital of the country currently occupying their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:10:A874:4522:5CDF:B5C4:CA48 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I was gonna start a pov discussion, but it seems there clearly is one here already. I just added the npov tag. This seriously needs a rewrite to even start to sound neutral. 71.226.33.28 (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Local Government of Tibet

西藏地方政府 should be 西藏地方 政府= Government of Tibet Region( or Area), 西藏地方=Tibet Region is a provincial administrative division of ROC and early PRC.--刻意(Kèyì) 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro was not neutral

The intro does not only need the side of China and the Tibetans in exile but should include an international law expert opinion. I included an expert opinion who gave expertise also to the German government. The sentence I included reads:

For international law expert, Eckart Klein, "The so-called Seventeen-Point Agreement of 1951" is "a contract signed under duress" which "it is legally invalid."

Source "Tibet’s Status Under International Law", Tibet-Forum., Vol. 2; 1995. --Kt66 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not just unofficial but seems unbalanced considering the author's biased argument by both oversimplifying and assuming the context. To simply explain what i mean, if America declared independance from britian and if hypothetically britian had defeated them. Are they allowed to ask america to sign a treaty or would it have also been invalid since Britian would just continue the "violent" war if they didn't sign? Both the war and treaty would only be illegal under modern international law if Britian and America were actually foriegn independant countries from the start, and britian invaded america despite america posed no threat to britian. Yet legal if britian was settling a DOMESTIC territorial rebel dispute within its country.

So that "International" law statement by Eckart Klein was made on his legal pov that Tibet was under duress from "threats of illegal war" as he assumed tibet was already a separate independant soveriegn country on an international stage. Which is basically what is STILL being argued here.

The war was to bring Tibet back into the old age "suzerainty" placement however the added newer agreement can only be agreed by the tibetan gov freely.

So duress is only valid if the chinese gov pointed guns at the delegates and forced them to sign. That is alleged and disputed over. With no concrete fair way to say that was what happened. The context was america promised tibet full support if dalai lama stated the modern agreement was signed under duress, whilst pro unifucation tibetan delegates said duress didn't happen at all. It's not our place on wikipedia to assume duress happened or didn't happen let alone endorse Mr Klein as the only voice. However even without the agreement, tibet after inevitably losing the war would still retain the old age suzerainty arrangement, so the new agreement was not a disportionate compromise but a reform to help barter peace. The exiled tibetans stated they were not allowed to negotiate but that clearly comes from a biased side. So duresd is not a given fact and why Eckart Klein shouldn't be the sole voice in the intro.

I read here on the article that "The Tibetan delegates exceeded their authority by signing the 17 point Agreement without the approval from the Dalai Lama". And why tibetans legally don't recognise it. However tibetan delegates also signed the declaration of independance and mutual recognition with Mongolia in 1913 without the Dalai Lama's explicit approval. Yet consider that valid.

Similarly the chinese side would talk alot about serfdom but very little on cultural genocide out of bias. Each side are clearly not willing to tell the full story.

So the article and arguments are fraught with bitter bias and oversimplifying the narrative by ommitting certain facts. Which is why a neutral pov for the INTRO is to identify that there are 2 sides to a story. And the introduction should highlight only that and the following body should present both sides's own argument and all valid relevant facts. That is the true neutral approach to a bitterly debated topic. 14.202.177.65 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I have not seen anything like this before on Wikipedia. The infobox spreads entirely from the left side of the browser window to the right side – not only the article part of the window but also covering part of the sidebar. Bever (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2018

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 section.

Moved. See policy-based support below for this rename. Hyphen not used per WP:HYPHEN style guideline. Kudos to editors for your suggestions, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet → Seventeen Point Agreement – Per WP:CONCISE article titles should attempt to balance information with brevity. Per WP:AT article titles should reflect what reliable sources call something: multiple sources of the article refer to the agreement simply as the "Seventeen Points Agreement". Additionally the article itself refers to it as "Seventeen Points Agreement" throughout. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title – "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" – is already abridged from "The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet". I fail to see what more can be achieved in the way of conciseness by further shortening the title to "Seventeen Point Agreement". A three-word title would shed vital information as to the territory affected by the said agreement and the means employed by China to re-incorporate Tibet. That the shorter version – "Seventeen Point Agreement" – should be used within the article goes without saying. --Elnon (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What if instead the title was changed to Seventeen Points Agreement (Tibet) ? That keeps the title brief but also retains the name of the territory in question. On the other hand, you mention the "means employed by China". I don't think I'd call the PRC's means "Peaceful" or a "liberation". I think that's certainly what the PRC would like folks to think. Perhaps I should have added an extra question of whether or not the title was WP:NPOV, however when I requested the move I was still ruminating on the question. I would argue that the words "peaceful" and "liberation" are in fact part of the original name of the agreement but there are many conversations on other Tibet talk pages (for instance look at any of the several archived conversations about moving on Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China) that have had extensive clashes on whether or not "peaceful" and "liberation" were NPOV. From my reading of those conversations the conclusion was that some editors believed "liberation" to be Chinese source bias, and led to the use of more neutral words ("Incorporation" instead of "Liberation" or "Annexation") to describe events surrounding the 1950 invasion. I think the title of this article can achieve similar neutrality and brevity. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. I am not aware of any other notable agreement known by this name. Most sources use the shorter name. One small point - it should be hyphenated as it is in most sources ("Seventeen-Point Agreement"). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE, what Onceinawhile said. -Zanhe (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please stop lying about the status of Tibet

From 1912 to 1949, the Lhasa government waltzed between claiming independence and accepting it was a region of China.

No outside power ever recognised it as independent.

See Tibet: International Law Is On China’s Side for more.

This is separate from whether it merits' independence. Various countries have achieved separation, but their independence is correctly noted from when it was legally recognised.

--GwydionM (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@GwydionM: Tibet declared its independence in 1913. China certainly didn't recognize it. I'm not sure if others recognized it, but then again I'm not sure why its relevant. Why do you mention that here? What part of the article would you like changed? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You have no excuse for "being unsure". It is well recorded it has never been recognised. And the Dalai Lama dropped it after the USA under Nixon made peace. Instead he switched to a wholly unlikely demand for Autonomy. Rejected whatever details Beijing offered him - details were never public. --GwydionM (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are other's opinions that relevant? And how are their appeals for autonomy, which as far as I can tell, the Dalai Lama had been in rather favor of from the beginning, make them deserve control under the PRC? It seems pretty sensible to myself that in order for a country to be making these appeals to sovereignty, it has to claim to be sovereign over its territory, which Tibet and the Dalai Lama have been doing since 1913? Additionally, the website you posted seems to be pretty unilaterally on the side of China and are all written by yourself, someone not involved heavily in the field of history or law. The fact that he rejected Beijing's demands that they are not autonomous seems to be a completely irrelevant point, since Tibet is attempting to assert the fact that it is an autonomous state. And these are the comments being linked to your article: "The Chinese could easily solve the problems of Tibetan Uprising by adopting the much practised European method of Ethnic Cleaning but chose not to go that route." To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure you are at all an authority on the matter and your appeals to your authority seem rather lacking to myself. The sources you provide do little to back your credibility as well. I would be hesitant at best to attempt to put out what you are writing as authoritative works on such a delicate topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:10:A874:4522:5CDF:B5C4:CA48 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It just seems as though you are attempting to put your beliefs out that China is a better government for Tibet than the Tibetan government through things like this claiming others are "lying" about the status of Tibet. It just seems a little blatant in my opinion, and not the least bit subtle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:10:A874:4522:5CDF:B5C4:CA48 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it is pretty clear that you are far from an unbiased source. You kind of make it clear you have an agenda in regards to these things, and have not really provided any adequate argument supporting your cause. Brae26 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Braden

Heavy use of primary sources

This article makes heavy use of primary sources, with about half the citations given directly citing statements by Chinese and Tibetan officials. Even the secondary and tertiary sources given are only cited because they contain relevant passages of direct quotes. Yue🌙 09:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)