User contributions for 49.195.183.131

28 October 2020

• 03:4203:42, 28 October 2020 diff hist +42 User talk:49.195.183.131 →Notice of registered account
• 03:3903:39, 28 October 2020 diff hist +305 User talk:49.195.183.131 →Notice of registered account: new section

27 October 2020

• 23:2823:28, 27 October 2020 diff hist +527 Talk:Simla Convention →Treaty signed in 1906: it's defintely withing context as it shows the British gov having to violate their own treaty with china and russia, in order to make that newer treaty with tibet legal.. However the britsh give has never recignised tibetan independancre hence the treaty (simla convention) can never be truly legal given that context. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 23:2023:20, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,331 Talk:Simla Convention →Australian journalist: Disagree as the secondary primary source explicitly explained how Nehru used the simla convention to make his claims and justify his forward advance policy based on the assumption that simla convention was solid. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 23:1223:12, 27 October 2020 diff hist +651 Talk:Simla Convention →Despite the British government: Hang on..Are you ACTUALLY even asking me for sources that Britan recognized Tibet to be under chinese suzerainty? How can you be editing this page for so long and not know that? Regardless added the so many sources to back that basic fact. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 23:0523:05, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,117 Talk:Simla Convention →Despite the British government: Unless britian recognises tibet as independent, such a contract without chinese signatures, can never be legal or made into effect. A contract is not legal just because it;s written. It needs to be coherent with other laws https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/01/opinion/l-tibet-couldn-t-lose-what-it-never-had-332046.html Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 22:5122:51, 27 October 2020 diff hist +589 Talk:Simla Convention →Unfair edit warring: disliking info is no excuse for rejecting it if even you cannot deny its factuality and relevance
• 22:4422:44, 27 October 2020 diff hist −183 Talk:Simla Convention →Unfair edit warring: Not my opinion - just facts. Whereas claiming that the law was made into effect - is an opinion and not even a correct one. I am the one being neutral here by not saying the contract was void but merely mentioning the brtish then foreign policy and their laws.
• 22:4222:42, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,414 Talk:Simla Convention →Unfair edit warring
• 22:2922:29, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1 Simla Convention The contract was "not made into effect". British gov rejected it on day one so changed it to a more neutral tone. Before pushing your pov, take it to talk page and get a consenus before claiming that the simla convention was legal and unchallenged despite no impartial scholar can claim that. Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 22:2522:25, 27 October 2020 diff hist +672 User talk:49.195.183.131 →October 2020
• 22:1922:19, 27 October 2020 diff hist +221 User talk:49.195.183.131 →ARBIPA sanctions alert
• 22:1522:15, 27 October 2020 diff hist +124 User talk:49.195.183.131 →ARBIPA sanctions alert: add signature
• 22:1522:15, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,069 User talk:49.195.183.131 →ARBIPA sanctions alert: heard it, respect it and assure that I am not here to edit war but also doubt this sanction even applies to here anyways
• 22:0722:07, 27 October 2020 diff hist +104 Talk:Simla Convention →Unfair edit warring
• 22:0122:01, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,960 Talk:Simla Convention →Unfair edit warring: new section
• 21:4721:47, 27 October 2020 diff hist −2 Simla Convention Follow your own advice - don't push pov without having consensus from the talk page. NO modern scholar has ever claimed, including the british, has ever claimed that the simla convention was "made into effect" on day one as it wasa challenged by other authorities including the british government. Changed to a more impartial and neutral tone that the contract "stated". Take it to talk page and get consensus before pushing your ownpov that the contract was not challenged and made legal on day one. Tag: Visual edit
• 21:4321:43, 27 October 2020 diff hist −2,256 Talk:Simla Conference →POV PUSHING ACCUSATIONS: wrong article - simla convention Tag: Manual revert
• 21:4021:40, 27 October 2020 diff hist +2,256 Talk:Simla Conference →POV PUSHING ACCUSATIONS: new section Tag: Reverted
• 17:1017:10, 27 October 2020 diff hist 0 Simla Convention minor mispelling Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 17:0617:06, 27 October 2020 diff hist +26 Simla Convention detailed the context that britian had recognised chinese surzeinty over tibet so signing documents without chinese approval was unorthodox. It was NOT made into effect since Britian did not have any actual power over china and britian doesn't have authority over tibetan affairs. So how can it be into effect? Be happy to take this to talk page as there are plenty of sources that explains in detail on why the simla conference was never legal in the first place. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 17:0117:01, 27 October 2020 diff hist +80 Simla Convention How is the simla conference made into effect? Even the british government rejected the simla conference on day one since it is invalidated by two other treaties that the british held with russia and china. Take this to the TALK PAGE if you feel like the simla conference was never challenged or illegal since the britsh gov agreed with the chinese gov that all foriegn polices of tibet needs chinese permission since that is what "chinese surzeinty" actually means. Don't mislead other people. Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 16:4816:48, 27 October 2020 diff hist +367 Simla Convention add indian economic times source that talks about history of Nehru forward policy's legitmacy being entirely based on the Simla conference and in which Nehru claiming that it validated the mcmahon line. Neville maxwell talks about past heavy and stubborn indian censorship and on who actually invaded who first and how the simla conference dispute started the war. Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 16:3916:39, 27 October 2020 diff hist +4 Simla Convention No edit summary Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 16:3716:37, 27 October 2020 diff hist +36 Simla Convention No edit summary Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 16:3416:34, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,509 Simla Convention Nobody including thje indian gov denies the report and it was kept clasiified by the indian gov. And it's alot more relevant than the otehr senence, in that it explains how the war actually started and Maxwell specifically points at that Simla conference and Mcmahon line as being the cause of the later war and critcised Nehru for using them as his reasoning. Don't delete real and relevant history that you wish to sweep under the rug. Added info plus Indian Times article as source. Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 16:1716:17, 27 October 2020 diff hist −130 Simla Convention →Background: Nowhere in the source does it say that china rebuffed British demand that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. Additionally BBC source is a very reputable impartial source that clearly states that Britian accepted money from China in exchange for agreeing they will not take Tibet not interfere in Tibet's foreign affairs. Read source before claiming it's not real. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-17046222 Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 03:3903:39, 27 October 2020 diff hist +7 Simla Convention The british never even said their policy has changed. They instead always recognised tibet as under china's domain but used different labels for it. They explained that their policy was misunderstood due to outdated terms and that they have always recognised tibet under china's rule so NOT A CHANGE but a clarification of their stance. Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 03:3103:31, 27 October 2020 diff hist +114 Talk:Simla Convention →Speculation of Britian being corrupt and wanting IMF bribes?
• 03:2803:28, 27 October 2020 diff hist +1,075 Talk:Simla Convention →Speculation of Britian being corrupt and wanting IMF bribes?: new section
• 03:1303:13, 27 October 2020 diff hist +249 Simla Convention added telegraph source Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 03:0803:08, 27 October 2020 diff hist +454 Simla Convention Add an Indian Times source. Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 03:0103:01, 27 October 2020 diff hist −1 Simla Convention it's bilateral since there are arguably two parties despite the fact that contradictingly, britian still recognised Chinese surzeiunty over tibet. Meaning that they recognise all foreign policies of tibet was only to be conducted with chinese permission. And the simla conference papers even reocgnised that. So it invalidates itself but nonetheless, bilateral meansw two and there were 2 parties, not one. Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 02:5802:58, 27 October 2020 diff hist +575 Simla Convention The essential background of 1906 was much more than the chinese simply rejecting British control of tibet. THE 1906 treaty was of Britian selling tibet to china's domain for a fee and china agreeing to not let any foreign power including britian, to interfere with tibet. And after that, Britian made another agreement with russia later on to both agree that Tibet was china's domain or surzeinty and neither country should go interfere in tibet unless through a chinese intermediary. Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 02:4502:45, 27 October 2020 diff hist +105 Simla Convention Previous sentence made it seem like the law was fuly unchalleneged and made ruling law over chinese terriorties by the british gov and the chinese gov. In reality, the british gov recognsied chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet, meaning that such signed agreements was illegal or at the minumum challenged, The pro-indian editor was rewriting history and trying to hide the fact that as long as the paper reocgnised chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet. it contradicts itself and cannot be called into effect Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit