Talk:Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet

Reliable secondary source used by University of Adeliade

To the editor who keeps claiming that my sources are not valid and literally accusing me of edit warring - study the credential of my source [1]. He is a respectable Australian PHD expert historian whose work is endorsed by the University of Adelaide. Unless you can give a reason why the University of Adelaide or BBC new article is a poor source. Stop your vandalism. The only person who is wrongfully edit warring is JUST yourself as you have given ZERO proof that my sources are wrong OR invalid, but I have given PLENTY of sources to back the fact of Britian promising to recognise China's rule of Tibet (pg3 thesis) and to not annex or interfere in Tibet in exchange for indemnity (page 21).

No scholar is disputing that yet you kept on falsely labeling those sources as invalid. Unless you got an actual source that can contradict the BBC article as indeed invalid - BBC. Do not waste my time with your guessing and your own failings to read the cited sources, and stop undoing my edits.

Also, I request that you reverse your edits and add my sources back in as it is a solid secondary reliable source by a published Ph.D. scholar. 49.179.144.133 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The "editor who keeps claiming" has a name. It is User:Kautilya3. So please use that in future. Also, it would be convenient if you register an account yourself so that we can keep track of your edits.

I have posted a welcome message on your talk page, which gives you links to various Wikipedia policies (which are as good as rules). You need to follow them while editing Wikipedia.

In particular, please check the reliable sources policy, which states:

• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.
• News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

So, PhD disssertations are WP:PRIMARY sources. Editorial commentaries in newspapers are also PRIMARY sources. You need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS from all involved editors in order to use them on a page.

Also, please note that personal attacks are not permitted in discussions. You need to discuss calmly, civilly, and focus on content, whether it is your content or somebody else's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The thesis merely says the same things as the BBC article and that's probably because they share the ACTUAL SCHOLARLY consensus. You are not that published doctorate scholar or BBC, but an editor and your own opinions of them are original research. It's not like we are arguing over an ambigious HARD TO KNOW topic where it's reasonably hard to know who is correct. THE TREATY IS LOGICALLY WELL DOCUMENTED and recorded in BRITISH gov archives and universities around the world. Why would it be misquoted? Why would the british gov and bbc and universities lie about the treaty? makes no sense.

SO I have an issue with you misleading people into thinking the source is unreliable and also I don't appreciate you INCORRECTEDLY claiming that page 21 doesn't EVEN mention the treaty. When we both know that it indeed mentions the treaty on-page 21. You have made edits that only serve to UNWARATNTEDLY make the general public to DOUBT the info in which this treaty involved the British agreeing to not annex Tibet, or negotiate with Tibetans without Chinese intermediary. Unless you can actually give me a source that shows the BBC article as false. You have no credible right to claim that this BBC ARTICLE is unverified or unreliable. BBC is more likely to be biased against china so they admitting that their country has agreed to recognize china's direct rule over Tibet in 1906, does not come lightly. 49.179.144.133 (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What is more likely? That the doctorate thesis and the BBC article are BOTH wrong? Or that they are correct and know what they are talking about? Obviously it is the latter. But when you smear a decent good source by excessively labeling it as unverified, unreliable, and bad. Then that is wrong and harmful and only serves to discredit the information despite YOU have given zero evidence or sources that can prove them wrong. My issue is that you are editing recklessly to lead the public to believe that these facts are wrong by smearing the sources as being unreliable when nobody can seriously ever argue that the BBC article is fake news when it comes to these kinds of things. Anyways unless you can prove that the BBC article is lying, then don't label it as unreliable or do that to any other source that says the same thing as BBC because it's obviously the western scholarly consensus when a large number of western sources all say the exact same stuff that an indemnity was indeed paid and the British agreed not to annex or interfere with tibet. 49.179.144.133 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The present sources are adequate for the present content. If you want to add any interpretations, such as causes and effects, then you need WP:HISTRS. They should be scholarly sources, peer-reviewed, and published. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)