Talk:Tibetan independence movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

From Wikipedia:Translation into English:

  • Article: zh-tw:西藏獨立運動
  • Corresponding English-language article: International Tibet Independence Movement.
  • Worth doing because: Long article in Chinese; English-language article is a stub
  • Originally Requested by: Jmabel on behalf of User:Eequor
  • Status: In-Progress, Vina 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Completed, Vina 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: User:Eequor tagged the English-language page as "needing translation", but did not note it here.
  • I did the Translation, but I cut quite a bit that was in other articles, and I feel that the actual article doesn't really touch on the movement as an organization, as opposed to the movement as an ideology. Don't know if futher cleanup is appropriate -Vina 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slavery[edit]

Perhaps it would be useful to mention the fact that slavery was practiced in Tibet before the communists invaded. Lots of people don't know that. If I had been in charge of the chinese army, I'd have invaded tibet too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.17.224 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Tibetans may have had slavery, but at least they didn't murder millions of their people like the "liberation" loving Red Chinese did under Mao.108.74.211.40 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
true it existed, but this isnt the place to discuss what you would have done. also, im pretty sure its illegal to impose your veiws on other independant nations by force and abosrb them completly. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The total population of Tibetans is only about 4 million. The proportion of Tibetans murdered by other Tibetans is likely to be much higher than the proportion of Han Chinese murdered by other Han Chinese. The number is higher in the latter simply because of its much higher population. 86.180.53.252 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why there is a discussion on Tibet's former social structure - feudalism or serfdom- as this has nothing to do with the Independence movement. and is clearly biased toward PRC's standard version of Tibet's history. In fact much of this article is inflammatory and biased and needs to be overhauled completely. the topic is the Tibetan Independence movement which in reality began after China invaded in 1950.KungaChoedron (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove my link?[edit]

I found the author view is distinct, after reading through it I found my attitude was changed greatly. If you don't want add an external link, you can add his opinion to the article. "This is not an essay that tries to justify or defend China's human rights violations in Tibet. This is an essay that tries to present information that most Free Tibet pamphlets and articles omit, and builds the argument that campaigning to "free" Tibet is both socially and morally irresponsible."

Ok, but don't add it to every Tibet-related page. Add it to one that's appropriate. --Khoikhoi 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Led by the 14th Dalai Lama?[edit]

I thought he renounced independence and instead advocates full autonomy within China?

As early as 1988, The Dalai Lama did make clear that he wasn't advocating for Tibetan independence and as such, the Dalai lama cannot be said to lead the independence movement. I have removed this and tried to make the introductory text more accurate. We'll see if it remains. --coldmtn 12:30, 4 Feb 2006

The Dalai Lama wants what's realistic and does not involve any sort of aggression. Therefore he has agreed (he has no other peaceful choice!)to an autonomy BUT he has very important conditions such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, you know, things that under the current regime china does not have! Me 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not freedom of religion (good thing, IMO), but buddhists are definitely allowed to practice


'I am Panchen Lama's believer,you violate Panchen Lama's volition.'DaLaiGroup bent on evil-doing.In my head they are dying.I know you are plotting a new Damageplan in Tibet China.Tibetan:CaiDaJorya

Since when has the dalai lama allowed freedom of religion, freedom of speech or freedom of expression? Does he mean that free as free in saying that his religion is so good, free speech so long as it praises him, and free expressions as long as they support him? 86.176.187.22 (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk[edit]

"Some people actually living in Tibet are not enthusiastic supporters of the movement, because they are non-native Chinese who have displaced the Tibetan population or because they fear punishment by the Chinese government for expressing enthusiastic support" This does not belong in the introduction. It also severely limits the list of reasons why Tibetans don't support the cause. Many Tibetans find chinese rule an improvement. That should be mentioned. 66.58.219.109 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ??????I would like to know why these Tibetan peoples find that it is an improvement and how have their lives been improved by it??????[reply]

I noticed it and changed it. The sentence was an edit to another POV statement that leaned toward the PRC position. Details on views of locals on the issue are elaborated in the body of the article, so we don't need to cover the level of support in the opening paragraph. But it suffices to say that an accurate assessment of popular support is difficult under PRC policies, so that's what I wrote. Kelvinc 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why has nobody raise the issue that some of the land claimed by dalai lama is not native tibetan land? some of them belongs to other minorities group, in fact the history records show the tibetan actually invaded those areas and are not native neither. therefore the use of the term "native" is inaccurate for tibetan as well unless the movement renounce the claim of land that belong to other ethnicities who do not see themselve as tibetan neither. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be Immature[edit]

There's been some silly deleting in this article's discussion page without any reason being given in this talk page. I've redone some points (but not all) and I will report further deleting to moderators. You have been warned. Racooon (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, weeding[edit]

Is 'ITIM' a formal name, of an organized campaign or movement? If not, the article should be renamed to International movement for Tibetan independence or something similar. Also, there seems to be material better apt for articles. Overall, the article says rather little about the actual international lobbying on the Tibetan independence cause. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - have moved the article to Tibetan independence movement. The article seemed to be unsure what it was about. It starts off talking about "ITIM" as if it was an organisation, but then goes on to describe the whole movement. Even now, there are strange bits like the "Tibetan passport" section. What is that about? What relevance does it have to Tibetan independence? Is it here to show that Tibet was recognised as independent by the countries that stamped the paper, or what? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to correct some weasel language that made it look like the Dalai Lama supports the independence movement, when he clearly does not. More to be done, including citations for all the claims in the "positions" section. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan independence movement or Free Tibet?[edit]

This article is titled "Tibetan independence movement", then it has a logo of "Free Tibet". Can someone actually tell me which is it? The Tibetan people had certainly never been free under the Dalai Lamas. Are we to believe that the dl and his cronies now want to free the Tibetan people? A free tibet and an independent tibet are two completely different things. The dl and his cronies lived for free at the expense of the tibetan people. It would improve the article if it is clarified which topic this is about, or to concentrate on the Tibetan independence movement instead of confusing it with a free tibet. 81.155.102.122 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tibetan independence movement self-identifies with the slogan "Free Tibet". I imagine that they could identify how they define "free". I also suspect that their definition differs from yours. As you can see from the title, this article is about the Tibetan independence movement. The slogans, logos and other ideas important to that movement will be covered in this article, regardless of how you personally feel about them. I suggest that you attempt to improve this encyclopedia by editing articles, rather than repeating arguments about the Dalai Lama on unrelated talk pages. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!!! You mean it's all a lie? Define 'free' how they like? Sure, slaves felt they were free because they were told they were free. 81.155.102.122 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


the logo shouldn't be used because it is not only used by people of this movement. not all the supporter of FT are supportive of secession. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Development and influence section can someone verify from a non-Tibetan source that "Tibetan independence is not currently supported by Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists." Thanks. Mavlo (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they want the nations to be freed from foreign control, and there goals have changed since the time when there was restircted freedoms(thogh stil leaps and bounds ahead of any, say, communist states) 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does American control count as foreign control? 86.180.53.252 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7730774.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.119.142 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Of course the dalai lama doesn't want a free Tibet. A free Tibet will mean it is free of the dalai lama as well. 86.176.116.88 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention the posers?[edit]

Free Tibet is well known as the biggest way for someone with very little political concerns to claim political savvy. Even south park mentioned itYVNP (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for posterity, South Park is hardly an authority on who or what is or isn't 'posing.' And there is virtually no way to know who is 'posing' outside of original research. 72.225.243.84 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been documented in reliable sources, in which case it would belong. —Zujine|talk 21:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly would a "reliable source" document that somebody is a "poser"? What sort of tangible, verifiable criteria must a "poser" have?108.74.211.40 (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
like that Groupon commercial on the Superbowl... nobody actually cares enough to protest China, they own a lot of US debt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claim in lead not supported by source[edit]

I have corrected a claim in the lead because it inaccurately represented the source it cited as support. The claim in quesiton was "The movement used to be a platform of the Central Tibetan Administration of exiles, and of the 14th Dalai Lama, but now they are seeking a sort of high-level autonomy within China.[1]"

The source cited ([1]) has the following to say about the Dalai Lama's old and new positions:

"Tibet's exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, has abandoned his long-standing position calling for Tibetan autonomy, declaring Tibet to be part of China."
"The Dalai Lama, who turns 70 this year, appears to have accepted that China should control the political and economic affairs of Tibet and guarantee its culture, religion and environment."
"This is a distinct shift from the plan he has proposed up to now, first delivered in a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg in 1988, that Tibet should be a "self-governing democratic political entity" with Beijing responsible for its external defence and foreign affairs."
"The Dalai Lama has also referred to his homeland as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, the name given by Beijing to the political region that has been shorn of Tibetan-populated areas now administered as part of surrounding Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces."

From these quotes, it is clear that the cited source nowhere represents the Dalai Lama as ever pressing for independence. Instead, we can summarise the "old" and "new" positions as:

  1. Old: Tibet remains part of China but has a high level of autonomy with Beijing controlling only external defence and foreign affairs
  2. New: Tibet remains part of China but with a lower level of autonomy, with Beijing controlling political and economic affairs.

In any case, the Dalai Lama's position that Tibet remains an autonomous part of China has not changed. I have changed the sentence accordingly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the source was wrong for the claim, but the claim that the Dalai Lama had advocated Tibetan independence is true if the "old" position refers to the Dalai Lama's position before 1988. I have restored the sentence with a source that surveys his changing positions. Quigley (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up this part of the lead to restore the source discussed in this topic, removed an ungrammatical sentence and removed the link to the CTA's official website, since the page referenced does not suppor the claim in question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging Western support for Tibetan independence into this page. I reached it via the odd redirect at "Western Government secret intervention into Tibet," and it looks like a bit of an orphan, though not in the sense of the Wikipedia definition. If we could really build that article to the point where it's worthwhile on its own, that's fine, but for now it seems much smarter to me to incorporate it here. Some of the content of the "Celebrity support and Freedom Concerts" section is related. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's because Min2winit went ahead and added it in as a section. I think all that needs to be done is to delete the old article. Admins, I beseech you! --BDD (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that. I still support the merger. The section is small enough to fit nicely in this article and is notable and pertinent to the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I think there could be two articles, and I think that the article titles make them seem more closely related than they are. Tibetan independence movement seems to be mostly about a political protest movement which is active now， calling attention to the political situation in Tibet and the putative desire among the Tibetan people for independence or autonomy. I would actually like this article to Free Tibet movement. On the other hand, Western support for Tibetan independence was created as an article about CIA support for Tibetan resistance fighters in the 1950s in the Cold War context. It's quite possible to fit these subjects together in one article, but it's not obvious that it needs to be done.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Greg. I think that there may be enough difference and unique sources to warrant two articles if we work on it. Can we take some time to explore the possibility of expanding the other article first? —Zujine|talk 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is either misnamed or it should be merged. If it is intended to be really about "Western support for Tibetan independence", there isn't enough content there to warrant a separate article, it can fit quite well into this article.
But at the moment at least, the article isn't about "Western support for Tibetan independence", it's about historical support by Western spy agencies for Tibetan "freedom fighters". "CIA activities in Tibet (1950-1970)" or "CIA and MI6 activities in Tibet (1950-1970)" would be more appropriate. I would imagine an article or section called "Western support for Tibetan independence" to cover both the historical guerilla activity and (more importantly) the substantial participation by US and European people, organisations and governments in the independence movement today. (The cause has become so fashionable in the West that you can barely spot a Tibetan in any "Free Tibet" event these days.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both articles are important and the activities of west should be highlighted in its separate article. No merge is needed. Passes GNG. Faizan 05:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename - see above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet support[edit]

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factions of Tibetan Independence movement[edit]

Here are some points which I think may benefit the article:

- There are multiple factions within the Tibet Independence movement. Basically there are followers of Rangzen (full independence) which is the position held by most of the Tibetan Youth Council, and middle way (autonomy but under China) advocated by Dalai Lama. In recent years noted Tibetan scholars such as Patrick French and Melvyn Goldstein have also been advocating some kind of middle way like compromise, citing the political reality of China's rise

- Section for Western Support of Tibet should also include US government funded (propaganda) outlets such as Voice of Asia (VoA), and NED. In fact, there was a large controversy involving VoA's president firing its Tibet Program Director end of last year. In this incident the Rangzen supporters argued that Prime Minister of Central Tibetan Administration Lobsang Sangay, himself a middleway supporter, conspired with VoA's president Libby Liu to fire the original program director.

- The recent "self-immolations" should be mentioned as the movement has been covered quite extensively by the media. While Chinese government blames the suicides on Dalai Lama, at least by the end of last year DL himself didn't advocate nor attempted to speak against the suicides. Tibetan Independence movement in general however has been using the suicides politically as examples of unhappy Tibetans in China. 122.248.128.50 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points there. My two cents (for anyone who is interested in incorporating these ideas into the article):
1. The "middle way" is not advocating "independence", so not really within the scope of the article. It seems to be adequately differentiated in the lead at least, maybe some more cross-references could be useful elsewhere.
2. The section for "Western support for Tibetan independence" is a bit misnamed. Infiltration of Tibet by spies is not support for independence, and most of the visible "support" these days come from celebrities (among whom the cause is fashionable) than from governments.
3. I don't know about the relevance of the self immolations to this article. All we can say about them is that they illustrate Tibetan unhappiness in China, that doesn't mean the self-immolators specifically or Tibetans in China generally are advocating independence. If the independence advocates are using them for an independence-related propaganda purpose, there needs to be a reliable citation. But if they are merely using them to illustrate the appalling human rights situation in China, that's not directly within the scope of this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly ambiguity in not only Tibet and independence, but even in this ITIM organization itself!
I corrected a reference here, on the Tibetan independence movement, and on the International Tibet Independence Movement article. Then I realized that there is a RangzenITIM at rangzen dot org and an ITIM at rangzen dot com. The website Rangzen dot com is owned and run by a non-profit 501(3)(c) organization in Indiana, and has a long established history, which is consistent with WP content. There is a list of board of directors and president. However, the website at rangzen dot org redirects to RangzenITIM, more specifically, to CircleTheBayForTibet: RangzenITIM - Who we are.
The only odd part is the fact that the same person, Benjamin Cox, is listed as the main contact at CircleTheBay, as well as at the Indiana organization! It would be okay if both existed separately, under different names in different states, run by different people. But if they are run by the same people, then it is unclear what the relationship is. Most important to me: Which one should be referenced in WP articles? So I made some changes, but hope that I have not caused further confusion here or on the International Tibet Independence Movement article. --FeralOink (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It seems that two articles share the same talk page, this one Tibetan independence movement and this one, International Tibet Independence Movement. I don't have a problem with that, but it is a little odd. Is it a mistake or by intent? --FeralOink (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legacy of a merger-and-move a few years ago. If you think it makes sense, please edit the redirect page to create a separate talk page for ITIM. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese bias[edit]

This article tends to put forward claims made by the Chinese without presenting the other points of views on the matter.

I picked up one obvious example, the statement about serfs, which I've qualified to make clear it is a claim made by the Chinese not universally accepted and with link to Serfdom in Tibet controversy. Article could do with more editing of this sort I think to make clear which of the various points are views put forward by the Chinese not accepted generally in the West, by Western scholars, or by the Tibetan dispora. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the various views, it should be made clear to the reader that some of the statements here are regarded as controversial. Robert Walker (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think too that this article looks too much pro china...93.37.203.84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've just corrected another very obvious and inaccurate statement - the previous summary of the 1998 article on CIA involvement had almost no points of resemblance with the NY Times story, except for the figures. As you can tell if you follow through the link. I've replaced it with a more accurate paraphrase. It is just a direct paraphrase of what the article itself says, not based on any other research. Robert Walker (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad map[edit]

This map appears to show a cultural-ethnic boundary of Tibet rather than political. [2] It shows Ladakh and Baltistan as part of Tibet when they were under British India's control and it shows Qinghai as part of Tibet, while the Qing in fact governed it separately as part of Gansu province at the time. The map appears to show where ethnic Tibetans live rather than the political boundaries of the Tibet region governed by the Dalai Lama. You need to find another map with demarcates only "Tibet proper" and not all areas where ethnic Tibetans live. Other errors on the map include showing Saigon and the Mekong Delta as part of Cambodia when it was conquered by the French from Vietnam at that time.Rajmaan (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajmaan, the map is not bad. The areas now in India were indeed a part of Tibet. Tibet was in existence well before a political entity called India. These areas should now be returned to Tibet. 86.182.43.181 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tibetan independence movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tibetan independence movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan territory in India, claim of independence from India?[edit]

Aren't there territories in India that belong to Tibetic or Tibetan peoples? Shouldn't the Independence Movement claim independence from India also? 109.156.178.186 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is easier to pick fights with the Chinese than with the Indians. The Chinese have been the whipping boy of the world for years, but they are standing up for themselves this time. 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:3CCB:98D4:C378:327A (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tibetan independence movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tibetan independence movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tibetan independence movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibetan_independence_movement&oldid=1214972781"