I’m not advocating for either side. I’m presenting the Tibetan side as one groups’ position. I’m not a member of that group, nor do I argue on their behalf.
You are the interlocutor making claims that need proof; namely you take a stance and then demand others justify their own stance if it differs from your own.
I’ve asked repeatedly for you to link just one primary source for your claims. We’re all still waiting?
In any case - cool, if you are not advocating one side’s position as absolute and unquestionable truth, then the sources I’ve provided give the plural you pretty good idea how it looks like from the other side, as well as views in between. All is well then.
Because you wouldn't read them anyway. If you were interested in sources, they were one click away. The fact that you didn't even try proves your intentions.
You never provided any sources. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source of any kind. Each article on Wikipedia cites its sources at the bottom of the article. Why don't you select a proper primary source, possibly even one cited from Wikipedia, and argue for it. Otherwise, you're only convincing yourself. You are arguing with positions I never made, using sources you never cited. I'm okay leaving things here if you are.
You are the interlocutor making claims that need proof; namely you take a stance and then demand others justify their own stance if it differs from your own.
I’ve asked repeatedly for you to link just one primary source for your claims. We’re all still waiting?