Tibet flag case is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You have a similar editor to Pbsavon, so I do not trust you. Please add reference, because the reference is more credit than you.--Tr56tr (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Whether in the Tibet Post International - a nationalist outlet - or in the Huffington Post, there is no occurrence of the phrase "China's occupation of Tibet" which you insist on keeping. If someone is to provide a reference, it's you. --Elnon (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it didn't even occur to me that "occupation" might be a controversial description. I hope I haven't sparked any contention.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
