Talk:Tibet Autonomous Region/Archive 1

Archive 1

Xizang is alternate title, but use not described

Xizang redirects to this page, but it doesn't say at the top that Xizang is an alternate name for TAR. Does the region Chinese refer to as Xizang exactly correspond to TAR, or is it ever used (even historically) to mean the wider Tibetan region? I think if Xizang really is a synonym for TAR, that should be mentioned at the top. Otherwise it should redirect to its own page, or Tibet, or whatever. Francis Irving 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese language Pro-TI pages use "Xizang" to refer to all of Tibet: see Tibet#Name. In any case I've changed the redirect. -- ran (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The English name Tibet didnot equivalent with Xizang.KJ (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicities

Where do these ethnicity figures come from? Only 6% han seems rather low to me... --Josquius 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Published 2000 census figures. For more on Tibet's demographics, what people say about it, and the actual published numbers, see Tibet#Demographics. -- ran (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ran has inside information about the demographics. I guess he is the last to know that the chinese government has not published the real figures and are not to be trusted with any figures or statements about Tibet. People should be aware these articles are not at all neutral and should look for information on Tibet some place else. The poster "ran" has one sided manner of "contributing". Readers, beware!

I was not aware that published and publically available census data is considered "inside info". In any case, the data is sourced and it is your choice whether to believe in that source or not. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy, as many of our pro- and anti-Tibetan independence contributors have already done, to avoid making further inane comments such as the one above in the future. -- ran (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No mention has been made of the much higher Han Chinese to native Tibetan ratio within Lhasa and Shigatze. Comments have been added although I cannot find reliable figures to back up this truth. --Ratpup 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Xizang

Xizang redirects here. Shouldn't it go to Tibet instead? (Stefan2 14:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Is "Xīzàng" the ONLY Chinese transliteration of "Tibet", or just the PRC's politically correct term for it?

The article describes Xīzàng (literally, "Western Repository") as the transliteration of "Tibet" in Chinese Characters.

Is this accurate?

As I understand it, "Xīzàng", like Xīnjiāng (formerly, "Chinese Turkestan"), is one of the mainland Chinese government's revised --if not pejorative-- names designed to obfusgate the history of autonomous regions as ancestral homelands distinct from Han Chinese culture.

I'm not very acquainted with etymology of Pinyin versus the traditional (and less accurate) Wade-Giles romanization; so I'm probably mistaken. If I am, however, please explain how.

Prior to the Mao years, weren't words like "Ü-Tsang" and "Tǔbō" the preferred Chinese terms for "Tibet"?Pine 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, this is still important and relevant. In Chinese 土蕃 or 吐蕃, both pronounced as Tǔbō is considered a historical name for Tibet. The word 西藏 (Xīzàng - can roughly be described in English as See-dzahng or Shee-dzahng) is used for Tibet in general and as a short name for the autonomous region. From Chinese point of view, it's not political, just a Chinese name. Chinese names often don't match a foreign language name and may not match it phonetically or in meaning. --Atitarev (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Historyly, the Han name 西藏 was invented in Qing, was driven from 卫藏, small than today's TAR. The west name Tibet may be equal to 藏区.--刻意 14:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Issue?

This line doesn't strike me as being very NPOV:

China, debunking the assertions of American Hollywood liberals and neoconservatives claimed that they never invaded Tibet since Tibet was part of China in the first place.

Danarchy 10:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As NPOV as that line is, it does seem like the only hint at an explanation as to why the Chinese invaded Tibet. I assume that, regardless of their validity, there are historic as well as more practical reasons that lead up to annexing a sovereign nation. This is not currently covered in the article. -- MiG (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the word debunk is what makes it feel NPOV. How about countering?

China, contering the assertions of American Hollywood liberals and neoconservatives, claim (this should be present) that they never invaded Tibet since Tibet had been part of China in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Hollywood liberals and neoconservatives is inappropriate, should be toned down. Still, even a fully rewritten line isn't worth much without proper sourcing on this particular subject. I reckon this was the reason it was removed in the first place. -- MiG (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Placing the picutre of 'PRC military police in front of Potala Palace' here does not look quite NPOV, but rather like Western propaganda. Wouldn't simply a picture of Potala be more appropriate? In addition, as far as I know (might be wrong though), military police only deals with army personnel, having nothing to do with general public. Therefore their appearance in front of Potala might be purely incidental, rather than routine.Michael khan (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no objection, I'm deleting the picture. There is a Potala picture below, so I'm leaving this space blank, and any good picture (neutral) will be wellcome! Michael khan (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the TAR official website also available in Tibetan?

Hi, I was wondering whether there is also a Tibetan version of the TAR's official website (www.xizang.gov.cn). I would guess it should be just a click away from the main page, but somehow I could not figure it out. Yaan (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

History

"The Government of Tibet in Exile characterizes the area as an independent and sovereign nation, while the governments of the People's Republic of China."

This is not a complete sentence. Someone please fix. 122.27.250.213 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles of Chinese Constitution

I tried to change it, but it wasn't working for me. The correct article numbers in China's Constitution (referring to the autonomous regions) are 112-122, not 111-122. http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/05/content_20813.htm 128.148.5.83 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)JC

It is not that it didn't work for you. You got reverted twice, once by a bot and once by a registered user. Your edits looked like vandalism, the specific type of it being adding deliberate factual errors. As you have being kind enough to post in the talk page and put a source, I will look into it and make the edit if what you are saying is indeed in the source. Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating it. The problem was that when I tried to edit the page, the second half or so would not show up in the edit box. Thus the edited version of the page was chopped off halfway through. It seems that for each subsection there is a separate edit link, but not for the introduction, so I had to use the link to edit the whole page. 138.16.19.147 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)JC

Flag

Why is a flag (THE flag?) not used in this article? do subnational entities in China not have official flags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixer Fixer (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Chinese administrative divisions don't have flags. --Joowwww (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

How are any of those external links related to the Tibet Autonomous Region? It just seems like link spamming to me, and if they are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia at all then it's on the Tibet or Status of Tibet pages, not here. Per WP:EL and WP:SPAM, if there are no objections after a few days then I'll remove them. --Joowwww (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Free Tibet

Why is there nothing about the freedom movement in Tibet? I know China censor their internet, but this is ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.125.145 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this article isn't about the Tibet independence movement. --Joowwww (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the IP had a point. I've added a sentence about the Tibet independence movement to the history section to aid readers in navigating the topic. I tried to make it as generic as possible. If you could check it to see if it should be moved or amended, that would be good. --Gimme danger (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SVG Maps

I put up some new maps of the TAR, and hope that everyone is happy with them. One possible concern is that the TAR is takes up a smaller portion of the map than it did in the old map, so when shown as a thumbnail the prefectures are less clear. I think the fact that it is an SVG, that it has more detail, and that it shows the TAR in relationship with the surrounding areas more than makes up for this. But if other people have things they would like to see changed about it this would be a good place to leave a note.--Keithonearth (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

autonomous status similar to that held by Hong Kong?

I saw a few editors say this on the talk pages of a few articles related to Tibet and it is used on the this article Tibet Autonomous Region at the end of the introduction part. I am wondering if this is an original research? I do not disagree that the Dalai Lama seeks the Autonomous status of Tibet, but I am afraid it's not similar to that of Hong Kong. My feeling is that the conditions that the Dalai Lama listed for the government of the PRC, for accepting China's sovereignty over Tibet, is very much different from the functions of the government of China in Hong Kong. I would like to ask to see a reference for this. Otherwise, if other editors disagree with me, we can talk about the conditions listed on Dalai Lama's website and compare them with Hong Kong Basic Law, and discuss the similarities and differences between the role of the government of China in Hong Kong and the role of govt. of China in Tibet that proposed by the Dalai Lama . Chadsnook (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Xizang redirect

I'd appreciate input from someone who reads more Chinese than I do, but my impression is that "Xizang" is used with about the same range of meanings that "Tibet" is in English, i.e. some people use it more narrowly to mean something roughly equivalent to the former Lhasa state and the TAR, while others use it more broadly to mean the entire Tibetan cultural region. I would suggest that Xizang should not redirect to this article but should point to Tibet instead. I also note that the Chinese Wikipedia article equivalent of the Tibet article is titled "Xizang" (西藏) (it uses the same map that appears on the English Tibet article), while the article on the TAR has the full name "Xizang Zizhiqu" (西藏自治区).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The chinese char. 西藏, evented by Manchu, derive from 卫藏, history equal to today's TAR. When chinese say Xizang, and west say Tibet, They are say two different things.KJ (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain the Chinese Wikipedia article titles?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinese wikipedia article 西藏 was main restrict to the history of today's 西藏自治区.KJ (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The English article on Tibet also talks mainly about what is now the TAR. There's a lot more literature about that area / that's the history people tend to be interested in.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhoka or Shannan prefecture?

The Shannan prefecture page has been moved, without discussion, to Lhoka Prefecture. Neither the linking articles nor the Lhoka prefecture article itself acknowledge this apparent change of name of the prefecture. As in the Lhoka article almost exclusively refers to it as Shannan. This is obviously confusing, and just not good. I've started a discussion on the Lhoka Talk page, I think that would be a good place to discuss it or post an explanation to keep the discussion in one place. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1965 history

The history of TAR begins when the region was created in 1965 -- an explanation of how TAR evolved from PCART should obviously be included as well. There is currently an undue emphasis on CIA activity in the 1950s. Kauffner (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:WEIGHT applies here. The extended CIA material, which Kauffner correctly removed, was overdone and not relevant to the topic of the article. Bertport (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot remove the entire section ! CIA activities in Tibet are well known so it should be included in this article. Energy consumption 2 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The text in question is below. This material doesn't belong in this article since the key events took place before the TAR was founded and don't have anything directly to do with PCART. There are other problems, primarily that the facts are arranged tendentiously to imply that Tibetan resistance to the PRC is all a Western plot. In particular the sentence, "Tibetan exiles trained in a CIA camp in Colorado clashed with Chinese forces in 1959 during the celebration of the Tibetan New Year, after which the 14th Dalai Lama" is wrong. Khampas trained by the CIA had little if anything to do with the Lhasa uprising.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Western Government secret intervention into Tibet began before the 1959 CIA supported insurrection. British MI6 agent Sidney Wignall, in his recent autobiography, reveals that he travelled to Tibet with John Harrop in 1955 posing as mountaineers. Captured by the Chinese authority, Wignell recalled that he was surprised to find two CIA agents were already under Chinese detention. Tibetan exiles trained in a CIA camp in Colorado clashed with Chinese forces in 1959 during the celebration of the Tibetan New Year, after which the 14th Dalai Lama, with CIA help, went into political exile in India. After 1959, the CIA trained Tibetan guerrillas and provided funds and weapons for the fight against China. However, the effort stopped when Richard Nixon decided to seek rapprochement with China in the early 1970s. Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, in The CIA's Secret War in Tibet , reveal how the CIA encouraged Tibetan revolt against China — and eventually came to control its fledgling resistance movement. The New York Times reported on October 2, 1998 that the Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the CIA, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000. The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said.

Note that Energy consumption 2 has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. Bertport (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this OK? Kkkdddiii (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This article should be merged with Tibet

Tibet and the Tibet autonomous region are the same area of physical land and therefore they are the same place, just like Persia and Iran when I type Iran into the search box it redirects me to Iran because Iran and Persia are the same place.

Oppose MergerThe TAR and Tibet are not the same. Tibet's history dates back more than a millennium and includes regions that far outside of the modern TAR borders. The TAR was only created in the 1960s and only covers a geographically small area of Tibet and historically minuscule period of Tibetan history. The difference with Iran and Persia is that no one is disputing whether or not Iran or Persia are the same, where as the the idea of the TAR is a modern construct developed with the People's Republic of China and it is a highly contested notion. David Straub (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Merger, for the same reasons as David Straub above. This article talks about the presently existing administrative entity within its limited time frame and the within its oficially circumscribed geographic scope (not including the parts of the Tibetan Plateau and/or the "Tibetan cultural area" that are now within the Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, or Indian Ladakh). There is enough information in the main Tibet article as it is to justify having a separate article on the TAR (as well as on some of the past administrative entities in the region, such as Xikang). -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter if there're any disputes or not. Qinghai and other areas are culturally Tibetan but does that mean that for example Australia should be called Britain because it is culturally British, and should the Caribbean be called Africa because of their similar culture? Furthermore when people speak of Tibet they usually mean the TAR not Qinghai or Sichuan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.122.58 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The main article Tibet is already very large, so it summarizes material that is elaborated in separate articles devoted to subtopics. We certainly would not want to eliminate this article if it meant making Tibet larger than it already is. I think the constructive question is, what information belongs to Tibet Autonomous Region specifically? Probably some of the material in this article can be removed because it actually belongs to other subtopic articles. Bertport (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bertport's points above, but strongly oppose merger for the reasons already discussed by others. "Tibet" in my mind certainly includes a much larger territory than just the TAR. John Hill (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a question of whether "Tibet" and "Tibet Autonomous Region" refer to the same territory. They have different political, historical, and chronological meanings. It is true that "Tibet was first unified under King Songtsän Gampo in the 7th century," but it would be nonsense to say "Tibet Autonomous Region was first unified under King Songtsän Gampo in the 7th century." Bertport (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Merger: For the reasons above. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Partisan/nonpartisan links

Just a proposal...right now there are three subcategories of external links on this article: pro, con, and "apolitical." I would argue that while there may be overtones or even explicit agendas behind webpages addressing non-sovereignty issues like economics or environment or demography, it is a bit dubious to maintain links on those topics within the two "partisan" categories...Perhaps a "substantiality" criterion could separate which articles are purely political and which are primarily or substantially about a non-sovereingty issue, and break them out....I guess I'm just against too much polarization.--达伟 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an article about the province; it is not an article about the sovereignty or independence movements of Tibet (actually, independence supporters claim is larger than this province). If you look at the articles of the first two Chinese provinces in the bottom template list: Anhui and Fujian, you will see only two or three external links. The official provincial website, economic data by HKTDC, and a tourism/travel guide at Wikitravel. If we restrict the links to the standard, it will be apolitical. Splittist (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Transliteration

Can someone supply the Tibetan Pinyin transliteration of the name? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

List of prisons

In the "See also" section (which for the links there is a strong argument to be made that it should not exist), one of the links is List of prisons in Tibet Autonomous Region. For comparison, the other two links are China Tibetology Research Center and List of universities and colleges in Tibet. My contention, however, is with the prison link. Unlike the colleges and universities article, the prison list's relevance is not immediately apparent. Obviously, the connotation and implication with such prominent placement of that (rather poorly written) article is that the TAR is some kind of giant gulag. This is definitely not neutral, and is furthermore overly politicizing an article about an administrative district. I propose that the link to the list of prisons be removed. Splittist (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject is not neutral; it is our editing which should be neutral. NPOV editing contemplates appropriate presentation of all significant points of view, one of which, held by millions of people, is that Tibet is occupied by the Chinese and that patriotic Tibetans are imprisoned. Fred Talk 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you address Splittist's talking points. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

History section is unbalanced

I've tagged this for attention. Disproportionate attention to the Western intervention bit, versus the long history of Tibet -- please compare History of Tibet to Western Government secret intervention into Tibet. The latter should be shortened to a sentence or two, and the history of Tibet prior to 1912 should be summarized and added. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I won't accept all of what you propose, because this situation is analogous to the History section under the People's Republic of China —— "China", under various names, has long existed before the PRC, and so has Tibet in comparison to the Tibet AR. Moreover, the "see also" headers do serve the purpose of pointing to the history that you ask of. Yet, in light of this, I would not mind if a BRIEF summary of pre-British expedition history of Tibet were included.

And if I were you, I wouldn't tag the section as "NPOV" due solely to lack of balance; we need to take the words "point of view" literally here. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

People's Government

"The Tibet Autonomous Region is a province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman." OK, what is a "People's Government"? or more precisely, what is the form and nature of the government of the Tibet Autonomous Region? Particularly relevant would be any evidence of autonomy or lack thereof. Fred Talk 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

People's Government is one word, not a combination of two words.134.76.63.49 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question at hand. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record

Rename to Xizang Autonomous Region?

For more 'officialness'. Unlike the article on Tibet, this article is about Tibet under the PRC, so pinyin should be employed instead. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

but Tibet is, by far, the more common name English name for 西藏 (I shouldn't even have to pull up evidence to prove this). See WP:NCGN. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether "Tibet" or "Xizang" is the name in English, but whether "Tibet Autonomous Region" or "Xizang Autonomous Region" is the name in English. english.gov.cn seems to indicate the former. Quigley (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'Xi Zang'

An IP recently changed all the 'Tibet's in this article to 'Xi Zang'. I've changed all the Xi Zangs to Xizangs and fixed a few 'search and replace' errors. Feel free to revert the edits (inc. the IP's) if you feel it's wrong to do so. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly did not take the time to read my short reply to your query just above... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did. I didn't, however, want to change the IP's intentions, given my lack of experience in this type of articles, so I simply fixed the change instead. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan

Tibet borders Kashmir, and Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan, so, as far as disputes are concerned, Tibet does border Pakistan. More specifically, political Tibet borders Ladakh, which isn't what one typically thinks of when someone mentions Pakistan, although half the people there are Muslim.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan therefore Tibet borders Pakistan? I don't think this logic holds. Political Tibet has nothing to do with demographics of Ladakh, in India Muslims are legitimate citizens and border districts don't become automatically Pakistani!Thisthat2011 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This one specifically in reference to territorial disputes. I'm not sure whether Pakistan claims Aksai Chin or not.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is disputed, it does not already assumed as belonging to Pakistan. Your understanding gives no weight facts of the case presented and Indian views at all which is party of dispute!Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit that provoked Greg Pandatshang's comment focused on this area. It says now and said before my mistaken edit: "Does not include any area disputed with India or Pakistan". Quigley (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, I don't know what the change you want to see in the article is.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead should be balanced

According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". The lead should mention the background of the TAR, which is why I made this edit. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will reject it in full (and not consider it at all) so long as you include the word "independent". Apart from a brief mention of statistics, there is not one summary point from any of the non-historical sections. This lede should be similar to the on of the Tibet article in introducing life in the region, and ideally without any politicisation.

"Balanced" As in politically balanced? That you voted "politically motivated nom..." with such alarming alacrity in this AFD debate seriously casts doubt on your ability to maintain any neutrality (also inserting the word "independent") on PRC issues--HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tibet is an article about a geographic region, but this article is about a political region. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree on the "independent" issue, so I have removed it. And you should not remove the overview presented in the lead and stop edit warring. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)in

The Republic of China on Taiwan, which also claims the area of the Tibet autonomous region, is actually its own, sovereign state, doing actual governing- the Dalai Lama's government in exile is not- the ROC's claim matters more and should be in the lead.

the ROC considers the Tibet autonomous region area to be made out of Xikang province and Tibet province.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've strunk down the ROC's claim to a sentence, there's no need to go into too much detail about it, although I agree that Taiwan's claim is more relevant than the CTA's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems good and balanced now, and hopefully there should not be any more silly disputes on the lede, for now... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the ROC claim to the territory is very relevant at all, and it hasn't been since the early 1960s, when the Taiwan province authorities last plotted to actual take back control of the mainland. We might as well put a note about the ROC claim in the Mongolia article; the ROC claims both but governs neither. In fact, in that article, the current ROC claim is not mentioned anywhere in the article, let alone in the lede. The official ROC claim to these regions is a polite fiction, and they are not even at liberty to stop claiming them, since it would cause a political incident.

The existence of a politically active exile government seems much relevant, since they are actually interested in affecting Tibetan politics and have some degree of support inside Tibet. I don't know if it belongs in the lede, but it should be mentioned in the article somewhere.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The other good option is to remove both. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you mean from the lede, then I agree with that. As I said above, I think the Tibetan government-in-exile should be mentioned somewhere in the article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest including both somewhere it the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

CIA material

I removed a paragraph about CIA activity in Tibet in the 1950s. TAR was founded in 1965, so the history proper should begin then. Before 1965, it was called PCART and PCART to TAR was just a name change. So there needs to be some pre-1965 material, but it should focus on PCART. An article entitled "Tibet Autonomous Region" should not be roaming over Tibetan history in general. Kauffner (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a bit complicated. What was the area that is now the TAR called before 1965? PCTAR was the name of its governing body, not the name of the territory. The significant change that happened was the transition from the old Tibetan government's rule to CCP rule. I think the history information in this article should cover the history of Communist rule in Tibet.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Autonomy status

Can anybody provide reliable resources of what the current autonomy status of Tibet comprises? As far as I know there is some special economy increasing program and people from the rest of the mainland need a special permission to go to Tibet. What about special minority rights? MelchiorG (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all public file gov.cn. You may chose to disbelieve it all you lile, but that's where the source is. One example is that the one child policy does not apply. The fact that permission is needed is not a direct result of that region being autonomous, China has many autonomous regions in the western part for ethnic minorities. The reason why foreigners requires special permission to go out shouldn't be hard to guess once you consider how much the west wants Tibet to be separated from China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.69.214 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Tibet in China (all claimed).svg

The file (File:Tibet in China (all claimed).svg) used in the infobox shows only one POV. This version here (File:Tibet in China (undisputed + other de-facto hatched) (+all claims hatched).svg) presents the de-facto situation.

Hence I am proposing this replacement.

--Rvd4life (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Done: Per no opposition. --Rvd4life (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Excesive repetition of names and transliterations

The article currently has the English name, plus Chinese and Tibetan along with their transliterations in the opening sentence. It has it repeated again in the infobox settlement template and then repeated a third time in the infobox Chinese template. We really only need this once and WP:MOS-ZH says if you use the infobox Chinese template (which is prefered where there are multiple scripts and/or transliterations) that infobox Chinese alone is sufficient and the other occurrences can be removed. Rincewind42 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Education

What about education in Tibet. I am curious to get to know about it. I think we need such a paragraph.--A.Khamidullin (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Because this shamelessly biased article which serves nothing more than a brochure for the failed "Free Tibet" campaign designed by so-called humun rights groups tom undermine the Beijing Olympics. As the ringleaders do not know anything Tibet all they can write about is the periods between the British invasions of Tibet and the liberation of Tibet from feudalism which raged when the Chinese Government was too busy fending the invading Japanese off whilst fighting a domestic communist uprising. G_ary^{Talk to me} 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antalope (talk • contribs) G_ary^{Talk to me} 22:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Tibet Autonomous Region. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118095132/http://www.france24.com/en/20100115-leadership-shake-chinas-tibet-state-media to http://www.france24.com/en/20100115-leadership-shake-chinas-tibet-state-media
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805174810/http://www.stats.gov.cn/TJGB/RKPCGB/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16767.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16767.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914173158/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16768.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16768.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510075429/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16769.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16769.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619002216/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16772.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020404_16772.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829052024/http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020331_15435.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/t20020331_15435.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727021210/http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tibet.net/en/print.php?id=236&articletype=articale
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eng.tibet.cn/2010zj/xw/201411/t20141105_2088487.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eng.tibet.cn/2010wh/xw/201303/t20130313_1869432.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214214139/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/01/c_13378773.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/01/c_13378773.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215143150/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/12/content_12796690.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/12/content_12796690.htm

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) 18:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tibet Autonomous Region. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824153940/http://www.tew.org/geography/t2000.agricultural.html to http://www.tew.org/geography/t2000.agricultural.html

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) 02:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Even people coming to Tibet from Nepal

Why is that even worth a sentence? Mexicans can't just cross the border and enter the US without permission either despite Mexico bording the US. --2001:16B8:310F:500:60A8:AA9A:7D6E:272D (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Text removed but not for this reason. The permit is highly restrictive and not analogous to visa requirements imposed worldwide on travel. sirlanz 03:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

What does "Xizang Zizhiqu" literally mean. I know "Xizang" means Tibet. What does "Zizhiqu" mean? Autonomous region, or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltpohl (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 March 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "Zizhiqu" means "autonomous region". "Zizhi" means autonomous, and "Qu" means region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.96.253 (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2004 (UTC)

("zi" = "self", "zhi" = "govern") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.130.214 (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

Suzerainty or Sovereignty

A number of older encyclopedias refer to China's sovereignty but in recent years the "West" has only been referring to "suzerainty", or the de facto government suggesting oppression and occupation. Why has this changed?

Yet the agreements signed between China and Britain respected China's sovereignty such that China paid a fee for the British to leave. Why would China pay for "suzerainty"? Why would the British accept Chinese rule? What business is it of the colonialist British? How can a religious leader, the Dhali Lama (meaning Ocean Guru) run an administrative government? Why do the British and Americans have bogus human rights groups attacking territories and countries on China's borders such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Korea etc.? Why can't they go back to Schleswig Holstein where, presumably, they belong?

Encyclopedias that have not been lost down an Orwellian "memory hole" include:

The 1994 New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia which states, "Treaties (1906, 1907) between China and Great Britain recognized China's sovereignty over Tibet."

Infopedia similarly states "sovereignty" and not "suzerainty" in two separate entries on Tibet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.37.243 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What to use at the top of the box

There are two possibilities. One is Pö Rangyongjong, which seems to be an ad hoc transcription of Lhasa pronunciation. The other is Bod-rang-skyong-ljongs, which is the Wylie tranliteration, a letter-by-letter transliteration of the Tibetan original.

Now, for cases like Shigatse (Gzhis-ka-rtse), there is a very good reason to use the ad hoc system: because that's how it appears in the English language. Various texts online are more likely to refer to Shigatse as "Shigatse" rather than "Gzhis-ka-rtse".

But this is not true for "Bod-rang-skyong-ljongs". In English, the region is called "Tibet Autonomous Region", not "Pö Rangyongjong". When we want to give a Romanization of the Tibetan version, the best system to use is one that is already established, i.e. Wylie.

An analogy for this is to improvise a new system for the Chinese "Sheetzang Tzejechew" instead of using Pinyin "Xizang Zizhiqu", and justifying this with a few isolated exceptions like Hong Kong and Sun Tzu which do not use Pinyin. -- ran (talk) July 1, 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Although Wylie is established, it appears to be used mostly by historians and professors, from what I can see. And although with Pö Rangyongjong, there is no "system" to it, it is what most people use. --Hottentot

But what is "Pö Rangyongjong"? It's not "Shigatse" or "Milarepa", which appear as the usual forms in the English language. But who uses "Pö Rangyongjong"? Googling "Pö Rangyongjong -Wikipedia" gives a total of 8 links, which are all Wikipedia copies anyway; searching for "bod rang skyong ljongs" gives a small collection of academic links, which, though modest, is slightly better. The truth is, no one uses "Pö Rangyongjong", except us.

Now, if we want to show Lhasa pronunciation, either use the Tournadre system (we can ask Nathan Hill), or IPA (we can also ask Nathan Hill). But forget "Pö Rangyongjong". -- ran (talk) July 1, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Ooooh, I see what you're saying, all the Google hits for "Pö Rangyongjong" are taken form Wikipedia. It appears that the person who added that was User:Chiramabi, but that doesn't really matter. --Hottentot

Semi-protection

This page has to be semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.45.148 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dispute about human rights?

@Siddsg, CaradhrasAiguo, and Horse Eye Jack: I don’t know what the dispute is about, but I see a lot of back-and-forth reverts about multiple portions of content. Could you please discuss it here? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

5 reverts in a row means its at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell we’ve addressed the source concern already (Central Tibetan Administration has been removed) and porting over the paragraphs from the other article was a good start. We should be able to trim the parts that aren’t relevant to this page and expand the parts that are. Thanks for starting the talk page discussion, if only that had happened after the original revert this problem could have been solved before either of us got involved. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations without referents

Some of the citations contain surnames and year of publishing, but there is nowhere in the article that actually shows which works these citations refer to. Citations 6-8 are examples that immediately stand out. Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That happens when people carelessly copy-and-paste content from other pages. But if you search for the citation in the search box, you might be able to find them. I have found the three citations you mentioned. I would appreciate if you can let us know whether they support the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously, it wouldn't. It was a POV edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)