Talk:Tibet Autonomous Region

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Tibet Autonomous Region is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Tibet. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Xizang

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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