This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
Where do these ethnicity figures come from? Only 6% han seems rather low to me... --Josquius 13:53, 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!
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 redirects here. Shouldn't it go to Tibet instead? (Stefan2 14:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Western Government secret intervention into Tibet began before the 1959 CIA supported insurrection. British MI6 agent Sidney Wignall, in his recent autobiography, [1] 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 [2], 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.[3][4]
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.
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)
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)
Can someone supply the Tibetan Pinyin transliteration of the name? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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'd suggest including both somewhere it the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. GaryTalk to me 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antalope (talk • contribs) GaryTalk to me 22:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
((dead link))
tag to http://eng.tibet.cn/2010zj/xw/201411/t20141105_2088487.html((dead link))
tag to http://eng.tibet.cn/2010wh/xw/201303/t20130313_1869432.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page has to be semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.45.148 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@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? — MarkH21talk 19:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)