:''This article is on Historic Tibet. "Tibet" can also refer to the Tibet Autonomous Region.'' {| align=right | colspan=7 | |- | width=10px height=15px bgcolor=#ff4040 | | width=10px bgcolor=#ff9f40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | Historic Tibet as claimed by Tibetan exile groups |- | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#ff9f40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ffff | | width=10px | | Tibetan areas designated by the People's Republic of China |- | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px | | width=10px | | Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control) |- | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px | | width=10px | | Claimed by India as part of Aksai Chin |- | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ffff | | width=10px | | Claimed by PRC as part of Tibet Autonomous Region |- | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#ff9f40 align=center| ? | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ffff | | width=10px bgcolor=#4040ff | | Historic Tibet commonly claimed by Chinese nationalists |} Tibet (Tibetan language: བོད་, ''Bod'', pronounced ''p'' in Lhasa dialect; Chinese language: 西藏, pinyin: ''Xizang'') is a region and formerly independent country in Central Asia and the home of the Tibetan people, the majority of which is controlled by the People's Republic of China (PRC). With an average elevation of 4,900 m (16,000 ft), it is often called the 'Roof of the World'. When Tibetans and the Tibetan government in exile refer to Tibet, they mean a large area that formed the cultural entity of Tibet for many centuries, consisting of the traditional provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang, but excluding the present-day Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, or other culturally related areas like Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ladakh. When the PRC refer to Tibet, they mean the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) which, according to the territorial claims of the PRC, includes Arunachal Pradesh; some Chinese nationalists may also add Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ladakh. The TAR covers the former -Tsang province and western Kham province, while other traditionally Tibetan areas have been incorporated into the present-day Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan, and Sichuan. Lhasa is Tibet's traditional capital and the capital of Tibet Autonomous Region. Other cities in Greater Tibet include Shigatse, Gyangtse, Qamdo, Jyekundo, Dartsedo, Golmud, Lhatse, Maqin, Pelbar, Sakya (Sa-skya) and Tingri. == Name == The English word ''Tibet'' like the word for Tibet in most European languages, ultimately derives (via Arabic language and Persian language) from a Turkic word ''Tbd'' (pl. ''Tbn'') meaning "the heights". (Behr, W. Oriens 34 (1994): 557-564.) The Middle Chinese word for Tibet, ''tufan'' has the same origin. Tibetans call their homeland ''Bod'' (བོད་), pronounced ''p'' in Lhasa dialect. It is first attested in the geography of Ptolemy as βαται (batai) and in Chinese texts as fa (Beckwith, C. U. of Indiana Diss. 1977). They refer to a fatherland, rather than a motherland as does India. The Chinese name for Tibet, 西藏 (Xīzng), is a phonetic transliteration derived from -Tsang, in use since the 18th century. The Chinese character 藏 (zng) is also used to describe Tibetan things such as the Tibetan language (藏文, zng wn) and the Tibetan people (藏族, zng z). The two characters of Xīzng can literally mean "western storehouse", which many Tibetans find offensive. However, the offending character, "zng", can also mean "treasure" or "Buddhist scripture". In addition, Chinese transliterations of non-Chinese names do not necessarily take into account the literal meanings of words; usually a positive or neutral connotation combined with phonetic similarity is enough for the transliteration to come into use. == Status == [[Image:Flag of Tibet.gif|thumb|right|275px|Flag of Tibet before 1950. This version was introduced by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1912. It continues to be used by the Government of Tibet in Exile, and as such is banned in the PRC as a symbol of separatism.]] While there is little dispute that Tibet was once an independent country, there is intense dispute over the legitimacy of the PRC's rule over Tibet today. Since 1959 the former government of Tibet, led by the Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, has maintained a Government of Tibet in Exile at Dharamsala, in northern India. It claims sovereignty over Tibet, with borders defined as the entirety of what it terms "Historic Tibet", although it controlled only about half of that area before 1959. The Government of Tibet claims Tibet to be a distinct nation independent before conquest by the Mongol Empire (Yuan Dynasty) 700 years ago; between the fall of the Mongol Empire and conquest by the Manchu Empire (Qing Dynasty); and again after the fall of the Manchu Empire in 1912 and incorporation into the PRC in 1951. As such, it views subsequent Chinese rule in Tibet as colonial and illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in gross violation of the right of Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to the autocratic and divide and rule policies imposed by the PRC, as well as what it claims to be assimilationist policies of the PRC, regarding those as an example of Chinese imperialism bent at destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. On the other hand, the PRC claims to rule Tibet legitimately, by claiming that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China ''de jure'' since Mongol (Yuan) conquest 700 years ago. The PRC contends that all subsequent Chinese governments onwards up till the PRC to have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising ''de jure'' sovereignty and some level of ''de facto'' power over Tibet in accordance with the succession of states theory, despite periods of autonomy, such as between 1912 and 1951. For example, Tibetan delegates were present in 1947 in Nanjing to take part in the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic of China, and no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition during that period. Moreover, China considers all movements aimed at ending Chinese suzerainty in Tibet, starting with British attempts in the late 19th century and early 20th century, to the Government of Tibet in Exile today, as one long campaign abetted by malicious Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese integrity and sovereignty, thereby weakening China's position in the world. The PRC also points to the autocratic and theocracy policies of the government of Tibet before 1959, as well as its renunciation of Arunachal Pradesh, and as such claims the Government of Tibet in Exile has no moral legitimacy to govern Tibet. == History of Tibet == :''Main articles: History of Tibet and Foreign relations of Tibet'' Little is known of Tibet before the 7th century, though the Tibetan language is widely reckoned to be related to the Tibeto-Burman languages and by some to Chinese language as well. According a legend in 14th century Mani Bka' 'bum, the Tibetans are descended from the union of a monkey and a rock ogress. The monkey was an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara (Spyan ras gzigs in Tibetan, pronounced Cenrezik), the Buddha of compassion, and the ogress an incarnation of Tara ('Grol ma in Tibetan, pronounced Drolma). Tibet was a strong empire between the 7th and 10th century. The distinctive form of Tibetan society, in which land was divided into three different types of holding - estates of noble families, freeheld lands and estates held by monasteries of particular Tibetan Buddhists sects - arose after the weakening of the Tibetan kings in the 10th century. This form of society was to continue into the 1950s, at which time more than 700,000 of the country's population of 1.25 million were landed peasants. [[Image:Potala Palace PD.jpg|framed|The Potala Palace in Lhasa]] In the 13th century Tibet was incorporated into the Mongolian empire. The Mongol rulers granted secular leadership of Tibet to the Sa-skya school of Tibetan Buddhism. There followed an interregnum period in which there were three secular dynasties. There followed an interregnum period in which there were three secular dynasties. The Mongols again invaded at the start of the 16th century, declaring the remaining religious lineage, that of the Dalai Lamas, to be the official government. By the early 18th century China established the right to have resident commissioners, called ''amban'', in Lhasa. When the Tibetans rebelled against the Chinese in 1750 and killed the amban, a Chinese army entered the country and installed new amban, but the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before. In 1904 the British sent a largely India military force and seized Lhasa, forcing Tibet to open a border crossing with British Raj. A 1906 treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a ''de facto'' British protectorate. There was also a Foreign relations of Nepal mission in Lhasa remaining from a similar invasion by Nepal in 1855. After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910. It was not to last long, however, as Chinese troops had to withdraw to their homeland to fight in the 1911 Revolution, giving the Dalai Lama the opportunity to re-establish control. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913) proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China. The subsequent outbreak of World War I and Chinese Civil War caused the Western powers and China to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed. At that time the government of Tibet controlled all of U-Tsang and western Kham, roughly coincident with the borders of Tibet Autonomous Region today. Eastern Kham, separated by the Yangtze River was under the control of Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui. The situation in Amdo (Qinghai) was more complicated, with the Xining area controlled by ethnic Hui people warlord Ma Bufang, who constantly strove to exert control over the rest of Amdo (Qinghai). Neither the Nationalist government of the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet, crushing the largely ceremonial Tibetan army and destroying as many as 6,000 Tibetan temples. In 1951 the Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, a treaty signed under Chinese pressure by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority. Most of the population of Tibet at that time were peasants, working lands owned by the estate holders. Any attempt at land reform or the redistribution of wealth would have proved unpopular with the government. This agreement was initially put into effect in Tibet proper. However, Eastern Kham and Amdo were outside the administration of the government of Tibet, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province with land reform implemented in full. As a result, a rebellion broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June of 1956. The rebellion, supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was crushed by 1959, during which campaign tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1969. Although he remained a virtual prisoner, the Chinese set the Panchen Lama as a figurehead in Lhasa, claiming that he headed the legitimate Government of Tibet in the absence of the Dalai Lama, the traditional head of government. In 1965, the area that had been under the control of the Dalai Lama's government from the 1910s to 1959 (U-Tsang and western Kham) was set up as an Autonomous region. The monastic estates were broken up and secular education introduced. During the Cultural Revolution Red Guards inflicted a campaign of organized vandalism against cultural sites in the entire PRC, including Tibet's Buddhist heritage. Of the several thousand monasteries in Tibet, only a handful remained without major damage, and thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were killed or imprisoned. The number of military and civilian Tibetans that have died in the Great Leap Forward, violence, or other unnatural causes since 1950 is often quoted at approximately 1.2 million, which the Chinese Communist Party vehemently denies. According to Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, the estimate is not reliable because the Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. There were, however, many casualties, perhaps as many as 400,000. This figure is extrapolated from a calculation Warren W. Smith made from census reports of Tibet which show 200,000 "missing" from Tibet. Even ''The Black Book of Communism'' expresses doubt at the 1.2 million figure, but does note that according to Chinese census there was a population of 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964 in Tibet proper. It is reported that when Hu Yaobang, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, visited Lhasa in 1980 he cried in shame when he viewed the misery and described the situation as "colonialism pure and simple". Reforms were instituted, and since then Chinese policy in Tibet has veered between tolerance and repression. Most religious freedoms have been officially restored, but monks and nuns are still sometimes imprisoned, and thousands of able-bodied Tibetans continue to flee Tibet yearly. The government of Tibet claims that millions of Chinese immigrants to the TAR are diluting the Tibetans both culturally and through intermarriage. Exile groups say that despite recent attempts to restore the appearance of original Tibetan culture to attract tourism, the traditional Tibetan way of life is now irrevocably changed. The government of the PRC rejects these claims, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts, as well as public infrastructure projects aimed at improving the lives of Tibetans, and say that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. == Geography == :''Main article: Geography of Tibet'' Tibet is located on the Tibetan Plateau, the world's highest region. Most of the Himalaya mountain range lies within Tibet. Its most famous peak, Mount Everest, is on Nepal's border with Tibet. The atmosphere is severely dry nine months of the year. Western passes receive small amounts of fresh snow each year but remain traversable year round. Low temperatures are prevalent throughout these western regions, where bleak desolation is unrelieved by any vegetation beyond the size of low bushes, and where wind sweeps unchecked across vast expanses of arid plain. The Indian monsoon exerts some influence on eastern Tibet. Northern Tibet is subject to high temperatures in summer and intense cold in winter. Historic Tibet consists of several regions: * Amdo (a'mdo) in the northeast, incorporated by China into the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan. * Kham (khams) in the east, part of Sichuan, northern Yunnan and part of Qinghai. ** Western Kham, part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region * U (dbus), in the center, part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region * Tsang (gtsang) in the west, part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region Tibetan cultural influences extend to the neighboring states of Bhutan, Nepal, adjacent regions of India such as Sikkim and Ladakh, and adjacent provinces of China where Tibetan Buddhism is the predominant religion. Several majors rivers have their source in Tibet, including: * Yangtze River * Huang He (Yellow River) * Indus River * Mekong * Brahmaputra * Ganges == Economy == The Tibetan economy is dominated by subsistence agriculture. Due to limited arable land, livestock raising is the primary occupation. In recent years, tourism has become an increasingly important sector, and is actively promoted by the authorities. The Qingzang Railway is being built to link the region with China proper. == Demographics == :Image:China_ethnolinguistic_1967.jpg,_which_includes_a_key)">Image:Tibet ethnolinguistic 1967.png|right|thumb|300px|Ethnolinguistic Groups of Tibet, 1967 (:Image:China ethnolinguistic 1967.jpg, which includes a key) Historically, the population of Tibet consisted of primarily ethnic Tibetan people. Other ethnic groups in Tibet include Menba, Lhoba, Mongols and Hui Chinese. The issue of the proportion of the Han Chinese population in Tibet is a politically sensitive one. Between the 1960s and 1980s, many prisoners (over 1 million, according to Harry Wu) were sent to laogai camps in Amdo (Qinghai), where they were then employed locally after release. Since the 1980s, increasing economic liberalization and internal mobility has also resulted in the influx of many Han Chinese into Tibet for work or settlement, though the actual number of this floating population remains disputed. The Government of Tibet in Exile gives the number of non-Tibetans in Tibet as 7.5 million (as opposed to 6 million Tibetans), and considers this the result of an active policy of demographically swamping the Tibetan people and further diminishing any chances of Tibetan political independence, and as such in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1946 that prohibits settlement by occupying powers. The Government of Tibet in Exile also doubts all statistics given by the PRC government, since they do not generally include members of the People's Liberation Army garrisoned in Tibet, or the floating population of unregistered migrants. The Qingzang Railway is also a major concern, as it is believed to further facilitate the influx of migrants. However, the PRC government does not view itself as an occupying power and has vehemently denied allegations of demographic swamping. The PRC also does not recognize the borders of Tibet as claimed by the government of Tibet in Exile, saying that it includes historically non-Tibetan areas populated by non-Tibetans for generations (such as the Xining area), making the figure of 7.5 million vs. 6 million flawed. PRC statistics state that 92% of the population in Tibet Autonomous Region is ethnic Tibetan, though this proportion is significantly lower than those given for Amdo and eastern Kham, as Han Chinese are not evenly distributed all over historic Tibet. In the TAR itself, much of the Han Chinese population is to be found in the capital. Population control policies like the one-child policy only apply to Han Chinese, not to minorities such as Tibetans. The PRC says that it is dedicated to the protection of traditional Tibetan culture; it also groups the Qingzang Railway, renovation work at the Potala Palace, and other projects as part of a costly but benevolent effort by the wealthier, eastern half of China to aid the poorer, western regions. == Culture == :''See also Tibetan art, Tibetan rug, Tibetan calendar.'' Tibet is the traditional center of Tibetan Buddhism, a distinctive form of Vajrayana. Tibetan Buddhism is not only practiced in Tibet; it is also the prevalent religion in Mongolia. Tibet is also home for the original spiritual tradition called Bn (also spelled Bon). Various dialects of the Tibetan language are spoken across the country. Tibetan is written using the Tibetan script. In Tibetan cities, there are also small communities of Tibetan Muslim, known as Kache, who trace their origin from immigrants from three main regions: Kashmir (kachee yul), Ladakh and Nepal. Islamic influence in Tibet also came from Persia and Turkestan. There is also a well established Chinese Muslim community (gya kachee) tracing its ancestry back to the Hui ethnic group of China. It is said that Muslim migrants from Kashmir and Ladakh first entered Tibet around the 12th century. Gradually, marriages and social interaction led to an increase in the population until a sizable community grew up around Lhasa. The Potala Palace, former residence of the Dalai Lamas, is a World Heritage Site. == Further reading & media == * Dowman, Keith (1988). ''The Power-Places of Central Tibet: The Pilgrim's Guide.'' Routledge & Kegan Paul. London, ISBN 0710213700. New York, ISBN 0140191186. * Shakya, Tsering (1999). ''The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947.'' Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231118147. * Pachen, Ani; Donnely, Adelaide (2000). ''Sorrow Mountain: The Journey of a Tibetan Warrior Nun.'' Kodansha America, Inc. ISBN 1568362943. * Goldstein, Melvyn C.; with the help of Gelek Rimpche. ''A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State.'' Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers (1993), ISBN 8121505828. University of California (1991), ISBN 0520075900. * Grunfield, Tom (1996). ''The Making of Modern Tibet.'' ISBN 1563247135. * Schell, Orville (2000). ''Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood.'' Henry Holt. ISBN 0805043810. * Thurman, Robert (2002). ''Robert Thurman on Tibet.'' DVD. ASIN B00005Y722. * Wilby, Sorrel (1988). ''Journey Across Tibet: A Young Woman's 1900-Mile Trek Across the Rooftop of the World.'' Contemporary Books. ISBN 0809246082. * Wilson, Brandon (2004). ''Yak Butter Blues: A Tibetan Trek of Faith.'' Heliographica. An Imprint of Pilgrim's Tales. ISBN 1933037237, ISBN 1933037245. * Norbu, Thubten Jigme; Turnbull, Colin (1968). ''Tibet: Its History, Religion and People.'' Reprint: Penguin Books (1987). * Stein, R. A. (1962). ''Tibetan Civilization.'' First published in French; English translation by J. E. Stapelton Driver. Reprint: Stanford University Press (with minor revisions from 1977 Faber & Faber edition), 1995. ISBN 0804708061. == See also == * variste Rgis Huc (Abb Huc) visited Tibet in 1845-1846, and wrote his observations in ''Souvenirs d'un voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet, et la Chine pendant les annes 1844-1846''. * Francis Younghusband led a punitive military expedition to Tibet in 1904. * Alexandra David-Neel visited Lhasa in 1924, and wrote several books about the country and its culture. * List of not fully sovereign nations == External links == === Pro-independence === * [http://www.tibet.com/ The Government of Tibet in exile] * [http://www.tibet.net/ Central Tibetan Administration (Government in Exile)] * [http://www.betterworldlinks.org/tibet.htm Better World Links on Tibet] — biggest link collection on Tibet * [http://www.tibet.org/ Tibet Online - Tibet Support Group] * [http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/china/document.do?id=B0641B4B43873B66802569A600601F21 Repression in Tibet, 1987 - 1992] * [http://www.kinaboykot.dk/video.htm Repression in Tibet] * [http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/ Students for a Free Tibet] * [http://www.freetibet.org/ Free Tibet website] * [http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVL-TibetanStudies.html Tibetan Studies WWW Virtual Library] * [http://www.archive.org/download/tibet_gnn/tibet_bb.mov ''Faith in Exile''] - A video by the Guerrilla News Network * [http://www.olympicwatch.org/topics.php?id=10 Olympic Watch] (Committee for the 2008 Olympic Games in a Free and Democratic Country) on Tibet-related issues * [http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/50602/ Freedom of expression violations in Tibet] *[http://www.tibet.ca/ Canada Tibet Committee] === Pro-PRC === * [http://www.tibetonline.net/ Tibet Online] (Simplified Chinese) * [http://www.utibet.edu.cn/ Tibet University] (Simplified Chinese) * [http://www.tibettour.org/chinatibettoursite/moban/index.asp Tibet Tour (Tibet Tourism Bureau Official Site)] * [http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/zgxz/default.htm PRC Government Tibet information] * [http://www.chinatibetnews.com/BIG5/channel19/155/200212/16/5475.html Naming of Tibet] (Simplified Chinese) * [http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html China, Tibet and the Chinese nation] * [http://www.tibetinfor.com.cn/english/ China Tibet Information Center] * [http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20011108/index.htm Chinese government white paper, "Tibet's March Toward Modernization"] (2001) * [http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/ Chinese government white paper "Tibet -- Its Ownership And Human Rights Situation"] (1992) * [http://english.people.com.cn/whitepaper/tbpaper/tb.html White Paper on Ecological Improvement and Environmental Protection in Tibet] * [http://english.people.com.cn/features/tibetpaper/tibet.html White Paper on Tibetan Culture and Homayk] * [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/23/content_333030.htm Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet] (May 2004) === Others === * [http://www.haiweitrails.com/timeline_tibet.htm Haiwei Trails - Timeline of Tibet] * [http://perso.wanadoo.fr/tibetmap/p28.html Photographs] * [http://perso.wanadoo.fr/tibetmap/mapbr1.html Maps] * [http://www.tibetmap.com/ The Tibet Map Institute] * [http://www.accesstibettour.com/tibet-map.html Tibet Maps] * [http://www.tibettravel.cn Tibet Travel Service] * [http://www.tibet.freeserve.co.uk/ Beefy's Nepal and Tibet Page] - photos and information on Tibet (and Nepal) * [http://www.tibetsupport.org/ Tibetan Support Programme] * [http://www.cwru.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/Impact_China_Reform_Policy.htm The Impact of China's Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet by Melvyn C. Goldstein and Cynthia M. Beall] - An examination of the impact of China's post-1980 Tibet policy on a traditional nomadic area of Tibet's Changtang (Northern Plateau) about 300 miles west-north-west of Lhasa in Phala Xiang, Ngamring county. * [http://www.yakbutterblues.com/TibetFacesExtinction Yak Butter Blues-Tibet Faces Extinction] - Tibet's struggle to survive, as witnessed by author Brandon Wilson, during a 1000 km trek from Lhasa to Kathmandu in 1992; detailed in the non-fiction book Yak Butter Blues: A Tibetan Trek of Faith Disputed territories Himalayas Tibet bo:བོད་ br:Tibet gd:Tibet hi:तिब्बत ka:ტიბეტი
== Removal of two bibliographic items == French's Golden Yoke is a really bad book, and contains basically no facutal or accurate information on the premodern Tibetan legal tradition. Please see Leonard van der Kuijp's review in the Central Asiatic Journal. 1999. "The Yoke is on the Reader: A Recent Study of Tibetan Jurisprudence." Central Asiatic Journal 43/2: 266-292. A better source for the Tibetan legal tradition would be Schuh, D. (1984), "Recht und Gesetz in Tibet," Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, ommemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Csoma de Koros, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado), 291-311. or citations in van der Kuijp's review. I have also removed the Yeshede project for the same reasons, a better study of early Tibetan history is of course Beckwith's ''The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia'', Princeton. I have not however added these to the bibliography, because I think it inappropriate that an encyclopedia article have a long bibliography. == Tibet and the Mongols == I don't know who spread the rumour that Cinngis Qaghan (aka. Gengis Khan) invaded Tibet. He did not. Anyone interested in Tibeto-Mongol relations I commend Luciano Petechs Book ''Central Tibet and the Mongols'' to. --Nathan Hill 16:42, 23 May 2005. == History of the Name Tibet == There is nothing quite so frustrating as having many hours of work which is factual and unbiased being deleted by someone who gives no explanation. The section on the name I have cited twice, if someone disagrees with it please tell me why and do not simply delete it. --Nathan hill 14:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == Origin of the Tibetan Script == I have removed mention to the Tibetan script being invented in order to translate buddist texts, because this is probably not the case. The oldest documents in Tibetan are administrative these include the wood-slips on Turfan, the Old Tibetan Annals, and various stone inscriptions. Most of thse (and all of the oldest) make no mention of Buddhism. The story of Tumi Sambhota is incidentally false. These matters have been well studied by Roy Andrew Miller, Rona-Tas, Geza Uray, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi. --Nathan Hill 16:60, 23 May 2005. I distinctly remember reading somewhere that a part of the north-east of Tibet had been split off into other P.R.China provinces, so it's probably true. Btw, could someone shrink that map image? It takes forever to load :) :Yeah. TAR is mere the former domain of the Dalai Lama, half of whole Tibet. See [http://www.tibet.com/map.gif]. -- User:Nanshu 12:27 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC) ---- == Multingual translations == The various names, spellings, and transliterations of "Tibet" need to be tidied up a bit. It looks like there's at least one typo there too. I've split the names from the first paragraph because it was getting too hard to read. User:Hippietrail 12:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) : Yes, that multingual list is a bit unreadable, but it looks worse to have two bolded titles, bolded titles. I have made it into a list (~ Yanbian). Fix it if there's any mistakes. --User:Menchi (User talk:Menchi) 12:54, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- The map on the page seems not to have the government-in-exile's borders. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang :Methinks the borders of the government-in-exile are pre-1950 Tibet's borders. At least, their claimed borders. (They don't actually claim any territory in Dharamsala) -- User:Xiaopo 18:42, Jan 22, 2004 (PDT) ==Tibet v. TAR== This should be merged with Tibetan Autonomous Region. The claim that exiled populations can be called part of Tibet is bogus. We'll recognize this claim, but there's no need to create 2 separate articles on the same land. (The part of "Tibet" not in the autonomous region can be mentioned too. It's too negligible to deserve a separate article.) --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 23:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Discussion of a larger region should belong in Tibetan Plateau. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang No. Many scholars use Tibet in Tibetans' sense. --User:Nanshu 02:40, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) :What is the "Tibetans" sense? The listing of the regions refer to the entire Plateau. All other prominent encyclopedias and common usage refers to the the AR. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:44, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) "Tibet" and "Tibetan Plateau" aren't synonymous. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang Of course they are, what should it be then? Historic Tibet is on the "Tibetan Plateau" like you can see on old maps! The "TAR" is only the southern part of the plateau, because the northern and western parts have been entirely encorporated into "PRC". No part of China or Mongolia or East Turkestan were on the plateau. User:Umrao When scholars (espacially historians) refer use "Tibet", it does not refer to the TAR but Tibet as the Tibetans refer to. I wonder why you are sensitive about the PRC-ROC issue but not about the Tibet-TAR one. --User:Nanshu 03:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, and the World Book must all not be written by historians then. WB states, "The Tibet Autonomous Region of China has an area of 471,662 square miles (1,221,600 square kilometers). Prior to the Chinese take-over, Tibet covered about 965,000 square miles (2,500,000 square kilometers). Much of this area now falls in neighboring provinces." We only need to acknowledge the historical region of Tibet; we don't need an entirely separate article. There's no point in having history, geography, and culture sections in both articles. They are the same thing for both. All we have to do is to state: ''Historically, Tibet consisted of the provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. Amdo is now composes the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu & Sichuan. Kham has been largely incorporated into the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan and Qinghai. The Tibet Autonomous Region occupies U-Tsang and Western Kham.'' When the media refers to Tibet, it refers only to the AR. When we talk about transport in Tibet or economy of Tibet, we also refer to the AR. The entire region is only referred to for historical purposes. We don't say we visited Tibet when we visited Sichuan. People would get confused. If we merge, we don't have to ignore the greater region entirely. The geography article (copied from the 1911 EB) discusses the entire region. Our summary of the various sections on this page can talk about both. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:47, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I agree that Tibet should be merged into Tibet Autonomous Region. Hawaii doesn't have an article separate from Hawaii, the state, but the Hawaii article obviously refers to the modern US state as its main subject and talks about Hawaii, the former kingdom. --User:Xiaopo's User talk:Xiaopo 07:45, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC) What I called "historians" are those who are also knowledgeable about Tibet before the last stage of the Qing Dynasty. It's very regretful that Westerners are overinfluenced by the image of "China" at that time. Politically, there are some groups who oppose to call the TAR just "Tibet". See http://www.tibet.com/glance.html "Tibetan Automonous Region" is the formal (English) name for that entity and some use "Tibet" as the short form of TAR. But "Tibet" is Tibet; there is no longer or shorter name. "Tibetan Plateau" is absurd because "Tibet" is not only a geographical term but also a political, historical, cultural one. Therefore, it is the best solution to put the content of Tibet on "Tibet" and the information about the TAR on "Tibetan Automonous Region". --User:Nanshu 00:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) It's pointless to have two culture sections, two history sections, two geography sections, etc. when they basically say the same thing. I am not asking that the AR article override this one. The article will start of "Tibet in the region in central Asia consisting of..." Only after the first sentence will we mention the AR. We ''will'' acknowledge the government-in-exile's view on Tibet, but that doesn't require an entirely new article. The AR can be a compontent of this article. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 01:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) The only reason that two pages overlap is the stubness of the article Tibet. The history section of Tibet will describe the overall history of Tibet while that of the TAR will treat the Chinese domination (Yah, we have to fix the awful article History of Tibet). Geography. The Tibetan geographical conception is different from Chinese's. These are sufficient reasons to separate Tibet from the TAR. The merging implies: "We acknowledge the government-in-exile's view but we are in side of the PRC." That's not a NPOV. --User:Nanshu 18:59, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) :Not really - this article ''will not'' start out with a definition of the autonomous region and the description of the history, land, etc. will not be limited to the autonomous region. It's all up to where we put the phrases. This is not internet-encyclopedia.org. For controversial topics, we are to put conflicting positive and negative on the same page; we don't sweep them into separate pages. I don't see why we cant have two separate paragraphs on the same page in the same section acknowledging the different viewpoints. To have this article talk about all of former Tibet would be to endorese the government-in-exile's position. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 19:08, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) No. The Tibetan's view does not correspond one-to-one with the Chinese's. Each section will have two blocks? It will be really hard to see. The merging will throw this article into chaos. The status quo (with notes on top) is nicer than that. --User:Nanshu 19:31, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) :So if it does not correspond one-to-one it is in agreement? Not necessarily two blocks...there are many ways to align the prose. We can also interweave. We should treat this article like we treat any other controversial topic - acknowledge both positions. I don't see what's wrong. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::There is a fundamental difference between Tibet and other controversial topics. Every other controversy is about different views toward the same thing. But for Tibet, the same term refers to different things. It's similar to disambiguation. --User:Nanshu 02:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) Nanshu, please state what is your issue with the current text. The Tibet view has been addressed, has it not? The text before my merge only addressed the Tibetan view and not the Chinese view. And what is wrong with my history section, my geography section? Why did you rever that too?--User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I've already expressed my opinion. I don't know what to do with the "spaghetti" article. Should I mix "China", "PRC" and "ROC"? And sorry for the history and geographic sections. It was careless of me not to check the content. --User:Nanshu 02:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) It wouldn't be ridiculous to have the PRC article at "China" and the ROC article at "Taiwan" due to common usage. Most of the content at China is historical in nature and would be better suited for an article on Imperial China. "Tibet" almost always refers to the TAR. Click on "what links here". By making this article on the greater region, wikipedia endorses the Tibetan government in exile's position. The flag put on this page is banned in the mainland and used be pro-tibetan protestors. This is POV. By putting them together, we endorse neither position. Are we going to put in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries template here too? As I said before, there's no point in having 2 geography, 2 economy, 2 demographics, etc. sections on the same thing. What is especially ridiculous is having 2 culture sections - what's the difference? If we have a TAR article, it should be on the administration, just like there's a Taiwan Province article apart from Taiwan (though I wouldn't oppose merging the two). If you and I can't agree on this, then this should be put to a vote. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 04:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) :If you think describing the greater region on Tibet is POV, then I don't mind renaming this article and turning Tibet into a disambig. page. (And I spare no time to disambiguate "Tibet" as you've done with "China".) Still I oppose merging the two articles. --User:Nanshu 03:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) Turning this into a disambiguation is unnacceptable, given how commonly the term "Tibet" is used and how many links direct here. As I said before, "Tibetan Autonomous Region" can remain an article on the administrative division, but it may not have the same sections this article had. "China" is not a disambiguation page. If you read its talk page, you will see that making it one was shot down. You will also see that I took absolutely no part in arranging the two articles as they are now. What do you want ''this'' article to be renamed? Getting a map of greater Tibet would also help. You should be complaining about the map posted on this page. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) :no answer? I'll revert. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang ::You don't allow me to leave Wikipedia for a couple of days... ::I don't like to repeat discussion. Are you seeking common ground? ::So do you want to put the TAR article on "Tibet" by any means? As I said, the greater region has no name other than just "Tibet" while the TAR can be put on "Tibetan Autonomous Region." But I proposed the compromise of moving the GT article to something like "Tibet (greater region)." What's wrong with me? --User:Nanshu 02:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) No, I don't. You either respond or get reverted. You have not addressed my concerns - moving the page won't solve the problem. I said it's pointless to duplicate culture sections. What do you say? If we don't duplicate sections, what will an article on the region consist of that the AR does not? If there is something substantial, how about moving the AR here and linking the region on top, like is done for Mongolia. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 04:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :So, should I repeat my argument? The only reason that two pages overlap is the stubness of the article Tibet. Culture of Tibet would be put at "Tibet" because Tibet is cultural, political, and geographical term and the TAR is purely a political division. If there is a cultural thing that is unique to the TAR, then it should be put at the "Tibetan Autonomous Region." Any problem with that? :Putting the TAR article here is non-NPOV so that I can never approve it. --User:Nanshu 02:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) I said I would not object to having an article on the TAR focusing solely on the administrative division like how one exists at Taiwan Province. But currently, it is not an article on the administration; it has stuff that belongs here. Please don't blanket revert my edits. What's wrong with my flag caption? Description that the map only points out the TAR? That the TAR comprises less than half of historic Tibet? If you can't accept the temporary compromise, then I will revert TAR too. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Then put the TAR article on "Tibetan Autonomous Region" and edit it as you want! --User:Nanshu 03:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Did Tibetan history stop in 1906? Why do you want to siphon off large portions of the text? What's wrong with my introductory paragraph explaining the dispute in meaning? What's wrong with the marketplace image? Since when have we had separate sections on "Transport"? --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I've reverted TAR too since you don't want to compromise and don't want to answer my claims above that the old version is inferior and that my text was legitimate, whether TAR would be kept or not. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang I moved your content as far as I noticed. You can move it by yourself. --User:Nanshu 03:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Did Tibetan history stop in 1906? You never answered. My first paragraph was not moved. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang It was moved to the TAR article. --User:Nanshu 03:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :No it wasn't. Where does it say "Historically, Tibet consisted of the provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. Amdo is now composes the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan. Kham has been largely incorporated into the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan and Qinghai. The Tibet Autonomous Region, comprising less than half of historic Tibet, occupies U-Tsang and Western Kham."? It wouldn't belong there anyways. You never answered my first question. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::It was the geography section ot "Tibet" (Menchi's original version). And what's your "first question"? If it is about history after 1906, again, it was moved to the TAR article. --User:Nanshu 04:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Okay, but it's better to state the controversy up front, than to endorse a certain position. Why should the history after 1906 be moved to TAR? Is it not relevant here? TAR was not established until 1965. This fact was apparently deleted. I listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope some other parties will discuss. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't this article cover the area historically known as Tibet, and the TAR article cover what today forms the TAR? As such, shouldn't there be room for simultaneous articles in areas such as history? In any case, if the TAR wasn't created until 1965, shouldn't History of Tibet cover that much? User:Ambivalenthysteria 07:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :The TAR is part of Tibet and therefore, history of the TAR after its creation would be relevant here. Repeating the same info here would be redundant. It's innappropriate to stop Tibetan history at 1965 (or in Nanshu's version, 1906). --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 21:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- == Xizang & Tibet? == Xizang=Tibet in Chinese. I don't see why it should be redirected to the AR. Does another name exist for the greater region? I haven't heard of one. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 04:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :As it is Wargi Dzang in Manchu, Xizang literally means Western Tsang (western part of Tsang or Tsang [which is located] to the west [of China]). On the other hand, Tubet refers to Tibet in Manchu and was transcribed as 土伯特 in Chinese. Xizang is an inherently inappropriate term for Tibet. Xizang can refer to the TAR or Tibet but I think Xizang usually refers to the TAR in Chinese context. It is similar to "China." --User:Nanshu 02:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) 土伯特 is almost never used in Chinese so when Chinese refer to Tibet (TAR or not) they use "Xizang". China has its own article, so that parellel doesn't work. It's not up to us to criticise the Chinese people for wanting to call a certain place by an "inherently inappropriate term". We simply relect the truth. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang :Yah, it's an historical term (that's why I used "was"). And I mean China can refers to "China proper" or the greater region but there is no single words to distinguish them. --User:Nanshu 03:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::There was a word 吐蕃(tu3 bo1) which I suspect is the same as 土伯特. --User:Liuyao 04:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :The inherently inappropriate term can refer to both, but more often to the TAR. Will I turn "Xizang" into a disambig. page? --User:Nanshu 03:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) "Tibet" includes the TAR. The fact that it commonly refers to TAR is also because "Tibet" in English also refers to the TAR. Under the same logic, this page should redirect to TAR. That would be ridiculous. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Response to RFC== Tibet and TAR definitely should _not_ be merged. Tibet has a history separate from its status as the TAR. In English, Tibet refers to a general place, _not_ the TAR. Whenever the information coincides for the two, it can go on the Tibet page. -- User:Waltpohl 21:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Show me an instance where we refer to part of Tibet outside the TAR as "Tibet." When we visit the part of Tibet in Sichuan we say we went to Sichuan, not Tibet. The acronym "TAR" is sparingly used and the news media uses simply "Tibet." :Yes, Tibet has a history separate from its status as the TAR. So? TAR is being merged here, not the other way around. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 21:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) :: Would you then also agree we should merge the Taiwan and Republic of China articles? :: Here's a thought experiment. Suppose tomorrow the government of China decided that Lhasa was not part of the TAR. Would English speakers cease to describe Lhasa as part of Tibet? No. Now imagine that tomorrow the US decided that Philadelphia was no longer part of Pennsylvania. Would we stop describing Philadelphia as part of Pennsylvania? Probably. -- User:Waltpohl 22:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) I would agree to merge Taiwan and Republic of China articles, provided that they are merged and one redirected to the other. If we redirect ROC to Taiwan, then we make the statement that Taiwan is conventional short form for ROC, and that is true. However, we fail to make that statement if we leave ROC as a historical article (as it once was). We only run into problems when (assuming ROC redirects to Taiwan and not the other way around) we refer to the ROC in a historical context and confuse people by leading them to an article on Taiwan. I fail to see your point again. No one here is claiming that TAR is synonmous with Tibet. I intend this article to discuss both the greater region and the TAR. Lhasa would be mentioned here regardless of whether it is part of the TAR. I don't see why an article on Tibet should be stripped of references to the TAR. Wouldn't you agree that the TAR is part of Tibet? --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) : I understand your point of view better now. Clearly the Tibet article should talk about TAR as part of talking about Tibet. I would say that the stuff that's unique to TAR ''as a bureaucratic entity'' -- stuff like the big infobox, the name of the province in Chinese, neighboring provinces, etc. should go on the TAR page. Cultural info would go on the Tibet page. For most purposes, if I go to the Tibet page, I'm looking for information about Tibet as a cultural entity. The province information is just a distraction. -- User:Waltpohl 08:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) The province info is relevant, just as a box exist at Beijing, but I don't object to an article on the administrative entity. However, splitting the history pre-1950 to this one and post-1950 to that one, then duplicating most of the rest, is unnacceptable. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 06:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) There are incompatible gaps between Tibetan and Chinese conceptions. The Chinese name "Xizang" demonstrates it. And Tibet's regions of Ambo, Kham, U-Tsang, Ngari etc, have complicated correspondence with PRC's divisions. Jiang's "spaghetti" article makes it difficult to explain Tibetan conceptions cleary and prevents further expansion. Of course, my rough-and-ready partition leaves many things to be fixed, but that's not important for now. --User:Nanshu 04:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) :My version explains it better than yours. Yours endorsed the Tibetan viewpoint, and used bullet points and arrows to show the correspondence. Let's try writing in complete sentences. If you have more text to add, show it. Try demonstrating that you have so much to add that it won't fit this page. Also state what's missing in my version. It currently fits fine. Tibetan history did not end in 1906 so partition is inappropriate.--User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 06:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::Believe it or not, I think a compromise is in sight. Do the two of you mind if I try a compromise edit? I would edit along these principles: ::* TAR covers the administrative entity, and facts specific to the entity. ::* Tibet covers the broader area. ::* History, culture etc. goes with Tibet. (Most of history should be on the History of Tibet page, anyway.) ::Reactions? -- User:Waltpohl 23:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) Yes, go ahead. The history section here was largely drawn from the history of Tibet article. It need not be any longer, but I don't see much trimming is needed. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 01:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) Nanshu, I'm waiting to hear from you before I edit it. Are you willing to wait while I try to make a compromise edit?. No need to revert to a particular version. I'll look at both of your recent versions while I make the edit . -- User:Waltpohl 04:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Maybe I jumped the gun. I'm looking forward to your edit. --User:Nanshu 04:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Jiang is another guy who cannot wait... --User:Nanshu ---- I checked in a preliminary version of Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region. I'm not done: after spending a couple of hours on it, it's now past my bedtime. :-) I'll work on it some more tomorrow. I also checked in a stub for Tibetan Plateau, and expanded on Government of Tibet in Exile. -- User:Waltpohl 07:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) I had a question. What is the source of the division of Tibet into provinces, like Ando? Is it traditional? If so, at what point in Tibetan history do they arise? -- User:Waltpohl 15:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I made some final few tweaks. I'd like to hear any feedback you have about the current versions of the pages before I do anything else. -- User:Waltpohl :There's still considerable overlap in the economics and sections. We should limit TAR to a discussion of the political entity. That means the history starts in 1965. If we're going to put the banned Tibetan flag and coat of arms here, I don't see why we shouldn't put up a province table too. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) The Tibetan flag has been banned by an totalitarian and racist Regime. Why do you stick to that? User:Umrao :Ummmmmm.... TAR and Tibet are different things. -User:Dagestan :: The current box with the coat of arms, etc., is not appropriate for this page. It is appropriate for the Government of Tibet in Exile page. -- User:Waltpohl 08:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Technopilgrim here with comments on the edits I just made on this very sensitive page. # "Tibet" can refer to the TAR or to historic Tibet so I took out the wording that the "most common" meaning is TAR. If you look at the "what links here" links to Tibet I find the most common meaning is historic Tibet but the real problem is not which is the most common usage but the very phrase "most common" which is inappropriate here. So the present version refers to both. # Since we talk about TAR vs historic Tibet at the top of the page I've pulled the map graphic up to the top of the page also to be adjacent to the discussion # I weeded out some of the external links at the bottom. I threw out the ones that were in French or covered material already in the article. I tried to be evenhanded with regards to PRC/exile government viewpoints, but was hampered somewhat by the fact that the free Tibet folks put up vastly better websites than the PRC. # editorial choice -- I dropped the photo of the Ngari woman mainly because I don't find it representative or a particularly good photo, and also because it appears to be an undocumented lift from the http://www.tibet-hiking.com/registration.html website. # minor edit fixes throughout the page, including a cleaner way to link to Tibetan Buddhism BTW, I support the concensus that we don't merge the TAR and Tibet pages but keep them separate and partitioned as agreed above. Of course the Goverment in Exile flag belongs on the Government in Exile page, not here. Tashi dalek. User:Technopilgrim 18:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Sorry Technopilgrim, but the flag of Tibet does not just represent the government in exile, but it is what represents their culture and religion, and it is currently banned by the Chinese government. User:Dagestan As I understand it, that flag specifically represents the former government of Tibet and only indirectly, at best, a set of cultural values. A prayer flag would be a more apt cultural symbol, if you insist on flag-waiving. Note that the flags of former governments rarely fly in their former lands, and when they do the atmosphere is unlikely to be nuetral. If you'd like a demonstration of this effect, try swapping the current flag on the Virginia page with the Confederate Flag (you might wisely refrain from explicitly mentioning the traditional [http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=leviticus+25%3A44&Submit=Search cultural practices] which are actively suppressed by the present government). Or take any European country and hoist the flag of the (present regime - 1) to see why this approach doesn't engender a NPOV. User:Technopilgrim 23:38, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- I've changed the map back to the previous version, since we didn't have copyright permission for the one that replaced it ( Image:Tibet_borders_over_time.jpg ). "No copyright claimed" does ''not'' equal "no copyright". User:Markalexander100 22:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Missing word == History section, 4th paragraph "The independence claim was a term used by revolutionaries the Qing dynasty." I think it needs a 'during' or perhaps an 'in' before 'the Qing dynasty' :I've no idea what any of that sentence means. What revolutionaries? User:Markalexander100 03:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) Nanshu,you wonder why jiang are sensitive about the PRC-ROC issue but not about the Tibet-TAR one ,and I can tell you why. this is because jiang's country had succesfully controlled Tibet by military forces but still has not succesfully controlled taiwan by military forces now(However they are planing to),and that's difference which makes jiang are sensitive about the PRC-ROC issue but not about the Tibet-TAR one. ==Some new work== I'm going to be working some on this article but mainly on History of Tibet and Foreign relations of Tibet as well as on a Tibetan resistance movement article over the next few weeks. At times what I have done on one article will not necessarily match what I have done on the others. This is complicated by the fact that edits will also be occuring on Wikinfo. Foreign relations of Tibet will mainly concern Tibetan attempts to achieve international recognition. Tibetan resistance movement will deal with Tibetan rebellions and CIA assistance to them. I'll mainly be working from the following books. User:Fred Bauder 20:05, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) ===Further reading=== * John Kenneth Knaus, ''Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival'', Perseus, 1999, hardcover, 398 pages, ISBN 1891620185; trade paperback, Perseus, 2000, ISBN 1891620851 * James Morrison and Kenneth Conboy, ''The Cia's Secret War in Tibet'', University Press of Kansas, March, 2002, hardcover, 301 pages, ISBN 0700611592 :Sounds like a plan. Tibet independence movement redirects to a sub-stub on a organization founded in 1995. I don't think this is appropriate but I don't know enough to change it. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 01:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Recent POV edits == I find it hard to believe that this needs to be said, but any edit which includes sentences such as ''As a result, the Tibetans once again acknowledged themselves as subjects of the Great Empire of China'' is hardly likely to be NPOV, and has no place here. :Perhaps removing "Great" would serve? User:Fred Bauder 10:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) The origins of ''Xizang'' could conceivably be a useful scrap of information, but since Anon has already gone through two unsourced versions, I don't see any basis for including either in the article. User:Markalexander100 07:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::It removes the onus on the Chinese of simply imposing a "made-up" name. I don't think any more sourcing than fluency in Chinese is required to establish that it is a transliteration. User:Fred Bauder 10:19, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) I rm'd the following: ''It is a well known and understood practice that Chinese characters used for phonetic transliteration of place names and people names are never meant to be interpreted literally and are used solely for the sound of the characters.'' This is not true. For almost any transliteration multiple characters could be selected; particular characters are often chosen for their connotations (indeed, there is no other basis on which the selection could be made!). For reference, [http://www.bluesouth.co.nz/Japanese_translation.htm] (''care must be taken by the translator to ensure that the characters selected, each of which has its own meaning, do not result in the transliteration ... into a word which is either silly or negative in its meaning''). (While we're at it, this illustrates the difficulty of identifying and stripping out POV from unsourced, POV contributions; we can afford to be a little more rigorous). User:Markalexander100 03:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC Okay yes, in commercial applications such as brand names and such, charaters are chosen for connotation in addition to the sound. But it is definitely true for place names and people names. You should not be so quick to say it is not true. Study the transliteration of every place name and person name and the characters used. I doubt you will find more than a small number where "connotation" was a consideration. Remember I said "PLACE NAMES AND PERSON NAMES". I did NOT say, "BRAND NAMES"! Perhaps saying "all" was going overboard but it is certainly true of "most", especially for place names and person names. ==Annexation of Tibet== I have a question concerning the international status of Tibet: Is Tibet's annexation by China recognized by the international community? User:62.47.73.113 16:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :It is not considered an annexation, merely assertion of control over a region which was considered part of China. However there has been concern over human rights and how Chinese occupation has affected them. See [http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/us/us8.html], [http://www.radicalparty.org/tibet/letter_dupuis_fontaine.htm], [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7lD9_K94Ku0J:www.mann-europa.de/tibet-intergroup/resolutionen/en/130397-en.pdf+tibet+occupation+resolution+general+assembly+%22united+nations%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8], [http://www.tibetankungfu.com/the_status_of_tibet.htm The Tibetan position] User:Fred Bauder 19:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) ::Thank you for your answer. But I still wonder if the annexation/occupation/assertion of control over Tibet is deemed to be illegal under international law by the international community? Do some nations refute Chinas claim over tibet? User:Gugganij 22:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) There is general disgust and at times the United States has considered recognizing Tibet but never made the decision. Britain had Hong Kong to worry about. However see [http://www.tibetankungfu.com/the_status_of_tibet.htm The Tibetan position] User:Fred Bauder 23:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) === Excerpt from Dalai Lamas statement === the following is an excerpt from Dalai Lamas statement regarding the status in international law of Tibet (obviously the Chinese government has a different POV): "At the time of its invasion by troops of the People's Liberation Army of China in 1949, Tibet was an independent state in fact and law. The military invasion constituted an aggression on a sovereign state and a violation of international law. Today's continued occupation of Tibet by China, with the help of several hundred thousand troops, represents an ongoing violation of international law and of the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people to independence. The Chinese Communist Government claims it has a right to "ownership" of Tibet. It does not claim this right on the basis of its military conquest in 1949 or alleged effective control over Tibet since then or since 1959. The Chinese Government also does not base its claim to "ownership" on the so-called "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" which it forced upon Tibet in 1951. Instead, China's alleged legal claim is based on historical relationships primarily of Mongol or Manchu rulers with Tibetan lamas and, to a lesser extent, of Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. The main events relied on by the Chinese Government occurred hundreds of years ago: during the height of Mongol imperial expansion, when the Mongol Emperors extended their political supremacy throughout most of Asia and large parts of Eastern Europe; and when Manchu Emperors ruled China and expanded their influence throughout East and Central Asia, including Tibet, particularly in the 18th century." == Misunderstanding over the Chinese character 藏 for transliteration of U-Tsang for Tibet == Some people have maintained that the use of the zang (藏) character is offensive because one of the meanings of this character is "storehouse". Thus, if interpretated "literally", the two characters for Xizang is "western storehouse". (Xi means west, typically), which some maintain has a perjorative connotation (because they believe it describes Tibet as a "western storehouse". Generally speaking, characters used in Chinese transliteration are never meant to be interpretated literally. A reader of the transliterated phrase sees the transliterated phrase as an entirely new word with little relation to the meaning of the individual characters. By way of example, "Denmark" is not decomposed into "Den" and "Mark" for an English reader. The same is also true for multiple-character words in Chinese, but especially in transliterated words. And in most cases, when transliterated characters are used, the "literal" meaning is typically silly nonsense. Some examples of transliterated place names. 古巴 (Cuba) - if interpreted based on the meaning of the individual characters, it means "ancient", "wish" 墨西哥 (Mexico) - "ink stick", "west", "brother" 蘇格蘭 (Scotland) - "Revive", "Frame", "Orchid" 波蘭 (Poland) - "Storm", "Orchid" 葡萄牙 (Portugal) - "Grape-stained Teeth" 希臘 (Greece) - "rare", "preserved meat" etc, etc, etc. (many, many more examples available) Generally speaking, transliteration of place names and person's names are done regardless of how silly or nonsensical its literally characters mean. When transliterating brand names or phrases for commercial use, however, much more care is typically used to avoid "silly nonsense" and to use words with some meaningful, positive connotation in order to better advertise the brand or product name. However, again, it must be noted that for a Chinese reader, a transliterated phrase is never parsed but is treated as one new phrase. (Note "Denmark" vs "Den" "Mark" or "Germany" vs "Germ" "Many" in English). Therefore, it is abundantly clear that in almost all cases, characters used in transliterated phrases for place names are not meant to be interpretated literally back into English. Therefore to say that a translated phrase means something "literally" when it has no such connotation in Chinese is simply wrong. Now, the next questions that comes up are? Is "western storage" negative? This is an individual judgement of course. Is it any more negative than "ink", "west", "brother" (Mexico), "grape-stained teeth" (Portugal) or "rare" "preserved meat" (Greece) and any of the other silly "literal" translations? But the issue is not fully examined because we should also examine the meaning of the zang character 藏 itself. According to this online dictionary [2] (http://chinese.primezero.com/pzcdz/o.html) this is what it says: 寶藏 - (An Zang) precious (mineral) deposits; 西藏 - (Xi Zang) Tibet; Xizang; Xizang autonomous region; (as we well know now, when used with Xi, it means Tibet) 藏 - (Zang) storehouse; depository; Buddhist or Taoist scripture; Zang; Tibet; 藏文 - (Zang Wen) Tibetan language; 藏族 - (Zang Zu) Tibetan nationality; 藏 - (Cang) to hide away; to conceal; to harbor; store; accumulate (this is the same character but pronounced cang) Thus if one insists on using a "literal" translation of the character "Zang", apart from "Tibet", then the following are possible: Xizang - (1) "West" "Mineral" (2) "West" "Storage" (3) "West" "scripture" (4) "West" "Conceal" Zangwen - (1) "Mineral" "Language" (2) "Storage" "Language" (3) "scripture" "Language" (4) Conceal Language Zangzu - (1) "Mineral" "People" (2) "Storage" "People" (3) "scripture" "people" (4) Conceal People since "zang" has the meaning of "mineral", "storehouse", "depository", "buddhist/taoist scripture". It must be noted, however, that in the Chinese language, a character does not have a single meaning attached to it as the example of "zang" illustrates. It is not known when the character "zang" was first used to describe Tibetans but evidence exists that "zang" has been used for centuries for this purpose. Thus the meaning of "zang" changed to include "Tibet/Tibetans" in additional and apart from all its other possible meanings. Thus a "literal translation" based on the other possible meanings of the character is incorrect. "Zang" when used to describe the land, language or people, means Tibet/Tibetans PERIOD (not "mineral", not "storage", not "depository", not "scripture", not "conceal"). Saying that "Xizang" mean Tibet but "literally" means "Western Storage" is like saying Turkey means the country Turkey but "literally" means some kind of bird. Both are nonsense statements. But the issue can be examined even further. Do websites and documents of the PRC allude to the possibility that perhaps the "zang" character was chosen because of connotations with "storage" (or "mineral", or "depository" or "scripture", etc) In searching PRC govt websites, there is nothing written to indicate that the use of the character "zang" was chosen due to its connotations with "storehouse" (or "mineral" or "depository" or "scripture") and a few mention simply that it comes from U-Tsang. In any case, it was chosen not by the PRC but was in use for centuries, so whatever the reason "zang" was chosen, it has in these years taken on the meaning of "Tibet/Tibetan" literally and apart from the characters other meanings. It now means "Tibet/Tibetan" in its own right just like Turkey has a meaning of the country Turkey in its own right despite having the same spelling as the bird. Finally, another issue to examine is who, how many, and why are people "offended" by the term Xizang? It is doubtlessly the case that some individual Tibetans and their supporters are offended. However, in reviewing the Tibetan government in exile sites as well as the major pro-Tibetan independence sites there is no mention that the word "xizang" is considered offensive and objectionable and there are no demands that some other term or character be used in Chinese. There is no publication indicating that "xizang" is objectionable. Nor do any of these sites mention that Xizang is supposed to mean "Western Storage". By all accounts, the word "xizang" is accepted as meaning "Tibet" in its own right and has no other meaning by both the PRC and Tibet-in-exile governments. Therefore while some individuals may be offended for whatever reason, there is no evidence to indicate that it is generally considered offensive and undesirable as the Tibet-in-exile government websites and all the major pro-Tibetan independence sites make no issue of it at all. As to why some people are offended, there are many possibilities. It is certainly possible and probable that "ignorance" causes it. Another possibility is that it was concocted to generate hostility against China. However, in making the simple claim that the term "Xizang is offensive", the following facts needs to be considered and presented as well: - there is no evidence that it was chosen because Tibet/Tibetans were considered "Western Storage" - Zang has other meanings besides "storage" thus the "literal" meaning could be "Western Minerals", "Western Scriptures", etc etc - it is used to mean "Tibet/Tibetan" period as the same character is used to describe Tibetans and their language - in general, all Chinese place names used in transliterations are not intrepreted and parsed into their multiple possible individual meanings in Chinese thus translating back in to English the "literal" meaning is nonsense. To understand, imagine that in the Chinese language, it is written, "Turkey is the spelling for the country located in SW Asia. However, the "literal meaning" is this slow fat ugly bird you eat for dinner. It is meant as a negative connotation of Turkey thus they used the same "character" as the bird". Wouldn't that be a nonsense statement? - it is not even evident that it is generally considered offensive, no Tibetan websites make it an issue whatsoever and here in wikipedia land only TWO people have said it is "offensive". Thus the claim should either be withdrawn or explained as a misunderstanding and also it should be mentioned that Tibetan sites don't consider it offensive despite some individuals considering it offensive. It should also be mentioned that "Western Storage" is an English "literal" interpretation not a Chinese "literal" interpretation. No Chinese govt website says it means "Western Storage". It is thus inaccurate to say it "literally" means "Western Storage" because in Chinese in LITERALLY means Tibet PERIOD. Or if people insist it is "offensive" despite all this evidence to suggest otherwise then ALL of this evidence should be presented to explain why it probably shouldn't be considered offensive and let people decide for themselves whether it is reasonable for "Xizang" to be considered offensive or not. (End of temporary "Is Xizang offensive?" section) :I assume that was added to the article by accident? User:Markalexander100 09:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Yes and no. I originally wanted to expand and explain with proof and details why it is not meant to be offensive and shouldn't be considered offensive. But to do it rigorously makes it unsuitable for the main article so I posted it here. But I decided to leave it in, hoping the info would be used to make a better, less POV statement. I don't consider my argument a "rant" as you call it. It's pretty detailed explanation as to why it shouldn't be considered offensive because it is not supposed to mean "Western Storage" at all and it is unfair to state so as a fact and is definite POV to just leave the article the way it is. ::To leave it the way it is at the moment, which is ::"The literal meaning of the two characters of Xizang is "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive. Others maintain that the meaning of the particular characters is irrelevant." ::is simply insufficient IMHO. It fails to show that "Western Storehouse" is not the only possible "literal" meaning. It could "literally" mean "Western Scriptures", "Western Minerals". There is no basis to assert this particularly "literal" meaning in place of other "literal" meanings. It fails to show that there is no evidence to support that China intended it to have the connotation "Western Storehouse" (or any other connotations for that matter) It fails to show that it is common practice, as I have demonstrated with many examples, that in many cases (okay not all) with transliterations, the connotations are unintended and not considered to have these meanings. It also fails to show that instead of having a connotation at all, it is correctly a character that means Tibet/Tibetan in its own right. It is used as the character for Tibetan language ::It is also blatatly not NPOV. If a reader sees it and has no idea of all the facts surrounding it sounds quite negative to me like China is being insensitive or intentionally trying to call it "Western Storehouse". ::The point is that the evidence doesn't really support it. I have spent a lot of time making my case. So I can't let it go and have it reverted unless you can make a stronger case as to why your more negative POV statement should stand in place of a less negative POV one. To assert that it is "offensive" without all the facts taints the article. It also leads to my suspicions, unfair or not, that you want to bias the article by implying that China is intentionally causing an offense to a significant number of Tibetans thus biasing the reader right away. It's not right to do it. 144.189.40.223 has made his point. User:Fred Bauder 11:35, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Markalexander100, please find at least one reference that anyone other than a Wikipedia editor finds the transliteration offensive. User:Fred Bauder 02:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) :[http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/un/unint9.html] . For the Tibetans' preferred usage see [http://www.angrymonk.ch/texts/meizhuo_sg.pdf]; for offensive place names imposed by the Chinese generally see [http://www.smhric.org/E_Bulag.pdf] (page 8 onwards}. User:Markalexander100 06:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) --- Okay let's, ONCE AGAIN look at all the issues involved. 1. First let's look at the statements: The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive. Others maintain that the meaning of the particular characters used is irrelevant. Regardless of the veracity of the statement, it is clearly not NPOV by wikipedia standard when all facts and POV are considered. I have already given ample strong argument as to why any assertion that "The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse" is very flimsy even though as narrowly constructed using the new "can literally mean" (notice the sneaky way of adding "can" to the new version of the statement) is not patently false. The problem though is that it gives this view far more validity than careful examination and research suggests to any casual reader. Its very inclusion also suggests that there is widespread opposition to the term so much so that it merits inclusion rather than being a very peripheral "issue" (if it could be called that). It fails to consider all the facts and contexts and suggests it is intentional, or insensitive rather than coincidental or possibly contrived by opponents. A NPOV would have to at least address these views. '''If it is insisted that we included statements saying it is offensive, then all relevant facts and arguments should be made available to discuss whether this "offense" is valid and reasonable or not. The possibility that it is a smear tactic should also be stated (as well as denials I'm sure). Then let readers decide for themselves.''' The follow-up statement, "Others maintain that the meaning of the particular characters used is irrelevant." gives the impression that despite that this "literal interpretion" is valid, others dismiss it, thus subtly implying some deliberate attitude of indifference and insensitivity. It implies Tibetans consistently raise the issue but it is rejected as being "irrelevant" which is not the case. To claim that this is a "concise statement of the two positions" is far off the mark and is patently disingenuous because this "conciseness" obviously is meant to give a mistaken impression and fails to give the reader the full context. But that is the point of having these statements, isn't it, to mislead and obfuscate the full facts. By analogy, consider the following statements, if used in a Chinese encyclopedia. "In English, the word for Turkey the country can literally mean the domesticated bird used for food, which some find offensive. Others maintain that the same word used for both is irrelevant". "In English, the word for Germany the country can be decomposed into the words "Germ" and "Many", which some find offensive. Others maintain that the the resemblence is irrelevant". Both statements are actually factually true if we deconstructed the statements through the use of the "can" qualifier and also the use of "some find offensive". However, based on NPOV as well as full factual context, relevance and scope both are also obviously unworthy statements to include into any Chinese encyclopedia, same as the "Xizang = western storehouse" statement. There is of course also the question of its relevancy and whether the intended content of the statement is important enough to include despite it obviously tainting the article and introducing a strong anti-Chinese bias. Thus regardless of the merits of the statements, as presently constructed it clearly violates NPOV and should not be included. Basically, people with axes to grind found something that "could" be considered "offensive" despite flimsy support and evidence to the countrary, assert "they" are offended, and then claiming this "fact" should be included in a blatant attempt to bias the article. --- 2. Okay, so now let's look at the merits and so-called "evidence" supporting the statement. Three links are provided, so let's examine each one in turn: A. http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/un/unint9.html On the very top it says that it was "A written intervention submitted by the Transnational Radical Party, a non-governmental organization in general consultative status." It is an advocate organization and thus is hardly trying to be objective or impartial. It is thus not any kind of authoritative, official declaration for either Tibetans in general or the PRC. But furthermore, let's actually look at the relevant text of the document itself. It says, "It is no accident, for instance, that China refers to Tibet as Xizang, which means 'Western Treasure House.' Beijing's central planners view Tibet as a wealth of resources to be extracted for China's benefit." There are two obvious problems with this statement. The most obvious is that it doesn't support the assertion that, "The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive." It claims "western treasure house" not "western storehouse". It is also obviously, as the general tone of the POV article, a smear meant to generate hostility to China. But again, it asserts "western treasure house" not "western storehouse". The article also makes no assertion that it is an offensive term for Tibetans. But a thorough analysis of the character "zang", I can find ZERO justification that "zang" in any usage means "treasure house". In looking up the character "zang", I find nothing resembling "treasure house". So not only is this article attempting to smear China unfairly, it is using "Xizang = Western Treasure House" which has zero justification. But EVEN FURTHERMORE, Xizang was used for centuries since the Qing dynasty and not a recent term coined by the PRC. So if it was "no accident that China calls Xizang as Western Treasure House" then somehow the Qing had some future prediction and foresight that at some point the PRC govt would take over and want to exploit this "treasure house". That is absurd. For these many reasons, the use of such article to defend the factual merits of the (xizang "can" be interpreted as "western storage") is dubious. Now of course, there is no doubt that there are other articles which makes assertions of how "xizang means western treasure house" (curiously I found none about "western storage") because they want to make the smear that "China views Tibet as a place to be exploited" The problem with that of course is that there is no justication for "zang=treasure house" whatsoever even very flimsy ones. What is also curious is that either through "ignorance" or deliberation, none reference that fact that it is a transliteration of U-Tsang. Of course including it would weaken and raise doubt about the "Xizang means Western Store/Treaure House" stuff. But it could also imply "ignorance" and if this were known, they would not make this "literal meaning" claim. Such obviously POV smear articles are "proof" only by circular reasoning not by examining the actual underlying facts. Think about it, a wikipedia smear article says it means "western treasure/store house". As "proof" it lists other smear articles that make the same baseless claim. Then of course I am sure at some point some smear article can reference wikipedia. The point is that if the "proof" consists of articles written by biased, POV writers with a clear agenda to demonize China then there is some question whether the "proof" of Xizang = Wesetern Treasure/Storehouse has real basis or is not instead manufactured to generate hostility. --- B. http://www.angrymonk.ch/texts/meizhuo_sg.pdf It says, "Nowadays many Tibetans living in Tibet prefer to use this name for Tibet rather than the Chinese name "Xizang" since it only includes central Tibet and leaves Amdo and Kham out." I have no problem, if it is deemed important and relevant enough, to include this statement. However, it says Tubo is preferred over Xizang because of the scope of Xizang not because of "Xizang = Western Treasure/Storehouse". Furthermore the writer is a Tibetan who lived in Tibet but is fluent in Chinese too and is a critic of Tibetan policies. So if this "Xizang = Western Treasure/Storehouse" was a widespread connotation and a term of offense, you'd think he'd mentione this stronger objection as opposed to this other objection. In any case, I am sure Tubo must have some so-called "literal interpretations" that might be objectionable if someone what to insist on making such a point. In fact as I have point out in nearly every transliteration of place names, this same claim could be made. --- C. http://www.smhric.org/E_Bulag.pdf This article has nothing to do with Xizang and has no bearing on "Xizang=West Store/Treasurehouse" claim. As to the article claiming all these Mongolian transliteration are "offensive", its claims require further scrunity which I have no time for but is irrelevant here. --- In the most recent edit, I have included the following statement to explain zang. IMHO, it is factual and NPOV there is no basis to remove it (other than for deceitful, intellectually dishonest reasons, of course). The Chinese character (藏, zng), is also exclusively used to describe things Tibetan such as the Tibetan language (藏文, zng wn) and the Tibetan people (藏族, zng z). ((藏, zng) is also a Homonym containing many other unrelated meanings [http://chinese.primezero.com/pzcdz/o.php?search=zang4&submit=primezero+Search]. However, the unrelated meanings are not meant to be inferred from one another as is the case of all homonyms.) I've spent enough time on this and I have presented my point as thoroughly and as rigorously as possible so I have nothing more to say. I have no interest in fighting with editors that insist on introducing bias to taint an article and who give every indication of being intellectually dishonest and not trying to deal in good faith. Doubtlessly, my latest edit will not be the final word but I have no desire to engage in endless edit/revert wars. My career as a wikipedian is over based on this experience. I recommend that some balanced, NPOV interim version should be imposed. I believe Fred Bauder understands my arguments and evidence and I have respect for Fred Bauder and trust him to do it. In the past, he has behaved honorably, fairly and appears to act in good faith. Once some NPOV and balanced version is in place, editted by Fred Baunder, I request that trusted people, perhaps former editors of this page, and other members that might be familiar with the issue to settle this issue once and for all. Again, wonderful and persuasive research. Please don't give up on Wikipedia over this minor issue. User:Fred Bauder 01:09, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) This is indeed a lengthy dissemination of the character "zang" and its possible connotations, and for that you should be commended, however, I must state that your information is based on the Western understanding of the Chinese language and as such, cannot be held to give complete justice to the topic at hand. 1) The character "zang" refers to Buddhisim in general. PERIOD. You based your argument on the fact that most people construe the character as meaning "storehouse", but in reality, one character may have several obscure meanings apart from what is generally understood. As you are undoubtably aware, Tibet has a very deep-seated Buddhist tradition, so it comes as no surprise that the Chinese name for the region is "Xizang" or "Western Zang" -- "zang" likely refers to the "sanzang", or the Three Cantons of Buddhism. 2) "Zang" does in fact mean "a storehouse of treasure" but only when "prefixed" with "Bao", or treasure. This, however, is irrelevant to the region known as Tibet. --User:Taoster 00:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Wow, you guys' arguments are so long and extensive. I couldn't read through, but I just want to express my concern here. For a long time, I thought Zang was, and only was, a proper noun. I looked it up in the dictionary, and its original definition is indeed storehouse, but I bet 99.999% of Chinese don't know this--it's so obsolete and rare (The alternative pronounciation is more common, meaning store, hind, etc.) Although the word Baozang (meaning treasure) is very common, there hardly is any other word involving this Zang having this meaning. So basically Zang is a proper noun, and most Chinese would think so (without looking it up in a dictionary). I also doubt if Tibetans would be offended by a definition that only appears few times in some classical texts. Instead, I'm kind of offended:) I suggest someone take that part out. It's definitely misleading, and not NPOV. --User:Liuyao :That would be a bad idea. User:Markalexander100User talk:Markalexander100 07:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Liuyao: As a Chinese person and and a Chinese speaker, I'm kinda offended too, and I agree with what you're saying. But as long as a view is seriously espoused then we have to present it for NPOV's sake. There's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia (the very existence of the China proper article, for example) that some people would find offensive. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 16:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) == could there be a NPOV version of this? == September 11th was a tragedy for the American people, but it was a boon for totalitarian regimes around the world. In the pursuit of its so-called war on terror, the United States has forged military alliances and inked trade deals with some of the worlds most repressive regimes. On September 13, 2001 China was quietly admitted to the World Trade Organization, and given Most Favored Nation status by U.S., despite the fact the country is one of the worlds worst human rights abusers. With its economy booming, China has become desperate to exploit Tibet's vast mineral and fuel reserves - and that has meant keeping a tight grip on any moves towards Tibetan autonomy. Arrests, torture and destruction of local culture continue despite the tireless work of Tibetan exiles and their high-profile western allies. In fact, the situation grows more dire by the day. Yet unlike an increasing number of indigenous liberation movements, Tibetans have not resorted to violence to achieve their goals.User:Pedant 17:25, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) :And how is this relevant to the writing and NPOV-ization of this article...? -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 22:02, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) :edit: Oh, if I understand you right, you want to put that above paragraph in, but NPOVized? That shouldn't be that hard — as soon as I have the time, I'll splice what's on Chinese Wikipedia here (and vice versa, of course). Then we'll have both opposing viewpoints on both language versions. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 22:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) ::PERFECT thank you Ran ! If you have the time, would you look over Government of Tibet in Exile as well? I have added a 'neutralised' version of the above to the '21st Century' section... if you could add any Chinese POV to that section it would be excellent. Thank you very much for your quick response! If I can be of any help to you please don't hesitate to ask.User:Pedant 02:46, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)\ :::Not remotely neutralized... the first paragraph is completely irrelevant to the topic, the second paragraph almost equally so. The third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs are basically completely POV. :::The point of NPOV is not to write something POV and then have others whittle it down for you... it's to write NPOV to start with. :::You are welcome to put as much POV writings as you like on the talk pages and sort it out before getting to a final version. You can take a look at our attempt on Talk:People's Republic of China (bottom part of page). -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 02:55, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) == Word for word translation from Chinese Wikipedia == I've mentioned above that I eventually intend to splice all of the text related to Tibet, on both English and Chinese Wikipedia, into one big NPOV version. This is a daunting task, so I'll start (for now) by giving a word for word translation of the "Historical background" section of the International Tibet Independence Movement article from Chinese wikipedia. Since my knowledge of Buddhism, etc. is limited some of the translation may be a bit weird. I apologize in advance. ''During the Qing Dynasty in China, Tibet accepted the conferment of the titles of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama from the Emperor of China. These two lamas were disciples of each other (?) and the lines of the living Buddhas continued via reincaration. After the end of the Qing Dynasty, and during the invasion of China by Japan when China was unable to take care of affairs in the west [rough translation], the 13th Dalai Lama and the government of Tibet cooperated in driving the Panchen Lama to Qinghai [that would be Amdo Province]. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China entered and became stationed in Tibet, and only with the approval of the central government was the Panchen Lama able to return to Tibet [Since Qinghai is where he returned from it's clear "Tibet" here = TAR]. Although the central government reached an agreement with the Dalai Lama not to change Tibet's political system, the equitable treatment of Tibetan serfs by the PLA stirred discontent among a number of serf-masters led by the Dalai Lama, resulting eventually in revolt [lit. violent uprising]. The Chinese Communist Government repressed this forcibly, and also a number of serfs refused to cooperate with revolting forces, causing its failure. On March 17 1959 the Dalai Lama, leading about 80000 people, fled to India to seek international help, and established a government in exile in Dharamsala. After Dalai Lama's departure, the Panchen Lama cooperated with the central government, and began reforms targeted at Tibet's traditional serf system, which was welcomed by a number of Tibetans who used to be serfs. But others believe that the Panchen has become a puppet of Beijing's rule over Tibet. The original residence of the Dalai Lama, the Potala Palace, has been maintained, and the central government has devoted funds to its renovation, and in addition the central government has promised the Dalai Lama the right to return at any time, and will not charge him for his acts of treason, but this has not been accepted by the Dalai Lama. Recently he has asked the Chinese Communist Government for Tibetan autonomy under the one country two systems framework.'' Clearly POV, (though this is mostly due to the ''limited selection of facts'' rather than the ''explicit expression of opinion'', which really happens a lot on Tibet-related articles on English Wikipedia). But after all, we need all the POVs to be there for the article to be NPOV, don't we? Once we've sorted this out somewhat I'll translate a more NPOV version back into the Chinese Wikipedia. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 03:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) ==Two sides== I see the Tibetan tragedy as affecting both the Tibetans, who despite having a social and economic system that was remarkably backward and oppressive nevertheless have the right of self-determination on their side. On the other hand, for the Chinese, "No good deed goes unpunished" as they have poured money and cadre into the region and been met with only a grudging acceptance by Tibetans of liberation and international opprobrium. I don't see a barrier, provided NPOV rules are followed, for presenting both points of view. User:Fred Bauder 11:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) == Western Storehouse == "Western Storehouse" is not the way the word is usually analyzed in Chinese. You don't need to ask "most Chinese people" about this; any native speaker of Chinese can tell you that. Have you asked "most English speakers" whether "Canada" reminds you of beer cans, or whether "Germany" reminds you of germs? Do you need to? Any English-speaker ''knows'' instinctively that this is not how the English language works when those words are concerned. And "Western Storehouse" is not how "Xizang" works in Chinese. Frankly I think this entire issue is overblown. The entire "Western Storehouse" thing is ludicrous, on the scale of saying that English speakers call Germany "Germany" because they think Germans are Germs. But we need NPOV, and if some people are seriously putting this subject across we can't do anything about it. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 06:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :I don't think any Chinese person would be surprised by the idea that the connotations of names are relevant when choosing a transcription (note connotations, not meaning). It is not a coincidence that Meiguo, Faguo, Yingguo, Deguo ad nauseam use positive characters. User:Markalexander100 06:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) And yet people type out diatribes against Meiguo, Yingguo etc on online BBS's and use those "positive characters" right along with it. When a Chinese person sees "Meiguo", he/she does NOT see "beautiful country" (no more than you'd see "Germ" in "Germany"); he/she sees "America", and all the connotations that comes with it. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 07:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :(note connotations, (for those who chose the name) not meaning) User:Markalexander100 07:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Argh!! Why are you asking for a source? I ''can't'' provide a source because this is common knowledge to any Chinese speaker. It's like "Germany" does not mean "Many Germs" to an English speaker, it's so ridiculously obvious that it's painful to even have to get into a debate about it. (Would YOU want to get into such a revert war on Germany? And search for a source on why Germany does not ''connote'' "many germs" to English speakers?) I doubt the thought of this has ever even crossed the mind of any Chinese speaker, let alone for them to ''rebutt'' it, let alone for that rebuttal to survive in any permanent form so that I can provide it as a source. In any case, stop deleting what I wrote! This is about NPOV right? If you're presenting the arguments of one side, why aren't you presenting it's opposing view, especially if the opposing view thinks that the initial complaint is completely ludicrous?--User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 17:16, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) ::I will reiterate what I stated above: the character ''does not'' mean "storehouse" in this context. Anyone who is familiar with Buddhism should know of the Tripitaka (Threefold Canton) and its significance to Buddhists. Frankly, it should be viewed as offensive that these so-called "supporters" would use contextually-inane translations to tarnish the good name of "Xi Zang". --User:Taoster 01:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Ran: sweeping unsourced generalisations have no place in Wikipedia and will continue to be deleted. The original text of the article mentions both Tibetan and Chinese POVs. If you want to discuss the wording of the text then this is the place to do it; changing a controversial part of a controversial article without attempting to seek consensus is unhelpful. :Taoster: as I mentioned above, personally I agree with you. If you have a source for our interpretation, then we can add it to the text. I haven't found one yet. User:Markalexander100 01:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Excuse me? What you were doing was not deleting "unsourced generalization", you were deleting all of the arguments that the opposing side has. The original text did not give equal weight to the two sides; it explained one side's reasoning and then, out of nowhere, said that "others disagree". Your repeated reverts kept it that way. In any case, here's my attempt at a rewrite. Please tell me which part of it is a "sweeping unsourced generalization": ''The Chinese name for Tibet, 西藏, Xīzng, is a phonetic transliteration derived from U-Tsang and has been in use since the 18th century. The Chinese character (藏, zng), is also used to describe things Tibetan such as the Tibetan language (藏文, zng wn) and the Tibetan people (藏族, zng z). The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive. ''However, Chinese transliterations of non-Chinese language names take characters for pronunciation only, as long as the characters hold no negative connotations. For example "Vancouver" is translated as 温哥华, pronounced ''wēngēhu'', and literally meaning "warm - brother - majesty" (the meaning is always discounted). In addition, the offending character, "藏", primarily refers to Buddhist scripture; its meaning as "storehouse" is archaic. As a result, some people would hold that the meaning of the character is irrelevant, or that it does not connote "storehouse" in any sense. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 02:31, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) :It is not true that the meaning of the characters are irrelevant so long as they are not negative: characters with positive meanings are used to express a positive attitude. The Vancouver material is obviously irrelevant to an article on Tibet, and is original research (so therefore should not be included). As I mentioned above, I have found no source as yet for the relevance of the Buddhist scripture meaning; if you find one, we can add that interpretation to the text. User:Markalexander100 02:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) I still can't leave the article dangling like that. As of now it seriously seems to imply that Chinese people call Tibet "Western Storehouse" in the literal sense (and the article implies some sort of "underlying racism" in the process). No one in China thinks of it that way... "zang", when used to refer to Tibet, means "Tibet" and nothing else. Reminds me of something I saw on the net; someone said that the name for Africa in Chinese, "feizhou", literally means "non-continent", and says that it's "meaningful". But "feizhou" is simply short for "afeilijia zhou", which is a straightforward phonetic transcription of "Africa". To imply things that Chinese people themselves don't realize is, I think, not just POV; it's pushing forward patent falsehoods. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 01:58, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) I think that if one can't talk about Germany as being related to the word germ, or Germany as related to the word Ale, as seen in its Romance language translations, or Tibet as being like a storehouse in the West, or even the word 'west' in Chinese as looking like a bottle of Cointreau or Triple Sec, then one might be a little aperspectival as regards the use of language to create poetic names and constructs that people enjoy using. We should try to make it easy to discuss the obvious when it comes to translation issues. --User:McDogm 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == 1.2 million == Fred Bauder: Thanks for the added information. But is it possible for you to add information on what 1.2 million (or 500,000) Tibetans died ''of''? It seems to me that this information is commonly quoted to prove that there is a racist campaign, on the whole, of "Chinese killing Tibetans", and that the PRC is racist, even though there is little legal difference in rights between ethnic Han Chinese and Tibetans in general (if anything, it is the Han Chinese who are discriminated against, from college admissions to government jobs to the one-child policy). Moreover, it was precisely in the same interval (1953-1964) that the Great Leap Forward happened and managed to kill 20 million people in all of China; this campaign was certainly the result of ideological stupidity, not racism. So I strongly suspect that ''that famine'' can account for most of the casualty figures; but I don't have a source for this, which is why I'm asking you help. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 17:54, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) Most of the violence involved Tibetans attacking Chinese. Which of course the Chinese with airplanes, machine guns and artillery responded to with devestating effect. On page 126 of ''Tibet, Tibet'' is a bit about one group of nomads during the Great Leap forward: "They weren't allowed to make their own food. Twice a day they would be served a thin ''tsampa'' soup in a big communal tent." "[The nomads] weren't allowed to keep animals, although some people secretly kept sheep." [The Chinese] tried plowing up grassland, but of course nothing grew." "It was in 1959 and 1960, the worst years of the famine. A lot of people died. Many of my old friends died. My father's brother, my mother's mother, my mother's brother's wife, my paternal cousins--all of these people starved to death" (The speaker, who was captured during a battle, was in prison). This group of nomads had their tents taken away and were forced to live in concrete shelters which Patrick French describes at page 128: "The sheds lay in a long crumbling row about a mile away, in the lee of a hill. Each was about 2 meters high, an arch of rough brick and cement, open at either end to the wind and rain. It was hardly imaginable that people had lived there, ten to a shed in the burning winter cold. The sheds reminded me of the hutches used to keep pigs in England." According to page 278 the exile total includes, "starvation, fighting, torture, execution, suicide and struggle sessions." This is rather like the Ukrainian calculations where everyone who died in the Great Famine is blamed on the Russians. There is a certain justice to this. After all if the Chinese had simply left the status quo alone, probably any famine would not have affected Tibet, but then some other thing might have happened. User:Fred Bauder 19:24, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) :Thanks Fred... if you can, can you add the information to the article? :Also, the Ukraine article says: "Soviet Ukraine experienced two famines (192122 and 193233)the second of which was deliberate, and termed the "Holodomor"in which many millions died (scholarly estimates range from 4 to 10 million dead).". Surely the famine of the Great Leap Forward was not deliberate? Or do people have somewhat different definitions of what "deliberate" means? -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 05:00, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) :Some think that the Great Leap Forward famine didn't affect Tibet? That's illogical. About 20 million people starved to death in China from 1958 to 1961 but somehow the Tibet region remained perfectly fine and dandy? Don't be ridiculous. == "Tibet" == A lot is said about the naming of Tibet in Asian languages, but where does "Tibet" come from? == Disambiguate == Simply having the first paragraph explain things isn't enough. If an article talks about just one of two definitions of a given term, we should put the alternate definition as a disambiguation line on top. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 22:45, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC) == Students for a Free Tibet == Why was the link to Students for a Free Tibet removed? User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)
This category concerns Tibet, a territory which part of is currently administered by the People's Republic of China as an autonomous region of China, the rest is divided up among the provinces of Qinghai and Sichuan. There is controversy regarding its proper legal status. Disputed territories Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China Himalayas
==:Category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China== Huaiwei [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tibet&oldid=11695126&diff=next added] this category to :category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China. I deliberately did not do this because there are currently separate articles on Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region. I am not sure which meaning of "Tibet" is this category referring to. Feel free to comment on whether this category should or should not be categorised to :category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 19:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) :Added :category:Disputed territories. Just noticed :category:Kashmir was categorised under :category:Political divisions of India, :category:Pakistan and :category:People's Republic of China as well.--User:Huaiwei 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Still we've got to figure out whether this category is referring to Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region, or both. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 19:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) :::Since I see just about any reference to Tibet in this one category, plus both articles mentioned earlier, we might as well treat it as reference to both as well. Of do you have anything concrete to suggest? List this in Categories of countries?--User:Huaiwei 23:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps we can now treat this category as reference to both, unless there're some other users object it. ::By the way, Tibet is at the time being not a sovereign State. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 06:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::But the definition of a country is fluid isnt it? In that sence, Tibet is a country too, especially as far as some Tibetans are concerned. :D --User:Huaiwei 07:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Very true. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 10:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::So why dont you do that now? Meanwhile, perhaps you might want to do the same for ALL other similar cases? Looking though :Category:Disputed territories might help. ;) --User:Huaiwei 10:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::What do I have to do, and why do I have to do that? — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 13:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::Add them to country lists? Afterall for one, you insisted that the term country can be interpreted differently (which is true), and all these territories probably qualify, and secondly, arent you a stickler for "consistency"? Meanwhile, I still have no idea what you really want to do to this category.--User:Huaiwei 14:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::As I have stated above, I did not categorise this category to :category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China, as I was not sure whether this category is dedicated for Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region. :::The articles in this category already tells you what they are supposed to represent. Unless you find a need to break it up that is. If so, just say so, and dont beat around the bush.--User:Huaiwei 15:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::By convention, whatever lists of "countries/regions" cover only sovereign States, and entities that demonstrate certain level of independence (unless for some ad hoc reasons, such as Scotland for football events). Excuse me for my ignorance, I have never seen Tibet being listed on such lists. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::Scotland has its own parliament, and btw if you did not realise, the United Kingdom is indeed made up of four countries. Go check it out yourself. Perhaps in your quest for "accuracy", you will now go about insisting that they should ditch the name 'united kingdom" and only list the four countries in country lists?--User:Huaiwei 15:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I know. But you'd seldom encounter a list of countries/regions with Scotland or Tibet, but Hong Kong and Bermuda. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 16:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Tibet:
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
TIBET(tm)
Tibetan
Tibetans
Tibetan_(language)
Tibetan_alphabet
Tibetan_alphabet
Tibetan_Antelope
Tibetan_antelope
Tibetan_antelopes
Tibetan_art
Tibetan_Autonomous_Region
Tibetan_Bells
Tibetan_Bells
Tibetan_Black_Bear
Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead
Tibetan_book_of_the_dead
Tibetan_Buddhism
Tibetan_Buddhism
Tibetan_Buddhism
Tibetan_Buddhist
Tibetan_Buddhists
Tibetan_Buddhist_canon
Tibetan_Buddism
Tibetan_Calendar
Tibetan_calendar
Tibetan_canon
Tibetan_eye_chart
Tibetan_Fox
Tibetan_Gazelle
Tibetan_Goji_berry
Tibetan_Government-In-Exile
Tibetan_Government-in-Exile
Tibetan_Government_in_Exile
Tibetan_kings
Tibetan_Lamaism
Tibetan_language
Tibetan_language
Tibetan_Macaque
Tibetan_Macaque
Tibetan_macaque
Tibetan_Mastiff
Tibetan_Mastiff
Tibetan_music
Tibetan_Muslim
Tibetan_Muslims
Tibetan_ox
Tibetan_oxen
Tibetan_people
Tibetan_people
Tibetan_people
Tibetan_Plateau
Tibetan_Plateau
Tibetan_plateau
Tibetan_resistance_movement
Tibetan_rug
Tibetan_rugs
Tibetan_Sandgrouse
Tibetan_sandgrouse
Tibetan_script
Tibetan_script
Tibetan_Singing_Bowl
Tibetan_Sky_Burial
Tibetan_sky_burial
Tibetan_Spaniel
Tibetan_Terrier
Tibetan_White-eared_Pheasant
Tibetan_written_language
Tibetan_written_language
Tibetian_rug
Tibetibet
Tibeto-Burman
Tibeto-Burman_language
Tibeto-Burman_Languages
Tibeto-Burman_languages
Tibeto-Burman_languages
Tibet_AR
Tibet_Autonomous_Region
Tibet_Autonomous_Region
Tibet_Government_in_Exile
Tibet_independence_movement
Tibet_resistance_movement
Tibet_traditional_provinces
Tibet
:''This article is on Historic Tibet. "Tibet" can also refer to the Tibet Autonomous Region.'' {| align=right | colspan=7 | |- | width=10px height=15px bgcolor=#ff4040 | | width=10px bgcolor=#ff9f40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | Historic Tibet as claimed by Tibetan exile groups |- | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#ff9f40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ffff | | width=10px | | Tibetan areas designated by the People's Republic of China |- | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px | | width=10px | | Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control) |- | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px | | width=10px | | Claimed by India as part of Aksai Chin |- | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ffff | | width=10px | | Claimed by PRC as part of Tibet Autonomous Region |- | width=10px | | width=10px bgcolor=#ff9f40 align=center| ? | width=10px bgcolor=#ffff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ff40 | | width=10px bgcolor=#40ffff | | width=10px bgcolor=#4040ff | | Historic Tibet commonly claimed by Chinese nationalists |} Tibet (Tibetan language: བོད་, ''Bod'', pronounced ''p'' in Lhasa dialect; Chinese language: 西藏, pinyin: ''Xizang'') is a region and formerly independent country in Central Asia and the home of the Tibetan people, the majority of which is controlled by the People's Republic of China (PRC). With an average elevation of 4,900 m (16,000 ft), it is often called the 'Roof of the World'. When Tibetans and the Tibetan government in exile refer to Tibet, they mean a large area that formed the cultural entity of Tibet for many centuries, consisting of the traditional provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang, but excluding the present-day Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, or other culturally related areas like Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ladakh. When the PRC refer to Tibet, they mean the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) which, according to the territorial claims of the PRC, includes Arunachal Pradesh; some Chinese nationalists may also add Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ladakh. The TAR covers the former -Tsang province and western Kham province, while other traditionally Tibetan areas have been incorporated into the present-day Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan, and Sichuan. Lhasa is Tibet's traditional capital and the capital of Tibet Autonomous Region. Other cities in Greater Tibet include Shigatse, Gyangtse, Qamdo, Jyekundo, Dartsedo, Golmud, Lhatse, Maqin, Pelbar, Sakya (Sa-skya) and Tingri. == Name == The English word ''Tibet'' like the word for Tibet in most European languages, ultimately derives (via Arabic language and Persian language) from a Turkic word ''Tbd'' (pl. ''Tbn'') meaning "the heights". (Behr, W. Oriens 34 (1994): 557-564.) The Middle Chinese word for Tibet, ''tufan'' has the same origin. Tibetans call their homeland ''Bod'' (བོད་), pronounced ''p'' in Lhasa dialect. It is first attested in the geography of Ptolemy as βαται (batai) and in Chinese texts as fa (Beckwith, C. U. of Indiana Diss. 1977). They refer to a fatherland, rather than a motherland as does India. The Chinese name for Tibet, 西藏 (Xīzng), is a phonetic transliteration derived from -Tsang, in use since the 18th century. The Chinese character 藏 (zng) is also used to describe Tibetan things such as the Tibetan language (藏文, zng wn) and the Tibetan people (藏族, zng z). The two characters of Xīzng can literally mean "western storehouse", which many Tibetans find offensive. However, the offending character, "zng", can also mean "treasure" or "Buddhist scripture". In addition, Chinese transliterations of non-Chinese names do not necessarily take into account the literal meanings of words; usually a positive or neutral connotation combined with phonetic similarity is enough for the transliteration to come into use. == Status == [[Image:Flag of Tibet.gif|thumb|right|275px|Flag of Tibet before 1950. This version was introduced by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1912. It continues to be used by the Government of Tibet in Exile, and as such is banned in the PRC as a symbol of separatism.]] While there is little dispute that Tibet was once an independent country, there is intense dispute over the legitimacy of the PRC's rule over Tibet today. Since 1959 the former government of Tibet, led by the Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, has maintained a Government of Tibet in Exile at Dharamsala, in northern India. It claims sovereignty over Tibet, with borders defined as the entirety of what it terms "Historic Tibet", although it controlled only about half of that area before 1959. The Government of Tibet claims Tibet to be a distinct nation independent before conquest by the Mongol Empire (Yuan Dynasty) 700 years ago; between the fall of the Mongol Empire and conquest by the Manchu Empire (Qing Dynasty); and again after the fall of the Manchu Empire in 1912 and incorporation into the PRC in 1951. As such, it views subsequent Chinese rule in Tibet as colonial and illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in gross violation of the right of Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to the autocratic and divide and rule policies imposed by the PRC, as well as what it claims to be assimilationist policies of the PRC, regarding those as an example of Chinese imperialism bent at destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. On the other hand, the PRC claims to rule Tibet legitimately, by claiming that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China ''de jure'' since Mongol (Yuan) conquest 700 years ago. The PRC contends that all subsequent Chinese governments onwards up till the PRC to have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising ''de jure'' sovereignty and some level of ''de facto'' power over Tibet in accordance with the succession of states theory, despite periods of autonomy, such as between 1912 and 1951. For example, Tibetan delegates were present in 1947 in Nanjing to take part in the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic of China, and no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition during that period. Moreover, China considers all movements aimed at ending Chinese suzerainty in Tibet, starting with British attempts in the late 19th century and early 20th century, to the Government of Tibet in Exile today, as one long campaign abetted by malicious Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese integrity and sovereignty, thereby weakening China's position in the world. The PRC also points to the autocratic and theocracy policies of the government of Tibet before 1959, as well as its renunciation of Arunachal Pradesh, and as such claims the Government of Tibet in Exile has no moral legitimacy to govern Tibet. == History of Tibet == :''Main articles: History of Tibet and Foreign relations of Tibet'' Little is known of Tibet before the 7th century, though the Tibetan language is widely reckoned to be related to the Tibeto-Burman languages and by some to Chinese language as well. According a legend in 14th century Mani Bka' 'bum, the Tibetans are descended from the union of a monkey and a rock ogress. The monkey was an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara (Spyan ras gzigs in Tibetan, pronounced Cenrezik), the Buddha of compassion, and the ogress an incarnation of Tara ('Grol ma in Tibetan, pronounced Drolma). Tibet was a strong empire between the 7th and 10th century. The distinctive form of Tibetan society, in which land was divided into three different types of holding - estates of noble families, freeheld lands and estates held by monasteries of particular Tibetan Buddhists sects - arose after the weakening of the Tibetan kings in the 10th century. This form of society was to continue into the 1950s, at which time more than 700,000 of the country's population of 1.25 million were landed peasants. [[Image:Potala Palace PD.jpg|framed|The Potala Palace in Lhasa]] In the 13th century Tibet was incorporated into the Mongolian empire. The Mongol rulers granted secular leadership of Tibet to the Sa-skya school of Tibetan Buddhism. There followed an interregnum period in which there were three secular dynasties. There followed an interregnum period in which there were three secular dynasties. The Mongols again invaded at the start of the 16th century, declaring the remaining religious lineage, that of the Dalai Lamas, to be the official government. By the early 18th century China established the right to have resident commissioners, called ''amban'', in Lhasa. When the Tibetans rebelled against the Chinese in 1750 and killed the amban, a Chinese army entered the country and installed new amban, but the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before. In 1904 the British sent a largely India military force and seized Lhasa, forcing Tibet to open a border crossing with British Raj. A 1906 treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a ''de facto'' British protectorate. There was also a Foreign relations of Nepal mission in Lhasa remaining from a similar invasion by Nepal in 1855. After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910. It was not to last long, however, as Chinese troops had to withdraw to their homeland to fight in the 1911 Revolution, giving the Dalai Lama the opportunity to re-establish control. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913) proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China. The subsequent outbreak of World War I and Chinese Civil War caused the Western powers and China to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed. At that time the government of Tibet controlled all of U-Tsang and western Kham, roughly coincident with the borders of Tibet Autonomous Region today. Eastern Kham, separated by the Yangtze River was under the control of Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui. The situation in Amdo (Qinghai) was more complicated, with the Xining area controlled by ethnic Hui people warlord Ma Bufang, who constantly strove to exert control over the rest of Amdo (Qinghai). Neither the Nationalist government of the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet, crushing the largely ceremonial Tibetan army and destroying as many as 6,000 Tibetan temples. In 1951 the Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, a treaty signed under Chinese pressure by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority. Most of the population of Tibet at that time were peasants, working lands owned by the estate holders. Any attempt at land reform or the redistribution of wealth would have proved unpopular with the government. This agreement was initially put into effect in Tibet proper. However, Eastern Kham and Amdo were outside the administration of the government of Tibet, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province with land reform implemented in full. As a result, a rebellion broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June of 1956. The rebellion, supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was crushed by 1959, during which campaign tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1969. Although he remained a virtual prisoner, the Chinese set the Panchen Lama as a figurehead in Lhasa, claiming that he headed the legitimate Government of Tibet in the absence of the Dalai Lama, the traditional head of government. In 1965, the area that had been under the control of the Dalai Lama's government from the 1910s to 1959 (U-Tsang and western Kham) was set up as an Autonomous region. The monastic estates were broken up and secular education introduced. During the Cultural Revolution Red Guards inflicted a campaign of organized vandalism against cultural sites in the entire PRC, including Tibet's Buddhist heritage. Of the several thousand monasteries in Tibet, only a handful remained without major damage, and thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were killed or imprisoned. The number of military and civilian Tibetans that have died in the Great Leap Forward, violence, or other unnatural causes since 1950 is often quoted at approximately 1.2 million, which the Chinese Communist Party vehemently denies. According to Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, the estimate is not reliable because the Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. There were, however, many casualties, perhaps as many as 400,000. This figure is extrapolated from a calculation Warren W. Smith made from census reports of Tibet which show 200,000 "missing" from Tibet. Even ''The Black Book of Communism'' expresses doubt at the 1.2 million figure, but does note that according to Chinese census there was a population of 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964 in Tibet proper. It is reported that when Hu Yaobang, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, visited Lhasa in 1980 he cried in shame when he viewed the misery and described the situation as "colonialism pure and simple". Reforms were instituted, and since then Chinese policy in Tibet has veered between tolerance and repression. Most religious freedoms have been officially restored, but monks and nuns are still sometimes imprisoned, and thousands of able-bodied Tibetans continue to flee Tibet yearly. The government of Tibet claims that millions of Chinese immigrants to the TAR are diluting the Tibetans both culturally and through intermarriage. Exile groups say that despite recent attempts to restore the appearance of original Tibetan culture to attract tourism, the traditional Tibetan way of life is now irrevocably changed. The government of the PRC rejects these claims, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts, as well as public infrastructure projects aimed at improving the lives of Tibetans, and say that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. == Geography == :''Main article: Geography of Tibet'' Tibet is located on the Tibetan Plateau, the world's highest region. Most of the Himalaya mountain range lies within Tibet. Its most famous peak, Mount Everest, is on Nepal's border with Tibet. The atmosphere is severely dry nine months of the year. Western passes receive small amounts of fresh snow each year but remain traversable year round. Low temperatures are prevalent throughout these western regions, where bleak desolation is unrelieved by any vegetation beyond the size of low bushes, and where wind sweeps unchecked across vast expanses of arid plain. The Indian monsoon exerts some influence on eastern Tibet. Northern Tibet is subject to high temperatures in summer and intense cold in winter. Historic Tibet consists of several regions: * Amdo (a'mdo) in the northeast, incorporated by China into the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan. * Kham (khams) in the east, part of Sichuan, northern Yunnan and part of Qinghai. ** Western Kham, part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region * U (dbus), in the center, part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region * Tsang (gtsang) in the west, part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region Tibetan cultural influences extend to the neighboring states of Bhutan, Nepal, adjacent regions of India such as Sikkim and Ladakh, and adjacent provinces of China where Tibetan Buddhism is the predominant religion. Several majors rivers have their source in Tibet, including: * Yangtze River * Huang He (Yellow River) * Indus River * Mekong * Brahmaputra * Ganges == Economy == The Tibetan economy is dominated by subsistence agriculture. Due to limited arable land, livestock raising is the primary occupation. In recent years, tourism has become an increasingly important sector, and is actively promoted by the authorities. The Qingzang Railway is being built to link the region with China proper. == Demographics == :Image:China_ethnolinguistic_1967.jpg,_which_includes_a_key)">Image:Tibet ethnolinguistic 1967.png|right|thumb|300px|Ethnolinguistic Groups of Tibet, 1967 (:Image:China ethnolinguistic 1967.jpg, which includes a key) Historically, the population of Tibet consisted of primarily ethnic Tibetan people. Other ethnic groups in Tibet include Menba, Lhoba, Mongols and Hui Chinese. The issue of the proportion of the Han Chinese population in Tibet is a politically sensitive one. Between the 1960s and 1980s, many prisoners (over 1 million, according to Harry Wu) were sent to laogai camps in Amdo (Qinghai), where they were then employed locally after release. Since the 1980s, increasing economic liberalization and internal mobility has also resulted in the influx of many Han Chinese into Tibet for work or settlement, though the actual number of this floating population remains disputed. The Government of Tibet in Exile gives the number of non-Tibetans in Tibet as 7.5 million (as opposed to 6 million Tibetans), and considers this the result of an active policy of demographically swamping the Tibetan people and further diminishing any chances of Tibetan political independence, and as such in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1946 that prohibits settlement by occupying powers. The Government of Tibet in Exile also doubts all statistics given by the PRC government, since they do not generally include members of the People's Liberation Army garrisoned in Tibet, or the floating population of unregistered migrants. The Qingzang Railway is also a major concern, as it is believed to further facilitate the influx of migrants. However, the PRC government does not view itself as an occupying power and has vehemently denied allegations of demographic swamping. The PRC also does not recognize the borders of Tibet as claimed by the government of Tibet in Exile, saying that it includes historically non-Tibetan areas populated by non-Tibetans for generations (such as the Xining area), making the figure of 7.5 million vs. 6 million flawed. PRC statistics state that 92% of the population in Tibet Autonomous Region is ethnic Tibetan, though this proportion is significantly lower than those given for Amdo and eastern Kham, as Han Chinese are not evenly distributed all over historic Tibet. In the TAR itself, much of the Han Chinese population is to be found in the capital. Population control policies like the one-child policy only apply to Han Chinese, not to minorities such as Tibetans. The PRC says that it is dedicated to the protection of traditional Tibetan culture; it also groups the Qingzang Railway, renovation work at the Potala Palace, and other projects as part of a costly but benevolent effort by the wealthier, eastern half of China to aid the poorer, western regions. == Culture == :''See also Tibetan art, Tibetan rug, Tibetan calendar.'' Tibet is the traditional center of Tibetan Buddhism, a distinctive form of Vajrayana. Tibetan Buddhism is not only practiced in Tibet; it is also the prevalent religion in Mongolia. Tibet is also home for the original spiritual tradition called Bn (also spelled Bon). Various dialects of the Tibetan language are spoken across the country. Tibetan is written using the Tibetan script. In Tibetan cities, there are also small communities of Tibetan Muslim, known as Kache, who trace their origin from immigrants from three main regions: Kashmir (kachee yul), Ladakh and Nepal. Islamic influence in Tibet also came from Persia and Turkestan. There is also a well established Chinese Muslim community (gya kachee) tracing its ancestry back to the Hui ethnic group of China. It is said that Muslim migrants from Kashmir and Ladakh first entered Tibet around the 12th century. Gradually, marriages and social interaction led to an increase in the population until a sizable community grew up around Lhasa. The Potala Palace, former residence of the Dalai Lamas, is a World Heritage Site. == Further reading & media == * Dowman, Keith (1988). ''The Power-Places of Central Tibet: The Pilgrim's Guide.'' Routledge & Kegan Paul. London, ISBN 0710213700. New York, ISBN 0140191186. * Shakya, Tsering (1999). ''The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947.'' Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231118147. * Pachen, Ani; Donnely, Adelaide (2000). ''Sorrow Mountain: The Journey of a Tibetan Warrior Nun.'' Kodansha America, Inc. ISBN 1568362943. * Goldstein, Melvyn C.; with the help of Gelek Rimpche. ''A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State.'' Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers (1993), ISBN 8121505828. University of California (1991), ISBN 0520075900. * Grunfield, Tom (1996). ''The Making of Modern Tibet.'' ISBN 1563247135. * Schell, Orville (2000). ''Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood.'' Henry Holt. ISBN 0805043810. * Thurman, Robert (2002). ''Robert Thurman on Tibet.'' DVD. ASIN B00005Y722. * Wilby, Sorrel (1988). ''Journey Across Tibet: A Young Woman's 1900-Mile Trek Across the Rooftop of the World.'' Contemporary Books. ISBN 0809246082. * Wilson, Brandon (2004). ''Yak Butter Blues: A Tibetan Trek of Faith.'' Heliographica. An Imprint of Pilgrim's Tales. ISBN 1933037237, ISBN 1933037245. * Norbu, Thubten Jigme; Turnbull, Colin (1968). ''Tibet: Its History, Religion and People.'' Reprint: Penguin Books (1987). * Stein, R. A. (1962). ''Tibetan Civilization.'' First published in French; English translation by J. E. Stapelton Driver. Reprint: Stanford University Press (with minor revisions from 1977 Faber & Faber edition), 1995. ISBN 0804708061. == See also == * variste Rgis Huc (Abb Huc) visited Tibet in 1845-1846, and wrote his observations in ''Souvenirs d'un voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet, et la Chine pendant les annes 1844-1846''. * Francis Younghusband led a punitive military expedition to Tibet in 1904. * Alexandra David-Neel visited Lhasa in 1924, and wrote several books about the country and its culture. * List of not fully sovereign nations == External links == === Pro-independence === * [http://www.tibet.com/ The Government of Tibet in exile] * [http://www.tibet.net/ Central Tibetan Administration (Government in Exile)] * [http://www.betterworldlinks.org/tibet.htm Better World Links on Tibet] — biggest link collection on Tibet * [http://www.tibet.org/ Tibet Online - Tibet Support Group] * [http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/china/document.do?id=B0641B4B43873B66802569A600601F21 Repression in Tibet, 1987 - 1992] * [http://www.kinaboykot.dk/video.htm Repression in Tibet] * [http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/ Students for a Free Tibet] * [http://www.freetibet.org/ Free Tibet website] * [http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVL-TibetanStudies.html Tibetan Studies WWW Virtual Library] * [http://www.archive.org/download/tibet_gnn/tibet_bb.mov ''Faith in Exile''] - A video by the Guerrilla News Network * [http://www.olympicwatch.org/topics.php?id=10 Olympic Watch] (Committee for the 2008 Olympic Games in a Free and Democratic Country) on Tibet-related issues * [http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/50602/ Freedom of expression violations in Tibet] *[http://www.tibet.ca/ Canada Tibet Committee] === Pro-PRC === * [http://www.tibetonline.net/ Tibet Online] (Simplified Chinese) * [http://www.utibet.edu.cn/ Tibet University] (Simplified Chinese) * [http://www.tibettour.org/chinatibettoursite/moban/index.asp Tibet Tour (Tibet Tourism Bureau Official Site)] * [http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/zgxz/default.htm PRC Government Tibet information] * [http://www.chinatibetnews.com/BIG5/channel19/155/200212/16/5475.html Naming of Tibet] (Simplified Chinese) * [http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html China, Tibet and the Chinese nation] * [http://www.tibetinfor.com.cn/english/ China Tibet Information Center] * [http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20011108/index.htm Chinese government white paper, "Tibet's March Toward Modernization"] (2001) * [http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/ Chinese government white paper "Tibet -- Its Ownership And Human Rights Situation"] (1992) * [http://english.people.com.cn/whitepaper/tbpaper/tb.html White Paper on Ecological Improvement and Environmental Protection in Tibet] * [http://english.people.com.cn/features/tibetpaper/tibet.html White Paper on Tibetan Culture and Homayk] * [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/23/content_333030.htm Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet] (May 2004) === Others === * [http://www.haiweitrails.com/timeline_tibet.htm Haiwei Trails - Timeline of Tibet] * [http://perso.wanadoo.fr/tibetmap/p28.html Photographs] * [http://perso.wanadoo.fr/tibetmap/mapbr1.html Maps] * [http://www.tibetmap.com/ The Tibet Map Institute] * [http://www.accesstibettour.com/tibet-map.html Tibet Maps] * [http://www.tibettravel.cn Tibet Travel Service] * [http://www.tibet.freeserve.co.uk/ Beefy's Nepal and Tibet Page] - photos and information on Tibet (and Nepal) * [http://www.tibetsupport.org/ Tibetan Support Programme] * [http://www.cwru.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/Impact_China_Reform_Policy.htm The Impact of China's Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet by Melvyn C. Goldstein and Cynthia M. Beall] - An examination of the impact of China's post-1980 Tibet policy on a traditional nomadic area of Tibet's Changtang (Northern Plateau) about 300 miles west-north-west of Lhasa in Phala Xiang, Ngamring county. * [http://www.yakbutterblues.com/TibetFacesExtinction Yak Butter Blues-Tibet Faces Extinction] - Tibet's struggle to survive, as witnessed by author Brandon Wilson, during a 1000 km trek from Lhasa to Kathmandu in 1992; detailed in the non-fiction book Yak Butter Blues: A Tibetan Trek of Faith Disputed territories Himalayas Tibet bo:བོད་ br:Tibet gd:Tibet hi:तिब्बत ka:ტიბეტი
Tibet
== Removal of two bibliographic items == French's Golden Yoke is a really bad book, and contains basically no facutal or accurate information on the premodern Tibetan legal tradition. Please see Leonard van der Kuijp's review in the Central Asiatic Journal. 1999. "The Yoke is on the Reader: A Recent Study of Tibetan Jurisprudence." Central Asiatic Journal 43/2: 266-292. A better source for the Tibetan legal tradition would be Schuh, D. (1984), "Recht und Gesetz in Tibet," Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, ommemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Csoma de Koros, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado), 291-311. or citations in van der Kuijp's review. I have also removed the Yeshede project for the same reasons, a better study of early Tibetan history is of course Beckwith's ''The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia'', Princeton. I have not however added these to the bibliography, because I think it inappropriate that an encyclopedia article have a long bibliography. == Tibet and the Mongols == I don't know who spread the rumour that Cinngis Qaghan (aka. Gengis Khan) invaded Tibet. He did not. Anyone interested in Tibeto-Mongol relations I commend Luciano Petechs Book ''Central Tibet and the Mongols'' to. --Nathan Hill 16:42, 23 May 2005. == History of the Name Tibet == There is nothing quite so frustrating as having many hours of work which is factual and unbiased being deleted by someone who gives no explanation. The section on the name I have cited twice, if someone disagrees with it please tell me why and do not simply delete it. --Nathan hill 14:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == Origin of the Tibetan Script == I have removed mention to the Tibetan script being invented in order to translate buddist texts, because this is probably not the case. The oldest documents in Tibetan are administrative these include the wood-slips on Turfan, the Old Tibetan Annals, and various stone inscriptions. Most of thse (and all of the oldest) make no mention of Buddhism. The story of Tumi Sambhota is incidentally false. These matters have been well studied by Roy Andrew Miller, Rona-Tas, Geza Uray, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi. --Nathan Hill 16:60, 23 May 2005. I distinctly remember reading somewhere that a part of the north-east of Tibet had been split off into other P.R.China provinces, so it's probably true. Btw, could someone shrink that map image? It takes forever to load :) :Yeah. TAR is mere the former domain of the Dalai Lama, half of whole Tibet. See [http://www.tibet.com/map.gif]. -- User:Nanshu 12:27 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC) ---- == Multingual translations == The various names, spellings, and transliterations of "Tibet" need to be tidied up a bit. It looks like there's at least one typo there too. I've split the names from the first paragraph because it was getting too hard to read. User:Hippietrail 12:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) : Yes, that multingual list is a bit unreadable, but it looks worse to have two bolded titles, bolded titles. I have made it into a list (~ Yanbian). Fix it if there's any mistakes. --User:Menchi (User talk:Menchi) 12:54, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- The map on the page seems not to have the government-in-exile's borders. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang :Methinks the borders of the government-in-exile are pre-1950 Tibet's borders. At least, their claimed borders. (They don't actually claim any territory in Dharamsala) -- User:Xiaopo 18:42, Jan 22, 2004 (PDT) ==Tibet v. TAR== This should be merged with Tibetan Autonomous Region. The claim that exiled populations can be called part of Tibet is bogus. We'll recognize this claim, but there's no need to create 2 separate articles on the same land. (The part of "Tibet" not in the autonomous region can be mentioned too. It's too negligible to deserve a separate article.) --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 23:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Discussion of a larger region should belong in Tibetan Plateau. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang No. Many scholars use Tibet in Tibetans' sense. --User:Nanshu 02:40, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) :What is the "Tibetans" sense? The listing of the regions refer to the entire Plateau. All other prominent encyclopedias and common usage refers to the the AR. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:44, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) "Tibet" and "Tibetan Plateau" aren't synonymous. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang Of course they are, what should it be then? Historic Tibet is on the "Tibetan Plateau" like you can see on old maps! The "TAR" is only the southern part of the plateau, because the northern and western parts have been entirely encorporated into "PRC". No part of China or Mongolia or East Turkestan were on the plateau. User:Umrao When scholars (espacially historians) refer use "Tibet", it does not refer to the TAR but Tibet as the Tibetans refer to. I wonder why you are sensitive about the PRC-ROC issue but not about the Tibet-TAR one. --User:Nanshu 03:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, and the World Book must all not be written by historians then. WB states, "The Tibet Autonomous Region of China has an area of 471,662 square miles (1,221,600 square kilometers). Prior to the Chinese take-over, Tibet covered about 965,000 square miles (2,500,000 square kilometers). Much of this area now falls in neighboring provinces." We only need to acknowledge the historical region of Tibet; we don't need an entirely separate article. There's no point in having history, geography, and culture sections in both articles. They are the same thing for both. All we have to do is to state: ''Historically, Tibet consisted of the provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. Amdo is now composes the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu & Sichuan. Kham has been largely incorporated into the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan and Qinghai. The Tibet Autonomous Region occupies U-Tsang and Western Kham.'' When the media refers to Tibet, it refers only to the AR. When we talk about transport in Tibet or economy of Tibet, we also refer to the AR. The entire region is only referred to for historical purposes. We don't say we visited Tibet when we visited Sichuan. People would get confused. If we merge, we don't have to ignore the greater region entirely. The geography article (copied from the 1911 EB) discusses the entire region. Our summary of the various sections on this page can talk about both. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:47, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I agree that Tibet should be merged into Tibet Autonomous Region. Hawaii doesn't have an article separate from Hawaii, the state, but the Hawaii article obviously refers to the modern US state as its main subject and talks about Hawaii, the former kingdom. --User:Xiaopo's User talk:Xiaopo 07:45, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC) What I called "historians" are those who are also knowledgeable about Tibet before the last stage of the Qing Dynasty. It's very regretful that Westerners are overinfluenced by the image of "China" at that time. Politically, there are some groups who oppose to call the TAR just "Tibet". See http://www.tibet.com/glance.html "Tibetan Automonous Region" is the formal (English) name for that entity and some use "Tibet" as the short form of TAR. But "Tibet" is Tibet; there is no longer or shorter name. "Tibetan Plateau" is absurd because "Tibet" is not only a geographical term but also a political, historical, cultural one. Therefore, it is the best solution to put the content of Tibet on "Tibet" and the information about the TAR on "Tibetan Automonous Region". --User:Nanshu 00:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) It's pointless to have two culture sections, two history sections, two geography sections, etc. when they basically say the same thing. I am not asking that the AR article override this one. The article will start of "Tibet in the region in central Asia consisting of..." Only after the first sentence will we mention the AR. We ''will'' acknowledge the government-in-exile's view on Tibet, but that doesn't require an entirely new article. The AR can be a compontent of this article. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 01:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) The only reason that two pages overlap is the stubness of the article Tibet. The history section of Tibet will describe the overall history of Tibet while that of the TAR will treat the Chinese domination (Yah, we have to fix the awful article History of Tibet). Geography. The Tibetan geographical conception is different from Chinese's. These are sufficient reasons to separate Tibet from the TAR. The merging implies: "We acknowledge the government-in-exile's view but we are in side of the PRC." That's not a NPOV. --User:Nanshu 18:59, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) :Not really - this article ''will not'' start out with a definition of the autonomous region and the description of the history, land, etc. will not be limited to the autonomous region. It's all up to where we put the phrases. This is not internet-encyclopedia.org. For controversial topics, we are to put conflicting positive and negative on the same page; we don't sweep them into separate pages. I don't see why we cant have two separate paragraphs on the same page in the same section acknowledging the different viewpoints. To have this article talk about all of former Tibet would be to endorese the government-in-exile's position. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 19:08, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) No. The Tibetan's view does not correspond one-to-one with the Chinese's. Each section will have two blocks? It will be really hard to see. The merging will throw this article into chaos. The status quo (with notes on top) is nicer than that. --User:Nanshu 19:31, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) :So if it does not correspond one-to-one it is in agreement? Not necessarily two blocks...there are many ways to align the prose. We can also interweave. We should treat this article like we treat any other controversial topic - acknowledge both positions. I don't see what's wrong. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::There is a fundamental difference between Tibet and other controversial topics. Every other controversy is about different views toward the same thing. But for Tibet, the same term refers to different things. It's similar to disambiguation. --User:Nanshu 02:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) Nanshu, please state what is your issue with the current text. The Tibet view has been addressed, has it not? The text before my merge only addressed the Tibetan view and not the Chinese view. And what is wrong with my history section, my geography section? Why did you rever that too?--User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I've already expressed my opinion. I don't know what to do with the "spaghetti" article. Should I mix "China", "PRC" and "ROC"? And sorry for the history and geographic sections. It was careless of me not to check the content. --User:Nanshu 02:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) It wouldn't be ridiculous to have the PRC article at "China" and the ROC article at "Taiwan" due to common usage. Most of the content at China is historical in nature and would be better suited for an article on Imperial China. "Tibet" almost always refers to the TAR. Click on "what links here". By making this article on the greater region, wikipedia endorses the Tibetan government in exile's position. The flag put on this page is banned in the mainland and used be pro-tibetan protestors. This is POV. By putting them together, we endorse neither position. Are we going to put in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries template here too? As I said before, there's no point in having 2 geography, 2 economy, 2 demographics, etc. sections on the same thing. What is especially ridiculous is having 2 culture sections - what's the difference? If we have a TAR article, it should be on the administration, just like there's a Taiwan Province article apart from Taiwan (though I wouldn't oppose merging the two). If you and I can't agree on this, then this should be put to a vote. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 04:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) :If you think describing the greater region on Tibet is POV, then I don't mind renaming this article and turning Tibet into a disambig. page. (And I spare no time to disambiguate "Tibet" as you've done with "China".) Still I oppose merging the two articles. --User:Nanshu 03:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) Turning this into a disambiguation is unnacceptable, given how commonly the term "Tibet" is used and how many links direct here. As I said before, "Tibetan Autonomous Region" can remain an article on the administrative division, but it may not have the same sections this article had. "China" is not a disambiguation page. If you read its talk page, you will see that making it one was shot down. You will also see that I took absolutely no part in arranging the two articles as they are now. What do you want ''this'' article to be renamed? Getting a map of greater Tibet would also help. You should be complaining about the map posted on this page. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) :no answer? I'll revert. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang ::You don't allow me to leave Wikipedia for a couple of days... ::I don't like to repeat discussion. Are you seeking common ground? ::So do you want to put the TAR article on "Tibet" by any means? As I said, the greater region has no name other than just "Tibet" while the TAR can be put on "Tibetan Autonomous Region." But I proposed the compromise of moving the GT article to something like "Tibet (greater region)." What's wrong with me? --User:Nanshu 02:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) No, I don't. You either respond or get reverted. You have not addressed my concerns - moving the page won't solve the problem. I said it's pointless to duplicate culture sections. What do you say? If we don't duplicate sections, what will an article on the region consist of that the AR does not? If there is something substantial, how about moving the AR here and linking the region on top, like is done for Mongolia. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 04:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :So, should I repeat my argument? The only reason that two pages overlap is the stubness of the article Tibet. Culture of Tibet would be put at "Tibet" because Tibet is cultural, political, and geographical term and the TAR is purely a political division. If there is a cultural thing that is unique to the TAR, then it should be put at the "Tibetan Autonomous Region." Any problem with that? :Putting the TAR article here is non-NPOV so that I can never approve it. --User:Nanshu 02:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) I said I would not object to having an article on the TAR focusing solely on the administrative division like how one exists at Taiwan Province. But currently, it is not an article on the administration; it has stuff that belongs here. Please don't blanket revert my edits. What's wrong with my flag caption? Description that the map only points out the TAR? That the TAR comprises less than half of historic Tibet? If you can't accept the temporary compromise, then I will revert TAR too. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Then put the TAR article on "Tibetan Autonomous Region" and edit it as you want! --User:Nanshu 03:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Did Tibetan history stop in 1906? Why do you want to siphon off large portions of the text? What's wrong with my introductory paragraph explaining the dispute in meaning? What's wrong with the marketplace image? Since when have we had separate sections on "Transport"? --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I've reverted TAR too since you don't want to compromise and don't want to answer my claims above that the old version is inferior and that my text was legitimate, whether TAR would be kept or not. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang I moved your content as far as I noticed. You can move it by yourself. --User:Nanshu 03:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Did Tibetan history stop in 1906? You never answered. My first paragraph was not moved. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang It was moved to the TAR article. --User:Nanshu 03:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :No it wasn't. Where does it say "Historically, Tibet consisted of the provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. Amdo is now composes the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan. Kham has been largely incorporated into the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan and Qinghai. The Tibet Autonomous Region, comprising less than half of historic Tibet, occupies U-Tsang and Western Kham."? It wouldn't belong there anyways. You never answered my first question. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 03:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::It was the geography section ot "Tibet" (Menchi's original version). And what's your "first question"? If it is about history after 1906, again, it was moved to the TAR article. --User:Nanshu 04:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Okay, but it's better to state the controversy up front, than to endorse a certain position. Why should the history after 1906 be moved to TAR? Is it not relevant here? TAR was not established until 1965. This fact was apparently deleted. I listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope some other parties will discuss. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't this article cover the area historically known as Tibet, and the TAR article cover what today forms the TAR? As such, shouldn't there be room for simultaneous articles in areas such as history? In any case, if the TAR wasn't created until 1965, shouldn't History of Tibet cover that much? User:Ambivalenthysteria 07:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) :The TAR is part of Tibet and therefore, history of the TAR after its creation would be relevant here. Repeating the same info here would be redundant. It's innappropriate to stop Tibetan history at 1965 (or in Nanshu's version, 1906). --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 21:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- == Xizang & Tibet? == Xizang=Tibet in Chinese. I don't see why it should be redirected to the AR. Does another name exist for the greater region? I haven't heard of one. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 04:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :As it is Wargi Dzang in Manchu, Xizang literally means Western Tsang (western part of Tsang or Tsang [which is located] to the west [of China]). On the other hand, Tubet refers to Tibet in Manchu and was transcribed as 土伯特 in Chinese. Xizang is an inherently inappropriate term for Tibet. Xizang can refer to the TAR or Tibet but I think Xizang usually refers to the TAR in Chinese context. It is similar to "China." --User:Nanshu 02:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) 土伯特 is almost never used in Chinese so when Chinese refer to Tibet (TAR or not) they use "Xizang". China has its own article, so that parellel doesn't work. It's not up to us to criticise the Chinese people for wanting to call a certain place by an "inherently inappropriate term". We simply relect the truth. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang :Yah, it's an historical term (that's why I used "was"). And I mean China can refers to "China proper" or the greater region but there is no single words to distinguish them. --User:Nanshu 03:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::There was a word 吐蕃(tu3 bo1) which I suspect is the same as 土伯特. --User:Liuyao 04:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) :The inherently inappropriate term can refer to both, but more often to the TAR. Will I turn "Xizang" into a disambig. page? --User:Nanshu 03:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) "Tibet" includes the TAR. The fact that it commonly refers to TAR is also because "Tibet" in English also refers to the TAR. Under the same logic, this page should redirect to TAR. That would be ridiculous. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 05:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Response to RFC== Tibet and TAR definitely should _not_ be merged. Tibet has a history separate from its status as the TAR. In English, Tibet refers to a general place, _not_ the TAR. Whenever the information coincides for the two, it can go on the Tibet page. -- User:Waltpohl 21:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Show me an instance where we refer to part of Tibet outside the TAR as "Tibet." When we visit the part of Tibet in Sichuan we say we went to Sichuan, not Tibet. The acronym "TAR" is sparingly used and the news media uses simply "Tibet." :Yes, Tibet has a history separate from its status as the TAR. So? TAR is being merged here, not the other way around. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 21:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) :: Would you then also agree we should merge the Taiwan and Republic of China articles? :: Here's a thought experiment. Suppose tomorrow the government of China decided that Lhasa was not part of the TAR. Would English speakers cease to describe Lhasa as part of Tibet? No. Now imagine that tomorrow the US decided that Philadelphia was no longer part of Pennsylvania. Would we stop describing Philadelphia as part of Pennsylvania? Probably. -- User:Waltpohl 22:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) I would agree to merge Taiwan and Republic of China articles, provided that they are merged and one redirected to the other. If we redirect ROC to Taiwan, then we make the statement that Taiwan is conventional short form for ROC, and that is true. However, we fail to make that statement if we leave ROC as a historical article (as it once was). We only run into problems when (assuming ROC redirects to Taiwan and not the other way around) we refer to the ROC in a historical context and confuse people by leading them to an article on Taiwan. I fail to see your point again. No one here is claiming that TAR is synonmous with Tibet. I intend this article to discuss both the greater region and the TAR. Lhasa would be mentioned here regardless of whether it is part of the TAR. I don't see why an article on Tibet should be stripped of references to the TAR. Wouldn't you agree that the TAR is part of Tibet? --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) : I understand your point of view better now. Clearly the Tibet article should talk about TAR as part of talking about Tibet. I would say that the stuff that's unique to TAR ''as a bureaucratic entity'' -- stuff like the big infobox, the name of the province in Chinese, neighboring provinces, etc. should go on the TAR page. Cultural info would go on the Tibet page. For most purposes, if I go to the Tibet page, I'm looking for information about Tibet as a cultural entity. The province information is just a distraction. -- User:Waltpohl 08:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) The province info is relevant, just as a box exist at Beijing, but I don't object to an article on the administrative entity. However, splitting the history pre-1950 to this one and post-1950 to that one, then duplicating most of the rest, is unnacceptable. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 06:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) There are incompatible gaps between Tibetan and Chinese conceptions. The Chinese name "Xizang" demonstrates it. And Tibet's regions of Ambo, Kham, U-Tsang, Ngari etc, have complicated correspondence with PRC's divisions. Jiang's "spaghetti" article makes it difficult to explain Tibetan conceptions cleary and prevents further expansion. Of course, my rough-and-ready partition leaves many things to be fixed, but that's not important for now. --User:Nanshu 04:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) :My version explains it better than yours. Yours endorsed the Tibetan viewpoint, and used bullet points and arrows to show the correspondence. Let's try writing in complete sentences. If you have more text to add, show it. Try demonstrating that you have so much to add that it won't fit this page. Also state what's missing in my version. It currently fits fine. Tibetan history did not end in 1906 so partition is inappropriate.--User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 06:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::Believe it or not, I think a compromise is in sight. Do the two of you mind if I try a compromise edit? I would edit along these principles: ::* TAR covers the administrative entity, and facts specific to the entity. ::* Tibet covers the broader area. ::* History, culture etc. goes with Tibet. (Most of history should be on the History of Tibet page, anyway.) ::Reactions? -- User:Waltpohl 23:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) Yes, go ahead. The history section here was largely drawn from the history of Tibet article. It need not be any longer, but I don't see much trimming is needed. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 01:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) Nanshu, I'm waiting to hear from you before I edit it. Are you willing to wait while I try to make a compromise edit?. No need to revert to a particular version. I'll look at both of your recent versions while I make the edit . -- User:Waltpohl 04:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Maybe I jumped the gun. I'm looking forward to your edit. --User:Nanshu 04:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Jiang is another guy who cannot wait... --User:Nanshu ---- I checked in a preliminary version of Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region. I'm not done: after spending a couple of hours on it, it's now past my bedtime. :-) I'll work on it some more tomorrow. I also checked in a stub for Tibetan Plateau, and expanded on Government of Tibet in Exile. -- User:Waltpohl 07:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) I had a question. What is the source of the division of Tibet into provinces, like Ando? Is it traditional? If so, at what point in Tibetan history do they arise? -- User:Waltpohl 15:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I made some final few tweaks. I'd like to hear any feedback you have about the current versions of the pages before I do anything else. -- User:Waltpohl :There's still considerable overlap in the economics and sections. We should limit TAR to a discussion of the political entity. That means the history starts in 1965. If we're going to put the banned Tibetan flag and coat of arms here, I don't see why we shouldn't put up a province table too. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 02:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) The Tibetan flag has been banned by an totalitarian and racist Regime. Why do you stick to that? User:Umrao :Ummmmmm.... TAR and Tibet are different things. -User:Dagestan :: The current box with the coat of arms, etc., is not appropriate for this page. It is appropriate for the Government of Tibet in Exile page. -- User:Waltpohl 08:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Technopilgrim here with comments on the edits I just made on this very sensitive page. # "Tibet" can refer to the TAR or to historic Tibet so I took out the wording that the "most common" meaning is TAR. If you look at the "what links here" links to Tibet I find the most common meaning is historic Tibet but the real problem is not which is the most common usage but the very phrase "most common" which is inappropriate here. So the present version refers to both. # Since we talk about TAR vs historic Tibet at the top of the page I've pulled the map graphic up to the top of the page also to be adjacent to the discussion # I weeded out some of the external links at the bottom. I threw out the ones that were in French or covered material already in the article. I tried to be evenhanded with regards to PRC/exile government viewpoints, but was hampered somewhat by the fact that the free Tibet folks put up vastly better websites than the PRC. # editorial choice -- I dropped the photo of the Ngari woman mainly because I don't find it representative or a particularly good photo, and also because it appears to be an undocumented lift from the http://www.tibet-hiking.com/registration.html website. # minor edit fixes throughout the page, including a cleaner way to link to Tibetan Buddhism BTW, I support the concensus that we don't merge the TAR and Tibet pages but keep them separate and partitioned as agreed above. Of course the Goverment in Exile flag belongs on the Government in Exile page, not here. Tashi dalek. User:Technopilgrim 18:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Sorry Technopilgrim, but the flag of Tibet does not just represent the government in exile, but it is what represents their culture and religion, and it is currently banned by the Chinese government. User:Dagestan As I understand it, that flag specifically represents the former government of Tibet and only indirectly, at best, a set of cultural values. A prayer flag would be a more apt cultural symbol, if you insist on flag-waiving. Note that the flags of former governments rarely fly in their former lands, and when they do the atmosphere is unlikely to be nuetral. If you'd like a demonstration of this effect, try swapping the current flag on the Virginia page with the Confederate Flag (you might wisely refrain from explicitly mentioning the traditional [http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=leviticus+25%3A44&Submit=Search cultural practices] which are actively suppressed by the present government). Or take any European country and hoist the flag of the (present regime - 1) to see why this approach doesn't engender a NPOV. User:Technopilgrim 23:38, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- I've changed the map back to the previous version, since we didn't have copyright permission for the one that replaced it ( Image:Tibet_borders_over_time.jpg ). "No copyright claimed" does ''not'' equal "no copyright". User:Markalexander100 22:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Missing word == History section, 4th paragraph "The independence claim was a term used by revolutionaries the Qing dynasty." I think it needs a 'during' or perhaps an 'in' before 'the Qing dynasty' :I've no idea what any of that sentence means. What revolutionaries? User:Markalexander100 03:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) Nanshu,you wonder why jiang are sensitive about the PRC-ROC issue but not about the Tibet-TAR one ,and I can tell you why. this is because jiang's country had succesfully controlled Tibet by military forces but still has not succesfully controlled taiwan by military forces now(However they are planing to),and that's difference which makes jiang are sensitive about the PRC-ROC issue but not about the Tibet-TAR one. ==Some new work== I'm going to be working some on this article but mainly on History of Tibet and Foreign relations of Tibet as well as on a Tibetan resistance movement article over the next few weeks. At times what I have done on one article will not necessarily match what I have done on the others. This is complicated by the fact that edits will also be occuring on Wikinfo. Foreign relations of Tibet will mainly concern Tibetan attempts to achieve international recognition. Tibetan resistance movement will deal with Tibetan rebellions and CIA assistance to them. I'll mainly be working from the following books. User:Fred Bauder 20:05, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) ===Further reading=== * John Kenneth Knaus, ''Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival'', Perseus, 1999, hardcover, 398 pages, ISBN 1891620185; trade paperback, Perseus, 2000, ISBN 1891620851 * James Morrison and Kenneth Conboy, ''The Cia's Secret War in Tibet'', University Press of Kansas, March, 2002, hardcover, 301 pages, ISBN 0700611592 :Sounds like a plan. Tibet independence movement redirects to a sub-stub on a organization founded in 1995. I don't think this is appropriate but I don't know enough to change it. --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang 01:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Recent POV edits == I find it hard to believe that this needs to be said, but any edit which includes sentences such as ''As a result, the Tibetans once again acknowledged themselves as subjects of the Great Empire of China'' is hardly likely to be NPOV, and has no place here. :Perhaps removing "Great" would serve? User:Fred Bauder 10:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) The origins of ''Xizang'' could conceivably be a useful scrap of information, but since Anon has already gone through two unsourced versions, I don't see any basis for including either in the article. User:Markalexander100 07:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::It removes the onus on the Chinese of simply imposing a "made-up" name. I don't think any more sourcing than fluency in Chinese is required to establish that it is a transliteration. User:Fred Bauder 10:19, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) I rm'd the following: ''It is a well known and understood practice that Chinese characters used for phonetic transliteration of place names and people names are never meant to be interpreted literally and are used solely for the sound of the characters.'' This is not true. For almost any transliteration multiple characters could be selected; particular characters are often chosen for their connotations (indeed, there is no other basis on which the selection could be made!). For reference, [http://www.bluesouth.co.nz/Japanese_translation.htm] (''care must be taken by the translator to ensure that the characters selected, each of which has its own meaning, do not result in the transliteration ... into a word which is either silly or negative in its meaning''). (While we're at it, this illustrates the difficulty of identifying and stripping out POV from unsourced, POV contributions; we can afford to be a little more rigorous). User:Markalexander100 03:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC Okay yes, in commercial applications such as brand names and such, charaters are chosen for connotation in addition to the sound. But it is definitely true for place names and people names. You should not be so quick to say it is not true. Study the transliteration of every place name and person name and the characters used. I doubt you will find more than a small number where "connotation" was a consideration. Remember I said "PLACE NAMES AND PERSON NAMES". I did NOT say, "BRAND NAMES"! Perhaps saying "all" was going overboard but it is certainly true of "most", especially for place names and person names. ==Annexation of Tibet== I have a question concerning the international status of Tibet: Is Tibet's annexation by China recognized by the international community? User:62.47.73.113 16:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :It is not considered an annexation, merely assertion of control over a region which was considered part of China. However there has been concern over human rights and how Chinese occupation has affected them. See [http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/us/us8.html], [http://www.radicalparty.org/tibet/letter_dupuis_fontaine.htm], [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7lD9_K94Ku0J:www.mann-europa.de/tibet-intergroup/resolutionen/en/130397-en.pdf+tibet+occupation+resolution+general+assembly+%22united+nations%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8], [http://www.tibetankungfu.com/the_status_of_tibet.htm The Tibetan position] User:Fred Bauder 19:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) ::Thank you for your answer. But I still wonder if the annexation/occupation/assertion of control over Tibet is deemed to be illegal under international law by the international community? Do some nations refute Chinas claim over tibet? User:Gugganij 22:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) There is general disgust and at times the United States has considered recognizing Tibet but never made the decision. Britain had Hong Kong to worry about. However see [http://www.tibetankungfu.com/the_status_of_tibet.htm The Tibetan position] User:Fred Bauder 23:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) === Excerpt from Dalai Lamas statement === the following is an excerpt from Dalai Lamas statement regarding the status in international law of Tibet (obviously the Chinese government has a different POV): "At the time of its invasion by troops of the People's Liberation Army of China in 1949, Tibet was an independent state in fact and law. The military invasion constituted an aggression on a sovereign state and a violation of international law. Today's continued occupation of Tibet by China, with the help of several hundred thousand troops, represents an ongoing violation of international law and of the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people to independence. The Chinese Communist Government claims it has a right to "ownership" of Tibet. It does not claim this right on the basis of its military conquest in 1949 or alleged effective control over Tibet since then or since 1959. The Chinese Government also does not base its claim to "ownership" on the so-called "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" which it forced upon Tibet in 1951. Instead, China's alleged legal claim is based on historical relationships primarily of Mongol or Manchu rulers with Tibetan lamas and, to a lesser extent, of Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. The main events relied on by the Chinese Government occurred hundreds of years ago: during the height of Mongol imperial expansion, when the Mongol Emperors extended their political supremacy throughout most of Asia and large parts of Eastern Europe; and when Manchu Emperors ruled China and expanded their influence throughout East and Central Asia, including Tibet, particularly in the 18th century." == Misunderstanding over the Chinese character 藏 for transliteration of U-Tsang for Tibet == Some people have maintained that the use of the zang (藏) character is offensive because one of the meanings of this character is "storehouse". Thus, if interpretated "literally", the two characters for Xizang is "western storehouse". (Xi means west, typically), which some maintain has a perjorative connotation (because they believe it describes Tibet as a "western storehouse". Generally speaking, characters used in Chinese transliteration are never meant to be interpretated literally. A reader of the transliterated phrase sees the transliterated phrase as an entirely new word with little relation to the meaning of the individual characters. By way of example, "Denmark" is not decomposed into "Den" and "Mark" for an English reader. The same is also true for multiple-character words in Chinese, but especially in transliterated words. And in most cases, when transliterated characters are used, the "literal" meaning is typically silly nonsense. Some examples of transliterated place names. 古巴 (Cuba) - if interpreted based on the meaning of the individual characters, it means "ancient", "wish" 墨西哥 (Mexico) - "ink stick", "west", "brother" 蘇格蘭 (Scotland) - "Revive", "Frame", "Orchid" 波蘭 (Poland) - "Storm", "Orchid" 葡萄牙 (Portugal) - "Grape-stained Teeth" 希臘 (Greece) - "rare", "preserved meat" etc, etc, etc. (many, many more examples available) Generally speaking, transliteration of place names and person's names are done regardless of how silly or nonsensical its literally characters mean. When transliterating brand names or phrases for commercial use, however, much more care is typically used to avoid "silly nonsense" and to use words with some meaningful, positive connotation in order to better advertise the brand or product name. However, again, it must be noted that for a Chinese reader, a transliterated phrase is never parsed but is treated as one new phrase. (Note "Denmark" vs "Den" "Mark" or "Germany" vs "Germ" "Many" in English). Therefore, it is abundantly clear that in almost all cases, characters used in transliterated phrases for place names are not meant to be interpretated literally back into English. Therefore to say that a translated phrase means something "literally" when it has no such connotation in Chinese is simply wrong. Now, the next questions that comes up are? Is "western storage" negative? This is an individual judgement of course. Is it any more negative than "ink", "west", "brother" (Mexico), "grape-stained teeth" (Portugal) or "rare" "preserved meat" (Greece) and any of the other silly "literal" translations? But the issue is not fully examined because we should also examine the meaning of the zang character 藏 itself. According to this online dictionary [2] (http://chinese.primezero.com/pzcdz/o.html) this is what it says: 寶藏 - (An Zang) precious (mineral) deposits; 西藏 - (Xi Zang) Tibet; Xizang; Xizang autonomous region; (as we well know now, when used with Xi, it means Tibet) 藏 - (Zang) storehouse; depository; Buddhist or Taoist scripture; Zang; Tibet; 藏文 - (Zang Wen) Tibetan language; 藏族 - (Zang Zu) Tibetan nationality; 藏 - (Cang) to hide away; to conceal; to harbor; store; accumulate (this is the same character but pronounced cang) Thus if one insists on using a "literal" translation of the character "Zang", apart from "Tibet", then the following are possible: Xizang - (1) "West" "Mineral" (2) "West" "Storage" (3) "West" "scripture" (4) "West" "Conceal" Zangwen - (1) "Mineral" "Language" (2) "Storage" "Language" (3) "scripture" "Language" (4) Conceal Language Zangzu - (1) "Mineral" "People" (2) "Storage" "People" (3) "scripture" "people" (4) Conceal People since "zang" has the meaning of "mineral", "storehouse", "depository", "buddhist/taoist scripture". It must be noted, however, that in the Chinese language, a character does not have a single meaning attached to it as the example of "zang" illustrates. It is not known when the character "zang" was first used to describe Tibetans but evidence exists that "zang" has been used for centuries for this purpose. Thus the meaning of "zang" changed to include "Tibet/Tibetans" in additional and apart from all its other possible meanings. Thus a "literal translation" based on the other possible meanings of the character is incorrect. "Zang" when used to describe the land, language or people, means Tibet/Tibetans PERIOD (not "mineral", not "storage", not "depository", not "scripture", not "conceal"). Saying that "Xizang" mean Tibet but "literally" means "Western Storage" is like saying Turkey means the country Turkey but "literally" means some kind of bird. Both are nonsense statements. But the issue can be examined even further. Do websites and documents of the PRC allude to the possibility that perhaps the "zang" character was chosen because of connotations with "storage" (or "mineral", or "depository" or "scripture", etc) In searching PRC govt websites, there is nothing written to indicate that the use of the character "zang" was chosen due to its connotations with "storehouse" (or "mineral" or "depository" or "scripture") and a few mention simply that it comes from U-Tsang. In any case, it was chosen not by the PRC but was in use for centuries, so whatever the reason "zang" was chosen, it has in these years taken on the meaning of "Tibet/Tibetan" literally and apart from the characters other meanings. It now means "Tibet/Tibetan" in its own right just like Turkey has a meaning of the country Turkey in its own right despite having the same spelling as the bird. Finally, another issue to examine is who, how many, and why are people "offended" by the term Xizang? It is doubtlessly the case that some individual Tibetans and their supporters are offended. However, in reviewing the Tibetan government in exile sites as well as the major pro-Tibetan independence sites there is no mention that the word "xizang" is considered offensive and objectionable and there are no demands that some other term or character be used in Chinese. There is no publication indicating that "xizang" is objectionable. Nor do any of these sites mention that Xizang is supposed to mean "Western Storage". By all accounts, the word "xizang" is accepted as meaning "Tibet" in its own right and has no other meaning by both the PRC and Tibet-in-exile governments. Therefore while some individuals may be offended for whatever reason, there is no evidence to indicate that it is generally considered offensive and undesirable as the Tibet-in-exile government websites and all the major pro-Tibetan independence sites make no issue of it at all. As to why some people are offended, there are many possibilities. It is certainly possible and probable that "ignorance" causes it. Another possibility is that it was concocted to generate hostility against China. However, in making the simple claim that the term "Xizang is offensive", the following facts needs to be considered and presented as well: - there is no evidence that it was chosen because Tibet/Tibetans were considered "Western Storage" - Zang has other meanings besides "storage" thus the "literal" meaning could be "Western Minerals", "Western Scriptures", etc etc - it is used to mean "Tibet/Tibetan" period as the same character is used to describe Tibetans and their language - in general, all Chinese place names used in transliterations are not intrepreted and parsed into their multiple possible individual meanings in Chinese thus translating back in to English the "literal" meaning is nonsense. To understand, imagine that in the Chinese language, it is written, "Turkey is the spelling for the country located in SW Asia. However, the "literal meaning" is this slow fat ugly bird you eat for dinner. It is meant as a negative connotation of Turkey thus they used the same "character" as the bird". Wouldn't that be a nonsense statement? - it is not even evident that it is generally considered offensive, no Tibetan websites make it an issue whatsoever and here in wikipedia land only TWO people have said it is "offensive". Thus the claim should either be withdrawn or explained as a misunderstanding and also it should be mentioned that Tibetan sites don't consider it offensive despite some individuals considering it offensive. It should also be mentioned that "Western Storage" is an English "literal" interpretation not a Chinese "literal" interpretation. No Chinese govt website says it means "Western Storage". It is thus inaccurate to say it "literally" means "Western Storage" because in Chinese in LITERALLY means Tibet PERIOD. Or if people insist it is "offensive" despite all this evidence to suggest otherwise then ALL of this evidence should be presented to explain why it probably shouldn't be considered offensive and let people decide for themselves whether it is reasonable for "Xizang" to be considered offensive or not. (End of temporary "Is Xizang offensive?" section) :I assume that was added to the article by accident? User:Markalexander100 09:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Yes and no. I originally wanted to expand and explain with proof and details why it is not meant to be offensive and shouldn't be considered offensive. But to do it rigorously makes it unsuitable for the main article so I posted it here. But I decided to leave it in, hoping the info would be used to make a better, less POV statement. I don't consider my argument a "rant" as you call it. It's pretty detailed explanation as to why it shouldn't be considered offensive because it is not supposed to mean "Western Storage" at all and it is unfair to state so as a fact and is definite POV to just leave the article the way it is. ::To leave it the way it is at the moment, which is ::"The literal meaning of the two characters of Xizang is "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive. Others maintain that the meaning of the particular characters is irrelevant." ::is simply insufficient IMHO. It fails to show that "Western Storehouse" is not the only possible "literal" meaning. It could "literally" mean "Western Scriptures", "Western Minerals". There is no basis to assert this particularly "literal" meaning in place of other "literal" meanings. It fails to show that there is no evidence to support that China intended it to have the connotation "Western Storehouse" (or any other connotations for that matter) It fails to show that it is common practice, as I have demonstrated with many examples, that in many cases (okay not all) with transliterations, the connotations are unintended and not considered to have these meanings. It also fails to show that instead of having a connotation at all, it is correctly a character that means Tibet/Tibetan in its own right. It is used as the character for Tibetan language ::It is also blatatly not NPOV. If a reader sees it and has no idea of all the facts surrounding it sounds quite negative to me like China is being insensitive or intentionally trying to call it "Western Storehouse". ::The point is that the evidence doesn't really support it. I have spent a lot of time making my case. So I can't let it go and have it reverted unless you can make a stronger case as to why your more negative POV statement should stand in place of a less negative POV one. To assert that it is "offensive" without all the facts taints the article. It also leads to my suspicions, unfair or not, that you want to bias the article by implying that China is intentionally causing an offense to a significant number of Tibetans thus biasing the reader right away. It's not right to do it. 144.189.40.223 has made his point. User:Fred Bauder 11:35, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Markalexander100, please find at least one reference that anyone other than a Wikipedia editor finds the transliteration offensive. User:Fred Bauder 02:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) :[http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/un/unint9.html] . For the Tibetans' preferred usage see [http://www.angrymonk.ch/texts/meizhuo_sg.pdf]; for offensive place names imposed by the Chinese generally see [http://www.smhric.org/E_Bulag.pdf] (page 8 onwards}. User:Markalexander100 06:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) --- Okay let's, ONCE AGAIN look at all the issues involved. 1. First let's look at the statements: The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive. Others maintain that the meaning of the particular characters used is irrelevant. Regardless of the veracity of the statement, it is clearly not NPOV by wikipedia standard when all facts and POV are considered. I have already given ample strong argument as to why any assertion that "The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse" is very flimsy even though as narrowly constructed using the new "can literally mean" (notice the sneaky way of adding "can" to the new version of the statement) is not patently false. The problem though is that it gives this view far more validity than careful examination and research suggests to any casual reader. Its very inclusion also suggests that there is widespread opposition to the term so much so that it merits inclusion rather than being a very peripheral "issue" (if it could be called that). It fails to consider all the facts and contexts and suggests it is intentional, or insensitive rather than coincidental or possibly contrived by opponents. A NPOV would have to at least address these views. '''If it is insisted that we included statements saying it is offensive, then all relevant facts and arguments should be made available to discuss whether this "offense" is valid and reasonable or not. The possibility that it is a smear tactic should also be stated (as well as denials I'm sure). Then let readers decide for themselves.''' The follow-up statement, "Others maintain that the meaning of the particular characters used is irrelevant." gives the impression that despite that this "literal interpretion" is valid, others dismiss it, thus subtly implying some deliberate attitude of indifference and insensitivity. It implies Tibetans consistently raise the issue but it is rejected as being "irrelevant" which is not the case. To claim that this is a "concise statement of the two positions" is far off the mark and is patently disingenuous because this "conciseness" obviously is meant to give a mistaken impression and fails to give the reader the full context. But that is the point of having these statements, isn't it, to mislead and obfuscate the full facts. By analogy, consider the following statements, if used in a Chinese encyclopedia. "In English, the word for Turkey the country can literally mean the domesticated bird used for food, which some find offensive. Others maintain that the same word used for both is irrelevant". "In English, the word for Germany the country can be decomposed into the words "Germ" and "Many", which some find offensive. Others maintain that the the resemblence is irrelevant". Both statements are actually factually true if we deconstructed the statements through the use of the "can" qualifier and also the use of "some find offensive". However, based on NPOV as well as full factual context, relevance and scope both are also obviously unworthy statements to include into any Chinese encyclopedia, same as the "Xizang = western storehouse" statement. There is of course also the question of its relevancy and whether the intended content of the statement is important enough to include despite it obviously tainting the article and introducing a strong anti-Chinese bias. Thus regardless of the merits of the statements, as presently constructed it clearly violates NPOV and should not be included. Basically, people with axes to grind found something that "could" be considered "offensive" despite flimsy support and evidence to the countrary, assert "they" are offended, and then claiming this "fact" should be included in a blatant attempt to bias the article. --- 2. Okay, so now let's look at the merits and so-called "evidence" supporting the statement. Three links are provided, so let's examine each one in turn: A. http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/un/unint9.html On the very top it says that it was "A written intervention submitted by the Transnational Radical Party, a non-governmental organization in general consultative status." It is an advocate organization and thus is hardly trying to be objective or impartial. It is thus not any kind of authoritative, official declaration for either Tibetans in general or the PRC. But furthermore, let's actually look at the relevant text of the document itself. It says, "It is no accident, for instance, that China refers to Tibet as Xizang, which means 'Western Treasure House.' Beijing's central planners view Tibet as a wealth of resources to be extracted for China's benefit." There are two obvious problems with this statement. The most obvious is that it doesn't support the assertion that, "The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive." It claims "western treasure house" not "western storehouse". It is also obviously, as the general tone of the POV article, a smear meant to generate hostility to China. But again, it asserts "western treasure house" not "western storehouse". The article also makes no assertion that it is an offensive term for Tibetans. But a thorough analysis of the character "zang", I can find ZERO justification that "zang" in any usage means "treasure house". In looking up the character "zang", I find nothing resembling "treasure house". So not only is this article attempting to smear China unfairly, it is using "Xizang = Western Treasure House" which has zero justification. But EVEN FURTHERMORE, Xizang was used for centuries since the Qing dynasty and not a recent term coined by the PRC. So if it was "no accident that China calls Xizang as Western Treasure House" then somehow the Qing had some future prediction and foresight that at some point the PRC govt would take over and want to exploit this "treasure house". That is absurd. For these many reasons, the use of such article to defend the factual merits of the (xizang "can" be interpreted as "western storage") is dubious. Now of course, there is no doubt that there are other articles which makes assertions of how "xizang means western treasure house" (curiously I found none about "western storage") because they want to make the smear that "China views Tibet as a place to be exploited" The problem with that of course is that there is no justication for "zang=treasure house" whatsoever even very flimsy ones. What is also curious is that either through "ignorance" or deliberation, none reference that fact that it is a transliteration of U-Tsang. Of course including it would weaken and raise doubt about the "Xizang means Western Store/Treaure House" stuff. But it could also imply "ignorance" and if this were known, they would not make this "literal meaning" claim. Such obviously POV smear articles are "proof" only by circular reasoning not by examining the actual underlying facts. Think about it, a wikipedia smear article says it means "western treasure/store house". As "proof" it lists other smear articles that make the same baseless claim. Then of course I am sure at some point some smear article can reference wikipedia. The point is that if the "proof" consists of articles written by biased, POV writers with a clear agenda to demonize China then there is some question whether the "proof" of Xizang = Wesetern Treasure/Storehouse has real basis or is not instead manufactured to generate hostility. --- B. http://www.angrymonk.ch/texts/meizhuo_sg.pdf It says, "Nowadays many Tibetans living in Tibet prefer to use this name for Tibet rather than the Chinese name "Xizang" since it only includes central Tibet and leaves Amdo and Kham out." I have no problem, if it is deemed important and relevant enough, to include this statement. However, it says Tubo is preferred over Xizang because of the scope of Xizang not because of "Xizang = Western Treasure/Storehouse". Furthermore the writer is a Tibetan who lived in Tibet but is fluent in Chinese too and is a critic of Tibetan policies. So if this "Xizang = Western Treasure/Storehouse" was a widespread connotation and a term of offense, you'd think he'd mentione this stronger objection as opposed to this other objection. In any case, I am sure Tubo must have some so-called "literal interpretations" that might be objectionable if someone what to insist on making such a point. In fact as I have point out in nearly every transliteration of place names, this same claim could be made. --- C. http://www.smhric.org/E_Bulag.pdf This article has nothing to do with Xizang and has no bearing on "Xizang=West Store/Treasurehouse" claim. As to the article claiming all these Mongolian transliteration are "offensive", its claims require further scrunity which I have no time for but is irrelevant here. --- In the most recent edit, I have included the following statement to explain zang. IMHO, it is factual and NPOV there is no basis to remove it (other than for deceitful, intellectually dishonest reasons, of course). The Chinese character (藏, zng), is also exclusively used to describe things Tibetan such as the Tibetan language (藏文, zng wn) and the Tibetan people (藏族, zng z). ((藏, zng) is also a Homonym containing many other unrelated meanings [http://chinese.primezero.com/pzcdz/o.php?search=zang4&submit=primezero+Search]. However, the unrelated meanings are not meant to be inferred from one another as is the case of all homonyms.) I've spent enough time on this and I have presented my point as thoroughly and as rigorously as possible so I have nothing more to say. I have no interest in fighting with editors that insist on introducing bias to taint an article and who give every indication of being intellectually dishonest and not trying to deal in good faith. Doubtlessly, my latest edit will not be the final word but I have no desire to engage in endless edit/revert wars. My career as a wikipedian is over based on this experience. I recommend that some balanced, NPOV interim version should be imposed. I believe Fred Bauder understands my arguments and evidence and I have respect for Fred Bauder and trust him to do it. In the past, he has behaved honorably, fairly and appears to act in good faith. Once some NPOV and balanced version is in place, editted by Fred Baunder, I request that trusted people, perhaps former editors of this page, and other members that might be familiar with the issue to settle this issue once and for all. Again, wonderful and persuasive research. Please don't give up on Wikipedia over this minor issue. User:Fred Bauder 01:09, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) This is indeed a lengthy dissemination of the character "zang" and its possible connotations, and for that you should be commended, however, I must state that your information is based on the Western understanding of the Chinese language and as such, cannot be held to give complete justice to the topic at hand. 1) The character "zang" refers to Buddhisim in general. PERIOD. You based your argument on the fact that most people construe the character as meaning "storehouse", but in reality, one character may have several obscure meanings apart from what is generally understood. As you are undoubtably aware, Tibet has a very deep-seated Buddhist tradition, so it comes as no surprise that the Chinese name for the region is "Xizang" or "Western Zang" -- "zang" likely refers to the "sanzang", or the Three Cantons of Buddhism. 2) "Zang" does in fact mean "a storehouse of treasure" but only when "prefixed" with "Bao", or treasure. This, however, is irrelevant to the region known as Tibet. --User:Taoster 00:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Wow, you guys' arguments are so long and extensive. I couldn't read through, but I just want to express my concern here. For a long time, I thought Zang was, and only was, a proper noun. I looked it up in the dictionary, and its original definition is indeed storehouse, but I bet 99.999% of Chinese don't know this--it's so obsolete and rare (The alternative pronounciation is more common, meaning store, hind, etc.) Although the word Baozang (meaning treasure) is very common, there hardly is any other word involving this Zang having this meaning. So basically Zang is a proper noun, and most Chinese would think so (without looking it up in a dictionary). I also doubt if Tibetans would be offended by a definition that only appears few times in some classical texts. Instead, I'm kind of offended:) I suggest someone take that part out. It's definitely misleading, and not NPOV. --User:Liuyao :That would be a bad idea. User:Markalexander100User talk:Markalexander100 07:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Liuyao: As a Chinese person and and a Chinese speaker, I'm kinda offended too, and I agree with what you're saying. But as long as a view is seriously espoused then we have to present it for NPOV's sake. There's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia (the very existence of the China proper article, for example) that some people would find offensive. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 16:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) == could there be a NPOV version of this? == September 11th was a tragedy for the American people, but it was a boon for totalitarian regimes around the world. In the pursuit of its so-called war on terror, the United States has forged military alliances and inked trade deals with some of the worlds most repressive regimes. On September 13, 2001 China was quietly admitted to the World Trade Organization, and given Most Favored Nation status by U.S., despite the fact the country is one of the worlds worst human rights abusers. With its economy booming, China has become desperate to exploit Tibet's vast mineral and fuel reserves - and that has meant keeping a tight grip on any moves towards Tibetan autonomy. Arrests, torture and destruction of local culture continue despite the tireless work of Tibetan exiles and their high-profile western allies. In fact, the situation grows more dire by the day. Yet unlike an increasing number of indigenous liberation movements, Tibetans have not resorted to violence to achieve their goals.User:Pedant 17:25, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) :And how is this relevant to the writing and NPOV-ization of this article...? -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 22:02, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) :edit: Oh, if I understand you right, you want to put that above paragraph in, but NPOVized? That shouldn't be that hard — as soon as I have the time, I'll splice what's on Chinese Wikipedia here (and vice versa, of course). Then we'll have both opposing viewpoints on both language versions. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 22:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) ::PERFECT thank you Ran ! If you have the time, would you look over Government of Tibet in Exile as well? I have added a 'neutralised' version of the above to the '21st Century' section... if you could add any Chinese POV to that section it would be excellent. Thank you very much for your quick response! If I can be of any help to you please don't hesitate to ask.User:Pedant 02:46, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)\ :::Not remotely neutralized... the first paragraph is completely irrelevant to the topic, the second paragraph almost equally so. The third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs are basically completely POV. :::The point of NPOV is not to write something POV and then have others whittle it down for you... it's to write NPOV to start with. :::You are welcome to put as much POV writings as you like on the talk pages and sort it out before getting to a final version. You can take a look at our attempt on Talk:People's Republic of China (bottom part of page). -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 02:55, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) == Word for word translation from Chinese Wikipedia == I've mentioned above that I eventually intend to splice all of the text related to Tibet, on both English and Chinese Wikipedia, into one big NPOV version. This is a daunting task, so I'll start (for now) by giving a word for word translation of the "Historical background" section of the International Tibet Independence Movement article from Chinese wikipedia. Since my knowledge of Buddhism, etc. is limited some of the translation may be a bit weird. I apologize in advance. ''During the Qing Dynasty in China, Tibet accepted the conferment of the titles of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama from the Emperor of China. These two lamas were disciples of each other (?) and the lines of the living Buddhas continued via reincaration. After the end of the Qing Dynasty, and during the invasion of China by Japan when China was unable to take care of affairs in the west [rough translation], the 13th Dalai Lama and the government of Tibet cooperated in driving the Panchen Lama to Qinghai [that would be Amdo Province]. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China entered and became stationed in Tibet, and only with the approval of the central government was the Panchen Lama able to return to Tibet [Since Qinghai is where he returned from it's clear "Tibet" here = TAR]. Although the central government reached an agreement with the Dalai Lama not to change Tibet's political system, the equitable treatment of Tibetan serfs by the PLA stirred discontent among a number of serf-masters led by the Dalai Lama, resulting eventually in revolt [lit. violent uprising]. The Chinese Communist Government repressed this forcibly, and also a number of serfs refused to cooperate with revolting forces, causing its failure. On March 17 1959 the Dalai Lama, leading about 80000 people, fled to India to seek international help, and established a government in exile in Dharamsala. After Dalai Lama's departure, the Panchen Lama cooperated with the central government, and began reforms targeted at Tibet's traditional serf system, which was welcomed by a number of Tibetans who used to be serfs. But others believe that the Panchen has become a puppet of Beijing's rule over Tibet. The original residence of the Dalai Lama, the Potala Palace, has been maintained, and the central government has devoted funds to its renovation, and in addition the central government has promised the Dalai Lama the right to return at any time, and will not charge him for his acts of treason, but this has not been accepted by the Dalai Lama. Recently he has asked the Chinese Communist Government for Tibetan autonomy under the one country two systems framework.'' Clearly POV, (though this is mostly due to the ''limited selection of facts'' rather than the ''explicit expression of opinion'', which really happens a lot on Tibet-related articles on English Wikipedia). But after all, we need all the POVs to be there for the article to be NPOV, don't we? Once we've sorted this out somewhat I'll translate a more NPOV version back into the Chinese Wikipedia. -- User:Ran (User talk:Ran) 03:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) ==Two sides== I see the Tibetan tragedy as affecting both the Tibetans, who despite having a social and economic system that was remarkably backward and oppressive nevertheless have the right of self-determination on their side. On the other hand, for the Chinese, "No good deed goes unpunished" as they have poured money and cadre into the region and been met with only a grudging acceptance by Tibetans of liberation and international opprobrium. I don't see a barrier, provided NPOV rules are followed, for presenting both points of view. User:Fred Bauder 11:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) == Western Storehouse == "Western Storehouse" is not the way the word is usually analyzed in Chinese. You don't need to ask "most Chinese people" about this; any native speaker of Chinese can tell you that. Have you asked "most English speakers" whether "Canada" reminds you of beer cans, or whether "Germany" reminds you of germs? Do you need to? Any English-speaker ''knows'' instinctively that this is not how the English language works when those words are concerned. And "Western Storehouse" is not how "Xizang" works in Chinese. Frankly I think this entire issue is overblown. The entire "Western Storehouse" thing is ludicrous, on the scale of saying that English speakers call Germany "Germany" because they think Germans are Germs. But we need NPOV, and if some people are seriously putting this subject across we can't do anything about it. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 06:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :I don't think any Chinese person would be surprised by the idea that the connotations of names are relevant when choosing a transcription (note connotations, not meaning). It is not a coincidence that Meiguo, Faguo, Yingguo, Deguo ad nauseam use positive characters. User:Markalexander100 06:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) And yet people type out diatribes against Meiguo, Yingguo etc on online BBS's and use those "positive characters" right along with it. When a Chinese person sees "Meiguo", he/she does NOT see "beautiful country" (no more than you'd see "Germ" in "Germany"); he/she sees "America", and all the connotations that comes with it. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 07:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :(note connotations, (for those who chose the name) not meaning) User:Markalexander100 07:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Argh!! Why are you asking for a source? I ''can't'' provide a source because this is common knowledge to any Chinese speaker. It's like "Germany" does not mean "Many Germs" to an English speaker, it's so ridiculously obvious that it's painful to even have to get into a debate about it. (Would YOU want to get into such a revert war on Germany? And search for a source on why Germany does not ''connote'' "many germs" to English speakers?) I doubt the thought of this has ever even crossed the mind of any Chinese speaker, let alone for them to ''rebutt'' it, let alone for that rebuttal to survive in any permanent form so that I can provide it as a source. In any case, stop deleting what I wrote! This is about NPOV right? If you're presenting the arguments of one side, why aren't you presenting it's opposing view, especially if the opposing view thinks that the initial complaint is completely ludicrous?--User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 17:16, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) ::I will reiterate what I stated above: the character ''does not'' mean "storehouse" in this context. Anyone who is familiar with Buddhism should know of the Tripitaka (Threefold Canton) and its significance to Buddhists. Frankly, it should be viewed as offensive that these so-called "supporters" would use contextually-inane translations to tarnish the good name of "Xi Zang". --User:Taoster 01:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Ran: sweeping unsourced generalisations have no place in Wikipedia and will continue to be deleted. The original text of the article mentions both Tibetan and Chinese POVs. If you want to discuss the wording of the text then this is the place to do it; changing a controversial part of a controversial article without attempting to seek consensus is unhelpful. :Taoster: as I mentioned above, personally I agree with you. If you have a source for our interpretation, then we can add it to the text. I haven't found one yet. User:Markalexander100 01:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Excuse me? What you were doing was not deleting "unsourced generalization", you were deleting all of the arguments that the opposing side has. The original text did not give equal weight to the two sides; it explained one side's reasoning and then, out of nowhere, said that "others disagree". Your repeated reverts kept it that way. In any case, here's my attempt at a rewrite. Please tell me which part of it is a "sweeping unsourced generalization": ''The Chinese name for Tibet, 西藏, Xīzng, is a phonetic transliteration derived from U-Tsang and has been in use since the 18th century. The Chinese character (藏, zng), is also used to describe things Tibetan such as the Tibetan language (藏文, zng wn) and the Tibetan people (藏族, zng z). The two characters of Xizang can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans and their supporters find offensive. ''However, Chinese transliterations of non-Chinese language names take characters for pronunciation only, as long as the characters hold no negative connotations. For example "Vancouver" is translated as 温哥华, pronounced ''wēngēhu'', and literally meaning "warm - brother - majesty" (the meaning is always discounted). In addition, the offending character, "藏", primarily refers to Buddhist scripture; its meaning as "storehouse" is archaic. As a result, some people would hold that the meaning of the character is irrelevant, or that it does not connote "storehouse" in any sense. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 02:31, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) :It is not true that the meaning of the characters are irrelevant so long as they are not negative: characters with positive meanings are used to express a positive attitude. The Vancouver material is obviously irrelevant to an article on Tibet, and is original research (so therefore should not be included). As I mentioned above, I have found no source as yet for the relevance of the Buddhist scripture meaning; if you find one, we can add that interpretation to the text. User:Markalexander100 02:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) I still can't leave the article dangling like that. As of now it seriously seems to imply that Chinese people call Tibet "Western Storehouse" in the literal sense (and the article implies some sort of "underlying racism" in the process). No one in China thinks of it that way... "zang", when used to refer to Tibet, means "Tibet" and nothing else. Reminds me of something I saw on the net; someone said that the name for Africa in Chinese, "feizhou", literally means "non-continent", and says that it's "meaningful". But "feizhou" is simply short for "afeilijia zhou", which is a straightforward phonetic transcription of "Africa". To imply things that Chinese people themselves don't realize is, I think, not just POV; it's pushing forward patent falsehoods. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 01:58, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) I think that if one can't talk about Germany as being related to the word germ, or Germany as related to the word Ale, as seen in its Romance language translations, or Tibet as being like a storehouse in the West, or even the word 'west' in Chinese as looking like a bottle of Cointreau or Triple Sec, then one might be a little aperspectival as regards the use of language to create poetic names and constructs that people enjoy using. We should try to make it easy to discuss the obvious when it comes to translation issues. --User:McDogm 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == 1.2 million == Fred Bauder: Thanks for the added information. But is it possible for you to add information on what 1.2 million (or 500,000) Tibetans died ''of''? It seems to me that this information is commonly quoted to prove that there is a racist campaign, on the whole, of "Chinese killing Tibetans", and that the PRC is racist, even though there is little legal difference in rights between ethnic Han Chinese and Tibetans in general (if anything, it is the Han Chinese who are discriminated against, from college admissions to government jobs to the one-child policy). Moreover, it was precisely in the same interval (1953-1964) that the Great Leap Forward happened and managed to kill 20 million people in all of China; this campaign was certainly the result of ideological stupidity, not racism. So I strongly suspect that ''that famine'' can account for most of the casualty figures; but I don't have a source for this, which is why I'm asking you help. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 17:54, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) Most of the violence involved Tibetans attacking Chinese. Which of course the Chinese with airplanes, machine guns and artillery responded to with devestating effect. On page 126 of ''Tibet, Tibet'' is a bit about one group of nomads during the Great Leap forward: "They weren't allowed to make their own food. Twice a day they would be served a thin ''tsampa'' soup in a big communal tent." "[The nomads] weren't allowed to keep animals, although some people secretly kept sheep." [The Chinese] tried plowing up grassland, but of course nothing grew." "It was in 1959 and 1960, the worst years of the famine. A lot of people died. Many of my old friends died. My father's brother, my mother's mother, my mother's brother's wife, my paternal cousins--all of these people starved to death" (The speaker, who was captured during a battle, was in prison). This group of nomads had their tents taken away and were forced to live in concrete shelters which Patrick French describes at page 128: "The sheds lay in a long crumbling row about a mile away, in the lee of a hill. Each was about 2 meters high, an arch of rough brick and cement, open at either end to the wind and rain. It was hardly imaginable that people had lived there, ten to a shed in the burning winter cold. The sheds reminded me of the hutches used to keep pigs in England." According to page 278 the exile total includes, "starvation, fighting, torture, execution, suicide and struggle sessions." This is rather like the Ukrainian calculations where everyone who died in the Great Famine is blamed on the Russians. There is a certain justice to this. After all if the Chinese had simply left the status quo alone, probably any famine would not have affected Tibet, but then some other thing might have happened. User:Fred Bauder 19:24, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) :Thanks Fred... if you can, can you add the information to the article? :Also, the Ukraine article says: "Soviet Ukraine experienced two famines (192122 and 193233)the second of which was deliberate, and termed the "Holodomor"in which many millions died (scholarly estimates range from 4 to 10 million dead).". Surely the famine of the Great Leap Forward was not deliberate? Or do people have somewhat different definitions of what "deliberate" means? -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 05:00, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) :Some think that the Great Leap Forward famine didn't affect Tibet? That's illogical. About 20 million people starved to death in China from 1958 to 1961 but somehow the Tibet region remained perfectly fine and dandy? Don't be ridiculous. == "Tibet" == A lot is said about the naming of Tibet in Asian languages, but where does "Tibet" come from? == Disambiguate == Simply having the first paragraph explain things isn't enough. If an article talks about just one of two definitions of a given term, we should put the alternate definition as a disambiguation line on top. -- User_talk:Ran">User:Ran|ran User talk:Ran 22:45, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC) == Students for a Free Tibet == Why was the link to Students for a Free Tibet removed? User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)
Tibet
This category concerns Tibet, a territory which part of is currently administered by the People's Republic of China as an autonomous region of China, the rest is divided up among the provinces of Qinghai and Sichuan. There is controversy regarding its proper legal status. Disputed territories Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China Himalayas
Tibet
==:Category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China== Huaiwei [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tibet&oldid=11695126&diff=next added] this category to :category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China. I deliberately did not do this because there are currently separate articles on Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region. I am not sure which meaning of "Tibet" is this category referring to. Feel free to comment on whether this category should or should not be categorised to :category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 19:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) :Added :category:Disputed territories. Just noticed :category:Kashmir was categorised under :category:Political divisions of India, :category:Pakistan and :category:People's Republic of China as well.--User:Huaiwei 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Still we've got to figure out whether this category is referring to Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region, or both. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 19:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) :::Since I see just about any reference to Tibet in this one category, plus both articles mentioned earlier, we might as well treat it as reference to both as well. Of do you have anything concrete to suggest? List this in Categories of countries?--User:Huaiwei 23:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps we can now treat this category as reference to both, unless there're some other users object it. ::By the way, Tibet is at the time being not a sovereign State. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 06:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::But the definition of a country is fluid isnt it? In that sence, Tibet is a country too, especially as far as some Tibetans are concerned. :D --User:Huaiwei 07:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Very true. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 10:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::So why dont you do that now? Meanwhile, perhaps you might want to do the same for ALL other similar cases? Looking though :Category:Disputed territories might help. ;) --User:Huaiwei 10:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::What do I have to do, and why do I have to do that? — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 13:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::Add them to country lists? Afterall for one, you insisted that the term country can be interpreted differently (which is true), and all these territories probably qualify, and secondly, arent you a stickler for "consistency"? Meanwhile, I still have no idea what you really want to do to this category.--User:Huaiwei 14:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::As I have stated above, I did not categorise this category to :category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China, as I was not sure whether this category is dedicated for Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region. :::The articles in this category already tells you what they are supposed to represent. Unless you find a need to break it up that is. If so, just say so, and dont beat around the bush.--User:Huaiwei 15:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::By convention, whatever lists of "countries/regions" cover only sovereign States, and entities that demonstrate certain level of independence (unless for some ad hoc reasons, such as Scotland for football events). Excuse me for my ignorance, I have never seen Tibet being listed on such lists. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :::Scotland has its own parliament, and btw if you did not realise, the United Kingdom is indeed made up of four countries. Go check it out yourself. Perhaps in your quest for "accuracy", you will now go about insisting that they should ditch the name 'united kingdom" and only list the four countries in country lists?--User:Huaiwei 15:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I know. But you'd seldom encounter a list of countries/regions with Scotland or Tibet, but Hong Kong and Bermuda. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 16:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
T
TA | TB | TC | TD | TE | TF | TG | TH | TI | TJ | TK | TL | TŁ | TM | TN | TO | TP | TR | TS | TU | TW | TX | TY | TZ |Words begining with Tibet:
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
Tibet
TIBET(tm)
Tibetan
Tibetans
Tibetan_(language)
Tibetan_alphabet
Tibetan_alphabet
Tibetan_Antelope
Tibetan_antelope
Tibetan_antelopes
Tibetan_art
Tibetan_Autonomous_Region
Tibetan_Bells
Tibetan_Bells
Tibetan_Black_Bear
Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead
Tibetan_book_of_the_dead
Tibetan_Buddhism
Tibetan_Buddhism
Tibetan_Buddhism
Tibetan_Buddhist
Tibetan_Buddhists
Tibetan_Buddhist_canon
Tibetan_Buddism
Tibetan_Calendar
Tibetan_calendar
Tibetan_canon
Tibetan_eye_chart
Tibetan_Fox
Tibetan_Gazelle
Tibetan_Goji_berry
Tibetan_Government-In-Exile
Tibetan_Government-in-Exile
Tibetan_Government_in_Exile
Tibetan_kings
Tibetan_Lamaism
Tibetan_language
Tibetan_language
Tibetan_Macaque
Tibetan_Macaque
Tibetan_macaque
Tibetan_Mastiff
Tibetan_Mastiff
Tibetan_music
Tibetan_Muslim
Tibetan_Muslims
Tibetan_ox
Tibetan_oxen
Tibetan_people
Tibetan_people
Tibetan_people
Tibetan_Plateau
Tibetan_Plateau
Tibetan_plateau
Tibetan_resistance_movement
Tibetan_rug
Tibetan_rugs
Tibetan_Sandgrouse
Tibetan_sandgrouse
Tibetan_script
Tibetan_script
Tibetan_Singing_Bowl
Tibetan_Sky_Burial
Tibetan_sky_burial
Tibetan_Spaniel
Tibetan_Terrier
Tibetan_White-eared_Pheasant
Tibetan_written_language
Tibetan_written_language
Tibetian_rug
Tibetibet
Tibeto-Burman
Tibeto-Burman_language
Tibeto-Burman_Languages
Tibeto-Burman_languages
Tibeto-Burman_languages
Tibet_AR
Tibet_Autonomous_Region
Tibet_Autonomous_Region
Tibet_Government_in_Exile
Tibet_independence_movement
Tibet_resistance_movement
Tibet_traditional_provinces
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
