Tibet was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. In spite of a long (and at times rather heated) discussion, the consensus is against the proposed move. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. None of the sources above are supportive of the claim. Nobody contests that "Tibet Autonomous Region" is often shortened to "Tibet", and of course maps need to show the current boundaries. You need to show via sources that "Tibet" unadorned means specifically just the TAR rather than the broader cultural grouping and historical Tibet. But I don't think that's true; English language media routinely refers to Tibetans as Tibetans wherever they are as well as the general history of the region. For comparison, see Ireland, a broad-concept article on Ireland-across-history; this is the equivalent for Tibet, which I think is correct. I could maybe see an argument for moving Tibet (disambiguation) to Tibet, something like Macedonia, a disambiguation page that does not redirect to North Macedonia nor the Macedonia region of Greece nor the historical kingdom; but think that the status quo is fine. Besides, there's a link directly in the hatnote to the TAR. SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name Tibet is similar to the name China: China commonly means PRC, and that's why name China was moved from Greater China to PRC. Wikipedia:Article_titles states that commonly used name should be used as title of page, common examples are shown above: Google map, Bing map, travel agency of Tibet, Dalai Lama's statement, U.S. policy toward Tibet, and Britannica, all these common examples show that Tibet means Tibet Autonomous Region in general, and boundary is defined. Again, I'm not proving "Tibet" unadorned means specifically just the TAR, but showing Tibet commonly means Tibet Autonomous Region. Island Ireland is not a good example, since it's boundary is defined and does not change with history in general. Macedonia is also not a good example, since name is used for multiple places. Are you saying page Tibet can only be moved to TAR only if "Tibet" unadorned means specifically just the TAR, do I understand right? Is this Wikipedia's naming conventions? ~~~ Toto11zi (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly depending on what you mean, we usually distinguish the two terminologies to reduce confusion. SnowFire has explained what is needed. CMD (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, this is similar to the PRC vs. Greater China case, primary topic of China is PRC, not Greater China. Similarly primary topic of Tibet is TAR. If I understand right, SnowFire suggests Tibet can be moved to TAR only if "Tibet" unadorned means specifically just the TAR, this suggests there should be only one meaning for the term Tibet. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests there're multiple meanings, and we pick the primary meaning. Am I correct? Toto11zi (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be reading PRIMARYTOPIC right, but I'm unsure as you don't seem to understand what SnowFire said. SnowFire effectively said you would have to show that the TAR is the primary topic, and that they do not believe you have done so. CMD (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he said "You need to show via sources that "Tibet" unadorned means specifically justthe TAR rather than the broader cultural grouping and historical Tibet.", this means one meaning for Tibet. I responded " I'm not proving Tibet unadorned means specifically just the TAR, but showing Tibet commonly means Tibet Autonomous Region.". This means Tibet has multiple meanings, and Tibet Autonomous Region is the most common meaning, the primary topic. Toto11zi (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do need to show that "Tibet" unadorned means specifically just the TAR in most cases order to demonstrate it is the primary topic. CMD (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think SnowFire clearly wants "sources that "Tibet" unadorned means specifically just the TAR rather than the broader cultural grouping and historical Tibet.", agree? To be fair, I think same criteria can be applied for "Greater Tibet", agree? Toto11zi (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking me to agree to, but any assertion of a primary topic would have to provide evidence of what a word means. CMD (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of guessing SnowFire's statement, probably we need clarification from SnowFire. I've already provided various sources (maps, government policies, encyclopedia, travel agency) which indicate term Tibet means Tibet Autonomous Region, not Greater Tibet. This discussion is same as China: PRC vs. Greater China. Boundary of China has changed in different periods, and the current boundary of China is boundary of the PRC, similarly boundary of Tibet has changed in different periods, the current boundary of Tibet is the TAR. Toto11zi (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) @Toto11zi: CMD is correct. You've basically made the case that "Tibet Autonomous Region" is also called "Tibet", and should be on the Tibet (disambiguation) page and maybe the hatnote. Except that wasn't contested or controversial - it was already there, and a link is already in the hatnote. You need to prove a stronger claim for the move you're proposing, that of primary topic. Put things another way, suppose there's a situation with three articles, "Foo" (a song), Foo's Ultimate Super Album, and Fred's Official Office. Your links are fine for showing whether cases like the album or the office are abbreviated to "Foo" and deserve to be on the disambiguation page at all. But doing a primary topic grab requires a broader examination of the literature - is one meaning the most common one, ideally by >50%? If not, is it an "original" core meaning the others branch off of? To determine this, you need to do things like search for just the term unadorned ("Tibet" in this case) and see what meaning is intended, how often. For example, searching for "Tibet site:nytimes.com" has https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/travel/tibetan-culture.html as the first hit, which is very explicitly talking about Tibet-overall and directly goes over the shifting boundaries. Even if you could argue that "Tibet" meaning just the TAR has higher hits, there's also the issue above where Wikipedia usually prefers "core" / "overall" / "origin" articles to sit at the base name. SnowFire (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying term Tibet means primarily Tibet Autonomous Region, and Tibet page should be moved to TAR, similar analogy is China, China means PRC, and China was moved to PRC. Primary topic of Tibet is also TAR. Let's evaluate the two major aspects of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
1) with respect to usage if it is highly likely: those common (maps, government policies, encyclopedia, travel agency) sources I provided suggest Tibet is highly likely means Tibet Autonomous Region, not other topics.
2) long-term significance (greater enduring notability and educational value): boundary of Tibet (TAR) is defined, governance of Tibet is defined, if people travel to Tibet, we know immediately where. If you travel to Garze, we know exactly Garze is in Sichuan, not Tibet. Moving Tibet page to (TAR) definitely has long-term significance. That's already done for zh.wikipedia.org the the same terms 西藏 and 西藏自治区.
Chinese term for Tibet is 西藏, this term 西藏 was first used in 1663 AD, it's commonly used for the TAR 西藏自治区. Chinese term for Tibetan region (or Tibetan area, or Great Tibet) is 藏区, obviously, boundary is not defined for this, area and population are not defined for this. Toto11zi (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one common example, this recent (5/30/2024) piece news talks about China:
Mapped: Chinese Provinces with Cities Over 1 Milion People
Both the map and description suggest Tibet means TAR. As stated, boundary of Tibet has changed in different periods, when the English term Tibet was created in the Qing Dynasty in 1774, the size is similar to current TAR. Obviously, Qinghai was created in 1724, it was not in Tibet. Toto11zi (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? No more comments? the term "Tibet" does not mean "historical region of Tibet", it means Tibet, the size if current Tibet (TAR) is similar to that Tibet in the Qing Dynasty of China. Toto11zi (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just don't find your sources compelling. My example is from The New York Times, a major source of "serious" English-language media. Your source is visualcapitalist.com , which is just some website. I tried searching "Tibet site:bbc.com" and got https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-16689779 back, which also talks about Tibet overall rather than only the TAR. I mentioned it before, but I will again suggest the example of Ireland, where the "base" title has an overview of Ireland overall throughout history, not the topic of the modern polity Republic of Ireland (uncontroversially also called "Ireland"). I think that something similar is correct here. SnowFire (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, for "Tibet profile" from bbc.com:
First, the map contains word Tibet, and it refers to Tibet Autonomous Region, not the bigger Tibetan Region (藏区), it aligns with the meaning of Tibet being TAR.
The second sentence, "Tibet, the remote and mainly-Buddhist territory known as the roof of the world, is governed as an autonomous region of China.", this also aligns with the statement that Tibet means TAR.
Now the 3rd sentence. "Historically, Tibet was much larger than the autonomous region, being made up of three major areas - U-Tsang, Amdo and Kham. ": "Tibet was much larger", this suggests in the past, Tibet was much larger, now it's smaller, this means succession of region, similar to Succession of states, as stated above, size of any administrative region can change with time. Statement "being made up of three major areas - U-Tsang, Amdo and Kham" suggests it's Tibetan Empire, when Tibetan Empire was established, Songtsen Gampo conquored various places including those from Tang, like Tuyuhun. The Tibetan Empire lasted only ~200 years. This sentence shows term Tibet inherits old properties of the place, those properties may or may not be valid with the current Tibet, for example, the Amdo and Kham regions are no longer parts of Tibet. Amdo was replaced by Qinghai in 1724, administration of Kham region was changed in Ming, then changed again in Qing, even Xining was not part of Qinghai in Qing, then it became capital city of Qinghai in recent time. You can see, these names can change, size can change.
Both Tibet in map, and Tibet in description all aligned with fact the current Tibet is TAR, and term Tibet definitely inherits old properties. Do you see the same thing? Toto11zi (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is organization of term Tibet (西藏) from zh.wikipedia.org, it points to TAR (西藏自治区), the term 西藏 was created long time before TAR (西藏自治区) was even created, it points to TAR (西藏自治区) because current meaning of 西藏 is 西藏自治区, and 西藏 not only maintains current meaning, it also inherits old properties, and those old properties may be even before term 西藏 was created. This means we can say "Tibet is something something", we can also say "Tibet was something something". Toto11zi (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, Ireland is not good example, because one is island, and one Republic of Ireland is a country, and both have defined but different sizes. There are 2 political entities in Ireland, when I say I will travel to Ireland, you will definitely ask if it's Northern Ireland, or Republic of Ireland. If I tell you I will travel to Tibet, do you think someone will ask if I go to Qinghai? This is the question.Toto11zi (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More information: size of Tibet changed in different periods in history, at its largest, more than 50% of current Xinjiang (XAR) belonged to Tibet, in 790 AD, Hotan Prefecture and all surrounding areas were ruled by Tibet (Tibetan Empire). Size of Tibet was reduced further after Khams Military Commission was installed 1372 AD. After establishment of Qing dynasty, size of Tibet became stable, the current size of Tibet (TAR) is basically same as Tibet under the 8th Dalai Lama (1758–1804) in 1774 when the English term Tibet was created. Toto11zi (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The user has only proven that Tibet is also used for the TAR, not that it is used more than the region. Sources like Google and Bing Maps reflect the boundaries drawn up by China like they do so for Texas and other places, and sources in a geopolitical context (such as the US government) are more likely to refer to the TAR rather than the historical region. 115.188.127.196 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what is historical region? Boundary of Tibet, or any administrative region of China, even China itself changed in different periods. Is this true for the city, or country you live? Toto11zi (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? The term "Tibet" does not mean "historical region of Tibet", it means Tibet, the size of current Tibet (TAR) is similar to that Tibet in the Qing Dynasty of China. Toto11zi (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maps, government policies, encyclopedia, travel agency I provided above all suggest Tibet refers to Tibet Autonomous Region. Do you have source to support your statement "Tibet usually refers to the wider cultural region"? Wider cultural region is called Tibetan Region (藏区), not Tibet (西藏). Brittany is not a good example, the term Brittany was created and used since the 1st century, then later it became part of France in 1532. The term Tibet was created and started to be used starting 1663 AD, that's when the 5th Dalai Lama started to gain power, that's already Qing dynasty of China, size of Tibet at that time was similar to current Tibet (TAR), this means the Qinghai region was not under rule of the 5th Dalai Lama, Qinghai was created 1724, Sichuan was not under rule of the 5th Dalai Lama. Toto11zi (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been browsing a few academic books available on google books, and there simply isn't a clear pattern of "Tibet" being used to mean specfically TAR. Most often, there is a distinction between TAR and Tibet. Occasionally "Greater Tibet" is used, or "ethnographic Tibet", but only where it is contrasted with TAR, not with a notion of modern "Tibet". Kham, for example, is commonly referred to as in Eastern Tibet, not as formerly part of Tibet. I can also read how Tibet is divided between the TAR and the rest, governed by other Chinese provinces. In short, I just don't see what I would need to see to accept the case that "Tibet" in English refers dominantly to the Tibetan Autonomous Region rather than the traditional meaning of Tibet.OsFish (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read my discussion with SnowFire above? Tibet (西藏) means mostly TAR (西藏自治区), it also inherits old properties of Tibet, and we can say "Somewhere is in Tibet", or "Somewhere was in Tibet", since the boundary of Tibet changed with time. Kham region was part of Tibetan Empire which lasted for ~200 years, in Ming, Kham was mostly ruled by Khams Military Commission, it was no longer part of Tibet. In Qing, Kham was split and found in Tibet (TAR), Sichuan, and Yunnan. Check this question above to determine whether Tibet means mostly TAR, or Tibetan Region (藏区): If I tell you I will travel to Tibet only this summer, do you think I may go to Qinghai? If answer is no, then Tibet means mostly TAR, otherwise, Tibet means Tibetan Region (藏区). As stated above, in current usage, Tibet means mostly TAR, this means Xining was in Tibetan Empire long time ago, but now it is not in Tibet, it's in Qinghai. Most sources (maps, government policies, encyclopedia, travel agency) I provided above consider term Tibet as Tibet Autonomous Region, not Tibetan Region, or Greater Tibet (藏区). Toto11zi (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned "traditional meaning of Tibet", can you explain what is "traditional meeting of Tibet"? Which year in history are you referring? Toto11zi (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're asserting your position, but it isn't matched up by what I'm seeing in texts in English. I do NOT see a lot of texts saying Kham is no longer Tibet. Quite the opposite. They typically say it is in Eastern Tibet. They say that Tibet is administratively split between the TAR and other regions. I have read your exchange with SnowFire, as I have your other exchanges. You need to provide much stronger evidence than you have so far. As for arguing the traditional meaning of Tibet (which you do know) and the year - this is a circular argument: One cannot argue for the administrative boundary definition by reference to the administrative boundary definition. You need to show that texts shy away from using Tibet to describe the larger area in favour of the TAR.OsFish (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's understand more. Are you referring Tibet in 1774 AD when the English term Tibet was first created? or you're referring to Tibetan region (藏区)? 2 different concepts, the whole Tibetan region was never under rule of the Dalai Lama since the creation of the Dalai Lama title. The place which was under rule of the 8th Dalai Lama (1758-1804) was called Tibet, do we agree?
For all the common sources we discussed so far, they all suggest term Tibet means TAR, and it inherits old properties of Tibet. Tibetan Region, or Greater Tibet (藏区) is not Tibet (西藏), Tibet (西藏) has defined boundary at different periods of time. This is what I wrote "in Ming, Kham was mostly ruled by Khams Military Commission, it was no longer part of Tibet. In Qing, Kham was split and found in Tibet (TAR), Sichuan, and Yunnan." Size of Tibet always changed from its creation. You wrote "I do NOT see a lot of texts saying Kham is no longer Tibet.", do you mean "kham is no longer in Tibet"? Kham is always Tibetan region (藏区), but Kham is not Tibet (西藏). You wrote "Tibet is administratively split between the TAR and other regions.", this is not a good statement and it causes confusion. Can you provide link for your common source and we can review? Toto11zi (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've been very clear that I'm referring to how Tibet is described today in academic texts. I am very surprised you don't understand what is meant by "Tibet is administratively split between the TAR and other regions." You might want to work on not getting people's backs up if you want to persuade them. OsFish (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're not willing to provide source for your statement: "Tibet is administratively split between the TAR and other regions.", let's only review your statement alone. This statement suggests the area for Tibet was bigger than the TAR before it was split. The TAR means Tibet Autonomous Region which was created in 1965, that's 14 years after the Seventeen Point Agreement was signed in 1951. Let's study term Tibet in this agreement, the full title of agreement is:
中央人民政府和西藏地方政府关于和平解放西藏办法的协议
Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet,
Point #4 of the agreement is relevant and it says:
4. The central authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The central authorities will also not alter the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of various ranks shall continue to hold office.
Obviously the English term Tibet is right translation of Chinese term 西藏 in this agreement. The 14th Dalai Lama ratified this agreement using term Tibet in 1951. As stated before, in Ming, Kham was mostly ruled by Khams Military Commission, it was no longer part of Tibet, Qinghai was established in 1724, it was no longer part of Tibet, size of Sichuan was also adjusted in that time frame. After the fall of Qing, Qinghai was ruled by wardlord Ma Bufang, Sichuan was ruled by wardlord Liu Wenhui, size of Tibet in 1951 was the same size as Tibet in 1774 AD which was ruled under the 8th Dalai Lama (1758-1804). The English term Tibet was created in 1774 AD. If you check maps, current sizes of Tibet, Qinghai and Sichuan are almost identical to those in 1774. So, your statement is obviously not reliable. Now question for you, if the land ruled under the 8th Dalai Lama (1758-1804) was not called Tibet, what it should be called? Toto11zi (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are not responding to anyone's point that you need to produce English sources to show how the term is used in English, and given that you repeatedly misrepresent what I and others have written, I am not going to bother responding further.OsFish (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources found on this talk page so far suggest that Tibet means Tibet Autonomous Region, all the questions have been addressed with detailed explanation. For your particular statement without source, historical data have been provided, basically size of current Tibet (TAR) is the same size of Tibet in 1774 AD under Dalai Lama's rule when the English term Tibet was first created. If you think Tibet under Dalai Lama's rule was bigger than TAR in history, you can provide evidence. Toto11zi (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
