Talk:Tibet Autonomous Region
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tibet Autonomous Region article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
What does "Xizang Zizhiqu" literally mean. I know "Xizang" means Tibet. What does "Zizhiqu" mean? Autonomous region, or something else?
Yes, "Zizhiqu" means "autonomous region". "Zizhi" means autonomous, and "Qu" means region.
("zi" = "self", "zhi" = "govern")
What to use at the top of the box
There are two possibilities. One is Pö Rangyongjong, which seems to be an ad hoc transcription of Lhasa pronunciation. The other is Bod-rang-skyong-ljongs, which is the Wylie tranliteration, a letter-by-letter transliteration of the Tibetan original.
Now, for cases like Shigatse (Gzhis-ka-rtse), there is a very good reason to use the ad hoc system: because that's how it appears in the English language. Various texts online are more likely to refer to Shigatse as "Shigatse" rather than "Gzhis-ka-rtse".
But this is not true for "Bod-rang-skyong-ljongs". In English, the region is called "Tibet Autonomous Region", not "Pö Rangyongjong". When we want to give a Romanization of the Tibetan version, the best system to use is one that is already established, i.e. Wylie.
An analogy for this is to improvise a new system for the Chinese "Sheetzang Tzejechew" instead of using Pinyin "Xizang Zizhiqu", and justifying this with a few isolated exceptions like Hong Kong and Sun Tzu which do not use Pinyin. -- ran (talk) July 1, 2005 01:55 (UTC)
- Although Wylie is established, it appears to be used mostly by historians and professors, from what I can see. And although with Pö Rangyongjong, there is no "system" to it, it is what most people use. --Hottentot
But what is "Pö Rangyongjong"? It's not "Shigatse" or "Milarepa", which appear as the usual forms in the English language. But who uses "Pö Rangyongjong"? Googling "Pö Rangyongjong -Wikipedia" gives a total of 8 links, which are all Wikipedia copies anyway; searching for "bod rang skyong ljongs" gives a small collection of academic links, which, though modest, is slightly better. The truth is, no one uses "Pö Rangyongjong", except us.
Now, if we want to show Lhasa pronunciation, either use the Tournadre system (we can ask Nathan Hill), or IPA (we can also ask Nathan Hill). But forget "Pö Rangyongjong". -- ran (talk) July 1, 2005 03:41 (UTC)
- Ooooh, I see what you're saying, all the Google hits for "Pö Rangyongjong" are taken form Wikipedia. It appears that the person who added that was User:Chiramabi, but that doesn't really matter. --Hottentot
Suzerainty or Sovereignty
A number of older encyclopedias refer to eras's sovereignty but in recent years the "West" has only been referring to "suzerainty", or the de facto government suggesting oppression and occupation. Why has this changed?
Yet the agreements signed between China and Britain respected China's sovereignty such that China paid a fee for the British to leave. Why would China pay for "suzerainty"? Why would the British accept Chinese rule? What business is it of the colonialist British? How can a religious leader, the Dhali Lama (meaning Ocean Guru) run an administrative government? Why do the British and Americans have bogus human rights groups attacking territories and countries on China's borders such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Korea etc.? Why can't they go back to Schleswig Holstein where, presumably, they belong?
Encyclopedias that have not been lost down an Orwellian "memory hole" include:
The 1994 New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia which states, "Treaties (1906, 1907) between China and Great Britain recognized China's sovereignty over Tibet."
Infopedia similarly states "sovereignty" and not "suzerainty" in two separate entries on Tibet.
File:Tibet in China (all claimed).svg
The file (File:Tibet in China (all claimed).svg) used in the infobox shows only one POV. This version here (File:Tibet in China (undisputed + other de-facto hatched) (+all claims hatched).svg) presents the de-facto situation.
Hence I am proposing this replacement.
Excesive repetition of names and transliterations
The article currently has the English name, plus Chinese and Tibetan along with their transliterations in the opening sentence. It has it repeated again in the infobox settlement template and then repeated a third time in the infobox Chinese template. We really only need this once and WP:MOS-ZH says if you use the infobox Chinese template (which is prefered where there are multiple scripts and/or transliterations) that infobox Chinese alone is sufficient and the other occurrences can be removed. Rincewind42 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)