Talk:Qinghai–Tibet railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unclear Description[edit]

"BSP carriages are from Bombardier" --- what is a BSP carriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.170.18 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BSP is an abbreviation for the company that built the carriages; it is not a type of carriage. I have clarified that in the text. Quigley (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Prices[edit]

is the chart really necessary in an encyclopedia article? will delete later if no one objects. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.26.63 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an outline of the prices is really useful in giving an idea. Also it is quite important to have a link to the operating authority of the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.49.66 (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

I find this section full of contradictory statements. It speaks of the need to improve educational access to Tibetans & the ability to compete in the economy, yet rails against the logistical basis on which it must be achieved. How could access to better education come about when people have no ability migrate and settle in Tibet? How can Tibetans be competitive if they are perpetually kept in the nomadic lifestyles of feudal times? How can Tibetians benefit economically when they remain isolated and have no knowledge of or exposure to people beyond the next hill or mountain? How can the economy improve without the logistical infrastructure to channel in technology, capital, entrepreneurs, and skilled labor? It may be true that Tibetans are by enlarge unable to compete economically in the status quo. However, by NOT embarking on projects like this railway, they will only remain impoverished, and the socio-economic gap between Tibetans & Hans will be even greater. So do you guys think an attempt should be made to discuss these contradictions?--Lssah 88 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty normal in anti-Chinese government criticism. Ever hear how everyone say the one-child policy is stupid? At the same time complain about how population is out of control? You get use to it and eventually learn to just ignore their BS. 24.89.245.62 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detail questions[edit]

When the railway construction that started on June 29, 2001 is complete (expected in 2005; signalling and track testing require another 6 to 12 months), it will be possible to travel from Lhasa to Beijing in 48 hours

What was the travel time like before the railway? Alex.tan June 30, 2005 07:12 (UTC)
No "before", coz it will be the first railway in Tibet. 61.149.20.155 07:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I travelled by sleeper bus (bunks) Golmud - Lhasa, and back; 26 hours each way, with additional hours for breakdowns. Which are certain, the only question being how many hours for breakdowns. Plus injuries to passengers (I was flung against the roof twice; on a different trip a Swiss fellow three times, who then had to be dragged off the driver while remonstrating), though I did not suffer from altitude sickness, a fellow traveller did. Cheers NickyMcLean 20:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the story you got there. Ever consider turning it into a movie? Cus it's action packed! Yongke 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the length of the railway platforms? 68.23.224.34 17:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is Zizang then?[edit]

An anonymous contributor on ipaddress 81.229.147.109 changed a section the explanation of the railways name from:

The line is named after its termini, Xizang being a phonetic transcription of the name for Tibet in Putonghua

to

The line is named after its termini, Xizang, which is the name for Tibet in Putonghua.

The second is certainly wrong, as Zizang is a piece of written text in a latin alphabet, wheras Putonghua is a spoken language only, with no way of being represented in a latin alphabet without some form of transcription. Anybody know a better way of putting this. -- Chris j wood 13:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese can be and is represented in the latin alphabet using pinyin (should be xizang, not zizang). LDHan 12:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But surely Chinese is a completely different language to Standard Mandarin or Putonghua. Chinese is the language read and written throughout China (and the Chinese diaspora) but spoken nowhere (because it is not a spoken language). Mandarin is a spoken language, originally spoken in the area around Beijing but increasingly throughout the PRC. The process for representing Mandarin using pinyin is a phonetic transcription. -- Chris j wood 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Mandarin and Beijing dialect were not and are not actually the same. :-) — Instantnood 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might some confusion between Chinese characters, classical Chinese, modern spoken and written Chinese. Modern standard written Chinese is based on Standard Mandarin/Putonghua. And yes, Standard Mandarin and the Beijing dialect are not the same. I think this page is not really the best place to discuss this, perhaps a talk page on one of the articles on Chinese languages might be better. LDHan 20:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese is a group of languages. It contains two writing systems (Classical and Vernacular Chinese) as well as a dozen spoken languages (Mandarin, Cantonese etc.). For much of China's history, the writing system is largely detached from the spoken languages. Vernacular Chinese (the modern writing system) is based on Mandarin (note that standard mandarin hasn't been created at that time), but it is quite far from Cantonese, Shanghainese or any of the other spoken languages. Standard Mandarin (Putonghua) is just a dialect of Madarin (notice that Cantonese etc. are not considered to be dialects from a linguistic point of view) and the official spoken language of PRC. Pinyin is the official romanization system for Standard Mandarin and it should be used in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.168.238 (talk • contribs) 23:09, February 3, 2006 (UTC).

search result link[edit]

While the Google image search result showed relevant images, I do not believe that linking to such results should be included in the External links section as the search results aren't a website in itself. slambo 15:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cost[edit]

How much did it cost to construct the railway? — Instantnood 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

22.4 billion yuan (~ US$ 2.76 billion) as of July 2005. Yaohua2000 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you provide a source of this figure so that it can be included in the article? — Instantnood 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched for the keyword "青藏铁路 投资" at Google, one of the results in the first page. Yaohua2000 17:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

I think this article should be moved to Qinghai-Tibet Railway. That seems to be the more common name in English sources. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would better have a look at Category:Railway lines in the People's Republic of China. Yao Ziyuan 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it, but I don't know what you are wanting me to see there. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a naming convention used in other railway lines. I have no idea about this convention, but please do not rename only this one unless you rename all articles in that category. Yao Ziyuan 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think they should all be title according to what their common names are in English. For the other articles, I have no reason to think they are not already in the right place. But this one should be moved because there is a less obscure title. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been similar discussion on railway article names on the Trains project page and on individual article pages. In general, we normally use the railroad company's most recent or most common corporate name and add redirects for common names. Slambo (Speak) 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it makes sense that a consensus on that level might overrule general Wikipedia practice. As far as I know, the only corporate entity behind Qingzang is the Chinese government. How best to determine what they call it? I note that Google returns 12,900 hits for "Qinghai-Tibet railway" on english.peopledaily.com.cn, as opposed to 4 hits for "Qingzang railway"; the figures for chinadaily.com.cn is 290 to 0 in favour of "Qinghai-Tibet railway". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Transportation. Yao Ziyuan 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the Chinese naming conventions says that. However, a Wikipedia policy doesn't really mean anything unless it reflects a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Is there any evidence that this policy does reflect consensus? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the English name that is most commonly used in English-language publications, as well as most commonly used by the PRC government. — Instantnood 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

If it's moved again (and I have no opinion on the article title right now), please ensure that the todolist at Talk:Qingzang railway/to do gets moved appropriately too. Moving the main article does not touch subpages such as this. Slambo (Speak) 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support proposal. Gryffindor 12:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Note Qingzang or Qinghai-Tibet is not the problem that to be Chinese or English, it is a convention that use abbr. or full name. Qingzang is an abbreviation for Qinghai-Tibet, this is widely used in railway names and expressway names. For example, Beijing-Harbin railway named as Jingha railway, Beijing-Tongzhou Expressway named as Jingtong Expressway, and etc. All these articles at Wikipedia are named using their abbreviation. So there is no reason to name only Qingzang as its full name since Qingzang railway has nothing special with others, just because it is a new built railway. If we back to the years Jingha railway had been just completed, I think the news reporters will also use Beijing-Harbin railway to introduce it in English to foreigner readers. And also, these railways or expressways usually only have official Chinese name, not official English name. To use Qingzang or Qinghai-Tibet in Xinhuanet or other newspapers is the translators' business, which has nothing to do with the Chinese government's official view. So I suggest if we use full name, then use full name for every railway and expressway articles, and vice versa. Yao Ziyuan 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see any evidence that such a convention exists. What is the common English name for Jingha railway or for Jingtong Expressway? Google turns up very few hits for any version of the name outside of Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia has a very well-established convention of using common names where they exist. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese railway system is complex. The two-character name is a convention in railway naming for long time. If you can read a bit of Chinese, see zh:Template:中国铁路, which is an incomplete list of Chinese railways, I found many of them not very easy to express as the full name in English. And there is also some three-character short names for some railways, not yet listed there. I am not a railway expert, I do not know how to translation some of them. If you can translate them all, go ahead with the full names, or use pinyin short name. Yao Ziyuan 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Use official Chinese naming style. Can use re-direct for Qinghai-Tibet. No big deal. Heilme 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Why is the result "no consensus"? I count one editor (Yao Ziyuan) opposed to the move and three (myself, Gryffindor, and Instantnood) in support. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, I have restored the discussion as it was before it was closed. This also had the salutary effect of restoring the boxes for the Wikiproject and such which had been removed. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-requested this page move on WP:RM a few days ago, so it's still active, although no one has voted for since May.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this debate as no consensus. I only count two in favor and one opposed, and this debate has gone dead anyway. Mangojuicetalk 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 in favour and 1 opposed would appear to be a two-thirds majority, which should be sufficient to move. In any event, in the absence of consensus one way or the other, I have moved this page to Qinghai-Tibet railway in accordance with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) policy.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change other articles' redirect page (in this case QingZang Railway) without consensus. If you really want to abide by the Wikipedia guideline, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Transportation, thanks. — Ming Hua 09:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I realized that QingZang Railway's broken redirect is not due to User:Nat Krause's change, but User:Yao Ziyuan's deleting Qinghai-Tibet railway without fixing the articles that link to it (and there are quite a few). So sorry for the confusion, and I take that back. However, my main point about the naming covention of the transportation in China still stands. — Ming Hua 10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on the change of name, so do not change to new name. "Qingzang" is the official Chinese name for the railway. Heilme 08:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, in the absence of a consensus, there's no cause for you to start telling other Wikipedia editors what to do and what not to do. Was there at any point a consensus in favour of Qingzang railway? There is, however, a strong consensus on Wikipedia for the naming convention "Use Common Names". Moreover, there was apparently a consensus of 2-to-1 in favour of moving the page the last time the move request was closed by an admin. Moreover, the fact that, after the first time I moved this page to Qinghai-Tibet railway, another editor not only moved it back but took steps to make the move irreversible implies that this should be undone to avoid encouraging that.
Consequently, I have moved this page back to Qinghai-Tibet railway again. However, in order to avoid the situaion degenerating into a page-move war, I will refrain from any further moves until the matter has been discussed further on this talk page.
Heilme, I do wonder what you are getting at when you say, "'Qingzang' is the official Chinese name for the railway." The official name is actually not "Qingzang railway", but 青藏铁路. Moreover, is there a policy "use official Chinese names"? There is not, to my knowledge. There is, however, a policy that we should use common English names, which, in this case, means "Qinghai-Tibet railway".—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep the status quo until consensus is reached", I completely agree. — Ming Hua 23:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The People's Daily [1], the official mouthpiece of the CPC, calls it the "Qinghai-Tibet Railway". I think that settles the "Official Name" argument. --Sumple (Talk) 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Nat Krause, forgive me for any rudeness I have said previously. If you say that 2-to-1 is a consensus, I would say 3 people participating is the same as a failed vote. As you said, official Chinese name is "青藏铁路" which in pinyin translates to "Qingzang" tie lu (means railway). To Sumple, although the People's Daily may have use "Qinghai-Tibet" in their article, it may be used to suit foreign readers and is not necessarily an endorsement of its official name. As to the choice of "Official name" vs. "Common name", well I prefer official name because common may be pov. Furthermore, "Qinghai-Tibet" already redirects to here, I see no problem. Heilme 09:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not related but, just want to mention if you use "Common names" then PRC = China, ROC = Taiwan. I am not very comfortable with those implications. Heilme 09:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But we have refs that Qinghai-Tibet Railway is used in both common and (somewhat, by your argument) official contexts. Is there any reference that the "Qingzang Railway" is used in preference, whether as a common name or official name? Without references, to say that 青藏铁路 translates as "Qingzang railway" seems a tad "original research" to me. --Sumple (Talk) 04:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, 青藏铁路 does literally translate (surely this is OR??) to Qing zang tie lu = qingzang railway. By extension, maybe "qingzang" = "qinghai" and "xizang" (and xizang = tibet). But 青藏铁路 is official name. Heilme 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is not an "official" English translation here, as Nat Krause has said, People's Daily use Qinghai-Tibet railway, but the Daily also use Qingzang railway [2], it would be the matter of the translators to use which one, not the official. Yao Ziyuan 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Challenges[edit]

I suggest a new section on the technical challenges encountered during the construction of the railway should be added to this article. It is because from what I read from the press, the high altitude of the region was causing all sorts of trouble during the planning and construction stage. I am no expert in the matter so it would be really appreciated if someone could add to that. cheungie 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurised?[edit]

BBC News is reporting: "sealed cabins to protect passengers from the high altitude." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5133220.stm

Does that equate to a pressurised cabin? - this could be included in the article when clarified.

I read from Hong Kong media that the cabins are specially designed similar to that of an airplane. It supplies more oxgen to passengers in order to protect them from high altitude. cheungie 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on a show about it on CTTV4 (that was translated to me by my wife) that the cabins are not pressurized, but that supplemental oxygen is leaked into the cabin atmosphere at high altitudes. Additionally, even more oxygen is available to individual passengers who want or need it through something that appeared to be like a breathing tube. They did not discuss how the safety issue is handled. Hopefully, no smoking is allowed ;).
It is my understanding that smoking will not be permitted on the train. I would imagine that the effects of altitude could give one quite a buzz even from smoking ordinary tobacco. However, the oxygen content of the air in the train would probably also make smoking very dangerous. We'll probably soon find out what happens when a passenger tries to light up.

Immeasurable Benefits?[edit]

However, the immediate and direct economic benefit to the Tibetan population is immeasurable.

While this is plausible, it is unsourced and probably POV even if it were sourced. Miraculouschaos 19:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it came from a reliable source it could be included altho obviously a slight re-write would be needed to make it clear it's just an opinion not a fact Nil Einne 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase was removed some time ago. Miraculouschaos is correct, when an opinion is hyperbole to the extent of being factually untrue, it doesn't matter whether it's sourced or not. The source, by definition, is unreliable, because it stated something that is wrong. 24.130.145.204 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wired article[edit]

For those interested, Wired Magazine wrote an article on this railway for their July 2006 issue. I read some of it and it seems quite useful. It's available online here: Wired online article. - Zepheus 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

In the lead paragraph, why isn't the Tibetan-language name given for the railway alongside the Mandarin and English ones? --Dpr 01:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

本图只做示意之用???[edit]

 ●Normal station
 ●Station with 观景台
 Note: stations in gray are 无人职守车站
 Note: 本图只做示意之用

Okay, uh, what? I thought this was the English wikipedia. That text isn't even part of the image. 24.154.89.54 03:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

There are some photographs in the German version of this page. Can we use them over here?--DIGIwarez 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't see why not. Guinnog 04:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason not to; just make sure you know what they are. :P Corporal 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There we are, I've uploaded them and added them into the article with translations of the original captions. --Guinnog 05:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this image is OK, but don't we need to put this line and draw it into, say, a map of China? So people will know in which part of China this line works (i.e. the western part)? Heilme 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wired has a pretty good map (on the left). -- Миборовский 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I made my own version. See what you think. --Guinnog 08:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful! Thanks for the nice picture. Heilme 06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations[edit]

This is a great list, but it makes the page a little hard to read and edit. Can I have your thoughts please on:

  1. Moving it to the foot of the article
  2. Splitting it into a separate article?

Thanks --Guinnog 05:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting it would be better. Jon 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. See what you think. --Guinnog 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing trash out train windows???[edit]

Re: The critism section. Is that normal on other Chinese trains? Jon 13:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not normal, since most (about 80%) trains are air-conditioned, the windows can't be open. but on those trains whose window can be open, it is quite common. Yao Ziyuan 08:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

The corporation may call it Qingzang, but wouldn't it make sense to translate that into English? After all, Qingzang really only means Qinghai-Xizang, or, in English, Qinghai-Tibet. For example, you wouldn't make the page for the people's republic of China say "zhonghua renmin gongheguo." (I know that's not a great example, but I think you get my point) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.106.136 (talk • contribs) 22:30, September 9, 2006.Mistakefinder (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above. This was already discussed. Slambo (Speak) 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed, but never really settled. Might as well discuss it again.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The last province-level entity"[edit]

User:Huaiwei's edits ([3] [4] [5]; [6]) are effectively implying that Macao, a special administrative region which has no railway, is not a province-level entity. I agree with this view, but I am well aware that it has always been a matter of debate on Wikipedia. Saying "last province-level entity in mainland China" is, in comparison, always correct. — Instantnood 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration date[edit]

I just watched an episode of Discovery's "Man Made Wonders" that deals with this railroad. They give an inauguration date of 1 July 2005 (even emphasizing that it was completed one year earlier than planned). The article says 1 July 2006.

Which date is correct?

--195.56.53.118 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery is not correct. Python eggs (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undisplayed rectangle characters (མཚོ)[edit]

Question to original writer: In the opening paragraph, after the Tibetian name is a series of rectangle characters(མཚོ་བོད་ལྕགས་ལམ།). Are these supposed to be some Tibetian written script that cannot be displayed, or a mistake? Please indicate the language so I can install font support for that language or remove those characters. --Mistakefinder (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your Tibetan rendering support. Python eggs (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced "Nonetheless, it is certain that climate change will have a negative effect." statement.[edit]

Accompanied by short clip talking about "The world highest railway". No signs of explanation what effect climate change will have or when it has been predicted to happen. While that clip might be worthy to illustrate uniqueness of r/r or to introduce engineering challenges, it does not explain that predicted "negative effect" caused thawing permafrost layer. I removed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.113.52 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion stated as fact[edit]

"temperatures in the Tibetan Plateau will increase by an estimated two to three degrees Celsius."

Without debating whether or not it is correct, it is not a fact but is stated as such. SteveOak (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveOak (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Qinghai–Tibet Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Qinghai–Tibet Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Qinghai–Tibet railway/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has a lot of good stuff, but too many pictures and tables. --Danaman5 07:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 03:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qinghai–Tibet Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Qinghai–Tibet Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant POV issues on this page[edit]

The "economic" and "social" sections of the page are literally Chinese state propaganda. The railway is presented only as a boon to Tibetan peoples. This POV is, of course, exactly what the authoritarian state would like to suggest. Quoting state only state sources wildly biases these section. By contrast, notable Tibet Studies scholars such as Emily Yeh, Charley Makley, and Andrew Grant have extensively published on the detrimental impacts felt by Tibetan peoples, as a direct result of infrastructure such as the Q-T railway. This article badly needs to get rid of Chinese state sources and present leading academic scholars' points of view. --Smilo Don (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issues you've called out remain largely unresolved, but I've moved the NPOV tag to flag this section specifically. Jpatokal (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qinghai–Tibet_railway&oldid=1206081319"