Talk:Tibetan Empire

Is this article redundant?

It seems not to fit in with the rest of the geographical hierarchy for the region. ~ 203.144.143.4 08:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I dug deeper and became 100% convinced that it's 100% redundant, hence the de-linking and conversion to a disambiguation page. ~ 58.8.14.82 09:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Move

I moved the Kham article to this title and modified the text so we could have redirects for all three old provinces pointing here. Pashley (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan Empire is currently a redirect to Old Tibetan provinces. I'm inclined to think that should be reversed. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems logical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Pashley (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Region or topic?

User:Soumya-8974 just changed this from Wikivoyage:Extraregion to travel topic. I want to change it back. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Tibetan Empire no longer exists, so that's a strike against it being an extraregion, isn't it? What's the advantage of treating it as an extraregion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Geographically, it is a region. It is certainly not a travel topic as that term was originally used, for information relevant to multiple destinations e.g. altitude sickness or bargaining.

On the other hand, the Roman, Persian, Chinese, Mongol & Mughal empires all have travel topic articles. Pashley (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If we keep it as a travel topic, the examples at Wikivoyage:Extraregion have to be tweaked to delete this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason for this to be an extraregion, because the Tibetan Empire doesn't exist anymore. It should be an historical travel topic, like Roman Empire, Imperial China et al.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

But as there is no travel information here -- sites to visit, museums, etc. -- it isn't a travel topic either. It's just an unreferenced encyclopedia article. The reader would be better off with w:Tibetan Empire. Most other travel topic articles have information on specific sites and museums. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have restored it to be an extraregion because the change to travel topic was made without discussion by an editor who was prone to making unilateral changes. I understand ThunderingTyphoons!'s point, but it isn't a travel topic either. And I doubt that we will find a "museum of the Tibetan Empire" in China. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's very problematic to have a former empire as an extra-region. If we're treating it as a current extra-region, shouldn't it be renamed something like "Traditional Tibetan region" or something? It's not an empire today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is some travel content:

"Some places that are major tourist destinations today, such as Dali and Lijiang, were regional capitals in that era."

"Our article on the Yunnan tourist trail covers travel through parts of Kham. The famed scenic destination of Jiuzhaigou in Sichuan was formerly part of Kham, and is named after nine traditional Tibetan villages in the area, seven of which are still inhabited by ethnic Tibetans, and are excellent places to marvel in traditional Tibetan architecture."

OK, it's a bit thin, but it's not nothing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Turn it into a travel topic, and it might develop into one. It'll never develop into the role of extraregion, because it's not a region. Or if travel content (current and potential) is so limited, perhaps the information can just be merged somewhere? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is a travel topic as all historical empires and regions are. It might have a lot of scope of improvement to become a high-quality travel topic but it's still a travel topic. Gizza ^(roam) 08:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

While I'm usually annoyed and find Soumya's contributions as controversial, I'm going to have to say topic this time. it's not an empire anymore. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This additional discussion changes the consensus toward topic, rather than extraregion. But I think that the travel content is so thin that the reader is better off with the Wikipedia article on the Tibetan Empire. The article has been around since 2014, so it has had lots of time for points on interest to be added, but I don't know if there are any. I doubt that the People's Republic is going to be interested in developing or promoting sites related to this history. On that basis, deletion seems to be the logical way to go. Can anyone prove me wrong about points of interest? Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we could keep this as a topic, and someone can go ahead and expand it if they know more about the history. It's true that this part of history is censored in China, but many of the sites are still there, which you can visit on a tour to Tibet. The Potala Palace is now a tourist attraction you can visit for instance, and you can also visit the monasteries that were the traditional seats of the Panchen Lama and the Kamarpa. The fact that the Chinese government censors this part of history does not mean that we should. And outside Tibet proper, you can travel freely around the ethnically Tibetan areas of the neighbouring provinces; Jiuzhaigou in Sichuan is an example of an ethnically Tibetan area, and besides the scenery, one of the main attractions is the Tibetan villages where you can still see traditional Tibetan architecture. And unlike Tibet proper, you do not need any special permits to visit the Tibetan villages in Sichuan. The dog2 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this still isn't a travel article, and doesn't belong in a travel guide. If someone who knows something about sites associated with the Tibetan Empire is willing to add them to the article, it could be one. So far, no-one has stepped forward to do so. Ground Zero (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The Potala Palace is already featured in the Tibet and Lhasa articles (it is also in the page banners of both), so anyone researching a trip to Tibet will find that information quickly. If that is the only POI with a specific connection to the Tibetan Empire, readers would be better off looking in those articles than here. Ground Zero (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This article also helps to given important context. After all, the territory of the Tibetan Empire was larger than what is currently Tibet, which is why Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan and Sichuan have areas that are predominantly Tibetan — because those areas were part of the Tibetan Empire. Believe it or not, the Dalai Lama was actually not born in what is today Tibet, but in Taktser, which in in modern-day Qinghai, and not too far from Xining (making it quite a distance from Tibet proper). And while the area was part of the Tibetan Empire prior to the Qing conquest, it was not actually under the control of the Tibetan government from 1912-1950. The dog2 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It's all context and no travel information. It's uncited, and not crowd-sourced. The reader is better served by the Wikipedia article. Wikivoyage is not a history blog. It's a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I will say this is still useful for people who are looking to experience Tibetan culture. Not everyone wants to go through the hassle of getting the special permit to go to Tibet, and some people might want to travel around freely without Chinese government minders. And one of the easiest ways to do it is to look for places that are not part of Tibet today but were historically part of the Tibetan Empire, because those are areas where you are still likely to find ethnic Tibetan communities. The dog2 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If no one’s willing to give it more travel content, I don’t think it’s serving enough purpose to merit being part of a travel guide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I did some moderately extensive editing, emphasizing the notion of permit-free travel by moving it to the introduction, & creating Tibetan_Empire#Destinations. Pashley (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Great job. I also added some information about the Qiang ethnic group, since they are related to the Tibetans, but still culturally distinct, and inhabit regions that were part of the Tibetan Empire. The dog2 (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Since some of it is now outside PRC, then shouldn't the {{IsPartOf|}} be part of East asia in general? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Bhutan, Nepal and India are in South Asia, so perhaps Asia in general will make a better classification. The dog2 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is shaping up nicely. I think it's still better to breadcrumb this to East Asia, since the territory of the former empire is almost all in China and Asia is so vast that it's really not helpful to breadcrumb it to the whole continent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is starting to look good. The argument on whether to keep the article is unresolved (though for the record, it looks worth keeping to me), but it seems that there's consensus that this should be a travel topic rather than a extraregion. If I'm wrong, now's the time to say.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus for travel topic. Should I change it, or does anyone oppose. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but "should I change it, or does anyone oppose?" was the basic thrust of my comment above. In order to know whether anyone opposes, we need to wait until either the majority of participants respond or a good chunk of time (say 24 hours) has passed without any opposition.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

My position is that, as currently phrased, it has to be a travel topic, because this empire no longer exists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

With the new travel content added, I now support keeping this article as a travel topic. The information, though limited, is certainly travel related. It’s now at the point, at least in the destinations section, where more information will benefit the article, which is a sign that it is moving in the right direction. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is to be kept, it should be as a travel topic. Pashley has improved it it quite a bit. I think it is only marginally a travel article now, but I won't nominate it for deletion. I will propose some changes to how we describe travel topics to clarify that articles should have actual travel-related content. I'm not sure where this should be addressed -- maybe Wikivoyage:Other ways of seeing travel. Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I wonder if our article status pages (such as Wikivoyage:Travel topic status) should have more advice. For example, the row for “usable” has just a one liner description. This doesn’t give contributors much guidance for how to write a usable travel topic. Maybe we should add some information about the importance of including specific relevant destinations, the types of relevant activities (tours, restaurants, golf courses etc.) for the topic, safety, and traditions/cultures where applicable. Too often (I’m guilty of this) our new travel topics have a detailed “understand” section followed by two or three cities under “destinations” to make it marginally travel related and, according to the one liner, barely usable. I think we can improve upon this by providing contributors with more guidance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also guilty of this, but of the opposite. If you look at my most recent TT: Ned Kelly tourism. I barely even explained who he is, but was too focused on the listings, which barely passed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that’s better, though. People who don’t know about Ned Kelly can easily go to WP to read about him, but for destinations, at least we have a good list with travel relevant information. I wonder if German East Africa has a lot of parallels to this article and possibly its discussion. We came to a different consensus there a few years ago but the perspective here seems to have changed somewhat since then. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that this should be a travel topic. After all, the Tibetan Empire is a historical entity that does not exist anymore. The dog2 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Like many contributors have mentioned here, we treat other historical empires as travel topics, so the Tibetan Empire should probably also be a travel topic. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it to a travel topic accordingly, as there appears to be overwhelming support for moving this to a travel topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge & redirect?

Should this be merged into the Tibet article & redirected? Much of it might fit in a section there titled "Tibetan Empire" or "Tibetan culture outside Tibet". The rest could just be discarded.

There are arguments against this; these topics might not fit well there & they'd tend to make the article too long. However, it might be worth considering. Pashley (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support This has only 251 pageviews in the last 30 days, and most are by us Wikivoyage editors, and not readers. Tibet seems to have 301 but was less edited by us, meaning it has more readers. (pgview numbers as at 18:51 10 Jul AEST) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. It's been improved a lot lately. How much overlap is there with Tibet? It seems to me to go beyond that. It could be retitled "Tibetan culture" or something, but I think the title is OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

As of now, the focus is on covering Tibetan cultural destinations outside modern-day Tibet proper, so I'd be fine in changing the title to Tibetan culture. The dog2 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a historical topic focusing on Tibet's history. As I see it an article about Tibetan culture would need to focus on present-day culture of Tibet, which would be better covered in Tibet#See or even Tibet#Understand. I'm not sure it would be beneficial to move this article to the region article at this point, as it is arguably "bloated" per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify, I suggested this might be worth discussing, but personally I'm not in favour. Pashley (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Current use

One reason given for wanting to change this is that the term "Tibetan Empire" is no longer in use. I do not think that should matter, but others clearly do.

The names of the three provinces, all of which redirect here, are still used.

• Kham is definitely in use; I've met Tibetans who described themselves in English as Khampas.
• Amdo is still the Tibetan name for the region that is Qinghai (& part of Gansu) in Chinese. Both terms are used in English. We have an Amdo Tibetan phrasebook.
• I do not know if U-Tsang is still used in Tibetan, & I've never heard it used in English, but the Chinese name Xizang is derived from it.

Both Amdo & Kham have links from other articles.

Years ago, someone created an article for Kham. I moved it to "Old Tibetan provinces", expanded it some & made all three provinces plus Tibetan Empire redirect to it. Later we moved it to the better title Tibetan Empire. Pashley (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Ü-Tsang is in common use, but it is used in academic contexts to describe the area of the old province. For instance, when Tibet was de facto independent from 1912-1950, the Tibetan government claimed all 3 provinces, but in practice only controlled Ü-Tsang, while Kham and Amdo were controlled by various Chinese warlords. From what I heard, one of the reasons why the Tibetan government in those days selected the current Dalai Lama from Amdo is because they wanted to bolster their claim to the former province. The dog2 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

New York City

@Ikan Kekek: I just wonder if you know enough to write about this. As you know, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most hawkish members of Congress when it comes to China policy, up there with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, and she is the most vocal supporter of Tibetan independence in Congress. My understanding is that this is in part because her district is home to the largest Tibetan community in the United States, so I presume that there would be places in her district you can go to learn to speak Tibetan, eat Tibetan food and experience other aspects of Tibetan culture. The dog2 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that about AOC. There is a small Tibetan community in Jackson Heights with a few restaurants and some Tibetans in other parts of New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you know enough, perhaps you can write about the parts of New York City where you can go for such stuff. I know New York City was not part of the Tibetan Empire, but still, the large Tibetan population would be because many fled Chinese rule after the uprising. The dog2 (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a large Tibetan population here. Have you seen figures? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the figures, but when I went on a ski trip to Hunter Mountain out of New York City, I remember the tour group had a number of Tibetans, identifiable because they were wearing clothing with the Tibetan independence flag on it. You can look on the internet and find videos of AOC giving impassioned speeches on the floor the House calling for more support for the Tibetan independence movement, and she was in fact the one who pushed for a clause boosting funding for the Tibet independence movement as part of the COVID relief bill. I was just curious as to why she has been so passionately anti-China (given that she and Marco Rubio worked very closely together to pass bills supporting the Hong Kong independence movement during the 2019-20 protests, when they are at odds over virtually everything else) and pro-Tibet independence, and on looking things up, it seems that her district has the largest Tibetan population among all the Congressional districts in the United States. The dog2 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, and what is that population? Btw, being in favor of Tibetan independence doesn't register as "hawkish" to me; hawks support military action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A quick search seems to indicate 5,000-6,000 Tibetans in New York City as of 2008, out of a total population of 9,000 Tibetans in the United States. So that would make New York City home to by far the largest Tibetan community in the United States, and in fact the largest in the Western world.

And as for AOC, besides Tibetan independence, as I mentioned, she also supports Hong Kong independence and worked very closely with Marco Rubio on that issue. And while I don't think she's ever called for the U.S. to invade China (heck, even Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz wouldn't dare to call for that), she does generally favour a more confrontational approach in dealing with China. The dog2 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

6,000 Tibetans out of over 8,000,000 New Yorkers is a tiny percentage. Maybe if I knew more about where people were most likely to find them. But this article's title is not about the Tibetan diaspora. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Banner

@SHB2000: I was thinking about a banner for this. What about this one? It might need to be adjusted to the right dimensions, but I think it is good since it showcases traditional Tibetan architecture outside Tibet proper. The dog2 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a beautiful picture, but what does it have to do with an empire? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is mainly focused on covering areas outside Tibet proper where you can go to experience Tibetan culture, and Jiuzhaigou is one of those areas. And the reason why it's predominantly ethnic Tibetan today is because it was part of the Tibetan Empire before the Qing Dynasty conquered it. The dog2 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If that's its main focus, isn't it mistitled? Shouldn't it in that case be titled "Tibetan culture outside Tibet"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That works well. See File:Tibetan empire banner.jpg. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)