Talk:Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture

Diqing, not Dêqên
The original change to the article title from Diqing to Dêqên does not make since for three reasons. The accompanying three arguments are: However, these are incorrect because:
 * 1) Dêqên is the common name. Regardless of the official name used by the Chinese government, the common name in English prevails.
 * 2) Dêqên is the official name used in English.
 * 3) Dêqên is the Tibetan name, so we should use that instead of Diqing, the Chinese name (subjective, non-policy).
 * 1) Dêqên is not the common name. Using Google Ngrams, Dêqên does not have enough mentions to even appear on the graph.
 * 2) Dêqên is not the official name in English. The prefectural government's website uses Diqing, as does state media (e.g. People's Daily article).
 * 3) Dêqên is not the original Tibetan name for the area; there was not one at all because Tibetans did not choose the borders of the prefecture, the Chinese government did. While the name does come from Tibetan, Dêqên is the Tibetan pinyin spelling, which was created by the Chinese government. The subjective, non-policy crux of this argument is that we should retain Tibetan names for Tibetan areas, rather than blindly follow the Chinese government's respelling and renaming of important ethnic minority places. However, as the Tibetans did not claim this area prior to the Chinese government creating the prefecture, there is no "original name" to retain. Opposing the Chinese government's decisions is also undercut by the fact that Dêqên was the spelling decided upon by the Chinese government. Of course Wikipedia could use the Wylie spelling Bde-chen, but I am sure everyone would agree that is the worst choice because not only is it neither common nor official, but it will likely be misread as "B" does not indicate a distinct sound in Wylie, but it does in English.

For these three reasons, I am moving this article from Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture to Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. Yue 🌙 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * An additional detail in regard to the first point: When comparing Diqing with Deqen or Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture with Deqen Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, the former prevails over the latter, in predominant fashion. Yue 🌙 01:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2023

 * 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

– TL;DR: Per WP:COMMONNAME. In both cases, Dêqên, with or without the circumflexes, is not the common name. Using Google Ngrams, compare Diqing with Deqen, Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture with Deqen Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Diqin with Deqen and Deqin County with Deqen County (Dêqên does not have enough mentions to even appear on the graph). Using other search engines and tools like Google Search or Google Scholar will return similar results and the same conclusions.
 * Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture → Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture
 * Dêqên County → Deqin County

The long explanation, including the above section titled "Diqing, not Dêqên":

The main concern regarding such a move seems to be the perceived erasure of Tibetan names. In these specific cases, however, this is untrue. As I explained in detail in a section above this proposal, the borders of this specific prefecture and county were not drawn by Tibetans, but rather the government of the People's Republic of China. As such, Tibetans did not have a name for this specific area of Tibet, or more specifically, what has traditionally been regarded as the eastern peripheries of Kham. When the PRC government created the prefecture and county, it was their officials, specifically their appointed governor, who decided on the names Diqing and Deqin, and the Tibetan name Deqen. Deqen has never been the English name of either the prefecture or county, and most certainly not with the circumflexes (i.e. Dêqên).

Some editors may believe (mistakenly) that the story of these two articles is as follows:
 * The name in English has been Dêqên, and then some editors (including myself) changed the name to the Mandarin pinyin spellings, perhaps in an attempt to erase Tibetan presence on Wikipedia.
 * However, the actual course of events is that Diqing Prefecture was created first, and then an editor thought it would be more appropriate to have the article titled Dêqên Prefecture. This was an error on their part because not only was their reasoning non-policy based and contradictory to WP:COMMONNAME, they also failed to fulfill their objective. If their objective was to increase Tibetan presence, why bother coining a new spelling on a Chinese government creation (the prefecture) using a Chinese government spelling (Dêqên is from Tibetan pinyin)?
 * When Dêqên County was created, Diqing Prefecture was under its current name (Dêqên Prefecture), and so the article's creator most likely followed the existing article's title while ignoring the English spelling in the only English source they provided.

Even if we disregard site policy (WP:COMMONNAME) and the etymological history of the prefecture and county, I would still advocate this move because I make a moral distinction between the naming of something traditionally a part of Tibet or Tibetan culture, and a Chinese government-created political division in Tibet. Renaming Lhasa "Chengguan" would be ridiculous because, even if Chengguan was hypothetically the common name (it isn't), the name Lhasa itself bares a profound historical and cultural legacy that even the Chinese government recognises. It was a name decided upon by Tibetans before the entrance of the Chinese, and so changing it would raise serious moral questions. Diqing and Deqin, however, are creations of the Chinese government. A non-Tibetan and non-Chinese third-party unilaterally deciding to use the Tibetan pinyin spelling does not add Tibetan voice; it introduces a new spelling that has not widely been used (again, in English).

Personally, I only care about site policy and reader accessibility, and WP:COMMONNAME is a policy that I feel upholds the latter. To those opposed who may have moral qualms about such a move, I invite your input, but I hope I have adequately explained my reasoning for the proposal and why I do not feel that such a move is problematic. Yue 🌙 06:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 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.