Talk:Tibet Area (administrative division)

Delete or merge
This article contains very little information. Suggest delete it and place the information in into Tibet, Tibet Autonomous Region or Administrative divisions of the Republic of China. Readin (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest including this content somewhere within the Tibet article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it goes somewhere, it should go to Tibet (1912–1951). The main Tibet article does not need even more information. CMD (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tibet" was selected based on the options above; Tibet (1912–1951) seems a good idea but as a non-member of the Tibet Project I will leave mege tagging to someone else.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious lead sentence
The lead sentence of this article says:

It is not clear to me how worldatlas.com can be a reliable source for anything. Who is Geoffrey Migiro? What are his credentials for making historical claims? As per WP:RS only published sources can be RS, and as per WP:HISTRS, reliable sources for history have to be at a minimum scholarly sources. This is none of those.

Even assuming that this source is saying something reasonable, it is only saying that Tibet was an "administrative region" (whatever that means). It doesn't say "province-level administrative division".

There is no such thing called "Tibet Area" in the ROC era mentioned in any scholarly source. So I find this claim entirely dubious bordering on WP:HOAX, and it is all the more ridiculous for it to be the lead sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Kautilya3: It actually is my friend. Just take a look from the article from the Chinese Wikipedia and it’s a result. You may need a English translation for it. — Silence of Lambs (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Much less the Zhongwen Wikipedia, whose criteria are nowhere near the English Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that Tibet's history during its de facto independence period is well-studied in scholarly sources:
 * It is not proper to cite random web sites for matters that are not supported by scholarly sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not proper to cite random web sites for matters that are not supported by scholarly sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not proper to cite random web sites for matters that are not supported by scholarly sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)