Where is Ngari?

This map treats Ngari as if it is a part of Dbus-gtsang. Wouldn't it be better to have a map of 'historical Tibet' which distinguished Dbus, Gtsang, and Mnga-ris as three different areas? Tibetologist (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up at User_talk:Kmusser#Tibetan_map, although I concluded that labeling the whole area Ü-Tsang is acceptable because that usage seems to be increasingly common under the influence of exile political terminology, by which every place in Tibet has to be categorised as either Kham, Amdo, or Ü-Tsang, so Ü-Tsang is used to refer to everything west of Kham and Amdo. My concern with adding a fourth region is that I'm not sure that it's complete then, either. You know better than I do: are placs like Lhokha or the sparsely-populated northern parts of the TAR any more Ü-Tsang than Ngari is?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the map of Tibet I have in my head, Ngari, Tsang, Ü, Khams, Amdo, and Kongpo are all separate places. Calling Ngari part of Ü-Tsang is historically quite incorrect. If what you say is true, then the government in exile has just accepted the PRC provinces. Now, whether Nagchu or Lhokha are separate provinces, that is something I am not sure of. Tibetologist (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the government in exile has accepted the Chinese provinces exactly, since they still recognise that the Chamdo area in the TAR is part of Kham. The Ü-Tsang province referred to in exile sources like this seems to be basically the area that the Ganden Phodrang was trying to centralise under the direct control of the Kashak in the first half of the 20th century, whereas Kham and Amdo are the areas governed by via a governor or outside of Lhasa's control altogether.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map boundaries

Tibet boundaries on this map are incorrect. They are based on Chinese province and where Tibetans are living in the PRESENT, but they do not represent the historical spread of Tibetans. If the title is "Historical Tibet" then the external boundaries should be wider. Am I allowed to put a new map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.19.79.51 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]