Here's the comment, by that prolific author, Anonymous:
"Don't pretend that you know a lot about history. Tibet is still a An English TRANSLATION name as same as Xizang. Now that you don't like China, you can call Xiazang any name you want.
"Suggest you goto a library to read a little more about Tibet then comment on this 'Independence', though suggesting going to library is often a mother's duty.
"April 26, 2008 7:54 PM"
My response, in part, was "... I write for an English-speaking audience. And so, when I refer to the the country on the coast of Europe that depends on dikes for keeping much of its territory dry, I write 'the Netherlands.'
"I do so, not out of ignorance, but because this blog is in English. I'm aware that the local name of the country is Nederland (or, more formally, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) - but many readers might not be."
"The same goes for Tibet."
This Raises a Good QuestionWhat do you think?
There was a time, when I gave names in Arabic form, as well as Latinized forms. I'll still do that, from time to time, but only if there's a good reason. However, it took time to do the necessary research: and I wasn't at all sure that you wanted that sort of information.
I could spend more time with each post, researching the various "correct" forms of each country, before posting. I'd rather not: "Tibet," for example, is known as Pö or Bö, in Lhasa dialect: or maybe Bod. Determining which was the "correct" form - and whose "correct" form should be used - is possible, but would be time-consuming.
Besides, I don't have a font available to me that would handle the Lhasa language, and suspect that you may not, either.
I'd appreciate feedback: I may not change my habits, but knowing what you would prefer will help me make a decision as to how I handle names of places - and people.
Thank you in advance.