Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia...and Tibet has never existed...
Apparently, according to Google maps, Tibet no longer exists. At all.
Go to Google maps and type Nepal into the search bar. Note that while Tibet and Nepal are generally known to be neighbors, there is no mention of Tibet on this map. At all.
Now type in Tibet.
---------
Here's another interesting one...WorldAtlas doesn't allow you pick Tibet from its list of countries.
So, OK. I know it's not recognized as a country, so this is understandable, if transparent. But as far as I can tell, Tibet does not exist on this site at all.
There's even an apologia on this page that explains why you might not find Palestine or Taiwan on the list, but Tibet? Nope, never heard of 'em. Not even on this list of dependencies and territories!
So here's my question. I feel that an atlas should have Tibet in its search terms, even if it is only described with something like "the former name for this disputed chunk of land, which the Chinese Government claims is part of China, and Tibetan people claim should be an independent country."
Am I off? Is it the job of an atlas only to describe government-sponsored entities, and not lands whose governance is disputed? It seems to me that analysis (or at least passing mention!) of cultural and geopolitical conflicts are very rightly placed on an atlas.
How about Taiwan? Is there any salient difference between Taiwan's situation and Tibet's...other than fifty years of memory and resistance to the Chinese Government? Will Taiwan cease to exist in atlases in fifty years?
In case you'd like to actually read about Never Never Land...I mean, Tibet, Wikipedia actually discusses the matter.
Until Google buys them out.