I wonder how big of a market Civ V represents in China for people to care whether or not to include Tibet or not. Even nationalist ethnic Chinese diaspora should get over it, if you ask me.
Quite a large one, I suspect, but that's only part of the picture. On top of that they also need to ask "Why Tibet rather than X?" and "can we do something interesting with Tibet?" I suspect that if they can't answer the others particularly well, the controversy is a further disincentive, but if they had a particularly good reason to use Tibet they could go with it.
The question is, what would Tibet add? People seem to want it as a stroke of justice to recognise Tibet, but the historical Tibetan empire has nothing in common with modern Tibet (and certainly nothing in common with Western perceptions of Tibet spread by the Tibetan diaspora and a Dalai Lama whose own moderation is at least partly likely a consequence of seeing the autocratic government he belonged to overthrown) other than ethnicity. Gamewise it would probably be a religion-focused warmonger, so how would it usefully differ from the Celts? Sure, Tibet's a more deserving civ than the Celts (certainly in the Celts' Civ V form), but like it or not the Celts are already there. At the very least it would be militaristic with or without a theocratic focus.
Alexander Graham Bell was a Canadian
He was Scottish; he didn't arrive in Canada until he was 23, and even then most of his actual development work on what became the telephone was done in a lab in Boston. I don't think Canada can claim credit for just happening to be the political territory where foreigners were based when they made breakthroughs. Or, if you do, you have to accept that the invention of time zones (not just standard time) was British since that was where time zones were first proposed (as for which, all I can find about Charles Dowd, the originator of the first time zone concept to be adopted, was that he was based at Saratoga Springs in New York. I don't know his nationality).
Well, I don't think any of these qualify Canada to be a civ. Contributing to WWII is incredible, and well worthy of our unending respect, but, and I feel terrible saying it, it doesn't rank it up there with Rome or England in terms of influence, plus, much of that is exaggeration, to say Canada, single handedly liberated a few countries an outright lie, although they did contribute more than most to the liberation of the Netherlands, that's true.
Canada was also a substantial Allied contingent during and following the Battle of Amiens, one of the decisive final battles (along with the Second Battle of Marne) in WWI.
Niagra falls, is again, a stupid reason for inclusion, as it is natural, should we include Uganda because it has lake Victoria? That has nothing to do with its achievements as a nation.
Well, Niagra is semi-natural and it was presumably Canadian engineers who stabilised it to keep it looking picturesque when it would naturally have eroded rather further. Although personally I'd say it lacks the grandeur of either Iguacu or Victoria Falls, both of which are fully natural.
And despite Iguacu, Brazil still doesn't deserve to be a civ.
All of these examples do rather highlight how much of a stretch it is to justify a Canadian civ, to be sure.
Brazil gets to be a civilization because it is unique in colonial nations for having an actual powerful empire, and for creating its own very unique culture.
From Firaxis' own account, Brazil gets to be a civilization because a lot of Brazilians play the game.
Going to space, again, is unimportant,
Had it been a Canadian design, I'd disagree - but hitching a ride on other projects isn't a headline accomplishment.
Plus, much of what you said is either a lie, or misinformed, so I have a hard time believing any of it.
Please take care with comments like this. I object strongly to unfounded accusations of dishonesty, and I can sympathise with anyone else doing the same. The guy's Canadian - chances are they're taught a version of history that emphasises linking accomplishments to that nation just as every other country's emphasises theirs (look at all the British accounts of the heroic underdog beating the fearsome Spanish Armada ... while carefully neglecting the fact that they did so with a larger fleet with more warships, which were faster and with more firepower than their Spanish counterparts, and which was in an ironic twist of fate largely designed by Philip II of Spain). We don't call it a lie to claim credit for the English for a Spanish-designed fleet; it's surely no different for Canada to claim credit for a Scottish invention.
Similarly a Canadian did invent timezones due to the difficulty scheduling trains in a country so wide. It was another Scottish born engineer, you're not even up on Scottish history. I mean if you're going to claim Alexander Bell as a Scot surely you should claim Sandford Fleming.
According to that article, his proposal was first conceived in 1876. Britain had already instituted standardised time zones (there initially over conflict between times over the much shorter distance between London and Bristol) in
1847. It's true that Fleming proposed global time zones for the first time, but this was an extrapolation from already-established local systems like the British one.
.
