Talk:Ganden Phodrang

Title and scope
Thanks to User:Evecurid for creating this article. I wanted to raise the topic of the article and scope. It seems to me that the term Ganden Phodrang properly refers to the Dalai Lama's labrang, that is, the corporate organisation that serves him. In this sense, it was created before 1642 (I suppose during the lifetime of the 3rd Dalai Lama) and continues to exist today. It had control of the Tibetan government between 1642 and 1951 (and to some extent until 1959). Ideally, we would have an article on both the traditional corporate body and the polity it controlled during part of Tibetan history. This article is about the latter. That being the case, we might consider moving this article to Lhasa state, Ganden Phodrang polity, Ganden Phodrang regime, something like that. Thoughts? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The term Ganden Phodrang can refer to either the regime or the government established in 1642. For example, according to the book "Tibet ohne einen XV. Dalai Lama? 2. Auflage (p66), "The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, established the Ganden Phodrang Government in 1642, becoming the spiritual and political head of Tibet." The book "A Fatal Addiction: War in the Name of God" (p127) further mentions that "It is stated clearly on the official website of the Tibetan government in exile that the Fifth Dalai Lama founded the Ganden Phodrang Government of Tibet in 1642, the first strong, central government in that country's history." This is indeed the case, as the official Dalai Lama website does say that (see ). What I am thinking is that we can do something similar as to the Phagmodrupa Dynasty article: it mentions that the Pagmodru regime became to rule Tibet in 1354, but the article does mention the history of Phagmodru before 1354; similarly, in this article we can state that the the Ganden Phodrang regime or government was established in 1642, but it can mention the pre-1642 background of Ganden Phodrang too. --Evecurid (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. Although, I would point out that both of the sources you mention are using Ganden Phodrang to qualify "Government". In any event, I'll follow your lead on this naming issue, especially since we don't have material for an article about the Dalai Lama's labrang right now anyway.


 * Incidentally, not only did the Ganden Phodrang exist before the Great 5th came to power, it still exists now. According to the Dalai Lama's announcement of his retirement from political leadership, "Ganden Phodrang is not being shut down. Ganden Phodrang is the institution of the Dalai Lamas and as long as I live, I will need a small institution. So, this Ganden Phodrang will still remain. What is happening is that Ganden Phodrang is relinquishing its political responsibilities." – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is indeed a different meaning of this term than the one mentioned in this article. Anyway, I have added it in Ganden Phodrang (disambiguation). --Evecurid (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I still think that different meaning is more precise and I'd rather this article were titled Lhasa state (and I hope we'll someday have enough material for a separate article on the corporate institution of the Dalai Lamas), but it's certainly not so important that I'm going to move it unilaterally. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note however that while we can find sources saying that the Ganden Phodrang government was established in 1642 (I already mentioned some examples earlier), I can hardly find any sources saying that the "Lhasa state" was established in 1642. I personally believe that the term "Lhasa state" was only a general term referring to Tibetan regime in Lhasa, rather than a specific term referring to the Ganden Phodrang regime or government founded by the 5th Dalai Lama. So I don't really think we should move this article to the title "Lhasa state". Instead, we should still focus on what sources are actually saying. --Evecurid (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good point&mdash;Lhasa state is potentially ambiguous, too. No option is perfect. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although imperfect, I would support the move to Lhasa state (with starting/ending date to avoid any ambiguity. I would also suggest to merge the content of Tibet under Qing rule in the new article Lhasa state, which is currently a fork covering part of the period of the Lhasa state.--6-A04-W96 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not suggest to merge the content of Tibet under Qing rule to this article, since the part of Qing rule in Tibet is a well-known and studied subject, which certainly deserves its own article. And their focuses are different as well. --Cartakes (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cartakes that "Tibet under Qing rule" should not be merged with any new article ambiguously titled "Lhasa state", the period 1720-1911 being a well established and studied one. --Elnon (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Date of the end of the Ganden Phodrang
Recent edits relate to the scope issue that I brought up currently. The article currently says "It existed as the Tibetan government in Exile after 1959 in India and lasted until 2011 with the 14th Dalai Lama's retirement." That does not make a lot of sense. The Ganden Phodrang ceased to govern Tibet independently in 1951 and its state structure was dissolved in 1959. Per the quotation from the Dalai Lama above, the "Ganden Phodrang" didn't cease to exist in 2011, but clearly this is Ganden Phodrang in the other sense, the personal service of the Dalai Lama. If Ganden Phodrang means a state structure rules a territory, then it ended in 1959. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ganden Phodrang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626095547/http://www.pacificrim.usfca.edu/research/pacrimreport/pacrimreport36.html to http://www.pacificrim.usfca.edu/research/pacrimreport/pacrimreport36.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)