Talk:History of Tibet/Archive 1

Why no maps?
There needs to be a historical map of Tibet. During the period from 750-815 Tibet ruled Northern India (the Palas), Nan chao, the Tarim Basin and Afghanistan, and was a world power. This needs a map. John D. Croft 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Why no modern map? IceDragon64 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tibet has been unlawfully detained by china since long....Its Hiostory shows that people of tibet live without any violance still China want it to be slavery state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.213.99 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's about time China stopped being one of the most retarded governments in the world. (North Korea, US, Russia successfully being part of the list) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.220.86 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO MENTION OF LHASA UPRISING ANYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!
heck no dont mirge them. what about kids doing projects like mine?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.144.157 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ive been searching wikipeida and there was no mention of the Lhasa Uprising in tibet!! heres some link i found online: http://www.tibet.ca/pub/lhasauprising.html http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1993/6/20_3.html http://tibet.dharmakara.net/TibetFacts10.html

there is no mention anywhere, other than from tibetans that the Lhasa Uprising even happened, there has not been any confirmation of it from any other countries. History of Tibetan Resistance is being lost here.... --User:tibetanPerson 3:13 pm monday, march 05 2007.


 * Per your request I've added a bit about the Lhasa Uprising. Also neglected was the existence of the Tibetan Government in Exile. That's been remedied as well. Longchenpa (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I AGREE GET SOME INFO IN THERE NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.98.199 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be great to have that. Would you be willing to write that up? Longchenpa (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Tibetan hypothesis
Bold textRe: Sino-Tibetan hypothesis excerpted from Talk page on Tibetan language article.

No, Sino-Tibetan is not well established, for that mattter neither is Tibeto-Burman technically. A language family is well established when one can point to sound laws relating the relevant langauges. This can be easily done with indo-european e.g. Grimms law says a Indo-European K becomes H in germanic Germ. Haupt / Lat. Caput, Eng. hemp / Grk. Kannibas, Eng. heart / Gk. Kardia. etc. if anyone can point out such a soundlaw relating Chinese and Tibetan I will give him a hundred dollars.

I hereby name several prominent linguists who doubt the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis: Roy Andrew Miller, Christopher I. Beckwith, George van Driem. --Nathan hill 14:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks, it seems that soom good fellow did me the kindness of undoing all of my changes and claims that they are suspect and Bizzare. While of course I would welcome detailed criticism and improvement of my additions, this discription of them I must admit hurt my feelings. Also, I went to some length to cite both secondary sources and original documents. If the anonymous emmender would be so kind as to specifically criticise my edits I would be most grateful. --Nathan hill 13:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks, the quality of this article is extremely bad. Please read some boosk about Tibetan history in particular papers by Luciano Petech, Christopher Beckwith's The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, and Paul Pelliot's Histoire Ancien du Tibet. I have tried to take out the thigns which are basically false, but hardly have time to go through it thoroughly. Also, Tibetan names should always be accompanied with Wylie tranliteration to do otherwise it like spelling the Frnech Name Jacques as "Zhak", in 8th century Tibet all of the silent letters were pronounced.

--Nathan Hill


 * Your own edit was not that good. You have removed a number of things without explanation. I guess you say they are "basically false." Fred Bauder 11:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, you deleted this: "In the 13th century Tibet was conquered by the Mongol leader Genghis Khan, who ruled Tibet through a local puppet government." but replaced it with nothing. This conquest was the end of the strong independent kingdom, the beginning of the special relationship with the Mongols and is the basis of modern Chinese claims of sovereignty. It needs to be not only mentioned, but perhaps focused on. Fred Bauder 11:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Genghis Khan (i.e. Cinggis Qan) was dead when The Mongol Empire acquired Tibet, he died while on campaign against the Tanguts. I can't remember who was ruling at the time, I think it was Altan Qan. I couldn't remember and was in a hurry. Hopefully my more recent changes (still unfinished) you will find more pleasing. Also, the Mongols never made a full scale invasion thus I think 'conquer' is wrong. The question of sovreignty does not interest me, what interests me is the the historical truth. ---Nathan Hill


 * Sino-Tibetan as a linguistic family is certainly not as well-studied as, say, Indo-European, at the moment, but it still is the prevailing consensus (and increasingly so) among most linguists that Tibetan and Chinese are indeed related and should be included within a single family. That's not to say that this automatically validates Chinese sovereignty over the region, of course, but let's keep linguistics and politics separate for now.


 * The main differences among mainstream linguists concerning this family lie in its internal structure, and this is closely-linked to what name should be applied to the group. There had been (and still are) many differing views on which name was most appropriate: the original TIBETO-BURMAN (eg. Juilius Heinrich Klaproth) already included both Tibetan and Chinese; so did TURANIAN (eg. Friedrich Max Müller), which included all non-IE and non-Afro-Asiatic languages; INDO-CHINESE (eg. John Casper Leyden) sometimes included the Daic languages as well; this was later changed to SINO-TIBETAN (eg. Robert Schafer, Paul Benedict, James Matisoff) where TIBETO-BURMAN was truncated to a sub-group which usually excluded Chinese. Note that this does not exclude Chinese from the main family, ie. Chinese was, and still is, not considered a language isolate. (I'll not be surprised, though, that a few scholars will try to argue this.)


 * Anyway, some linguists such as George van Driem are now advocating a switch back to the old TIBETO-BURMAN, because:


 * "The Sino-Tibetan hypothesis, that the first split in the language family at its greatest time depth was between Sinitic and the rest of the family, remains unsupported. No evidence has ever been adduced to demonstrate the existence of shared innovations which define Tibeto-Burman excluding Sinitic as a unified group. Sinitic shows greater affinity with certain Tibeto-Burman subroups such as Bodic [note: which includes Tibetan], and it is amply evident today that certain Tibeto-Burman subgroups such as Gongduk show greater divergence from mainstream Tibeto-Burman features than Sinitic does. These insights have led to the abandonment of the Sino-Tibetan theory in favour of the older Tibeto-Burman theory." (emphases are mine) (See Van Driem, George "Tibeto-Burman Phylogeny and Prehistory: Languages, Material Culture and Genes". Bellwood, Peter & Renfrew, Colin (eds) Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis (2003), Ch 19.)


 * In other words, preferring to use the name T-B instead of S-T actually results from a closer genetic link between Tibetan and Chinese, not the other way round! Ironic, isn't it? (Now how do I sign out?- 202.20.5.206)202.20.5.206 05:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent research & amplification of the relationships between Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, and Sino-Tibetan.  Very informative. technopilgrim 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are still many prominent dissenters. Roy A. Miller and Christopher I. Beckwith do not beleive that Chinese is genetically related to the Tibeto-Burman family. W.S. Coblin and Jerry Norman have questioned the results of much of historical Chinese phonology on methodological grounds, which would preclude classifying it. George van Driem has put forth the Sino-Bodic hypothesis, however, he will and does admit that none genetic relationship between any of these languages has been proven with sound laws. --Nathan Hill

My edit went through before I meant to, so I didn't get to do an edit summary. I removed the "finally" because it has connotations of inevitability and finality, both of which carry a subtle POV. I removed the rest because it was speculation. DanKeshet 20:17, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

I don't want to get into a discussion of whether speculation or predictions belong on Wikipedia right now because of the server slowness, but if you're going to engage in predictions, please at least qualify or source them (as you did some). I'm speaking specifically of:

This will create problems for the Tibetan resistance to Chinese rule, since the religious prestige of the Dalai Lama will no longer be available.

which speaks with absolute assurity about future events. DanKeshet 21:37, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

How about a map showing the territorial extent of Tibet over time? D.E. Cottrell 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Origins
Presuming is unhelpful, especially when it's a means of promoting your own POV. There is a dispute over Tibetans' origins, so I've edited the article to say so. Markalexander100 09:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excised from Tibet
The following may or may not be usable:

Well into 1950s, Tibet was regarded as a free country. Indeed, China also had a mission in Lhasa, underlining the fact that Tibet was nominally independant.

On July 8, 1949, following the defeat of Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist Government in the Chinese civil war, the Tibetan Government asked the Chinese mission to "vacate", calling upon its rights as an independent country to request the expultion of diplomats. Tibetan records show that they had planned this expulsion of the Chinese agents for more than a year.

China invited Tibetans early in the 1950s to "accede peacefully" and backed up this emphatic plea by stationing an army near the city of Chamdo in East Tibet. A Tibetan delegation hurriedly agreed to go to Peking to talk to the PRC themselves in an effort to defuse the sudden tension. On October 7, 1950, the day the Tibetan delegation was scheduled to arrive, 80,000 soldiers of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China attacked Tibet and announced its 'peaceful liberation'. The Dalai Lama was forced to sign, under duress, the " 17-Point Agreement of May 23, 1951", surrendering to the Chinese attack. Imposed on the Tibetan government, the "Agreement", the PRC claims, shows that Tibetans not only agreed to, but actually invited Chinese Communist troops to "liberate" Tibet. This brought about the systematic devastation of the Tibetan people and culture. This naturally, took Tibet by surprise. The legality, or lack thereof, and account of the PRC's invasion of an independent Tibet.

Mark1 03:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Having a mission in Lhasa doesn't mean recognizing Tibet as independent. The full name of the ROC/"Chinese" mission in Tibet was "Resident Office of the 'Commission of Mongolian-Tibetan Affairs' in Tibet", obviously it was not an embassy and ROC constitution promulgated decades ago had listed Tibet as part of China. In a ten-point statement issued on 16 Nov 1934, the Tibet locality reaffirmed that "Tibet shall remain an integral part of the territory of China"[M. Goldstein, 'A History of Modern Tibet', p239]. Since the People's Republic(1949~) is internationally considered as the succession state of the Kuomintang republic, the PLA military operation in 1951 should not be classified as "invasion of an independent state"

--219.79.31.173 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since that paragraph has lain here undisturbed for two months, I don't think it's something you need to worry about. ;) Mark1 09:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tibet's status, Imperial China, and the legality of the Simla Convention
The section describing the relations between Tibet and China in the 1700s says that "the Tibetans, in the view of the Chinese, once again acknowledged themselves as subjects of the Empire of China." Is not the Tibetan view of their status worth mentioning in this context?

From the Tibetan declaration of independence, issue by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1912: "The relationship between Tibet and [imperial] China was that of priest and patron and was not based on the subordination of one to the other."

I would disagree with the statement that "The treaty [Simla Convention] was never signed by the Chinese and thus never came into force." The convention was published in "A Collection of Treaties" by Aitchison, which is the offical record of treaties relating to British India. Even without China's signature, it could still be considered a legal treaty between Tibet and Britain. The publication of the convention was delayed for some years because certain British officals worried that it conflicted with the 1907 Russo-British treaty. Once it was published in the 1930s, the British began enforcing the McMahon Line, the boundary drawn by this treaty.

Also, to say that the McMahon Line is "very generous to Britain" is to make a judgement call of an entirely subjective nature. McMahon drew the line along the mountain ridge so that boundary would be a clear natural feature, although it is true that Tibet did lose some land as a result.

Finally, I would say that there is entirely too much focus in the article on Tibet's status relative to China. Tibet had its own internal history, relations with India, Mongolia, and so forth. To write history this way projects a modern controversy back to an earlier period when the issue was not of great concern.

--Peter Kauffner


 * The McMahon line is indeed very generous to British India, and the fact that it lies along a natural geographical boundary is quite irrelevant. The Rhine is a clear geographical border, and yet were the Rhineland to become French territory I do not think one can argue that it is not very generous to France.


 * And in no way could the the treaties be considered legal. Great Britain recognises Chinese suzerainty over Tibet throughout that period (and indeed the Tibetan themselves were ambivalent about the matter, not out of loyalty to a non-existent Chinese central government, but as a useful backdrop if the negotiating conditions became too unfavourable), as such these treaties may at best be considered local agreements, and not treaties under international law. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.94.113 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:57, 3 December 2005.

One difference between the McMahon Line and your Rhineland example is that there was no defined boundary between Tibet and India before the McMahon Line was drawn. Another difference is that no major population center was affected by the line.

If the Simla Convention was just a "local agreement," it would not have been published in Aitchison's _Treaties_. I don't see any basis for saying that it is not legal treaty other than that you don't want it to be a legal treaty.

As far as what Tibetan opinion was, they considered themselves independent from 1913-51 -- I have already quoted from the Dalai Lama's declaration to that effect. Melvyn C. Goldstein's _A History of Modern Tibet_ has translations of numerous documents from the Tibetan official archive to support this. Perhaps you are relying on reports of Tibetan opinion produced by the Chinese nationalists, but such reports are obviously less reliable than documents produced by the Tibetan government itself.

"Suzerainty" is an ill-defined concept, but it is not the same as soveriegnty. The British foriegn minister stated that Tibet "enjoyed de facto independence" in an official letter to the Chinese foriegn minister in 1943 (also in Goldstein). So Chinese suzeraintly and Tibetan independence were apparently compatable concepts, at least in the official British mind.Kauffner 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner


 * In the official letter mentioned above the complete sentence should read: "Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence." Lhasa's status as 'independence' was due to the withdrawal of the Imperial troops instead of any Chinese renouncement of sovereignty over the region. Difference exists between "complete independence" and "de facto independence" which many other parts of China enjoyed through out the ROC years (when the new Republic was torn by civil war and demoralized by the Japanese).


 * Moreover, UK's intention and difficulties in the Simla conference can be seen in British Government's letter to the Simla negotiator in 1915 and in the Foreign Office report ("Tibet and the Question of Chinese Suzerainty") dated April 1943:


 * "The Government of India have read with interest your summary of the advantages gained by Tibet and ourselves under the Simla Convention, but that interest is necessarily purely academic since the Simla Convention has not been signed by the Chinese Government or accepted by the Russian Government and is, therefore, for the present invalid. It is true that by the secret Anglo-Tibetan Declaration, which recognized the Convention as binding on Great Britain and Tibet, certain advantages under the Convention have been obtained by both parties, but no useful purpose can be gained at present by an examination of those respective advantages. The fact remains that the negotiations conducted last year in Simla broke down simply and solely, because the Government of India attempted to secure for Tibet greater advantages than the Chinese Government were prepared to concede, and the fact that China has persisted in her refusal to sign the Convention can only be regarded as an indication that both the Government of India and the Tibetan Plenipotentiary, Lonchen Shatra, were unduly anxious to secure the best terms they could for Tibet." [India Office Record, 1915]


 * "In order to give effective support to Tibet's claim to complete independence, we should, I submit abandon our previous willingness to acknowledge China's suzerain rights. We are perfectly free to do so because our previous offers to make this admission were contingent on an agreement involving mutual concessions [i.e., the Simla Convention], which we were never able to get. A further reason for discarding our previous attitude towards Chinese suzerainty is that it hampers our freedom to make treaties with the Tibetans themselves. In the matter of the Indo-Tibetan frontier, for instance, the agreement reached in 1914 has not proved satisfactory in practice and the Government of India would like to conclude a new and more binding agreement with Lhasa...But so long as we continue to recognise the overlordship of China it will be difficult to assert the validity of an agreement with the vassal State as against the objections of the suzerain in such an important international matter as a frontier." [India Office Record, 1943]


 * Regarding UK's position on the Convention's validity, it is worth noting that the Simla Convention and its appended Anglo-Tibetan agreement did not appear in the original 1929 edition of Aitchison's Treaties since the unratified convention was not a valid international treaty and the Anglo-Tibetan agreement was secret:


 * "The original 1929 volume...not only leaves out the texts of the McMahon Line notes and the Simla Convention, but also states that the Simla Conference produced no valid agreement" [A. Lamb, "The Mcmahon Line", p546]


 * "The 1929 edition was withdrawn by a British Indian official, Olaf Caroe, in 1938, and a new edition was issued that included the Simla Convention and the McMahon-Shatra notes (but not the Anglo-Tibetan agreement or the McMahon Line map)" [W. Smith, "Tibetan Nation", p201]


 * Summarizing the above mentioned, British position on the validity of the Convention seems quite unclear from 1915 to 1938. Besides, even the Tibetan representatives were independence-minded and wished to declare independence, China's ratification was so compulsory that Tibet was only regarded as "autonomous" in the Simla conference thus had no independent treaty-concluding power:


 * "The Tibetans, indeed, might have wished to do so; and their opening statement at the Simla Conference could well be construed as such a declaration; but by agreement, on 3 July 1914, to abide by the terms of the draft Simla Convention, even though unsigned by China, they acknowledged Chinese suzerainty (Article 2) and the fact that 'Tibet forms part of Chinese territory'(Note I). This last admission, which Indian commentators have tended to overlook, is probably of crucial importance in any legalistic attempt to evaluate Tibetan treaty-making power. Take the case of the McMahon Line. Could Tibet, whatever her status, alienate Tibetan, and hence by the definition in Note I, Chinese territory without first obtaining Chinese consent? The British acquisition of Tawang immediately raises this question, to which, in all probability, an impartial tribunal would give the answer 'No'. A prominent American international lawyer, writing in 1941, gave this definition of the post-Simla Conference status of Tibet: 'De jure Tibet is still part of China with a high degree of autonomy, but de facto it enjoys independence in close relations with Great Britain.'" [Lamb, pp567-568]


 * "Between 1914 and 1950 it was not easy to challenge Chinese suzerainty, even though the Chinese had not signed the Convention. Finally, by refusing to sign, the Chinese had escaped according any recognition to the validity of either the 1914 trade regulations or the McMahon Line." [ibid, pp528-529]


 * Interestingly, the Simla texts rather show that Chinese suzerainty and forming part of China were two compatible concepts.


 * Regarding the McMahon Line, according to A. Lamb's book mentioned above, maps published before the Simla Conference, both official and semiofficial, had defined Indo-Tibetan boundaries (eastern section) which have similarities with ROC/PRC's current claims:


 * North East Frontier of India, 1911
 * North East Frontier of India, 1910
 * Map of China, published by War Office, 1908
 * Tibet and the Surrounding Regions, Royal Geographical Society, 1906


 * Lamb further noted that all these maps "show boundaries in the Assam Himalayas following very different alignments from the McMahon Line. None include the Tawang Tract within India, and the War Office map GSGS no. 2631a shows the old Outer Line foothill boundary . It cannot be maintained, after a careful study of British maps of the period 1904-1914, that the McMahon Line had become a cartographical feature before the Simla Conference." [ibid, p547]


 * -- MainBody 08:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal from further reading
The following was removed from further reading without explanation:

Yeshe De Project. 1986. ANCIENT TIBET: Research Materials from The Yeshe De Project. Dharma Publishing. Berkeley. ISBN 0-89800-146-3

Any basis for this? Fred Bauder 10:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I removed it, and I could have sworn that I defended it, I also removed Rebecca French's book. The reason is because they are both unreliable. Anyone is welcome to read them, and then read the books I have recommended and tell me otherwise. --Nathan hill 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, here is my discussion, it is from the Tibet page.  --Nathan hill 13:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speculation on the Years in this Article
Why don't any of the years in this article have any indication if they are BC or AD (or BCE or CE)?
 * AD/CE are not used only BC/BCE used in articles. If there isn't anything then it is assumed under by the readers to happened in AD. ITs wikipedia policy and common unwritten policy on the net. 12.220.47.145 18:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE A QUESTION!!!!
FROM THE ARTICLE: The government of the PRC says that the population of Tibet in 1737 was about 8 million, and that due to the backward rule of the local theocracy, there was rapid decrease in the next two hundred years and the population in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which 5 million is ethnic Tibetan, according to the 2000 census.

is it possible to go from 1.2 million to 5 million Tibetans in just 40 years???

someone plz do the math here, i don't understand this.

it's is true Jakken 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The population figures are indeed odd. "the population in 1959 was only about 1.19 million."; two paragraphs above, "according to Chinese census there was a population of 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964 in Tibet proper."   It's not clear from the text which of these figures refer to Greater Tibet, and which to the Xizang area.   Mark1 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1.2 million figure is for the area that now Tibet Autonomous Region. The 2.8 million and 5 million figures are for ethnic Tibetans in China.

The 1737 census counted households. I suppose the 8 million figure assumes very large households.

Xizang is just the Chinese name for Tibet.

Here is a little chart:

All Ethnic Tibetans   Central Tibet (TAR) 1268         1.0                    --    1737                                0.316 (monks) 0.127 (lay families) 1900         1.0                    --      1953          2.776                1.274    1964          2.501                1.251    1982          3.870                1.892    1990          4.593                2.196    1995            --                 2.389

KauffnerKauffner

The Mongols and the Sakya (Sa-skya) school
This section seems very confusing. I was trying to put a link in it to the Sakya but found the whole section impenetrable. Is it just me? Billlion 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed passage
I removed this sentence from the article about the future of the DL institution in the RRC: "Under the lamaist tradition, however, the Panchen Lama has the duty of verifying the Dalai Lama's reincarnation and the reincarnation must be confirmed by the Vase lot, so the choice of a new Dalai Lama within Tibet will be verified by the PRC's choice of the Panchen Lama.", because 1) editors should be aware that "lamaist" is considered insulting and should not be used; 2) the relevant traditions are rather complicated, and neither the Panchen Lama nor the "Vase lot" (sic.) has been used in every instance when a new Dalai Lama was recognised; 3) it would be very ironic (which is not to say it won't happen) if the PRC government insisted that their Panchen Lama be involved in selecting the next Dalai Lama, since they famously denied that the Dalai Lama needed to be involved in selecting the Panchen Lama; 4) on the other hand, it was the current Dalai Lama who insisted that Dalai and Panchen should choose each other; however, the person he chose is now a political prisoner, as opposed to the one the PRC would presumably be using to search for the next Dalai Lama; and 5) it's not clear what the Vase necessarily has to do with politics either way, because the government-in-exile could have their own lot drawing just as well as the PRC could. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Phonetic spellings
For reasons of style, I'd like to start moving towards eliminating Wylie transliterations in the primary English forms used in this article. We will still have the Wylie spellings, but they will appear in parentheses or in the article on the person/place in question, and possibly both. Note that even Wylie himself, in the article where he introduces his system, assumes that it will be used only parenthetically when writing for a non-specialist audience. Now, the question is, which phonetic or quasi-phonetic spelling we should use for a given word. I don't advocate one system for all cases; rather, the first step should be to find out if there is a spelling that has become customary. If there are several similar spellings, which, taken together, are predominant, then I suggest we choose among them. In some cases, if no clear choice presents itself, we might also wish to consider which spelling best reflects pronunciation for an English reader. As far as pronunciation is concerned, the default seems to go by the pronunciation used in Lhasa; however, this is, I'd say, by no means a hard-and-fast rule. If someone can provide some kind of information on how the word is pronounced in some more relevant location, we certainly can take that into account.

While I don't want to get into adding putative phonetic spellings willy-nilly without deliberation, please keep in mind that a given spelling is never set in stone and it can be adjusted later.

List of Wylie spellings currently used in the article, as of April 27, 2006, with suggested phonetic spellings:


 * Dri-gum-brtsan-po: Drigum Tsenpo
 * Lo-ngam
 * Rgya-nag
 * Rgya-gar
 * Stag-rtse: Taktsé
 * Phying-ba
 * Phyongs-rgyas
 * Stag-bu snya-gzigs
 * Dgu-gri Zing-po-rje
 * Myang Mang-po-rje Zhang-shang
 * Sum pa
 * Mgar-srong-rtsan
 * ‘A zha
 * Mkha’s sregs
 * Sad-mar-kar
 * Lig-myi-rhya
 * Khri-mang-slon
 * Khri-mang-slon-rtsan
 * Khri-ma-lod
 * Khri-'dus-srong-rtsan
 * Mgar
 * Mgar Bstan snyas ldom bu
 * Mgar Khri ‘bring btsan brod
 * mkhos chen po
 * Sum-ru
 * ‘Ol-byag
 * Bri-chu
 * ‘Jang
 * Gling: "Ling" seems to be the consensus phonetic spelling of gLing
 * Yo-ti Chu-bzangs
 * rMa-sgrom
 * rMa-chu
 * Rgyal-gtsug-ru
 * Khri-lde-gtsug-brtsan: I'm leaning towards "Tridé Tsugtsen" or "Chide Zuzain", which is the most standard PRC Tibetan transcription that I've found in use. My copy of Historical Status of China's Tibet has "Tride Zhotsan", but this is seems confusingly irregular.
 * Mes-Agtshom: I'm not sure, but it looks to be an erroneous Wylie spelling. Since this name is just an alias for Khri-lde-gtsug-brtsan, I suggest we remove it from the article altogether. - Nat Krause(Talk!)
 * Lha Bal-pho
 * Pong Lag-rang Lha Bal-pho
 * rgyal sa nas phab
 * ‘Dron ma lon
 * Lang
 * ‘Bal
 * Stag sgra Klu khong
 * Srong lde brtsan: presumably "Song Detsen"?

A few of these shorter ones might not need to changed at all if the phonetic version is very similar. Some of them appear in direct quotes from other authors, in which case, rather than changing the main text, I suggest adding phonetic spellings in [square brackets]. Also, in a few cases, we probably don't need another spelling, since there is an English equivalent, e.g. rMa-chu is the Yellow River, and mkhos chen po already appears in parenthesis following "administrative organization".

Please edit the above list to suggest the best spelling and give a short rationale for that suggestion. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Dri-gum-brtsan-po: Drigum Tsänpo
 * Lo-ngam : Longam
 * Rgya-nag : Gyanag
 * Rgya-gar : Gyagar
 * Stag-rtse : Tagtse
 * Phying-ba : Chingwa
 * Phyongs-rgyas : Chonggyä
 * Stag-bu snya-gzigs : Tagbu Nyazig
 * Dgu-gri Zing-po-rje : Gudri Zingpoje
 * Myang Mang-po-rje Zhang-shang : Myang Mangpoje
 * Sum pa : Sumpa
 * Mgar-srong-rtsan : Gar Songtsän
 * ‘A zha : Azha
 * Mkha’s sregs : Khäsreg
 * Sad-mar-kar : Sämakar
 * Lig-myi-rhya : Ligmyirhya (a Zhangzhung and not Tibetan name)
 * Khri-mang-slon : Thri Manglön
 * Khri-mang-slon-rtsan : Thri Manglöntsän
 * Khri-ma-lod : Khrimalöd
 * Khri-'dus-srong-rtsan : Khri Dusongtsän
 * Mgar : Gar
 * Mgar Bstan snyas ldom bu : Gar Tännyädombu
 * Mgar Khri ‘bring btsan brod : Gar Khridringtändröd
 * mkhos chen po : khös chenpo
 * Sum-ru : Sumru
 * ‘Ol-byag : Öljag
 * Bri-chu : Drichu
 * ‘Jang : Jang
 * Gling: Ling
 * Yo-ti Chu-bzangs : Yoti Chupzang
 * rMa-sgrom : Madrom (The Wylie should be Rma-sgrom)
 * rMa-chu : Machu (The Wylie should be Rma-chu)
 * Rgyal-gtsug-ru : Gyältsugru
 * Khri-lde-gtsug-brtsan: Thri Detsugtsän
 * Mes-Agtshom : (This is not a Wylie transliteration)
 * Lha Bal-pho : Lha Balpo
 * Pong Lag-rang Lha Bal-pho : Pong Lagrang Lha Balpo
 * rgyal sa nas phab : (this is a sentence I think it would be weird to give it a phonetic transcription)
 * ‘Dron ma lon : Dronmalön
 * Lang : Lang
 * ‘Bal : Bal
 * Stag sgra Klu khong : Tagdra Lukong
 * Srong lde brtsan: Song Detsän

These are in the Tournadre System.

Comments
Thanks for these suggestions. It seems to me that it would be somewhat desireable to have a some consistency in the spellings of the names of the kings of Tibet, because they seem to have had some common elements over time. I've noticed that, for the more commonly-known kings whose names have customary English spellings (i.e. Trisong Detsen), "khri" is usually rendered "tri" and "brtsan" is usually rendered "tsen". This happens to correspond with the THDL Simplified Phonetic Transcription which was, in fact, proposed by Nicolas Tournadre himself, so I propose to spell the names of Tibetan kings using the THDL system. The custom also seems to be making the names of kings two bisyllabic words. Thus, Drigum Tsenpo, Trimang Löntsen (aka Trimanglön?), Tridu Songtsen, Tridé Tsugtsen, and Song Detsen.

I also wanted to clarify a few points about the above Tournadre System spellings. It looks like khri is being rendered as "thri" in some places but as "khri" in others. Is this correct? Also, shouldn't there be some consonants which are elided after ä, ö, and ü? My impression is that d and s are not pronounced after these vowels; a lot of sources also imply that r and l are elided as well, although, if other sources say they are pronounced, I am comfortable leaving them in on the grounds of conservatism. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Comments
In the Tournadre system Khri should be Thri and never Khri. s and d are always allided. Some speakers pronouns -r and -l and some do not. The loss of these consonants leads to compensitory lengthening of the vowel in Lhasa dialect. In the strict phonological transcription used in Tournadre's textbook he marks this with the sign :, but I beleive he recommends in his system meant for a general audience they be left as -r and -l and that is certainly what I would recommend too.

To note one detail-- when there is an -e- in Wylie it is left -e- in the Tournadre system. When the vowel changes because of a following -d, -n, -l, or -s it receives an umlaut. Thus brtsan (which is also spelled rtsan and btsan) whould be transliterated tsän and not tsen in the Tournadre system. In fact in Lhasa dialect -e- is the IPA sound -e- and -ä- is the IPA sound marked with an epsilon, which in German is also written ä.

Although following this convention would sometimes replace more common spellings (e.g. Milaräpa) I think it is worth it for consistency and acurancy, and would never lead to confusion.

History between 8th and 12th centuries
This portion of Tibetan history is missing. Tibetan empire broke up in 842. How did this happen, and what happened after that? deeptrivia (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is incomplete with regard to that subject, that's for sure. Perhaps we should add some kind of note pointing out to readers that there is a section yet to be written. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion via comments in article
I haven't been watching closely enough to see when and how it happened, but we now have a lot of discussion taking place via comments in the article. This is not good. Please, everyone, keep discussion on the talk page and information for readers in the article. HenryFlower 13:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Defacto/Dejure
It's not my theory as having no status internationally doesn't necessarily mean 'not independent'. Anyway, without China's acknowledgement and/or signature, any document relating to Tibet territorial status is meaningless. For example, GOI recognized that


 * "...the Simla Convention has not been signed by the Chinese Government or accepted by the Russian Government and is, therefore, for the present invalid."[quoted from Goldstein, p80]

UK Foreign Office's whitepaper 'Tibet and the Question of Chinese Suzerainty'(1943) also admitted:


 * "so long as we continue to recognise the overlordship of China it will be difficult to assert the validity of an agreement with the vassal State as against the objections of the suzerain in such an important international matter as a frontier."[quoted from Goldstein, p399]

I don't think Britain was that powerful to alter Tibet's status by simply publishing some meaningless documents whose validity was even doubted by themselves. :-) 219.79.166.129 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where are you going with this? You're going to fill up article with quotes about de facto and de jure and such like legalism? Why stop with italicizing? They can bolded, given exclamation points, or perhaps flashing red lights. Lamb is just a secondary source and there are already primary source quotations on the same subject.Kauffner 12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I will add details of the "primary source" within 24H. BTW, I would like to warn that removing well-sourced contents is highly disrespectful on Wikipedia. And both Britons and Americans are on equal footing making comments on Tibet's status. On WIKI, viewpoints from both [PRO] and [CON] sides should be presented and treated equally.

I also remind you that you are one of the editors who frequently used sources by M. C. Goldsteins, an AMERICAN Tibetologist. :-> As the article mentioned Tibet's international status and relation with China, for neutrality it's appropriate quoting Tibetologist and international law sources from different countries. So, please, stop pushing third-rate political POV on wikipedia! - 219.79.166.20 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Details for the primary sources added202.40.137.202 04:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Goldstien was recently criticized by the Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu: and - Among many other things, he says: "China appears to regard Goldstein as the premier Tibet scholar on their side". A short response by Goldstien can be found at: Chris Fynn (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion request
This article currently says absolutely nothing about Tibetan history between 764 and 1239. Even a very brief overview of events during that time would be very helpful.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

History_of_Tibet
Was Tibet ever declared an "empire"? Maybe only in old tibetan chronichles? Just out of curiosity. Thank you! 87.5.214.130 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the eighth century there were three polities which vied for control of Central Asia, one based in Changan, another in Lhasa, and another in Bagdad. Since all three were multiethnic and had various vassel states it seems appropriate to call them "empires". I am not aware of an old Tibetan term for 'empire'. It is worth noting however that the Tibetan name for the ruler of Tibet tsänpo (rtsan-po) is only used of him (like Japanese Tenno) and the Chinese emperor is called rgya rje 'lord of China' in the Old Tibetan Annals, a term lower than 'king' Rgyal-po. The rulers of the Turgis, the Nanzhao ('Jang) and the Tuyuhun (Azha) all pay tribute. It seems quite appropriate to call Tibet an empire. C. Beckwith makes a long argument about this in the preface to his book 'The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia' (Princeton).

Thank you very much for explaination and references. [the guy who posed the question 82.60.136.182 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)]

User:Kauffner's edits
I just read your edit summary. Please let me clarify as I myself speak both Cantonese and Mandarin:
 * [1] Chinese term for "Han Chinese" is two-character HanRen (漢人) or HanZu (漢族) (or see the article's "introduction" if you can read Chinese), basically it's one single ethnic group
 * [2] Chinese term for "Chinese" is 3-character ZhongGuoRen (中國人) or 4-character Zhonghua Minzu (中華民族), which is a multi-racial term
 * [3] Han or Han-Chinese is the formal english term. See the "China-Ethnic Groups" entry in the CIA factbook
 * [4] Therefore, unquestionably the "Nihao Hello" analogy doesn't work

Thanks! - 210.0.204.29 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Han Chinese" is the established term, like it or not.--Niohe 12:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Han Chinese" is Chinese English and a propagandistic phrase. If you want to distinguish people of Chinese ethnic background from people who are Chinese only by citizenship, you can say "ethnic Chinese." Native speakers in a English-speaking country would never refer local residents as "Han Chinese," regardless of their citizenship or background. It's a phrase coined with same intention as "Chinese Taipei" and "China's Tibet." I suppose it's just a matter of time before Beijing starts calling Tibet "Chinese Lhasa." There is no phrase equivalent to "Han Chinese" for any other nationality. No one says "Deutsch German" or "Magyar Hungarian." Kauffner 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At least from a unificationist perspective, the term Chinese includes all ethnic groups residing within the boundaries of China. The subtitle of simply "Chinese expelled" will create nothing but POV. "Han Chinese expelled" is neutral enough no matter how you define the status of Tibet: part of China or not.--219.79.26.131 02:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As common sense, if the term is really "(Chinese?) propagandistic" as you claim, then it wouldn't appear on those CIA factbooks. "Chinese" is widely regarded as a multi-racial term, just like the term Americans by which we have "White Americans", "Hispanic Americans", "Afro-/African/Black Americans"...etc 219.73.8.77 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In short, you can be a Chinese without being a Han --219.79.121.55 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To say "Han Chinese" implies that Tibetans are Chinese as well and is therefore POV. It is not even technically correct since many of army officers were Manchu. More to the point, it is jarring to use a phrase of recent coinage to describe people who lived 100 years ago. In any case, I have changed it to "Chinese army" -- I hope bypassing this issue.Kauffner 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Han Chinese" just refer to Mandarin speakers? Are Min speakers also Han?


 * Min or Mandarin speaker wouldn't make any difference since both languages are considered to be forms of Hanyu. Logically, a Han should be a person whose native language is Hanyu. But it is actually a lot more complicated than this. For example, is not always a question of language -- depending on the context, the speaker can be referring to race or nationality. Another issue is that Beijing recognizes 50+ "minority nationalities" in somewhat the same way as the US government recognizes Indian tribes. Although most of these speak Hanyu, they are not classified as Han.Kauffner 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

10-point note
This material from the article:

(with the latter section referenced to "Goldstein, 1989, p. 239") seems quite misleading. In addtion to its comma splice structure, it seems to imply that this quotation from the ten-point note was a statement of fact. Howver, it was actually part of a proposal made during negotations with Huang, quite similar in principle to the Simla Convention, by which Tibet would accept Chinese sovereignty in exchange for territorial concessions and extensive promises of autonomy. It was never put into practice; it was just a proposal. This should be rewritten for clarity or simply removed from the article.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The original Tibetan version of this note has been lost. A Chinese version was produced by a translator serving with the Huang mission. The translation from Chinese to English was done much later by a pro-KMT historian (Li Tieh-tseng). IMO, the editor who added this material is attaching undue significance to the single word "remain" given that there were two opportunities for a partisan translator to insert an extraneous word.
 * Goldstein's book includes several documents from the Tibetan archive that the give the official Tibetan point of view on the soveriegnty issue. We don't have to rely on second hand sources when primary sources are available. If Lhasa had really thought that Tibet was a part of China, why didn't Huang go home with an actual agreement in hand instead of just a questionable translation of a proposal? Someone who has access to academic library should look at this article. Kauffner 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um....I just read Goldstein's book and found that the said Ten-point was Kashag's reply to Huang's Mission proposals issued earlier. Goldstein also notes that the British officials in India also acknowledged this, in Goldsteins's word, "Offer of Subordination to China". So there is no big difference between the Tibetan and the Chinese editions. I'm not surprised by this Tibetan 10-point "part of China" statement because in the yr of 1934 Tibet was under the leadership of Reting Rimpoche, a well-known pro-Han leader, and exactly twenty yrs earlier the Tibetans had already de facto declared subordination in the Simla Convention, whose Appendix states that "Tibet forms part of Chinese territory"(Appendix, Simla Convention, 1914), Lochen Shatra's signature attached.

Even if Li T.T. was pro-KMT(so was the Tibetan Regent in the early 1930s), comparing both Li T.T. and Goldstein's accounts, and you will find the two translations are different in wordings. Goldstein claims that his translation also referenced to Krung Chuntsun's "Hong mu'o sung bod du bskyod pa'i gnas tshul dngos bkod pa", obviously a Tibetan sources.

Generally, Goldstein's translation is NPOV.

-MainBody 11:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

South Asia Side Bar
I don't really think the South Asia side bar is appropriate. It is true that much of the Tibetan cultural region is now in the hands of India and Pakistan, but much more of it is in the hands of the PRC. Most of the dynasties (practically all) had nothing to do with Tibetan history. A much better case could be made for the Chinese history side bar, or if thee is a Central Asia one that would be better still. Truth be told I am not a fan of such side bars because they imply a historical continuity between different political entities where usually one does not exist. Tibetologist 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed section
I removed a section again, which had reappeared with no explanation. It is a problematic paragraph calling Burmese Burman, suggesting that there can be such a thing as prehistoric peasants, mentioning the apparantly irrelevant fct of word order in Burese and Tibetan, and making uncited physiological claims which it associates with sociological phenomena. Until it is cleaned up, make sensible and cited there i no need for it. Tibetologist 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Asian History Maps showing Tibetan borders
Someone removed the map of Asia in 700 AD, even though that map includes the borders of Tibet in that year. Please restore it. The only other map in the article, the, is good but it shows incorrect borders for Tibet. (eg: Nan Zhao and Bengal were both free from Tibetan rule after 794 AD, and Tibet ruled the Tarim Basin and parts of Afghanistan, including Kabul until 812 or 815 AD).

The map shows Tibetan borders around their first height. I have another map,, which shows the borders at another high point in Tibetan history. Both of these maps portray the extent of Tibet's borders in relation to the Arab, Chinese, and Turkish borders, lands subjucated by the Tibetans, and other peoples who interacted with Tibet.

Plus the article is large enough that it can (and should) have several maps, without cluttering the article. The map thumbnails are small enough to fit comfortably into the article, and provide more information about Tibet's borders, its neighbors, and other nations that interacted with Tibet. One map is a start, but this article needs at least 3 because of its long history. And it can handle it easily. Please restore the map. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Is this the one that you mean?

or this?

or this? Mattisse 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Dalai Lama a political and religious leader or just a religious leader
I have a problem with this statement "The Dalai Lama, leader of the Tibetan people who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, is widely respected as a religious leader, and is received by some governments as such."

The Dalai Lama is representing the Tibetan people in the secret official talks with Beijing that makes him a political figure. He is, of course, also a religious leader. To reflect this fact the article should point out that he is both a political and religious leader. The statement pointed out above is therefore false.

what is your opinion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebutterfly (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement says that he is both a political and religious leader, which he is. Therefore it's accurate. During the Tibetan Empire the political and religious leadership were separate. Under the Mongols, the Sakya Lamas were given political leadership. Lamas have had the political leadership of Tibet ever since. Longchenpa (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he is a political leader, how about changing the existing statement to this “The Dalai Lama who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 is the political and religious leader of the Tibetan people”? I cut out the part that says he “is widely respected as a religious leader, and is received by some governments as such.”   --Littlebutterfly (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You cut out the fact that he's widely respected? Are you saying that he's not widely respected? Longchenpa (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Noting his Nobel Prize implies that he is respected. How about this ““The Dalai Lama who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 is the political and religious leader of the Tibetan people and is received by some governments as such.” --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the point of changing it in the first place? I see two changes in each version you've proposed. One: removing the word "respected." Are you saying he's not respected? Second: minimizing the number of countries that receive him as a political/religious leader to "some." Are you saying that only a few countries receive him? Longchenpa (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone removed it as being too detailed. It is important to the history of the Tibetan government in exile--and I discovered the government in exile was not even mentioned. I've remedied that with a new section and moved this quote there. I agree the quote was vague so I've added more specifics. Longchenpa (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mongol Discrimination
"The Han Chinese was discriminated against that the Mongol Khubilai employed only Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other non-Chinese foreigners to rule over the majority—-the Han Chinese" reads like an opinion and is not really in accord with early Chinese history texts. Can you support this statement? Longchenpa (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st, I think the word "foreigner" may be inappropriate here.
 * 2nd, I think it is correct to speak of discrimination of Han Chinese in the Yuan dynasty, or of preferential treatment given to Uighurs and Central Asians - even Marco Polo claimed to have been appointed province governor!
 * 3rd, I think the word "only" maybe wrong here. He preferred Central Asians, but I don't think they did not employ any Han Chinese at all. Not unless I see a citation for that claim, anyway. Yaan (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Yuen dynasty was a Mongolian dynasty and the Han-Chinese--those being conquered suffered. This is not an opinion but a fact. I agree with Yaan on those changes. How about this “"The Han Chinese was discriminated against that the Mongol Khubilai employed mainly the non-Han Chinese—the Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc, to rule over the majority—-the Han Chinese.”  --Littlebutterfly (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you to support this interpretation with historical documentation. Open a history book that has been peer reviewed by scholars. Don't change something that is from a well-regarded history text on China with an opinion. Longchenpa (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a poorly worded article.
I can't understand anything the article is saying. it feel like it is edited by school children. can someone who is more capable in english vetted the grammar!

like what is this suppose to mean? "The Chinese built highways that reached Lhasa, and which then extended the Indian, Nepalese and Pakistani borders." missing a "to"? the meaning is completely different don't you think? Akinkhoo (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hard to do a thorough smoothing of the language while people are still making broad changes. Longchenpa (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article has not been carefully edited
In the section under "Khoshud, Dzungars, and Manchu" mention is made of the 6th Dalai Lama and his lifestyle, and a little story is offered which explains the origin of the Tibetan stick-out-the-tongue greeting. Then, in the next section on the "18th & 19th centuries", this same material is repeated again as if it were new. Perhaps there are more such problems; the article is a little too chaotic as it stands. Jakob37 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet and India, late 700 and 800 AD
Concerns have been raised over the Tibetan Empire borders depicted in the East-Hem maps for 700 and 800 AD. Specifically regarding whether Tibet ruled large sections of northern India, including Kamarupa, Bengal, and the Gangetic plains. There are unfortunately few sources covering relations between medieval Tibet and India. Bengal and Assam are also lacking reliable sources for that time period.

Some of my sources regarding Tibet's expansion into Bengal and India:
 * 1. Google Book's "History of Tibet" makes several mentions of Nepal as a Tibetan vassal, and also says that India's Pala Empire under Dharmapala accepted Tibetan overlordship. (Page 54)
 * 2. The wiki-article, History of Tibet also mentions Tibetan military power extending to Bengal, in the section about Ralpacan (815-838 AD).
 * 3. Huhai.net has a [map of Asia in 750 AD] that shows Tibet ruling Kamarupa, Bengal, and Pala.

Tibet appears to have been rather active along their southern borders. We know Tibet subjugated Nanzhao twice (from 680-703, then from 750-794 AD). Nepal under the Licchavis was apparently subjugated also. This was about the same time as the collapse of the Pyu city-states in Burma, the end of the Varman Dynasty and the beginning of the Mlechchha dynasty in Kamarupa. It's possible Tibet also subjugated part of northern India. It may not have been an actual conquest; it could have been raids for plunder or marriage alliances.


 * (This is also being discussed on Talk:Kamarupa (History) and History of Tibet. I've posted this here to get more input. Any assistance is appreciated! I need to find out more information before I can correct the maps, if they are incorrect. Thomas Lessman (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Article completely avoids mentioning the relations and character of society under the monks.
The article lacks information about society of Tibet, the brutal serfdom imposed on common people, punishment and torture practiced by the despotic feudal rulers.--Molobo (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Plese give actual historical evidence for any such system. I'm checking Beckwith but I'm not finding anything of the kind. There is Chinese propaganda to that effect but it lacks supporting evidence and isn't credible. Longchenpa (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feudalism is never nice (except for the land owners), and, as mentioned, Goldstein mentions briefly how much land was owned by whom, how many taxes serfs had to pay and how many days they would have to work for their lords etc. Maybe you could just try and look it up?
 * Probably Tibet is not the only colony-like area in which anachronistic structures were preserved. This makes this propaganda thing a bit ironic - If we'd accept that Tibet was part of China before 1911, should not China also earn part of the blame for the long persistence of a feudal order? Yaan (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of Tibet pre-1911 is iffy. Definitely Tibet was included under the Yuan, but I can't consider the Mongols Chinese. Rather the Mongols were overlords over both Tibet and China. As for considering Tibet as part of China under the Qing, according to Schirokaur Quianlong sent armies into Tibet to establish the Dalai Lama as ruler, with a Qing resident and a garrison. But no further effort was made to integrate Tibet into the Chinese empire.
 * As for Beckwith, yeah, he's not of any help on latter Tibet. I thought I had Goldstein but what I have is Richardson. Hmm. I must have returned Goldstein to the library.
 * I'm cautious of blithe sweeping comparisions between Asian countries and Europe. China's former land use policy is often called "feudal" with "serfs" but that characterization is inaccurate. I suspect the same goes for Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Goldstein's papers on serfdom are available for download on his homepage. In my opinion his argument that Tibet had serfdom in the early 20th century is very good from a legal perspective, i.e. everyone except lords had to have a lord. But these ords could often be corporate bodies including villages, this was also true in medieval europe I think but is certainly not what one thinks of by 'serfdom' or 'feudalism'. Goldstein's findings are of course only relevant for the early 20th century. Otherwise research on Tibetan society is not very developed. In any case none of this should be discussed in this article which is about political history. The question of whether Tibet was a nice place to live or not before 1959 has no bearing on the fact of China's invasion or its legal or ethical status. Tibetologist (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is named "History of Tibet", so IMHO it should include some social history as well. If volunteers can be found, anyway. Yaan (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be hard to write about Tibetan social history without doing your own research which is not allowed. Tibetologist (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check out Goldstein's webpage, thank you. I'm still leery of the careless misapplication of the label "serfdom" but I can be convinced. My understanding is it still wouldn't apply to the monastic system as that more or less stood in for Tibet's educational system and acted as a means of social mobility for bright students (note the poaching of Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye first from the Nyingma, and then the fake tulku title described in his Nam Thar to prevent his being further poached by the Gelug). Longchenpa (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that one should not confuse monastacism and feudalism. Monasteries did allow for some social mobility. Such upward mobility was however rare. The point Goldstein was making was a legal one. Now a days most countries have a notion that all citizens are legally equal, and the only organizations that can legally constraint their life, movement and property are the government. In Tibet in the early 20th century each miser (commoner, serf, as you please) had to have a lord, if you had no lord you had no legal rights, your lord could tell you where to go, where to live, and could sell you. Sounds much like slavery or serfdom. On the other hand you could work out negociated degrees of freedom and in certain cases could appeal to the Lhasa government directly if your lord did something illegal. Lords included nobel families, monasteries, and villages. Anyone could buck his lord by becoming a monk. Monks were (sort of) exempt from this system. Serfs paid corvee and taxes to their lords, lords did it directly to the government. Some have argued that the miser are not serfs because the lords had similar obligations vis-avis the government, But to me that seems to be a great reason for calling them serfs, since in medieval european feudalism the situation was similar. Nobel families had to each give up one son to civil service, pay taxes etc. But they occupied a different legal category than the miser, and had legal power over them including of life and death. Tibetologist (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern with Goldstein is that he was writing at a time when most Asia scholars defined a feudal society based on socio-political relationships (corvee, etc.) while ignoring land use policy. When it comes to the Tang Dynasty, the label of "feudal" is misapplied, according to Ebrey, because the individuals owned their own land. During the Song Dynasty you see less individual ownership due to economics, and the shifted to a sharecropper-type arrangement.


 * In eastern Tibet, Kham and Amdo, the land was owned by extended families. That's in Grunfeld, I believe. The way inheritance worked in western Tibet is that the house and land was owned and passed on through the maternal line while the other assets were passed on through the paternal line, again divided up by extended family rather than a feudal system of land ownership.


 * Democracy of course is a very new idea and didn't exist in either China or Tibet. But land use in China and Tibet is distinctly different from medieval feudal Europe. I'm not sure if another scholar has extended the new understandings of dynastic China into the field of Tibet. Longchenpa (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First appearance in recorded history
Chinese speakers, can we get a character and maybe etymology for 'Fa'? Alexwoods (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text repeated twice verbatim
There are at least three paragraphs that are repeated twice. The first begins with "The Dzungars invaded Tibet in 1717...", and they appear in two different sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.209.172 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have united these two sections, but it still needs some smoothing out. Tibetologist (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Schirokauer?
There are two citations from Schirokauer, but I cannot find what book they are from. I need this information. DonSlice 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's A Brief History of Chinese Civilzation by Conrad Schirokauer and Miranda Brown, Thomson Wadsworth, (c)2006. Longchenpa (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this meant to mean?
"Tibet split from Burma circa 500". Does it mean the languages split? Does it mean in 500BCE? It seems like nonsense?Billlion (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it means both of those things and is nonsense. Tibetologist (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a LOT of unsourced statements in this article.
Anyone else notice that there are twenty-five completely unsourced statements in this article? And then there are at least a dozen that ask for clarification. Anyone think we should remove some of the older ones (especially those not made by a long-standing Wikipedia member)? This article needs some serious cleanup. Find as many sources as you can, because what isn't sourced by the end of the week (Sunday, April 20th), goes. I'm posting this to get some answers, not to hurt anyone. Thanks! Paladin Hammer (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to rise to the challenge. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put out a call to the other longterm editors of this article as well. This is bad timing to eliminate statements from this article and I'd like to ask you to hold off. Because of the unrest in Tibet the Tibet editors are swamped. Longchenpa (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lately, I have been reading lots of articles about this issue and found several ones that confirm some statements in this article. I'll add the citations if I find the appropriate statements that back them up. Feel free to verify any of them.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)