"

 Further on Amdo 

Hi, I appreciate your additions to the History section in Amdo. However, regarding the latest addition: ""According to [[Tibetan Government in Exile]], [[Chogyal Phagpa]], the head of the [[Sakyapa]] school of [[Tibetan Buddhism]], became the religious instructor of Kublai Khan. In exchange, Chogyal Phagpa received the support of Kublai Khan and assumed political power over the three provinces or cholkas of Tibet.[http://www.tibet.com/status/3kings.html The Three Dharma Kings of Tibet] This intereaction called priest-patron (in [[tibetan]] chöyön) relation was the first in history of Tibet and was also developped under afterward circonstances[[Tibetan sovereignty debate]]."" I wanted to query two things.

First, the Amdo article is about the Amdo region, not Tibet, and not the ""sovereignty debate"". While I can see how the relations with the Mongols can be relevant, since the Mongols first incorporated Amdo into other commandaries/provinces, I don't think we need too much detail on the relations between the Mongols and Tibet - that is dealt with in other articles. Furthermore, it is bad form to use internal reference: i.e. another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference. Finally, this statement presents only one point of view when clearly there are several. I don't want the History section of Amdo to turn into a rehash of either History of Tibet or Tibet sovereignty debate.

I propose to cut the added paragraph to "", a relationship which the Tibetan Government-in-Exile now terms a ""patron-priest relationship"" whereby Tibet exchanged political control for the power of religious instruction of the Khans.[ref]"". Please let me know if there are any problems with this proposal.  (Talk) "