Talk:Era of Fragmentation

Article comments

Hello! I have reviewed your DYK for the subject article, and as a result have a few comments that I hope are helpful. Here's what might help:

• The article mentions monastic Buddhism, but neither of the two words is linked, and there is no hint as to what this is. Can you give the reader some clues on this?

• The article calls Amdo on the periphery of Tibet, but the link shows us that Amdo is one of three major regions of Tibet. That doesn't sound like being on the periphery.

• The article has a good beginning that tells the reader when, how, and why the Era of Fragmentation began. However, there is no ending to the story, and we don't know when the era ended, and why and how it ended. We only know from the info box that the next era is the Mongol era that began some time around 1250.

• The sources are not in a standardized format, so I will take the liberty to put them into such a format, hoping that this will meet with your approval.

I enjoy history, but know very little about Tibetan history, and enjoyed the brief glimpse from reading your article.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the relationship between the centre and the periphery today, Amdo was almost certainly more peripheral in the 10th century (when this article mentioned it) than it is now. Amdo and Kham were non-Tibetan in 6th century; at some point between then and now they became largely Tibetan; and I don't think there was a major depopulation and replacement in those regions generally; so there was presumably a gradual process of Tibetanisation among the local populations (which we might speculate were predominantly Qiangic-speaking tribal groups). In the 10th century, many of the most notable Tibetan Amdowas had not been born yet and many of the notable Tibetan cultural centres of Amdo had not been founded yet, e.g. Labrang, Kumbum, Ĉhone, Kirti.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

then all that needs to be done is add a couple words to let the reader know that at that time Amdo was on the periphery of Tibet, because the link does not indicate that.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue. And by periphery, I meant relative to the Ü and Tsang regions of Tibet, the political and cultural center of Tibet. Amdo is one of the major regions of Tibet, but it's not considered the center of Tibetan civilization in the same sense that Ü and Tsang are. An analogy would be Siberia as a region of Russia. Siberia is a major region of Russia, even if it is located on the periphery of the Russian cultural sphere.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)