A fact from Tibetan Army appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 September 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
The article says that the Tibetan Army existed from 1912 to 1951, but the article only tells the story until May 1950. What happened after that point in time? Manxruler (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article is wrong. Like most organs of the Tibetan government, the Tibetan Army continued to exist after 1951 despite being legally subordinate to the PRC government. See Goldstein's History of Modern Tibet, Volume 2 and Tsering Shakya's Dragon in the Land of Snows. Neither source is very clear about what eventually became of it. Toward the end of the popular uprising in Lhasa in 1959, the Tibetan government began to support the rebels and the Tibetan Army fought against the Chinese army at that point. I think that almost all of the Tibetan Army's active forces were in Lhasa at the time, so they would all have been killed, captured, or routed early on. The Chinese government formally abolished the Tibetan government shortly thereafter, which presumably includes the Army, but there wouldn't have been much of it left to abolish at that point.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. The article is in dire need of updating/correcting then. Manxruler (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the reluctance of the government to create and support the army too, as well as its low social status. User:Fred BauderTalk 11:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
