1 2 Norbu 2001, tr. 78Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFNorbu2001 (trợ giúp): "Professor Luciano Petech, who wrote a definitive history of Sino—Tibetan relations in eighteenth century, terms Tibet's status during this time as a Chinese "protectorate". This may be a fairly value-neutral description of Tibet's status during the eighteenth century..."
↑ Goldstein, Melvyn C. (tháng 4 năm 1995), Tibet, China and the United States (PDF), The Atlantic Council, tr. 3 – qua Case Western Reserve University: "During that time the Qing Dynasty sent armies into Tibet on four occasions, reorganized the administration of Tibet and established a loose protectorate."
↑ Di Cosmo, Nicola (2009), “The Qing and Inner Asia: 1636–1800”, trong Nicola Di Cosmo; Allen J. Frank; Peter B. Golden (biên tập), The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, Cambridge University Press – qua ResearchGate
↑ Szczepanski, Kallie (ngày 31 tháng 5 năm 2018). “Was Tibet Always Part of China?”. ThoughtCo.: "The actual relationship between China and Tibet had been unclear since the early days of the Qing Dynasty, and China's losses at home made the status of Tibet even more uncertain."
↑ Lamb 1989, tr. 2–3Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFLamb1989 (trợ giúp): "From the outset, it became apparent that a major problem lay in the nature of Tibet's international status. Was Tibet part of China? Neither the Tibetans nor the Chinese were willing to provide a satisfactory answer to this question."
↑ Sperling 2004, tr. ixLỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFSperling2004 (trợ giúp): "The status of Tibet is at the core of the dispute, as it has been for all parties drawn into it over the past century. China maintains that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. Tibetans maintain that Tibet has historically been an independent country. In reality, the conflict over Tibet's status has been a conflict over history."
↑ Mehra 1974, tr. 182–183Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFMehra1974 (trợ giúp): The statement of Tibetan claims at the 1914 Simla Conference read: "Tibet and China have never been under each other and will never associate with each other in future. It is decided that Tibet is an independent state."
↑ Szczepanski, Kallie (ngày 31 tháng 5 năm 2018). “Was Tibet Always Part of China?”. ThoughtCo.: "According to Tibet, the "priest/patron" relationship established at this time [1653] between the Dalai Lama and Qing China continued throughout the Qing Era, but it had no bearing on Tibet's status as an independent nation."
↑ Fitzherbert & Travers 2020Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFFitzherbertTravers2020 (trợ giúp): '[From 1642], as a Buddhist government, the Ganden Phodrang’s choice to relinquish... the military defence of its territory to foreign troops, first Mongol and later Sino-Manchu, in the framework of "patron-preceptor" (mchod yon) relationships, created a structural situation involving long-term contacts and cooperation between Tibetans and "foreign" military cultures.'
↑ Goldstein, Melvyn C. (tháng 4 năm 1995), Tibet, China and the United States (PDF), The Atlantic Council, tr. 3 – qua Case Western Reserve University
↑ Fitzherbert & Travers 2020Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFFitzherbertTravers2020 (trợ giúp): "...the Ganden Phodrang (Dga’ ldan pho brang)’s military institutions were heir to a strong Tibetan martial tradition with roots extending back as far as the period of the Tibetan Empire (7th to 9th centuries) and perhaps beyond—a tradition whose traces were still visible in the Ganden Phodrang’s army until 1959..."
↑ Emblems of Empire: Selections from the Mactaggart Art Collection, by John E. Vollmer, Jacqueline Simcox, p154
↑ Central Tibetan Administration 1994, tr. 26Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFCentral_Tibetan_Administration1994 (trợ giúp): "The ambans were not viceroys or administrators, but were essentially ambassadors appointed to look after Manchu interests, and to protect the Dalai Lama on behalf of the emperor."
