From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Lhasa was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China / Cities (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Chinese cities workgroup (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Tibet (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Lhasa and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


"there are no pubs in Lhasa. There are some night spots which feature cabaret acts in which performers will sing English, Chinese, Tibetan, and Nepalese songs and dancers wear traditional Tibetan costume with long flowing cloth extending from their arms. As well, there are a number of small bars with live music, although they typically have limited drink menus and mostly foreign patrons."

How is pub defined? There are definitely bars in Lhasa. At the top of the Yak Hotel in Lhasa, there's a hotel bar, as well as several hookah-style places around the street. I've even been to a big, Chinese disco-style place with mainly Chinese and Tibetan patrons. So, unless there's some very specific definition of "pub," there's definitely drinking in Lhasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

pronuciation "guide"[edit]

It is pronounced L'hássa or Läässa. Are these transcriptins from any particular system? And do they tell us anything except (presumably) that the h is silent? Markalexander100 04:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What IS that? It does not help! One looks French and one looks Swedish. :-D --Menchi 06:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PRC statistics[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist: How do you know the PRC statistics aren't fact? And why are your statistics fact — where did you get them from? -- ran (talk) 19:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The PRC statistics don't include the thousands of military personnel or their families, the same goes for those in the civil administration. Neither do they include the huge population of unofficial migrant workers. They are deliberately misrepresenting the facts to counter international criticism.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right that population statistics do not include military personnel in active service, this is the general case in all of China. However, population statistics in China do include (officially, at least) any civilian living for 6 months or more per year in a given place. As for unofficial migrant workers, once again, it is the general case throughout all of China that they are not included. It is impossible to count them in any case, since they are unofficial.

As for "deliberately misrepresenting", I'm not sure how valid such a criticism is, since these are problems that exist nationwide. Statistics given out by Beijing or Shanghai are also afflicted by the same inaccuracies. -- ran (talk) 20:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that whether or not the statistics are deliberately misrepresented, or whether it is official government policy, Lhasa now has a majority Han population. This can be confirmed on many websites about Tibet that are independent of the Chinese government.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What websites? Where did they get their numbers from, since it's obviously not from the PRC government? Why are their numbers more credible than the PRC's numbers, since both they and the PRC have political agendas to push, and moreover it was the PRC and not them that conducted the 2000 census and continues to do actual day-to-day administration in Lhasa? -- ran (talk) 20:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You have acknowledged that the PRC statistics are not accurate. Why defend them? Do some research, and take anything you hear from a totalitarian government with a pinch of salt.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your point being? So do you agree with how this article is currently written or not?

Look, I am the compiler of the List of words blocked by search engines in Mainland China here on Wikipedia. You don't have to tell me that the PRC is, like all other political organizations in the world, biased and driven by its own overt and covert agendas. -- ran (talk) 21:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree with the current article. You reverted to the PRC's statistics for Lhasa's population without any qualification. If the Tibetan exile groups are lying about the size of the Han presence in Lhasa (which must be obvious to any visitor), why have they not been challenged by anyone apart from you and the PRC?

Lapsed Pacifist 21:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert without qualification, look harder — I explicitly stated the source of the numbers. And am I saying that anyone is lying? Maybe the PRC is lying. Maybe exile groups are lying. Maybe they're both lying. You're the one who's pushing the POV that the PRC has got to be lying. -- ran (talk) 21:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

By their own standards, they're not lying; they are applying the same criteria to the Lhasa census, ie they don't include military or administrative personnel or unofficial migrants, as they apply throughout the PRC. My point is that this does not accurately reflect the current demographics of Lhasa, and the article should say this.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Tibet#Status has a perfectly neutral explanation of varying views on the status of Tibet before 1950. Lapsed Pacifist is treating NPOV policy like dirt and pushing his own political views. -- ran (talk) 18:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain this again:

Government of Tibet in Exile: Before 1950 Tibet was independent. China invaded Tibet and annexed it. Tibet is an occupied country.

PRC: The Song Dynasty, the Jurchen Empire, Tibet, the Tangut Empire, the Kingdom of Dali etc. were all incorporated into the Mongol Empire in the 13th century. All of them have been parts of China since. China continued to maintain suzerainty over Tibet from the 13th century to 1950. Tibet's incorporation into the PRC in 1950 was part of the end-game of the Chinese Civil War, during which the communists defeated other military powers in China such as the Kuomintang, the Xibei San Ma, the Tibetan regime etc. to reunite the country, except for Taiwan.

As such it is not NPOV to say that Lhasa was the capital of an independent country before 1950.

-- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 21:30 (UTC)

I know all this. By your own logic, it is therefore POV to contend that Lhasa was not a national capital before 1950.

Lapsed Pacifist 8 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

No one is contending that. Does the article say: "Lhasa was not a national capital before 1950?" Of course not! You're the one who's trying to push an obviously POV statement into the article. Are you telling me that putting a POV statement is somehow more NPOV than not supporting either side?

-- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist... let's say I added this to Northern Ireland:

Northern Ireland should not form part of the Republic of Ireland. Self-determination dictates that it will always remain a part of the United Kingdom.

This would be POV. You would remove it immediately. I fully agree. So I replaced it with this.

Northern Ireland should not form part of the Republic of Ireland. Self-determination dictates that it will always remain a part of the United Kingdom. (Though the Irish government disputes this. See History of Ireland.)

Do you see how the POV here is thinly veiled by a feeble "attempt" at NPOV?

If we make no statement about how Lhasa may or may not be the highest capital in the world, we make no statement about what we feel Tibet should be. So why stir up the controversy?

-- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 22:09 (UTC)

A spurious argument. Tibetans regarded Lhasa as their national capital before 1950, and many still do. The PRC did not, and my edit makes this clear. Your edit, by omission, promotes the PRC POV.

Lapsed Pacifist 8 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

By omission? The article states clearly that Lhasa is the traditional capital of Tibet, which is true, and can be intrepreted according to either POV. It stops short of staying that Lhasa is the national capital of Tibet, but that is because this is controversial. Omission here is how this article steers clear of the controversy and avoids taking sides. Your inadequate attempt at NPOV (a poor veil for your POV pushing) destroys this neutrality.

You're trying to introduce Lhasa into a ranking of national capitals. This would be like trying to introduce national rankings of area, population, etc. into Tibet, or Xinjiang, or Chechnya, or Kosovo, etc. This is very POV, and such rankings do not exist in those articles.

Please also explain why my analogy is "spurious". There are many people in Northern Ireland who do not wish to join the Republic of Ireland, and also many that do. Putting one prominently and the other as an afterthought in parentheses is not NPOV.

Unless, of course, you have a double standard, where putting POV you support in parentheses is "spurious", while putting POV you oppose in parentheses is "perfectly fine".

-- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 22:27 (UTC)

Tibetan minority[edit]

What we've ended up with in the text is now needlessly timid. It says "groups assert that because of this ethnic Tibetans are now a minority in Lhasa". Is there actually any doubt about this? The Chinese government's own statistics referred to by Ran above are, by their own definition, limited. Taking into account these limitations and the other available evidence, does anybody actually doubt that Tibetans now form a minority in Lhasa? If not, why is the entry so tentative? Is this just a case of editorial exhaustion?

Of course there are doubts. If Tibetans are 87% of the "legitimate" population and Han Chinese 13% of the "legitimate" population, then there has to be about six times as many "illegitimate" Han Chinese (unregistered migrants + PLA garrison) as "legitimate" ones. Why would you think that this is the case? -- ran (talk) 12:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
There are reasons to doubt that it is most Han Chinese instead of Sino-Tibetan. The Central(Lhasa area) group statistic that I have claims 741,000 which is roughly 40% of the total Sino-Tibetan population in Tibet. Its reasonable to assume 10-15% of all Han Chinese live in the Lhasa area likewise which still puts the Tibetan population at more than double/triple of the Han Chinese. However, I do think Lhasa itself more Han than Tibetan because most the Tibetans live around Lhasa while the Han live in Lhasa if that makes since. The book I'm quoting estimates the Lhasa Sino-Tibetan population at 39% of its total. I don't find that unreasonable. Falphin 21:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Um... what do you mean by Sino-Tibetan? The term is usually used to refer to the Sino-Tibetan language family. -- ran (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
the book I was referencing divides stuff up by language group, and then more specific branches. Sino-Tibetans include all who speak that language group, notice that I then added, the Central Lhasan groups has a population of 741,000. It's unlikely I will get to respond to this as this is my first edit in a while. Falphin 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, when did Dharamsala begin conducting censuses in Lhasa? Do they have the resources to? When they say that Han Chinese are the majority in Lhasa, what possible reason could anyone possibly have for trusting them?

Both the PRC government and Dharamsala are political groups motivated by political aims, so both have equal incentive to lie. The difference is that the PRC government also has the resources to conduct censuses, and the responsibility to provide local officials with useful data, while Dharamsala has neither -- it can't do census anyways, and does not need to provide accurate figures -- only the most sensational. I therefore find it strange that some people trust Dharamsala more than the PRC over this demographics issue. -- ran (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ran, you've admitted before that PRC censuses are inaccurate, why are you still defending them? I don't need a census to tell me Washington, D.C. has an African-American majority. I can see it walking around the city. It is not just Dharamsala that says that Lhasa has a Han majority, it is obvious to every visitor, and was mentioned in the Economist this week. The argument that both Beijing and Dharamsala have equal incentive to lie, therefore both are lying, is daft.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than relying on silly analogies to cities on other continents, why don't you actually do some research to help your point? I can point you in exactly the right direction you need to go in.

The statistics refer not to urban Lhasa, but to Lhasa prefecture-level city, which includes one district and seven counties. Its area is roughly double that of Northern Ireland, and I don't think its demographics are any more representative of urban Lhasa than the demographics of Northern Ireland are representative of Belfast. So what you need to do, instead of going crazy about how unreliable PRC statistics are, is to actually find the relevant statistics of the demographics of urban Lhasa itself, which may end up helping your point.

The urban area of Lhasa is contained in its sole district, Chengguan District. Chengguan District also contains rural areas, but it is probably a good approximation of the demographics of urban Lhasa. I know for a fact that the demographics of Chengguan District are given in the two-volume, bilingual (eng.-chi.) 2000年人口普查中国民族人口资料 ("ethnic data from the 2000 census"), and IIRC the Total, Han Chinese, and Tibetan numbers are probably at the back of Volume 1. It would serve you well to find it if you are interested; I believe any decent library on East Asian studies should have this volume in its reference section.

Since we don't have the data yet I'm going to make a very rough estimate of it.

  1. Lhasa Prefecture has a population of 470,000. Of this, 80,000 is Han Chinese. (Right off the Tibet article, demographics section).
  2. Chengguan District has a population of roughly 140,000. (Quick Google search -- this is an official census number)
  3. Let us assume that 80% of the Han Chinese population in Lhasa Prefecture lives in urban Lhasa. (Probably an underestimate.)
  4. This means that of the 140,000 in Chengguan District, 64,000 are Han Chinese, which is nearly 50%!!!

These are the official numbers that you hate so much, the one that fails to include unregistered migrant workers (probably a lot) or garrisoned troops!! And note --- the estimate is based on Chengguan District, which is urban Lhasa plus surrounding countryside. So the Han Chinese proportion is probably well past 50%!

So as you can see, official numbers can be your friend, if you know where and how to look for them. -- ran (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You crack me up, Ran. You complain that my drawing an analogy with a city on a different continent is "silly", and then you do just that without missing a beat. Then you write "the Han Chinese proportion is probably well past 50%!" So what's the problem? Once again, unlike what you've written in the article, it's not just Dharamsala that maintains Tibetans are in the minority in Lhasa. Pretty much everybody except the PRC (oh, and you) acknowledges this.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you obviously have not read my post at all, nor understood the point that I was trying to make, I will refrain from responding to your latest comment. Please try again. -- ran (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, or how about I spell it out for you, in case you don't get it:

  1. Lapsed Pacifist makes unsubstantiated claims.
  2. Ran tells Lapsed Pacifist that his claims are unsubstantiated.
  3. As a Wikipedian, Ran provides Lapsed Pacifist with a detailed explanation of how he can in fact substantiate those claims using existing PRC statistics.
  4. Lapsed Pacifist doesn't recognize help coming his way not even when it hits him in the head.

I am more concerned with NPOV than with "out-arguing" you in a debate, Lapsed Pacifist, because I'm a Wikipedian; that's why I'm trying to help you shore up your POV with evidence. You, on the other hand, are so blinded by your own conviction of your "correctness" that you can't even see it when your perceived "enemy" helps you out. If that's how you want it, there's really not much more I can do for you. -- ran (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you decided to respond, Ran. I did read your comment, but you're right, I definitely did not understand the point you were trying to make. Even after you spelled it out for me, I still don't. But let me try;

  • I wrote that Lhasa now has a Han majority, as the Dharamsala government has been saying for a long time, and many foreign visitors and journalists have confirmed.
  • You disagree, citing PRC census data that you know perfectly well is not accurate.
  • You then appear to agree (although this is unclear), extrapolating from that same census data.

You're getting a bit hot under the collar with this talk of enemies, Ran. Getting hit on the head with help confuses me. As does shoring up POV, whatever that is. Why not present the facts as we know them?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, this is what happened:

  • The Dharamsala government and foreign visitors claim that Lhasa has a Han majority. You take this as confirmation that this is fact.
  • I said that the Dharamsala government is a POV source, and it is unrealistic to expect it to be able to give any kind of credible figure in any case. (As for PRC figures, it's silly to say that because we know it to be inaccurate, therefore someone else, who's even less likely to be able to give accurate figures, is therefore accurate.)
  • I then offered a way in which your assertion may be better supported, using official census figures. I'm not sure how the exact figures work out, however, so they may or may not support your POV.

Unfortunately, I can't find the volume that I mentioned at my library right now. This is why I gave you the info so that you might be able to find it.

-- ran (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ran, my point is we do not need to know the exact figures to ascertain whether Lhasa has a Han majority. It is obvious to any visitor. Another thing, has the PRC ever explicitly denied it?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and exact figures are better evidence than statements like "it is obvious to any visitor". You can't drop Wikipedia's standards just to make them fit what you want. Besides, the exact figures might even be helpful to you -- we don't know yet. Why do you hate them so much? -- ran (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Exact figures are better evidence..." Beautiful. Their accuracy matters not a whit, so long as they are exact. No doubt the North Korea page is in need of serious revision, as the government figures paint a much brighter picture. I'll ask you again; has the PRC ever denied that Lhasa has a Han majority?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the answer to that question, all we know right now is that the PRC says that Lhasa Prefecture has a 81.6% Tibetan population. We don't know the figures for Chengguan District. If you're so curious, why don't you look for it yourself?

As for the accuracy of figures, that's for the reader to judge. The job of this article is to present what each side claims. Who are you to force upon Wikipedia's readers your view that the PRC's statistics must be "lying just like North Korea's"? -- ran (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I may be joining this a bit a too late, but Lapsed, it doesn't matter what you think is right or what you know is right. We have to look at things from a neutral point of view here. You may think that most people agree that the Han outnumber the Tibetans in Lhasa, but we have to have it so we don't favor either side. --Khoikhoi 02:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Never too late, Khoikhoi. I am looking at it from a neutral point of view. Dharamsala and many foreign observers assert that Lhasa has a Han majority. It strikes me that this assertion would be ridiculously easy to disprove, were it untrue. While Dharamsala may have incentive to exaggerate, foreign journalists have no such axe to grind. The PRC government, on the other hand, does not assert that Lhasa has a Tibetan majority. It simply takes a census following the same guidelines it follows throughout the rest of the PRC, excluding military and administrative personnel and unregistered migrants. We know this is inaccurate, and that it seriously underestimates the actual Han population. I don't just "think" Han outnumber Tibetans in Lhasa, I have never seen any information that would lead me to think otherwise.

Ran, why do you write "lying just like North Korea's" in quotes? Who are you quoting?

Lapsed Pacifist 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So that's what you're concerned about... why didn't you explain this earlier?
I'm currently looking for the numbers that you want: 1) total garrison in Tibet or Lhasa and 2) unregistered migrant population in Tibet or Lhasa. It's possible though that 1) might be classified and 2) is impossible to give (they're unregistered, after all, meaning that the government doesn't know where they are). But I'll keep looking... IIRC the Guangdong government was able to give at least a rough estimate of the unregistered migrant population a year or two ago, so all hope may not be lost. I'll keep looking.
Administrative personnel are included, by the way. -- ran (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. I don't need to know how much snow is in Antarctica to know there's more snow than sand there. I don't believe I should be required to know how much snow is there to write on Wikipedia that there is more snow. Who were you quoting about North Korea again?

Lapsed Pacifist 10:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You, of course.
I haven't missed the point. You see the world according to however you want to see it -- and claim not to need evidence. I'm looking for evidence to back your claims up for you. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia you might want to take a look at the standards that we follow. -- ran (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said that about North Korea. You are very much missing the point. I don't need to know how many white people are in the United States to know that a majority of that country are white. Now, it's relatively easy to find out how many U.S. citizens are white. But even if it wasn't, I believe Wikipedia standards would allow me the flexibility to write that the U.S. has a white majority. Only you deny that Lhasa has a Han majority, Ran. Beijing has never explicitly denied it, and Dharamsala and any foreign visitor that has commented on the matter speak of it matter-of-factly. Only you. Why is that?

Lapsed Pacifist

Because your so-called "standards" don't cut it. If I take a walk in the right places in the U.S. I can very well return with the impression that the U.S. is majority Hispanic, or African-American, or Asian, or Native American.

I've asked for more opinions at Talk:Tibet. Perhaps you should take a look at the careful editing that we do on that contentious page to understand exactly what kind of standards we follow on Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Lhasa's not as big as the U.S., Ran. Far easier to figure out the demographic lay of the land. More opinions would definitely be welcome. I have been familiar with Wikipedia standards for quite a while now. What I take issue with is your interpretation of them.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The demographics section is clear and correct as it stands now. We give the official number, quoting its source as the government (PRC) census, but noting the expected biases for military and migrants. We give the Government in Exile position, letting the reader know there's serious politics involved in this number either way. The reader is now as informed as anyone can be on this topic. You can't do better than that, other than minor wordsmithing.
Dropping the 81.6% number entirely (or, alternatively, failing to suggest somewhere that the number has political implications) would be a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. So let's not do that.
Some further comments: ran is of course correct when he points out that it is very difficult to establish demographic percentages by informal inspection. New residents congregate in urban areas. Ethnic groups cluster. Population densities vary. Taxi drivers are more visible than yak herders. These are all serious and unavoidable impediments to accuracy which can only be overcome by careful statistical sampling and on-the-ground fact checking.
Plus how do you count a person born to a Tibetan mother and Han father? From what I understand there are more and more kids like that in Lhasa. No doubt the Government in Exile is highly offended by their very existence and count them as Han. But the person himself may self-report as Tibetan in order to be free of the one child policy. So the person thinks of themself as Tibetan, the PRC thinks of them as Tibetan, but the Government in Exile (and perhaps Lapsed Pacifist) says they're Han. Who's right? I'm afraid we're all going to have to wait till heaven (or to a highly evolved karmic state) to get the final answer on that one. In the meantime, I vote for following the NPOV approach, it is designed exactly for cases like this. technopilgrim 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The section is neither clear nor correct. Technopilgrim, you make the same assumption as Ran, that we should only listen to Beijing or Dharamsala, and then make our decision. Why? When anyone else cares to comment on the matter, they have no problem in stating unequivocally that Lhasa and other Tibetan cities have Han majorities. As I've said before, if this were untrue, it strikes me as something that would be very easy to disprove. I'm not suggesting blanking the PRC figure. "...careful statistical sampling and on-the-ground fact checking..." are patently not happening when there are huge gaps in the census. I have made no comment on people of mixed parentage (and fail to understand why you attribute an opinion on the matter to me), and I'm unaware of the TGE's view of their ethnicity. I second your vote for an NPOV approach, but I doubt we are writing of the same thing.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"the large garrisons" of the People's Liberation Army or "the thousands" of unofficial, unregistered migrants from outside Tibet, most of which are likely to be Han Chinese.? Excuse me, but where did you get this? What does "large" mean? and many visiting journalists? When did visiting journalists become the provider of statistics on the demographics of entire cities? Please read technopilgrim's comments before making any more edits like this. and the PRC does not deny this. Didn't I tell you that we don't know whether the PRC denies this or not? Rather than inserting things that fit your view of the world, why don't you help us out and do some actual research? -- ran (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The garrisons are far bigger than they would be in areas with no history of separatism and rebellion. It's insulting to the intelligence of the PRC government to pretend otherwise. As for the unregistered migrants, what's your problem with the word "thousands"? Do you believe they only number in the hundreds? On second thoughts, "tens of thousands" would be more accurate. Journalists have been the providers of information for a long time, and long may it continue. I read TP's comments thoroughly, and replied to them. If the PRC denied Lhasa has a Han majority, we would know. It would be a matter of public record. I know this as surely as I know the PRC have never denied being in Asia. Did you know that? Will you now ask me to prove the PRC have never denied being in Asia? I'd like you to do some research, Ran. Find me a non-Chinese account of Lhasa that claims modern Lhasa has a Tibetan majority. Because I've never seen one. I can find you plenty of non-Tibetan accounts that say the opposite. Happy hunting.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The garrisons are far bigger? How big? Enough to tip the balance of demographics? How do you know? Also, I didn't ask whether journalists are a provider of information - of course they are - I asked about them being providers of statistics. As for whether the PRC denying that the Han have a Han majority, how do you know? It might be in the Lhasa Almanac 2003 or something, which is almost certainly not online. I've even pointed to a government source that might help you in your claims, in one of my posts above. Have you tried making use of -- um, say, a library -- and look for it? "You know this as surely as you know that the PRC has never denied being in Asia?" If that's the sort of standard you're bringing to Wikipedia, well I'm sorry, I stand by what I said originally: please take a look at the careful editing we do at Tibet and other controversial articles to understand our standards better. -- ran (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim the larger garrisons were enough to tip the balance, although that is possible. The journalists don't need to provide statistics; if they say there's more snow than sand in Antarctica, one could hardly expect them to back it up by telling us exactly how much snow there is. That's not their job. If the PRC wanted the world to know it absolutely denies Lhasa has a Han majority, the world would know. I'm inclined to take information from totalitarian governments with a pinch of salt, Ran. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but give me journalism from a free press any day. So, no non-Chinese accounts that contadict my argument, then?

Lapsed Pacifist 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So the Han Chinese in Lhasa are now like "snow in Antarctica"? Is this analogy the basis of your argument? Also, we know that the info comes from the PRC government, the article already says that, the reader can take it with as big a pinch of salt as they like. Finally, no, I feel no need to participate in this "my hearsay is better than your hearsay" game. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsay. And that's why I still stand by what I said originally: please take a look at the careful editing we do at Tibet and other controversial articles to understand our standards better. -- ran (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but give me journalism from a free press any day. -- Excuse me? I know and respect what a free press is, and your comment here is an insult upon the free and transparent press that the Chinese of Hong Kong and Taiwan have built up. Please stop trying to smear me and my culture. -- ran (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I used a deliberately exaggerated analogy about Antarctica, to illustrate my point. I didn't write that one was like the other. Professional journalism is not hearsay; the opinions on Lhasa's demographics are valuable in that they come from neither Beijing nor Dharamsala, but neutral sources. The reason you won't find any non-Chinese sources that say Lhasa has a Tibetan majority is because there are none. I admire the courage and determination of many Chinese journalists and certainly offered them no insult. I have studied the culture of China and would not attempt to smear it. You're right that the reader can take PRC info "with as big a pinch of salt as they like." I'm advising you to do the same.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Professional journalism is not hearsay; the opinions on Lhasa's demographics are valuable in that they come from neither Beijing nor Dharamsala, but neutral sources. -- they come from observations made by individuals, whom I am unaware of being able to conduct censuses over entire cities. And as I said, I frankly don't care how many pieces of Chinese or non-Chinese hearsay -- I mean, "single-person censuses" -- I may or may not find, nor do I care about the logical absurdity of you foretelling whether I'll be able to find any in the future. As for the "pinch of salt" -- the article already tells the reader, very clearly, why and where the salt-pinching should take place.

I still stand by what I said originally: please take a look at the careful editing we do at Tibet and other controversial articles to understand our standards better. -- ran (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No-one has said censuses were taken by these journalists; just that, after visiting Lhasa, almost all came to the same conclusion, that Lhasa has a Han majority. Not one has said that Lhasa has a Tibetan majority. I haven't been able to find a non-Chinese source that claims modern Lhasa has a Tibetan majority; it's hardly a "logical absurdity" to conclude you will encounter the same difficulty. I'm aware of how controversial articles require careful editing; your concept of care appears to differ from mine, though. I'm no stranger to Wikipedia standards, Ran. I've been here a while.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And my point has been that as individuals wandering the city, one simply cannot tell. Take a look at street scenes like these, for example. [1] I see many people in non-Tibetan clothing. How would you tell if they're slightly pale Tibetans, or slightly tanned Han Chinese, or even Hui? In making this judgement, visitors will probably be influenced by other things: by clothing, by mannerisms, by overheard conversations, by the signs on the surrounding streets, and it's likely that most of these factors are skewed towards the Han Chinese side. So in short, it's impossible for a visitor to make an accurate estimate on the demographics of an entire city, especially in a confusing case like this one.

And seriously, there's no reason for you to attack official statistics so vehemently if we don't even know what they say yet. (By this I mean the demographics of Chengguan District, which is what we care about, not the entire prefecture. When PRC stats say "82% of Lhasa is Tibetan", they mean Lhasa with the seven surrounding counties attached. I believe I've explained this before, but we need to find the info on Lhasa itself -- which is administered as Chengguan District. We don't have those numbers yet.)

How about you look at the new version of the page and tell me what you think?

-- ran (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still too timid. The journalists who maintain Lhasa has a Han majority are professionals. They wouldn't write something that bold without being sure of themselves. They are also likely to be a lot more observant than ordinary inviduals just wandering around. After all, that's what they get paid for. The reason I don't like the official stats is that, even if they say Lhasa has a 60% Han population, I know that's still not right, because it doesn't include the people it never includes. While we can extrapolate from them, we cannot rely on them.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing. I know that the official census has limitations, but these limitations shouldn't be plugged with sources that are far less reliable. No matter how careful a single person is, it is still impossible for him/her to get a complete picture of the demographics of a city of 250,000. (As I said, how would they tell the ethnicity of a given random person on the street, if there are no immediately obvious cultural cues? A Tibetan youth - or a half-Han, half-Tibetan who self-reports as Tibetan for affirmative action reasons - might be dressed and act just like a Han Chinese youth.)

How about this. I'll go to the library again in the next couple of days and try to get the census numbers for Chengguan District. Then we'll see where to go from there. -- ran (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Limitations" does not cover it. The census has huge gaps. These people are professional journalists, Ran. The Economist is not given to sensationalising just to sell more copy, and I don't agree that what it says is less reliable than, for example, what the PRC government says, and an obviously flawed census. The picture does not have to be complete (and for one person it cannot be), it just has to be accurate. Why do you think all these people consistently write the same thing? And your version of the article doesn't even mention them. If people of mixed ancestry are more likely to report as Tibetan, then the census is even further off the mark than we thought, and even less use to us.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the census has huge gaps, but how do those gaps compare to the observation of a given single individual wandering through Lhasa? First you say that the PRC census is incomplete and therefore inaccurate, and then you say that the observations of single journalists -- much more incomplete by comparison -- "don't have to be complete to be accurate"?

As for the mixed ancestry thing -- if a person reports as Tibetan, why is that person not Tibetan?

Also, you haven't responded to my proposal.

-- ran (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a single individual, I'm talking about several trained reporters and other observers, reporting on what they see. None believe Lhasa still has a Tibetan majority. Any "wandering" would have been a bit more purposeful than you imply. If I spent a year wandering around every corner of China, why could I not say with complete confidence at the end of that year that China has a Han majority? I wouldn't have to count everybody to know that. If they had one ethnic Tibetan parent and one of another ethnicity, the person would be 50% ethnic Tibetan. My assertion is that Lhasa does not have a majority of people who are 100% ethnically Tibetan. Your proposal involves statistics that are incomplete and inaccurate. While I am prepared to extrapolate from these figures, I refuse to pretend they are anything else.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is pretending here that they are anything else. As for wandering all over China for a year -- would you be able to tell? Seriously, how would you know tell that a given person in Kunming is Han Chinese, and not (say) Yi, Miao, Hui, Bouyei, Zhuang, Dai, or any one of the other possibilities? Beijing supposedly has 2% Manchu and 2% Hui population, but one would never, ever be able to tell this just from wandering the streets of Beijing -- even for an entire year. It's probably more likely for a visitor to conclude that there isn't a single Manchu in Beijing. Or even, that 50% of Beijing is Manchu. Manchus don't speak Manchu or wear Manchu clothing anymore (nor do Han Chinese wear Han Chinese clothing), so how would you tell??

Also, there's no such thing as "100% Tibetan" or "100% Han Chinese". There's probably not a single person in Lhasa with 100% Tibetan ancestry, or one single person in Beijing with 100% Han Chinese ancestry (whatever "Han Chinese ancestry" means). All of these labels are matters of self-identification, not drops of blood (not that there was any original "pure Han Chinese blood" or "pure Tibetan blood" to begin with), so if someone says that he/she identifies as a certain ethnicity, we should take his/her word for it.

-- ran (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You are attaching an importance to them they do not deserve. Ran, these people would not say Lhasa has a Han majority unless they were sure. I don't yet know how they're so sure, but I see no reason to disbelieve them or question their intelligence. Dharamsala has been saying for years that this is the case. That they have a reason to lie does not mean they are lying. As I've written above, if it were untrue, it would be ridiculously easy to disprove. Forget about 100% ethnicity. I also assert that Lhasa does not have a majority of people who are more than 50% ethnically Tibetan, or who identify as such.

Lapsed Pacifist 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What's a "large garrison"? Since you don't even know how many they are, where does "large" come from? And we don't know that the "PRC doesn't deny this", so why do you keep inserting? Finally, how about this. Find me a few actual examples of foreign journalists observing that Lhasa is majority Han Chinese. -- ran (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gentlemen, I have not read the foregoing in detail, but I can give my perspective, and elucidate where the confusion is comming from. Having been to Lhasa myself, I will agree that the majority of people in the City are not ethnically Tibetan, and do not speak Tibetan (whether we should call them Han is another question). The prefecture is much larger than the city and Chinese immigrants do not move to the countryside very much. I have no doubt that the Tibetans are a majority of the Lhasa prefecture, and that the Chinese are a majority of Lhasa city. Many of the immigrants to Lhasa and Tibet generally are still registered at home, and have immigranted illegally, they are of course uncounted by statistics. --Nathan Hill

Thanks Nathan.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


What are circumambulatories? Maurreen (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Good question. From what I can guess a circumambulatory is meant to mean the path over which the devout circumambulate (walk in preferred direction around a sacred object). Unfortunately it is not actually a word, if Google hits or Webster's dictionary are any indication. I'll go fix it... thanks for pointing it out. technopilgrim 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The word is often used in academic writings about Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. --Nathan Hill


There are way too many; it clutters the page and prolongs loading time for users without high-speed internet. I removed several of them, but I wanted to consult with regular editors of the article before removing anymore. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I have removed a lot of images and reworked the layout of the article. I only removed images that made no sense where they were placed and I could not place them elsewhere using any logic. for example I removed the picture of the yak from the geography section. Also, I moved some images so that it was less cluttered. EX: I moved the image from directly under the lead paragraph that was making the table of contents look weird to the landmarks section.

I created a Culture section in the article, however, I know nothing about the culture of Lhasa so I cannot rewrite or expand on what is in that section. That part needs immediate attention as currently it has very little on the culture. (That paragraph did not make sense under landmarks either.) This article still needs a lot of work, but i hope my edits helped with cleaning up the look up a bit--Kyle(talk) 06:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Songtsän Gampo[edit]

I have made the part about this emperor accurate but it now has no bearing on Lhasa and should probably be removed, unless one says something like 'Wencheng is traditionally supposed to have brought a statue that was installed at the Jokhang. Tibetologist 11:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Weather data[edit]

Climate data for {{{location}}}
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Average high °F (°C) 45
Average low °F (°C) 18
Precipitation inches (mm) 0.03
Source: [1]


Had to convert from metric to English. If someone can do the yearly average, that'll be nice. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created Template:Lhasa weatherbox using metric first, as that is what it used in China and pretty much everywhere else in the world except the USA. --Joowwww (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This metric is definetively not useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen in Lhasa[edit]

Forgive me if I'm exposing my woefully out of date knowledge of earth sciences, but the change recently made by seems suspect in one part. The fact that Lhasa has 68% of the oxygen found at sea level was already there, and I believe it, but the clarifying addition looks wrong. Because the atmospheric pressure is lower, you would already be getting less oxygen per unit volume. But he adds that the actual *percentage* of oxygen is 68% of that at sea level (14% vs 21%), which seems wrong. Oxygen is not a particularly heavy molecule relative to nitrogen and other trace gasses, so I would think that the lower oxygen should not be by percentage, simply by volume. Can someone confirm my admittedly shaky memories from high school science? ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absent confirmation from others, I've done a little checking. According to, "The percentage of those molecules that are oxygen is exactly the same: 21%. The problem is that there are fewer molecules of everything present, including oxygen." So the clarifying sentence was wrong, as I suspected. I've reverted the change. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

for rayshade[edit]

the only 1 reference I removed is a useless mention that the two sites are unesco heritage site. That is utterly unncessary to be in the intro to the city article and covered more than once in other articles and links. If you want, go add that useless reference back and make a statement that they are. The other reference was moved to the geography and climate section, where it is a lot more appropriate than the intro. Also, it seems there is actually some concern in the above discussion about it that I will not involve myself into. Don't just reverse other people's work because a reference removed tag without looking at the changes. It really turns people off from actually improving poorly written articles. (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with nearly all of your changes except for the grammar facet. Usually when there are grammar issues, I do not edit unless I have more substantial changes. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to get agitated over such a small issue. However, I didn't see much a change in the content except removal of two references, now we're missing ref for altitude as well. I'd consider Unesco to be important enough to keep here as well. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
well let's add the references back in (reverting 6 edits is not a small deal). ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Again I would like to mention that the altitude statement along with its reference is in full in the geography section... I will add the UNESCO reference back now but to the culture section along with the 3 other references there. There's no need to clutter up the intro. I spend an hour looking over an article and bam you just go and rv ALL my work. You could just add the 1 reference back yourself if you cared so much. I do NOT think that's a small deal and part of the reason why I'm not active on wikipedia anymore. (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to fix the faulty UNESCO reference. But be assured that not all editors on Wikipedia will take issue with the non-idle removal of just one to three references; I certainly do not. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lhasa[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lhasa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CMA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 04:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The demographics chart[edit]

There is already poor info on demographics for this article. I have no idea who had to remove the only chart with real numbers in here. I'm gonna try and dig it back. Please do not delete it. Pal2002 (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

perhaps moved entirely by Dr. Blofeld into the article Lhasa Prefecture, which I don't think is an entirely legitimate article. Which reminds me, I should get to opening a deletion or merge debate soon. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No mention of 1951 Chinese Occupation?[edit]

I can see very clearly that this article omits much of the city's history as the centre focus of the Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1951 as well as subsequent restructing after the Cutural Revolution including the systematic destruction of much of Lhasa's religious institutions whose people follow dearly as apart of their basic livlihoods. Therefore it is a biased and thus incomplete article.

Aside from this, it should at least show that the history of the city (and the greater TAR) is contraversial as some accept that it was always under China while others protest that it was independent prior to the establishment of the TAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Chinese invasion of Lhasa in 7th century did not exist[edit]

The following statement is false: "It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet, that after Songtsen Gampo died in 650 A.D., the Chinese Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa,[7][8] "but they could not sustain their presence there in the hostile environment, so they soon returned to China."[9]"

At first I thought I learned something new, I had read books by the Dalai Lama and others but none talked about this Chinese invasion of Lhasa in the 7th century. But I soon realized that it cannot be true. The Tibetans themselves have never mentioned it. Take the “Key events in Tibetan history” a webpage on for example, nowhere is this invasion mentioned. If the Tibetans themselves don’t know it, such event simply did not exist. The Chinese do not know about this either.

A Chinese invasion that reached Lhasa in the 7th century was impossible, given the fact that from the time of King Songtsen Gampo to King Ralpacan, Tibet was militarily strong and dominated the region. The fact that Chinese emperor was compelled to married his daughter to King Songtsen Gampo and that later Chinese emperors in the Tang Dynasty had to pay tributes to the Tibetan King showed the strength of the Tibetan army. In addition to Tibet’s strong army the harsh terrain and severe weather also played significant roles in defense.

Three sources are used to back this questionable statement: 1. Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. 2. Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom (1960). The China quarterly, Issue 1. p. 88. Retrieved 2010-07-17. 3. Roger E. McCarthy Tears of the lotus: accounts of Tibetan resistance to the Chinese invasion, 1950-1962. I checked the sources. 1) On page 28 of Tibet Past and Present it says “Tibetan tradition records that after the death of Song-tsen Gam-po, which occurred about A.D. 650, the Chinese captured Lhasa.” 2) This source merely paraphrase the information provided by the 1st source. 3) This source reported the same information but added some color to it. It appears that the claim was derived from the 1st source Tibet Past and Present.

The author of this Tibet Past and Present quoted the Tibetans but the Tibetans themselves were not (and are not) aware of such event themselves. Such false statement should not be included in the article.Tibetsnow (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. The absence of a historical event on does not indicate that "the Tibetans themselves were not (and are not) aware of such event themselves".
  2. Even if the event does not appear in Tibetan records, which you have not proven, and is something which would be discussed in reliable sources if it were so, you would say that the event does not appear in Tibetan records, instead of blanking all mention of the event. Quigley (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The absence of this event on and the Dalai Lama's books do indicate that "the Tibetans themselves were not (and are not) aware of such event themselves". And thus one can say "the event does not appear in Tibetan records." I am interested in providing an accurate account to the readers.Tibetsnow (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It absolutely does not. is operated by the Free Tibet Campaign, a London-based group campaigning for Tibetan independence. Not only does it not represent a group providing a comprehensive review of the scholarly literature, it also represents a group prone to manipulating historical facts for political gain. Quigley (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
In response to this edit, you cannot say that "no Tibetan sources reported such event" without a reputable source saying so, because that is original research. Also, you've provided no solid basis for removing the other sourced material. Quigley (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC) is operated by Tibetans and the Dalai Lama is the Tibetan leader, the fact that none of them have mentioned such an invasion shows that it did not exist. The statement from Roger E. McCarthy adds nothing to verify the event. Tibetsnow (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
And where is the evidence that is more of a reliable source on history than most scholars on Tibet? There is probably a reason why a Tibetan independence organisation would not mention anything on the Tang Dynasty—It preceded the Yuan Dynasty's control of Tibet, which is far more relevant to their cause, by some 400 years. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You said: "where is the evidence that is more of a reliable source on history than most scholars on Tibet? Find me one historian who has reported this invasion of the Chinese in the 7th century. Charles Bell doesn't count; he was not a historian but a political officer. represents the Tibetan people and they have no reason to conceal any wrong doing of the Chinese. And you have also ignored the fact that the Dalai Lama has never mentioned this either. Are you guys calling the Tibetans liars?
The Tibetans have provided a record of key events in Tibetan history starting from 602AD. Why would they leave such an important event out if it did took place? Look Charles Bell made an mistake; it is up to people like us to verify the claims and correct the mistakes. If we keep this mistake in the article knowingly, we are guilty of manipulating information. Tibetsnow (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
" represents the Tibetan people" could not be farther from the truth. They are the liars. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you are angry with; and are you going to call the Dalai Lama a liar too?Tibetsnow (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Saying that the Dalai Lama completely agrees with is a fallacy. One advocates independence, but the other does not. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the ad hominem attacks and almost comically faulty arguments from authority make it difficult to take this editor seriously. No more needs to be said from this side. If Tibetsnow can reevaluate the arguments against his/her changes, and formulate a reasonable response, then they might not be reverted. Quigley (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Quigley, do you know what is comically faulty? The version you prefer says: “It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet, that after Songtsen Gampo died in 650 A.D., the Chinese Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa[7][8] ." This statement claims to be reporting what is recorded in the Tibetan tradition but the sources provided are Western. It is a gross manipulation, an outright lie. Why would you prefer a version that tells a lie? Tibetsnow (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A Tibetan author first made the claim in 1926, not charles bell[edit]

Rin-chen Lha-mo is clearly a Tibetan name. He wrote this book "We Tibetans: an intimate picture, by a woman of Tibet, of an interesting and distinctive people, in which it is shown how they live, their beliefs, their outlook, their work & play, & how they regard themselves and others", published in 1926, decades before Charles Bell. "Wars between China and Tibet were frequent in those days, and the honours would appear to have been evenly divided. On one occasion, circa ad 650, the armies of the Empire over-ran the Kingdom and captured Lhasa, the Tibetan capital"

Claiming that Charles Bell first made the claim is grossly inaccurate and misleading. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, this is why I like Wiki. There is always new information provided by concerted people.
Now who is this Rin-chen- Lha-mo? Is he/she a historian? I ask this because the statement in the book regarding the capture of Lhasa is just one short sentence without any supporting information. One quick example of what the description of a real event looks like. The following is about the Tibetan capture of the Chinese capital Chang'an: "In 755 China had been greatly weakened by the An Shi Rebellion, which would last until 763. In contrast, Trisong Detsän's reign was characterized by the reassertion of Tibetan influence in Central Asia. Early in his reign regions to the West of Tibet paid homage to the Tibetan court. From that time onward the Tibetans pressed into the territory of the Tang emperors, reaching the Chinese capital Chang'an (modern Xian) in late 763.[33] Tibetan troops occupied Chang'an for fifteen days and installed a puppet emperor while Emperor Daizong was in Luoyang." We all know that this incident did take place because it has been recorded in Tibetan and Chinese history. And because it is real, there are tones of information about it. In contrast the capture of Lhasa is not recorded in Tibetan and Chinese history. All we have is just one sentence in both Charles Bell and Rin-chen- Lha-mo's books. It is like the Chinese army dropped down from the sky to capture Lhasa and then evaporate into thin air.
Capturing Lhasa in the 7th century would have been a great military victory, I can assure you that it would not be forgotten by the Chinese if it did happened. Tibetsnow (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Rin-chen- Lha-mo's book is a self-published; it does not meet Wiki standards. Tibetsnow (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Your wrong about Lhamo and bell being the only two sources for the attack- it was recorded by earlier historians like Friedrich Hirth and Hugh Richardson, Michael Aris that there was a controversy over the dating of the attack on Lhasa, whether it occured in 650 and 670, the Dalai Lama was even involved in the dispute over which story was true or not.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason for you to use all these self-published books to support your point of view? And all these self-published material provide no supporting information and they all just repeat the same sentence. Look, there is no reputable sources reporting this event because it was just a mistake by someone. The Dalai Lama is aware of the dispute but he has never said it happened. Tibetsnow (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see you debunk the credentials of all of the authors in the sources I used above, show me how the Tibetologist Hugh Edward Richardson is an unreliable source?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And your Straw Man attack is not going well- "University of London. Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom" is NOT a self published source....ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hugh Edward Richardson might be a Tibetologist but his book is self-published therefore should not be used. University of London. Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom is NOT a self published source so it is included. However, this publication is no history book and it merely repeats Bell's claim. You have not respond to my statement that if this incident did take place then why isn't it included in Tibetan and Chinese history. Also, again, if it was real the Dalai Lama would have verified it, the fact that he has not done so shows that it was not real. What is your motivation for including false information? Tibetsnow (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Your theory that this is misinformation by Bell, a single person, is disproved by the fact that "Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom" was published in 1960, and Charles Bell published his book in 1992. the claim was NOT made up by Bell, academic institutions like the University of London published information regarding it way before Bell wrote his book. Nearly every other source used predates Bell's book by decades. you continue to insist that these books written before Bell "repeats Bell's claim"....ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The Dalai Lama hasn't verified it so its not real? As far as I'm aware, no wikipedia rule, or academic institutions require verfication by the Dalai Lama to determine if an event is true.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles Bell's statement predates others. The book "Tibet Past and Present" was published in 1992 but other versions of it was published in the early part of the 20th century. Sir Charles Bell was born in 1870, he served as the commending political officer in Tibet area for 18 years beginning in 1904. He was a personal friend of the 13th Dalai Lama and was the first white man permitted to stay in Lhasa for a year where he studied Tibetan history. He wrote a few influential books on Tibet before passing. "Tibet Past and Present" is very likely a reprint of one of his books. whoever wrote that paper on "Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom" published in 1960 must have read Bell's books.

You said "The Dalai Lama hasn't verified it so its not real?" My answer is yes, because we are talking about Tibetan history here. In addition, no history books (Tibetan, Chinese or Western) have reported this event. You said "academic institutions like the University of London published information regarding it." Well, a Paper published on the China quarterly by University of London does not represent the view of the university and definitely not the views of "academic institutions." Tibetsnow (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see an attempt I made to correct several obvious errors on the page has been reverted without any attention to what was written except one part. The summary speaks of the 650 CE 'event' and controversies. Unfortunately, I added information or corrections elsewhere which were expunged along with my rewrite of the passage under discussion. So I have restored the text under dispute, adding the new source, which explains what the WP:OR statement 'No Tibetan or Chinese source records this event' confuses. Chinese sources universally date the wars to two decades afterwards. But there is one old Tibetan tradition which Bell and others, through a long series of secondary sources, cite for this datum. Scholars, not only Chinese, have argued apparently that this source has been meddled with by the insertion of a late interpolation.
Look, all of this period is hazy. Even the story of the marriage to Bhrikuti is doubted, and often considered to be a retroactive myth. We should be careful of evaluating sources for their POV, and certainly be wary of non-academic travel guides as sources for early Tibetan history. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"One Tibetan text apparently carries this notice, though its reliability is doubted since it may be a later interpolation." This statement sounds like a POV.Tibetsnow (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I reorganized the paragraph trying to provide an accurately report. This claim came from Bell. Tiezheng Li may not have been to Tibet and his book was published in 1960. Tibetsnow (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(a)You elided, against wiki rules, a statement based on WP:RS, while retaining the source. As it stands now, the state you left the text in, we have Tiezzheng Li being cited for what he did not say. Nothing preceding the citation is in that source.

(b) Unless you can come up with a source within the next few days for:

However this event is not recorded by any authoritative sources in the West, Tibet and China.

i.e. unless you can produce an RS stating precisely what you write here, the remark remains as you wrote it, unsourced, and therefore WP:OR, and will be removed.

(c)'to provide an accurately report' is not English.

(d)To expunge an edit because to you personally it 'sounds like a POV' is against best wiki practice, since what you appear to be doing is repressing information because it counters you own POV, or beliefs or whatever.

(e) I'd advise you to go to a library and check Li Tiezheng's book, either in its 2nd edition 1960 or any Chinese translation, to confirm that what I paraphrased was a statement on p.6 of that book.

(f)'Tiezheng Li may not have been to Tibet and his book was published in 1960.' These are not recognised criteria in wiki for rejecting a piece of scholarship. 'may not have been to' is your guesswork. Check the biography of 李鐵錚 for his postings from Gansu to Iraq, his doctoral background and qualifications. Read the Chinese edition of the book (西藏歷來的法律地位)if you prefer.

(g) 'According to a British political officer,' is POV, since you are describing a distinguished Western Tibetologist, Charles Alfred Bell, in terms of one of his early non-scholarly capacities in order to sow doubts about his reliability. Many early orientalists began as missionaries, military men or diplomatic officials,Isaac Jacob Schmidt, Alexander Wylie, Hugh Edward Richardson, James Legge, Basil Hall Chamberlain, Ernest Satow, William George Aston, even David Snellgrove

(h) It is not within the rights of any editor to set up personal criteria for accepting or rejecting sources written by specialists, as you have done here. The point you refuse to allow, is attested in an RS by an accomplished area scholar, and therefore must stand, whether it is (WP:V) true or not.

In brief, please familiarize yourself with wiki procedures. This is not a battleground for opinions or personal research. Li Tiezheng states specifically that one early Tibetan text makes this assertion. He judges it as an interpolation, because neither the Tunhuang manuscripts, nor Chinese annals confirm this remark. Charles Alfred Bell cannot be described as a 'political officer'. He was a distinguished early tibetologist, and perhaps was familiar with the Tibetan source, or Tibetan histories citing it, which Bell's early work appears to refer to.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the passage so that (a)Bell's notice that a Tibetan tradition holds Lhasa was captured in 650 and (b) Li's suggestion this tradition in Tibet (which he acknowledges as having a textual basis) may have arisen from a late interpolation into a Tibetan book, (implying it is spurious). You have therefore (1) a tibetologist's point of view (2)the Tibetan tradition and (3) a scholarly piece of scepticism from a Chinese scholar and diplomat disavowing that tradition's veracity. This covers all angles, and all POVs, while remaining absolutely neutral as to the truth or otherwise of the tradition. If more research throws up more light on this, by all means, let's discuss it.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles Bell's career was in politics and retired as a high level political officer. The bio on his book Tibet Past and Present introduces him as Sir Charles Bell, a political officer. This is why I introduce him as a political officer. I don't have a POV. Now please find me a creditable source that calls him a "Tibetologist." You said: "please familiarize yourself with wiki procedures." Well, it looks like I am not the one who is using a POV. In any case, you could have talk to me first before accuse me of violating rules. Tibetsnow (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I spoke of wiki procedures because you registered, apparently, 2 weeks ago and have consistently ignored consensus while reverting or restoring a controversial edit on predominantly this page. You have about 50 edits to your credit. However, you apear to be ignoring what fellow editors with long experience are saying to you, and do not understand how consensus on edits is established. If you make an edit several editors question, you should not keep restoring it to the page. This is called edit-warring. You should work out the issue on the talk page and help achieve an agreement on the wording of the text. This you haven't done.
You have ignored the many examples I give of orientalists and Tibetologists in particular who won recognition as experts despite the fact that they came to the field from other areas, be it politics, science (Joseph Needham), or religion, or whatever.
You ask for evidence Charles Bell was a Tibetologist and recognized by such. He is recognized as such by Tibetologists and by the Tibetan community (even if his advice at Simla in 1914 is regarded as disastrous).
  • Charles Bell is classified as a Tibetologist in wikipedia (англо-индийский тибетолог; een Brits-Indiaas tibetoloog; tibetólogo británico; un tibétologue indo-britannique; en britisk-indisk tibetolog). That is no proof or RS, but it shows that it is normative for editors to accept the verdict of sources (except here, on this page).
  • The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford classifies Bell's papers under 'Tibetologist'. (Bell Papers Papers of Sir Charles Alfred BELL (1870-1945), colonial administrator and Tibetologist)
  • Glenn H. Mullin is a Tibetologist. In his Path of the Bodhisattva warrior: the life and teachings of the thirteenth Dalai Lama we read:
  • ‘Shortly after the Great Thirteenth’s arrival in Darjeeling he met with Sir Charles Bell. Over the years to follow, this sensitive and kind Englishman, who years earlier had acquired a flawless command of the Tibetan language, was to become the Dalai Lama’s closest British friend. He was also to serve as one of the most important Western spokesmen for Tibet in those early days of “Tibetology”, authoring half a dozen books of Tibetan culture.’ Glenn H. Mullin, Path of the Bodhisattva warrior: the life and teachings of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, Snow Lion Publications, 1988 p.77
To write that he was a 'political officer', and ignore the fact he was an intimate of the Dalai Lama, fluent in Tibetan and its dialects, a pioneer writer on the Tibetan language and one of the foremost scholars of that culture and its language in the earlier half of the 19th.century, is to affirm here a personal POV, by twisting his biography to highlight his official career, and undercut his scholarly status.
This and many other wiki articles on Tibet suffers from disinformation, sheer errors, incompeteness and lack of adequate sourcing. There's much work to be done, and fighting over what one may perceive to be the 'politics' of the page is a waste of time. The facts, duly sourced, will speak for themselves.I personally don't believe Lhasa was captured by the Chinese. But several authorities confirm that some written Tibetan traditions assert this. My obligation is to write this, independently of any subliminal innuendoes (precedents for Chinese domination, etc. whatever) some may choose to read into this.
I hope you accept the above evidence as responsive to your request, and reconsider the edit you keep reinserting.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Nishidani, I am not as new to Wikipedia as you think. I was active a few years ago but after not being here for about four years, I cannot remember the old user name and password. As you can see above I have had disagreements with some editors and I argued based on Wiki rules. I did not revert the article back to the same version; it is different every time including information provided by others. Charles Bell is called a Tibetologist by some; however he was a career political officer. To conceal this fact and call him a Tibetologist instead is disingenuous, especially his study of Tibetan history was closely link to his work as a political officer.Tibetsnow (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I take that as a non-answer. You asked that I find you 'a creditable source that calls him a "Tibetologist".' I have done so. Your objection therefore falls.
Ernest Mason Satow was a 'Japanologist'. He was also a career political officer of the British legation, then Embassy, in Japan. He, like other officers there, became a great scholar of things Japanese. He is now regarded as the founder of Japanology (Early Japanology: Aston, Satow, Chamberlain, Greenwood Press, 1998); Hugh Edward Richardson was a career officer in the British Foreign Office who went on to become a distinguished Tibetologist (Namkhai Norbu,Journey among the Tibetan nomads: an account of a remote civilization, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 1997 p.x);T.F.Wade was a British diplomat, who became a distinguished sinologist (Lauren F. Pfister, Striving for the "whole duty of man:: James Legge and the Scottish Protestant encounter with China,Peter Lang, 2004 p.152), so for that matter was Herbert A. Giles.
It was the norm in those days to have two careers, and Bell was no exception. He wrote that after his retirement, not during his political career. To highlight his remarks on a theoretical issue as those of a 'political officer' looks like a tactical attempt to undercut his scholarship by insinuating he had a diplomatic bias in making that judgement. The judgement was made on the basis of his close familiarity with classical Tibetan books. It is therefore inappropriate to persist in this quibble, which flies in the face of the obvious and only wastes people's time. Please reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, serendipidy strikes. I have just read on p.123 of Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa's magnificent book the following: 'After the death of Songtsen Gampo, Chinese troops arrived in Lhasa, setting fire to the Red Palace. . .However, there is not even a slight mention in the dynastic history of China or in the Dunhuang records that this happened . .I think that those histories reporting the arrival of the Chinese troops in Lhasa are not correct. Also, this may be just an unreliable rumour.'
He adds that the same texts however that images were stowed away at the time apparently to avert some real danger. I assume therefore that assigning this report to a British political officer can no longer stand. That this is reported in Tibetan annals is confirmed by the Chinese scholar and by a great Tibetan scholar, independently of Bell. I will therefore assume there can no longer be an objection to the edit, and will revise accordingly.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
But Shakabpa himself says that the invasion of Lhasa is probably just an unreliable rumour. It's noteworthy than Sam van Schraik, in his new Tibet: A History, makes no mention of an early conquest of Lhasa.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not in a lot of other general histories of Tibet either. However, I am extremely wary of tampering with a wiki text as I find it (Bell's report) where that text has good RS support. The text was challenged as untrue, as motivated by political bias, as non-existent in Tibetan sources, as unconfirmed in any Western or Chinese secondary source. All of these accusations prove, on inspection, to be false. Since it is now clear that this forms part of a Tibetan 'historical tradition', which some historians question or ignore while several sources note the tradition as possible, improbable, or true, as an editor I have no alternative but to register what WP:RS say on this. Shakabpa merely states he is unconvinced of the notice in his native annals, expresses his own suspicions, yet, like all good scholars, leaves the question open, because circumstantial details of the period do suggest some emergency against an outside threat may have taken place, causing provisions to be made to conceal important treasures.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the current wording in the article, which discusses the issues around whether or not the invasion occurred.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Nishidani, I don’t object to calling Bell a Tibetologist, what I object to is concealing the fact that he was a political officer. If you had add Tibetologist to his description it would have been be ok, but you replaced “political officer” with “Tibetologist.” Editing rules in general asks editors to add not delete. I see that you described Lǐ Tiězhēng as a Chinese “diplomat” and “scholar.” Why can’t you describe Bell as a political officer and Tibetologist?
The following sentence added by you is misleading: “Some Tibetan sources report that after Songtsän Gampo's death in 650 C.E., Chinese troops captured Lhasa and burnt the Red Palace.” The source cited is Charles Bell’s book and nowhere in his book mentions the burning of the Red Palace. I have made changes to correct the mistakes.Tibetsnow (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As a minimal courtesy could I ask you not to keep shifting the goalposts.
Bell, Li and Shakabpa, all three, concur that Tibetan sources register a Chinese capture of Lhasa after the king's death. They disagree on its probability as an historical event. The text you rewrote, ignoring everything I have documented in this exhausting thread, restored the false impression only Bell maintains that records register this attack. You evidently are not reading what I wrote here, or the relevant sources. Your adjustment just reinstates the view that Bell alone is responsible for the idea.
In principle on an article like a city, or country, I do not think we should jam up things by singling out on the page who said what. This is poor practice, and is best left to the notes and bibliography. I found that a huge fuss was being made over Charles Bell, with an edit war that insisted that, in a text on Lhasa, we devote mainspace to defining his 'political' role when citing his work. If we did this in wiki, articles would be happy hunting grounds for POV writers since a huge number of books of scholarship are written by people with a political past. We do not mention every time we harvest Owen Lattimore's seminal works on Inner Mongolia the fact that (unfounded) suspicious still exist that he was a Soviet spy, or that he was an advisor to General Chiang Kai-shek. If we cite E. Herbert Norman on the Tokugawa period, it is not necessary to add that he was a Canadian diplomat, or suspected of being a Soviet agent. Chalmers Johnson worked for the CIA. We do not put that into articles dealing with MITI, on which he has written the authoritative account.
  • You asked me 'please find me a creditable source that calls him a "Tibetologist".'
    • I did so.
  • You reply now that you don't object to Bell being called a Tibetologist, but insist we must call him, in citing him, a political officer. I have already extensively answered that. A very large number of sinologists, orientalistis, tibetologists and japanologists had political careers while they perfected their knowledge of oriental languages and cultures. In citing them for information on those cultures and their language, we cite them for their scholarly accomplishments, not for details in the curriculum vitae. You have not replied to this, which obviously undoes your insistance that the text cite his political background.
  • When he wrote that book, he had been retired for several years, and was no longer a political officer for the British Foreign Office.
  • I added the facts about Li Tiezheng to placate your insistance that Bell's views be contextualized as the views of someone who was also a political officer once. It shouldn't be there of course, and while reverting you, I have elided these details, which are not appropriate to the maintext of an article on Lhasa. Please do not edit-war, and please try to look at other parts of the article, which, like most in this area, is in desperate need of improving editing. It is not polite to keep reverting to your default view notwithstanding the comments several editors have made, and notwithstanding the exhausting measures your erroneous objections compel me to take to answer every point you raise with concrete, well sourced detail. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Your changing 'some Tibetan sources report' to 'some sources mentioned' is against all narrative style. History books or chronicles aren't said to have 'mentioned' (past tense), which would imply unjustifiably that they no longer do so (Shakabpa is a Tibetan sources which was written recently and still 'mentions' this). Thucydides reports, Gibbon writes, Herodotus says, etc. We use the past tense to indicate that in the given historical work such or such a statement is made. You have also elided 'Tibetan' as a qualification, after insisting for so long no Tibetan source exists which said what Bell reported. Adhesion to stylistic norms in a language is important on wikipedia. Reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Bell’s book is no Tibetan source; he claims that a “Tibetan tradition” reported this capture of Lhasa but I could not find any Tibetan sources reporting this event. Shakabpa is Tibetan, however he himself says that the invasion of Lhasa is very likely just a rumor, so he is not “reporting” it. Based on the fact that no Tibetan, Chinese Western sources are reporting this event, I used the word “mentioned”. You inserted the following “burnt the Red Palace” and the source cited is Shakabpa’s book. Since Shakabpa did not witness the incident where did he get his information? Tibetsnow (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Who said Bell's book was a Tibetan source? I didn't. I wrote 'Some Tibetan sources report'. So I don't know why you bring up this queer suggestion with me. Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I can now see what your problem was. You were misconstruing the meaning of the English sentence. 'Some Tibetan sources report' refers to the Tibetan chronicles which Bell, Shakabpa and Li refer to. The first are primary sources, the others (Bell, Shakabpa, Li) secondary sources. In wikipedia one uses the best secondary sources to relate what primary sources note. You were, erroneously, taking 'sources' to refer to the secondary sources I adduced, sources which are unanimous in confirming that a Tibetan historical tradition mentions or reports a Chinese assault on Lhasa in 650. They only bdiffer in their evaluation of the veracity of this tradition.
(2) you cannot use mention or refer in the past tense in these contexts. The damage this does to the article is that it suggests, and the implication is extremely odd, that once upon a time old history books mentioned a fact, but now the same old history books, like a magic volume out of Harry Potter, no longer mention this fact or tradition. That is why in narrative we customarily use the present tense. Please take care in carefully parsing what other editors write. This misreading has caused much unnecessary misunderstanding and supererogatory explanation not conducive to efficient editing. Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Tibetan source that records the capture of Lhasa is the primary sources. Bell’s and all other accounts of the event are secondary sources. The problem here is that the primary account doe not exist. Bell did not provide it, Li could not locate it and Shakabpa also failed to locate it. Let me give you an example how primary source is cited. Bell wrote on page 153, “the Feast of Pleasure for the Perfected Youths gave an account, written in the time of the fifth Dalai Lama, of the early boundaries between China and Tibet.” Here he provided a Tibetan record, a primary source, but such a record is not provided on the capture of Lhasa. And this primary source is what I have been looking for. I noticed that in your lengthy response you failed to answer my question. So again, where did Shakabpa find that the Chinese “burnt the Red Palace?” He cannot be the primary source.Tibetsnow (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You are in defiance of policy in insisting on further information. Please read WP:RS, Since you say you are not a newbie, you are expected to know policy, and not ask other editors to discuss the primary sources used by scholars writing the secondary sources we are requested to harvest.Nishidani (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, my question does not violate any Wiki rules. I am genuinely interested in the subject. You are the only one who have read Shakabpa’s One Hundred Thousand Moons, a book that costs $400 on Amazon. Just treat me as a truth seeker, share your information with me and others here, why wouldn’t you? It is a very simple task, just go to page 123 of the book and tell us whether a source is provided. A great strength/function of Wikipedia is the sharing of information. You can ask me anything and I will try my best to help. Accusing me when you can easily provide an answer doesn’t reflect well on your honesty. Tibetsnow (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just don't make wild assertions or unsubstantiated generalizations about Tibetan history, that was my point. If you really are interested look up Kun-dga’rdo-rje. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are dodging my simple request again. Based on your response I can safely assume that the burning of the Red Palace is not mentioned in Shakabpa’s One Hundred Thousand Moons. In fact, the Red Palace was not built until 1694.[2]Tibetsnow (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not dodging anything. I happen to know precisely, in what Tibetan book, this notice was first made, and can give you the full details. This has absolutely nothing to do with wikipedia, and I am reluctant to provide you with the information you request because you keep making false statements, and accusing people otherwise well-disposed to sharing their knowledge with evasiveness or dodging, even when, as editors, they are absolutely under no obligation to communicate to anyone here about what they privately know, particularly when it is not germane to the kind of very simple edit I correctly made, and which you keep denying, despite not knowing much about the subject. I see below that someone has now provided you with a link to p.123 of Shakabpa's book. By clicking on it, you can read directly what Shakabpa says, which is precisely what in my several edits I reported him as saying. In his book he does not footnote the primary sources for this remark. But since he is impeccably RS, what he states must stand, and cannot be impugned by private (WP:OR) research. If you retreat from your habit of impugning great and good scholars and men, and simply ask politely, and undertake to follow wikipedia's protocols in future editing strictly, I might reconsider giving you the details about the primary source you request, which are not in Shakabpa, Li, or Bell, and don't need to be, since we only use secondary sources (WP:RS) here. What you are asking me for is a personal favour, after having insinuated I am mentally unstable. If I see good manners I am willing to share anything, but I don't . . . (fill in the appropriate proverb). Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Nishidani, you refuse to give me information only because you want to hide your dishonesty and manipulation. I question your mental health only after your repeatedly left lengthy ramblings on my talk page. I am the kind of person that once I am into something I will pursue it to the end, no matter how long it takes. Tibetsnow (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Shakabpa's One Hundred Thousands Moons and Li Tiezheng's books are available right here (and yes, it mentions the red palace)[edit]

Shakabpa's book "One hundred thousands moons" page 123 is available right here- he mentions a burning and the red palace.

W. D. Shakabpa, Derek F. Maher (2010). One hundred thousand moons, Volume 1. BRILL. p. 123. ISBN 9004177884. Retrieved 2011-07-06.  Unknown parameter |editon= ignored (|edition= suggested) (help)

Li Tiezheng's book is available here-

Tiezheng Li (Lǐ Tiězhēng (李鐵錚)) (1960). Tibet, today and yesterday. Bookman Associates. p. 6. Retrieved 2011-07-06.  Unknown parameter |editon= ignored (|edition= suggested) (help)

Tieh-tseng Li, Tiezheng Li (1956). The historical status of Tibet. the University of Michigan: King's Crown Press, Columbia University. p. 6. Retrieved 2011-07-06. 

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, thanks for the information. The Red Palace as we know it today was built in 1694. Is there another Red Palace in Tibet? I like to get to the bottom of issues, and I have no interest in edit warring. Tibetsnow (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are, I just note, edit warring, in the sense that you are constantly rephrasing secondary sources to represent a POV, against a general consensus. It is not our brief to question Shakabpa. He may have had his own good textual reasons, being a deeply erudite Tibetan scholar, for calling Songtsan Gampo's palace on "Red Hill", the 'Red Palace' as distinct from the later palace built next to the Potala. You are constantly asking for more information than presently available RS provide, and that is not the way we do things here. And the moment someone concedes some information, you immediately run to the text, and selectively change it to fit your thesis (which happens to coincide with what I believe (in the sense I am inclined to think the story in Tibetan sources about a Chinese invasion in 650 of Lhasa is a later legend retrofitted to explain certain attested facts in Wen Cheng's biography), only I do not think what I personally know should interfere with what I must edit in).Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some points[edit]

  • 1. 'Songtsän Gampo . . constructed . . the gompas (temples) of Meru Nyingba, Tsamkhung and Drak Lhaluphuk.'

This is troublesome for many reasons. Gompas are not associated with the period of Songtsän Gampo. The first monastic gompas were built in the reign of Tr’isong Deutsen, almost a century later.

  • 2. Dorje on pp.68-0 doesn't attribute these three structures to Songtsän Gampo. He says they were built around his time. (‘Other significant constructions from that period included the nine storey Pawangka tower/hermitage; and the temples of Meru Nyingba, Tsamkhung , and Drak Lhaluphuk).'
  • 3 At least Dorje kept the hermitage/tower as one structure. Our article gave the impression, citing him, that they were two. This has been fixed.
  • 4. The details I have removed
    • Together with Wen Cheng, he also constructed a nine-storey phodrang or palace (Nyangdren Pawangka Phodrang), whose base now forms the foundations of the later two storey Pabonka Hermitage.[2][3].[4] Throughout the royal period Lhasa remained a religious centre, but did not become the seat of government.[5]

  • relate to a structure about a good hour's walk outside the old city limits of Lhasa. Perhaps we should define exactly whether it is appropriate to rope them in to this article which deals basically with the historically small city, and then, after the Chinese invasion, its modern aspect.
  • 5 I have removed the excursus on demographics to the independent section below. At best one could cite two or three sources briefly on its historical population before modern times in the history section.
  • 6 The history section should be filled with the history of the area's buildings, culture, historical episodes. A good deal can be gleaned from Shakabpa's wonderful book to this end.
  • 7 Neither Dorje nor Dowman should be cited on this kind of material, as they have been.

Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion as to how to make the 650 issue comply with article requirements.[edit]

The 650 raid was questioned. It has been debated exhaustively. The talk page retains all relevant details, available to anyone in the future who might ply the worry beads over this. The article is on Lhasa and should not be allowed to get stuck on a petty issue like this. The passage as we have reflects disputes, and has been refined and manicured to reflect the debate that ensued. Now however, we should restore this to a one line notice. Thus I suggest that for

A Tibetan historical tradition mentions that after Songtsän Gampo's death in 650 C.E., Chinese troops captured Lhasa and burnt the Red Palace.[6][7] Chinese and Tibetan scholars have noted that the event is mentioned neither in the Chinese annals nor in the Tibetan manuscripts of Dunhuang. Lǐ suggested that this tradition may derive from an interpolation. [8] Shakabpa allows that the local histories may be in error, or may reflect an unreliable rumour, but adds that circumstantial details suggest more research is needed.[9]

We write:-

A Tibetan historical tradition mentions that after Songtsän Gampo's death in 650 C.E., Chinese troops captured Lhasa and burnt the Red Palace/his palace. Scholars disagree as to it trustworthiness /Modern scholarship is sceptical of the claim).[10][11][12]

If this is too laconic, we could add a line to the notes.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Exposing Nishidani’s dishonesty and manipulative edits[edit]

The current text regarding the capture of Lhasa by Chinese troops in 650 C.E. is written by Nishidani. He claims to be a fair and honest editor but the fact is he has been concealing and manipulating information, and quoting the source out of context to fit his own bias/hidden agenda.

Nishidani’s version:
A Tibetan historical tradition mentions that after Songtsän Gampo's death in 650 C.E., Chinese troops captured Lhasa and burnt the Red Palace.[13][14] Chinese and Tibetan scholars have noted that the event is mentioned neither in the Chinese annals nor in the Tibetan manuscripts of Dunhuang. Lǐ suggested that this tradition may derive from an interpolation. [15] Shakabpa allows that the local histories may be in error, or may reflect an unreliable rumour, but adds that circumstantial details suggest more research is needed.[16]

The link provided by Nishidani here shows only what Nishidani wants us to see. This link here added by me shows the whole page. In the 3rd paragraph, Shakabpa discusses the alleged Chinese troops capture Lhasa incident, and in the end he states, unmistakably, that “those histories reporting the arrival of Chinese troops are not correct." Nishidani conceals Shakabpa's conclusion, manipulates the link to the source, and in addition quotes the source out of context. These evidence establish him to be a guileful manipulator. He has refused repeatedly to provide information because he does not want people to discover the truth. His edits cannot be trusted.

In directly quoting Shakabpa’s conclusion I edited the text,here. It was reverted by Quigley accusing me of quoting Shakabpa out of context here. Such blatant disregard of the truth cannot be tolerated here. Tibetsnow (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear me. You accuse me of 'manipulating the link to the source', and 'quot(ing) the source out of context', making me out to be a 'guileful manipulator', Had you read my original citation from Shakabpa on this talk page you should have remembered that I quoted him precisely for his view, which you say I guilefully manipulate or suppress, that these Tibetan histories may not be 'correct'. I haven't refused to give information. I doubt whether citing the primary source Shakabpa probably (my WP:OR) is using (dGe-ba-ba’i blo-gros, Deb ther dmar po, (1346 CE) 9a 5-6, which speaks of an invasion) would help anyone. But there, despite the insults I'll provide one of the Tibetan histories about the putative event you deny is recorded in Tibetan annals. I hope this concession in the face of repeated insults is enough to put an end to this tireless badgering. Good evening.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Nishidani, I am talking about your edit on the Lhasa page not that on this talk page, you are trying to confuse people. Why not respond to my accusation directly? Be a man for once. In the last two weeks you have wasted much of my time (and your time) with your manipulative tactics, ..... .Tibetsnow (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You better put off the personal attacks and cool down, and stop treating this talk page like a forum. Your constant off topic nagging on this talk page (demanding that other editors provide information which is irrelevant to the reliability to the source ie., the original Tibetan text and info on the red palace), in addition, your personal attacks, calling another editor unstable and attacking him as untrustworthy, are getting on everyone's nerves.
I'm not, and neither is Nishidani oblidged to answer your off topic demands on supplying information regarding the primary source or on details like the red palace. They constitute treating this talk page like a forum, which it is not.
on the top of this talk page, in bold, it states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lhasa article"- "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
Shakabpa clearly states "I think that those histories reporting the arrival of the Chinese troops in Lhasa are not correct.", he also says on the fourth paragraph that "More research is needed to resolve these questions." He clearly states that the histories being incorrect as his personal opinion, not as a factΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Shakabpa's scholarly opinion is what the article should report. The incident is a rumor that is why no scholar can find any facts. The subject in the 4th paragraph is the Jowo images. It states: “it also says that the Chinese consort wanted to have the two jowo images switched in their places. More research is needed to resolve these questions." To conceal Shakabpa's conclusion on the subject (Chinese troops capture Lhasa) and use a irrelevant conclusion instead is called quoting him out of context. You have accused me of many things, and here you are still trying to manipulate Shakabpa's statement, shame shame shame. Tibetsnow (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Your entire premise on this talk page has been that Bell, a British tibetologist, manufactured and made up the invasion of Lhasa. Not only does Bell have absolutely no reason, as a British citizen, to make up claims in favor of China, Shakabpa clearly states that histories reported Chinese troops arriving in Lhasa, which disproves everything you said over the past week about Bell faking the invasion. You refuse to admit you were wrong and apologize for spamming the talk page.
Also, read this edit Nishidani made days ago regarding page 123 of Shakabpa's book, and tell us again about "dishonesty". Nishidani quoted the entire sentence about Shakabpa thinking the claim is not correct, and you accuse him of being "dishonest".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I see Nishidani brought out the link himself above. I hope you redact your personal attack and apologize.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never said that Bell manufactured and made up the invasion of Lhasa. You have no evidence to back your accusation. This again shows how reliable your words are. Tibetsnow (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to niggle[edit]

and I think we can eliminate all these details since modern scholarship (a) is fairly assured that there is no evidence for the invasion and (b) thinks the Tibetan histories err in stating this, for ideological reasons. But since Shakabpa is used I dislike the way his 'I think' and 'may be in error' and 'needs further research' (citing from memory) is now reduced to 'believes that "those histories reporting the arrival of Chinese troops are not correct." He was a subtle man, and never closed out the possibility that something just might turn up, an eminently sensible approach.

The sensible line to overcome this overly notated fuss would be 'Some (medieval/early) Tibetan histories report that Chinese troops captured Lhasa in 750. Modern scholarship is sceptical and regards the report as highly improbable.' There's an essay on this by Hugh Richardson, that could replace the thre sources we now use. But, guys, it ain't worth a bunfight if we have to go through the preceding mill again just to simplify this.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


"Such markets and consumerism came to an abrupt end after the arrival of Chinese government troops and administrative cadres in 1950."

Really? That's all this article has to say about the invasion of Tibet? One sentence without any context? Come on people, I think we can do better than that. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you seek a fuller treatment of that military campaign, then read the appropriate article (which, BTW covers more than just the invasion itself). GotR Talk 01:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Few articles have Demographics sections like this article[edit]

No American city have a Demographics section with Amerinds before the Trail of Tears included in a separated "Demographics in the past" section. -- (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Weather AveragesLhasa, CHN" (in English). MSN.  Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Dorje (1999), p. 123.
  3. ^ Dowman (1988), p. 65.
  4. ^ Dorje (1999), pp. 68-9, 201-202.
  5. ^ Bloudeau, Anne-Mari & Gyatso, Yonten. "Lhasa, Legend and History." In: Lhasa in the Seventeenth Century: The Capital of the Dalai Lamas. Françoise Pommaret-Imaeda, Françoise Pommaret 2003, p.24.
  6. ^ Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. CUP Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 28 Extra |pages= or |at= (help). ISBN 8120810481. Retrieved 2010-07-17. 
  7. ^ W. D. Shakabpa One hundred thousand moons, translated with an introduction by Derek F. Maher, BRILL, 2010 Vol.1, p.123.
  8. ^ Lǐ Tiězhēng (李鐵錚), Tibet, today and yesterday, Bookman Associates, 1960 p.6.
  9. ^ W. D. Shakabpa One hundred thousand moons, translated with an introduction by Derek F. Maher BRILL, 2010 Vol.1, p.123.
  10. ^ Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. CUP Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 28 Extra |pages= or |at= (help). ISBN 8120810481. Retrieved 2010-07-17. 
  11. ^ W. D. Shakabpa One hundred thousand moons, translated with an introduction by Derek F. Maher, BRILL, 2010 Vol.1, p.123.
  12. ^ Lǐ Tiězhēng (李鐵錚), Tibet, today and yesterday, Bookman Associates, 1960 p.6.
  13. ^ Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. CUP Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 28 Extra |pages= or |at= (help). ISBN 8120810481. Retrieved 2010-07-17. 
  14. ^ W. D. Shakabpa One hundred thousand moons, translated with an introduction by Derek F. Maher, BRILL, 2010 Vol.1, p.123.
  15. ^ Lǐ Tiězhēng (李鐵錚), Tibet, today and yesterday, Bookman Associates, 1960 p.6.
  16. ^ W. D. Shakabpa One hundred thousand moons, translated with an introduction by Derek F. Maher BRILL, 2010 Vol.1, p.123.