This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
What are circumambulatories? Maurreen (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
"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 67.189.242.42 ( talk) 04:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
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.
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:
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;
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:
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)
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)
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)
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?
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 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)
Thanks Nathan.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Climate data for {{{location}}} | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 45 (7) |
48 (9) |
55 (13) |
61 (16) |
68 (20) |
73 (23) |
72 (22) |
70 (21) |
68 (20) |
63 (17) |
54 (12) |
46 (8) |
60 (16) |
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 18 (−8) |
23 (−5) |
28 (−2) |
36 (2) |
43 (6) |
50 (10) |
52 (11) |
50 (10) |
46 (8) |
36 (2) |
25 (−4) |
18 (−8) |
35 (2) |
Average precipitation inches (mm) | 0.03 (0.76) |
0.04 (1.0) |
0.09 (2.3) |
0.22 (5.6) |
0.91 (23) |
2.32 (59) |
3.81 (97) |
3.86 (98) |
2.19 (56) |
0.19 (4.8) |
0.02 (0.51) |
0.02 (0.51) |
13.7 (348.48) |
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)
Forgive me if I'm exposing my woefully out of date knowledge of earth sciences, but the change recently made by 69.143.37.126 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)
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. 98.225.102.229 ( talk) 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 41.133.49.4 ( talk) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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.
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]
Nishidani ( talk) 18:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 Freetibet.org for example, http://www.freetibet.org/about/key-dates 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)
Saying that the Dalai Lama completely agrees with Freetibet.org is a fallacy. One advocates independence, but the other does not. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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. {{
cite book}}
: 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. {{
cite book}}
: 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. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |editon=
(
help)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
What are circumambulatories? Maurreen (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
"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 67.189.242.42 ( talk) 04:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
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.
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:
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;
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:
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)
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)
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)
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?
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 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)
Thanks Nathan.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Climate data for {{{location}}} | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 45 (7) |
48 (9) |
55 (13) |
61 (16) |
68 (20) |
73 (23) |
72 (22) |
70 (21) |
68 (20) |
63 (17) |
54 (12) |
46 (8) |
60 (16) |
Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 18 (−8) |
23 (−5) |
28 (−2) |
36 (2) |
43 (6) |
50 (10) |
52 (11) |
50 (10) |
46 (8) |
36 (2) |
25 (−4) |
18 (−8) |
35 (2) |
Average precipitation inches (mm) | 0.03 (0.76) |
0.04 (1.0) |
0.09 (2.3) |
0.22 (5.6) |
0.91 (23) |
2.32 (59) |
3.81 (97) |
3.86 (98) |
2.19 (56) |
0.19 (4.8) |
0.02 (0.51) |
0.02 (0.51) |
13.7 (348.48) |
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)
Forgive me if I'm exposing my woefully out of date knowledge of earth sciences, but the change recently made by 69.143.37.126 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)
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. 98.225.102.229 ( talk) 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 41.133.49.4 ( talk) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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.
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]
Nishidani ( talk) 18:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 Freetibet.org for example, http://www.freetibet.org/about/key-dates 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)
Saying that the Dalai Lama completely agrees with Freetibet.org is a fallacy. One advocates independence, but the other does not. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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. {{
cite book}}
: 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. {{
cite book}}
: 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. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |editon=
(
help)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)