Talk:Lhasa/Archive 2

Exposing Nishidani’s dishonesty and manipulative edits

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

Nishidani’s version:

A Tibetan historical tradition mentions that after Songtsän Gampo's death in 650 C.E., Chinese troops captured Lhasa and burnt the Red Palace. 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. 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.

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

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

Oh, dear me. You accuse me of 'manipulating the link to the source', and 'quot(ing) the source out of context', making me out to be a 'guileful manipulator', Had you read my original citation from Shakabpa on this talk page you should have remembered that I quoted him precisely for his view, which you say I guilefully manipulate or suppress, that these Tibetan histories may not be 'correct'. I haven't refused to give information. I doubt whether citing the primary source Shakabpa probably (my WP:OR) is using (dGe-ba-ba’i blo-gros, Deb ther dmar po, (1346 CE) 9a 5-6, which speaks of an invasion) would help anyone. But there, despite the insults I'll provide one of the Tibetan histories about the putative event you deny is recorded in Tibetan annals. I hope this concession in the face of repeated insults is enough to put an end to this tireless badgering. Good evening.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I am talking about your edit on the Lhasa page not that on this talk page, you are trying to confuse people. Why not respond to my accusation directly? Be a man for once. In the last two weeks you have wasted much of my time (and your time) with your manipulative tactics, ..... .Tibetsnow (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You better put off the personal attacks and cool down, and stop treating this talk page like a forum. Your constant off topic nagging on this talk page (demanding that other editors provide information which is irrelevant to the reliability to the source ie., the original Tibetan text and info on the red palace), in addition, your personal attacks, calling another editor unstable and attacking him as untrustworthy, are getting on everyone's nerves.

I'm not, and neither is Nishidani oblidged to answer your off topic demands on supplying information regarding the primary source or on details like the red palace. They constitute treating this talk page like a forum, which it is not.

on the top of this talk page, in bold, it states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lhasa article"- "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Shakabpa clearly states "I think that those histories reporting the arrival of the Chinese troops in Lhasa are not correct.", he also says on the fourth paragraph that "More research is needed to resolve these questions." He clearly states that the histories being incorrect as his personal opinion, not as a factΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Shakabpa's scholarly opinion is what the article should report. The incident is a rumor that is why no scholar can find any facts. The subject in the 4th paragraph is the Jowo images. It states: “it also says that the Chinese consort wanted to have the two jowo images switched in their places. More research is needed to resolve these questions." To conceal Shakabpa's conclusion on the subject (Chinese troops capture Lhasa) and use a irrelevant conclusion instead is called quoting him out of context. You have accused me of many things, and here you are still trying to manipulate Shakabpa's statement, shame shame shame. Tibetsnow (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your entire premise on this talk page has been that Bell, a British tibetologist, manufactured and made up the invasion of Lhasa. Not only does Bell have absolutely no reason, as a British citizen, to make up claims in favor of China, Shakabpa clearly states that histories reported Chinese troops arriving in Lhasa, which disproves everything you said over the past week about Bell faking the invasion. You refuse to admit you were wrong and apologize for spamming the talk page.

Also, read this edit Nishidani made days ago regarding page 123 of Shakabpa's book, and tell us again about "dishonesty". Nishidani quoted the entire sentence about Shakabpa thinking the claim is not correct, and you accuse him of being "dishonest".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I see Nishidani brought out the link himself above. I hope you redact your personal attack and apologize.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I hate to niggle

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

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

POV

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

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

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

Few articles have Demographics sections like this article

No American city have a Demographics section with Amerinds before the Trail of Tears included in a separated "Demographics in the past" section. --114.132.245.59 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)