This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dogra鈥揟ibetan war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv ( talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sino-Sikh war 鈫 Sino-Sikh War 鈥 capitalize title as per naming convention Zanhe ( talk) 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Zanhe, you have recently undone my sourced edit. Is there any legitimate source for your claim that the Chinese did not capture Leh? Xtremedood ( talk) 06:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted a 2014(?) edit to the {{ Chinese}} infobox, which claimed that the literal meaning of 妫反鎴扮埈 (S膿nb膩 Zh脿nzh膿ng) was "Samba War". The reasons are as following:
Please do not use "Samba War", the name is completely incorrect, and sexy Brazilian dancers never invaded Tibet. -- benlisquare T鈥 C鈥 E 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
In the text of the treaty, "3nd" is wrong in English. "second" is "2nd" and "third" is "3rd". Before this edit, it said "second". Art LaPella ( talk) 16:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit perplexed as to why this page is called the "Sino-Sikh War", because there is no evidence that either the Chinese or the Sikhs fought in this war.
The term seems to have been introduced on the Sino-Indian relations page in 2007, and this page started as out a redirect to it in 2010. I see precisely four book sources using this term: [3], [4], [5] and [6], all of which post-date Wikipedia's introduction of the term. The same is probably the case with this op-ed from 2013.
The older sources use the term Dogra-Tibetan War: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. A source mentions that the Chinese provided no help at all to the Tibetans: [15].
Are there any objections to renaming this page Dogra-Tibetan War? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)A dynamic IP has repeatedly copied large amount of info from Ladakh without attribution, which was removed by others before and re-added recently. I've removed it again per WP:COATRACK, as the war, although partly fought in Ladakh, is not about the historical status of that region. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sino-Sikh War 鈫
Dogra鈥揟ibetan War 鈥 This is how reliable sources describe this war. (See below.) This page was started in 2010, which seems to have spurred a certain number of weak sources and Chinese sources to adopt the term "Sino-Sikh War". But the established sources have always used the traditional term "Dogra-Tibetan War".
Kautilya3 (
talk) 20:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
When this page was created on 20 March 2010, the term "Sino-Sikh War" has not apparently appeared in print [16]. Since then a handful of sources used it [17], but it appears to be just a feedback loop of Wikipedia's WP:OR. Here is a sample of good quality sources that have traditionally called the war "Dogra-Tibetan War".
sources
|
---|
|
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I find this passage in the article permalink, sourced to Shakabpa, p.577:
As the intense cold, coupled with the rain, snow and lightning continued for weeks upon weeks, many of the soldiers lost their fingers and toes to frostbite. Others starved to death, while some burnt the wooden stock of their muskets to warm themselves.
But there is no such description in Shakbpa. It seems to be WP:OR. If Tibetan weather could produce "rain, snow and lightning for weeks upon weeks", one wouldn't expect Tibet to be as dry as it is.
Plenty of myths have been propagated about the Dogra defeat, one being that they were defeated by weather. But the Dogras who came to fight had been in Ladakh long enough to know the weather, and their contingent also had plenty of Ladakhis and Baltis among them. Moreover, Zorawar Singh is said to have established "administration" in West Tibet, levied taxes, built forts etc. So, the weather could not have been as big a factor as it is made out to be. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
In the early exchange of fire the Rajput general was wounded in his right shoulder, but he grabbed a sword in his left hand. The Tibetan horsemen then charged the Dogra position and one of them thrust his lance in Zorawar Singh鈥檚 chest. Wounded and unable to escape he was pulled down off his horse and beheaded.
While Zorawar Singh was riding his horse, rushing back and forth, he was recognized by a Yasor[8: In Mongolian, yasor (ya sor) means a military commander or a leader] called Mikmar. He threw a spear and Zorawar Singh fell from his horse. Leaping off of his own horse, Mikmar cut Singh鈥檚 head off and carried it into the middle of the Tibetan camp.
There is no mention of him being wounded in shoulder, wielding sword with left hand, lance thrust into chest etc. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Present day populations
So Ladakh is 2.8 times the size of Ngari and Jammu 55 times the size of Ngari. Strong states have always tried to conquer their neighbours. Please don't make a big deal of it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have uploaded historical artwork depicting Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh to Wikimedia Commons. What do you all think about using it as the infobox image? The artwork is held at Bharat Kala Bhavan, Benaras (Varanasi). Published in 'Kashmiri Painting' by Karuna Goswamy, 1998 under the figure # M16. Please see the file here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragment_from_a_painted_scroll_depicting_Zorawar_Singh_of_the_Sikh_Empire%27s_army_marching_through_the_mountains_of_Ladakh.webp ThethPunjabi ( talk) 21:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
While the battle itself was mainly between Gulab Singh and Tibet, and the original treaty was also signed between them, their respective suzerains (Sikh Empire and the Chinese) were also involved in for example the negotiations, and as pointed out in various sources that a supplementary treaty in the name of their suzerains was made after the original treaty, such as in the source "Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh" (page 56) by Margaret Welpley Fisher et al, which is in fact also used as a reliable source (RS) in the article for the title "Dogra鈥揟ibetan War": "The treaty between Gulab Singh and Tibet did not bind the former's suzerain, and a supplementary treaty with similar provisions was concluded between the Governor of Kashmir (representing the Lahore court) and the Lhasa officials, in the name of the Emperor of China" (see [18]), in addition to sources like "Kashmir and the British Raj 1847-1947" (page 14) by Robert A. Huttenback and "Red Fear: The China Threat" (page 68) by Iqbal Chand Malhotra which contain similar statements. I think such a supplementary treaty involving the suzerains is certainly worth mentioning in the article. -- Wengier ( talk) 17:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Sardar K. M. Panikkar in The Founding of the Kashmir State, A Biography of Maharajah Gulab Singh, 1792-1858 (London, Geo. Allen and Unwin, and impression, 1953), pp. 84-89, gives three versions of the treaty of 1842:
- (1) a translation of a Persian copy (reproduced in Diwan Kirpa Ram's Gulab Namah, p. 264). embodying an undertaking by the Tibetan Government;
- (2) a translation of a Tibetan version of the treaty, embodying an undertaking by the Dogra Government of Jammu; and
- (3) a translation of a Tibetan version of a Treaty embodying the agreement of the Sikh Government of the Panjab to the arrangements arrived at between the Dogra Government of Jammu and the Tibetan Government.[100: Panikkar wrongly describes the third treaty as one "on behalf ofthe (Sikh) Government of Lahore" - the suzerain of the Dogra Government of Jammu - "and the Emperor of China" (the suzerain of Tibet).]
we, the officials of Shri Maharajah Sahlb, the Commander-in-Chief of the Western Area in the Court of Shri Rajah Gulab Singh, and we, the trusted and selected and the faithfully loyal Itimad-ud-Dowlah Nizam-ul-Mulk Sheikh Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Subedar (Governor) of Kashnlir".
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.. Fisher et al. state that they primarily wrote the book to discuss the Report of the Officials (representing the result of border talks between Indian and Chinese officials), but they found it necessary to provide a certain amount of historical background to make the issues understandable. The tricky issues of history didn't receive enough attention from them. In fact, glaring errors are seen in the discussion of this treaty, e.g., they say,
The Tibetan note, incorporating the concessions made by the Dogras, was handed to Gulab Singh's representative while the Persian note, detailing the obligations assumed by the Tibetans, was presented to the Tibetan officials.. This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Dogras' obligations be given to themselves and the Tibetan obligations be given to the Tibetans themselves? They also mix up the languages. The note given to the Tibetans would be in the Tibetan language so that they can understand it. What would be the point of giving them a Persian note which they won't be able to understand? So on.
Chou En-lai wrote on September 8, 1959, that "local authorities of China's Tibet" had concluded a treaty with Kashmir but "the then Chinese Central Government did not send anybody to, participate in the conclusion of this treaty, nor did it ratify the treaty afterwards."See the footnote on page 58 of Fisher et al.
The treaty has been mentioned in many reliable sources, including for example "The Cambridge Handbook of China and International Law" and "The Frontier Complex" published by the highly reputed Cambridge University Press (among others), which clearly suggests that a dedicated article can be made for the treaty. Indeed, this is very similar to the relationship between Treaty of Thapathali and Nepal鈥揟ibet War (1855鈥1856), where the former is the resulting treaty of the latter, and both are articles in Wikipedia. If Treaty of Thapathali can be made a separate article in WP, then naturally the Treaty of Chushul can also be made an article (as long as there are enough content for such an article), not to mention that the size of this article is much longer than the above mentioned articles. Otherwise most existing WP articles for peace treaties can indeed be deleted as well. As for the article name, that is a separate issue (and may be discussed separately if needed), but Wikipedia uses the common name as the article title, and it does not really matter whether the treaty was actually signed in Chushul or not (although this point may be mentioned in the corresponding article).鈥 Wengier ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dogra鈥揟ibetan war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv ( talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sino-Sikh war 鈫 Sino-Sikh War 鈥 capitalize title as per naming convention Zanhe ( talk) 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Zanhe, you have recently undone my sourced edit. Is there any legitimate source for your claim that the Chinese did not capture Leh? Xtremedood ( talk) 06:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted a 2014(?) edit to the {{ Chinese}} infobox, which claimed that the literal meaning of 妫反鎴扮埈 (S膿nb膩 Zh脿nzh膿ng) was "Samba War". The reasons are as following:
Please do not use "Samba War", the name is completely incorrect, and sexy Brazilian dancers never invaded Tibet. -- benlisquare T鈥 C鈥 E 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
In the text of the treaty, "3nd" is wrong in English. "second" is "2nd" and "third" is "3rd". Before this edit, it said "second". Art LaPella ( talk) 16:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit perplexed as to why this page is called the "Sino-Sikh War", because there is no evidence that either the Chinese or the Sikhs fought in this war.
The term seems to have been introduced on the Sino-Indian relations page in 2007, and this page started as out a redirect to it in 2010. I see precisely four book sources using this term: [3], [4], [5] and [6], all of which post-date Wikipedia's introduction of the term. The same is probably the case with this op-ed from 2013.
The older sources use the term Dogra-Tibetan War: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. A source mentions that the Chinese provided no help at all to the Tibetans: [15].
Are there any objections to renaming this page Dogra-Tibetan War? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)A dynamic IP has repeatedly copied large amount of info from Ladakh without attribution, which was removed by others before and re-added recently. I've removed it again per WP:COATRACK, as the war, although partly fought in Ladakh, is not about the historical status of that region. - Zanhe ( talk) 17:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sino-Sikh War 鈫
Dogra鈥揟ibetan War 鈥 This is how reliable sources describe this war. (See below.) This page was started in 2010, which seems to have spurred a certain number of weak sources and Chinese sources to adopt the term "Sino-Sikh War". But the established sources have always used the traditional term "Dogra-Tibetan War".
Kautilya3 (
talk) 20:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
When this page was created on 20 March 2010, the term "Sino-Sikh War" has not apparently appeared in print [16]. Since then a handful of sources used it [17], but it appears to be just a feedback loop of Wikipedia's WP:OR. Here is a sample of good quality sources that have traditionally called the war "Dogra-Tibetan War".
sources
|
---|
|
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I find this passage in the article permalink, sourced to Shakabpa, p.577:
As the intense cold, coupled with the rain, snow and lightning continued for weeks upon weeks, many of the soldiers lost their fingers and toes to frostbite. Others starved to death, while some burnt the wooden stock of their muskets to warm themselves.
But there is no such description in Shakbpa. It seems to be WP:OR. If Tibetan weather could produce "rain, snow and lightning for weeks upon weeks", one wouldn't expect Tibet to be as dry as it is.
Plenty of myths have been propagated about the Dogra defeat, one being that they were defeated by weather. But the Dogras who came to fight had been in Ladakh long enough to know the weather, and their contingent also had plenty of Ladakhis and Baltis among them. Moreover, Zorawar Singh is said to have established "administration" in West Tibet, levied taxes, built forts etc. So, the weather could not have been as big a factor as it is made out to be. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
In the early exchange of fire the Rajput general was wounded in his right shoulder, but he grabbed a sword in his left hand. The Tibetan horsemen then charged the Dogra position and one of them thrust his lance in Zorawar Singh鈥檚 chest. Wounded and unable to escape he was pulled down off his horse and beheaded.
While Zorawar Singh was riding his horse, rushing back and forth, he was recognized by a Yasor[8: In Mongolian, yasor (ya sor) means a military commander or a leader] called Mikmar. He threw a spear and Zorawar Singh fell from his horse. Leaping off of his own horse, Mikmar cut Singh鈥檚 head off and carried it into the middle of the Tibetan camp.
There is no mention of him being wounded in shoulder, wielding sword with left hand, lance thrust into chest etc. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Present day populations
So Ladakh is 2.8 times the size of Ngari and Jammu 55 times the size of Ngari. Strong states have always tried to conquer their neighbours. Please don't make a big deal of it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have uploaded historical artwork depicting Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh to Wikimedia Commons. What do you all think about using it as the infobox image? The artwork is held at Bharat Kala Bhavan, Benaras (Varanasi). Published in 'Kashmiri Painting' by Karuna Goswamy, 1998 under the figure # M16. Please see the file here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragment_from_a_painted_scroll_depicting_Zorawar_Singh_of_the_Sikh_Empire%27s_army_marching_through_the_mountains_of_Ladakh.webp ThethPunjabi ( talk) 21:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
While the battle itself was mainly between Gulab Singh and Tibet, and the original treaty was also signed between them, their respective suzerains (Sikh Empire and the Chinese) were also involved in for example the negotiations, and as pointed out in various sources that a supplementary treaty in the name of their suzerains was made after the original treaty, such as in the source "Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh" (page 56) by Margaret Welpley Fisher et al, which is in fact also used as a reliable source (RS) in the article for the title "Dogra鈥揟ibetan War": "The treaty between Gulab Singh and Tibet did not bind the former's suzerain, and a supplementary treaty with similar provisions was concluded between the Governor of Kashmir (representing the Lahore court) and the Lhasa officials, in the name of the Emperor of China" (see [18]), in addition to sources like "Kashmir and the British Raj 1847-1947" (page 14) by Robert A. Huttenback and "Red Fear: The China Threat" (page 68) by Iqbal Chand Malhotra which contain similar statements. I think such a supplementary treaty involving the suzerains is certainly worth mentioning in the article. -- Wengier ( talk) 17:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Sardar K. M. Panikkar in The Founding of the Kashmir State, A Biography of Maharajah Gulab Singh, 1792-1858 (London, Geo. Allen and Unwin, and impression, 1953), pp. 84-89, gives three versions of the treaty of 1842:
- (1) a translation of a Persian copy (reproduced in Diwan Kirpa Ram's Gulab Namah, p. 264). embodying an undertaking by the Tibetan Government;
- (2) a translation of a Tibetan version of the treaty, embodying an undertaking by the Dogra Government of Jammu; and
- (3) a translation of a Tibetan version of a Treaty embodying the agreement of the Sikh Government of the Panjab to the arrangements arrived at between the Dogra Government of Jammu and the Tibetan Government.[100: Panikkar wrongly describes the third treaty as one "on behalf ofthe (Sikh) Government of Lahore" - the suzerain of the Dogra Government of Jammu - "and the Emperor of China" (the suzerain of Tibet).]
we, the officials of Shri Maharajah Sahlb, the Commander-in-Chief of the Western Area in the Court of Shri Rajah Gulab Singh, and we, the trusted and selected and the faithfully loyal Itimad-ud-Dowlah Nizam-ul-Mulk Sheikh Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Subedar (Governor) of Kashnlir".
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.. Fisher et al. state that they primarily wrote the book to discuss the Report of the Officials (representing the result of border talks between Indian and Chinese officials), but they found it necessary to provide a certain amount of historical background to make the issues understandable. The tricky issues of history didn't receive enough attention from them. In fact, glaring errors are seen in the discussion of this treaty, e.g., they say,
The Tibetan note, incorporating the concessions made by the Dogras, was handed to Gulab Singh's representative while the Persian note, detailing the obligations assumed by the Tibetans, was presented to the Tibetan officials.. This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Dogras' obligations be given to themselves and the Tibetan obligations be given to the Tibetans themselves? They also mix up the languages. The note given to the Tibetans would be in the Tibetan language so that they can understand it. What would be the point of giving them a Persian note which they won't be able to understand? So on.
Chou En-lai wrote on September 8, 1959, that "local authorities of China's Tibet" had concluded a treaty with Kashmir but "the then Chinese Central Government did not send anybody to, participate in the conclusion of this treaty, nor did it ratify the treaty afterwards."See the footnote on page 58 of Fisher et al.
The treaty has been mentioned in many reliable sources, including for example "The Cambridge Handbook of China and International Law" and "The Frontier Complex" published by the highly reputed Cambridge University Press (among others), which clearly suggests that a dedicated article can be made for the treaty. Indeed, this is very similar to the relationship between Treaty of Thapathali and Nepal鈥揟ibet War (1855鈥1856), where the former is the resulting treaty of the latter, and both are articles in Wikipedia. If Treaty of Thapathali can be made a separate article in WP, then naturally the Treaty of Chushul can also be made an article (as long as there are enough content for such an article), not to mention that the size of this article is much longer than the above mentioned articles. Otherwise most existing WP articles for peace treaties can indeed be deleted as well. As for the article name, that is a separate issue (and may be discussed separately if needed), but Wikipedia uses the common name as the article title, and it does not really matter whether the treaty was actually signed in Chushul or not (although this point may be mentioned in the corresponding article).鈥 Wengier ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)