This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There are multiple sources that erroneously cite the location of Doklam at the trijunction of India, China and Bhutan. This is not geographically accurate. These sources are confusing Doklam with Dhoka La. This source estimates that Doklam is actually around 30 km away from the disputed trijunction (it's a blog so it can't be used as a direct source, but the geographic principle is pretty clear). [1] Doklam is located in the disputed western sector, and this map [2] points out accurately where Doklam is actually located - Doklam is located in the western shaded area of the maps that show the disputed boundary between Bhutan and China, which is shown in the map currently used in this article; however, it's clearly not at the trijunction. Fraenir ( talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This wikipedia article says the names are Doklam, Zhoglam (in Standard Tibetan), Droklam (in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan) or Donglang. Verious news reports keep referring to it as Doklam (Bhutan names), Doka La (Indian name) and Donglang region (Chinese name), and add Tibetan names Doklam, Zhoglam (in Standard Tibetan), Droklam (in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan). Logged in users plese create the following redirects to this article:
Logged-in editors, please do the following. To create additional redirect, please click on
Zhoglam and
Droklam (only if any of these are in red color, blue color means someone has already created the redirect) one by one, and save the redirect code inside, see
Help:Redirect.
Thanks.
2404:E800:E61E:452:3C03:81C7:1A56:331B (
talk) 03:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I have
2404:E800:E61E:452:41E1:317D:EEFA:CCF0 ( talk) 14:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Karl3601 ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Nehru's letter added that explicitly asserts the India held view of trijunction and that the current Bhutanese area claimed by China is not under dispute." - this is a false assertion Karl3601 ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I found it necessary to zoom out 6-7 levels to get a sense of the location. Doyna Yar ( talk) 14:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Nimbustrail:, The statement you added in this edit is inconsistent with the already-existing statement. How it can it be "within Tibet" and also be disputed? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is a link showing a view of the Dolam plateau from Google Earth [3].
It is looking at the Amo Chu river at the end of the Chumbi Valley in a south-easterly direction. On the left you see marked 'Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve'. Opposite to it, on the right side of the valley, is the Dolam plateau. Google does seem to be using Batang-La as the trijunction point. Almost all of the plateau is shown as Bhutanese territory. Mount Gipmochi (Gyemo Chen), at the top right (southwest), is being shown as shared between India and Bhutan. I presume the southern ridge emanating to the left of it (southeast) is called the "Jampheri ridge". The small valley in between the two ridges is likely to be the Doka La pass. (It is not really much of a pass as it doesn't cut through the plateau.)
The Jampheri ridge marks the boundary between the Samtse and Haa districts of Bhutan. Google is marking the southeastern end of that ridge as Gyemo Chen, where there is also a lake labelled "Elephant Lake". From this ridge to the Jaldhaka River (in the Indian plains) seems to be about 10 kms. It is all down hill, as our sources have mentioned. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I have moved here the following sentence from the lead, which I consider dubious:
Doklam is part of the Chumbi Valley that lies primarily in Tibet [1]
References
- ^ McKay, Alex (2003). History of Tibet. London: Routledge Curzon. p. 142. ISBN 9780415308427.
.
The sentence doesn't make sense because Doklam is pretty much the highest point in the area. It cannot possibly be part of a "valley". Can somebody provide a quotation from the source? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
146.96.252.3, This reinstatement is no good. You have created a section called The Indian stance. To call it so, you need secondary sources that describe it as "Indian stance". Your own idea of what is "Indian stance" is not enough. Moreover, since this is an international dispute, you need to be careful about the parties you are labelling. Only those people that can be said to represent the "nations" can be labelled as "Indian" or "Chinese". The Indian media do not count as representing the nation. Finally, since you haven't created a similar section on The Chinese stance, your edit lacks WP:BALANCE and fails WP:NPOV. Please take this seriously. This is an international dispute, and you can't simply write whatever you please. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
DLinth, Including two quote blocks is quite inappropriate. As a stylistic matter, you are asking the reader to closely compare the differences in the two versions and see what is the same and what is different. Secondly, in terms of substance, the dispute is regarding the boundary between Bhutan and China. In the Bhutanese position, Gipmochi is not on the boundary between Bhutan and China. The Secretary's statement is clear-cut and includes precisely the information that is needed. Mentioning Gipmochi in this context just adds to the confusion. Finally, giving one quote block for one country and two quote blocks for another is a clear violation of WP:BALANCE. Quote blocks should in any case be used very minimally. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I have two specific problems with the 2002 statement:
One month ago I added the Tibetic name of this region, say Zhoglam in the form of Standard Tibetan and nDroklam in the form of Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan. Somehow the nDroklam form has been modified into "Droklam". I have corrected the term twice, mentioning that the prenasalization of a plosive is mandatory Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan even if it's not preceded by a vowel. However, the prenasalization was dropped for the third time! Plus, they have add {{ cn}} to "Droklam" (nDroklam with "n" dropped) three times and removed the internal link to Chomo Tibetan language at least twice, and this literally happened, which means some must believed that we need a citation in the article Belgium like:
Belgium (Dutch: België citation needed; French: Belgique citation needed; German: Belgien citation needed)
Okay, you win, I'd say. You can remove the entire unsourced Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan form, because I coined them. The name in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan simply doesn't exist and "(n)Droklam citation needed" was simply a hoax I added into Wikipedia, okay? Are you happy now? Frankly I don't care whether the name "(n)Droklam citation needed" is written here. Eitherway "(n)Droklam citation needed" is not an English name and there's simply no point to write it in bold text here. Be bold, and just remove it. -- 146.96.252.3 ( talk) 05:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Several credible sources now use the term Dolam plateau to refer to the specific area of conflict - The Economist [7], The New York Times [8], and Business Insider [9]. They've all published maps that use the term Dolam plateau to refer to the specific plateau in conflict. In fact, The Economist provides an excellent map that details the differences between Doklam and the Dolam plateau. The Economist provides a separate definition for the Dolam plateau: "a flat spot in the slightly larger region known as Doklam (or Donglang in Mandarin) which all three sides patrol". It's not the same place, but this article is still conflating everything into one geographic location. Dolam is not exactly the same as Doklam. Fraenir ( talk) 18:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I get it. You got the map. Unfortunately, just two weeks ago somebody revert my edits clarifying "Doklam is not marked on this map, but could be found here (osm link)". Also, I disagree with your edits of the description of the map you added from "per Bhutanese claim" to "on OSM", as on OSM both claim are shown, while I can only find Bhutanese claim in your image. Plus, OSM is a collaborative project, i.e. everyone can edit it. Wikipedia should show both border from reliable sources and actual control line prior and after the incident from reliable source, rather than what Pam exhibits. Last tip: please take a look at the author of the article you presented us: does his name look Tibetic and does he look like someone Bhutanese? -- 146.96.252.3 ( talk) 19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
When asked repeatedly whether Bhutan had requested India’s military intervention, Ministry of External Affairs of India refuse to comment directly and replied (check New York Times for the source)
“ | If you understand hints, let secrets be secrets. | ” |
You can just left this article dead i.m.h.o., because both Bhutanese and Chinese side has tried not to raise this issue: the Bhutanese has a map of the four disputed regions they recognize and the Chinese has a map of the six disputed regions they recognize, but none of them has revealed it. Maps that you can catch from the Internet are mainly published by India and the United States. None of the Chinese and Bhutanese want's to deteriorized the situation. You should have noticed that the Bhutanese media are exceptionally silent, and the Chinese media post no article against Bhutan. Clearly, they all don't want you to know too much. I currently holds a map of all six disputed regions in 1980, which is already outdated, but I'm not going to reveal too much about it. -- 146.96.252.3 ( talk) 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
References
I have tagged the border dispute section with a neutrality banner because it does not explain the Chinese point of view well. Note that this does not mean that the information as stated is incorrect, but as it is now, only the Chinese border intrusions are mentioned, but not their exact claims and why they claim this territory as theirs. This makes the reader automatically question the neutrality of the article as a whole. Pieceofmetalwork ( talk) 07:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The entire article is focused on one sided point of view. Even though China has a border Treaty that was agreed by India and it has record in
Tibet of grass taxes paid by Bhutanese border inhabitants, its position is only mentioned in passing.
Truthreigns (
talk) 06:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC) blocked user
@ Adam4math: when there is a dispute you need to discuss, instead of reinstating. That is disruptive.
You claimed added "Citing India sources, The Diplomat states". If it is a disputed area, it is not neutral for wiki editors to bluntly use the word "intrusion". Put back Indian experts' analysis Kautilya3 removed
. I believe that my edit dropped the term "intrusion". However, note that the Bhutanese government said (in 1966):
“the area was traditionally part of Bhutan and the Chinese government had not so far disputed the traditional boundaries which ran along recognizable natural features”
That seems very much like an intrusion. China had not disputed the territory by 1966, did it? How did the Chinese government respond to the Bhutanese complaint? We really need evidence that China disputed it in 1966. Otherwise, you can't say that it was disputed territory. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 04:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
the Chinese government had not so far disputed the traditional boundaries. Is there any such evidence? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Adam4math (
talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).@ Adam4math:, you have reinstated the op-ed commentaries that I removed here, asking you to explain how you picked these commentaries. There are by now hundreds of commentaries on the Doklam dispute? How did you pick these three? Please note that WP:NPOV requires you to represent all view points published in reliable sources. So, you really need to justify how these three commentaries represent all view points. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 04:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I urge all of you to go the main article, 2017 China India border standoff and work over there, we need to keep it short here. Stop expanding Doklam. Jasonprost ( talk) 07:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I see the article has been locked. I would like to fix this wording error: "starting at the Mount Gipmochi on the southwestern corner..." Rich Rostrom ( Talk) 14:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
1. There should a quote from the letter.
2. Under "2017 Doklam standoff" regarding Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter, it says that "Contrary to Chinese claim, Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter to Zhou, cited by China, was a point-by-point refutation of the claims made by the latter on 8 September 1959. Nehru made is amply clear in his refutal that the 1890 treaty defined only the northern part of the Sikkim-Tibet border and not the tri-junction area."
Please quote where in the letter Nehru said that. Contrary to this claim, Nehru clear said that "This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region." India clearly acknowledged 1890 Treaty. Therefore Even if Bhutan disputes it, India has no right to help Bhutan in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl3601 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The letter in question is regarding the border issues between India and China. Towards the end, there is a paragraph regarding the border with Sikkim and Bhutan, which reads as follows:
It is not clear to us what exactly is the implication of your statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan do not fall within the scope of the present discussion. In fact, Chinese maps show sizeable areas of Bhutan as part of Tibet. Under treaty relationships with Bhutan, the Government of India are the only competent authority to take up with other Governments matters concerning Bhutan's external relations, and in fact we have taken up with your Government a number of matters on behalf of the Bhutan Government. The rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector. As regards Sikkim, the Chinese Government recognised as far back as 1890 that the Government of India "has direct and exclusive control over the internal administration and foreign relations of that State". This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region.
Note that the letter is from 1959. Bhutan's border was not surveyed and demarcated till 1961. It is not clear if Nehru was aware of the issues with the trijunction point at that time. However, the "rectification of errors" regarding Bhutan-China boundary even preceded any discussion of Sikkim. The 1890 treaty says nothing about the Bhutan-China boundary. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously he accept that up to Gipmochi Sikkim is bordered with China." That kind of an argument is called WP:SYNTHESIS, and it is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Karl3601 ( talk) 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)@Kautilya3
1. In Article 1 of The 1890 Convention:"The line commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mention water-parting to the point where it meets Nipal territory."
2. In Nehru's 1959 letter he said "This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region." Note that the border between China Tibet and Sikkim in the convention starts from Gipmochi.
3. In Nehru's letter he claimed that (in 1959) was speaking in full capacity on behalf of India, Sikkim(now part of India for whatever reason or process) and Bhutan(not any more in that capacity since 2007).
I don't have much more to say. I would suggest to include section of Nehru's letter as you quoted here to the article itself and let the readers to judge by themselves. The original part be editted as India's view. In addition the China's view should be provided too, which should be simple enough. Karl3601 ( talk) 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Under section of "Sino-Bhutanese border dispute at Doklam", in the first paragraph, it states that In 1960, China issued a statement claiming that Bhutan, Sikkim and Ladakh were part of a unified family in Tibet and had always been subject to the "great motherland of China". I have tried very hard to find the origin of this assertion. However except for one or two India media, nowhere this can be found. Unless its origin can be ascertained, it should be removed. Karl3601 ( talk) 14:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Karl3601 ( talk) 10:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)@Kautilya3 The only thing that matters to Wikipedia is what the truth/fact is. The source you referred to is an article published in 2014 without any reference about it. If it really is a Chinese government's statement, then it is not difficult to find, especially a statement as shocking as to say that Sikkim and Bhutan belong to China. Karl3601 ( talk) 10:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Neville Maxwell has been touted as an expert on the Doklam standoff. So I decided to check what he has to say about the issues of this page in his book. [1] According to Maxwell:
I have indicated in green and red, the information that is verifiable from other scholarly sources and that which is not.
There is no evidence that the British ever wanted to "control" Tibet. They only wanted trading rights in Tibet. They kept on recognizing China as the suzerain of Tibet, even when China had no effective authority there. In fact, the Convention of Calcutta was itself a great example, where the Chinese agreed to leave Sikkim to the British, but Tibet rejected the deal. That is why the Younghusband expedition became necessary. After the expedition, the Tibetans seem to have preferred to deal with the British than the Chinese. "The British expedition was compared to a frog, the Chinese to a scorpion," says Charles Bell. [2]
As for Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan, Nepal was the only state that ever paid tribute to China, and that too temporarily as a result of their defeat in the Sino-Nepalese War. Despite their submission to China, they continued to harrass Sikkim. Neither Tibet nor China was able to stop it. Only the British were. This suggests that China's suzerainty over Nepal was nominal and short-lived.
Sikkim was defintely a dependency of Tibet when it was founded. Being a small state harassed by Nepal and Bhutan from two sides, it needed Tibetan help to survive. However, it is doubtful if this help warrants the modern terminology of suzerainty. Sikkim, just as Bhutan, was Tibetan and Buddhist. They accepted the Dalai Lama as the temporal and spiritual head of their nationalities. But they also fiercely tried to maintain their independence. There was some kind of a benign "familial relationship" between Tibet, Bhutan and Sikkim. [3]
As my write-up in the article says, Sikkim turned to the British because it got a bad deal after the Sino-Nepalese War. China annexed the Chumbi Valley, which the Sikkimese regarded as their own territory. Moreover, the territory that was previously occupied by Nepal wasn't returned to them. So they sought British help to check Nepal. After the British succeeded in doing so, the British extracted trading concessions in Sikkim.
As for Bhutan, it came under the British sphere of influence only in 1910 as a result of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. [4]
Finally, Maxwell says that after 1947, "new Indian Government consolidated their administration [presumably over the Himalayan states]". Nothing of the kind. Even before independence, Nehru got the Indian Constitutent Assembly to recognize that they were independent states (and not "Indian princely states"). India signed a Standstill agreement with them, meaning that all the erstwhile administrative (not political) arrangements would continue. The political arrangements happened only after the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949. Sikkim immediately became a protectorate of India. Bhutan became a protected state in 1951. "To continue a relationship originally established by imperialistic means was politically not easy for newly free India." [5]
Clearly, Neville Maxwell's treatment contains plenty of distortions of historical material, and is biased in favour of China and biased against the British and India. I would be treating him as a WP:BIASED source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Notthebestusername, Regarding this , the vast number of sources used in this section are absolutely clear that it is a dispute between China and Bhutan. Bringing in India seems to be WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Article mentions it is disputed, but doesn't mention whether it is currently under the control of Bhutan or China in the lead. 86.97.128.199 ( talk) 09:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The OpenStreetMap segment that I have included on this page ( full screen version) has attached some labels to the roads on the Doklam plateau. They are not in English. Can somebody figure out what they say? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, here is what the labels are. From the Sinchela Pass:
All the English versions are as produced by Google Translate. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
PvOberstein, I am afraid the India Today source that you added is contradicted by more authoritative sources. The sources cited in footnote 66 [1] say that China wanted all of 269 sq.km. in the western sector in exchange for 495 sq.km. in the central sector. We can see the 269 sq.km. marked on the Chinese map at the top of the page. (It is much more extensive than Doklam itself.) -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
References
(1) Is it possible to shade the Doklam region in the map? Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Nimbustrail added something about the representatives of Sikkim and Tibet being present during the negotiations, which I can't find in the source. Neither is it clear which volume of McKay was used for this purpose. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Problematic content moved here:
The treaty states that representatives of Sikkim and Tibet were part of these negotiations, but records show that they were not present during the negotiations in Calcutta. [1] [2]
References
- ^ Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1890 (PDF). London: British Foreign Office. 1894. p. 1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 July 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
- ^ McKay, Alex (2003). History of Tibet. London: Routledge Curzon. p. 142. ISBN 9780415308427.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The Eastern Economist says, This has been duly reported in "The Daily Telegraph” abroad, and most people in Delhi will agree is unlikely to have been invented; it must have been printed in a Tibetan paper avidly read in Kalimpong. It may be, as the Prime Minster said : "It would be an exceedingly foolish person who would make the remarks attributable to this gentleman" [Nehru's accompanying comment to his note in Parliament about the particular passage being absent in
China Today's copy of the speech] but, of course, extreme folly does exist in this world. The question is: was it said, or was it not? Why do not the Chinese deny that it was said [..]
Patterson was an integral part of Tibetan Resistance since late 40s, and he was not present at the site of speech but extracted the content from some (unknown) Tibetan daily in Kalimpong [this was his assigned desk-job]. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There are multiple sources that erroneously cite the location of Doklam at the trijunction of India, China and Bhutan. This is not geographically accurate. These sources are confusing Doklam with Dhoka La. This source estimates that Doklam is actually around 30 km away from the disputed trijunction (it's a blog so it can't be used as a direct source, but the geographic principle is pretty clear). [1] Doklam is located in the disputed western sector, and this map [2] points out accurately where Doklam is actually located - Doklam is located in the western shaded area of the maps that show the disputed boundary between Bhutan and China, which is shown in the map currently used in this article; however, it's clearly not at the trijunction. Fraenir ( talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This wikipedia article says the names are Doklam, Zhoglam (in Standard Tibetan), Droklam (in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan) or Donglang. Verious news reports keep referring to it as Doklam (Bhutan names), Doka La (Indian name) and Donglang region (Chinese name), and add Tibetan names Doklam, Zhoglam (in Standard Tibetan), Droklam (in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan). Logged in users plese create the following redirects to this article:
Logged-in editors, please do the following. To create additional redirect, please click on
Zhoglam and
Droklam (only if any of these are in red color, blue color means someone has already created the redirect) one by one, and save the redirect code inside, see
Help:Redirect.
Thanks.
2404:E800:E61E:452:3C03:81C7:1A56:331B (
talk) 03:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I have
2404:E800:E61E:452:41E1:317D:EEFA:CCF0 ( talk) 14:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Karl3601 ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Nehru's letter added that explicitly asserts the India held view of trijunction and that the current Bhutanese area claimed by China is not under dispute." - this is a false assertion Karl3601 ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I found it necessary to zoom out 6-7 levels to get a sense of the location. Doyna Yar ( talk) 14:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Nimbustrail:, The statement you added in this edit is inconsistent with the already-existing statement. How it can it be "within Tibet" and also be disputed? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is a link showing a view of the Dolam plateau from Google Earth [3].
It is looking at the Amo Chu river at the end of the Chumbi Valley in a south-easterly direction. On the left you see marked 'Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve'. Opposite to it, on the right side of the valley, is the Dolam plateau. Google does seem to be using Batang-La as the trijunction point. Almost all of the plateau is shown as Bhutanese territory. Mount Gipmochi (Gyemo Chen), at the top right (southwest), is being shown as shared between India and Bhutan. I presume the southern ridge emanating to the left of it (southeast) is called the "Jampheri ridge". The small valley in between the two ridges is likely to be the Doka La pass. (It is not really much of a pass as it doesn't cut through the plateau.)
The Jampheri ridge marks the boundary between the Samtse and Haa districts of Bhutan. Google is marking the southeastern end of that ridge as Gyemo Chen, where there is also a lake labelled "Elephant Lake". From this ridge to the Jaldhaka River (in the Indian plains) seems to be about 10 kms. It is all down hill, as our sources have mentioned. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I have moved here the following sentence from the lead, which I consider dubious:
Doklam is part of the Chumbi Valley that lies primarily in Tibet [1]
References
- ^ McKay, Alex (2003). History of Tibet. London: Routledge Curzon. p. 142. ISBN 9780415308427.
.
The sentence doesn't make sense because Doklam is pretty much the highest point in the area. It cannot possibly be part of a "valley". Can somebody provide a quotation from the source? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
146.96.252.3, This reinstatement is no good. You have created a section called The Indian stance. To call it so, you need secondary sources that describe it as "Indian stance". Your own idea of what is "Indian stance" is not enough. Moreover, since this is an international dispute, you need to be careful about the parties you are labelling. Only those people that can be said to represent the "nations" can be labelled as "Indian" or "Chinese". The Indian media do not count as representing the nation. Finally, since you haven't created a similar section on The Chinese stance, your edit lacks WP:BALANCE and fails WP:NPOV. Please take this seriously. This is an international dispute, and you can't simply write whatever you please. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
DLinth, Including two quote blocks is quite inappropriate. As a stylistic matter, you are asking the reader to closely compare the differences in the two versions and see what is the same and what is different. Secondly, in terms of substance, the dispute is regarding the boundary between Bhutan and China. In the Bhutanese position, Gipmochi is not on the boundary between Bhutan and China. The Secretary's statement is clear-cut and includes precisely the information that is needed. Mentioning Gipmochi in this context just adds to the confusion. Finally, giving one quote block for one country and two quote blocks for another is a clear violation of WP:BALANCE. Quote blocks should in any case be used very minimally. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I have two specific problems with the 2002 statement:
One month ago I added the Tibetic name of this region, say Zhoglam in the form of Standard Tibetan and nDroklam in the form of Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan. Somehow the nDroklam form has been modified into "Droklam". I have corrected the term twice, mentioning that the prenasalization of a plosive is mandatory Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan even if it's not preceded by a vowel. However, the prenasalization was dropped for the third time! Plus, they have add {{ cn}} to "Droklam" (nDroklam with "n" dropped) three times and removed the internal link to Chomo Tibetan language at least twice, and this literally happened, which means some must believed that we need a citation in the article Belgium like:
Belgium (Dutch: België citation needed; French: Belgique citation needed; German: Belgien citation needed)
Okay, you win, I'd say. You can remove the entire unsourced Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan form, because I coined them. The name in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan simply doesn't exist and "(n)Droklam citation needed" was simply a hoax I added into Wikipedia, okay? Are you happy now? Frankly I don't care whether the name "(n)Droklam citation needed" is written here. Eitherway "(n)Droklam citation needed" is not an English name and there's simply no point to write it in bold text here. Be bold, and just remove it. -- 146.96.252.3 ( talk) 05:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Several credible sources now use the term Dolam plateau to refer to the specific area of conflict - The Economist [7], The New York Times [8], and Business Insider [9]. They've all published maps that use the term Dolam plateau to refer to the specific plateau in conflict. In fact, The Economist provides an excellent map that details the differences between Doklam and the Dolam plateau. The Economist provides a separate definition for the Dolam plateau: "a flat spot in the slightly larger region known as Doklam (or Donglang in Mandarin) which all three sides patrol". It's not the same place, but this article is still conflating everything into one geographic location. Dolam is not exactly the same as Doklam. Fraenir ( talk) 18:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I get it. You got the map. Unfortunately, just two weeks ago somebody revert my edits clarifying "Doklam is not marked on this map, but could be found here (osm link)". Also, I disagree with your edits of the description of the map you added from "per Bhutanese claim" to "on OSM", as on OSM both claim are shown, while I can only find Bhutanese claim in your image. Plus, OSM is a collaborative project, i.e. everyone can edit it. Wikipedia should show both border from reliable sources and actual control line prior and after the incident from reliable source, rather than what Pam exhibits. Last tip: please take a look at the author of the article you presented us: does his name look Tibetic and does he look like someone Bhutanese? -- 146.96.252.3 ( talk) 19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
When asked repeatedly whether Bhutan had requested India’s military intervention, Ministry of External Affairs of India refuse to comment directly and replied (check New York Times for the source)
“ | If you understand hints, let secrets be secrets. | ” |
You can just left this article dead i.m.h.o., because both Bhutanese and Chinese side has tried not to raise this issue: the Bhutanese has a map of the four disputed regions they recognize and the Chinese has a map of the six disputed regions they recognize, but none of them has revealed it. Maps that you can catch from the Internet are mainly published by India and the United States. None of the Chinese and Bhutanese want's to deteriorized the situation. You should have noticed that the Bhutanese media are exceptionally silent, and the Chinese media post no article against Bhutan. Clearly, they all don't want you to know too much. I currently holds a map of all six disputed regions in 1980, which is already outdated, but I'm not going to reveal too much about it. -- 146.96.252.3 ( talk) 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
References
I have tagged the border dispute section with a neutrality banner because it does not explain the Chinese point of view well. Note that this does not mean that the information as stated is incorrect, but as it is now, only the Chinese border intrusions are mentioned, but not their exact claims and why they claim this territory as theirs. This makes the reader automatically question the neutrality of the article as a whole. Pieceofmetalwork ( talk) 07:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The entire article is focused on one sided point of view. Even though China has a border Treaty that was agreed by India and it has record in
Tibet of grass taxes paid by Bhutanese border inhabitants, its position is only mentioned in passing.
Truthreigns (
talk) 06:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC) blocked user
@ Adam4math: when there is a dispute you need to discuss, instead of reinstating. That is disruptive.
You claimed added "Citing India sources, The Diplomat states". If it is a disputed area, it is not neutral for wiki editors to bluntly use the word "intrusion". Put back Indian experts' analysis Kautilya3 removed
. I believe that my edit dropped the term "intrusion". However, note that the Bhutanese government said (in 1966):
“the area was traditionally part of Bhutan and the Chinese government had not so far disputed the traditional boundaries which ran along recognizable natural features”
That seems very much like an intrusion. China had not disputed the territory by 1966, did it? How did the Chinese government respond to the Bhutanese complaint? We really need evidence that China disputed it in 1966. Otherwise, you can't say that it was disputed territory. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 04:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
the Chinese government had not so far disputed the traditional boundaries. Is there any such evidence? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Adam4math (
talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).@ Adam4math:, you have reinstated the op-ed commentaries that I removed here, asking you to explain how you picked these commentaries. There are by now hundreds of commentaries on the Doklam dispute? How did you pick these three? Please note that WP:NPOV requires you to represent all view points published in reliable sources. So, you really need to justify how these three commentaries represent all view points. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 04:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I urge all of you to go the main article, 2017 China India border standoff and work over there, we need to keep it short here. Stop expanding Doklam. Jasonprost ( talk) 07:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I see the article has been locked. I would like to fix this wording error: "starting at the Mount Gipmochi on the southwestern corner..." Rich Rostrom ( Talk) 14:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
1. There should a quote from the letter.
2. Under "2017 Doklam standoff" regarding Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter, it says that "Contrary to Chinese claim, Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter to Zhou, cited by China, was a point-by-point refutation of the claims made by the latter on 8 September 1959. Nehru made is amply clear in his refutal that the 1890 treaty defined only the northern part of the Sikkim-Tibet border and not the tri-junction area."
Please quote where in the letter Nehru said that. Contrary to this claim, Nehru clear said that "This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region." India clearly acknowledged 1890 Treaty. Therefore Even if Bhutan disputes it, India has no right to help Bhutan in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl3601 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The letter in question is regarding the border issues between India and China. Towards the end, there is a paragraph regarding the border with Sikkim and Bhutan, which reads as follows:
It is not clear to us what exactly is the implication of your statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan do not fall within the scope of the present discussion. In fact, Chinese maps show sizeable areas of Bhutan as part of Tibet. Under treaty relationships with Bhutan, the Government of India are the only competent authority to take up with other Governments matters concerning Bhutan's external relations, and in fact we have taken up with your Government a number of matters on behalf of the Bhutan Government. The rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector. As regards Sikkim, the Chinese Government recognised as far back as 1890 that the Government of India "has direct and exclusive control over the internal administration and foreign relations of that State". This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region.
Note that the letter is from 1959. Bhutan's border was not surveyed and demarcated till 1961. It is not clear if Nehru was aware of the issues with the trijunction point at that time. However, the "rectification of errors" regarding Bhutan-China boundary even preceded any discussion of Sikkim. The 1890 treaty says nothing about the Bhutan-China boundary. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously he accept that up to Gipmochi Sikkim is bordered with China." That kind of an argument is called WP:SYNTHESIS, and it is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Karl3601 ( talk) 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)@Kautilya3
1. In Article 1 of The 1890 Convention:"The line commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mention water-parting to the point where it meets Nipal territory."
2. In Nehru's 1959 letter he said "This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region." Note that the border between China Tibet and Sikkim in the convention starts from Gipmochi.
3. In Nehru's letter he claimed that (in 1959) was speaking in full capacity on behalf of India, Sikkim(now part of India for whatever reason or process) and Bhutan(not any more in that capacity since 2007).
I don't have much more to say. I would suggest to include section of Nehru's letter as you quoted here to the article itself and let the readers to judge by themselves. The original part be editted as India's view. In addition the China's view should be provided too, which should be simple enough. Karl3601 ( talk) 10:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Under section of "Sino-Bhutanese border dispute at Doklam", in the first paragraph, it states that In 1960, China issued a statement claiming that Bhutan, Sikkim and Ladakh were part of a unified family in Tibet and had always been subject to the "great motherland of China". I have tried very hard to find the origin of this assertion. However except for one or two India media, nowhere this can be found. Unless its origin can be ascertained, it should be removed. Karl3601 ( talk) 14:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Karl3601 ( talk) 10:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)@Kautilya3 The only thing that matters to Wikipedia is what the truth/fact is. The source you referred to is an article published in 2014 without any reference about it. If it really is a Chinese government's statement, then it is not difficult to find, especially a statement as shocking as to say that Sikkim and Bhutan belong to China. Karl3601 ( talk) 10:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Neville Maxwell has been touted as an expert on the Doklam standoff. So I decided to check what he has to say about the issues of this page in his book. [1] According to Maxwell:
I have indicated in green and red, the information that is verifiable from other scholarly sources and that which is not.
There is no evidence that the British ever wanted to "control" Tibet. They only wanted trading rights in Tibet. They kept on recognizing China as the suzerain of Tibet, even when China had no effective authority there. In fact, the Convention of Calcutta was itself a great example, where the Chinese agreed to leave Sikkim to the British, but Tibet rejected the deal. That is why the Younghusband expedition became necessary. After the expedition, the Tibetans seem to have preferred to deal with the British than the Chinese. "The British expedition was compared to a frog, the Chinese to a scorpion," says Charles Bell. [2]
As for Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan, Nepal was the only state that ever paid tribute to China, and that too temporarily as a result of their defeat in the Sino-Nepalese War. Despite their submission to China, they continued to harrass Sikkim. Neither Tibet nor China was able to stop it. Only the British were. This suggests that China's suzerainty over Nepal was nominal and short-lived.
Sikkim was defintely a dependency of Tibet when it was founded. Being a small state harassed by Nepal and Bhutan from two sides, it needed Tibetan help to survive. However, it is doubtful if this help warrants the modern terminology of suzerainty. Sikkim, just as Bhutan, was Tibetan and Buddhist. They accepted the Dalai Lama as the temporal and spiritual head of their nationalities. But they also fiercely tried to maintain their independence. There was some kind of a benign "familial relationship" between Tibet, Bhutan and Sikkim. [3]
As my write-up in the article says, Sikkim turned to the British because it got a bad deal after the Sino-Nepalese War. China annexed the Chumbi Valley, which the Sikkimese regarded as their own territory. Moreover, the territory that was previously occupied by Nepal wasn't returned to them. So they sought British help to check Nepal. After the British succeeded in doing so, the British extracted trading concessions in Sikkim.
As for Bhutan, it came under the British sphere of influence only in 1910 as a result of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. [4]
Finally, Maxwell says that after 1947, "new Indian Government consolidated their administration [presumably over the Himalayan states]". Nothing of the kind. Even before independence, Nehru got the Indian Constitutent Assembly to recognize that they were independent states (and not "Indian princely states"). India signed a Standstill agreement with them, meaning that all the erstwhile administrative (not political) arrangements would continue. The political arrangements happened only after the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949. Sikkim immediately became a protectorate of India. Bhutan became a protected state in 1951. "To continue a relationship originally established by imperialistic means was politically not easy for newly free India." [5]
Clearly, Neville Maxwell's treatment contains plenty of distortions of historical material, and is biased in favour of China and biased against the British and India. I would be treating him as a WP:BIASED source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Notthebestusername, Regarding this , the vast number of sources used in this section are absolutely clear that it is a dispute between China and Bhutan. Bringing in India seems to be WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Article mentions it is disputed, but doesn't mention whether it is currently under the control of Bhutan or China in the lead. 86.97.128.199 ( talk) 09:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The OpenStreetMap segment that I have included on this page ( full screen version) has attached some labels to the roads on the Doklam plateau. They are not in English. Can somebody figure out what they say? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, here is what the labels are. From the Sinchela Pass:
All the English versions are as produced by Google Translate. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
PvOberstein, I am afraid the India Today source that you added is contradicted by more authoritative sources. The sources cited in footnote 66 [1] say that China wanted all of 269 sq.km. in the western sector in exchange for 495 sq.km. in the central sector. We can see the 269 sq.km. marked on the Chinese map at the top of the page. (It is much more extensive than Doklam itself.) -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
References
(1) Is it possible to shade the Doklam region in the map? Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Nimbustrail added something about the representatives of Sikkim and Tibet being present during the negotiations, which I can't find in the source. Neither is it clear which volume of McKay was used for this purpose. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Problematic content moved here:
The treaty states that representatives of Sikkim and Tibet were part of these negotiations, but records show that they were not present during the negotiations in Calcutta. [1] [2]
References
- ^ Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1890 (PDF). London: British Foreign Office. 1894. p. 1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 July 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
- ^ McKay, Alex (2003). History of Tibet. London: Routledge Curzon. p. 142. ISBN 9780415308427.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The Eastern Economist says, This has been duly reported in "The Daily Telegraph” abroad, and most people in Delhi will agree is unlikely to have been invented; it must have been printed in a Tibetan paper avidly read in Kalimpong. It may be, as the Prime Minster said : "It would be an exceedingly foolish person who would make the remarks attributable to this gentleman" [Nehru's accompanying comment to his note in Parliament about the particular passage being absent in
China Today's copy of the speech] but, of course, extreme folly does exist in this world. The question is: was it said, or was it not? Why do not the Chinese deny that it was said [..]
Patterson was an integral part of Tibetan Resistance since late 40s, and he was not present at the site of speech but extracted the content from some (unknown) Tibetan daily in Kalimpong [this was his assigned desk-job]. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)