A fact from Five Fingers of Tibet appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 10:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by SignificantPBD ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Interesting. Both ALT0 and ALT1 fine, favoring ALT0. LittleT889 ( talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Chinese strategy, just like one wouldn't write in a hook that Blitzkrieg is a
German strategy. — MarkH21 talk 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It would be great if we could find some broader reliable sources that explicitly discuss the "Five Fingers of Tibet" to satisfy WP:NPOV. Right now, it's almost exclusively sourced to Indian sources, with the Belfiglio reference being the only exception in the article. — MarkH21 talk 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Chinese. What it is currently defined as in the lead isn’t a strategy: considering X to be Y isn’t a strategy, it’s an observation or viewpoint. The strategy is the plan to acquire the "fingers". I don’t dispute that sources may call the "Five Fingers of Tibet" a strategy, but some tweaking is required (one of those sources is an opinion article by the way). — MarkH21 talk 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
References
What is the original Chinese of the term? Displaying that could help readers look for any Chinese text related to the foreign policy from the CCP. -- Apisite ( talk) 07:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Foreign Languages Press claims, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party is a textbook which was written jointly by Comrade Mao Tse-tung and several other comrades in Yenan to the winter of 1939. The first chapter, "Chinese Society" [source of the quote], was drafted by other comrades and revised by Comrade Mao Tse-tung.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 14:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Vacosea, you have been WP:edit warring over this content:
India responded by trying to ensure that the five fingers are more closely attached to India. [1] China has offered Bhutan Jakarlung and Pasamlung (495 square kilometres) in exchange for Doklam and parts of Bji Gewog (totaling 269 square kilometres), closer to Indian territory. This prompted strong pressure from India on the Bhutanese government. In 1998, Bhutan and China recognized each other's sovereignty. [2]
References
- ^ Haidar, Suhasini (18 June 2020). "History, the standoff, and policy worth rereading". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 19 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
- ^ Ranjan, Amit (2020-07-20). "China's New Claim in Eastern Bhutan: Pressure Tactic or Message to India?". Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.
The first sentence is wrong, which I pointed out in the edit summary of my first revert. Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, and you can't insert them into Wikipedia unless you have support from a wide variety of sources. India's arrangements with the Himalayan states were made soon after Indian independence, and they were based on arrangements that were already in place during the British Raj. India has had age-old connections to Tibet and the Himalayan states, which are well-known. Mao Zedong is not a historian, but rather a politician.
The rest of the passage has nothing to do with the Five Fingers claim. And it doesn't belong in this page. Since you are also working on other Bhutan-related pages, let me point out that if you think Sinchulumpa etc. are not widely known, it is best to summarise it as "areas adjacent to the Chumbi Valley". (Bji Gewog is not well-known either.)
Please follow WP:BRD and refrain from WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I copied this content from Doklam in this edit, It has been long standing content there.
George Patterson reports that when Indian Prime Minister Nehru raised the matter with China, "he was bluntly informed that China's claims to these border territories were based on the same claim as for their invasion of Tibet." [1]
Alarmed, Bhutan closed off its border with China and shut off all trade and diplomatic contacts. [2] It also established formal defence arrangements with India. [3]
References
- ^ Patterson, George N., China's Rape of Tibet (PDF), George N. Patterson web site, archived from the original (PDF) on 27 August 2017, retrieved 23 August 2017
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Benedictus
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Sandeep Bharadwaj (9 August 2017), "Doklam may bring Bhutan closer to India", livemint, archived from the original on 16 August 2017
The first sentence was already part of the footnote [c] here, which I pulled up to the body. The second sentence is sourced to Benedictus, which was already cited here. The third sentence is new, but is verified by the source. Why was this content reverted?
I can understand the issue with the first sentence that it is self-sourced. But why were the others removed? And the Benedictus source as well? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 03:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
A fact from Five Fingers of Tibet appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 10:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by SignificantPBD ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Interesting. Both ALT0 and ALT1 fine, favoring ALT0. LittleT889 ( talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Chinese strategy, just like one wouldn't write in a hook that Blitzkrieg is a
German strategy. — MarkH21 talk 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
It would be great if we could find some broader reliable sources that explicitly discuss the "Five Fingers of Tibet" to satisfy WP:NPOV. Right now, it's almost exclusively sourced to Indian sources, with the Belfiglio reference being the only exception in the article. — MarkH21 talk 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Chinese. What it is currently defined as in the lead isn’t a strategy: considering X to be Y isn’t a strategy, it’s an observation or viewpoint. The strategy is the plan to acquire the "fingers". I don’t dispute that sources may call the "Five Fingers of Tibet" a strategy, but some tweaking is required (one of those sources is an opinion article by the way). — MarkH21 talk 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
References
What is the original Chinese of the term? Displaying that could help readers look for any Chinese text related to the foreign policy from the CCP. -- Apisite ( talk) 07:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Foreign Languages Press claims, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party is a textbook which was written jointly by Comrade Mao Tse-tung and several other comrades in Yenan to the winter of 1939. The first chapter, "Chinese Society" [source of the quote], was drafted by other comrades and revised by Comrade Mao Tse-tung.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 14:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Vacosea, you have been WP:edit warring over this content:
India responded by trying to ensure that the five fingers are more closely attached to India. [1] China has offered Bhutan Jakarlung and Pasamlung (495 square kilometres) in exchange for Doklam and parts of Bji Gewog (totaling 269 square kilometres), closer to Indian territory. This prompted strong pressure from India on the Bhutanese government. In 1998, Bhutan and China recognized each other's sovereignty. [2]
References
- ^ Haidar, Suhasini (18 June 2020). "History, the standoff, and policy worth rereading". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 19 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
- ^ Ranjan, Amit (2020-07-20). "China's New Claim in Eastern Bhutan: Pressure Tactic or Message to India?". Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.
The first sentence is wrong, which I pointed out in the edit summary of my first revert. Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, and you can't insert them into Wikipedia unless you have support from a wide variety of sources. India's arrangements with the Himalayan states were made soon after Indian independence, and they were based on arrangements that were already in place during the British Raj. India has had age-old connections to Tibet and the Himalayan states, which are well-known. Mao Zedong is not a historian, but rather a politician.
The rest of the passage has nothing to do with the Five Fingers claim. And it doesn't belong in this page. Since you are also working on other Bhutan-related pages, let me point out that if you think Sinchulumpa etc. are not widely known, it is best to summarise it as "areas adjacent to the Chumbi Valley". (Bji Gewog is not well-known either.)
Please follow WP:BRD and refrain from WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I copied this content from Doklam in this edit, It has been long standing content there.
George Patterson reports that when Indian Prime Minister Nehru raised the matter with China, "he was bluntly informed that China's claims to these border territories were based on the same claim as for their invasion of Tibet." [1]
Alarmed, Bhutan closed off its border with China and shut off all trade and diplomatic contacts. [2] It also established formal defence arrangements with India. [3]
References
- ^ Patterson, George N., China's Rape of Tibet (PDF), George N. Patterson web site, archived from the original (PDF) on 27 August 2017, retrieved 23 August 2017
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Benedictus
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Sandeep Bharadwaj (9 August 2017), "Doklam may bring Bhutan closer to India", livemint, archived from the original on 16 August 2017
The first sentence was already part of the footnote [c] here, which I pulled up to the body. The second sentence is sourced to Benedictus, which was already cited here. The third sentence is new, but is verified by the source. Why was this content reverted?
I can understand the issue with the first sentence that it is self-sourced. But why were the others removed? And the Benedictus source as well? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 03:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)