This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gipmochi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I propose that this article be merged into Doklam because it is basically discussing the trijunction issue, rather than Mount Gipmochi itself. I don't see any sources that discussing Mount Gipmochi on its own, which means it fails WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@
Sgsg: You have added the line All of Chinese maps depict the Doklam area east to Gipmochi as part of China
along with a Chinese language citation. Can you please provide the citation in English, and also a quote from the source that supports the claim? Please note that
WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require multiple, high-quality sources to support them. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3:, I want to get this correct (recognizing your expertise and work on Doklam and here and elsewhere...and I appreciate your generous thanks over the past week.) I just added a text source regarding how 1956 Survey of India mapping had moved the boundary northward (6km) to Batang La. "Everyone" who has been to a good map library, or looked at Bhutan govt. and Indian govt. and non-govt. maps on line, knows that since the 1940s-50s their mapping has the boundary at Batang La, we just have to provide examples (7 or 8 are in there.) Hope these are ok DLinth ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't know anything. I am still trying to figure it out. However, this is not about me. You need to discuss the content. Here is the content you have added:
Most if not all Indian-produced and Bhutanese government-produced maps since the 1940's depict the tri-junction as 6.5 km further north of Gipmochi near Batang La. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
References
- ^ "Why There's Trouble on the India-China Border". Rediff News. 29 June 2017. Retrieved 28 July 2017.
- ^ "Bhutan" (PDF). Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "Bhutan". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "The Siliguri Corridor in Contention map". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "West Bengal, Certified by Survey of India". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "West Bengal". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ Census of India. "Sikkim". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ Government of Sikkim. "Sikkim". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ Government of Sikkim. "Sikkim". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
This is an extremely sloppy way of describing a major point of dispute between two nuclear-armed neighbours, don't you think? Please give it the attention it deserves! The rediff source mentions a Survey of India map from 1956. Fine we can say that, and it can be inferred that all further maps would have done the same. The second source, for which you haven't given a full citation, is a 83-page report of the Bhutanese government. It never mentions "trijunction". The third source: again no mention of "trijunction". The fourth source: doesn't even have a map of Bhutan. So on. This is clearly not the way. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
In Premier Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter he clear stated 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 in this letter. Therefore Even if Bhutan disputes it, India has no right to help Bhutan in this case.
This letter should be quoted in the Wiki's "Gipmochi" entry.
In Wiki's entry for Doklam, some Indians argue that "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." However there is no proof at all that Nehru ever even remotely stated anything near to that meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl3601 ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gipmochi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I propose that this article be merged into Doklam because it is basically discussing the trijunction issue, rather than Mount Gipmochi itself. I don't see any sources that discussing Mount Gipmochi on its own, which means it fails WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@
Sgsg: You have added the line All of Chinese maps depict the Doklam area east to Gipmochi as part of China
along with a Chinese language citation. Can you please provide the citation in English, and also a quote from the source that supports the claim? Please note that
WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require multiple, high-quality sources to support them. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3:, I want to get this correct (recognizing your expertise and work on Doklam and here and elsewhere...and I appreciate your generous thanks over the past week.) I just added a text source regarding how 1956 Survey of India mapping had moved the boundary northward (6km) to Batang La. "Everyone" who has been to a good map library, or looked at Bhutan govt. and Indian govt. and non-govt. maps on line, knows that since the 1940s-50s their mapping has the boundary at Batang La, we just have to provide examples (7 or 8 are in there.) Hope these are ok DLinth ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't know anything. I am still trying to figure it out. However, this is not about me. You need to discuss the content. Here is the content you have added:
Most if not all Indian-produced and Bhutanese government-produced maps since the 1940's depict the tri-junction as 6.5 km further north of Gipmochi near Batang La. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
References
- ^ "Why There's Trouble on the India-China Border". Rediff News. 29 June 2017. Retrieved 28 July 2017.
- ^ "Bhutan" (PDF). Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "Bhutan". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "The Siliguri Corridor in Contention map". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "West Bengal, Certified by Survey of India". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "West Bengal". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ Census of India. "Sikkim". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ Government of Sikkim. "Sikkim". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ Government of Sikkim. "Sikkim". Retrieved 27 July 2017.
This is an extremely sloppy way of describing a major point of dispute between two nuclear-armed neighbours, don't you think? Please give it the attention it deserves! The rediff source mentions a Survey of India map from 1956. Fine we can say that, and it can be inferred that all further maps would have done the same. The second source, for which you haven't given a full citation, is a 83-page report of the Bhutanese government. It never mentions "trijunction". The third source: again no mention of "trijunction". The fourth source: doesn't even have a map of Bhutan. So on. This is clearly not the way. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
In Premier Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter he clear stated 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 in this letter. Therefore Even if Bhutan disputes it, India has no right to help Bhutan in this case.
This letter should be quoted in the Wiki's "Gipmochi" entry.
In Wiki's entry for Doklam, some Indians argue that "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." However there is no proof at all that Nehru ever even remotely stated anything near to that meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl3601 ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)