Talk:Phunchok Stobdan

Come to the Discussion Page rather than deleting acclaimed information

User:Kautilya3 should not unilaterally delete sourced information which is not spam. If he is unable to say that the information provided under the topic "Stance on the Sanju Pass and Hindutash Passes in Ladakh" is spam, then he has no business to interfere misusing his powers as admin just because he has been instructed by User:JimmyWales that any credible acclaimed information which repudiates the bogus and spurious territorial claims of the Chinese in India should be summarily be removed, and such instructions should not be adhered to. 117.202.44.103 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I repeat my edit summary (along with the correction of a typo): This is a biography page, should be based on WP:THIRDPARTY sources about the man.You cherry-picked content from an op-ed authored by the subject. That is not a THIRDPARTY source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This sub-heading, "Stance on the Sanju Pass and Hindutash Passes in Ladakh" is a part of the works of Phunchok Stobdan and extracted from his own article and does not require third-party sources as it pertains to the extracts from the own works of the author in question, and it defines the author.

Extract from Map published in 1900 depicting the Kashmiri town of Shahidullah and the Hindutash Pass in Ladakh and much of the Karakash river adjoining the Kuen Lun Range as part of Kashmir.

The extracted information is per se relevant, pertinent and germane to the article as the person in question is an academician, diplomat and author, and regarded as an expert on Indian foreign policy and national security on Central and Inner Asian affairs.

Map titled Chinese Empire & Japan by John Bartholomew & published, in 1893 by John Walker and Co Ltd, London in The Handy Reference Atlas of the World depicting the International Boundary of India with East Turkistan on the Kuen Lun Range & depicting Kukalang & Hindu-tash Passes, & the Raskam Tract adjoining the Kuen Lun Range in northern Kashmir & the Kara Kash River in Kashmir as part of India and depicting the provinces of Bengal, Nepal, Assam including the Assam Himalaya, and Kashmir as part of India prior to 1947.

In a biography page, it is permissible to quote the person in question and reproduce extracts from his works. The crux of the issue is whether there at all space available for Indians on Wikipedia when it comes to exposing and debunking the spurious and bogus fraudulent territorial claims of the Chinese inside India vis-à-vis Hindu-tash and Sanju-la Passes in Aksai Chin in Ladakh in a scenario where the platform has the chronic propensity of habitually and summarily supporting the bogus and spurious Chinese territorial claims inside India as a core policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.46.65 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As I explained to you on twitter, this is not enough. There is not, as far as I know, any real problem with the information you quote, but it does not belong in a short biography of this person. It's a single quote from a single work of his, not something that defines him or his life. He's written on many topics in many places, but you seem to want to use this page as a soapbox for some particular thing that he said at one point. It is not even clear to me why. Can you please explain, in not too many words, why you think this particular passage is important to his life story?

"The crux of the issue is whether there at all space available for Indians on Wikipedia when it comes to exposing and debunking the spurious and bogus fraudulent territorial claims of the Chinese inside India" - if your interest is in improving Wikipedia coverage of the various competing claims of the Chinese and Indian goverments to land, then the right place for that would be in articles about that, not this biography. I don't know whether this particular op-ed sheds useful light on that question, that'd be a question for another talk page on another day. I'm just telling you that the fact that this has no business in this biography is NOT a question about whether there is space on Wikipedia to record unbiased factual information about historical claims - there is! It's just that this is absolutely the wrong place for it. Do you understand?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Jimbo Wales has given the long answer as to why the content doesn't belong here. But finding WP:SECONDARY sources is the minimum requirement for us to even to entertain the thought of including it here. If his view is notable, somebody must have discussed it, countered it, or even mentioned it. If that is not the case, Wikipedia can't make up its own idea of what is important in his writings, based on editors' prejudices. See WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)