Talk:Doklam

Not at the trijunction

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)

The above comment is wrong on all counts. The Doklam Plateau in fact does include both tripoints claimed by the three countries. Doka La is on the western edge of the Doklam Plateau at the coordinate found in the article. The Deccan Herald map linked above has the incorrect location, jumping to the easy but erroneous conclusion that the area shown as disputed on Google Maps that is 30 km north of Doklam is in fact Doklam. The Doklam Plateau is located correctly in the Open Street Map at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3964647 . DLinth (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I also agree with the statement that Doklam is not located at the trijunction of the three countries and it is disputed area of China & Bhutan as both countries claim on it.India does not claim on Doklam. Doklam is situated near Sikkim, the part of India. Indian connection with Doklam is their Security Implication in the region. Hence the Doklam should be considered as disputed area between China and Bhutan only. सुमित सिंह (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fraenir and सुमित सिंह, doklam is not on trijunciton. it is on border of Bhutan and India, and trijunction lies several km up north of Doklam. Two stakeholder nations' claim pitted against one slowly-creeping invading China. 2404:E800:E61E:452:7D9B:33C0:E303:C435 (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

About the term Doklam and Doklang, they all are referring to the same area (plateaus, ridges and valleys included), different nations controlling different parts have different name for the larger same area, due to linguistic and phonetic differences. He do not have to force-invent different names of the parts of same area held by different nations. All 3 nations have different names for the whole area, but each one of those nations refers to the whole area with the same country-specific local name. 2404:E800:E61E:452:7D9B:33C0:E303:C435 (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Different names of the same area

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:

• Doklam in Standard Tibetan
• Doka La in Indian usage
• Donglang in Chinese usage
• Zhoglam in Standard Tibetan
• Droklam in Dzongkha and Chomo Tibetan

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)

Changes made

I have

• Removed the false statement, "India is not allowed to intervene in Bhutan's foreign relations". This statement is incorrect, the latest treaty takes away the "mandatory" condition imposed on Bhutan to seek India's guidance in foreign relations, i.e. it is no longer mandatory, but Bhutan is not "prevented from using India's help" and Bhutan continues to have very strong military tries. For example, PM Modi made a point to visit Bhutan as first nation after being elected, they officially announced that among other things, "concerns about China" were on bilateral Bhutan-India agenda. This has been made clear in my edit supported by over dozen reputed media sources.
• Further clarity about the latest treaty of friendship added, that does not "disallow India from helping Bhutan", in fact it clearly states they can help each other. Sourced excerpts of the treaty added.
• India maintains military presence and still continues to build military fortifications, airports, roads in Bhutan under the current treaty treaty of friendship. All this has been made explicit in my edit supported by over dozen reputed media sources.
• Sourced repudiation of out-of-context claims about Nehru's statement added.
• Further clarity about 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. Nehru's sourced quotes from letter added.
• Statement from the Bhutan Ambassador to India, against Chinese incursion has been added to refute China's false claim that India has no right to intervene on Bhutan's behalf (sovereign nation). As a sovereign nation Bhutan has every right to seek India's help under the current treaty of friendship if they want, though it is no longer mandatory for them to ask for it (which it was under previous treaty).
• Sourced view from the experts in the independent media (not owned by any government) added. This also includes views from the former Indian foreign secretary and Indian Ambassador to China Ms. Nirupama Rao.
• Added "see also" section
• Added Bhutan, China, India, International relations portal

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)

Linked map

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)

Inconsistent

@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)

@Kautilya3:, Sorry for the confusion @Kautilya3 I meant that it is closer to the modern day Yadong county. But it was historically in Tibet's Chumbi Valley. I will edit and update the post. Thanks for pointing out. I want to bring out the historic trade route of Yatung market that used to function through Sikkim into Tibet. The negotiations between the British and the Chinese was to resolve the conflict over the trade and assign boundary along the Chumbi valley of Tibet. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbustrail (talk • contribs)

@Kautilya3:, firstly, thanks for your kind note of thanks a few days back. More thanks for all your work on this article! See the edit that I just made.... that geographic detail is non-controversial I think and adds to the geographic and placename clarity, yes?...complements what you have. My understanding is that WP distances like that can go unsourced if they are "common knowledge" that can be ascertained (measured) on Google Maps, Google Earth, or other widely available maps. Wanted to get your take on that. Thanks. DLinth (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DLinth, the distances were actually mentioned in the same Diplomat article. So they are not a problem. However, you have offered a second interpretation of the article of the treaty. I am afraid it needs to be sourced and attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the "second interpretation" was added by another editor. I removed it now. All is well. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that at least part of what I copied back in from an earlier edit by an IP editor was actually a direct copy-paste of a whole paragraph (violating copyright) and was properly removed by @Diannaa:. I'll re-work that to include just non-copyrighted material like easily-sourced distances, names.DLinth (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A view from Google Earth

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)

By tilting the image it is also easy to see the ridge lines. It seems that water from pretty much anywhere on the plateau would flow into Bhutan. The water-parting principle specified in the Anglo-Chinese treaty would make it Bhutanese territory (by extension, because Bhutan is not mentioned in the treaty). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Google shows what I take to be the Chinese claim, if you ask for Yadong County [4]. It is a lot bigger than you would imagine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Great fun (and eye-opening) to look at the version of Google Maps used in China (don't zoom in too far...try this: http://www.google.cn/maps/@27.2785014,89.1667882,8.83z ) and compare side by side with "our" Google Maps (or Google Earth)... The whole Sikkim-India borders match until you of course get to this area...the whole southern and southeastern tip of the Chinese Chumbi Valley. Not unexpectedly, the CH version shows Doklam and other CH-claimed areas immediately to the NE within China, and the "regular" version of Google Maps and Google Earth shows the same area as Bhutanese. DLinth (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Another version of the Google China map that shows no border at all [5]. The point called "Doka La Platue" was recently added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of Chumbi valley?

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

References

.

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)

Agree with K3...For his reason (Doka La, Batang La, Gipmochi...all the key points in this dispute are on high ridges) and general usage of "Chumbi Valley" to refer to the non-disputed finger of China just to the north (an actual valley, centered on the largest river in the region.) DLinth (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Indian stance?

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)

Agreed, especially the two parts I just highlighted above. DLinth (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Two quotations from Bhutan

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)

Kautilya3 Lots of WP articles have two quote blocks just for this purpose...to compare conflicting wordsmithing from the (same) government. But fine... But what is not fine is to remove a quote from the head of state (king) of one of the parties and thus remove his country's public reference to the crux of that country's claim (that their boundary runs from Gipmochi to Batang La.) Removing that is simply not an option.

We could instead just textually say "two years later, a statement from the Secretary omitted the reference to Mount Gipmochi"...how about that?? The secretary's 2004 statement, contrary to your "clearcut" and "precisely" characterizations above, is neither...it actually removed a key feature (Gipmochi) from the king's 2002 statement... to selectively include one and to omit the king's claim would be viewed as POV, yes? DLinth (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. K3, I just got good news... a notification that within 2-3 weeks the Geonames site (US govt.) will change the Gipmochi coordinates to the correct location (the big peak...the coordinates in this WP article) and will get rid of one of the two entries they have in there for the same mountain!DLinth (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And I love your "they just can't figure out..." comment in the email you just sent  :-) DLinth (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have two specific problems with the 2002 statement:

• Gipmochi is not on the Bhutan–China border. So its inclusion is misleading.
• I am not confident of the accuracy of the "89 sq km" disputed area claim. Where exactly are the 89 sq km in this map? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, a minute ago here, another of your many fine rv of "mindless POV" (well-said) edits... Should we get this page semi-protected again? And a speedy delete for 2017 India China border standoff?

At http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zgyw/P020170802542676636134.pdf on p. 9, the Chinese embassy just released another version of "their" map... and 89 sq. km is exactly the area outlined and labeled "Doklam" on their map...everything west of the big river. And regarding the king's inclusion of Gipmochi, that's just as critical as anything, my only "sword to die on" issue, since that is the crux of the dispute and it's on (albeit at the SW corner) of this article's subject (Doklam Plateau.) The king (and India and Bhutan govts.) as you know say that the Gipmochi-Doka La-Batang La watershed border is in fact the Bhutan-India border, but as you know China disagrees and says its the China-India border and thus China is 100% against the king's statement. So to exclude the king's mention of Gipmochi would not just be China-POV but would be removing a rare instance of a Bhutan govt. official actually using placenames to define their Doklam area claim. I hope that makes sense. Don't let the vandalism and POV'ers get you down, kind sir!! DLinth (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then, two things need to be done.

• It should be stated that it is Bhutan border that is described, not Bhutan–China border.
• For the 89 sq. km., it should be stated that it is the area south west of Amo Chu river only. The total area claimed by China here appears to be 269 sq km [6].

I still don't know what "Doklam" means. The fact that the "Doklam plateau" is well to the north of the current disputed site suggests that it is a wider area than what the current media reports suggest. We need to eventually and update this page accordingly. Is it possible the maps like this on the BBC News website are wrong?

Regarding the other page, I don't think it can be AfD'ed because it meets WP:GNG. But it may be a good thing, by sending all the mindless POV pushers over there, and saving us time here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Tibetic name

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; French: Belgique; German: Belgien)

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" was simply a hoax I added into Wikipedia, okay? Are you happy now? Frankly I don't care whether the name "(n)Droklam" is written here. Eitherway "(n)Droklam" 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)

Geography is still wrong

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)

Another source that states something similar[10]: "The location of the standoff is Dolam plateau, which is in the Doklam area (as referred to in the statements of the Ministry of External Affairs and the Embassy of Bhutan in New Delhi). The Dolam plateau is different from Doklam plateau (which is a disputed area between Bhutan and China, but has no contiguity with India). This source also states that it's the Dolam plateau, not the Doklam plateau, that is at the trijunction. 18:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Fraenir (talk)

In summary, there's three geographic terms that are being conflated in this article Doklam area/region, Doklam plateau, and Dolam plateau. Geographically, there are credible sources that define each differently. Fraenir (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fraenir:

My advice is to give up. This article has died. I tried to add the geographic location of Doklam and Doka La many times, but some removed it and kept claimed the disputed region called Chamapu-Giu (you can find them on PlacesMap, called "Jiwu Laga, Xigaze, Bhutan" and "Jiwu Laga, Xigaze, Bhutan", note that Bhutan will not claim it that way as Xigaze indicates Tibetan territory) the location of Doklam.

Interestingly enough, there's a region that Chinese have effectively relinquished its claim long ago by drawing it as Bhutanese territory in most of the map it published, but haven't officially relinquished: this region is still considered one of the disputed regions there, but not considered a disputed region by the Bhutanese. This doesn't matter nevertheless, since China is ready to relinquish it and have never raised it up during the border talks. Taiwan, however, still carefully claims it (see the article Free Area).

As for the name, Indians call it Doklam plateau while Chinese call it Donglang valley, after Donglang river, a tributary of Amo Chhu. Both Dolam and Doklam are Indo-Aryan corruption of nDroklam: Indians have some problem distinguishing dr from d although they have both sounds (as you can notice from Indian English); there's no prenasalization in Aryan languages; in Dzongkha and Standard Tibetan, coda -g/-k is often realized as a glottal stop, which are not presented Aryan languages (Tibetans would consider "-ʔ" a "-k" but Indians consider it nothing), thus resulted in the form "Dolam".

There is a "plateau" part of Doklam and a "valley" part of Doklam, but the boundary, if exist, is entirely artificial and coined by Indian media. Remember the same media, Indian Express, has wrote an article claiming "China entered Indian in the Sikkim sector"? Are you also going to take it literally? --146.96.252.3 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion is quite unclear. Is there some other place called Doklam plateau other than what is described here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 8 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)

My description was "Prevailing border of Bhutan". No mention of a "claim". That is the map OSM has. Nothing to do with me. The link that got deleted (not by me) is placed in the "See also" list. It is now labelled as the "disputed area in OSM" or something to that effect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Country disputes

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)

This article from 2013 describes the disputes quite well, I think. Does the text in Map 2 match the English transcription below it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait a second, is there any necessity to separate my comment a new section here? I don't quite get what's the topic of the dispute and where "my dispute" is. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the previous section was on "Geography". It helps to keep the discussions focused on one topic at a time so that we can reach consensus without getting lost in noise. Your posts are also approaching WP:TLDR by the way. Please keep them succinct. This is not a WP:FORUM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutral point of view

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)

I understand your view, but this has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Can you point to what part of the WP:NPOV policy is being violated? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The section immediately starts with "Chinese intrusion" and not a background, or possible explanation for the Chinese claims. "with India playing a supporting role", does not mention the strategic reasons for India to intervene. Current position only describes Bhutan's positions, whereas this conflict has 3 parties involved, why are the other viewpoints not relevant? In the next part, "countering aggression from China", it can be debated whether border intrusions are aggression or provocation, for example, frequent Russian intrusions in European territorial water and airspace are rarely called aggression. At least that part should be in quotes, as it was taken from an Indian source which is likely biased towards one side. Finally the last part of the article includes a 2 sided viewpoint and uses neutral language. So in sum it's mostly WP:WEIGHT and WP:IMPARTIAL. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I hear you fine. But you can only label it WP:POV if published views in reliable sources have been omitted. I can find plenty of Indian sources that explain the Chinese actions, but they will not necessarily make the article neutral. There is very little information from China or pro-Chinese commentators regarding the basis of Chinese claims. The Current position section does state both the Bhutanese and Chinese positions. But there is a great degree of presumption in our explanation of the Chinese position, viz., that it is based on the 1890 Anglo-Chinese treaty, because Bhutan was not involved in the treaty. But we have added this, even though it is irrelevant, precisely to bring some balance to the discussion.

The fact of the matter is that it is Bhutanese territory claimed by China. Unless the Chinese explain the basis for their claims, there is little that we can do.

The last section on the Standoff still needs to be reviewed. I am not surprised that it has POV wording. But I think the wording of "aggression" can be substantiated. It is not merely an "intrusion". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

One-sided

I agree with Pieceofmetalwork 100%. Kautilya3, Wikipedia says this is not allowed: "The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

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

Being "one sided" doesn't mean that it is a WP:POV. To say that it is POV, you need to argue that it is not representing reliable sources in a faithful manner. As such, your complaint here just means that it doesn't accord with your POV. It does not warrant a POV tag.

The "grass tax" issue is not discussed in any reliable source, as far as I know. It was only claimed by the Chinese governments. And, government claims do not warrant any more than passing mentions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, You said, "government claims do not warrant any more than passing mentions", but majority of the article is devoted to the India/Bhutan claim, just a claim and one without any basis or legal foundation.

The "grass tax" issue is not discussed in any reliable source as you say? Even Indian experts at a debate Chinese experts agreed Tibet has record of Bhutanese paying tax to Tibet for using Doklam, and history Professor Tansen Sen from the India side disputed paying tax to local Tibet could be viewed as paying it to China, but the panelists eventually agreed that Tibet is a part of China as internationally recognized. Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSr0w6hD2Bg

Grass is also discussed in Cohen, Jerome Alan; Chiu, Hungdah (2017), People's China and International Law, Volume 1: A Documentary Study, Princeton University Press, p. 422, ISBN 978-1-4008-8760-6.

The section you added on Bhutanese reactions is overly biased and problematic, and it completely changed the meaning of the original edit by Pieceofmetalwork. Firstly, ENODO Global's method of survey method is very questionable. I have followed some of discussions on the Internet in Bhutan though I did not participate in any discussions, but I found a large number of them are from India. Pretending that everything you quoted from ENODO is Bhutanese response is concerning.

Secondly, you conveniently omitted one important part in the ENODO report to suit your POV. Namely the report says exactly what New York times said: many Bhutanese were concerned about their sovereignty and detested India's involvement. The Diplomat also carried a piece saying, "ENODO’s analysis revealed that approximately 76 percent of Twitter and 65 percent of Facebook Bhutanese social media users questioned Bhutan’s over-reliance on India’s diplomatic channels to broker a deal with China. Messages on Bhutanese news websites, blogs, and Facebook reveal anxiety regarding the absence of a direct dialogue between Bhutan and China." " “Bhutan is neither a ‘vassal’ nor a ‘protectorate.’” Commenting on Facebook about the Chinese incursion in Doklam, the author Tenzing Lamsang said, “Bhutan has successfully defended its sovereign borders against its much bigger neighbors, and even made territorial conquests in some cases,” a message to both India and China." All this shows that what New York Times Reported is truthful.

The bias in using ENODO report should be corrected: either remove it or add the part of the report that agrees with New York Times. 107.77.240.117 (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the recent edits by Talk:Kautilya3 are reasonable, especially assuming the user may be from India and has some emotional stake in the issue. The content factually reflect the findings of the ENODO report. However it is disputable to present with so many words, like it could stack up against New York Times reporting, especially since American media is all but biased to Chinese politics. I also think that the comments about the Xinhua video are irrelevant, as it is insignificant, and it can't be said if the backslash was from Indians or from Bhutanese.Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think both the sources are WP:BIASED, but the ENODO study has a greater weight because it was a careful study rather than a reporter talking to a bunch of random people over a couple of days. Notice also how the NYT is giving weight to opposition leaders and traders that depend on Chinese trade etc. ENODO on the other hand, is not telling us any views favourable to China. So, frankly, I don't know what the truth is. But I am reporting what is available. What is clear is that Bhutan is now a democracy, and the people are not satsified with the tight control over information that the government has heretofore held. Hopefully that will change in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

1960s

@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)

Adam4math, you have reinstated this content again and again. But you haven't provided eny evidence to counter Bhutan's assertion in 1966: the Chinese government had not so far disputed the traditional boundaries. Is there any such evidence? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentence at Beginning Makes it Unnecessary for a Statement from China in the 1960s

Kautilya3, I used the following a sentence at the beginning of the article to remove any doubt you may have:

China asserts that this is Chinese territory based on the 1890 Convention of Calcutta and that border inhabitants of Bhutan needed to pay tax to the Chinese side in order to herd in the area before 1960 with tax receipts still in its Tibet Archives.

However, you engaged in edit war and remove the sentence at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011 by abusing Wikipedia policy after you did many other damages to my work in several steps prior to this. -- Adam4math (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Adam4math (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user

When we are talking about 1960s, we only state what happened in that time period. If the Chinese government made any statements in 1960s, they would belong there, not what they say in 2017. So, if you have any information about what the Chinese government said in 1960s, please provide it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is not restricted to 1960s or 2017. It talks everything about Doklam including your one sided history in the 18th and 19th century, and the current China-India standoff.

The short sentence near the beginning of the article clearly states China's assertion based on International Treaty and backed by solid tax receipts from Bhutan for its use of Doklam. But Bhutan did not claim it until India the bully holding Bhutan hostage forced it to claim it. You know very clearly what the truth is, but you are afraid of and cannot tolerate the truth, and wanted to hide it, acted quickly to removed the sentence.

You are a party in the dispute. You must stop acting as the Judge in the dispute. Adam4math (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Adam4math (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user

Whatever the Chinese government says is a claim, not a fact. This claim happened in 2017. So that is where it goes. For the nth time, do you have information about what the Chinese government said in the 1960s? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The sentence you removed did say "China asserts that ....... ", while you always brand India's one sided stories as facts. AS a party in the dispute, you cannot be the Judge.

Adam4math (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user

You added China's assertion from 2017. What did it assert in 1960s? I am not sure how many times I have to ask this question! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentence at Beginning Makes it Unnecessary for a Statement from China in the 1960s. But you remove the sentence. For instance, I bought a house 20 years ago with legal record. Do I have to say I bought the house late prove it? It is legally recorded. China's claim is based on legal record. Adam4math (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user

References

UNDUE commentaries

@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)

@Adam4math: your use of long quotations and repetition of same information is undue, the current section "Chinese position" is enough. Capitals00 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Border Controversy is a Summary, not the main article

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)

Untitled

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)

Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter to Zhou

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)

Yes but what will be the context of this quote? Capitals00 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe it was stated by India media. India government official statement definitely does not mention this. Adam4math (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user

@Capitals00: how about just "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"? Karl3601 (talk) 13:55, 20 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)

@Kautilya3 in that letter Nehru stated that he was speaking in full capacity on behalf of India, Sikkim(now part of India) and Bhutan(not any more in that capacity since 2007). In the first part he talked about the boundries between Bhutan and China region Tibet and that some disputes were waiting to be solved. In the second half he mainly talked about Sikkim. However when he was speaking about the Convention of 1890. His word was clear that the Convention "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." Obviously he accept that up to Gipmochi Sikkim is bordered with China, he was not aware of any disputes from Bhutan at that time. Otherwise a caveat must be inserted here. Remember again that he was talking about the territory on behalf of three countries with China.

I am surprised that British India and then India were not aware of the problem tri-junction, that until then Bhutan did not ask India to speak out on their behalf about it.

It sounds more likely that India is trying to create an issue here.Karl3601 (talk) 15:35, 22 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.

The 1890 convention defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet. It said nothing about the boundary between Bhutan and Tibet. The trijunction involves the intersection of both the boundaries, which was not defined in 1890. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

Bhutan... subject to China?

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)

That passage is sourced to The Diplomat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. However my point is still valid. If this is a statement from Chinese government, or at least from China's major media, then it should not be difficult to find it from a source at that time, i.e. 1960. Anything from India news papers at that time? Or even better from a reputable western newspaper?Karl3601 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The author and the article are "reputable western sources" (not sure what "reputable" and "western" have to do with each other). They are cited in encyclopedias [11]. It is not clear if you have even looked at the source or followed up on the sources cited there. The content meets the Wikipedia policies of reliable sourcing. Please feel free to investigate whatever you might like to investigate, perhaps starting from Google books. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If this is a government statement then in my view the source should be at least from newspapers of that time, i.e. 1960. As a matter of fact I "have even looked at the source or followed up on the sources cited there." I even have found the author's own blogpost. I have also tried to search it on the web but nothing comes out. I have asked severl oversea Chinese persons in their 70s who were fully aware the conflicts in that area. None of them has any memory that the official Chinese newspaper/government statement saying Bhutan or Sikkim belongs to China. Also they don't think they were taught anything like that in China schools.Karl3601 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It makes no difference what the Chinese government says or what your Chinese friends say. The only thing that matters to Wikipedia is what reliable sources say. If you persist with this line of argument, it would be considered disruptive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It is you, Kautilya3, who has been persistently disruptive and engaging in edit warring. You are abusing Wikipedia's reliable sources and others policies to bully and confuse others, like you tried them on me. I have studied the history of your interactions with other wiki editors on other controversial topics and have found that this a pattern of your behavior. You need stopping doing all these.

I left many warnings on you talk page at Kautilya3 about you edit warring, but you deleted them. Why did you delete them? If you are doing appropriate and constructive work, why did you delete my warnings? What do have to hide? People can still find my warnings on your talk page at Kautilya3 through the the history pages there.

You have admitted you are a party in the dispute. Your view is biased, not neutral. I have explained to you that a party to a dispute in court cannot be the Judge. For disputed issues between parties, you must specify the sources for any statement. Truth is not afraid of being exposed, only lies are. Truth will be glad and proud to let world know where it is from. Lies are always afraid of being fully exposed. Your actions just shows that you always want to hide. Stop pretending to be the Judge. Let third party be the Judge. Adam4math (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Adam4math (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC) blocked user

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 fact check

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. According to Maxwell:

• Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan were all "in varying degrees in dependence upon or allegiance to China".
• "Lhasa looked upon Sikkim as a Tibetan dependency,[58] and made periodic assertions of suzerainty over Bhutan[59]".
• After the Sino-Nepalese War, Nepal became "a tributary of China".
• After the Anglo-Nepalese War, the British were content "with a situation in which Nepal continued in form under China's suzerainty, but in fact accepted British control".
• The first decade of the twentieth century saw Britain attempting to establish exclusive influence over Tibet....Curzon failed, however, in his objective..."
• "But the British found that these small states continued in practice in dual allegiance, that while their own authority was nominal, the Tibetans exercised de facto control."
• "...after 1947, the new Indian Government consolidated their administration, to the exclusion of Tibetan authority, Tibet and later China protested."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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)

Kautilya3, your extensive research is admirable, although your conclusion of Maxwell's bias is not compatible with most Western scholars' view of him. Scholars differ for many different reasons, and I do remember reading from The Cambridge History of China that Sikkim and Bhutan, being tributaries of Tibet, were indirectly in allegiance to China, thus agreeing with Maxwell. I've already written extensively at another talk page about Neville Maxwell's credentials and academic reputation, I'm not going to repeat the points here. -Zanhe (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

See this edit. I repeat, Neville Maxwell is not a historian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Labelling the dispute

Notthebestusername, Regarding this edit, 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)

You make a good point, Kautilya3. However, both - the communiques from China as well as India issued over the past three months present this as a dispute between China and India. Hence the edit. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No doubt India is heavily involved in the 2017 dispute, but the section you relabelled is the historical one. Prior to 2017, India was only in the background, providing various forms of support to Bhutan. The historical dispute is squarely between China and Bhutan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed area, ok, but who actually controls the area ?

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)

All three countries patrol it. That is all we know. But the article tells you that China has been encroaching bit by bit. But whether it amounts to "control" or not is not for us to decide. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap labels

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)

You can copy the text here. [12] [13] [14] Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, here is what the labels are. From the Sinchela Pass:

• The road that goes west, back into the valley has been labelled: 那塘-沈久拉-托加公路 Nathang-Shenjula-Toga Highway
• The road to the Doka La pass has been labelled: 洞朗公路 - Doklam Highway (This was the site of the standoff)
• The road on the eastern side of the plateau has been labelled: 姐普公路 – Jiepu Road

All the English versions are as produced by Google Translate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of the western sector?

PvOberstein, I am afraid the India Today source that you added is contradicted by more authoritative sources. The sources cited in footnote 66 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

Maps Reqs.

(1) Is it possible to shade the Doklam region in the map? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Not unless we make our own map. It is basically the valley of the Doklam river, lying between the Zhompelri and Dhongkya ranges [15]. But I think China includes all the region up to the Amo Chu river. The map in the infobox is a copy of a Chinese government map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Present during the negotiations

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.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've rescued the first reference, as it's used elsewhere in the article and appears to be a RS. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Where does the source say anything about the representatives? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry misunderstanding, it's used elsewhere to reference other materials. I have no comment on this particular issue. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Particularly it's used in the Current position, where I have rescued it to. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Note c

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)

I dug for more sources but there is nothing apart from The Daily Telegraph. DT's descriptions would be carried by Times and Indian Media, a few weeks later.TrangaBellam (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost everything about India printed in foreign newspapers is extracted from unnamed Indian newspapers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You can also see the Five Fingers of Tibet page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a poor comparison — all leading newspapers have multiple correspondents based out of India since long back. The job-profile of NYT/WaPo/BBC's India/South Asia correspondent(s) is not to scan a bunch of local newspapers every morning and get some kind of summary to print the next day. Not that they don't borrow from Indian newspapers, which are almost always attributed! TrangaBellam (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple foreign and domestic newspapers had their focus on Tibet - why did everybody miss the speech apart from Patterson? TrangaBellam (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The Five Fingers of Tibet page is weird: it uses a bunch of low quality sources to "allege" that China has some kind of nefarious grand-arching design (which might be true; China's claims about its borders are mostly nonsense and tenuous) but proclaims at every alternate line that no public evidence exists. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I will be happy to work on the Five Fingers of Tibet page. Why don't you fill out George N. Patterson page and we can compare notes? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)