Talk:Gipmochi

Merge proposal
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)

All of Chinese maps
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)

Bhutanese and Indian maps
, 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 okDLinth (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Still no good. Swarjya is not a mainstream news source, and opinion columns should be attributed. (See WP:NEWSORG). The maps you cite are no good either because those that checked don't show Batang La. Neither is the resolution high enough to see what they actually imply. Please pare down the citations to those that show Batang La and include a full citation for them (in particular, state which map is being referred to.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * K3, you know that every Indian and Bhutanes map over the past 75 years has shown the boundary not at Gipmochi but at Batang La. So why are you objecting to this simple statement of fact being included? Facts included within opinion columns, if verifiable are acceptable.... The 1956 Survey of India map (and all others in the past 75 years) show the boundary well north of Gipmochi.  You know that to be true...why do you want that information not included here?
 * The resolution of every one of the maps that I added as sources is quite adequate and clear. (Wasn't it you that added, in the Doklam infobox, the OpenStreet map link, since Doklam wasn't labeled on the CIA map there?  Regardless, a map does not have to label a feature for the map to be used as a source.  A map can show the Mississippi River and not label it, and still be valid.DLinth (talk) 17:20, 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:

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)


 * I'll admit to sloppiness/leaving out publishers, dates, etc. with these source listings....been busy at work this week...no excuse. (Though the 83 page report has numerous maps showing the border at Batang La...I should have added page #'s.....and source #4 doesn't have a map of Bhutan because, as per the "Siliguri" title, it's not a source for Bhutan but for how Indian maps show the junction.)  But would you not agree that, if every single map for ~70 years from two disputing parties (Bhutan, India) depict the boundary tripoint (in their favor, of course) at Batang La, then that's a salient point to include.
 * You do more WP edits a day than I do a month, but do WP sources HAVE to be text only? Most encyclopedias include graphics.  We say "all maps done by Morocco for decades show Western Sahara as fully part of Morrocco" but not a single one uses the text "Western Sahara."  But they depict it as such, clearly.   We say "maps of the US from 1800 to 1820 depict Maine", but Maine is not actually labeled on (most of) them...not a state until 1820, part of Mass.  Same here... any map reader (including 90% of the TV-viewing Indian population this month) can find Batang La-Doklam depicted on map (just as 20% of the US public can find Maine!...just kidding), and every map sourced above depicts the boundary at Batang La, clearly (just like it would be clear if a map of the US chopped off a big chunk of Maine).
 * Bottom line: even though the words "trijunction" or "Batang La" (or "Western Sahara" or "Port Kent, Maine's northern tip") don't appear as text....the sources do show clearly on the maps what the WP sentence is saying, and that should be a valid source, right?.....when we're simply verifying the sentence "Bhutan-India maps depict such and such..."
 * I'm not in the practice of deleting relevant sources and I don't think that helps the reader to do so.... Instead I'd like your help on how to word the sentence before the sources.... "A preponderance of maps from Bhutan and India since the 1950's depict the border of Bhutan as extending to Batang La, 6.5 km north of Gipmochi." ("All available maps..."??)
 * I know WP has a guideline somewhere that says that if 95% or more of the sources say or show one thing, then the minority view can be subjugated to a secondary role, if that (and 95% at least of Bhutan and India-produced maps show the same thing.) Is that not a salient point worthy of inclusion... that one actor is knowingly building roads in an area shown by the other two parties as theirs for 70 years?...that's all I'm saying.  (I work in one of the world's largest map libraries, which is why I used the 95% figure...I've seen many many maps of this area, on line as well, and not one shows Gipmochi as the tripoint except those by China.)
 * Suggestions? I can then try to clean this up....These Doklam, Bhutan-China relations, etc. articles have a lot bigger threat to their WP:NPOV than me, as you've addressed (nice job!) a recently as yesterday!DLinth (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In the first place, this is not a page on China/India/Bhutan disputes. It is just a page on Mount Gipmochi. I was disappointed that there is so little information available on it, the reason for my nominating it for AfD. Given that this article is likely to stay, we still have to keep the focus on Gipmochi.
 * You work in a map library. So maps may be second nature to you. Most of us had a whale of a time trying to figure out what is being talked about. That is why The Diplomat had to write an entire article on it. Anyway, your point is that the reader should be able to match the shapes in the map with those in the sources. For that purpose, this article needs to have a map first. It took me a while to produce the map displayed on the right. (I had never done an OSM map before. Even now the labels are disappearing on a full screen view, not sure why.)
 * I would like your comments on it. First of all, the coordinates given on this page point to the Google's idea of where Gyemo Chen is. But it is clearly wrong, because it is not on Indian border. We have to put the correct coordinates.
 * Secondly, should Batang-La be marked on it too, given that it is already being used as the trijunction point by OSM? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep pinging you... I get on WP rarely (and am on vacation for a few weeks soon) and I don't know how you keep track of everything here that you work on. In any case, agree on all your points in your last note above, and fantastic job (first effort, no less) on the map...the one on the Doklam page that you did looks perfect, and has Batang La and Gipmochi both in the correct location... Well done, and a service to all the WP users what with the amazing high percentage of mislocating of Doka La and Doklam by the Indian and other media sources...... the US Geonames data base even has two entries, one with the peak ~5 km too far east, and a request for correcting that has been filed with them.DLinth (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Have a good vacation! I will copy the map from Doklam page to here. If you can turn on your email, I need to send you some stuff that I can't put in public domain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops...Done. DLinth (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter to Zhou En-lai
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)