Template:Did you know nominations/Sikkim Scouts


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sikkim Scouts

 * ... that India is raising the Sikkim Scouts to defend its 222 km border with China in Sikkim?
 * ALT1: ... that the Indian Army's new Sikkim Scouts regiment could not get as many initial recruits as expected because too many Sikkimese have tattoos, which it bans?
 * Reviewed: Aerolot

Created by Innotata (talk). Self nominated at 02:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. There are a few statements that are not properly cited, or not in cited sources, which I've marked in the article. Statements regarding border disputes need to be supported with neutral, reliable sources. The hook may also be WP:OR. Although the iSikkim source says many Sikkimese have tattoos, it does not say that's the reason the recruitment fell short. -Zanhe (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed the part on tattoos and stricken the alt hook, since I suppose it is a bit too much of a synthesis. The information on the border disputes was sourced to reliable sources, though, and I've added some more. &mdash;innotata 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proposing the new hook, it looks fine. But the neutrality issue has not been completely resolved. The Mishra book is Indian, therefore not a neutral source for the border dispute. The Calvin source is neutral and reliable, but I cannot find any mention of Sikkim in it. -Zanhe (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he does mention localities there, but I've replaced Calvin with other sources. I take issue with the assumption that Indian academics are biased towards the Indian government, Mishra is not. &mdash;innotata 06:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indian sources are non-neutral by definition regarding border disputes involving India. Imagine writing an article about Kashmir citing solely Pakistani academics. Using some non-neutral sources is fine if neutral ones cannot be found (as in this case, it seems), but they do need to attributed and not taken at face value. I've added the attribution to the article for neutrality. -Zanhe (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you've now removed the attribution. Why? -Zanhe (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, people are not biased by definition toward their country and government. There are other sources that mention the Chola incident, and 2000s incidents, in passing, but Mishra is quite good enough. Your change seemed to suggest there was a dispute about whether there were any incursions by the Chinese military into Sikkim. Nobody disputes that, especially in light of the Chola incident. The only question is how many there are, and since the statement that there were "many" incursions was removed, it wasn't necessary to qualify that sentence. These seem like nitpicks that shouldn't hold up the DYK nom. &mdash;innotata 07:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Chola incident article is poorly written and almost completely unsourced, so citing that article is not very convincing. The fact is, the statements about the border dispute are not backed by neutral sources. Neutrality is one of the key requirements for DYK. And according to WP:BIASED, even "potentially biased source" should be attributed, but you removed the attribution I added. In any case, I've already spent too much time on this DYK review. So I'll request a second opinion. -Zanhe (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've added some additional reliable sources, that are not by Indian nationals, that verify all the basic facts about the Sikkimese border. You should be satisfied now, although of course I have no problem with a second reviewer taking a look. &mdash;innotata 04:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the new source. As expected, Larry Wortzel describes the conflict quite differently from Indian writers ("there were clashes between Indian and Chinese troops on the border" vs. "the Chinese army made incursions across the border"). I've reworded the sentence in the article to reflect the more neutral source. Please let me know if you're okay with the current wording. -Zanhe (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wortzel was only describing one time period. However, the important facts are kept, so those changes are OK. &mdash;innotata 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article and hook now meet all criteria. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)