Talk:Chumi Gyatse Falls

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in December 2022.

Tibet Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To Do

/ TrangaBellam (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aris, Michael (2012). Hidden Treasures & Secret Lives. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-14914-6.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domtsang

TrangaBellam, I don't think your condensation of the History section helps. The first sentence has three footnotes associated with it, a key citation to KNAB for coordinates went into one of those footnotes. More importantly, we can't downgrade "Domtsang" in this manner. It has a tradition going back a 1000 years, and most likely the name by which the Tibetans still refer to the falls.

"Yangtse", on the other hand, is a problematic term, because it has been applied to the "plateau", the valley up to Tsechu etc. I haven't seen a precise definition of what it actually means. Also, when The Print says, India did not "occupy" Yangtse till 1987, it means that it didn't station troops there, not that it didn't "stake a claim". I believe that the original border (the McMahon Line as interprted by Survey of India) ran between the northern part of the falls indicated by our coordinates, and the southern section where the prayer hall has been built. So, even if we think "Yangtse" means the falls area, it was split between the two countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What attracted my attention was the line — [J]ournalist Praveen Swami states that the falls were visited by tourists from both the sides till the 1980s — being an absolute misrepresentation of the source.

It has a tradition going back a 1000 years - ? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the issue with Domtsang. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Swami's sentence is: Teschu, the local hamlet, is just metres from the LAC, and it was common for visitors from both countries to photograph each other. How do you photograph each other unless you are in visible distance?

For Domtsang, see Tenpa, Lobsang (2018), An Early History of the Mon Region (India) and its Relationship with Tibet and Bhutan, South & Inner Asian Studies/ Tibetan & Himalayan Studies, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, ISBN 9789387023345

Moreover, we learn in Padma bka' thang (1993 [1352]: 607) that Padmasambhava stayed for a number of years in the Eastern Himalayas. In the mythographic representation, Padmasambhava visited a number of sites and the following regions in Mon were considered to have been blessed by him: Mon Sgom brag phug, Mon Bkra shis khye 'dren, Mon Sha 'ug stag sgo [Shauk Tago], Mon Dom tshang rong [Domtsangrong],[106] Mon gzig tshang rong, Mon kha Bum thang,[107] and Mon kha Spa gro, and so forth.[108]

"Domtsang-rong" means the "Domtsang valley" as well as "Domtsang river". "Tsona Chu" is a British name for the river, and doesn't seem to have been used by the Tibetans. Even if it was, below Domtsang, it was referred to by the new name all the way till its confluence with Tawang Chu. (That is how the Tibetan nomenclature of rivers works. A prominent place along the course lends its name to the section of the river below it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought that you were referring to something else. I have been adding content on Domtsang; more to come.

As to Swami:

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Domtsang is far significant than the falls. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, perhaps, yes. But we have to follow WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvV_zQiZUdA [5:42 - 13:40 is the region of interest]. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good narration. He went to the southern section of the falls. The northern falls are apparently off-limits to civilians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese reports

I presume you have come across this. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't. I found his 2021 article [1], which I was trying to process. It is hard to figure out what he is on about because he never talks about where the border is, where he thinks it should be, but just rants about Sela Pass [Xishankou] and such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any new facts other than what we report.

In 1986, India is supposed to taken possession of a buffer around the Falls in retaliation for Wangdung. Tang Bunhu basically admits that they didn't have strength to counter it (even up to 2001). But this did not necessarily imply that the access would get cut off since India was trying to improve relations with China for decades after that.
What happened to Dogor pasture during this time is anybody's guess. But if they take Dogor pasture, that means that the border shifts to the south and they get both sets of waterfalls. That is the significance of Dogor. I am sure both the sides understand it well.
In 1999, there was a BJP government in India, we had the Kargil war, and China built a road to Finger 4 on the Pangong Lake. So I would expect India would have reacted strongly to these efforts.
In 2001, India cut of access, which seems to me to be a further reaction to the Dogor face-off.
In 2020, an offer was made to China to "allow" Tibetan visitors to the Falls, but China apparently didn't take up the offer. (Note the timing. The WMCC meeting happened in July 2020, a month after the Galwan Clash!) Our Chinese bloggers have no explanation for this.

(FYI, MBlaze Lightning)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]