Talk:Five Fingers of Tibet

Did you know nomination

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 Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Chinese policy of Five Fingers of Tibet considers Tibet to be China's right hand palm, with five fingers: Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Arunachal Pradesh that must be "liberated"? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that the ongoing China–India skirmishes have been linked with the Chinese strategy of Five Fingers of Tibet? Source: [2][3][4]

Created by SignificantPBD (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Interesting. Both ALT0 and ALT1 fine, favoring ALT0. LittleT889 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The hooks should attribute the strategy to Mao Zedong, since all literature on the subject attributes it to him in the 1940s. Any discussion about it in the modern context acknowledges that there are only hypothetical concerns about it still being relevant. It's more a strategy of Mao than a Chinese strategy, just like one wouldn't write in a hook that Blitzkrieg is a German strategy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have given a detailed response on the talk page. In the case of Blitzkrieg, it was invented by the Germans but it isn't used by them anymore. Whereas it is not known if the "five fingers" strategy has been discontinued by the Chinese. Hence it is wrong to compare the two. SignificantPBD (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s not known if it’s still used by China, so it’s a meaningful comparison. It’s only speculation whether it still exists in China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That's true. Whether or not this policy continues to be a guiding factor in Chinese foreign doctrine is a matter for debate. But there are ample sources to confirm that it is indeed a Chinese policy. I have also changed the word strategy to a seemingly more neutral one, "policy". SignificantPBD (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-Indian sources on "Five Fingers of Tibet"

It would be great if we could find some broader reliable sources that explicitly discuss the "Five Fingers of Tibet" to satisfy WP:NPOV. Right now, it's almost exclusively sourced to Indian sources, with the Belfiglio reference being the only exception in the article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this topic is mostly covered by Indian sources is obvious. 3 of the 5 "fingers" are Indian states/UTs, and the other two are buffer states between India and China, one of which enjoys military protection by the latter. We don't have any Chinese sources because of two simple reasons: the Chinese censorship won't allow any non-official critique of this policy, and the official platforms such as the Global Times won't talk about it because it has not been acknowledged by the CPC. It is wrong to assume that this topic has only been discussed by Indian scholars. Majority of the research artifacts about this topic have actually been written by Western scholars. One of them is cited in this article: Texas Woman's University's professor Belfiglio devoted a major part of his PhD thesis to this strategy. I actually plan to expand this article in the future by utilizing his research. Other papers/articles by Brecher, Hudson, and Patterson have also talked about it, but I am not able to find them online. If someone can find any source which presents the Chinese point of view, it will be of great utility for this article. But I doubt if any such source even exists.

I have also reverted one of the changes you made to the article. A lot of the sources agree that the "five fingers" construct wasn't simply a personal claim by Mao. It has been termed as a Chinese "strategy", "policy", and "plan". which was even propagated internally in the 50s and early 60s. I am divided on whether strategy or policy is a better word to describe it, but a "geopolitical view" clearly isn't. SignificantPBD (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

My point wasn’t about Chinese sources. My point was to add more third party sources, e.g. Western sources, because there is currently only one in the article that discusses the "Five Fingers of Tibet" explicitly.

It originated from Mao and there has only been speculation about its post-Mao existence. It’s more precise to label it as something from that era, rather than attribute it to just being generally Chinese.

What it is currently defined as in the lead isn’t a strategy: considering X to be Y isn’t a strategy, it’s an observation or viewpoint. The strategy is the plan to acquire the "fingers". I don’t dispute that sources may call the "Five Fingers of Tibet" a strategy, but some tweaking is required (one of those sources is an opinion article by the way). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also like the article to have more third-party sources, but their availability is an issue. We also need to understand that Mao wasn't simply a politician from a political party, but the leader of the only ruling party of China and hence he was the leader of China. So a policy given by him will be considered as a Chinese one. If all this seems like a mere hypothesis, the article mentions enough incidents when the official Chinese administration has propagated this policy. Most notable of them being broadcasting it on Beijing and Lhasa radio systems. SignificantPBD (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Original Chinese for the Term

What is the original Chinese of the term? Displaying that could help readers look for any Chinese text related to the foreign policy from the CCP. --Apisite (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I put Google Translate to some use and came across an actual Chinese article by a researcher from the Nanjing University which talks about the five fingers policy.[5] I thought that any mention of this policy cannot bypass the Chinese firewall, but this article is clearly a CPC-sponsored propaganda piece. It's from 2017 and makes some very bold claims like using Tibetan culture and trade to decrease the Indian influence over the "five fingers". One of these fingers is Sikkim which is officially recognized by the PRC as an Indian state!

Although Google Translate is providing a good enough translation, it will be great if a Mandarin speaker can translate the parts relevant to this article. This can provide a great addition to the article. SignificantPBD (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, excellent find! It looks like a genuine magazine and this is supposed to be an international relations expert? Certainly a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote from Mao

Foreign Languages Press claims, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party is a textbook which was written jointly by Comrade Mao Tse-tung and several other comrades in Yenan to the winter of 1939. The first chapter, "Chinese Society" [source of the quote], was drafted by other comrades and revised by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Supposed Indian response

Vacosea, you have been WP:edit warring over this content:

India responded by trying to ensure that the five fingers are more closely attached to India. China has offered Bhutan Jakarlung and Pasamlung (495 square kilometres) in exchange for Doklam and parts of Bji Gewog (totaling 269 square kilometres), closer to Indian territory. This prompted strong pressure from India on the Bhutanese government. In 1998, Bhutan and China recognized each other's sovereignty.

References

The first sentence is wrong, which I pointed out in the edit summary of my first revert. Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, and you can't insert them into Wikipedia unless you have support from a wide variety of sources. India's arrangements with the Himalayan states were made soon after Indian independence, and they were based on arrangements that were already in place during the British Raj. India has had age-old connections to Tibet and the Himalayan states, which are well-known. Mao Zedong is not a historian, but rather a politician.

The rest of the passage has nothing to do with the Five Fingers claim. And it doesn't belong in this page. Since you are also working on other Bhutan-related pages, let me point out that if you think Sinchulumpa etc. are not widely known, it is best to summarise it as "areas adjacent to the Chumbi Valley". (Bji Gewog is not well-known either.)

Please follow WP:BRD and refrain from WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the points you have raised are consistent with the sources. They might just be your own opinion. Vacosea (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That is called WP:STONEWALLING. You haven't addressed the points I raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning someone over one disagreement right away does not come across as very courteous. You disagree with my source, but do you have a source that disagrees with "Sixty years ago, India began to set about ensuring that quite the reverse ensued, and all five fingers were more closely attached to India, not China?" I've given you days. It looks like I'm not the one stonewalling here. Vacosea (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Warnings and alerts for conduct that is not in line with Wikipedia policies is part of the normal working on Wikipedia. You cannot complain about them.

As for the The Hindu source, it is a newspaper, and newspapers are considered reliable for only "news", i.e., the day-to-day happenings that the reporters witness or hear about (from their own sources, who may or may not be reliable). But reporters are not expected to be scholars who know all aspects of history, even if they write about them. The fact that the article mentions "five fingers" makes it relevant to this page. It doesn't automatically make it reliable or accurate for history. For authentic history of how independent India's relations with the Himalayan states developed, please consult this paper for example. (There are many others).

• Levi, Werner (December 1959), "Bhutan and Sikkim: Two Buffer States", The World Today, 15 (12): 492–500, JSTOR 40393115

The Amit Ranjan source is not about "five fingers" policy. It only mentioned it in passing, under the heading China’s Territorial Claims in South Asia. It didn't say that it was relevant to India's actions. The text you have taken from it is not part of the "five fingers" discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Passage from Doklam

I copied this content from Doklam in this edit, It has been long standing content there.

George Patterson reports that when Indian Prime Minister Nehru raised the matter with China, "he was bluntly informed that China's claims to these border territories were based on the same claim as for their invasion of Tibet."

Alarmed, Bhutan closed off its border with China and shut off all trade and diplomatic contacts. It also established formal defence arrangements with India.

References

The first sentence was already part of the footnote [c] here, which I pulled up to the body. The second sentence is sourced to Benedictus, which was already cited here. The third sentence is new, but is verified by the source. Why was this content reverted?

I can understand the issue with the first sentence that it is self-sourced. But why were the others removed? And the Benedictus source as well? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

They do not mention the Five Fingers of Tibet. On the other hand (no pun intended), my sources in the section above did, yet you removed them. Vacosea (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

But they mention Zhang Guohua's statement, which most reasonable people believe to be in line with the Five Fingers policy. If you disagree with that, you need to raise that issue and obtain WP:CONSENSUS over that issue. You can't start removing citations given for Zhang Guohua, while his statement itself is part of the content of this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Where in the sources is China Daily mentioned? My final version [6] with respect to Zhang's statement still had three citations. Maybe there is some technical glitch on your end. Vacosea (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not China Daily, but China Today. I had apparently deleted the source that mentioned it. I added it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)