Jump to content

Talk:Dogra–Tibetan war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sino-Sikh war)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Sikh war → Sino-Sikh War – capitalize title as per naming convention Zanhe (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent Edits

[edit]

Zanhe, you have recently undone my sourced edit. Is there any legitimate source for your claim that the Chinese did not capture Leh? Xtremedood (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xtremedood: Any history book covering the war will tell you that. For example, [1] and [2]. Journalists are often clueless about history. -Zanhe (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Samba War"

[edit]

I have reverted a 2014(?) edit to the {{Chinese}} infobox, which claimed that the literal meaning of 森巴戰爭 (Sēnbā Zhànzhēng) was "Samba War". The reasons are as following:

  • The change is incorrect, given the context. There is no such thing as "Samba" in the context of India, Tibet or China.
  • 森巴 is a homograph that can have multiple meanings. The false translation "Samba War" relies on a non-cognate false friend since zh-yue:森巴舞 means the Brazilian Samba dance in Cantonese (in Standard Chinese the dance is known as zh:桑巴), which is completely unrelated.
  • This error was very likely made by an editor overly relying on a machine translator. Google Translate translates 森巴戰爭 as "Samba War", because their ZH->EN definition of 森巴 is Samba, the Brazilian dance.
  • Per the Chinese Wikipedia, the Sino-Sikh War is referred to as zh:森巴戰爭 in Chinese. This is also the term used by Chinese historical literature.
  • Chinese sources also state that the name 森巴 refers to the zh:多格拉人 ("Dogra people").

Please do not use "Samba War", the name is completely incorrect, and sexy Brazilian dancers never invaded Tibet. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benlisquare: I'm not entirely sure about this, but the Chinese name Senba seems to refer to Samba, Jammu, which was under Dogra control. So saying the literal meaning is Samba war is not necessarily wrong. -Zanhe (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source which directly links the city with 森巴? Otherwise this is pure speculative original research and another false cognate case based on coincidence. Zhwiki uses the name zh:萨姆巴 to refer to Samba, Jammu. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a guess. I don't really care about this either way, only pointing out that Samba does not necessarily mean the Brazilian dance. -Zanhe (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In our context, it's most likely. A google image search for "森巴" gets you images of women's breasts for 100% of the results all the way up to page 10, and not a northern Indian city. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3nd of Assuj

[edit]

In the text of the treaty, "3nd" is wrong in English. "second" is "2nd" and "third" is "3rd". Before this edit, it said "second". Art LaPella (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

I am a bit perplexed as to why this page is called the "Sino-Sikh War", because there is no evidence that either the Chinese or the Sikhs fought in this war.

The term seems to have been introduced on the Sino-Indian relations page in 2007, and this page started as out a redirect to it in 2010. I see precisely four book sources using this term: [3], [4], [5] and [6], all of which post-date Wikipedia's introduction of the term. The same is probably the case with this op-ed from 2013.

The older sources use the term Dogra-Tibetan War: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. A source mentions that the Chinese provided no help at all to the Tibetans: [15].

Are there any objections to renaming this page Dogra-Tibetan War? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Google books shows that the most common name seems to be simply "Dogra War" with 663 results, with "Sino-Sikh War" the second most common with 422. "Dogra-Tibetan War" returns only 83, and other names even less common. The single source (which appears to be published by a Tibetan advocacy group) claiming Qing China was not involved in the war is not credible. Most reliable sources mention Qing involvement or leadership (see Imperial Chinese Armies, for example), and the peace treaty was signed in the name of the Qing emperor. If we're to rename the article, "Dogra War" seems to be most obvious choice. -Zanhe (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plain counts from Google mean little, because most of the hits it returns don't have these terms at all. Also, "Dogra War" is quite meaningless because the Dogras might have been involved in many wars. The source I have currently used on the page for "Dogra-Tibetan War":
  • Fisher, Margaret W.; Rose, Leo E.; Huttenback, Robert A. (1963), Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh, Praeger – via Questia {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
is quite authentic. If you have a source of similar calibre using any of the other terms, please share them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources I can find that mention "Dogra War" are about the Tibetan conflict. Sources using "Sino-Sikh War" include Indo-Tibet-China Conflict, which is cited in Introduction to Sociology, and China’s Regional Development and Tibet. The aforementioned Imperial Chinese Armies uses both terms. The Fisher/Rose book (from 1963) looks a bit outdated. Why not start a move discussion to solicit wider input? -Zanhe (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please assess reliability of the sources please. Indiscriminate links are of no help.
  • The first book (2008) by some Dinesh Lal, is published by Gyan Publishers, a well-known publisher of plagiarised books, a lot of them copying Wikipedia.
  • The second book (2012) , published by SAGE, cites the first book for its terminology!
  • The third book (2015) is worth considering. More on that below.
  • The last book (2016) is once again by some Bloomsbury Publishing which seems to be a label of Osprey Publishing, which doesn't inspire much confidence.
Notice that all these books are published after Wikipedia introduced the term Sino-Sikh War. So, they do not conclusively prove that the term was in existence earlier.
Rongxing Guo, the author of the third book, seems to be a prolific writer, but mainly on economic/resource management issues. How much trust can we place in his understanding of history? Please note WP:HISTRS here.
Pinging Sitush and Vanamonde93 for additional input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anything at JSTOR about this? My subscription is stuck somewhere in the ether at the moment and am waiting for The Wikipedia Library to help resolve it. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Dogra-Tibetan War, I find JSTOR 43299855 (1977), JSTOR 44139129 (1977) and Economic & Political Weekly (2015).
For Sino-Sikh War, I find only this departmentmental paper (2017) and something (2013) similar (2014) and something even weaker (2016).
I guess, as Wikipedians, we can all be proud of the impact we make on the world, but unfortunately that is not exactly the point of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lal 2008 is actually published by Kalpaz Publications of India. I'm not familiar with Indian publishers, but apparently the author of the second book considers it ok. BTW, I think it's unrealistic to assume works published more recently are influenced by Wikipedia, considering Wikipedia's poor reputation in academia. In any case, I think an RM is the best way to reach a wider consensus. -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content copied from Ladakh

[edit]

A dynamic IP has repeatedly copied large amount of info from Ladakh without attribution, which was removed by others before and re-added recently. I've removed it again per WP:COATRACK, as the war, although partly fought in Ladakh, is not about the historical status of that region. -Zanhe (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Sino-Sikh War → Dogra–Tibetan War – This is how reliable sources describe this war. (See below.) This page was started in 2010, which seems to have spurred a certain number of weak sources and Chinese sources to adopt the term "Sino-Sikh War". But the established sources have always used the traditional term "Dogra-Tibetan War". Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

When this page was created on 20 March 2010, the term "Sino-Sikh War" has not apparently appeared in print [16]. Since then a handful of sources used it [17], but it appears to be just a feedback loop of Wikipedia's WP:OR. Here is a sample of good quality sources that have traditionally called the war "Dogra-Tibetan War".

sources
  • Section title: 4. GULAB SINGH AND THE DOGRA-TIBETAN WAR, 1841-1842
  • The Chinese account of the Dogra-Tibetan war of 1841 which was written by the Chinese Resident at Lhasa, reveals the promptitude with which the Chinese and Tibetan authorities reacted to the Dogra invasion.
  • ... the military governor of Ladakh, Zorawar Singh, was selected to lead an invasion force in what became the 1841-42 Dogra-Tibetan War.
  • Chapter titled VII. THE DOGRA-TIBETAN WAR OF 1841-42 (p.49)
  • p.240: Zorawar Singh: ... given charge of Reasi fort; governor of Kishtwar, 1823; Ladakh, 1834—9; the Dogra—Tibet War (1841—2) proved a military disaster, leading to his death on the battlefield.
  • Earlier, during the Dogra-Tibetan war (1841-42), the British had foiled Kathmandu's scheme of joining the Dogras with the hope of annexing some Tibetan territory.
  • Section titled: War Between Tibet and Ladakh (p.582)
  • p.38: The Dogra conquest of Ladakh and the subsequent Dogra-Tibetan war 1841-42, severely disrupted international trade.
  • "By the mid-nineteenth century if not earlier, Manchu Chinese influence was minuscule; the Tibet-Dogra war of 1841, the Tibet-Nepal War of 1857, the Nyarong War of 1862—1865 and the British invasion of Tibet in 1903—1904 were fought and settled without Chinese assistance."[90]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plenty of myths in this article

[edit]

I find this passage in the article permalink, sourced to Shakabpa, p.577:

As the intense cold, coupled with the rain, snow and lightning continued for weeks upon weeks, many of the soldiers lost their fingers and toes to frostbite. Others starved to death, while some burnt the wooden stock of their muskets to warm themselves.

But there is no such description in Shakbpa. It seems to be WP:OR. If Tibetan weather could produce "rain, snow and lightning for weeks upon weeks", one wouldn't expect Tibet to be as dry as it is.

Plenty of myths have been propagated about the Dogra defeat, one being that they were defeated by weather. But the Dogras who came to fight had been in Ladakh long enough to know the weather, and their contingent also had plenty of Ladakhis and Baltis among them. Moreover, Zorawar Singh is said to have established "administration" in West Tibet, levied taxes, built forts etc. So, the weather could not have been as big a factor as it is made out to be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Zorawar's death is also made up:

In the early exchange of fire the Rajput general was wounded in his right shoulder, but he grabbed a sword in his left hand. The Tibetan horsemen then charged the Dogra position and one of them thrust his lance in Zorawar Singh’s chest. Wounded and unable to escape he was pulled down off his horse and beheaded.

Shakabpa says, in contrast,

While Zorawar Singh was riding his horse, rushing back and forth, he was recognized by a Yasor[8: In Mongolian, yasor (ya sor) means a military commander or a leader] called Mikmar. He threw a spear and Zorawar Singh fell from his horse. Leaping off of his own horse, Mikmar cut Singh’s head off and carried it into the middle of the Tibetan camp.

There is no mention of him being wounded in shoulder, wielding sword with left hand, lance thrust into chest etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relative strengths

[edit]

Present day populations

So Ladakh is 2.8 times the size of Ngari and Jammu 55 times the size of Ngari. Strong states have always tried to conquer their neighbours. Please don't make a big deal of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a depiction of Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh

[edit]

Hello, I have uploaded historical artwork depicting Zorawar Singh's army in Ladakh to Wikimedia Commons. What do you all think about using it as the infobox image? The artwork is held at Bharat Kala Bhavan, Benaras (Varanasi). Published in 'Kashmiri Painting' by Karuna Goswamy, 1998 under the figure # M16. Please see the file here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragment_from_a_painted_scroll_depicting_Zorawar_Singh_of_the_Sikh_Empire%27s_army_marching_through_the_mountains_of_Ladakh.webp ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is unknown, the location is unknown, date unknown. The image raises more questions than answers. It cannot be said that it has any "historical" value. Unless you can tell us what the experts have said about it, its artistic value is also unknown. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary treaty in the names of the suzerains

[edit]

While the battle itself was mainly between Gulab Singh and Tibet, and the original treaty was also signed between them, their respective suzerains (Sikh Empire and the Chinese) were also involved in for example the negotiations, and as pointed out in various sources that a supplementary treaty in the name of their suzerains was made after the original treaty, such as in the source "Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh" (page 56) by Margaret Welpley Fisher et al, which is in fact also used as a reliable source (RS) in the article for the title "Dogra–Tibetan War": "The treaty between Gulab Singh and Tibet did not bind the former's suzerain, and a supplementary treaty with similar provisions was concluded between the Governor of Kashmir (representing the Lahore court) and the Lhasa officials, in the name of the Emperor of China" (see [18]), in addition to sources like "Kashmir and the British Raj 1847-1947" (page 14) by Robert A. Huttenback and "Red Fear: The China Threat" (page 68) by Iqbal Chand Malhotra which contain similar statements. I think such a supplementary treaty involving the suzerains is certainly worth mentioning in the article. --Wengier (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wengier, Thanks for initiating the discussion. We need to read this along with other sources. Zahiruddin Ahmed (who knows both Persian and Tibetan) describes the three versions as follows, along with a footnote:

Sardar K. M. Panikkar in The Founding of the Kashmir State, A Biography of Maharajah Gulab Singh, 1792-1858 (London, Geo. Allen and Unwin, and impression, 1953), pp. 84-89, gives three versions of the treaty of 1842:

  • (1) a translation of a Persian copy (reproduced in Diwan Kirpa Ram's Gulab Namah, p. 264). embodying an undertaking by the Tibetan Government;
  • (2) a translation of a Tibetan version of the treaty, embodying an undertaking by the Dogra Government of Jammu; and
  • (3) a translation of a Tibetan version of a Treaty embodying the agreement of the Sikh Government of the Panjab to the arrangements arrived at between the Dogra Government of Jammu and the Tibetan Government.[100: Panikkar wrongly describes the third treaty as one "on behalf ofthe (Sikh) Government of Lahore" - the suzerain of the Dogra Government of Jammu - "and the Emperor of China" (the suzerain of Tibet).]
The footnote 100 explains why there has been confusion regarding version (3). All three versions have the same date and the same place (Ladakh). Even Ahmad's interpretation, saying that it was "the agreement of the Sikh Government of the Panjab", is not evidenced in the text. It is a one-way declaration made by:"we, the officials of Shri Maharajah Sahlb, the Commander-in-Chief of the Western Area in the Court of Shri Rajah Gulab Singh, and we, the trusted and selected and the faithfully loyal Itimad-ud-Dowlah Nizam-ul-Mulk Sheikh Ghulam Mohiyuddin, Subedar (Governor) of Kashnlir".
Moreover, if you look at Shakabpa, there are only two versions given. Likewise, during the Officials talks between China and India, only two versions are mentioned. I think one of (2) and (3) is draft version that somehow made it into history books. There are only two versions, each representing a declaration by one side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply with the above-mentioned material. Nevertheless, I think this is by itself primarily an accuracy issue, considering especially that sources like Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh (as mentioned above for the topic) are used also as a RS in the article for the title "Dogra–Tibetan War" along with many other materials in the article, meaning that the sources themselves are not deemed biased or POV for the purpose of the article. I took a look at the book The Founding of the Kashmir State, A Biography of Maharajah Gulab Singh, 1792-1858 (by Sardar K. M. Panikkar in 1930), which mentioned three editions of the treaty, along with the following statement right before the last one (page 87): "As this treaty was between Gulab Singh and the Lhasa Government and did not bind the suzerains of both, a further treaty on behalf of the Government of Lahore and the Emperor of China seems to have been negotiated almost immediately" (see [19]). So it seems clear from the source that the first two editions of the treaty are the original treaty signed between between Gulab Singh and Tibet (as mentioned in my first comment), translated from Persian and Tibetan languages respectively, whereas the last treaty is the supplementary treaty in the names of the suzerains as also mentioned above, translated from the Tibetan language. Though, it is a separate issue that whether any given source (Panikkar, Ahmed, or others) is 100% factually correct, but according to WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered".
According to the Tibetan translation of the text of the last treaty (or the supplementary treaty) given in the source, it was "between the King of the World (Sher Singh) Sri Khalsaji Sahib (and Gulab Sigh) Sri Maharaja Sahib Rajai-Rajgan Raja Sahib Bahadur, and the Khagan (Emperor) of China and the Lama Guru Sahib of Lhasa" (page 88), which clearly lists Emperor of China and Sher Singh (ruler or Maharaja of the Sikh Empire) in the treaty, along with Gulab Sigh (after Sher Singh) and Lhasa (after the Emperor of China). As a RS Panikkar (along with others like Margaret W. Fisher et al) described the third treaty as one "on behalf of the (Sikh) Government of Lahore" - the suzerain of the Dogra Government of Jammu - "and the Emperor of China" (the suzerain of Tibet)", which I think is certainly worth mentioning in the article according to WP:RS, although I think it should be fine to also mention Zahiruddin Ahmed's description in the note (whether it was factually correct), without judging by ourselves which interpretation is "more correct". --Wengier (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is an "accuracy issue". We have here two sources that disagree (Fisher et al. and Ahmad). In fact, the second one directly contradicts the interpretation suggested in the first. So, WP:NPOV requires that either we omit the whole issue, or state both the views with appropriate weight assigned.
Fisher et al. do not even give a citation for their claim of a "supplementary treaty", which immediately reduces its WP:WEIGHT. As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.. Fisher et al. state that they primarily wrote the book to discuss the Report of the Officials (representing the result of border talks between Indian and Chinese officials), but they found it necessary to provide a certain amount of historical background to make the issues understandable. The tricky issues of history didn't receive enough attention from them. In fact, glaring errors are seen in the discussion of this treaty, e.g., they say, The Tibetan note, incorporating the concessions made by the Dogras, was handed to Gulab Singh's representative while the Persian note, detailing the obligations assumed by the Tibetans, was presented to the Tibetan officials.. This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Dogras' obligations be given to themselves and the Tibetan obligations be given to the Tibetans themselves? They also mix up the languages. The note given to the Tibetans would be in the Tibetan language so that they can understand it. What would be the point of giving them a Persian note which they won't be able to understand? So on.
Zahiruddin Ahmad studied with Luciano Petech, a towering figure in Tibetan history, and Petech himself highly recommended his work which covers certain aspects of the Ladakhi history in more depth than he himself did. The precision with which he treats the current subject speaks for itself. Moreover, his versions (1) and (2) are corroborated by Shakabpa, a completely independent source, based on Tibetan archives. Shakabpa also tells us the signatories of the two notes:
  • Sealed by Wazir, Dewan, Balana, and Amir Shah. (for the DograKashmiri note)
  • Sealed by Cabinet Minister Zurkhang and Dapön Pelzhi. (for the Tibetan note)
He does not any third note given to the Tibetans.
Panikkar cannot be cited for anything in this discussion. He is not a professional historian and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS. He was an official in princely states in British Raj, and wrote some (popular?) books on their histories. His interpretations do not have any value for Wikipedia.
To make matters worse, the Chinese government also contradicted the interpretations being passed around: Chou En-lai wrote on September 8, 1959, that "local authorities of China's Tibet" had concluded a treaty with Kashmir but "the then Chinese Central Government did not send anybody to, participate in the conclusion of this treaty, nor did it ratify the treaty afterwards." See the footnote on page 58 of Fisher et al.
I think the right thing to do is to omit this whole dubious issue of no particular value. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sources given by Fisher et al. and Ahmad have some contradictions, although they may not necessarily contradict with each other completely (i.e. they contradict in some points while having some other points in common). Meanwhile, Panikkar is also an Indian statesman (apart from being a professor), and I agree that it may not be necessary or useful to cite him for this purpose in the article. Chou En-lai as mentioned is also a statesman. Given that this topic may be a contentious topic, I think I will leave it to other Wikipedians more familiar with the topic to handle this. --Wengier (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Chushul

[edit]

The treaty has been mentioned in many reliable sources, including for example "The Cambridge Handbook of China and International Law" and "The Frontier Complex" published by the highly reputed Cambridge University Press (among others), which clearly suggests that a dedicated article can be made for the treaty. Indeed, this is very similar to the relationship between Treaty of Thapathali and Nepal–Tibet War (1855–1856), where the former is the resulting treaty of the latter, and both are articles in Wikipedia. If Treaty of Thapathali can be made a separate article in WP, then naturally the Treaty of Chushul can also be made an article (as long as there are enough content for such an article), not to mention that the size of this article is much longer than the above mentioned articles. Otherwise most existing WP articles for peace treaties can indeed be deleted as well. As for the article name, that is a separate issue (and may be discussed separately if needed), but Wikipedia uses the common name as the article title, and it does not really matter whether the treaty was actually signed in Chushul or not (although this point may be mentioned in the corresponding article).—Wengier (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions in sources do not add to notability of a topic, only substantial coverage. Otherwise, the guidelines for WP:SPINOUT are clear. Only if so much detail about the subtopic needs to be added that it would be out of place in the main article, would a separate article be warranted. WP:OSE is not a good argument. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that many sources do not have extensive coverage on the peace treaty itself, some sources do seem to have substantial coverage on it. For example, the book "British India and Tibet: 1766-1910" published by Taylor & Francis gave a 2-page details on the 1842 treaty. While I may not be the one to add such details, such contents will apparently not fit in this article (Dogra–Tibetan war) if they are to be added. As for WP:OSE, I think I understand what you mean, but the page also says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument", even though comparing with other articles may not be a convincing argument on its own indeed. --Wengier (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we don't allow WP:OSE arguments is that Wikipedia is not strictly policed. There can be other pages created, which might be actually against the policies and guidelines, but nobody has gotten around to fixing them. Creating new low-traffic pages which are susceptible to POV-pushing is not in the interest of Wikipedia.Since this is a topic that I monitor, I would oppose its creation. If you say there is substantial new information that needs to be added, and are willing to do the work to expand it, I can give you the benefit of the doubt. But just copying text from here to there is no good. --Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I decided to go ahead to expand it with substantial new information, instead of primarily based on the old contents. Hope the article is more informative now than before. --Wengier (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dogra–Tibetan_war&oldid=1229134062"