Talk:Tinkar

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Uttarakhand 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 is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand.

Edit warring

User blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rk adh, please explain why you are repeatedly deleting sourced content here and here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided references. Read those ones. I have accepted most of your work. I saw your username in many places preparing controversial articles, particularly in Nepal and India disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk adh (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where you saw my name. The question posed to you is why you deleted reliably sourced content, which you have not explained. And, have done it again! You are not allowed to delete reliably sourced content without a policy-based reason. You have now done three reverts. If you do any more of this without achieving WP:CONSENSUS, you will get reported.

1. The source you have added:

"Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, Kalapani: Trying to understand the dispute". The Himalayan Times. 2020-05-11. Retrieved 2020-05-18.

is a newspaper opinion column. As per WP:NEWSORG it cannot be stated as fact. It doesn't make sense to attribute it to the author either (whom you haven't bothered to name), because he is apparently a nobody. The article states that in 2019 India released a map showing Kalapani territory. India's maps have showed Kalapani territory for at least a hundred years. See the Kalapani territory page. So the knowledge of this op-ed writer is quite dubious.

2. Your second contribution is to add a statement:

In 2015, Nepal fiercely criticized China India trade agreement related to the use of Lipu Lekh pass ("My Republica - Resolve Lipu-Lekh Pass dispute: House panel to govt". web.archive.org. 2018-06-28. Retrieved 2020-05-18.)

What in this source counts as "fiercely criticised"? And, what does this have to do with the Tinkar village? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Sure name does not matter, you may be sofisticated paid agent who can work around the clock. But you are displaying a pattern of spreading propaganda, I see the biggest one in Kalapani territory page, which you are refering me to see. Let's come to the points you raised:

1. The sources I am citing are reliable ones as per WP:NEWSORG. Those newspapers do not provide only opinions but also facts, this time, they were clearly mentioning facts.

2. About "fiercely crititicised"; I did not copy the word from the document, if it was copied it will be within inverted commas Referencing. We can use variety of words without deviating spirit of article. "what does this have to do with the Tinkar village?" this was one of low level comment you made. I can also ask why you mentioned "1n 1997, India and China agreed to reopen the Liplekh pass"? I just placed their related facts immediately after it.

I also noticed your some malicious behaviors about my rights to evidienced-based expressions. I will take neccessary steps complying with Wikipedia policy WP:BLOCKPOL. I am not a person with a pseudoname. -- Ram Adhikari (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Rk adh[reply]

I am sorry, this is WP:Stonewalling, not to mention personal attacks. You have not explained your justification for deleting reliably sourced content. So, for one last time, I am asking again: What is your justification for deleting this content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Nice that you are intrack. About 'deleting reliably sourced content', I made minor editing.That poor source is not removed. You know nobody ownes this article WP:EPTALK.

Ram Adhikari (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC) rk adh[reply]

Ok, since, you have failed to explain the deletions after 3 rounds of questioning, I guess you do not have justification, and I am reinstating the content.

As for your new content, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that it is reliable and relevant to the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, you failed to justify such poorly sourced content and rejected flately everytime the reliable and properly referenced materials. -- Ram Adhikari (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh[reply]

Some general responses to the points raised here:

The "poorly sourced content" comes from a peer-reviewed journal article by Manandhar and Koirala, two scholars at the Tribhuvan University, and the Gazetters written by British Indian officials during the period in question. The three-volume Himalayan Gazetter has a wealth of information regarding the entire Himalayan area of the subcontinent, and still considered extremely valuable, and getting reprinted.
The Lipulekh Pass is mentioned because it plays a role in the lives of the people that live in this region, as described by a peer-reviewed journal article.
The Nepalese newsmedia (the "Kathmandu media") represent an echo chamber of rumours and speculations, and practically nothing they state is authentic. Where there is authentic information, e.g., the testimony of the police official that actually patrolled the region, I certainly include it.
Using mountain watersheds as boundaries was a pretty common practice in the British Raj, probably invented by Alexander Cunningham in defining the Lahul–Ladakh boundary in 1839. It wasn't known at the time of the Segauli Treaty but it became a common practice later on, and it is widely practised throughout the world at the present time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A journal article from 1976

This paper has been on my to-read list for a while:

Manzardo, Andrew E.; Dahal, Dilli Ram; Rai, Navin Kumar (1976), "The Byanshi: An ethnographic note on a trading group in far western Nepal" (PDF), INAS Journal: 84–118

I read it today, having suddenly noticed that it is way back from 1976, before all these disputes emerged. I am not sure if this journal is still running or not, but it is apparently published by the Institute of Nepalese and Asian Studies at the Tribhuvan University.

The paper says nothing about Kalapani. Regarding Lipulekh, it says:

Previously there were two passes to Tibet, the Lipu pass (Lipu la) and the Tinkar pass (Tinkar la), but now only the Tinkar pass is accessible, since the Indians have closed Lipu pass to trans-Himalayan traffic.

No mention of Nepal as owning or claiming Lipulekh. The map on page 90 shows the border exactly as India draws it, putting the Kalapani village in the Indian territory. (I was a bit surprised by this. I thought maybe the Nepalese didn't know where the border was, mistakenly thought the Kalapani village was within Nepal. But this map proves the border was well-known, at least to the educated Nepalese.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]