Talk:Dhola Post

Map violates WP:NOR

@Kautilya3: The map in the "Establishment" section was created by you, was it not?Erik-the-red (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is OpenStreetMap. I have only marked the locations on it, as found in the RS. If you believe that any locations are marked wrong or unsourced, you are welcome to raise the issue. But the map itself is standard. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Oh boy, another of your infamous "technicalities." As you admit, you marked the locations. Therefore, the map previously shown in the "establishment" section was created by you.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I thank you for your 10:25, 7 July 2020 edit, as your decision to "correct" your own previously marked location of Khinzemane from being clearly in China 27.80295°N 91.7457°E / 27.80295; 91.7457 to just inside India 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505 perfectly demonstrates why the map of your own creation violates WP:NOR.Erik-the-red (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The new location is sourced, with a citation given. So your old objection doesn't apply. Neither can you call it WP:OR.

There can be minor ambiguities when interpreting old sketch maps that are not drawn to scale. They are open to discussion just like all other content created on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: There is no "old" or "new" objection. There is only the same objection: the map was created by you and hence violates WP:NOR. Despite your penchant for technicalities, you admit that it was you who marked the locations on the map. You admit that it is you who "interprets old sketch maps." Therefore, the map created by you is WP:OR. The fact that we are arguing whether a map created by you constitutes "original" research is yet another example of the extreme dishonesty and bad faith discussion that you have repeatedly engaged in.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have raised a query at WP:NORN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Your excuse for WP:OR is that you are citing "old sketch maps" "not drawn to scale" that you then "interpret." If your citation is Map 8 on page 139 of Hoffman (1990), why not directly use that map with no personal "interpretation" of your own?Erik-the-red (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean you don't know WP:COPYVIO? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Would you care to cite the portion of WP:COPYVIO that you believe is violated by including Map 8 on page 139 of Hoffman (1990) directly?Erik-the-red (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed area

Erik-the-red, you have removed the sourced content that states that the area was disputed. The relevant quote from one of the sources says:

Although no criss-cross of Indian and Chinese posts was anticipated on the NEFA frontier, a certain rashness was demonstrated by the placement of an Indian post in an area near the Bhutan-Tibet-NEFA trijunction. It was located in the valley of the Namkachu River, below a ridge called Thagla (see Maps 7 and 8). The post would be called Dhola, after a pass lying further to the south. In 1959 and 1960 the Chinese had shown themselves to be quite sensitive about this area, since they differed with the Indian interpretation of how the McMahon line was situated in it. The Khinzemane incident of August 1959 had occurred not far away.

Can you explain why you removed this fact? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: I removed it because the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report on pages 52 and 53 make it clear that Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line. Therefore, Dhola Post was not established in disputed territory; it was established in China as per the McMahon Line. That India believes the McMahon Line does not follow the watershed principle is a separate issue. It does not contradict the fact that Dhola Post was established in China north of the McMahon Line.

Incidentally, since you have repeatedly argued that there is no source stating that Dhola is in Tibet, China, I can't help but notice that your own source that you've just quoted placed Dhola, quote, "near the Bhutan-Tibet-NEFA trijunction." Of course, according to you, it must be WP:SYNTH to argue that if Dhola Post was north of the McMahon Line near the Bhutan-Tibet-NEFA trijunction and on China's side of the McMahon Line, Dhola is in Tibet, China.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia gives weight to scholarly sources, not outdated government reports (and this particular report is not even declassified). You cannot delete content sourced to scholarly sources without producing other scholarly sources of equal stature, and even then you are bound by WP:NPOV to present all view points. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Oh, the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report is an "outdated government report" now? I suppose that's an upgrade from your false claim that it's a "primary source." Speaking of which, I can't help but notice that you cited 7 primary sources from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in the article. Will your hypocrisy never end?

Regardless of your blatant hypocrisy, you are muddying the waters on what the dispute is. Unless you have an "updated" "scholarly source" stating that Dhola Post was established south of the McMahon Line, the fact remains that as per the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line, placing it in China. That India believes the McMahon Line doesn't follow the watershed principle is a separate issue that you're conflating.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please respond in this section, not in Sources. That is meant to be just a list of sources that you can look up when cited.

Primary sources are used as per policy, WP:PRIMARY. They are not used to contradict WP:SECONDARY scholarly sources. Surely the scholars know whatever we know and much more. You cannot argue that whatever source you like is the only one that Wikipedia should rely on. Saying that it is "disputed" does not invalidate one view or the other. Both the Indians and the Chinese knew that they had differing interpretations. Exchanges had taken place when the Khinzemane post was first discussed. You are ignoring all this, and removing content that presents the context.

I am afraid you are repeatedly ignoring the Wikipedia pillar of WP:NPOV. This cannot go on for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Please point out where the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report (itself a secondary source) "contradicts" the secondary sources of your choosing.

Dhola is located north of the McMahon Line. There is no dispute about that. Therefore, Dhola is located in China. The dispute is whether the McMahon Line is "supposed to be" further north than it actually is based on the watershed principle. But that is a separate matter from Dhola being located north of the McMahon Line and therefore in China.

I have neither ignored this point nor removed content that presents the context. In fact, I have made sure the context is presented in "Location and background": "While the Thagla Ridge is to the north of the McMahon Line, India believed that the 1914 map incorrectly depicted the border due to inadequate exploration at that time. India held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the Himalayan watershed, then the correct border should have been on the Thagla Ridge."

The language I have used makes clear that the Indian position is that the border "should" be on the Thagla Ridge, but the McMahon Line is actually south of the Thagla Ridge. Your weasely "disputed" language does not make that clear.Erik-the-red (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Hoffmann is saying that India and China differed on where the McMahon Line was in this area. That is what is meant by being disputed. Do you want to take this to WP:DRN. It looks like we are going in circles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: "Sorry, no" to what?

As to your clarification as to what is meant by being disputed, well, duh. There's a border dispute. If China accepted India's interpretation of where the McMahon Line was in this area, then there would be no dispute. So again, your weasely language does not make it clear what the dispute is in this case. The dispute is that Dhola Post was established north of the actual McMahon Line (you've never disputed this); but India believed that when the McMahon Line differed from the watershed principle, the watershed principle should be followed, therefore the McMahon Line "should" have been further north in this area (I acknowledge this in the "Location and background" section).

So no, we aren't going in circles. You simply don't want to be clear about what the specific dispute was in this area beyond the uselessly generic "India and China differed on where the McMahon Line was in this area." Erik-the-red (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Sorry, no" meaning that is not what the sources say and that is not Wikipedia is supposed to say. You are doing your own WP:OR to decide the content and violating the sources and WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Actually, that is what the source of your own choosing says. It's on page 111:

During the officials' talks the Chinese had also been told of the Indian view on correcting a map-drawn line; that is, the need to correlate it with the actual features on the ground. If a feature such as the Thagla Ridge had not been explored when the map was issued, and if the map-drawn boundary was supposed to be set by the watershed ridge, then the line lay on the watershed ridge despite the error on the map.

There is no substantive difference between that and what is currently written in the last paragraph of the "Location and background" section: the Indian view is that while the McMahon Line is actually south of the Thagla Ridge, the Line is "supposed to be" at the Ridge. You have once again demonstrated that you are discussing in very bad faith, with your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting.

But just like before, pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution. As documented in the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was supposed to be established south of the actual McMahon Line. It was mistakenly established north of the actual McMahon Line. If you would like to state in the introduction that Dhola Post was "set up" north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge, that is factually correct and fine by me. Erik-the-red (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Erik-the-red, I renew my offer to take this to WP:DRN. Please avoid casting WP:aspersions, and work with me to resolve the content dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I repeat what I wrote to you on 19 June 2020: pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution. As documented in the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was supposed to be established south of the actual McMahon Line. It was mistakenly established north of the actual McMahon Line. If you would like to state in the introduction that Dhola Post was "set up" north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge, that is factually correct and fine by me.Erik-the-red (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So, now you have appealed to Raghavan. But Raghavan states on p.293:

This was a sensitive area. During the officials’ discussions in 1960 the Chinese had contested India’s interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line in the area. According to the treaty map of 1914 the McMahon Line ran south of the Thagla ridge. The Indians held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then the line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map.

Can you explain how your edit is an accurate representation of the source, and how it satisfies WP:NPOV? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: OK, at this point I'm honestly not sure what your problem is. I have twice told you that

As documented in the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was supposed to be established south of the actual McMahon Line. It was mistakenly established north of the actual McMahon Line. If you would like to state in the introduction that Dhola Post was "set up" north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge, that is factually correct and fine by me.

And that is what I rewrote in the introduction. Dhola Post was established in a disputed area north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge. Yet, you have rejected this language and claimed that it violates WP:NPOV.

Your counterargument is that I have misrepresented Raghavan because Raghavan wrote,

This was a sensitive area. During the officials’ discussions in 1960 the Chinese had contested India’s interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line in the area. According to the treaty map of 1914 the McMahon Line ran south of the Thagla ridge. The Indians held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then the line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map.

However, there is no misrepresentation. Raghavan literally said that "According to the treaty map of 1914 the McMahon Line ran south of the Thagla ridge"! The portion you bolded does not refer to the map-marked McMahon Line but rather India's interpretation of where the McMahon Line is supposed to be.

So I think we have come to the crux of the matter, which is that to you, "the McMahon Line" is not where the treaty map of 1914 shows. To you, "the McMahon Line" is where New Delhi says it ought to be: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map." Therefore, it is your argument that clearly violates WP:NPOV as you are advancing the position of the Government of India, while I am neutrally describing the fact that Dhola Post was north of the McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Section break

@Kautilya3: Just so I understand your definition of WP:NPOV, according to you,

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley, in a border area of Tawang that was disputed by China and India (and is still disputed).

is a "neutral point of view," but

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley area disputed by China and India, north of the McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.

is not? And despite your own wording in the introduction that Dhola Post was located in an area "disputed by China and India," stating that

• Dhola Post is in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India in the infobox is a "neutral point of view",

• but stating that Dhola Post is in Tibet, China (claimed by India as Arunachal Pradesh, India) is not?

Please explain to me why your language satisfies WP:NPOV while mine does not.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That is already explained it the quotation I gave above: "the [McMahon] line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map". Your wording that it is north of the McMahon Line is choosing one interpretation over the other in Wikipedia voice. That is not WP:NPOV. And, I have noted that your loose-mouthed shenanigans continue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ah, so at long last, your true colo(u)rs are shown. To you, the McMahon Line is not where the treaty map of 1914 shows. To you, the McMahon Line is where New Delhi says it should be: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map." I'm sorry, sahib, but advancing the position of the Government of India is not WP:NPOV by any honest definition of "neutrality."Erik-the-red (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: But to show once again that I am willing to reach a resolution with you, despite your numerous acts of dishonesty and hypocrisy, here is my suggestion. As "the McMahon Line" is ambiguous language, I suggest a change such as:

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley area disputed by China and India, north of the 1914 McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.

If there is some language that you prefer because in your mind, you are the ultimate arbiter of WP:NPOV, I will accept any change as long as it clarifies that Dhola Post was set up north of the McMahon Line as shown on the treaty map of 1914 and south of the Thagla Ridge.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A term like "1914 McMahon Line" is not in Raghavan, or any other reliable source I can find. All of them are clear that there were different interpretations of where the McMahon Line lay, but nobody has said that there were multiple "McMahon Lines". So, the phrase "1914 McMahon Line" is not at all helpful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Maybe you should reread what you quoted again:

This was a sensitive area. During the officials’ discussions in 1960 the Chinese had contested India’s interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line in the area. According to the treaty map of 1914 the McMahon Line ran south of the Thagla ridge. The Indians held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then the line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map.

Until yesterday, I was always confused as to why you kept saying that a statement such as "Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge" violated WP:NPOV. Then you finally admitted that to you, when you read the words "the McMahon Line," you do not think of the line marked on the treaty map of 1914. Instead, you think of where New Delhi says the boundary should be: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map."

Therefore, it is clear that even though there is only one "the McMahon Line," the language is ambiguous. Does it refer to the line marked on the treaty map of 1914, or does it refer to what New Delhi thinks the line should be?

So if you want to keep playing dumb, no problem. I already changed the introduction to emphasize that the McMahon Line is the one "as drawn on the treaty map of 1914." If you want to argue that "as drawn on the treaty map of 1914" is not in Raghavan or Hoffmann or any other reliable source of your choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not think that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914. I don't think so because I haven't seen any reliable source say it. All your argumentation is WP:OR, just describing your own view and prejudices. I am not supporting either "Delhi" or "Beijing". I just know that some issues don't have clear-cut answers, and it is not Wikipedia's job to provide them. We just summarise what the scholarly sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Of course you "do not think that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914." Because you are advancing the position of the Government of India that "the McMahon Line" means what New Delhi wants it to mean: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map."

As to your ridiculous claim that you haven't seen any reliable source say that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914, pick which reliable source you want, sahib. Do you want Hoffmann? Here you go:

Compounding the problem was China's opinion that Tamaden, Migyitun, Longju, and Khinzemane were on the Chinese side of the McMahon Line. In fact, the Indians had gone beyond the original version of the McMahon line when setting up some of their posts in the summer of 1959. Thus, it was technically true that certain Indian positions were on the Chinese side of the line, as that line had been drawn on an eight-miles-to-the-inch scale map in 1914. From the Indian perspective McMahon's line had made poor topographical sense in some places, because of limited knowledge of the terrain in 1914. At those places it did not adhere to the highest watershed line of ridges, the principle on which it was supposedly based. Nor did it adhere to other distinguishing features, such as rivers. So the Indians had fixed the boundary to the proper ridges or other salient features nearby and had planted some of their posts accordingly.

Pray tell, sahib, when Hoffmann says that "From the Indian perspective McMahon's line had made poor topographical sense in some places," what does "McMahon's line" refer to?

Or would you prefer Raghavan, sahib? No problem. Here you go:

This was a sensitive area. During the officials’ discussions in 1960 the Chinese had contested India’s interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line in the area. According to the treaty map of 1914 the McMahon Line ran south of the Thagla ridge. The Indians held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then the line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map.

Dear sir, please tell me, when Raghavan says "its erroneous depiction on the map," what is Raghavan referring to? Is he not referring to what Hoffmann referred to as "McMahon's line"? And is "McMahon's line" not "the McMahon Line"? As in, the line drawn by Henry McMahon at Simla in 1914?

If you want to interpret "the McMahon Line" without any additional modifier to mean what New Delhi wants it to mean, that's your right as a proud Hindustani. That's why the introduction emphasizes the McMahon Line "as drawn on the treaty map of 1914."Erik-the-red (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Both Hoffmann and Raghavan are discussing China's opinion and Indian perspective, the two contending interpretations. They are not stating any factual positions of their own on "the McMahon Line". But that is precisely what your text does, and what it has been doing for the past several months. You are taking a position on an issue which the scholars are not taking. That amounts to WP:OR and WP:POV.

Of course, scholars have to refer to the 1914 line by some means in order to talk about it. Hoffmann is calling it "McMahon's line" (note the apostrophe-s and the non-capitalisation of "line") and Raghavan is calling it the "treaty map".

But the more important issue is the WP:WEIGHT. For some fact to be mentioned in the lead sentence it has to be of quintessential importance to the topic. While you might believe that being north of the 1914 line is of quintessential importance, it is not witnessed in the RS. The RS only talk about the Dhola Post as a border post of India in what India understood to be its boundary. Then they point out that it was a "sensitive are" because the Chinese contested the boundary there. By way of explanation of why the Chinese contested the boundary, they state the fact that it was to the north of the map-drawn line. So the 1914 line comes in as the third point in the sequence, not the first.

India had not been following the 1914 line for several decades, even in British times. The principle that was being used to correct the 1914 line was the watershed. Even the British-drawn boundary line looks nothing like the 1914 line. The Chinese knew this. It was discussed during the Khinzemane episode as well as during the Officials talks in 1960. So what is important is that the Chinese chose to make this an issue.

China moved south to demonstrate her claim and did so at a point where there could be a discrepancy between the McMahon Line as shown on the map of 1914 and that indicated by the watershed. This difference arose because the coordinates calculated from the 1914 map did not correspond with the actual location of the places and terrain features indicated.... In the case of Dhola the coordinates [of 1914] would work to the advantage of Tibet, but in other places the Indian boundary would be advanced further north [of the watershed].

So the watershed line is not necessarily to the advantage of India consistently. At Dhola, it was so, but in other places it wouldn't be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Huge deletions

Needless to say, I also do not accept huge deletions of sourced and pertinent content, in the name of "streamlining", whatever that means. Please explain your reasons for deleting it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The content you included was not pertinent. Why is

The villagers of Le as well as those of the village Lumpo to the south are said to have traditionally used the Khinzemane grazing ground. The Indian government claimed that the grazing ground belonged to Lumpo and the villagers of Le had to pay rent to Lumpo for its use.

relevant? Especially since you yourself mention in the citation you yourself added that as per the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, "it is not uncommon for border villages on one side to use by mutual agreement pastures lying on the other side of the international boundary and the exercise of this privilege cannot be regarded as evidence in support of a territorial claim."Erik-the-red (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

All the debates concerning the region, the position of the McMahon Line there etc., happened in connection with Khinzemane, over the previous 3-year period prior to 1962. When deciding whether something should go in the background, we look at what the RS do. If the RS include it, it is relevant.

Lumpo and Le are two closest inhabitable places for this stretch of the border. Both of them are also part of the military infrastructure for the two forces.

The fact that they share the Khinzemane for grazing interconnects them, and gives a wholesome picture of the border dispute. For all we know, China could have made Khinzemane and Thagla Ridge into global disputes for entirely local reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

References

• Hoffmann, Steven A. (1990), India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6
• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7