Talk:Sino-Nepalese Treaty of Peace and Friendship

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.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tags[edit]

@Usedtobecool:

Thanks for your feedback. On the first tag "This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay", can you please point out where that it is exactly? It's pretty meaningless if you don't. The second tag "This section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy". It is the official text of a nationally significant and publicly distributed agreement between two nations and nobody would be able to reproduce it had the governments of China and Nepal decided that they owned the "copyright" of the original treaty. The fact that it is reproduced entirely in many historical books shows this. I have also included a link to one of the historical books that does reproduce it, so why is it potentially a copyright violation? There are many other pages that do the same: 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship and Sino-Pakistan Agreement. If it is the case that all of these agreements should be para-phrased then I would like the same justification and warning to be in place for them.

Kip1234 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kip1234! I tagged it for copy-paste because it is a copy-paste and I am not sure if it's exempt from copyright. Many inexperienced editors add copyright violation unwittingly, that's why I thought it prudent to point it out. Any user, including you, can remove the tag if they are sure enough to take personal responsibility that it is not a violation. If I was sure it was a violation, I would have removed the whole text instead, so it's just meant to draw attention of more knowledgeable editors. As for the other tag, there is plenty of opinion giving and conclusion drawing within the text but without attributing them to anyone. Perhaps it's all other people's thoughts, but it is presented in Wikipedia's voice. The tag I added seemed like the most appropriate from among the ones available. Here's some examples of wording that I think need addressing: "would have fitted into an attempt to maintain the image", "had apparently tried", "Perhaps prompted by this", "This apparently meant that", "Some linked this" (who?), "This was further demonstrated" (this is clearly arguing something), "The most significant event" (according to whom?), "An official communique from the Chinese side reveals that he was "received"" (does this mean it's unlikely to be true, or if it's true, why not just say that it happened?), "This was actually the key agreement" (according to whom?), "without this the later agreement of "peace and friendship" would have been impossible for China to agree to" (hypothetical as fact?), "Although the treaty arguably only" (too timid to impart any real information), "which was a reflection of Nepal's 1950 Treaty with India and the fact that Nepal would have probably desired little change to the pre-existing balance of power" (according to whom?), "This would also explain China's marked efforts" (another argument, but whose?). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool Alright, I will make it explicitly clear which thoughts are those of authors and try and find some corroborating facts, rather than confusing people that it is either my Original Research or Synthesis. I take all of your points but I would like to at least remove the first tag, once I have changed sections that could possibly be confused. If you would object to me unilaterally removing it, could I ask you to check over the page again for any offending passages once you have received this notification?

Btw, "received" was exactly what was said in the Chinese communique that was my basis for putting it in. I reproduced it in that manner because that is how they described the contact between Karoila and Mao. I would assume it to mean "met" or "conversed" but it doesn't say that, so I tried to avoid synthesis.

Thanks for all of the feedback, it has made me consider my writing style more carefully. Can you please check the page to see if the first tag can be removed? Kip1234 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kip1234, I have removed the tag at the top of the article. But I would strongly recommend not putting in Wikipedia's voice this very strong claim: "This was actually the key agreement between the two sides that officially delineated the borders of the two countries in the Himalayas, as well as ceding Tibet to Chinese control and without this, China would have refused to agree to the later Treaty of "peace and friendship" in April." This requires attribution, and ideally the one that this is attributed to should be quite authoritative an expert on Chinese foreign policy. I am not removing the copy-paste tag, you remove it if you are sure or otherwise, wait for someone more knowledgeable to check it out. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]