Talk:Lanak La

Reliability of sources

User:The Discoverer, you added back two sources that I removed per WP:SPS because they're hosted on personal web sites. You claim that one was published in a journal, and another is an Indian government source. Do you have any proof, and why aren't we linking to the original publication sites? In any case, I don't think it's a good idea to use material hosted on personal sites, especially when these aren't even neutral sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You can find the publication details for both at British Library Document Supply Service. Unfortunately, both are apparently not available online on official sites, so we'll have to make do with the links we have.The Discoverer (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If they're hosted on personal websites, how can we be sure of their authenticity? -Zanhe (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that the text at the URL you link to for Maxwell's book is authentic?The Discoverer (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The book URL is not hosted on a personal page. Besides, it's a widely distributed book available from Amazon and many libraries. Anyone with a copy of the book can verify its authenticity (I own a copy of the book myself). -Zanhe (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Atleast we know the identity of the persons hosting the sources. The URL we link to for Maxwell is a file-sharing website, and we don't even know who uploaded the book.The Discoverer (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources

The Discoverer: you've added a large number of non-neutral Indian and British-Indian sources (including a few hosted on personal sites, see above) to several articles including Kongka Pass and Lanak Pass, while removing facts from an authoritative neutral source, calling it biased. The source that you call biased is published by the US Army War College, and written by Dr. Larry Wortzel, an American colonel and professor of the US Army War College, and advisor to the US Congress. On what basis do you call him biased toward China? -Zanhe (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with any source, please prove that it is not a reliable source.
• No neutral source would unilaterally award disputed territory to one of the belligerent parties. The fact that the author uses the term 'Chinese territory', when the United States government has never recognised the disputed territory to be a part of China, clearly smacks of bias. Either the sentence has been erroneously included in the report, or the author is writing with a non-neutral POV.The Discoverer (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I find your "reasoning" quite amusing. Allow me to summarize it for you: basically all Indian sources are neutral and reliable unless proven otherwise; and any source that disagrees with the Indian view is biased, even if written by renowned experts from disinterested countries such as Dr. Larry Wortzel. You really need a good read of WP:Competence#Bias-based. -Zanhe (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What you summarised is not what I meant. What I meant is that if an Indian source makes a statement, and if we have no reason to believe that it is not reasonably reliable other than its being Indian, and if no other reliable source disputed that statement, then we can accept the statement as true. Eg. If Indian media report that it rained in India yesterday, and no other sources report that it didn't rain, then we could write in Wikipedia that it rained. On the other hand, if an expert writes something that is obviously wrong, we cannot blindly include it on Wikipedia, especially if it contradicts other sources. Eg. if the scientific journal Nature were to write that zebras are blue in colour, we cannot write the same thing in Wikipedia. I did not mean that the full source is biased, but the statement is question ('.. Chinese territory.. ') is definitely inaccurate.The Discoverer (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic. We're talking about Neutrality, not Reliability. Of course Indian government and media sources are normally reliable for non-controversial Indian topics, and Chinese sources reliable for Chinese topics. But for matters concerning the Sino-India border dispute, neither side is neutral, and we need to reply upon authoritative sources from disinterested third parties. Anyone with common sense should be able to understand that. But I've learned from your past behaviour that reasoning with you is futile, and I'll just wait for the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation on you before wasting more time on this issue. -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is something that is required for articles, not for sources. WP:BIASED states 'reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective'. Also, do read Wikipedia:Reliable sources may be non-neutral and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are never neutral. Except when a statement is extremely controversial, we can quote from sources that may be biased, as long as we state both points of view, and use in-text attribution. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The key point is that you're not citing sources from both points of view, but exclusively from the Indian POV, whereas I've only cited neutral, scholarly sources. The article contains no Chinese POV sources that need to be balanced by Indian ones. You're simply trying to drown out neutral sources with Indian ones. -Zanhe (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources which contradict the Indian sources; this indicates that the Indian sources are stating objective facts. In case you feel that there is another point of view, then add reliable sources that say so.The Discoverer (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lanak La. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053454/http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_2.pdf to http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)