Template:Did you know nominations/Five Fingers of Tibet

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Five Fingers of Tibet

(

)

... that the Chinese policy of Five Fingers of Tibet considers Tibet to be China's right hand palm, with five fingers: Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Arunachal Pradesh that must be "liberated"? Source: [1]
- ALT1:... that the ongoing China–India skirmishes have been linked with the Chinese strategy of Five Fingers of Tibet? Source: [2][3][4]

Created by SignificantPBD (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Interesting. Both ALT0 and ALT1 fine, favoring ALT0. LittleT889 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The hooks should attribute the strategy to Mao Zedong, since all literature on the subject attributes it to him in the 1940s. Any discussion about it in the modern context acknowledges that there are only hypothetical concerns about it still being relevant. It's more a strategy of Mao than a Chinese strategy, just like one wouldn't write in a hook that Blitzkrieg is a German strategy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have given a detailed response on the talk page. In the case of Blitzkrieg, it was invented by the Germans but it isn't used by them anymore. Whereas it is not known if the "five fingers" strategy has been discontinued by the Chinese. Hence it is wrong to compare the two. SignificantPBD (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s not known if it’s still used by China, so it’s a meaningful comparison. It’s only speculation whether it still exists in China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That's true. Whether or not this policy continues to be a guiding factor in Chinese foreign doctrine is a matter for debate. But there are ample sources to confirm that it is indeed a Chinese policy. I have also changed the word strategy to a seemingly more neutral one, "policy". SignificantPBD (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)