Talk:2017 China–India border standoff

Grammar and bias issues

This page has serious grammar errors which need correction. Also, the page appears present the issue with a slight bias towards the Chinese Government's position. MCQknight (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

@No1lovesu and MBlaze Lightning:, I see repeated reverts. Can you please discuss the issues so that we can come to agreement? At this stage, I foresee a full protection happening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@No1lovesu:, on this issue, please read and follow WP:NEWSORG. There are hundreds of opinion columns written on the subject of this standoff. What is special about this one? Why is it in the criticism section anyway? The WP:BURDEN is always on the editor who wants to add a certain content. Your edit summary is completely inappropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I had read WP:NEWSORG a long time ago and SCMP is a reliable source without a doubt, it was cited and quoted, why can't it be added to the article. Besides, what is special about other quotations you listed?--No1lovesu (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I only listed one (Raghavan). You listed Maxwell. Both of them are established authorities on the 1962 war and India-China conflicts in general.

SCMP is a newspaper, which is only reliable for news. You need to read WP:NEWSORG again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2017

2017 China–India border standoff → 2017 Doklam standoff – More accurate and precise. India doesn't even recognize the disputed territory as theirs and recognizes it as Bhutan's. I know that the soldiers involved in this standoff are Indians and Chinese but to avoid confusion rename this article as 2017 Doklam standoff. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 20:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Looks better as per WP:NPOV.—Ind akash (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment How about moving it to "2017 China-India military standoff" to include both the Doklam as well as Ladakh incident and also fixing the issues with using the word "border". Ind akash (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support yeah let's do this my friend. ----損齋 (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support I still think it's important to name the parties involved since most sources cited frame the standoff as an issue in India-China relations. However calling it only "China-India (or India-China) border standoff" is inaccurate because it is not technically at their border, and they could have another standoff somewhere else during 2017. Maybe "2017 China-India standoff at Doklam"? Kbseah (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOV--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support It will make clear that the area where the standoff is happening is not claimed by India. Ishnigarrab (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support I agree with Kbseah that the standoff is perceived as an issue in India-China relations in the world, but I think it is even better to use the title "2017 China–India standoff at Donglang/Doklam". This spells out the main players in the standoff as the world perceives, as well as the location in a neutral language. In the spirit of WP:NPOV, using "Donglang/Doklam" in the title is better than "Doklam" since the latter is the name India uses, but China calls it Donglang. If one looks on google map now, it is called Donglang Caochang (meaning Donglang pasture or Donglang grazing field in Chinese), but Doklam does not even show up thereon. Bing map has both names though. "China-India" vs "Donglang/Doklam" in the title is a perfect correspondence to me. Adam4math (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Opppose - there has been escalation in other areas of the border as well, several indian and chinese soldiers were injured in a brawl on the border near Ladakh today [[1]]. Probably the most serious incident this year between the two parties, and no where near doklam.XavierGreen (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I also think the name should not be changed as the tensions between both countries is not only relate to single location. The latest incident related happened in Laddakh where both army got brawled and their soldiers injured. That incident also should be cover within this article. सुमित सिंह (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The conflict is not limited to Doklam. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Kautilya said, the conflict is not limited to Doklam, we have incidences in Ladakh as well, also, in all pre existing military confrontations, it has been standard policy to name the two countries in the title, I think we should keep it that way, also, agreed that the area is not contested as Indian territory but the primary military opposition is being given by India and not Bhutan. Jasonprost (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Rename to 2017 Doklam crisis. 185.26.183.74 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While Doklam was the catalyst for the standoff it's not the only area involved. Sunomi64 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support I agree the title should be changed since "China-India border" is incorrect, perhaps a better title would be "2017 China-India Doklam Standoff". CMaldoror (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Support renaming to "2017 China-India military standoff" as per arguments of Ind akash (talk · contribs). (121.214.32.236 (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC))
• Comment ,I personally find the title is correct.AlfaRocket (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing events in timeline

This article's series of events starts at June 29. It doesn't mention the events of June 16th, where Indian troops crossed the LAC into actual Chinese territory in order to stop Chinese road construction that was still on Chinese territory. By excluding this, it seems to be presenting a false narrative of how the standoff actually started. Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13683/this-lakeside-border-brawl-between-indian-and-chinese-troops-has-sent-tensions-soaring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.218.14 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Links to China's position paper

Kautilya3, All the links to China's official position paper "The Facts and China's Position Concerning the Indian Border Troops' Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sector into the Chinese Territory (2017-08-02)" worked perfectly, and the paper came out right away after one click for my edited version at

00:34, 20 August 2017‎ Adam4math (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,960 bytes) (+562)‎ . . (undo)

However, after you made the changes in two steps at

11:59, 20 August 2017‎ Kautilya3 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,022 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Use sfn for the China document) (undo | thank)

21:52, 20 August 2017‎ Kautilya3 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (24,218 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎Bibliography: Fixing style/layout errors) (undo | thank)

they do not work anymore.

You un-necessarily added "[page needed]" every time this document is cited so that the reader has to click several times and still could not find the link. China's short position paper, just like those of India and Bhutan, is for people to look into. But after what you did to the links, the reader would get confused and frustrated - just as I myself was when I tried those links after your edits above. This no doubt will make the reader to hate whatever is connected to this document: China.

Today, I supplied the page numbers for every "[page needed]":

03:26, 25 August 2017‎ Adam4math (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (24,277 bytes) (-122)‎ . . (added requested page numbers for references at 4 places.) (undo)

but the document still does not open directly. For this version (at 03:26, 25 August 2017‎), China's position paper is cited as [3], [8], [15], [16] (these numbers may change when new references are added later). Also, the last occurrence of [16] does not have the same page number as the earlier one, which was fine before your edits since no page number was required. Can you fix all of these? Thanks. Adam4math (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You can add a URL if you wish using "loc=" instead of "p=". See [2].

For avoiding the double-clicking needed for sfn citations, please turn on "reference tooltips" in your preferences under "Gadgets". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nehru's letter on 26 September 1959

Hi CMaldoror, I added the following comment on the media's reported "Nehru letter":

The text in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) in the above does not sound authentic, since in the same cited article [32] it stated "Nehru’s letter seems to refer to northern Sikkim and not to the tri-junction". "This clearly refers to" vs "Nehru’s letter seems to refer to": which one do you want the reader to believe? This is the media's unofficial claim about Nehru's letter, but the current India government has not said anything about it so far for the current contentious dispute.

Adam4math (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed this reader comment from the article text. Please discuss the issues here, not in the main space.

Comment by a reader: The text in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) in the above does not sound authentic, since in the same cited article it stated "Nehru’s letter seems to refer to northern Sikkim and not to the tri-junction". "This clearly refers to" vs "Nehru’s letter seems to refer to": which one do you want the reader to believe? This is the media's unofficial claim about Nehru's letter, but the current India government has not said anything about it so far for the current contentious dispute.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I removed the suspicious part of "Nehru's letter", keeping only the part that is authentic which is identical to what is in China's position paper (page 15), and in agreement with words of its Spokesperson Geng Shuang (though not exactly same words). Any intelligent reader can tell from the cited article in the media that the part in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) is a comment made by either someone later in India's government, or by the media itself. Adam4math (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Hindustan Times article is wrong. It copied content from a Claude Arpi article [3], and botched it up. This citation should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't expected such a blatant misquotation. Do you think we should keep this section as is or reword/expand it to explain why this quote-related controversy arose? To me at least, the whole section doesn't make any sense as is: a Chinese quote is "refuted" by Indian media highlighting the exact same quote (the misquotation not being mentioned in the wikipedia Article) and a Chinese spokesperson responding to a non-existent refutation (the refutation is a comment on the quote that was subsequently presented as a part of the quote, as you said). CMaldoror (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, to me, the whole article doesn't make sense. I am not working on it yet until I finish the Doklam article. Please feel free to edit it as you see fit. Remember that we do not accept newspapers as reliable sources for history. It is best to attribute any such historical claims to the newspaper concerned so that we don't take the blame for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Manoj Joshi

After rushing to the media with a whole bunch of half-baked information (he didn't even know where Doklam was initially), Manoj Joshi has now produced a well-researched article. This should be considered the authoritative statement of his views and override whatever he said in the media.

• Manoj Joshi, Doklam: To start at the very beginning, Observer Research Foundation, 9 August 2017.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

He is still not sure if Gipmochi and Gyemochen are the same place. But we know for sure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I think you mis-read Dr. Manoj Joshi: He was just pointing out the confusion on Gipmochi caused by maps in India. China will have to be patient and tolerate its neighborhood's confusion. Truthreigns (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

POV

Clearly this article is written by Indians and merely shows Indians' POV which is not neutral at all. --Whaterss (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

-- This is not a banana measuring contest. You may always help improve Wikipedia by offering neutral sources and expanding the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xooxwiki (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC) 

users from China are welcome to expand this page, but always with reliable source! cheers.AlfaRocket (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Disengagement

Kautilya3, Record shows that you composed the section on Disengagement. You effort is appreciated. I disagree on a couple of sentences for reasons below.

"Both countries also said that they would continue to patrol the Doklam area"? I notice this is from a report by Washington Post but no other major newspaper in the west mentions this. China did say it would continue patrol Doklam and much more as recorded on its foreign official ministry official web page at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1487932.shtml but no such statement can be found on India's MEA web site except its short and only "Press Statement on Doklam disengagement understanding". Who will believe that India would continue to patrol the Doklam area after such a standoff in which China asserted India violated its territorial sovereignty and trampled international law after it crossing an international boundary to face the Chinese, and that an US senior administration official said US was concerned about sovereignty issues and adherence to international law as Hindustantimes reported one day earlier on 27 August, 2017? Is this standoff fun at all, and India intends to go into Doklam again to cause another one? This does not make sense. I do not think Washington Post can be trusted on such a report, because India's official statement does not have any such statement. I think this sentence should be removed.

"Indian MEA issued a second statement later in the day that both the sides have withdrawn "under verification"."? No such a "second statement" can be found anywhere except what the media claimed. This sentence should be removed also if no genuine source can be found to backup the statement. On the other hand, official release from China's foreign ministry says "In light of the changes on the ground, China will accordingly make necessary adjustments and deployment."

Reuters is the most neutral among all the major media reports on any issue (see wikipedia article on this). I believe its reports are more trustworthy. Truthreigns (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with Truthreigns. Washington Post is a neutral and respectable source. Being covered by Reuters is not the litmus test for truth. Further, regarding your remarks :

"Who will believe that India would continue to patrol the Doklam area after such a standoff in which China asserted India violated its territorial sovereignty and trampled international law after it crossing an international boundary to face the Chinese, and that an US senior administration official said US was concerned about sovereignty issues and adherence to international law as Hindustantimes reported one day earlier on 27 August, 2017? Is this standoff fun at all, and India intends to go into Doklam again to cause another one?

Kindly dont't assert POV into wikipedia as you have done above. Nikkei2017 (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think, to override Washington Post, we need a source that says that India agreed not to patrol the area. Or, we find over time that this was misinformation from Washington Times. Time will tell. At the moment, I don't see any need to change anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I take that back. I notice that that news report was from AP (Associated Press), which is not in general highly reliable. I will change the wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Government statements

Kautilya3, At 15:54, 31 August 2017, you performed this action:

Undid revision 798152295 by Truthreigns (talk); WP:POV pushing; if you want to contest existing content use the talk page; and stop adding government propaganda

You obviously are saying that Scenario 1 below is reliable and Scenario 2 is propaganda when they appear in Wikipedia.

Scenario 1: Newspaper A said that government of China said so and so plus something twistings without giving China's official resource.

Scenario 2: Direct quote from government of China's official release: it said so and so.

When others such as no1lovesu tried to refer directly to a statement of Chinese government, you also said he was adding propaganda and removed it without discussion to get a consensus.

After removing government of China's direct statements while keeping the full length of India's, you add this opinion from Washington Post: "However China was continuing to be "cagey" in its official remarks."

I do not understand your logic. Seriously, which is more reliable and more objective in the spirit of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV?

You insist on using reports from Indian news channel NDTV and Times of India. Would it be appropriate if one insists on using only media reports from China, such as the Global Times and ignore India media? Is this in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV?

What I mean is that neither Indian nor Chinese media reports should be used for this section since they are biased, but we should use the government official statements, and reliable neutral third party's reports.

Is it possible that you re-study carefully WP:NPOV so that we reach a consensus on this part? Thanks. Truthreigns (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

All government statements potentially include propaganda. They are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can only be used when validated by secondary sources.

The only Indian/Chinese source used in that section is for the Bhutanese statement. The rest are all WP:THIRDPARTY.

Let me also highlight this passage from the Washington Post article from the 28th:

Mao Siwei, former Chinese consul general in the Indian city of Kolkata, said the statements were deliberately "vague" because of the sensitivity of the issue and the reluctance of either side to show weakness. "Judging from experience and common sense, I guess both sides have come to the following agreement: Firstly, on principle, China would stop its road building and India would withdraw its troops; secondly, regarding the timing, India would withdraw first and China would withdraw later."

Your effort to add PRIMARY source statements that contradict the experts "common sense" is a serious problem. When you cite SECONDARY sources, you need to accurately summarise the entire source, not cherry pick statements that you find convenient for your POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I'm afraid you are talking about yourself when you mentioned "cherry pick statements that you find convenient or your POV". A couple of statements by Chinese government you removed from the article were uniformly reported in all major newspapers in the world as well as all the newspapers in India that I checked. Isn't this your cherry picking?

About statements you quoted Mao Siwei as made, I found they were reported by the media in India, but you omitted some other statements he reportedly made that would contravene your POV. Isn't this also cherry picking?

I personally believe China has put road construction on hold, but Wikipedia says this is not allowed: "The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious" cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

You added the quote "However China was continuing to be "cagey" in its official remarks" from Washington Post (WP), but conveniently ignored that statements made by India government were even more so - most citizens in Indian complained that the statements were too ambiguous even after their government made two statements: cf https://mobile.twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/902148971136655360 To be fair and unbiased, the quoted statement from WP needs be removed.

You probably know this: Of all articles WP wrote about China in the last twenty or thirty years, you will not find a single one that says anything favorable about China. WP is grossly biased against China, more so than any other newspapers in the West. Isn't your choice of media report by WP an example of cherry picking to support your POV? Truthreigns (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)