Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes

Some sources

• Fisher, Margaret W.; Rose, Leo E.; Huttenback, Robert A. (1963), Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh, Praeger – via Questia
• Garver, John W. (2006), "China's Decision for War with India in 1962", in Robert S. Ross (ed.), New Directions in the Study of China's Foreign Policy, Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-5363-0, archived from the original (PDF) on 28 August 2017
• Hoffmann, Steven A. (1990), India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6
• Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press
• Lintner, Bertil (2018), China’s India War: Collision Course on the Roof of the World, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-909163-8
• Maxwell, Neville (1970), India's China War, Pantheon Books, ISBN 978-0-394-47051-1
• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
• Woodman, Dorothy (1969), Himalayan Frontiers: A Political Review of British, Chinese, Indian, and Russian Rivalries, Praeger – via archive.org

Requesting Changing Chinese Casualties wording to "Casualties "

Kautilya3, could you please changed the Chinese casualties from 35 death to 35 casualties. This is clearly what is stated in the source at its frontal title.https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece

It is very suspicious that all the Chinese casualties are death without injured or captured. This engagement was hand to hand combat and non fire arm weapons such as pikes. The Chinese are using weapons while Indians soldiers are unarmed. It is very dubious that China suffered more death than India while there are no injured on the Chinese side. India suffered over 100 casualties which included 20 death, 70+ injured and 10 captured. Does it make sense at all that China's casualties are all death without any injured ? If 35 is the causality is the number which should include death, injured and captured. Then it needs to be changed to the word "Casualties" instead of the word death. Which are more neutral and reflect the actual source.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece

Sincerely,

Misleading news about loudspeakers

@DiplomatTesterMan: I just removed the Hindustan Times claim about the loudspeaker. See the BBC report: here. Besides the videos the BBC says are unrelated, the key part is

On 16 September, there were reports in both the Indian and Chinese media of China's People's Liberation Army installing loudspeakers along the border and playing Punjabi music to "distract" Indian soldiers.

Media reports had said the loudspeakers were put up by the Chinese army in an area under round-the-clock surveillance by Indian soldiers.

Both the Indian and Chinese media picked up this story quoting army sources, but there were no images or videos shared in these reports and the Indian army has not confirmed this happened.

Perhaps this could be included in some form, but it may need qualification with the BBC's explanation that there has been no evidence nor army confirmation from either side. A full explanation might be undue prominence though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. This can be left out for now. While interesting trivia, impact or importance for readers difficult to justify without more coverage. Was it a one time usage or are they still being used etc etc DTM (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Though not directly related, found one more mention from 1962: On 10 July, over 350 Chinese troops surrounded an Indian post at Chushul, Leh. Using loudspeakers, they told the Gurkha regiment to not fight for India. source DTM (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Pie chart/brick chart of poll

Should this be mentioned in the article? Is a chart/graph needed?
An "ET Online Survey" (link) polling over 16,000 people found out that —

What is your view on Modi govt's response to Chinese aggression?

  Well done; full marks to them (43.8%)

  Too wary, should’ve been tougher (8.5%)

  More rhetoric, less action (24.3%)

  Govt doing the best it could (23.4%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your view on Modi govt's response to Chinese aggression?

  Well done; full marks to them - 43.8 %

  Too wary, should’ve been tougher - 8.5 %

  More rhetoric, less action - 24.3 %

  Govt doing the best it could - 23.4 %

DTM (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That could be a useful gauge for the public perception in India. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and added it. DTM (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-11-01/china-gained-ground-on-india-during-bloody-summer-in-himalayas

I request the addition of this source into the article, perhaps under a result or territorial changes section in the infobox. The important text in question:

"A summer of fighting saw India lose control over about 300 square kilometers (115 square miles) of land along the disputed mountainous terrain, according to Indian officials familiar with the situation. Chinese soldiers now prevent Indian patrols in the area, which is about five times the size of Manhattan."

I believe this is sufficiently important to be added to the article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:1C82:8B39:BC92:9C3D (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)