Jump to content

Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

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


China occupied Arunachal Pradesh...

According to this News18 article, China has occupied parts or Arunachal Pradesh. Though the article is not in English, from what I understand is that:

According to the [arunachal pradesh] MP, the Chinese army has also captured an Indian army base 10-12 km from the McMahon Line. The Indian Army was stationed at a place called Maza, a few kilometers away. The newly established camp is named after the Indian Army in Maza Aleka Eri. However, places like Bicha, Achapila and Langju are under Chinese occupation today. Translated from সাংসদগৰাকীৰ বৰ্ণনা মতে, মেকমোহন লাইনৰ পৰা ১০-১২ কিলোমিটাৰ আগুৱাই আহি চীনা সেনাই ভাৰতীয় সেনাৰ ঘাটি এটাও দখল কৰি লৈছে। মাজা নামৰ ঠাইত থকা ভাৰতীয় সেনা কেইবা কিলোমিটাৰ আঁতৰি আহিব লগা হয়। ভাৰতীয় সেনাই মাজা এলেকা এৰি নতুনকৈ স্থাপন কৰা ছাউনীটোৰ নাম পূৰ্বৰ দৰে মাজা ৰাখিছে। আনহাতে বিছা, আচাপিলা আৰু লংজু আদি ঠাইবোৰো আজি চীনৰ দখলত। তাৎপৰ্যপূৰ্ণ কথাটো হ'ল আজি চীনৰ দখলত থকা আছাপিলা নামৰ ঠাইখনত এসময়ত ভাৰতীয় সেনাৰ শিবিৰ আছিল।

And: According to the MP, the people of Arunachal Pradesh, far ahead of the McMahon Line, have been living in the east and occupying both sides of the Asapila and Swanshiri rivers in the Langu sector of Apar Swanshiri district.

Translated from সাংসদগৰাকীয়ে জনালে মেকমোহন লাইনৰ পৰা বহু আগুৱাই আহি অৰুণাচলী লোকে পূৰ্বৰে পৰা বসবাস কৰি আপাৰ সোৱনশিৰি জিলাৰ আছাপিলা আৰু লংজু চেক্টৰৰ সোৱনশিৰি নদীৰ দুয়োপাৰ দখল কৰিছে চীনে।

And: According to the MP, not only the occupation, but also the construction of bird trails, bird droppings, bird houses and helipads at Ashapila and Maja in Dukhan have been completed. Below is a special photo of the sadness claimed by the MP (I know 'Pakhi' means bird in Bengali but is it being used as a substitute for planes or what?) Translated from: সাংসদগৰাকীৰ মতে, কেৱল দখল কৰাই নহয়, আছাপিলা আৰু মাজা নামৰ ঠাই দুখনত পকী পথ, পকী দলং, পকী ঘৰ, হেলিপেড পৰ্যন্ত নিৰ্মাণ সম্পূৰ্ণ কৰিছে। সাংসদগৰাকীৰ দাবী কৰা ঠাইডোখৰৰ দুখন বিশেষ ফটো তলত তুলি ধৰা হৈছে।

Unfortunately the rest is gibberish when translated from google and I'd rather not play any more guessing games.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the part about places like Bicha, Achapila and Langju are under Chinese occupation today, that just refers to the long-standing dispute between the two countries since the 1960s over Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet. The disputed territory is south of the McMahon Line (the Indian-claimed border) but north of the Chinese-claimed border, with the named locations in the article being north of the eastern Line of Actual Control (between the two claimed borders). That part isn’t new.
Regarding Maza, I can’t tell without seeing more sources. — MarkH21talk 23:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

SpicyBiryani, that is Assamese, not Bengali. Just seen this one, feel pity on Google, spiced up surely :). Any way Spicy and MarkH21, though I know little bit Assamese but understand what it says, I am mentioning the important facts only. It says, The Chinese entered around 10-12 km inside the macMohan Line and occupied the newly made camp at Majaa sector by India. Bicha, Achapila and Langju are under Chinese occupation now and conclusively the gist of the story is that the occupied Achapila camp was once an Indian base.(1st part)

Arunachali people used to live on the eastern side of the MacMohan line in the Achapila and Lanju sector of Subansiri distrcit on the both side of Subansiri river which is now occupied by chinese.(second one)

Rofl, that was hillarious Spicy, pardon me...."bird trails :P, bird droppings :P , bird houses :P" oh Google !!!, it's not paakhi, its p"a"ki (like "a" aa ka kha in hindi) means pucca or pakka ghar...means stone or brick/permanent house. So it says, not only the chinese occupied the area Achapila and Majaa but they constructed flxible roads, buildings, houses and even helipad. Drat8sub (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Google translate man. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian allegation of ambush

Re: Galwan Valley skirmish, India alleges Chinese troops erected a tent, which the Indians destroyed. The Chinese troops then unblocked a river they had dammed as Indian troops approached them, as part of an ambush. This is reported in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/india-accuses-china-of-preparing-attack-on-border-troops, based on The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-chinas-peoples-liberation-army-meticulously-planned-attack-in-galwan-says-senior-government-official/article31862371.ece. Can that account be included? Fences&Windows 02:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fences and windows, agreed. I see no reason to not include the same. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Whimsical deletion of well cited info

Talleyrand20, you have reverted 3 of my well cited additions to this page without any explanation and without any edit summaries. Moreover, those edits were not disruptive at all. Can you please explain why did you do it and how you came to conclusion that it was not good enough to fit in here? Trojanishere (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Reverts by Goswami666

Is this reversion is ok? Italawar (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Italawar, seems okay to me because, on reading the source that were cited, he seems to have just corrected the numbers. Now whether the sources in themselves are reliable or not is whole different matter. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Field Marshal Aryan: I'm Talking About "Godi Media has already started defending Narendra Modi and putting all blame on Indian Army. [1] [2]" portion. Italawar (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Taking a Preliminary Look at What has Already been done", Getting Started in Health Research, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 9–17, 2011-06-22, ISBN 978-1-4443-4130-0, retrieved 2020-06-22
  2. ^ Taskin, Bismee (2020-06-17). "Times Now, ABP want Galwan revenge, Republic says 'Get out China', Zee on what China wants". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

China's admission regarding their colonel

Apparently the Chinese army, during talks with their Indian counterpart, have verified that its colonel was killed in the skirmish with India. The source is NDTV which I would say is more reliable than Zee or other such media houses. Does this deserve to be added somewhere in the article? Please share your views. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim is by anonymous sources, not a direct confirmation by China. Add it but please mention it's said by Indian army sources. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by 'direct confirmation' by China? The news article says that 'China's army' confirmed it. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

'Nearby Chinese soldiers quickly punched the Indian lieutenant in his mouth breaking his jaw' should be removed as there is no valid proof of this incidence and it was not reported anywhere. It is a self-made incident made to defame the Indian Army. Abhimanyu4141 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Tartan357 Actually, it's the opposite. Abhimanyu4141 isn't asking the addition of unsourced content, he is requesting the removal of the same. Text under the Sikkim section says

Nearby Chinese soldiers quickly punched the Indian lieutenant in his mouth breaking his jaw.

The source cited is this article from The Quint but on going through that article I didn't find any mention that the 'nearby Chinese soldiers punched the Indian lieutenant' so I'm removing it from the article. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree on removal. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, my mistake on the initial response. — Tartan357  (Talk) 00:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done

Map in Infobox

The map in the infobox is good and helpful to the article, but I fear it is not neutral enough for use as the infobox map. The entire Aksai Chin area, lost to India for decades as I understand it, is shown to be part of India, and little context is provided to point this out. Chinese and hypothetical ROC claims should be shown in the map that is used in the infobox to maintain neutrality, right? A map of the LAC is needed or maybe a topographical map of the area if no LAC map is representative of the claims of all parties: India China Taiwan and Pakistan? Aksai Chin is extremely neglected on Wikipedia, as are Hotan Prefecture and Ngari Prefecture which I happen to have done a little work on recently. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

China yes, but given that the ROC claim is theoretical only and not active I think we can safely leave it out. We’re going to have a hard time satisfying all parties, I think we should consider any map a work in progress. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree, a map show all the conflicting claims would be better, but almost any map is better than no map. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I definitely like the map with the circles on it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21 Yes, because it shows the official government map of India, which in turn shows the mindset of India's government, this govt and previous; without any distractions. I was also just a little tired with the CIA image being used, it is in sooooooo many articles on JK (because it is probably one of the best). I suppose WP:WANTING_A_CHANGE isn't a guideline anywhere. I don't want to go into lengthy academic reasons etc etc etc we are all big enough to understand what's going on.
Maybe the image I have placed can be used in the article. I haven't seen a Survey of India map in Wikipedia too often, and in relation to the Kashmir region, I think that is important. Then again if there is consensus, then yeh it can be rmeoved since I am not arguing my case properly. The CIA map shows it all quite nicely. DTM (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I too like the CIA map annotated with circles, in concept. But I don't know of any skirmishes or build-up at Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO). On the other hand, there has been significant build-up at the Gogra Post/Hot Spring/Kongka Pass area.[1] So I suggest removing DBO as a location of conflict, and adding Hot Spring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right, the annotated Survey of India map seems to have included DBO just on the basis of the Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road being an issue of tension for the recent conflicts. I've removed that circle and added a circle for the Hot Springs area (also discussed in this article as a conflict point) to the image at File:Kashmir Region (2020 skirmish locations).jpg.
It seems that we have consensus for this image being an improvement on the Survey of India map. The fact that the CIA map has widespread use isn't a reason to not use it but just a lament that we don't have other similar quality maps. If we do have another similar quality map, we could look at annotating that, but the Survey of India doesn't meet that standard as it is missing crucial information. — MarkH21talk 18:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henry Boyd, Meia Nouwens, Understanding the military build-up on the China–India border, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 18 June 2020.

Indian re enforcement against china at crucial border points.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-reinforces-flashpoint-area-as-china-holds-ground-sources/articleshow/76554627.cms

File:Sukhoi over leh.webp
IAF SU-30 MKI over LEH
Copyrighted image. Drat8sub (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese deaths

Please remove the 5 Chinese deaths as the only source for that figure is a minor and local news twitter handle NewsLineIFE formed only 3 moths ago and without an actual newspaper, known for spreading unverified and sensationalist news without any vetting or sources. Now other newspapers and websites are referring to the Wikipedia page showing 5 deaths as confirmation of the fact when in reality, nothing of that sort has been even hinted to, much less confirmed. It has become a self feeding cycle of false, unverified and unsourced stats and should be removed immediately as it is completely false and the reporter Wang Wenwen has repeatedly said she was only trying to show what some (minor) parts of Indian media were saying and has been debunked and explained multiple times in the short time it has been online

5 chinese deaths fact check

another chinese deaths fact check

China debunks India's Media's Claim Regarding 40 Solider Died Being Totally False News

Indian claim 40 Chinese death is false news generated by Indian media. Official Chinese spokes person from the Minster of Sate deny and debunk this

Indian claim 40 Chinese death is false news generated by Indian media. Official Chinese spokes person deny and debunk this.

"赵立坚表示，一些印度媒体报道印方官员的话称，中方至少有40名官兵死亡，我可以负责任地告诉你，这是虚假信息。"

Chinese spokesman Zhao said on Monday: "Some Indian media reported that Indian claim at least 40 Chinese soldiers died. I can responsibly tell you, this is totally false information."

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2020_06_23_555191.shtml, https://new.qq.com/omn/20200623/20200623A0OT9S00.html, http://www.cfi.net.cn/p20200623001643.html -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk • contribs)

If China publishes the actual number of casualties, we will be happy to include the figure. Without that, we will report whatever the reliable sources say, and China's "debunk" is of no value to us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It is of the value in the sense that we need to say that the Chinese deny this number. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Since now China has officially deny this number. The Indian sources posted in the articles need to be modified to include this information and sources. Stating that China denied the numbers made up by Indian media.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


Yes, it should be 35 killed (disputed) with a citation to Chinese foreign ministry statement in the Indian sources sectionRwat128 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It should say the Chinese denial but do not say that it is "made up by Indian media". AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious that China reject the claims made by India. I mean they are against each other here, they won't accept their own casualties presented by the other side. Happens in every war and conflict, and we don't add bracketed texts of 'rejected by other side' after claims made by one party because unless, they actually accept it, denial is assumed. If a claim is agreed upon by both parties, then we can simply add a little 'confirmed' in a bracket next to it. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

General practice seems to be to cite the number given by reliable sources and if it is disputed but no alternative number is provided by a reliable source then just add in brackets "(disputed)". So it should look something like this: Casualties: 40[citation] (disputed)[citation].--Discott (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese deaths from Chinese source.

From a daily press conference of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on 23 June 2020, Questioned by BBC:’ can you tell us the death toll of the Chinese side?’ Zhao Lijian answered:’ I’ve mentioned yesterday that both China and India are using military and diplomatic channels to communicate and solve the current problems. As for some Indian sources claiming that from some Indian officials, there are at least 40 deaths on Chinese side, I can tell you responsibly, it is not true.’(Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China answering BBC’s question about death toll of Chinese side in 2020 China-India skirmishes) Had China never disclosed the death toll, at least one Chinese source should be added, and the death toll of other sources for more than 40 deaths should be marked as ‘citation needed‘ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDiamond (talk • contribs)

We are not Indian media, and we didn't say that there were 40 deaths. Please specify the changes you are seeking in the "change X to Y" format. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliability of Indian sources

Why are both sources citing Indian media? Is this meant to be Wikipedia or Indian patriotic essay? “Chinese land grab in the region”

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-did-not-enter-indian-territory-pm-modi/1883565

hhtps://youtu.be/FrWHJU3z89E

No casualty has been disclosed by the Chinese side and it should remain as unconfirmed. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The Indian figure has been clearly mentioned as claimed. And third party sources have also estimated a comparatively high number of causalities on the Chinese side. It's meant to be Wikipedia, not a CCP propaganda essay. SignificantPBD (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then can you please objectively explain how China would have higher losses and take 10 prisoners? 3 which are high rank officers, etc etc. how would using accounts from both sides be “CCP propaganda”? This is as ridiculous as using Japanese media in 1945 which claims they sank 300 American ships every month, and leaving it “unconfirmed”. Misleading at best. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

We would love to use accounts from Chinese media but there don't seem to be any, except that they refuted Indian claims (which was obvious). Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
YuukiHirohiko, ideally we should only use third-party independent WP:reliable sources for this article. Could you help us with the same? NYT, WSJ, Reuters, HuffPo, Washington Post, etc. have a good reputation. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Field Marshal Aryan, SerChevalerie, In my honest opinion it’d be best to remain Chinese casualties as “unconfirmed”, No western media nor Chinese media acknowledge the 40+ toll Indian Media provides. A bad source is a bad source, not to get behind the logic that Indian army had trouble counting their own losses let alone be CERTAIN about 43 Chinese losses. To my past experience editing Eastern Front articles it’s clear that only the party who had decisive control of the battlefield after the battle are able to take prisoners. China took 10 Indian prisoners including 4 high ranking officers, it’s only logical that they were “victorious” in the skirmish to have the condition of prisoners being taken.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-19/ten-indian-soldiers-freed-by-china-s-military-days-after-clashesAlso according to PM Modi and Indian army’s satellite images, it was confirmed that it was the Indian side that crossed the L.A.C, not the Chinese side. It’s not being made clear in the article and there’s a very clear attempt to skew facts to an Indian favour. I’m not pushing for a pro-China narrative nor am I Chinese, I just wish that Wikipedia remain as factual as it can be. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
China didn't have a decisive control of the battlefield. At least not as much as you think they did. China themselves are saying that they didn't capture any Indian troops [1]. On the other hand there are some reports which are saying that India too reportedly captured some Chinese troops. We can add disputed after the Indian media claims but I won't think it would be a good idea to remove them altogether. Also, how is India having trouble counting its own casualties. AFAIK, they very easily conducted funerals for their 20 soldiers across various states. Finally, the infobox clearly states on the top where the reports are coming from so the reader knows what to expect. The only western sources were the American intelligence one published by US News and that 20 soldiers are confirmed dead from Indian side which are included in the infobox. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
PS. none of the claims except 20 Indian soldiers dying is confirmed so maybe it would be easier and more logical to add confirmed after that claim. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Field Marshal Aryan, I think you need to see these, seems reliable to me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53102629

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/10-soldiers-released-by-china-60-hours-after-ladakh-clash-undergo-debriefing/story-MY66gpr5q7QbgR9KC6zdUL.html

https://theprint.in/diplomacy/10-indian-soldiers-including-four-officers-released-by-china-after-talks/444544/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/china-releases-10-indian-army-soldiers-majors-talks-ladakh-1690509-2020-06-19

https://eurasiantimes.com/10-indian-soldiers-released-by-china-no-indian-troops-under-chinese-custody-now/

https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/10-indian-army-soldiers-including-two-majors-released-by-the-chinese-military-three-days-after-galwan-clashes/articleshow/76456370.cms

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-border-news-galwan-valley-soldiers-return-6465893/

China never said they didn’t capture Indians. PM Modi ADDRESSED in his speech that it was his NEGOTIATION that got the 10 Indians back. Indian army counted 3 dead, later 20 dead. How would any army be able to track enemy’s losses when they are having trouble keeping their own numbers accurate at all times?

Chinese spokesperson said they don’t hold Indian captives AT THE MOMENT, meant they were released. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

It's not our job to decide if an army can 'track enemy's numbers if they are having trouble tracking their own' because that would basically be original research. Also I am highly skeptical of your claims that Indian army wasn't able to track it's casualties because as per WP:RS reports 1 officer and two soldier died on the spot while 17 others succumbed to their injuries later[2] so it is obvious that the death toll jumped from 3 to 20. I don't want to debate about the 10 soldiers being captured part and neither would you want to because it is already in the article. However, I would want you to know that these reports (except the BBC one) are from before the Chinese Foreign ministry gave their statement which has been reported differently by BBC and Al Jazeera, two leading news sources, which makes the whole deal kinda confusing. I would also advise against taking Mr. Modi's words as the fact because he doesn't have a really good track record for that purpose.
I added {{od}} to your reply for formatting, hope you won't mind. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
YuukiHirohiko, as Field Marshal Aryan said, the timeline of the events is important for the narrative. Could you be more specific with the changes you'd like to see, backed with the relevant source and the date of the source? SerChevalerie (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie, Thank you. I was hoping of the inclusion and parallel comparison of the 2017 standoff where Indian troops entered Chinese territory with bulldozers. https://accesswdun.com/article/2017/8/566782. It should be made clear that both India and China long has disputed border clashes instead of “China has a history of land grabbing”.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

"35 Chinese soldiers killed"

As far as I see, only U.S. News & World Report is making that claim. The website itself is not unreliable, but it's not impossible it may be making a mistake. Indian intercepts of American intelligence reports state that there were 35 casualties: [3]. Claiming 35 were killed based on one news site which could be making a mistake is not proper. Hence the word "casualties" is more appropriate. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: And why do Indian media houses deserve a place under the sub heading of "other sources"? Their version of US reports should be under "Indian sources". As for U.S. News & World Report, how are we to decide if they made a mistake or not? or if the Indian news sources are wrong instead? Let's stop our assumptions and just state what the sources are saying in a straightforward way. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Field Marshal Aryan: The report is not their own, but of Indian government officials. This was picked up widely by Indian media. Try understanding the difference. If you can't make that distinction, that's your problem. I'm not deciding U.S. News & World Report made a mistake, I just said they can based on contradicting claim by Indian officials who also checked US intelligence reports. Can make a mistake is a possibility, all humans make mistakes. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
'The report is not their own'? Please support this statement with some evidence because their report clearly says this: "American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News.'. Also, please, just because you think that they can make a mistake doesn't mean that you will change their wordings from 'killed' (which was in their article) to 'casualties' (which has a whole different meaning). I am saying once again, keep Indian reports or their version of US reports out of the 'Other Sources' section. They should be under 'Indian sources' and that should have been obvious by now. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A single source contradicting others isn't reliable. Also it seems you didn't bother reading the news link I posted here: "Sources in the government are claiming that as per U.S. intelligence reports, the Chinese Army suffered 35 casualties during the violent clash with the Indian military in eastern Ladakh’s Galwan Valley. The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded, they added." This is not Indian media houses making their own claims and The Hindu anyway is pretty neutral. This Indian/other sources differentiation is pretty dumb anyway. I suggest merely reducing it to Chinese claims and claims by other parties. Casualties does not need to always mean both killed or wounded. Even if it only includes deaths you can still call them casualties. so it's a pretty accurate term even if you think 35 were killed. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
LéKashmiriSocialiste: Except it isn't a single source contradicting others. It's just two sources contradicting each other. The only contradiction you have given is from The Hindu which derives its report from the PTI (which in turn is being used by other Indian media). What then makes you think that the PTI is correct instead of US News and World Report? Your arguments sound like WP:IDONTLIKE and if you don't like the differentiation of sources then I can't help it unless you come up with a better way of presenting numbers with a neutral view and fair representation. Also, you are quoting the Hindu for your argument but changing 'killed' to 'casualties' while simultaneously citing US news which brings us to your interpretation of Casualties. Casualties is only to be used if the report claims killed and injured. read up the definition of casualty. It clearly says "a person killed or injured in a war or accident". Saying that 10 people killed can be written as 10 casualties is the same as saying that you can even write it as 10 people killed or injured; It changes the entire meaning. If the US news report itself states killed why are you changing the wording to give an impression that they were not? Your entire problem would be solved if you would just stick with the format and put the Hindu under Indian sources and let US news (which by the way, isn't Indian) under other sources. Also please try to maintain civility which you really weren't here by telling me to 'get lost'. And no 'One or two reverts hoping a person will listen' is considered edit warring (specially with discretionary sanctions) and because edit warring is disruptive, no matter what your intentions were and those weren't 'one or two', those were three reverts that I had clearly listed on your talk page. It's surprising that you don't know what edit warring is despite being blocked/warned for it earlier. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree here with Field Marshal Aryan. This is 'Other sources' section, not 'Indian'. So, please use the US source as it is, which clearly states that "35 died". For Indian sources, there is a separate sub-section anyways. I fail to understand the logic being used here to change the term to "casualties" from "killed". Seems that the motivation is not logic, but inherent bias. --King Zebu (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Field Marshal Aryan: You fail to differentiate between sources again. When I say source I mean news outlets and yes only US News & World Report claimed 35 died. That you should have understood. The ultimate "source" of everyone is the US intelligence agency. And yes I think trusting a news site who only heard it second hand from someone over a government with intelligence that can view another nation's intelligence reports is unwise. Also you are either lying or just not being careful when claiming I made three reverts. I made only two, expecting that Khaliwarrior will understand: [4] and [5]. Before that I only edited to change "35 killed" to casualties. The only reason I reverted is because I thought the problem might be solved by edit summaries rather than a long discussion. That's not rare. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
And Aryan I suggest you apply your advice to me to yourself. Casualty: "a person killed or injured in a war or accident." I am entirely right in changing killed to casualties because it means "killed or injured". Not "killed and injured". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Very convenient of you to leave out this revert of yours and then accuse me of lying or what not. Please explain why PTI report is the correct interpretation of the US intelligence report and US news article is not, given the fact we don't have access to the original document from the intelligence agency. I didn't want to put it this way, but your use of the word casualty is completely wrong. When a report says x people are killed, you can't write is as x people became casualties because that dilutes the original fact that they were killed while casualties is used when we are talking of both killed and injured. This can very easily be interpreted as an attempt to mislead the reader or misrepresent the source.

it means "killed or injured". Not "killed and injured"

— LéKashmiriSocialiste
And when did I ever say 'killed and injured'? Don't try to misrepresent my words. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@King Zebu: The United States is an enemy of China, so your decision of changing it back to 35 died is incorrect as it's based on a non-neutral source. If you think Indian sources are non-neutral, then there's no point in separating a claim based on what American intelligence officials said. And that said the "Indian source" you're claiming is just Indian intelligence officials basing their report on American intelligence reports. Being an involved party doesn't necessarily mean biased. But United States officials can themselves be biased since they view China as an enemy. So all you're really doing is separating sources by countries rather than more probable chance of neutrality. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop this cherry picking. We all know that most (if not all) sources here are not neutral which is why after every figure, the source is also mentioned. This lets the reader know where the numbers are coming from. Should we, as per your logic, remove figures that came from Indian and Chinese reports since they are the belligerents and are obviously biased? No! We specially mentioned the source right there to maintain neutrality. Also you need to understand what the sources here are. The chronology is like this:-
  1. US intelligence makes a report (of which we don't have the original copy)
  2. US News and intelligence reports it by interpreting it as '35 deaths'
  3. PTI reports it by interpreting it as '35 casualties'
  4. The Hindu and few others publish the PTI report as it is
Now you are saying that we remove US News and Intelligence's interpretation by saying that 'they can make mistakes' while giving PTI a clean chit. I am saying that we keep both the versions under the respective headings for fair representation but you object to that too. In all these walls of texts, you still haven't given a concise and clear reason for that. Also, no US is not China's enemy. Understand what enemy means (something like India Pakistan), US and China are merely rivals competing for global hegemony. 'enemy' has a much heavier meaning, especially in world political context. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say you lied, not necessarily. The thing you claim to be me reverting you is me simply making my first edit when all you did was lessen the use of "However". Anyways, I didn't check your edits at all nor the history of the article. Whether you don't know that or know that, it's wrong on your part to say I reverted you. Changing something for the first time is not a revert, changing it back to a previous state is. Also United States is an enemy of China. They can't be trusted. Both US News & World Report as well as Indian government officials cite US intelligence claims. Since the ultimate source itself is non-neutral, there is no point in differentiating Indian or "other sources" based on a non-reliable US claim. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I never said that you specifically reverted me nor is it necessary for someone to be reverting one specific user or one specific section before they are pointed out for edit warring. When you undo the work of any editor on any section multiple times, it is edit warring. WP:3RR states

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

You had made three reverts (undone the work of previous editors by removing content), just on the borderline of WP:3RR which is why I gave you a notice which you later removed.
Are you saying that US intelligence reports do not deserve a place in the article because you believe that they are not neutral? Sorry but that falls under the purview of notability and not neutrality and US intelligence and its reports are pretty notable given that many news agencies/outlets quoted it. We can not omit notable info just because we think they are biased but we can make it easier for the reader to know where the data is coming from (like we had done by adding per US News and Analysis in brackets). Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes you did falsely accuse me of reverting you: "Very convenient of you to leave out this revert of yours". which as you already know just pointed to my first ever edit here after yours. Now you claim to say you didn't claim I reverted you. And learn what edit war means: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Now the limit to that may be seen as subjective, however per 3RR if you haven't breached 3RR and show an intent to continue reverting, then its bad. Did I show any intention? Me reverting someone twice because I think they might listen I am certain is not something your unfamiliar with. You could have waited to see if I would revert again, but you didn't.
I believe US intelligence reports do not deserve to be segregated from Indian ones. The United States is not a neutral country, in fact Trump administration is very anti-Chinese. The US has seen China warily since decades but has sharpened its rhetoric, blaming China for Covid, trade and currency manipulation, accusing it of hiding breakout of Covid from a lab. You will see the US is the loudest voice of them all. It sees China as a threat. Trump administration has also considered supporting Taiwan more and recognizing it. So obviously no, US intelligence is not neutral. In fact the US intelligence is the possibly the most anti-Chinese biased source possible. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Not once have you shown where I have said hat you were reverting me. Don't make false allegations. WP:3RR simply states that undoing the addition of content of other editors is considered a revert and you had done that 3 times. I didn't say that you were for sure, objectively, edit warring (the notice says you appear to..) or that you reverted me, otherwise I would have taken the matter to edit warring noticeboard. Did I? no. I just wanted to let you know that you were on the verge of it and should take caution. I guess you should have read what the template said. It wasn't like I blocked you or reported you, learn to take notices the right way. Anyways, this edit warring matter is going nowhere and there is no point in discussing it, at least, here.

In any case, I don't see any rationale behind putting US intelligence reports under Indian claims. US is clearly not one of the belligerents here and putting US intelligence reports under "Indian claims" just because it goes against China is not only factually wrong, it gives a wrong picture to the reader. The report also states 20 soldiers were killed from Indian side, it doesn't blame China for starting the skirmish, then how is it biased against them. It doesn't matter what Trump feels about China, if RS are covering a matter, it should be on Wikipedia and since it is not an involved party here, the report is justified to be under 'other sources' because it definitely can not be under 'Indian sources'. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Field Marshal Aryan: There's only one person who lies and makes false allegations here - you. You've falsely stated I made three reverts when I didn't And I suggest you read 3RR very carefully. It's about intent to edit war in case you haven't made three reverts. Every user has the right to revert, that is not wrong. You could have waited to see if I intended to continue reverting, but you didn't.
US may not be the belligerent, but it is a non-neutral source. We don't go by who's a party or not, but by neutrality. Belligerence is one possibly way of suspecting someone might be non-neutral. But not the only one. Just because the US intelligence agents didn't particularly point fingers at China, it doesn't make them non-neutral. But Mike Pompeo particularly blamed China for the clash, [6]. I assume you know he is State Secretary, so the report blaming China is redundant. United States shouldn't be used as an "other source". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Also see this. The same US intelligence agencies are blaming China now for the clash. It is clear you don't bother to check the facts of you being right or wrong. USA, whether its government or intelligence or military, is clearly not a reliable source. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You can make a single revert... After that its edit warring in most cases (including this one), 3RR is just a bright line. We use what WP:RS chose as their sources, if WP:RS think that the reports are reliable its not our job to question them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: There is no such thing. I can revert if I don't have the intention to endlessly revert. Read 3RR. Three reverts is not the limit if I have the intention to keep reverting. But I did not. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes please read 3RR: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@LéKashmiriSocialiste To reply to yr message addressed to me - the fact that US is an "enemy state" of China is completely *your opinion* and shows nothing but your own bias. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts and reporting them as they are. The section and note clearly mentions "Other sources" and as per "US intelligence". It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to pay heed to the personal bias of every reader. If US being an "enemy state" of China is such a well known fact and an eternal obvious truth, then it should be obvious enough to the readers also right? What you are trying to prove here is absolutely beyond logic and your arguments are filled with bias. --King Zebu (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@King Zebu: Apologize for your false accusations. In fact I'll prove you wrong: [7]. It's not my own bias or view. China and US do have relations because of China's economy and businesses and it being a global leader. But the US is also wary of its global power. It's all in the source and is common public knowledge. Now take back your words and apologize. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The article which you shared says that there is "strategic rivalry" between US and China but you claim that US is an "enemy state" for China. You are clearly playing with words here to serve your own agenda. The claims and statements which you are making are clearly subjective and filled with bias, not to mention highly provocative. It just clearly shows that you have agenda here, which is governed by your own personal bias. Should I apologise for calling you out?! --King Zebu (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
And you are clearly going in circles here to deflect the logic. I wrote previously that if US and China are indeed "enemy states", even then it should not stop Wikipedia from quoting US intelligence reports as it is. US is not a rogue state with doubtful credibility. But if you assert that US intelligence has no credibility because you perceive it to be an "enemy state" of China, then that it is clearly your bias and point of view. Instead of replying to that argument, you deflected and hinged on me apologizing for calling out your bias. Amazing! --King Zebu (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
LéKashmiriSocialiste be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA. If a government is against another government it certainly does not mean that one source from a particular nationality would be against the source of another nationality. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


There is no other website that claims 35 killed, so we should cite it as "per U.S. News and World Report" rather than U.S. intelligence. Rwat128 (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, all of the sources I see outside of "U.S. News and World Report" that cite the US intelligence report have reported that there were 35 casualties, not specifically 35 deaths. So, we should either specify "per U.S. News and World Report", or change the dead to general casualties for the sake of consistency and accuracy. I linked below to some of the reports from Indian sources that reference the same report:
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash-sources-citing-us-intelligence-reports/article31849458.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash-us-intelligence-reports/articleshow/76420470.cms
Wped87 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
That's because all of them are from the Press Trust of India. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Field Marshal Aryan: https://eurasiantimes.com/how-many-chinese-soldiers-were-killed-in-the-india-china-border-clash/ I think this is a good article. It’s 35 casualties, not 35 killed. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
YuukiHirohiko Since we don't know what exactly the US intelligence report said and different outlets are reporting it differently, it would be better if we change:
35 died (15 June, per U.S. intelligence reports) to 35 died (15 June per U.S. News & World Report citing US intelligence)
so the reader knows where it is coming from. Although that's a stupidly long bracketed text, I take that :-) Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Too many quotes

What's with the quotes of different personalities like Ram Madhav or Kangana Ranaut? Especially the latter since she has almost no relation with the conflict. Can someone point to a relevant wiki guideline regarding these quotes since they seem to be excessive to me? Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed, I too agree, these comments for politicians and celebrities do not belong here. There are various. Comments from experts of field or something coming from Govt. or PM or DM may be quoted. Drat8sub (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Videos as source in Media Coverage

@Forevertruthsayer: You removed the video sources and the content too in the media coverage section. One edit of yours says "someone correct me if i am wrong but we can't use youtube videos as sources". I am correcting you that there isn't a 100% absolute ban on videos. Edit two says "original research and the site quoted is not mainstream indian media"... "mainstream" is not a criteria for inclusion here. Please explain the OR. Please revert your own edits to the section otherwise. DTM (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"I am correcting you that there isn't a 100% absolute ban on videos." Where does it say this? And why cant you find an article that says the same? Usually there is wariness on using youtube videos because of how easy it can get caught up in fake news but feel free to correct me on this if i am wrong. 2) for the mainstream, i was referring to what was in the article. The sentence prior was saying mainstream Indian media was circulating the list. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Forevertruthsayer: Urgghhhh. This is silly. I will get around to properly replying to this later. Have fun removing content without thinking. DTM (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me give you a barnstar for this catch. You deserve it. DTM (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: What tf you even talking about? Why are you getting so hysterically aggressive when i have been civil with you all along? I'm not removing anything without thinking. I told you my thinking and asked you (politely) to correct me if I am wrong. I wasn't being sarcastic, I was actually being serious. If there is a person who isn't thinking, that is YOU with the random incivility. If you are going to continue on with this unexplainably aggressive attitude , then don't bother responding to me because I won't be reading it. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: Sir, i cannot tell what you are doing. first you insult me, now you give me a barnstar. This is very strange Forevertruthsayer (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:NOYT:
Youtube
YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher.
In accordance with the last part, Newslaundry is a reliable source and not just some random stranger on the internet making videos so we can refer to their youtube videos. This should also clear that there isn't any hard block on youtube as a source, just that we must be reasonably cautioned while using it as such.
Let me also link to this discussion from the archive as this issue was raised before. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Such reporting videos from official YT channels of established news channel/site/paper/website which are RS can be used without doubt. Drat8sub (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

Please change typos in economic response from Decemeber to December 114.125.252.85 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I didn't find any typo or even the mention of the month 'December'/'Decemeber' using a simple word search. Please pinpoint to it by pasting an extract of the relevant section and highlighting the typo. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

The following sentence under Background section is misleading. The obvious weight of the opinion from one side of bias sources is against Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

People's Republic of China is a territorially revisionist power having land and water disputes with Bhutan, Taiwan, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Nepal and India.[1][2] 2001:F40:905:EC6B:14ED:A55D:734:A194 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Fair point, and the other border disputes are not directly relevant to this one. Listing all of China's border disputes would be equally as inappropriate as listing all of India's, while the rest of the section actually introduces the topic. — MarkH21talk 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gupta, Shishir (20 June 2020). "Not just India's Galwan, China has a long list of territorial disputes". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
  2. ^ Sitaraman, Srini (9 June 2020). "China's Salami Slicing Tactics and The Latest India-China Border Standoff". Security Nexus. 21–2020. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

Someone changed to 43 killed and 15 captured on the Chinese side?

Someone has changed the Chinese stats from 43 casualties to 43 killed and “15 captured” from 1 single ABP news report. According to WP:RS “breaking news” and party backed media is not a good source and should not be used AT ALL.

-“Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.” -“Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.”

In my opinion it should be reverted and remain as 43 casualties as an Indian claim. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

YuukiHirohiko Why is ABP even being used here? Who put it? This doesn't even need to be discussed just remove the source and whatever it is suppose to reference! Huh! DTM (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Voortrekker70, please refrain from making edits like this one without WP:CONSENSUS. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

Please change "V.K. Saraswat, a NITI Aayog member and former DRDO cheif, said that it was due to the quality and the pricing that Chinese material was being used instead of Indian products." to "V.K. Saraswat, a NITI Aayog member and former DRDO chief, said that it was due to the quality and the pricing that Chinese material was being used instead of Indian products." "cheif" is a typo. 0qd (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done The request has been carried out. Thank you for the help. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did Trojanishere change “Indian claim” to “Indian intercepts”?

I thought this is already discussed that claims remain as claims as long as there’s no confirmation? Please stop, Trojanishere. You’ve been banned numerous times for the same thing. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh nevermind. He's been banned indefinitely..YuukiHirohiko (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A more neutral sounding term would be sources. — Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Need of a new title

This is not a formal page move request, rather informally I want to remind everyone that the title may need working on. "Standoff" seems as relevant as "Skirmish". DTM (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say skirmish since it is usually more severe than a standoff. In my head the the descending order of severity is something like so my opinion is based on that:
war > conflict > skirmish > standoff
Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
A Standoff could be more serious than a skirmish. But yes I get what you mean. I can't find a better word so will leave this alone for now. DTM (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Causes

Only India's point of view is in that section. It needs to be balanced. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You are joking! The second paragraph is discussing an MIT professor that specialises in China. The third paragraph is dealing with a Chinese think tank. Did you even read the section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3: rudeness is WP:UNCIVIL. I'm refering to China's point of view. I didn't see the Chinese think tank, although I think that is not enough to make it balanced. May I'm taking it wrong, I'm not invested in the issue so if people think that is fine with how it is, then I'm not going to dispute it. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There is less coverage in China, the media and government there have been ignoring the situation to a large extent. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Rupert Loup If you can find anything related to China's point of view, please feel free to add it. I got tired looking and will try again later. Hardly anything is in the public domain. I had been making a list of all the causes long back, which has been archived, the proportions were clearly bloated here and there. What you are stating has already been noted and no one has been able to solve it. You are free to try or give ideas as to how we can increase the content spoken by China and I will follow it up. DTM (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
DTM: Maybe here there is something about it. I was just curious to know more about their point of view, that's all. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC for the wording of the Chinese deaths

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus reached as Indian sources, and not speculation as all RS says internal sources and cannot be called as Indian claim as not annouced formally by Indian Govt. Drat8sub (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the Chinese deaths section be:

  • Indian claims
  • Indian sources
  • Speculative

Please be sure to bold your response by placing '''your response here'''.
Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Indian claims: Of course it’s a claim.
It was the Indian army that crossed the borders, (according to Modi)
CNN just reported with the source from ANI and ABP news, and I don’t see them reporting and confirming the 43 figure.
how could they come up with an accurate number if they don’t even control the battlefield?YuukiHirohiko (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
As I said before, please stop dividng it into Indian and other sources. The only other source is the United States intelligence and it's well-known the USA is an enemy of China which I already proved (if someone wants I'll prove again). Both India and USA can be considered biased against it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian sources: The number is explicitly attributed to Indian sources in basically every RS that mentions it. They also aren’t said to be "speculative" by any of the sources. — MarkH21talk 04:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian claims: The RS distinctly mention that these are attributed to what India is claiming. "Indian sources" merely implies that the source is Indian, whereas "Indian claims" attributes any third-party international sources to who has made the claim. See Kargil War, "Indian official figures" and "Indian claims". SerChevalerie (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian sources because they are coming from sources within India be it the government or the army. Even international media is getting their reports somehow through from Indian sources because they don't have the people corresponding near the border at this time. Speculative makes it look that even India itself isn't sure about that while claims, like said above, makes it look made up. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian sources. Clearly Indian reporting, as the Chinese side hasn't been putting out numbers and this is also colored this way in other sources. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive settings

Have set the bot to archive threads after 3 days of inactivity, considering how the page size is currently hovering at 130kB. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Good move, but should relax it back down once the situation calms down. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie, I have now set it to 1 week of inactivity since the page size is decently manageable now. —Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Increasing again, will change to 5 days if it crosses 100 kB. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently set to 5 days, but there does seem to be a lot of activity here still so I don't think it's unwarranted. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese mythology brought to you by the Stimson Centre

1956 and 1960 claim lines

A lady called Yun Sun, the Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center wrote this article:

Historically, the Chinese consistently stick to the LAC of Nov. 7, 1959 and the Indians stick to the LAC of Sept. 8, 1962. China argues the territory between the two LACs was “unjustly occupied by India” during those three years and was precisely the cause of the 1962 Sino-India War. To date, both sides insist they have been operating within their side of the LAC per these competing definitions.

My observations:

  • The so-called "LAC of Nov. 7, 1959" seems to be a mythical entity. It is not documented anywhere, not even in Neville Maxwell's book.
  • What exists is a "1956 claim line" which appears to be some random map that the Chinese had printed, among many such maps. But this particular map was certified by Premier Zhou in Dec. 1959 as showing the "correct boundary".[1] So it is documented by historians as a claim line.
  • If there was an "LAC of Nov. 7, 1959", it could not have been beyond this claim line. And, I can guarantee that the Chinese are not "sticking to it". They did not stick to it even in 1959, because the Kongka Pass incident, Chip Chap standoff and Galwan standoff are all to the west of this line.
  • The "LAC of Sept. 8, 1962" was marked by somebody on the OpenStreetMap recently. It is quite close to the 1956 claim line mentioned above.
  • Whether India is "sticking" to it or not, I can't say. The LAC marked on Bhuvan 3D is quite a way beyond it (to the Chinese side).
  • In 1960, during the border talks, the Chinese presented a new claim line, which they called their "traditional customary boundary". They are marked on the maps of this page, as far as coordinates are available. The 1960 claim line claimed quite a bit of extra territory beyond the 1956 line.[1] All this area was occupied by China in the 1962 war. As far as official claims are concerned, they are all finished. There is nothing more to claim.
  • The present standoffs are happening beyond the 1960 claim line (1962 occupation line) on the Indian side. For example, at Galwan, the claim line left about 5km of the valley in Indian territory. Now the Chinese are claiming that it is theirs. At the Pangong Lake, the claim line was to Finger 8. Now the Chinese are claiming that everything up to Finger 4 is theirs. Some similar claims are also being made at the Kongka Pass and Depsang Plains, about which we don't have clarity yet.
  • On the whole, the Chinese are trying to extend their claims beyond 1960/1962, asking for new territory. So it is entirely pointless to talk about the 1960/1962 now. It is all dissimulation. And it seems disgraceful for a Stimson Centre scholar to accept it all uncritically. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Quite funnily, the lady wrote just a few months ago that "China’s policy toward India in the past two to three years has shifted. It now actively promotes closer ties." [8]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, beating opposing soldiers with nail studded sticks is pretty up close and personal. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Vici Vidi, you don't say? On a more serious note (sorry if I offended anyone), it's also weakly there (as a letter) at here. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 20:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The letter doesn't have a line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis (1990), p. 93.

Another paragraph

Another interesting paragraph:

The Chinese have attributed the incursions and standoff to Indian construction of roads and air strips in the Galwan Valley, while in reality, China has also been building roads in the nearby region. Such construction not only boosts sovereignty claims, but also strengthens strategic positions and tactical advantages. India has insisted that China’s construction has taken place on Indian territory, or at least on the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), or de facto border. But that’s precisely the problem — there is no consensus between the two over a mutually accepted LAC.

My observations:

  • The Indian road construction in Galwan Valley is brought out, but it is not clear why the Chinese construction is supposedly in the "nearby region". The "Galwan Highway" running through the Galwan Valley appeared on OpenStreetMap about a year ago, and recent satellite maps showed a convoy of vehicles at the junction with the last tributary. Bull dozers have reached all the way till the LAC. The Chinese had to dredge the valley and channel the river in order to make this valley suitable for vehicular operations, a stupendous amount of effort! "Nearby region"?
  • "Air strips" in the Galwan Valley? A laughable proposition. It would only be possible if aircraft can fly without wings and takeoff vertically.
  • "India has insisted that China's construction has taken place on Indian territory". We are not aware of any such insistence on this page. No objections were raised for the Galwan Highway (even though it is technically Indian territory even going by Zhou En-lai's 1956 claim line) or Highway 520 which comes right up to the LAC near Kongka Pass (passing through the Khurnak Fort area, labelled Indian territory in Zhou En-lai's 1956 claim line).
  • The claim of "Indian territory" is made for the Finger area of the Pangong Lake, for the road between Finger 4 and Finger 8. This road appeared on OpenStreetMap in 2016. But news reports claim that it was laid for the first time in 1999. All the published maps (including the CIA map above) show it to be beyond all the Chinese claim lines, as do the coordinates given by China in 1960.
  • there is no consensus between the two over a mutually accepted LAC. Indeed the first bit of truth coming out here. But the LAC has always been a Chinese idea. Remember 7 November 1959? India acquiesced to it in 1993 because China agreed to respect it. Now that seems to be gone. Analysts say that all the agreements reached between 1993 and 2008 have been violated now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not saying that India did build airstrips in the Galwan Valley, but it is not impossible. India had VTOL capabilities for 40 years! The Indian Air Force also has STOL utility aircraft that only need very short runways like the Dornier Do 228. Even the Antonov An-32 and Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules can use relatively short runways. < Atom (Anomalies) 10:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The BBC has "The road which is several hundred kilometres long, was built in 2019 and connects to a high-altitude forward air base that India has reactivated at Daulat Beg Oldi, reputed to be the world's highest landing ground.", referring to Daulat Beg Oldi. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

100 chinese troops dead?

The authenticity of the claims seems blurry. Reports can be traced back to Yang Jianli and this report says that he wrote an opinion piece on Washington Post where he described the situation but I can't seem to find the editorial piece. If anyone has a link please share that and do express your views because someone has already added 100 Chinese casualties in the infobox which may lead to another edit war. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems like Kapil Mishra is missing the limelight. Here's what ThePrint says. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie, Just realised that Yang wrote his editorial for the the Washington Times and not Washington Post while I was searching in the archives of the latter. How foolish of me :-) Anyways, since his 'report' is coming from a blog site, we can safely discredit this claim. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Field Marshal Aryan, in such viral controversial stats and numbers always refer Alt News or Boom live. They mostly track viral post. Here is Alt News' fact check on the same and seems such claims are utterly bullshit. And ironically there is Washington Journal also :-). Chevalerie seems like that only, Mishra is surely missing the limelight. Drat8sub (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit or not (anything is possible given this is under wraps), better sources are needed so it should stay out. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, the fact check article is far better source than anything else. No need of anyother source to justify but additional fact check sources are more welcomed, no doubt. Drat8sub (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020–2021_China–India_skirmishes/Archive_3&oldid=1113875177"