Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes

ARBIP restrictions now in effect

El_C 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm, to User:El_C, are you aware this page has nothing to do with India-Pakistan disputes? I don't see how Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan could possibly apply to this page, which is about border incidents between China and India. Could you please retract or clarify? --doncram 13:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am aware. Restrictions are not limited to Indo-Pakistani articles. Like with BJP and other articles—if it's India-related per se., it can fall under the restrictions. I.e. across a wide range of articles (including biographies) concerning India, Pakistan and Hinduism. El_C 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Result / Outcome

Two things, I want to bring up about the Infobox Result

• It is a little difficult to verify the cite of Pongsak Hoontrakul's book for the result (Indian victory) since it is used for a lot of stuff in this article. However, given the result is a contentious topic, could someone add the quote (or exact page) from the book so it is easier to find? I have added {{request quotation}} to that line.
• Most other modern conflict articles use expanded bullets for its result field (e.g. Iraq War, Vietnam War), that might be applicable here to provide addition historical context.

--Voidvector (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added the quote and I have provided another source listed on above sections. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Voidvector (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the new source provided is written by Brahma Chellaney, a well-known Indian security hawk (see [1]). Definitely not a neutral source. More neutral sources such as Van Praagh) mention about 300 casualties on each side, without proclaiming a victor. -Zanhe (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Razer2115, as you can see, there was no consensus about the description "Indian victory". I used the language of the Chellaney source, which seems fairly accurate. This was a border conflict, not a war. I don't think it is appropriate to use terms like "victory". The fact that the Chinese forces were beaten back is clearly covered in the body, notwithstanding Van Praagh's cursory summary cited above.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Chinese were not beaten back in Cho La, they held their ground and beaten back the Indian invasion. This information is stated in the Chinese source cited for the Chinese casualties. The fact Cho La is still held by both China and India today shows the Chinese were not beaten back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.167 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

keep telling that ccp propaganda to yourself the reality is chinese were beaten back there was no invasion from indian side to begin with Aryanjaiswal1234 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverts.

Why are edits reverted every time a NPOV is done? Every single source in this article is Indian and the new accuracy edits + casualty fixes are reverted. according to WP:RV reverts are done to prevent "vandalism or other disruptive edits." "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting." Cho La is under Chinese control AFTER the war, and corrections made on that are reverted. Chinese deaths and wounded corrections were reverted. A photo of Indian nagotiators is reverted. What is this? YuukiHirohiko (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

Yes you must stop reverting or you risk a block since no more than 1 revert is allowed for this article. Replacing scholarly sources with websites is violation of WP:RS. Azuredivay (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but according to WP:RS "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." In fact both of my sources were Independent sources and in my opinion way more objective than the citated so called "scholarly source." Many has brought it up before me and every single logical edit was reverted. I don't see how an Indian scholar's opinion piece is "scholar" and how my sources are a violation. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I can see virtually 50% of the sources are either Indian government released or citated Indian opinion pieces. Reverting my edits and citing WP:RS is not logical in this instance.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

See WP:WIKILAWYER. You need scholarly sources to beat scholarly sources. Azuredivay (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use the cited scholar source used in the articles. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

YuukiHirohiko, you have made enough tries, which all failed. Now you need to discuss it here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I’m sorry I don’t see how my entire section being deleted being just, as Indian primary sources are also extensively used in this article. It almost seems like some people would go out of their way to make sure the article strictly had only Indian friendly accounts and is not even trying to hide its one sidedness. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one-sided. And its side is that of the reliable sources. People that wrote this article found the reliable sources and summarised them. They weren't trying to prove a point.

If there are Indian primary sources being used, which you would like to question, please feel free to bring them up.

See WP:BRD, which might help you figure out how to proceed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

“On the other hand, the Indian Defence Ministry reported: 88 killed and 163 wounded on the Indian side, while 340 killed and 450 wounded on the Chinese side, during the two incidents.”

“The military duel lasted one day,[16] and boosted Indian morale.[12] According to Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal, the Chinese were forced to withdraw nearly three kilometers in Cho La during this clash.[4]”

I hope you understand the rules you sent me yourself, as you don’t seem very well abiding it on checking Indian sources with your rule of thumb. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What rules are you claiming to have been violated here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As you said, no primary government figures? The Indian + Chinese losses figure, and “Chinese retreated by 3 km” are all Indian government claims. I see nothing wrong putting a chinese government figure on the same matter of losses.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

No, you have misunderstood. PRIMARY and SECONDARY are labels we attach to the sources we use, not the original source of information. You haven't mentioned any sources (that we have used) in your complaint, only content.

You also need to understand that the Indian government claims and the Chinese government claims are not equal. The Indian government publishes its figures, announces them in Parliament, which get reported in newspapers and get used in scholarly sources. The killed soldiers are also given state funerals and their names are put up on the National War Memorial. No such verification happens for the Chinese figures. They are hidden from the public view for decades without any scrutiny. So we simply cannot report them. Only if they are analysed by scholars (see WP:HISTRS) can they be reported on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not carry your own bias into this. Government sources are government sources, no such thing as Indian sources weighing more because you think so. China also published its figures in the 1967 war, they held back just this time in 2020. It's more than prejudice to assume Indian sources weighs more and just simply revert my edits. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Then tell why Rowand, Michael (18 June 2020). "The Bloody China-India Border Fight Is a Lot Like the Last One". Foreign Policy. contradicts your information? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are gonna delete my edits, discuss and persuade me with reasoning instead of just vandalizing. I just added a corresponding Chinese source on par with Indian government sources. If you are gonna remove mine, according to NPOV, you shouldn’t have Indian backed sources to start with. I feel like you are trying to skew the narrative. That article you showed me also proved me right on Chinese figures. I don’t see anything else wrong with adding Chinese figures with Chinese sources. If you don’t wish to be neutral, don’t edit. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

But why you are not addressing the Foreign Policy source above? It is not Indian. Not one "Indian backed" source has been used for stating "Indian victory", but you are using Chinese mouthpieces for claiming Chinese advantage. That is how your edits are clear violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Only because independent reliable scholarly sources don't support POV coming from Chinese sources, doesn't mean you ought to use Chinese sources for creating a balance. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Siddsg (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how is it not to be removed altogether if thats the case. false balancing only works if the otherside is using proper sources. This article does not. This article is clearly so skewed to feed Indian POV that its impossible to stay WP:GF. Some people are clealy not hiding their intentions and DON'T WANT both voices to be heard.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) strength

According to YuukiHirohiko's edit to the infobox the CCF strength was as follows. I have applied strikethrough to the part that Kautilya3 disputes:

• 4th, 6th rifle, 2nd Machine Gun and 2nd Artillery Companies of the 31st Infantry regiment, 75th Artillery Battalion, 3rd Artillery Regiment of the 308th Artillery brigade

In YuukiHirohiko's version it is clear that 4th and 6th Companies were ordinary infantry companies (that is what a rifle company is). Kautilya3's version is unclear whether they are ordinary infantry companies or whether they are machine gun companies. A machine gun company has medium machine guns and provides fire support. @Kautilya3: do you really object to this change? If so, why?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle records of the 11th Division of the People's Liberation Army, Part I and Part II.

@YuukiHirohiko: Is this a published book? If so, please can we have publishers details such as ISBN, date of publication, name of publisher, author. If it is not a published book, what is it? And how do people access it? Is it bilingual? Or is Battle records of the 11th Division of the People's Liberation Army a translation of the real title?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) casualty claims

YuukiHirohiko's edit to the infobox puts the CCF version of casualties in a propaganda-type fashion: Chinese sources say X, but the Indians claim Y.

@Kautilya3: Do you have an objection to the CCF version being expressed in the same way as the Indian version, as follows:

Indian claims: 88 killed, 163 wounded.[8][9]	Chinese claims: 32 dead, 91 wounded.[11]
Chinese claims: 607 casualties in Nathu La, 195 casualties in Cho La.[10]	Indian claims: 340 killed, 450 wounded.[9]

The order should be own side first, other side second. So with CCF forces: for their own casualties, CCF claims go before Indian claims. And with Indian forces: Indian claims go before CCF claims.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

My revert didn't have much to do with the casualities but rather the result field, which was changed without discussion.

As far as the casualties field is concerned, as you have noticed, we have not yet been given a full citation. The Indian figures (for own casualties) are public in a way that the Chinese figures are not. So I don't feel entirely comfortable equating the two sets of figures, but I realize that nothing can be done about it. But I would definitely insist on a published source for the Chinese information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how my way of editting is in a propaganda type fasion since I used claim for all of the numbers provided, in the style that it was before.

Yes that's a book but there's only the second part I can find online, I only have the 3 pages of the first part from some scanned photos as this is a government document, not an official release. What you feel does not bring anything to the table Kautilya, and that's what I've been saying for ages. A government piece is a government piece, an Indian government release DOES NOT equate a published source. You are very much bringing your own thoughts into this without even trying to be neutral. Not to mention India's record of making up claims are sometimes laughable at best. the Indian numbers are absolutely dodgy as the source comes from an Indian think tank, still a government agency working for India's national interest.

YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Format

• The version of 27 June used the format: The Indian government claims: 88 killed, 163 wounded^[5][6]
• YuukiHirohiko added casualty information in the format: Chinese Sources: 32 killed 91 wounded^[7], so clearly YuukiHirohiko is mistaken in thinking that he/she "used claim for all of the numbers provided, in the style that it was before".

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also it was the Indian side that went on the aggression in Cho La. How else would Indian general's claim work, retreat 3km in a day? How was that 3km gained by China in the first place IF India won in Nathu La?

Your own bias of "India sources better" is clearly the reasoning behind your reverts and I do not see that reasoning anything close to a justified one.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And what is CCF? Chinese Commmunist Forces, they are called the PLA and I'd like you to remain respectful of different armies and their identity. This is wikipedia, not an Indian centered newspaper. Do not try to degrade any party in the conflict. This is not what wikipedia is about.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1 I am fine with the formatting changes you suggest. For the new numbers that YuukiHirohiko would like to enter, I am afraid WP:RS is not satisfied. Only published sources would qualify for RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Implemented, based on what reliable sources say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuing challenges

I have removed the dubious figures again. This was removed years ago because the "reliable sources" you are using do not provides sources for their figures and in fact contradict the actual statement of China which maintained unspecified number of soldiers were killed or wounded. See: Asian Recorder - Volume 13. p. 7965. The New China News Agency report, broadcast by Peking Radio, said that an unspecified number of Chinese soldiers were killed or wounded. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Unless you can find a source which will address this statement of China, we shouldn't be entertaining half-knowledge. Capitals00 (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The source cited for the Chinese claims is Taylor Fravel. What is wrong with that source?

If something is "unspecified" at some point, it doesn't have to remain unspecified for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this edit summary, where is the "consensus" for the new edits? The dispute is ongoing since July and there has been no agreement to add any new info.

Taylor Fravel is not making the claim on an independent basis as he has cited military general Wang Chenghan's self-published memoirs who fought in this war. But Wikipedia has policies and such statement contradict WP:PRIMARY. If you are going to cite such primary sources then we would need to modify the main Sino-Indian War as well since primary sources claimed to have caused 10x casualties than China.[2] Coming back to this war, note that The New China News Agency as cited above, which is the organ of Chinese government, has said that "unspecified number" of casualties were suffered by China. Clearly state sponsored media is a more reliable source than an involved military general which does not deserve mention anywhere on this article. Azuredivay (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The previous consensus was reached on 30 July. Taylor Fravel is a WP:SECONDARY source. Take it to WP:RSN if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A source can quote a primary source, that makes it a wp:secondary source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced that an organ of the Chinese government, where there isn't a whole lot of freedom of the press, is an end-all-be-all. Honestly, I'd almost consider Chinese state-run media to be a primary source, as the Chinese government isn't exactly known for transparency. (speaking of New China News) Hog Farm _Bacon 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Does it mean that figures provided by a military general become non-primary if they are reported by a reliable source? The figure will still violate WP:PRIMARY and it is a common practice among reliable sources to report the claims made by military men. An Independent analysis of the figure is required, which can be at least passed off as adjudication in order to make it non-primary. See WP:Secondary does not mean independent.

@Hog Farm: But the memoirs coming from the military man are also from China and they are WP:SPS. But even if we speak about general circumstances, shouldn't we prefer the government's claim about the casualties instead of claims made by a military man who fought in the battle because a military man is very likely to be a partisan source? Capitals00 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is what RS do, they take primary information and report it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you cite Fravel, Fravel is a secondary source. If you cite the general directly, then it's a primary source. I personally am not familiar with Fravel, do I don't know if Fravel is RS. Personally, I think multiple sources should be presented, if possible. Fravel is the best of the three (Fravel, general, and Chinese government news), simply by being secondary. However, Fravel should be attributed. I wouldn't consider a government fighting in the war a neutral source, it'll want to make its case look better. If China provided a casualty claim, it can be used but really needs to be attributed to the China. I don't think this is a case where you can state exactly what losses were. You have to find estimates and then directly attribute that estimate to the person who made it. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are stated as Chinese claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to Capitals00, the RS decide which figures to accept. Personally, I would tend to believe the military man more than a government, assuming their credentials are respectable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No RS has decided which Chinese figure needs to be accepted here. How "credentials" of a military general are respectable when all he has got is a self published memoir? If we are going to provide undue weight to a military general then we would need to modify many articles. Since most of the available reliable sources are using figures provided by Indian sources, it is clear that we shouldn't be using any figures for Chinese casualties unless it can be backed with multiple reliable sources like Hog Farm suggested. Azuredivay (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Taylor Fravel is the source we have cited. It is a reliable source according to our policies. If you want to question his figures, please submit your views to a journal. Wikipedia is not the place to question them.

As for military general memoirs, an Indian general's account of the conflict is used quite extensively on this page. Similar accounts are used on almost all military conflict pages. We do not have a policy of prohibiting them, but we recognize that first-person accounts need to be treated with care. Taylor Fravel's is not a first-person account. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right with saying that other memoirs are mentioned as well but they are attributed properly. Do you have any issues if we can mention both claims on infobox, 1) by Chinese government, 2) by military general)? It appears to have been done on Kargil war as well which provides range of figures on infobox. Azuredivay (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If the Chinese government has issued new figures after 2008, we can mention them. Otherwise, we can't second-guess a schoarly source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Who is casting doubt on a scholarly source? Chinese government figure is from 20th century and they don't have to repeat it every time, just like Indian government hasn't provided new figures since 20th century either. The current figure (from China) needs to be attributed to the Chinese general on infobox while "Unspecified killed or wounded" can be attributed to Chinese government. Azuredivay (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear what change you are proposing. Can you state it in the "change X to Y" format, along with citations? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Name

Why the article name is 'Nathu La and Cho La clashes'. It should be directly 'Second Sino-Indian War' or '1967 Sino-Indian War'. Clash means to be small scale but violent conflict. But it was a war more than a clash. So why is the article title not changed to War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.153.185 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It was a relatively small-scale and limited clash. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the name ought to be changed to Second Sino-Indian War as according to Oxford Languages a clash means a small but violent confrontation while a war means a state of armed conflict between different countries (abr.). It was certainly an armed conflict between China and India over disputed territory. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Rename article as 1967 sino-indian war or second sino-indian war

this conflict was strategic and planned with high casualties. this is certainly an armed conflict as per oxford therefore it should be renamed. this is no misor clash with a dozen or so casualties. this was certainly an armed conflict/war between china and india over disputed territory. i hope someone does the needful. General Phoenix (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw was part of India China 1967

Sam Manekshaw was the part of 1967 treaty, During India China conflict he reffered that India first surrendered then according to facts that was stated to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that finally India won. 2405:201:9009:102B:5CB4:1589:1855:B7F3 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)