Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

POV allegations

"every single one of these articles are skewed toward the Indian rhetoric" and "laughably FACTUALLY incorrect"

YuukiHirohiko, since we are on the talk page of 2020 China–India skirmishes; please explain how this article can be improved so that it is not " skewed toward the Indian rhetoric" as you have written above. DTM (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also please explain the part "some even laughably FACTUALLY incorrect". Please elaborate how this article is "laughably FACTUALLY incorrect"? DTM (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Last time I added more POVs it was removed for false balancing.

To me I'd wish to add Modi's speech on indicating that Indian troops crossed the border and the fight happened on the Chinese side. Though this is a sign perceived as show of weakness by Indian nationals I think it's an important view to point out. Alas I was referring to the overwelming usage of both Anti-China think tank, even an US senate's view to be unsuited and a better source need to be found to back up whatever point was to be made.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

YuukiHirohiko, as per WP:BRD if your changes are reverted you can discuss them here. Could you please list out the reverted edits, so that we may discuss them and hopefully balance things out? SerChevalerie (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding to this article I was talking about Modi’s speech being overlooked and the straight cut to “salami slicing”. I see this as part of the US propaganda effort and need to be weighted before added in,[User:YuukiHirohiko|YuukiHirohiko]] (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What you think does not matter in wikipedia, any proof of "US propaganda" ?? Drat8sub (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The US is not a neutral 3rd party. And what makes you think that it is? When quoting an opinion it shouldn’t take up the center of the paragraph as a fact. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Because I don't find any refutation and counterargument. Next time better not to give argument based on conclusion rather give valid counter arguments or refutation with proof to achieve a conclusion. Drat8sub (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Add in Modi’s speech as a counter.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Modi's statements should be added somewhere for sure, but they cannot be used to "counter" anything. Modi is not a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So an US senate accusation stays in the paragraph for this long yet the Indian prime minister remains unreliable so can’t be added.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A section for "adding" stuff, not "removing"

YuukiHirohiko, can you please let me know what you want to ADD? What sources are you using that we have missed? This conversation isn't taking place the first time. This is at least the third time I am discussing this on this talk page. (Let's leave Modi out of this for now and try and focus :D Modi is mentioned more than enough in the article or his government is, there are even TWO pictures of him!). And please put this in points otherwise we are going all over the place. DTM (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

YuukiHirohiko, please try and write the exact words you want to add. This will help everyone conclude the discussion faster. DTM (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

+1. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The US Senate source suggests that it was the Chinese aggression and the usage of salami slicing that drove a wedge in fusing this conflict, however Indian PM modi's speech contrasted with their opinion as he proved that it was the Indian soldiers that crossed the line and attacked the Chinese side first.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

YuukiHirohiko, This is original research or bordering on original research. If there are reliable sources saying different things, they can still be used. Correct me if wrong. DTM (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s a US government source and you say it’s original research? YuukiHirohiko (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the bit about "he proved that it was the Indian soldiers that crossed the line and attacked the Chinese side first" is bordering on original research. Can you share some sources that explicitly state this? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove comments by US senators, and include more conclusions and analyses of more independent experts and scholars. What next? Include Trump's views too? Include views of other leaders of other countries in this section? Where does it end? We already have a separate 'International reactions' section for that anyway. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As in sources for Modi’s speech.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-did-not-enter-indian-territory-pm-modi/1883565 Also NTV Houston has the full clip of his speech where he stated “China did NOT cross Indian borders.” YuukiHirohiko (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary logic is erroneous

@Drat8sub: This logic you put forward in this edit "there are many things stopped in the country...and many people said many thing...such commentary should not be here.." is problematic in many ways. Instead of explaining why it is problematic, I will re-insert the removed matter and add more things stopped (of notability, but hard to find that of notability of the Ram Mandir), and reinsert the comments removed and find new ones (though hard to find that of RSS chief and CM). DTM (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC) @Drat8sub: Alright with this? DTM (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry DTM, was busy today, so could not reply earliest. To add Ram Mandir construction stopped due to China in this article will be highly undue content. A non NPOV commentary in itself and also when a covid pandemic prevailing. If it were a major Govt. project, affected directly due to such skirmish that could have been taken to note, but not this one. And RSS? An organisation having religious and nationalist agenda and controversial in nature, would again be undue, will deter the balance of the article. It would be better if we could have added reaction from the opposition party in the Parliament rather an organisation which is not part of our Govt. system. The tone of wikipedia should be impartial in nature. We hardly add any national reaction from China afterall. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Drat8sub Hmmm, you do have a valid point/points. Please can you list some sources for this "We hardly add any national reaction from China afterall.". Like where can I read about China's reactions? Are there any in the public domain apart from Global Times? DTM (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why, we don't have any, right? Commentary from Indian side which can be expected and undoubtedly from every organisations and platforms in India against China, if added will surely question the balance of the article, so better we should keep commentaries within the boundary of govt, opposition, reputed organisation in defence field, individual analysts along with a common perception of the citizen (if available) but not different sects or communities. Drat8sub (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I find the speculation of “China directing internal conflicts” to be much invalid. China barely had any outlets covering info of the conflict where as Indian media has been broadcasting the same thing for months to neglect issues such as virus out of control/floods.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Creation of a graphical timeline

Since writing the diplomatic process in prose now is becoming tedious, and doesn't serve much purpose, it is still a good idea to indicate the intricacy/filibustering of the talks between Indian and China on the border issue from start to end (till date) for this episode. A graphical representation will be most apt; using these templates as guidance Template:Human spaceflight timeline, Template:Czechoslovakia timeline, Template:Buddhist traditions timeline. Any suggestions on how best to go about this are welcome. DTM (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverts.

STOP reverting based on your own bias or claiming "no summary" was a justified reason. Every Indo-Chinese page is facing this same treatment. Countless users pointed out the bias yet nothing can be done due to reverts, every single one of these articles are skewed toward the Indian rhetoric and some even laughably FACTUALLY incorrect.

Give wikipedia a break. It serves the globe, not for your patriotism.

=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece#:~:text=Sources%20in%20the%20government%20are,and%20seriously%20wounded%2C%20they%20added.

"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."

https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/whatsapp-forward-on-death-of-30-chinese-troops-aired-by-times-now-fact-check

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1007&sxsrf=ALeKk02dwf2Tg_8aMW3In0gEjIFwvMZROw%3A1595989985839&ei=4d8gX4z4Mruf4-EP6r-TuAs&q=fact+check+35+chinese+soldiers+killed&oq=fact+check+35+chinese+soldiers+killed&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoECAAQBDoGCCMQJxATOgIIADoFCAAQywE6BAgAEB46BAghEBVQk98GWK-AB2DpgAdoAnAAeACAAYgCiAG4NJIBBjAuMzMuNJgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjM7K6BtvHqAhW7zzgGHerfBLc4ChDh1QMIDA&uact=5

STOP EDITING FOR YOUR OWN BELIEFS. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

YuukiHirohiko, have restored it to "casualties", but please stop removing the US News source.

Also, please assume good faith towards other editors and resort to WP:BRD to resolve any issues with content. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Before wikipedia serves the world, it follows some guidelines to produce the article to serve. Either you have not gone through the or you are not listening. The level of bad faith that you have assumed is not in good light. You could have brought things for discussion once your edit was reverted. US News was the first published article where it had mentioned about the number "35", and used both as killed and later described in ambiguous way. So before pointing out anything, you must read between the lines. Drat8sub (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Map

Can this map be used in the article? -

DTM (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The blue line is the LSIB dataset from 2013, which could have had errors. There was a 2017 dataset, which is displayed by Google. But I don't have a way to image it for open-source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. DTM (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Key or No Key

Kautilya3, I have started a timeline for this article since copy-editing the diplomatic section was becoming confusing, it is only in prose just now. It also makes it easier for condensing the matter now in a more complete way >> Timeline of 2020 China–India border standoff. I wanted common events to somehow be grouped together, so I created a key. Is the key alright or should the key be removed, I haven't seen timeline with a key, however I have seen colour coded tables? DTM (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: It's not clear to me that the key is actually very helpful. The distinction between "notable skirmish" and "skirmish” isn’t clear, for instance, while whether a meeting between officials of both countries was "bilateral" or an announcement by one country was "unilateral" should be inherently clear. It adds more visual clutter in my opinion than it serves a clarifying role.

Also we should probably move this discussion to that article's talk page? — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the explanation makes sense. Since the page has been sorted out I will just go ahead and move this discussion to the timeline talk page. DTM (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Timeline of the 2020 China–India skirmishes

DTM (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Untitled section

Clearly Indian public is trying to save its master's image by quoting the number of dead chinese soldiers more than Indian ones. There is NO PROOF THAT 43 CHINESE SOLDIERS WERE KILLED. This is a clear propoganda dished out by the Indian side.

https://eurasiantimes.com/fact-check-100-chinese-soldiers-killed-in-india-china-border-clash-at-galwan-valley/

Is this wikipedia or Fekumedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1123:FB36:9C5E:ADEF:32E1:B845 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're ranting here, but this WP article isn't asserting outright that 43 Chinese soldiers died? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

By day 100 of the tensions; Aug 13

@MarkH21: Nearly the entire Indian military diplomatic section can be reduced to:

Five rounds of three-star general-level talks, two special representatives' (Ajit Doval and Wang Yi) meetings and multiple rounds of local military commander rank dialogue

How about reducing the related "military diplomacy" content to this single line? Or would that be just a bit too much of condensing? The line is suitable for the lead of course. DTM (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: I'm not sure it needs to be condensed to just a single sentence, but I agree that it can certainly be shortened with a briefer summary than is there now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. DTM (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Further reading, a sub-header for imagery

Since further reading was discussed quite a bit before, I am placing this one here first. I think this one should be placed just for the imagery and the easy to understand sequencing of the imagery:

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-china-himalaya-border-conflict-11592329619

The further reading section can even have a sub-header for articles which are there just for the quality imagery. DTM (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Tombstone (ed. Military cemetery, Kangxiwar)

TOI has a question mark in the title itself "PLA soldier’s grave proof of China’s Galwan losses?" while India Today goes a step further, but not all the way, in their article "Picture of dead Chinese soldier’s grave gives first evidence of PLA losses in Galwan". As for Wikipedia, I guess it is a case of too soon. DTM (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The question mark in TOI report is just there because it isn't hard proof of the losses. But the tombstone says the soldier died in clashes with Indian border defence in June. There's no dispute about it. It's definitely not too soon and I believe should be added. I had added it earlier, but it was removed. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We already have sources with estimates about Chinese casualties. Adding that there was speculation about an unconfirmed viral social media photo for a soldier that may have died at Pangong Tso or Galwan does not add anything and is WP:UNDUE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste, MarkH21, this is no longer speculation. AltNews clearly shows that it is fake news.

These photographs are of the Chinese military cemetery in Kangxiwa town that contains graves of PLA soldiers martyred in the 1962 Indian-Sino war.

The Wikipedia article for Kangxiwar says The Chinese soldiers who perished during the Indo-China war were buried at a military cemetery in Kangxiwar along the G219 highway. The cemetery contains the graves of over 100 PLA soldiers. Just how there are articles for numerous military cemeteries, this can also be developed into one Military cemetery, Kangxiwar DTM (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This can actually find space in the article in the 2020_China–India_skirmishes#News_media section just like this is also there in that section >>> Following the clash, Times Now published a list that it said contained the names of the Chinese soldiers who were killed in the clash DTM (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Chushul sector coverage

Three lines

Most of Indian media has been running around trying to figure out what is going on, but India Today has come out with the most accurate information [1]. They had apparently studied the area in 2019 and know what is where. According to them, China was reinforcing 'Black Top' and 'Helmet Top' (the latter on India's perception of the LAC - the "blue line") and India occupied 'Thakung Heights' (China's perception of the LAC - the "green line"). The terminology "occupied" suggests that India was not in full occupation of these heights prior to the Sunday events. We have no information about the patrolling rights claimed by each side.

We also know that China's perception has moved further north in recent years (the faint line), almost reaching the Thakung post. So India's jumpiness seems entirely understandable in the present circumstances. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The light green claim line for China essentially pushes the boundaries in the Pangong Tso too. There has been no water skirmishes so far has there? The Wikipedia article just mentions the presence of Indian and Chinese boats and Navy personnel.

I am slightly diverging from the topic, but the article says, "By holding these mountain tops, the Indian Army enjoys an advantageous position." This is not an absolute truth is it? Are really all the hill tops over at Ladakh an advantageous position, 100%. There has to be some exceptions. So when we have to write about whichever army occupying the heights, we can just assume it is advantageous?

It is good that in 2019 India Today had utilized the skills of a retd officer in drawing the map too, as is visible from the credits. DTM (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Point to note. That water can be frozen for upto six months of the year. (This should be mentioned in the article too somewhere; probably if the tensions don't end we will have news reports of a frozen Pangong and Spanggong soon. The boats aren't ice-breakers are they?

India Today has also come out with some really good simulation in a series of six videos; here one simulating helmet top; this video could even be linked in the pinned section at the top of this page right? DTM (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, no, India Today TV is the most confused and most confusing media house. Abhishek Bhalla, who is acting as an expert here, is the same guy who wrote:

If India is indeed holding on to Rechin La as claimed by China, it means Indian troops are about 3 km inside the Chinese territory. Rechin La is about 2.5 to 3 km from Rezang La, which is on LAC on the Indian side.

This was right above the map which showed Rechin La on the LAC! I wouldn't touch these guys with a tadpole. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And as for the lakes freezing etc., remember that the 1962 Battle of Rezang La happened on 18 November. So, the weather is not going to bail us out yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Between finger 4 and 8 is claimed by both sides

Between finger 4 and 8 both sides claim but map is showing as if it is chinese territory please change the map Sawiper (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Indian claims extend up to the Khurnak Fort, which is shown in the first map.

The LAC being shown at Finger 4 is in accordance with the US Office of Geographer's Large Scale International Boundaries dataset, which you will also find marked on Google Maps.

On the southern shore of Pangong, the map is wrong. It has been corrected on OpenStreetMap, but Wikipedia's download of OpenStreetMap hasn't updated itself. In time, it will (I hope). If it doesn't we will investigate what is wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

No mention of Indian Vikas regiment occupying Helmet Top and Black top, which are in Chinese territory according to the Chinese perception of the Line of Actual Control(LAC) but remained demilitarized before the incident on the night intervening 29th and 30th August 106.51.104.255 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean taking back Indian land which the Chinese claim as their's, by moving the Line of Actual Control every year? User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Mention of casualty in infobox?

A death due to a mine blast along the LAC would be a casualty right? Something that would add to the statistics in the infobox? Just asking since no one else has raised this as far as I can tell, hence the doubt:

Nyima Tenzin, 59, commander of a company in SFF’s 7th battalion, died in a mine blast Aug. 29. source, source 2

There was an injury too –

another Tibetan man from the same unit has sustained serious injuries and is currently undergoing treatment at Ladakh military hospital source

DTM (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is how Hindustan Times reports it —

One of the Indian Army jawans also lost his life in an anti-personnel mine explosion while patrolling in the area.HT

DTM (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Reuters asked China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying about this:

Asked on Wednesday by Reuters to comment about reports that a Tibetan officer part of India’s Special Frontier Force had died on August 29 in a landmine blast near the site of recent border tensions and on the presence of Tibetan officers in India’s Special Frontier Force going back to the 1960s, Ms. Hua said: “You were talking about whether there are Tibetans-in-exile in Indian troops. I’m not aware of that, perhaps you can ask your colleague in India to ask the Indian side. You mentioned the 1960s [and the role of] the CIA and Tibetans-in-exile. These are thought provoking words [...] We oppose any country, of course that includes India, to provide any facilitation or venue to forces advocating Tibet independence...” The Hindu

DTM (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

From landmine it is also reported as gunshot now.

Company Leader Nyima Tenzin, 51, was reportedly killed by a gunshot in the neck. source

DTM (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Small not important wording issue

Under India in "Ongoing Infrastructure and Construction projects," it says "an additional 12,000 workers (approximately) to border regions", I think you could word it as approximately 12,000 additional workers to remove the parenthesis and make it sound better. NickleSonic (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Helmet Top and Black Top

NDTV:

(Indian) Government sources have explained that China does hold a few heights near the southern banks of the Pangong lake and that the Indian army does not dominate either Black Top or Helmet -- two features which are the Chinese side of the LAC.

So the Helmet is not even "on the LAC", as per these "Government sources".

This, while the Indian media is going gaga over how their Army has "commanding heights" that control the entire "Chushul bowl". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenpao Mountain

Where is Shenpao Mountain? Gurung Hill, Black Top, Helmet area? DTM (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

According to Abhishek Bhalla, "The incident took place in an area between Gurung Hills and Razangla Hills near the Pangong Lake." [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Gen. Panag thinks it must be Mukhpari (33.49949°N 78.79610°E / 33.49949; 78.79610) [3]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, India Today has an article about this:

This is the first time China used "Shenpao Shan" instead of "Heiding", which means "Black Top" and gives away the mountain's ownership to the Indian side. China used the new name "Shenpao Shan" which means "Vulcan Mountain".... source

DTM (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, right now, the Army veterans and the Modi bhakts are merging into each other, and it is all rather blurry... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

China's Information Warfare

Wo.luren, MarkH21 related to your IW edit, according to India sources... I removed the line and source. Thanks for picking this up. Only using WION as a source for such a line is incorrect. Have you been able to find any other non-Indian supportive material related to the same, in context to India? This is an American source from 2019 cited to Carl Thayer (2019) & Indrani Bagchi (2017) (ok so half Indian again).

In China’s case, for instance, there has been substantial analysis of its deployment of its IW concept of the “three warfares” (san zhong zhanfa)—public opinion, psychological, and legal warfare—with regard to long-standing international conflicts, such as Taiwan, the South China Sea (SCS), and territorial disputes with India... source

As a side note, 'Three warfares' could be it's own topic, or maybe since Chinese information operations and information warfare is already there it would go there. DTM (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: That wasn't my edit but thanks for resolving it anyways.

The general phenomenon of Chinese information warfare is fairly well-documented in a variety of sources (like in your pre-2020 source).

Regarding its occurrence specifically in the 2020 events with India, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some independent academic sources that go further into this but I haven’t taken a look. The media war (in both directions) has been reported by various third-party outlets like CNN though.— MarkH₂₁^talk 15:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The CNN link you pointed out has already been used. There are a few others out there, but I guess we will have to wait a bit longer for more independent sources to come through. And the wait for books, chapters in books, even longer. DTM (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This area is Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu and Kashmir is subject to the UN security council resolutions 91, 98, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307

As you could see from the UN security council resolution 98 http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/98

Both the government of India and Pakistan accepted that the question of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

This is not my point of view, it is what was agreed to by both the Governments of India and Pakistan with the UN.

The UN asked both of them to reduce their forces http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/98 also says:

4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the Unites Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3000 to 6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the ceasefire line and between 12,00 and 18000 armed forces remaining on the Indian side of the ceasefire line...

I did not write these; these are the official UN security council resolutions on this area. This issue has been with the united nations since 1947. China, India and Pakistan have been discussing this issue at the UN for years. And there is another party to this, the people of Jammu and Kashmir who are being killed every day on the Line of Control and the the UN security council resolutions refer to them.

There were issues that led to these UN security council resolutions that asked for a plebiscite.

The Kashmir conflict started as a campaign by the Kashmiri Hindus, Muslims and the Sikhs against being sold into slavery in 1846 by the East India company. They deeply resented this. You could see books on it from a long time ago like Cashmere Misgovernment by Robert Thorp from 1868

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dNPFmgEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-S8xyn1cgY

Article 6 of the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) provides that: Maharajah Gulab Singh engages for himself and heirs to join, with the whole of his Military Forces, the British troops when employed within the hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions. So some of these taxes were used to fund the army that was used to help the British. But the Kashmiris also fought in the First and Second World war too.

Maharaja Harri Singhs great grandfather Gulab Singh (a Dogra) betrayed the Sikhs (whom he worked for) in the Anglo-Sikh war (1845 & 1846). Therefore the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh (Sikh) was kidnapped and forced to sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave his ally Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sgi2PMGgZM . In other such cases the ICJ has stated that there "can be little doubt as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void." The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) and the treaty of Lahore also violated the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that abolished slavery in the British Empire.

By not joining the dominions of India or Pakistan by August 15 1947 Jammu and Kashmir was totally independent. While India became a dominions of the British Empire not independent on August 15th 1947 Read the Indian Independence Act 1947 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf

Harri Singhs powers totally lapsed after the Treaty of Amritsar lapsed under Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 before the treaty of accession. All powers reverted to the people hence the call for the plebiscite under UN resolutions 91, 98, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307 as only they could decide.

Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 provides that with the lapse of His Majestys suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferances will lapse. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf (why keep the liabilities if you are giving away the assets). This broke the treaty of Amritsar that gave authority to Mahraja Harri Singh

In 1948 Junagadh and Hydrabad were also independent in South Asia. The ruler of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, but then the Indian Army invaded and under this formula a plebiscite was held there too for it to join India. Hydrabad was invaded by the Indian Army Sept 1948 (Operation Polo).

These are the UN maps for Jammu and Kashmir:

https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf ::::https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf Jammu and ::::Kashmir is still shown as a distinct entity on the official UN Maps --Johnleeds1 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: Please clarify:

• What you want to change in this WP article and where in the article those changes should be made. Please be specific!
• Why these changes are relevant to this WP article about events in 2020.
• What reliable sources (ideally not primary documents from the UN / old government documents) support the change.

Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 Thanks for getting back to me. Its much appreciated. I will get everything together and do these things.

In answer to "Why these changes are relevant to this WP article about events in 2020". In August 2019 Article 370 of the Indian constitution was removed. China then approached the UN because there are UN resolution on Jammu and Kashmir and Imran Khan also talked about these UN resolutions at the UN. These UN resolutions are important to understanding the background to these skirmishes and the geopolitical dynamics in this area. Additionally the people of Jammu and Kashmir felt that the removal of Article 370 and 35A were done to change the demographics in Jammu and Kashmir so that the plebiscite under these UN resolutions can not be held because of the domicile status changes. This also contributed to the tensions as did Amit Shahs statements towards China and Pakistan leading to the events in 2020. Some of this is already covered in this article Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Psy Ops section

With the Chinese belting out Punjabi songs through loud speakers in Ladakh, (HT) to "psy" being used 22 times in this article (ThePrint) to warnings of a "Chinese psy-ops 'tsunami' including photos/videos of 'captives' from early May scuffle at Pangong." (Firstpost) to Global Times warning India that "India's anti-China movies may trigger extreme nationalism" (Global Times) following Ajay Devgan saying he would make a movie on Galwan. (Indian Express) and more more, more..... I think we can have a psy ops section now? DTM (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, since you made this edit.... do you think the above is enough for a start to a psy ops section/sub section? There is quite a bit of all this online now. DTM (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: The original removal was because the original content didn’t say anything about psychological operations.

I wouldn’t base anything off of Global Times, the most extreme hawkish tabloid in China (see the collapsed table below for example, taken from here),

Quotes about the Global Times from reliable sources

As tensions rise on the Korean Peninsula, the world’s eyes are on China’s response. And "China" has given plenty of answers. "China Offers to Defend Kim Jong-un If He Gives Up His Nuclear Weapons," read one National Interest headline. "China Warns North Korea Not to ‘Cross Point of No Return’ With Nuclear Test," claimed Breitbart. The problem is, it wasn't the Chinese government issuing these statements; it was a market-driven tabloid that strives for exactly this sort of attention. [...] By its own admission, the paper’s actual relationship with China’s levers of power is tangential at best. And while the Global Times and the Chinese government have interests that overlap, they aren’t nearly identical. Several current and former editors at the paper say business incentives drive it to be intentionally provocative whenever possible. Provocations that involve straying from the official line of the Chinese government are welcome, so long as they don’t entirely sever the illusion of a tight connection between it and the newspaper. "China's Angriest Newspaper Doesn’t Speak for China", Foreign Policy Few countries have invested more man-hours in suppressing awkward facts than China. Internet censors employ more foot-soldiers than some armies. Propaganda officials are so strict that, lest instructions faxed to newsrooms leak, they issue some orders to squelch stories by telephone, to be recorded by hand. Yet the rules do not bind all equally. The Global Times is a jingoistic tabloid that tackles topics shunned by rivals, even though it is a subsidiary of the Communist Party mouthpiece, the important-but-turgid People's Daily. [...] It is not fashionable in China to take the Global Times seriously. Mention it at dinner with Chinese intellectuals and fireworks follow. They deplore its sabre-rattling towards Taiwan and Japan, and its deep reservoirs of grievance (this week the paper peddled a largely confected tale accusing Swedish police of brutalising some rowdy Chinese tourists). "China's Global Times plays a peculiar role", The Economist (RSP entry) China's most belligerent tabloid, the Global Times, is certainly a one-of-a-kind publication. The Chinese- and English-language news outlet is published by the ruling Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) paramount mouthpiece, the People's Daily, but it goes much further than China’s typically stodgy state news. The Global Times is best known for its hawkish, insulting editorials—aggressive attacks that get it noticed, and quoted, by foreign media around the world as the "voice" of Beijing, even as the party's official statements are more circumspect. "Inside the Global Times, China’s hawkish, belligerent state tabloid", Quartz The tabloid that Hu edits is known for its nationalistic coverage and bellicose opinions, which are frequently quoted by Western media. Like all state media outlets in China, it operates within a heavily censored environment that is tightly controlled by Communist authorities. Published in both Chinese and English, the Global Times boasts a daily circulation of two million copies, and every month its website attracts around 30 million unique visitors. Where other state media outlets adopt a more measured tone, Hu's paper takes a combative approach to covering international issues by calling out perceived threats and slights to China from across the world. "The man taking on Hong Kong from deep inside China's propaganda machine", CNN (RSP entry) From the preceding discussion of Huanqiu Shibao and Global Times, we can see that the two newspapers operate within the broad boundaries of the Party-state's propaganda strategy. The domestic edition pursues commercial objectives and strives to differentiate itself from its official state-run parent publication, People's Daily. It also maintains propaganda discipline by upholding the Party-state's main melody on important issues that shape China's interaction with the rest of the world. The international edition seeks to bring a nonofficial, pluralist Chinese perspective to foreign audiences. When it comes to sensitive subjects such as human rights and democracy whether there is conflict between the official Chinese discourse and Western discourses, however, Global Times seems more likely to reproduce the main melody than to provide a venue for the expression of a plurality of Chinese perspectives. The Globalization of Chinese Propaganda, p. 149, Springer

but the other sources (minus opinion pieces and ones focusing solely on Global Times editorials) can be represented. I wonder if there’s any mention of this from third-party RSes, since otherwise this would have to be WP:INTEXT attributed solely to Indian newspapers. Also, is there a more descriptive term than "psychological operations"? The term alone is ambiguous until one reads the details. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

LAC of Nov 7, 1959

Various lines in Aksai Chin

In a previous discussion, I criticised the idea of "LAC of Nov 7, 1959" as a mythical entity. After some searching, I did find a reference to this. The Chinese apparently documented it in their own documents, which made it to the public sphere through Allen Whiting's book and later reproduced in Hoffmann's book.

Guess what? The Indians too documented the LAC of that time, and it is the red line shown in the map on the right.

How can two lines of the same time period differ so much? Well, the Colombo map that was drawn after the war, painstakingly documented all the posts that were present before 1959, and those set up after 1959. If we look at only the post set up before 1959, there is indeed a very wide gap, and thousands of lines can be drawn within it. So the Indians and the Chinese pick the ones most convenient to them.

The Stimson lady is still trying to sell us snake oil by claiming that there was a precise line on Nov 7, 1959. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the only two lines which can broadly be taken for granted are the extreme most lines on the east (red dashed) and west (grey dashed). The red dotted line, China's claim line of 1960 which it reached in 1962, from where they retreated/fell back on 21 November 1962, is what China has been trying to roughly restore in 2020. So whatever the current actual ground positions, China's aim is the eastern most red dotted line while India is just trying to hold fort (yellow area) without giving up claim to where its patrols originally use to go up to in Aksai Chin (which should actually be marked in more detail on this map, the references attached to this map already have at least one more patrol point marked)

This diagram has so much information for the historically and geographically handicapped but I think a bit more of information could be added to it, such as a few more historic Indian patrol locations. And after the end of this ~2020 event, a new ~2020 line will be added of course. There are a couple of broken references too which need fixing. As a sidenote, the Colombo map is quite a historical gem! DTM (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In Allen Whiting's book, the mention of "line of control" occurs for the first time in the letters between prime ministers starting 24 October 1962, in the midst of war.

The Chinese premier noted that his offering "the 1959 line of actual control and not the present line of actual contact between the armed forces of the two sides is full proof that the Chinese side has not tried to force any unilateral demand on the Indian side on account of the advances gained in the recent counter-attack in self-defense."[6: White Paper VIII, pp. 7-11] Lest the point be missed, he added, "As Your Excellency is surely aware, in concretely implementing this proposal the Chinese armed forces Will have to withdraw much more than twenty kilometres from their present position in the eastern sector." Chou castigated the Indian proposal as containing "humiliating conditions such as forced on a vanquished party." After this dismissal of Nehru's demand that the September 8, 1962 line be restored, he moved to the real purpose of his letter...

So both the lines mentioned by the Stimson lady occur here. It is possible that they also figured in subsequent negotiations between the two countries. The full letters can be found in the White Paper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References

References

Renaming "Chushul sector" heading

Should the section "Chushul sector" be renamed as "Kailash Range"? DTM (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailas Range, as the name implies, is much much larger than the Chushul sector. Moreover, the mountains here probably belong to the Pangong Range rather than the Kailash Range. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Transgression" or "incursion" or "infiltration" or "intrusion"

• transgression
• incursion
• intrusion
• infiltration

Indian government terminology. All these mean different things. source, source, source DTM (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for the clarity of everyone (from 2010) >>>

General Officer Commanding- In-Chief (GOC-In-C), Nothern Command, Lt Gen B S Jaswal told reporters at Nagrota-base corps headquarter area. Replying to questions over alleged intrusions by Chinese Army in Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir, he said there are differences among intrusion, incursion (invasion) and transgression. There is no incursion or intrusion at all. It is a matter of perception of the borderline. There is no weak intelligence. There is no weak foreign policy. There is boundary question and is being looked into by Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the officer said.Indian Express

DTM (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Change the name of article to Indo-Chinese or Sino Indian

The name of the article "2020 China–India skirmishes" doesn't seem right. Speaking through the lens of language the name Indo-Chinese or Sino-Indian will be better. The latter name will be in coherence with articles like:- Sino-Indian War and 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish etc. Srijanx22 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

With regards to "Indo-Chinese", that name isn't particularly common because it can cause confusion with the demonym "Indochinese" for Indochina. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Google Maps/Earth coverage updated

"The Google Map/Earth coverage north of Pangong Tso has been updated to 16 June..." and India has not secured Helmet Top or Black Top. Accordingly article needs updates. "In our zeal to not cross the LAC, we have lost an opportunity and forewent significant tactical advantage in relation to Spanggur Tso area." (Gen Panang, ThePrint) DTM (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What? If Gen. Panag believed dubious news reports and now realizes his error, how does that concern us? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you mean, his article needed to be updated? Yeah, well, he is embarrassed and he is making mistakes. We should ingore him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

More heights occupied by India

Since India captured Black Top heights in Chushul sector, it has gone on to occupy many other heights near LAC to prevent a Chinese intrusion. Last I remember the number was 30. But there is no mention of them in this article. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I found this page very controversial, beyond the reality and biased. I demand the removal of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadptl8 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Added a line. Related to it being controversial, of course it is, it is about border skirmishes, the predecessor to war. DTM (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

According to Indian news media NDTV. China continue to hold positions on Black and Helmet tops.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/major-chinese-tank-infantry-build-up-in-pangong-as-standoff-intensifies-2290356

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

More Indian soldier and alleged spies killed and captured

1. Another Indian solder died. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-china-tibet/tibetan-soldiers-death-near-tense-india-china-border-sheds-light-on-covert-unit-idUSKBN25T2JN

2. 5 more Indians alleged spies captured by PLA later released. https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/indian-army-sends-hotline-message-to-chinese-pla-over-abduction-of-5-indians-from-arunachal-pradesh/648628

Please add them to the Indian Causality section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Both of these incidents have already been mentioned in the article. DTM (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.

However, these causalities are not added in the Causality and loss section. Please add them

Debunk Chinese Casualties

1. There were fake Indian claims that the tombs of Chinese soldiers were found. This is totally false news. It was a scam taken from 1962 Sino-Indian war grave. The original link was Chinese dated all the way back to 2009.

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_627cf48b0100fdgc.html

2. Also, Indian and US source clearly stated "Causalities" not "death". Please change the word to more accurate and neutral wording to full fill Wikipedia's neutral rule. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece

3. Chinese officials have openly dbunked the claims by Indian meadia that China suffered more than 30 causalities which included wounded and death. This link was somehow removed.

I will be reporting abuse to Wikipedia upon further discovery of violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The first point has already been mentioned above (Talk:2020_China–India_skirmishes#Tombstone_(ed._Military_cemetery,_Kangxiwar)) DTM (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

China controls Helmet top and Black Top

According to Indian news media NDTV. China continue to hold positions on Black and Helmet tops. [4] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk • contribs)

Ok, I have removed the claims about India occupying these locations. In future, please state your comments in a way that the relate to the content of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kautilya3.

Chinese losses only around 20 (NYT source)

Moved from User talk:116.88.148.202

 – – Thjarkur (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the source NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/world/asia/india-china-troops-border.html), Chinese deaths were estimated by US and Western intelligence agencies to be only around 20.

QUOTE "China never specified its casualties, but Western intelligence officials have estimated that China probably lost around 20 soldiers as well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.88.148.202 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear what the source meant from "western" since Western world is big. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

More specificity of "Western" would be nice, but at least it was published in the New York Times which is presumably neutral here. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 22 September 2020 (UTC)

New Causes...

Every now and then analysts, media, academics etc come up with new reasoning behind the tensions/skirmishes/standoff. I think a new subsection should be added to the causes section of the article — 2020_China–India_skirmishes#Causes.

• Example >> Ladakh face-off may be linked to India aligning with US against Chinese tech players (Indian Express)

DTM (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New academic paper on the 2020 skirmishes and background

Notifying interested editors that a new academic paper has been published in Asian Affairs, with an analysis of the pre-1962 border (including Aksai Chin, Galwan, etc.), the 2017 clashes, the June 2020 skirmishes, the border management system, and proposals from both sides.

This is certainly a better source and provides more than several of the existing references here, so we should definitely integrate it. It's not freely accessible without academic access, so if nobody else does it now, I might get around to it eventually. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

May as well also link the NYT article on the 2020 conflict's effects on US relations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am stating the obvious: while you mentioned the NYT article on the conflict's effects on US relations, this would be at a government to government level. No one really talks about public awareness related to international issues, which worldwide is usually terrible. I came across this line of thought recently in an article in The Diplomat:

The fact that the tense standoff in Ladakh has not led to a greater impression on the public in the U.S. and elsewhere raises uncomfortable questions.source:The Diplomat

(The article quoted isn't that informative or in-depth, just wanted to convey this line of thought) DTM (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

International effect aside; the national effect on the public, I am not sure any media house/polling house/research body has gauged awareness levels at statistically significant levels for these skirmishes. DTM (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please link "Type 928 B vessels” to Type 928 assault boat, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"deaths vs casualties"

American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News.

— US News and World Report, India, China Face Off in First Deadly Clash in Decades

The Chinese army suffered 35 casualties during the violent clash with the Indian military in eastern Ladakh's Galwan Valley, official sources said on Wednesday quoting US intelligence reports...The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded, they added.

— The Hindu, China suffered 35 casualties during Galwan clash: US intelligence report

Abhishek0831996, since you revert my edit, could you provide more information on why you these two news article are not quoting the same report? If you believe so, why would you think one of the two is more accurate than the other one? I suggest we should keep the deaths/casualties both on the page since the actual number of deaths and injuries is not known yet. Casualties can include death, but not other way around. Aman.kumar.goel, you said the Hindu was misrepresenting "what US News originally said". However, in the article, The Hindu didn't say they were quoting the US News as source. They were receiving information from Indian government quoting US intelligence, which Indian government added "The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded" in the article. If Indian government specifically explained what the casualties means, I think there's a valid discrepancy between Indian government and US News and World Report.

The "disagreement" word in my edit didn't mean that Indian government went out their way to specifically said they disagree with US News and World Report. What I meant was there're two independent reports on the US intelligence source that are conflicted (disagreement) I'm sorry if my word of choice caused misunderstanding. ---Loned (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are correct then it means The Hindu has no source for their figure and they have pulled it out of thin air. We should be only using US News source for discussing the figures by US intelligence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"If you are correct then it means The Hindu has no source for their figure and they have pulled it out of thin air." Could you elaborate on that? Why do you think The Hindu pulled it out of thin air? Hindu said their source is from US intelligence. This is also reflected in the article from Times of India, which shares the same statement.

There were 35 casualties on the Chinese side, the sources said citing US intelligence reports...Government sources on Tuesday said the Chinese side suffered "proportionate casualties" but it does not have a clear picture about the number of Chinese soldiers killed as well as those injured in the clash.

— The Times of India, China suffered 35 casualties during Galwan clash: US intelligence reports

Also I need to hear your reason on why we should be only using U.S. News & World Report only because that site is not a major/reputable US news source (it was mainly a ranking magazine until 2000s), while The Times of India is a major/very prominent news organization in India. It would be very premature to say that Indian media's report holds no weight, if not having more weight than the US News and World report. The way I see it, until we get clarification, we should present both source as equally valid. ---Loned (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding WP:RS. US news is a very reliable source per discussion on RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#U.S. News). Since those sources are not disputing the stats by US News, there is clearly no need for you to lay out a imaginary dispute. Other media publications too said there were 35 deaths[5] which establishes that if some media outlets misunderstood US intelligence figures then that is their own fault. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, US News is closer to the source and there is no great disagreement here anyway. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996, you should change the text from '35 deaths (per U.S. Intelligence)' to '35 deaths (per US News)' because it's US News which has made the claim that they have "a source" that gave them that number. US Intelligence has never confirmed the claim made by US News, nor has any other media company made the same claim that 35 Chinese troops died. Other media companies only referred to US News. I also find it problematic that someone from India is moderating this page. Nobody from India or China should be moderating here to ensure impartial moderation.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Air Marshal (India).gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)