Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

deletion of China to be the aggressor

However, many believed China to be the aggressor in the China-India border War, viewing the war a political setback for China.

I carefully read through the cited resources and got the opposite view from it. Could anybody point out which part of the URL says: China to be the aggressor? --Leo 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You should always initiate new discussions at the bottom of the page. Please read the talk page policies. The source says "Much of the World viewed China as the aggres- sor in the China-India border War" and in other lines "and clearly viewed China as the aggressor" in the war. If you search for the lines in quotes you'll get the idea. Idleguy 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How could the author claim "much of the world" without showing the poll of world view? Is the "Western nations" is much of the world? The cited article was written by an American and more or less biased in terms of understanding "much of the world" in a neutral point of view. It is lack of credit in this case. --Leo 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a case of selective reading? When almost every source used in the article comes from American/British authors who are "western nations" and is being used without much problems, I wonder why only this is being "biased". The very fact that the statement is cited is proof enough. See Wikipedia:Verifiability policy which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I hope you can stop removing referenced statements, especially given that globalsecurity is a reliable source for war related articles. Idleguy 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt who was doing selective reading in this case. The cited source was talking about the aggressive policy of Indian and the subsequences. And the author made a sudden turn in the end to claim China was the aggressor. Have you read through the whole article or just jumped to the "However.." part?--Leo 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read another article I just cited [1], partially as my evidence to oppose "much of the world". As a Chinese, I am pretty sure that my view is inevitably, more or less biased. However, it is my true intention to reveal the facts of the past war, to find the true reasons behind it, and share them with Indian. Only with the unbiased truth, could we avoid another unnecessary war between our countries. --Leo 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you haven't gone through it fully and accusing others of it. There more than one instance where the article says that and I've even taken the pains to quote them but you've not bothered to search for quotes and read them, let alone read the entire article. You are confusing an "aggressive policy" with the initiator of the aggression. There is a subtle difference between the two. The issue is the latter but you are removing info to suit your view. I don't mind adding new info, but don't remove sourced info. Idleguy 06:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to add "much of the world" stuff. Please use the past tense. I am grateful with your neutral attitude so far. :-) --Leo 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded to say "according to one source". I hope it's a compromise. Thank you for the comments about my attitude. :) Idleguy 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See. Indian and Chinese can reach an agreement without war. :-) --Leo 06:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting from the same source as you're using, Idleguy. Why are you selectively picking and choosing from it, and deleting from the articles citations which you don't like? The contents of the Maxwell book should definitely deserve mention; as it influenced Nixon, was referenced by Mao and other Chinese politicians, and was banned in India. You reverted a previous user by admonishing him to not remove sourced statements, yet these which you removed are sourced as well, from the same one that you used, in fact. --Yuje 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, this line "His publication concluded that China's aims in the war were not expansionistic in nature." is questionable since he seems to conclude: China intends--eventually--to reclaim what is "traditionally Chinese." and "traditional China" includes all of South East Asia! So I wonder who's selectively quoting and misreporting. The issue as I see it is that with a POV, the mirror will show only what you wish to see, be it an Indian or a Chinese. You have conveniently omitted sections where it says the exact opposite of what you think. The main idea here is what the world opinion was and not who may or may not have been the aggressor. There is a world of difference between the two. The source quoted clearly mentions that most viewed Chinese as the aggressor. Idleguy 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to cite additional quotes from the book. As it is, you're attempting to cite it for one claim which you like (China aggressive), but are trying to suppress instances when he reports otherwise (Indian provocations). You mention that a source states the world considered China to be an aggressor but are trying to suppress that the same source concluded it as nonaggressive. That's what I mean by selective quoting. His conclusion, which he spends quite some kind building up to, was that China never intended to stray beyond her traditional borders and thus didn't pursue expansionistic goals in the war, and he states this repeatedly. The Southeast Asia thing was speculative on a possible future course, which didn't occur, as opposed to his analysis on a war which already did occur.

As I see it, you're only aggressively trying to include a statement that one side was aggressive. I don't even see how your quote was justified. He said that China was viewed as an aggressor by western nations, and he mentions nothing of setbacks suffered. That seems to be a personal flourish you added. And what is it with your repeated deletions of the contents of Maxwell's book? As I've mentioned repeatedly, its various criticisms of India should be mentioned, do to its influence on various world politicians. I'll try to rephrase the statements better for a consistent and NPOV article, and of course I won't stop you from adding to it as well. But I fully intend to list the criticisms of India that both books mention. They're fully verifiable, cited, published, and notable sources, and as long as the views are stated to be held by the authors of such sources, is fully in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Yuje 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you didn't seem to have a problem with the rediff article which said that China's role in the war was defensive. However, once the actual arguments that the authors use to make such a conclusion are listed, you are in a hurry to delete them. Why's that?--Yuje 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed the whole point. These claims of indian and chinese aggression should ideally go into "causes of war" section rather than after the war, which is more like a political commentary. The claims of who was the initiator merits not more than a line or two. Right now, your edits have only added more confusion to the section already filled with elaborate quotations etc. deviating from the section's title. I don't intend to continue this any further. Idleguy 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What happened when I was asleep?? I thought this issued was resolved. First of all, I purely understand both Yuje and Idleguy for your claims. Secondly, Yuje did mess up the collaboration between Idleguy and me and the article now is causing more confusion than before. I have no choice but to revert to the previous version.--Leo 15:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

LeoNeither you nor anyone else have a monopoly on page or concensus. I saw some problems with the existing page, and I acted accordingly. The "according to one publication" and "according to another" isn't very effective. It doesn't mention what those sources are, and it gives equal weight to a government commissioned military-political analysis and a 2-page newspaper editorial. Far better to mention the actual sources and authors, and mention the actual basis those authors use for making such claims. Idleguy: I could put those criticisms into the "causes of war" section, but you would probably like it even less in that manner. But if you acknowledge that the criticisms in those two books are notable of mention, then I'll go right back to the article and attempt to find an appropriate place to add them. --Yuje 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have problems with the Onwar.com as a source for casualties. There's no indication of its reliability, as it simply gives the statistics, but contains no bibliography or listing of sources like any published book or paper would do. With a book, we can read the figures, check the bibliography as neccessary, and trace it to that source, and back as far as neccessary, but with the site, we must take it on faith that its numbers are correct, since it gives no clue as to where it got the numbers from. I would note that it also claims that China had 4 million troops availabe for the war, when even in modern times, all of Tibet has less than 2 million people. --Yuje 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine Articles

These do not appear to be on the main article page.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829540-2,00.html

To find the other related articles, search for the words "india china war 1962 nehru", without the quotation marks. These articles seem to change slant over time. The earlier ones seem to be more hostile to the Chinese, and communism in general. I have listed some of the article titles below:

"We Were Out of Touch with Reality" Posted Friday, Nov. 2, 1962 -This article includes the words "India, by a mixture of planning, incentive and free enterprise, has made undeniable strides out of poverty, in glaring contrast to Red China's inhuman regimentation, which has brought nothing but hardship and near famine. The invasion may be aimed at disrupting India's political and economic life."

"Fading Illusions" Posted Friday, Nov. 9, 1962

"Never Again the Same" Posted Friday, Dec. 14, 1962 - A very long (10 page) article. Starts off with the confusion over the Chinese unilateral cease-fire. Details areas where the Chinese military had advantages over the Indian military. Somewhat hostile to communism in places "And Nehru must know that the situation has reached a point where he can never again trust a Red Chinese promise". It also mentions the idea that Chinese were not planning a full-scale conquest. "The prevailing theory now is that the Chinese had less ambitious aims to begin with: to take the high ground and the key military passes away from the Indians, and to finally establish, once and for all, Chinese control of the Aksai Chin plateau in Ladakh, so as to safeguard the vital military roads to Sinkiang province. The Chinese may have been unprepared to exploit the almost total collapse of India's armed forces and may even have been surprised by their swift success. On this reading, the terms of the Chinese cease-fire offer become intelligible. The Nov. 7 line would in effect barter away the sizable Chinese gains in NEFA for Indian acceptance of China's property rights in Aksai Chin."

"What War?" Posted Friday, Dec. 14, 1962

"A Lesson in Astigmatism" Posted Monday, Jun 14, 1971 - This article includes input from Neville Maxwell. The article itself is less hostile to the Chinese than the earlier ones.

--80.47.210.255 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Casualty number in China side

I read the two references associated to Chinese casualties. "3000 Killed or wounded" is not proved anywhere.

As you can see, one reference is empty. The other mentioned there was no official figures from China side. " Yet, an important example of the limited Chinese information available has been this author's inability to obtain Chinese casualty figures for the Border War. "

Please provide concrete evidences for the number of 3000 or put unknown is a better way to respect the fact.

--Leo 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I check the new source (http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/indiachina1962.htm) It only provides the number of 3000, no source or citation provided, not reliable and trustable. --Leo 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion

I think everyone participating here should go and read (atleast) all publically available data on th issue; I'll recommend atleast a) India’s China War by Neville Maxwell, b) Official War History of the 1962 War by the govt. of India, and c) Himalayan Blunder by Brig. John Dalvi. I do not know any chinese sources. I am an Indian, and I don't think Maxwell's account has too much of a bias, though there certainly is a bit of it, especially in his conclusions. I believe India lost th war because a) We allowed China to get away with invasion of Tibet b) We did not quickly sit down to clear out the disputed / unmarked areas (we are good at this - e.g. Bangladesh). Reading Maxwell's book would give you guyz a good idea of how both India and China claimed all of the "unheld" areas - mainly Aksai Chin. c) Miscalculated China's intentions (China has border disputes with, and has gone to war with too many of its neighbours)

The core of the dispute was Aksai Chin. This was a desolate uninhabited area wher no-one lived, of no consequence till China annexed Tibet. Then it became important to them because of the road to Tibet. And India being a democratic country could not afford to let another country "take over our land". Arunachal and parts of Himachal & UP (now Utaranchal) were just bargaining chips raised by the Chinese to counter Indian charges of aggression.

The Indian Army was ill-prepared for battle then, and there was a fair amount of interference in the millitary operations by Nehru's favourites (mostly by Lt. Gen Kaul, a service corps officer who commanded the millitary operations because of his clout with Nehru!! (this is unheard of in India, for those who don't know)), espcially in the east where we were forced by Gen Kaul to fight at undefensible areas. So, our army was routed in the east, and the Chinese were smart enough not to attack the main defences around Leh after the battle at Chushul.

Anyone interested in knowing more should read the above three aleast. The Official War history was available on the net for free (on rediff.com) some time back.

A word to the many jingoists around: No race is better or worse. Each is as good. "Sabka namber aata hai" - Each has its time. In a few millenia, we may be extinct, and cockroaches maybe the kings!

Neville Maxwelle's book is banned in India and naturally Indians in general are not aware of its contents. A suggestion to those who make an opinion on the book without having read it,is: read it if you can get your hands on a copy; ignore Maxwell's own opinions, but read the correspondence between the Indian and Chinese Premiers. It would be very insightful. (Those who think the book is available in India are assuming it is available.)

Er, you ever heard about the internet??? Which century do you live in or which country do you live in? In India, people can access the internet and excerpts from Maxwell's book as well as other opinions are freely available. So what makes you think people criticize the book without reading it? Care to back up that empty claim?

From the way this person (who thinks everything can be read on the internet) speaks, it is obvious he hasn't read the book either in hardcopy or on the internet. As for excerpts, they don't make a whole book. Besides, some people with preconceived ideas are more likely to read just the excerpts that suit them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, how greatful the internet is. Look at the opinions of young Indians nowadays and you'll be shocked by their aggressive ways of talking. http://www.expressindia.com/messages.php?newsid=77213

You don't have to go to that website; all you have to do is look at this page. Just look at the confrontational style of that fellow who posted the comment above that starts with, "Er, you ever heard about the internet?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

re-edit

I deleted the sentence "In Chinese media, this war is now largely forgotten" in this article because this is not true at all. Most Chinese I know are familar with this war. Moreover, the Sino-Indian war is also mentioned in Chinese textbooks.

To me, I dont think you should have deleted the sentence. This war is now largely forgotten by chinese people and chinese media.

There is a peaceful solution to all of this. China leaves Tibet, and India hands all disputed territory to Tibet. It's that easy.

You just implied that the territory actually belongs to Tibet, which is part of PRC

Is that so easy? Why don't your country hands half of her territory to USA? That's easy too~

Tibet is not part of the Chinese 'nation.' Never has been, never will be.

Tibet is part of China for hunderds of years.

Hahha. Guys get your hands out of your pants, stop wanking, go out, breathe in the fresh air and get a life. These borders did not exist a hundred years ago, and will cease to exist a hundred years from now. Dorks.

Tibet became a part of China hundreds of years ago when China invaded it. Most Tibetans didn't like it, they wanted to be free. Tibet was free for all practical purposes in the first half of the 20th century when the Tibetans heaved a sigh of relief till China again invaded it in 1950. Let me see any Chinese say I am wrong? I will change my name. 59.178.25.126 08:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Go find an 18th -20th century British map of Inda or of China, see if Tibet has ever been independent, and try find out if there were any country that has ever officially recognized Tibet as a country. 142.110.227.227

[No title]

Like most people, I knew nothing about this war until I read this article. Being a Chineses myself, I may be subject to certain bias by birth. But anyway, it reminds me of an old slogon from the early 70s: 人不犯我、我不犯人，人若犯我、我必犯人. Which says "We never attack someone who did not attack us. But we will fight back when attacked". It was on the walls of all millitary bases.

So what attack on the PLA did the Dalai Lama order?????

Armed rebellion after 8 years of co-operation.

I bet every single soldier went to the battlefield knowing they're defending their country. The Indians most likely were the same. Those were brave and respectable people. But remember they're just human - If we were born at that time, in that environment, I doubt we'd do any better. Now, armed with the Internet which gave us access to all this info, are we really performing at a level where we should be?

from the Overcast Meadow

Overcast Meadow is right Everyone felt what they were doing was right. We should end this now.

Anonymous

the key is to avoid biased statements and to be willing to look at both sides. Obviously, there are a lot of people who are biased on either side and it's important to keep the article neutral. To state that China as a whole started the sino-indian war is ridiculous given the historical records that show that a lot of the blame lay on the Indian government at the time.Kennethtennyson 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to back up Kennethtennyson's claims here is a link to an article I found: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/26chin.htm I dont know if it's NPoV but it highlights some aggressive actions the Indian goverment took that lead to the response from the Chinese clragon 05:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats an intresting article and one by the Indian media too.. however lets not forget that the individual being interviewed is chinese and his claims appear a little biased dont you? Lets not forget that media is media and free press (not sure that exists in china haha) will do anything for a story so that one article doesnt prove much.

Plus this genius author thinks that he represents everyone i.e. "All honest and sober-minded people...". Plus there is a damn good reason to count china is a potential adversary. You have armed Pakistan with nuclear missiles, you station troops along your borders with us, you invaded tibet (and killed several hundred thousand people), you cross into our territory, your media is state controlled, you have many fanatical views. i have no problems with the chinese people but i do have issues with a government which seeks to weaken India.

I disagree with Kenneth Tennyson. India was completely taken by surpise when the Chinese attacked. Had India been responsible for initiating the conflict, they would have been better prepared for the assault and the outcome would have been different. So putting part of the blame on India seems to be an attempt to please the Chinese communist government

The fact that India was taken by surprise is not China's fault. The fault lays precisely at the hands of Indian government and military officials who belligerently and complacently provoked China, in the childish belief that the Chinese government wouldn't react. Nearly all neutral evidence points to Indian provokation, and the fact they didn't take into account appropriate intelligence indicating Chinese military preparations only further attests to their complete failure. The Indian government and military thoroughly deserved the whipping they received. 10:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To the author of the above post: You are an idiot and clearly biased. You provide no proof to back up your accusations instead using the line "nearly all neutral evidence". You havent provided any "neutral" evidence, therefore your claim is pointless. Then you state that India clearly deserved a "whipping" but you fail to highlight China's wonderful record (i.e. Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Censorship). You dont think its possible for a government like that which has lied about a great many things to lie about something like the Sino-Indian war to get more support at home? I'm not saying that India did not do its own share of things but Im not the one making stupid claims like this. Wikipedia does not need your brainwashed filth, go edit your Chinese pages.

Oh, by the way, learn how to spell you ESL dumbass. It is spelled provocation and not provokation. I wonder if you even know how to speak english and if you dont, why are you posting?

China's record on Tibet, Tiananmen, etc. has nothing to do with this issue. Sure, China's record in several areas is not the greatest and I agree: Things could be much better. But that doesn't detract from India's record in the Sino-Indian War and their just desserts. If you can't be bothered finding or accepting what evidence there is that STRONGLY indicates Indian belligerence, then it only shows your refusal to accept arguments that contradict your own and your close-mindedness.

And picking on someone's spelling ONE word wrong in an argument only shows you're clutching at straws, because I see PLENTY of spelling mistakes, including those from your your own countrymen with the same viewpoints as yours. I could bring up issues, such as the high rate of illiteracy in India into this discussion, but I won't, seeing as this is about the SINO-INDIAN WAR! Spelling one word wrong also does not invalidate someone's opinion. An illiterate farmer has just as much a right to protest as a professor of English. I realize the Chinese government supresses dissent, but I'm not the Chinese government. However, it seems you have a very low opinion of those "illiterates", or is that unless they agree with your opinions? BTW you missed an apostrophe, several in fact. And also, I'd like to refer you to WP:ATTACK. I could recommend for you to be blocked, but I'm not in favor of supressing views. 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Through all your rambling about Indian literacy, poor farmers opinions, apostrophe errors etc., you have failed to bring up any 'neutral' evidence to back up your twice-repeated claim that "India got its just desserts". You need to back-up your claims, you cannot demand that others search for evidence to prove your point! And you have not opposed the arguments about China's record or added any counter-argument. What is your point then??? The argument is that the Chinese have a track-record for treating their people badly (Tiannamen Square), for aggression (Tibet) and for oppressing free speech & promoting their own propoganda - so how can their claims on India be relied upon, when they have such a bad track record on aggression and obfuscating facts ? Please answer that - ignoring it does not make it irrelevant!

Read two links that are provided in the article -

- Sino-Indian War (1962)

- Neville Maxwell: Henderson Brooks Report

One is written by an AMERICAN naval officer, and the other by an AUSTRALIAN foreign affairs official, both officials of countries that officially supported India during the border war. Both reports explain the poor military decisions that were made by India's highest civil officials in contempt of military advice. If that's insufficiently neutral to you, then obviously nothing will convince you otherwise.

The ball's now in your court to provide neutral evidence otherwise. And don't try to bring up the tired argument about China not having a free press and Tibet. Not only do we all know that, but it's also irrelevant, and so far there hasn't been much neutral literature ouside both China and India that points to deliberate Chinese aggression. Furthermore, the one who originally brought up the irrelevant and tangential argument about spelling mistakes and what not was not me - maybe you should argue with him.

I am an indian and i agree with the above statement. Mocking someone's english has nothing to do with the article at hand. I would strongly suggest people to refrain from making such silly remarks.

Actually, I don't think that person was Indian - don't jump to conclusions. He/she said, "learn how to spell you ESL dumbass." If (s)he was calling someone else an "ESL dumbass," it implies that his/her mothertongue is English. Most people in India do not speak English as their primary language.

ESL - English Second Language. it's a class that most new immigrants attend in Canada and the US to help them learn English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.198.228 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Why do indians argue about this war? Is it so hard for indians admit the fact that they are weak and lack of warrior spirits? Did indians ever fight a decent war, fight like men, or fight in Olympic games? indians are only strong in TALKING. That's a hard fact for indians, but you indians need to be realistic about that.

OOOOO! You heah thath in faihy thale? Talk to the 100,000 Pakistani soldiers who surrendered to us in 1971 my friend.Netaji 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it hard for chinese to admit they owe much to Indians for what they are now????Plz dont forget Indians had helped them before 1962 in various ways at various international platforms and post 1962 they had tried hard to get the similar kind of response from India when entire world had sidelined them.Thanx for admitting chinese atleast lack in TALKING skills.Holy | Warrior 10:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we not bring our personal views in this and stick to the topic?? And also, you could be reported for excessively insulting and irrelevent comments.

I'm a Chinese born in 1978, now I'm sitting in an India office and i was talking about the 1962 war with my India colleagues. I'm not able to give any comments on this war. Most of the time we are not able to know what's "right" and what's "wrong", and sometime even dont know what's "true" and what's "false"..

But what i can tell you is that in mainland China, this war is rarely mentioned by China media, which is well known as under control by the center govement. We may talk about Sino-VietNam war.. But very very few people know the detail about 1962 Sino-India issue..

To kennethtennyson

The indo-sino war is relate to the indo-pak war because all these wars happened in indian territory e.g indo-pak wars were fought rann of kutch, kashmir, and part of punjab. Indo-sino war fought in assam, Ladkh (aski chin) and so on. Assam definitely Indian territory (indo-sino war) and punjab + rajasthan definitely Indian territory. So common thing is a attack on undisputed Indian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.95.142 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2005

The fact that you have already prejudged this land to be part of India without even considering the fact that the Chinese in China or the Pakistanis in Pakistan believe that it is theirs also suggests a biased viewpoint. As I stated before, if you put indo-pakistani war you might as well put in the sino-vietnam war of 1980 and the border conflicts between china and russia over the years as part of your reference. the indo-pakistani war has nothing to do with this border conflict between china and india. please open your mind to the viewpoints of others.Kennethtennyson 03:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Assam was never considered part of chinese territory, Arunachal pradesh is disputed, not Assam, Kenneth Tennyson, I now believe that you are biased. -XK

However, didn't India lose some of its claimed territory in Aksai Chin, which is adjacent to Kashmir? GABaker 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)GABaker 02:45 09 Dec 2005 UTC

Even if tibet should be independent, indians or tibetians need to fight for independence by yourself. Nobody will grant independence to you for free. By the way, why don't indians argue about land of U.S. should be given to American Indians.

I don't quite understand the reasoning here.....How does the American Indian issue come into a India-China issue? And what do you even know about the American Indian issue? Have you heard about Indian reservations in the USA? The USA is by and large a free country which treats its people well...it would be absurd to even compare the USA with a totalitarian country like China which massacres its own people (Tiannamen Square for instance) or suppresses the peaceful people in Tibet and alters demographics in Tibet by mass emigrations of Han Chinese.

hohoho USA treats its people well. ;)--89.56.244.172 12:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dohla post:

I think this should not be left out in the event and cause of the War. Opions are opinions. Facts are facts. source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm "On July 21st, there was a skirmish in the Chip Chap Val- ley. Two Indian soldiers were wounded, the first since Konga Pass in 1959. The Chinese protested, and also accused India of violating the McMahon Line in NEFA. Indeed, General B. M. Kaul, then Chief of the General Staff, had ordered the establishment of 24 posts along the McMahon Line. In June, local Indian commanders had estab- lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards. On August 4th, Peking accused India of violating the McMahon Line (at Dhola), and of aggression beyond its own claimed border--and therefore into Chinese territory."

71.109.70.161 06:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) The geographic location of Dohla cannot change. It is fact, not opinion.

"some of the opinion" comment

This line should be deleted. it is absolutely biased and meaningless.

"However some view was of the opinion that China was the aggressor and despite the military success it was regarded by a few as a political failure for the PRC. "

We can say exactly the same thing about India. In addition, what is the point of quoting some opinion? the previously line alreday mentioned the two countries claimed each other was the aggressor.

Khoikhoi's edits and source requested for his Feb1 20:23 edit

The source has already been listed somewhere else. It is the globalsecurity.org article. btw, Khoikhoi's edits seems to be very biased to Indian's POV.

I've never made any additions to this article. I've only reverted. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you are clean from bias.--202.66.122.225 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Casualties?

Does anyone know how many Chinese and Indian Soldiers were killed?

About Indian Jack Company

I think the Jack Company should be mentioned in the article Xplorer 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aksai Chin?

The article claims in the intro the war was over Aksai Chin. However this appears to be in correct. As far as I can tell, although Aksai Chin is a disputed region, the war occured over Arunachal Pradesh which is currently administred by India but much of it is claimed by China. Aksai Chin which is administered by China but is claimed by India was not directly a part of the war as far as I can tell. The Indian discovery of the Chinese road in Aksai Chin is listed as a proximate cause but the war was still largely fought in Arunachal Pradesh I believe. If there was significant fighting in Aksai Chin as well, then we need to be more clear in which areas the fighting is occuring (as they are both rather distant from each other). Also the way the intro is written appears to suggest China took control over Aksai Chin during the war but as far as I can tell, they didn't, they already had control as China returned to the original borders. Could someone who knows a bit more edit the article appropriately? I believe the rest of the article is mostly ok, it's simply the intro which is rather poorly written Nil Einne 13:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the copy edit tag

I have copy edited this page. I reworded a few sentences but I don't think I changed the meaning.

I know nothing about the war, except through reading this article. To me the article seems fair, not singling out one side or the other for blame. It's an interesting dispute, typical of the types of disputes countries get into. KarenAnn 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

citation needed

"...however, the total number of killed and wounded on the Chinese side was actually higher."

is there any link to prove this claim ?

--digitalSurgeon 10:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

liu shaoqi

liu was the president of the state. he was not the commander in charge.

After the war section

This section is unencyclopaedic.It deals with emotional issues rather than facts.War Aftermath discussed in international forums should be included.present both sides of the view.Holy---+---Warrior 07:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

where is the question of neutrality

where is the question of biased neutrality in this page. mention the particular instances or i shall be removing the tag.

nids 00:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Causes of War" section focuses exclusively on the boundary dispute, which strikes me as an inadequate explanation at best. Why did tension over this dispute arise in 1959-63 and not at any other time? Surely the reason relates to the Sino-Soviet split, a factor not even hinted at in the article. Other factors at least as important as the boundary dispute include Mao's desire to boost the prestige of War Minister Lin Biao, a favored successor, and the Tibetan revolt of 1959, which created an emotional anti-Chinese response in India.

The "After the War" section mentions the effect of the war on Indian internal politics, but surely the effect on Chinese politics was far more dramatic. The war put Mao and Lin Biao back in the saddle at the expense of "capitalist roaders" Liu Shiaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. It was followed by a massive propaganda campaign to promote the prestige of the Chinese military. Up to this point the party was the exclusive focus of propaganda efforts, so the war was a major step on the road toward the Cultural Revolution and the persecution of CCP members.Kauffner 04:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

where is it written about the supply of massive US millitary aid to india as referenced in the article.

nids 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There was talk of $2 billion or $3 billion in US aid, although only a small amount was actually delivered. I suppose the point was to scare China into withdrawing. By that standard, the aid was a big success (although Soviet aid was probably a more important factor). Kauffner 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

do u have reliable sources. if yes, please share. else it isnt possible that during the cold war years, both US and soviet give millitary aid to the same country.

nids 17:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The $3 billion figure is from here. There is a discussion of what happened to the money here.00:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre Sentence

" On 10 October, an Indian military patrol moved toward the bridges of Yumtso La, to be met by an emplaced Chinese position of some 1000 soldiers. The patrol was forced to retreat after taking heavy fire, suffering 50% casualties; however, the total number of killed and wounded on the Indian side was actually higher. "

So the Indian patrol took 50% casualities, BUT the number killed/wounded on the Indian side was actually higher? I think "wounded on the Indian side was actually higher" used to say "wounded on the Chinese side was actually higher"

Tone

"they generally fought bravely and professionally in the early phase of the war until their commanders were replaced with Nehru's cronies."
It's not just tone, but the use of weasel words. Manasl 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Plagerised content

Some of this article is copied from one of the sources listed at the bottom [2]. While no entire segment has been left together, there are several clear-cut segments where the wording is identical to the Hindustan Times article. Specifically, the segments in the Times' article under "The War." The entire section has been worked into this article, almost word for word. Granted there have been some changes, but segments such as "tried to regroup during the lull in the fighting" and "the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly 50 km from Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border" particularly caught my eye on the first page. I haven't looked through the other seven pages linked at the bottom of the Times' story, so I'm afraid there is more plagerism within the article. Someone might want to check the remainder of the article and reword the offending sections. WindRunner 10:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nehru's cronies?

Should this sentence be deleted?

Nonetheless, they generally fought bravely and professionally in the early phase of the war until their commanders were replaced with Nehru's cronies.

Pro-India Bias Sneaking In

I've noticed that there is a pro-India bias sneaking into the article. I do hope that strict neutrality is observed and that one group may not try to change facts to make political statements.

The Aftermath section for instance has been completely re-written to down play the Indian failures in the war, I do hope that other wikipedians are keeping a strict observation on this article.

S Seagal 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Exactly when did you find the pro-India bias sneaking in? Pl specify the lines which are biased and without proper source. Tx. Idleguy 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, how is it biased? The failures are not played down, India was defeated - that is clearly mentioned. The only additional information was the steps India took after the war including placing more emphasis on the military. If the "Learn from the PLA" is allowed to stay, why can't the steps India took stay?

chinese people living in india during the war

Realdan

I found these from an indian site talking about chinese people living in India during the warh. Yes, there really was quite a few numbers of chinese living in India. Though I don't think there was a comparable numbers of indian living on the chinese side.

Excerpts from the article in an indian site

Hundreds of people were sent to detention camps in Rajasthan. Monica Liu, now a partner in a successful chain of Chinese restaurants, was 12 years old when she was sent to a camp. “Along with my family, I was sent to a camp in Rajasthan, a hot desert state. I kept asking why? We weren’t criminals.”

“Later, I realised we were sent away because we were Chinese,” Liu, 52, said as customers poured into her smart restaurant. “Even when we were allowed out for a picnic, police followed us. Though things are better now, the suspicion is still there.”

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021107/edit.htm#7

Should we include issues about these? is it too minute a detail to be included? what is your opinion?

could anybody in the know contribute more info on this issues

Realdan 16:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting, but I think it is too small an issue, given that they might be more isolated incidents than an organized campaign. Idleguy 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• yeah, it is surely a surprise for every one, the fact is the media didn't think it worth their while, it is understandable that since the number of people involved doesn't seem to be large. Will try to dig out more on that

WOW, CHINA BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF INDIA!!!

I didn't know this!! Napoleon12

May I suggest you to look at Korean war, where China beat UN led by USA. --Leo 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you do not needlessly respond to Trolls with historically inaccurate statements? Idleguy 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion denied. :-)--Leo 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no denying that India lost the 1962 War. Also, I wouldn't pay attention to unemployed Indian guys like Idleguy who distort accepted history for face-saving and pro-Indian purposes. napoleon12 5:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pl see WP:No Personal Attacks. --Idleguy 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am asking the obvious, but why is the Result shown as "Subsequent ceasefire" when China is clearly the victor of the conflict? BeyRel 14:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer is here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm --Leo 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Leo, would you mind cutting and pasting the texts here? I can't seem to access the link you provided. Many thanks! BeyRel 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the history

There was little doubt it was a complete millitary defeat on the India part. The only key question around here is who was the righteous and who was the aggressor. It is really meaningless to find out the answer. War has ended what it could, and remaining disputes will, if possible at all, be resolved based on what cards each side has and not on what is right.

But just for my own amusement, I did a little reading on this with the realization that even if we lived at the time when the sino-india war happened, we would not really know what happened. most people were just not in loop, what they could learn of the conflict was what they were wanted to know. As we are who we are, we only know what we have been taught, unless we actively seek data and form objective opinions based on the facts. What the Chinese or Indian government did at other times on other things has nothing to do with the current task of finding out who was the aggressor in 1962 and prior along the Sino-Inida border.

What facts can we see with confidence? One of them is when and where the serious fighting started. On Oct 12 the Indian troops occupied Dho La Strip territory, and On Oct 20 the Indian troops were met with Chinese army crossing Thag La Ridge from the north. (The exact dates of these events my differ from different sources a bit, but there is no doubt they happened at at places as stated.) Both Dho La Strip territory and Thag La Ridge are north of McMahon Line. This single piece of info is enough for any intelligent person to figure out who the aggressor was.

Humble opinion of a Chinese who is willing to learn the facts.

I think almost everyone agrees that both sides were at some degree of fault. The reason this is such a contentious issue is that there is not enough information to accurately say who was the aggressor. Also, there is no such thing as being "righteous" in war, it is the "victorious". Being Indian, I am subject to a certain bias and I definitely don't think that India was completely to blame. Also, please note that China has had its fair share of border disputes with other countries which have also resulted in conflicts. To claim that one side started a war based on one piece of evidence from one source is ludicrous. Also, if you claim you are humble and willing to learn the facts, you should be more neutral in your outlook as to who started the war. It also makes you no better than the people who lived in those times and fought in that war.

142.151.169.245 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was foolishly provocative for India to put troops in the Dhola and Thagla Ridge areas, but it is a trivial issue and not a major cause of the war. (And India was also foolish for not resolving the border issue in 1960 when Mao was down and China was amendable.) The outpost was 3 or 6 km north of the McMahon Line that whole region is a just wasteland anyway. At the end of the war, China withdrew from all the disputed territory without a fight, even Tawang, the one part of NEFA that might have been worth keeping. As long as China refuses to recoginize the McMahon Line, it can't expect India to observe it exactly. The border dispute aspect was never China's primary motive for attacking India. Mao wanted to beat up some foriegners so that Bin Biao and army would look good. (and ulimately use them against the Chinese Communist Party.). India was a good target because it was a Soviet ally and the Sino-Soviet split was fresh.Kauffner 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some political analysis did claimed that Sino-India war was to make Lin Biao look good. But looking at the dialog between USSR & Chinese Leader in 1959....it tell different story, u can see the effect of the Indian aggresive 'forward policy':

N.S. Khrushchev: Why did you have to kill people on the border with India?

Mao Zedong: They attacked us first, crossed the border and continued firing for 12 hours.

......

Lin Biao: The Indian began to shoot first and they fired for 12 hours, until they spent all their ammunition. There could be a different approach to this issue, one might admit, but the facts are facts: 1) the Indian were the first to cross the border; 2) the Indian were the first to open fire; 3) the Indian sustained fire during 12 hours. In this situation there might be two approaches to the issue: 1) the Indian crossed the border and we have to beat retreat; 2) the Indian cross the border and we offer a rebuff.

Mao Zedong: The rebuff was delivered on the decision of local military organs.

Sawadeekrap 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.....You use Chairman Mao's quotes as evidence to back-up a Chinese claim !!! Your story in short is "The Indians were aggressors....even Chairman Mao said that" !!! Elsewhere on the internet, I have also seen Chinese premier's conversation with Kissinger/Nixon as proof of Chinese claims.....This entire approach, which I find to be commonly employed in dealing with the India-China dispute, is amusing - "We have always said we are right....we have said so on several occassions to several people.....so we must be right !!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.215.18.51 (talk • contribs)

Anon is right. Using first person quotes as the evidence is hardly convincing. Also using Nixon's dubious statements on Indra Gandhi in the 1971 run up to the Bangladesh Liberation War where he referred to Indira Gandhi in demeaning terms and both Pakistanis and Indians in uncivil name calling, and the coloured statements including that of referring to the 62 war is hardly a source. So I've removed that too since anyway it is already sourced and we don't need an opinion suggesting that a book was right, especially not from the questionable Mr. Nixon. Idleguy 06:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fortunately for the Indians, instead of overrunning Assam and proceeding to Madras or Bombay, or dropping bombs on Calcutta or paratroopers on Delhi, the Chinese announced on 20 November a unilateral cease-fire and their decision to vacate the NEFA and withdraw north of the McMahon line in nine days. After withdrawing twelve miles north of the disputed border, they again showed their readiness to negotiate. " -- http://www.marxists.org/subject/india/ghosh/2002/himalayan-adventure/index.htm --89.56.227.182 13:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who would win if India and China went toe to toe today?

This question is irrelevant. Not only does it not shed any light and provide any insights to the article, nobody wants a war today. Such a question, and its hypothetical answers, can only serve as a fertile ground for Indian ultra-nationalists still smarting from the defeat to attempt to salvage their wounded pride... and for India's detractors to rub salt into wound. BeyRel 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If one side or the other thought it could win easily, that side would have attacked by now. In particular, China would have attacked in 1971, since they certianly didn't want Bangladesh to become independent. Even in 1962, India had air superiority, although it never used it. It was lack of preparation and Nehru's famous indecisiveness that led to defeat. Kauffner 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You assume the Chinese would want to. What China wanted all along was agreement with India on the border. They were even happy to accept the McMahon Line as long as India signed a treaty. India has consistently refused to even talk about it. So what would China have stood to gain in 1971? They have no desire to occupy India (and bring in massive US aid to India). Threats would not force a country the size of India to agree. They have waited and waited and waited for the Indians to be reasonable. Lao Wai 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a border agreement. If you mean only that China wants a boundary whereas India wants a demarcated Line of Actual Control, that seems like a small issue and don't think anyone has suggested that China would go to war over that. China already accepts the McMahon Line as an LAC. Zhou Enlai sent Nehru a note to this effect in 1959. The border dispute is more about Aksai Chin and Indian outposts north of the McMahon Line, e.g. Sumdorong Chu Valley.

Occupy India? China doesn't have such a capability. In 1962, there was only one narrow highway between Tibet and China proper. It took China almost eight months to build up the supplies needed to launch the 1962 offensive. Much of the needed supplies were sent through Calcutta as clueless Indian customs agents stamped the manifests. When the fuel and canned food ran out after a few months, the Chinese had to withdraw. Mao Zedong was always going to war with someone so as to build up his domestic prestige. The Sino-Indian War was also designed to raise the prestige of the army so it could enter Chinese politics as a rival to the Communist Party. This led to the Cultural Revolution and allowed Mao to take revenge against the Communist leaders who had criticised him earlier for the Great Leap Forward.

As far as 1971 goes, Sino-Soviet rivalry was quite intense at that time, with India allied with Moscow and Pakistan allied with Beijing. If you look at the graph of Chinese military spending, it peaks in the early 1970s. So China had a keen interest in preventing Pakistan's humiliation. But what were they going to do about it? Another eight-month build up? The crisis could be over by the time Chinese forces took to the field. Besides, the customs agents in Calcutta would be unlikely to be so accomodating the second time around. After Mao died, Deng tried to continue Maoist foriegn policy by attacking Vietnam in 1979. The Vietnamese apparently gave the Chinese a lot more trouble than they expected and Beijing has since been reluctant to see its forces tested on the battlefield. Kauffner 05:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually India and China rejected the idea of the McMahon line in principle - although both more or less agree to it in fact. The problem is that India insists that the border is a traditional one and so does not need agreement, just Chinese recognition of that fact and that the border runs along the watershed - which is why they occupied Thag-la (on the Chinese side of the McMahon Line) and so causing the 1962 War. Aksai Chin is more of a problem, but that would not have caused a war if India had not been upset about the Eastern sector as India does not control half of it and the Chinese most certainly do.

The claim that China lacked any transportation routes to Tibet is an interesting one as is the extremely interesting claim they sent supplies via Calcutta. India was not, I'd think, that clueless. China spent the years 1950-1962 building roads across Tibet. I assure you they did not have only one in 1962. Nor do I think there is any evidence that supplies were short for the PLA despite the GLF. Mao was always going to war with someone? Let's see: Korea, India and that's it. Not a lot of wars is it? Wars do not bring prestige in China. The thought that the 1962 War had anything to do with the GPCR is even more interesting. Source (and I mean a credible one)?

I expect you will find all Chinese statistics on the period 1965-1975 are next to useless. China did not have such a keen interest they did anything about it. Deng attacked Vietnam because Vietnam attacked Cambodia. Hardly Maoist. Chinese people do not think in terms of military glory. At least not for a long time. What works in the West doesn't necessarily work in China. Lao Wai 12:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Hello All,

As many of you have stated, my concern here is to establish an accurate account of what occurred, in the interest that maybe future indians and chinese, who will have to face the reality of a continuing border dispute, may bring this to a peaceable end. Barring that, I hope that at least for the sake of history students, we can have an objective account of this war. That said, there are obviously a number of inaccuracies in tandem with this ongoing npov dispute.

Since first person quotes have already been addressed, there is no need for me to touch on the dangers of using diplomatic conversations--replete with double speak and deceit--(irrespective of whether they are indian or chinese) as accurate sources. In order to bring this dispute to an end, a good start would be to compile a mutually verifiable construction of events leading upto the actual outbreak of violence. This article appears to implicate Nehru's government on account of his forward policy. It goes on to note that China had a legitimate interest in this because of the Xizhang-Xinjiang road (fair enough since that was obviously in its interest). What the article fails to mention was that the road was built through Indian-claimed (and presumably administered until that point) territory, without notification to New Delhi. This was before any agreement was reached.

Moreover, articles in the Time archive from that time note that China negotiated it Burmese border utilizing the MacMahon line, and even awarded it a slice of Indian territory. Lastly, articles about the then King Mahendra (again from the Time Archive) note his concern at Chinese maps showing Nepal as part of Chine--calling into question whether Chinese expansion was not a genuine policy. These statements are not meant as a judgement of China, which frankly, conducted its foreign policy expertly. It is however meant to scrutinize claims of Chinese recognition of unequivocal sovereignty for its immediate neighbors.

I do not believe my attempt here will be an end all, and I am sure of incoming criticism; however, it might be helpful if we start by building such a timeline (sourced) so that we may arrive at an accurate casus belli. This article is not meant to judge the morality of a country's actions (let's face it, everyone acts in his interests, well, except maybe Menon). Rather, it should clearly and accurately describe the cold, objective actions that led to the outbreak of violence. Perhaps we could work backwards, starting with China's unilateral ceasefire, and India's obvious defeat. The Time articles also offer an interesting progression of events that might be useful in facilitating the construction of the timeline. If there are objections to the Time articles, please raise them so that concerns may be addressed, and other possible sources suggested.

I sincerely hope that we can resolve the NPOV dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.203.175.175 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Excessive use of Maxwell

Much of the article is based on Neville Maxwell's account of the war. However, Maxwell has been referred to as Anti-Indian by many and isn't the most NPOV source Wikipedia could use. People accusing Maxwell of Anti-Indianness include the American Political Science Review.[3][4]. Others have claimed similar [chr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/6/6/64.pdf][5]. It's fine mentioning that this controversial Anti-Indian account has been made, but its not fine to start using it as a reference everywhere. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since he saw the Brooks Henderson report he is in a good position to comment on it. But in any case, I see no problem using the book as a source, as long as it's factually accurate. The cites are of facts in his book, and not of his opinions. When an interpretion of motives is made, it's clearly stated that it's Maxwell's opinion. For example, his book says that India set up 60 frontier outposts, including 43 north of the LAC defined by Zhou[cite Maxwell]. It's simply providing numbers, those numbers sourced to Maxwell. How can numbers be biased and POVed? Another use of Maxwell is to cite that Nehru appointed General B.M. Kaul army chief at the beginning of 1961[cite Maxwell]. Again, how is pointing out a historical fact POVed? Another Maxwell citation is was that Mullik was in regular contact with the CIA station chief in New Delhi[cite Maxwell]. Again, how can a statement of what happened historically be biased and POV?

I would say statements like "Their actions in the battle against Chinese troops were noted as some of largest occurrences of bravery and valour in the war" are far more POV than Maxwell cites since they are actually subjective judgements of character rather than dry and verifiable facts. Any having been there would have counted 60 outposts regardless of whether it was Maxwell or someone else doing the counting. Anyone with a calendar would have dated India starting the forward policy in November whether it was Maxwell marking the calendar or someone else. Not everyone judging the troops at X battle would have agreed that such troops were the bravest in the war.--Yuje 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. But an Anti-Indian bias could also lead to distortion of facts, don't you agree? Especially when the territory was ambiguous but Maxwell seems to make it clear that India were on the wrong side. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming he's lying, then? If not, then I see no problem with facts that he has stated. For example, the citation about 43 outposts north of the McMahon line. It's not like it says, "India has X outposts that were clearly in X's territory." It says, "India has X outpost north of X line." What is distorted about this? Was it actually 40 outposts on the wrong side, 60 outposts, 100 outposts, or no outposts at all? Or is the simple fact of pointing out such outposts north of the line a distortion and biased? --Yuje 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you deleted my cite about the agreement being conducted secretly. I restored it because this aspect played an extremely important role as one of the reasons in it not being recognized by successive governments as legitimate. --Yuje 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Maxwell's alright. But with other reversions. First of all, Zhou and Nixon's diplomatic rhetoric is being presented as fact when it is Wikipedia policy that diplomatic and political quotes are not at all representative of the truth. It suffices to summarize the discussion between them as a discussion in which Zhou attempted to explain the war. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as POV goes, the paragraph based on Maxwell is balanced by the following paragraph, based on Chang, which is equally critical of Chinese policy. Even so, I worry that the Maxwell paragraph implies too much. The Forward Policy was Nehru's own idea, something he'd been talking about at least since 1952. When he redrew the maps in 1954, he was anticipating the Forward Policy and creating a justification for it. So the policy can't be blamed on whatever the CIA told Mullik. At most, the U-2 issue explains only the wierd confidence Indian leaders had that the policy would work. Nehru hated the army and international power politics, so a border strategy based on maps and token military force had immediate appeal for him.

On the issue of the McMahon Line being secret: Where the line was had no significance until after the British accepted Simla as a valid treaty. When they accepted the treaty in 1937, the line was published. Moreover, the Indians presented the line to the Chinese in 1954. Zhou accepted the McMahon Line as an LAC in 1959, so he obviously knew where it was. As I understand it, the Chinese showed no interest in the line in back in 1914.

On the issue on what Zhou said to Nixon: I think Zhou was just parroting the Maxwell book, which had recently been published at that point. When I read the quotes, it reminded me immediately of the way Bin Laden parroted Michael Moore and Robert Fisk to make justifications he obviously hadn't thought of himself. Maxwell had no access to internal Chinese documents, so there is no reason to assume that he has special insight on Chinese motives. Until Maxwell's book come out, China's justification for it's behavior was simply that the McMahon Line was "imperialist." This certainly clashes with Maxwell's thesis. After all, if the line is imperialist, what does it matter whether an Indian post is north or south of it? Kauffner 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

About the McMahon Line, the Calvin book says much the same thing, that the agreement had been signed without Chinese knowledge, and that both the KMT and the communists rejected the line as illegal, and that it was rejected in 1914. As I understand it, (based on the article: "The Place of International Law in Chinese Strategy and Tactics: The Case of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute", by Arthur A. Stahnke, published in the Journal of Asian Studies) in 1954, Zhou chose to defer the border disagreement to the future, both in the interests of friendship, and to have time to study the issue and prepare his case.--Yuje 09:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What I thought was biased

The Chinese military action has been viewed by Western nations as part of the PRC's policy making of using aggressive wars to settle its border disputes and to distract from its internal issues.. According to a study published by the United States Marine Corps, China is treated as the aggressor in the China-India border war, and the war was part of a monolithic communist objective for a world dictatorship of the proletariat.

This paragraph looks like barely concealed editorializing. Instead of stating facts (X happened, X did this, etc), it gives subjective opinions, which are extremely difficult to gauge by a vague entity "Western nations" (which countries, who said it, what was the criteria and numbers by which this view was measured?), and it makes a statement of fact on what may or may not be a biased view. In other words, it looks like a sneaking in of a lot of weasel words ("Some people say X"). On the other hand, look at an article like Opposition to the Iraq War.

After the first UN resolution, the US and the UK pushed for a second resolution authorising an invasion. The French and German governments, amongst others, took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed. France's then-Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin received loud applause for his speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations on February 14, 2003. Neither of these countries have sent troops to Iraq. However, despite popular opinion in their countries, the governments of Italy and Spain supported the war politically and militarily, although Spain ceased to do so after the election of a Socialist government in 2004 partly due to anger about the war in Iraq.

Here, you clearly see concrete criticisms and views stated. ("X politicians said X, X governments did X, X groups did X to express opposition/support of X, X government had X policy in response to X). With such facts, one can easily go and track down when, where, and how such statements were made. If I were to say, "Western governments were generally in support of the Iraq War", how would I go and track down such a statement? Who or what represents this "western governments"? What is the criteria used to measure such support, and what are the numbers (how many people supported, what %, whether governments supported only or people did also, etc). Of course, you could say, that "According to George W. Bush, western nations are X"), then that would be verifiable. Again, this avoids weasel wording.

The Kennedy administration was disturbed by blatant Chinese communist aggression against India.

"blatent Chinese communist aggression". The original sentence had the qualifiers, "The Kennedy administration was disturbed by what they considered to be blatant Chinese communist aggression against India." Do I even need to point out the bias here?

According to a study published by the United States Marine Corps, China is treated as the aggressor in the China-India border war, and the war was part of a monolithic communist objective for a world dictatorship of the proletariat.

As opposed to the original wording: "According to one study published by the United States Marine Corps, many western nations at the time believed China to be the aggressor in the China-India border war, and saw the war as part of a monolithic communist objective for world conquest." You revised it, and removed qualifiers, which makes it more POV.

The beginning of the war was triggered by a Chinese attack on a routine Indian military patrol.

Again, POVing, by portraying this as as a one-side attack, and it also contradicts the cited source. The cited book says,

"On October 5th, India created a special Border Com-

mand under the command of General Kaul. Kaul was already in NEFA, preparing an "all out effort" to expel the Chinese from Thag La.

On October 9th, General Kaul ordered General John Dalvi,

Commander of the Seventh Brigade, to take Yumtso La Pass. Dalvi argued that he lacked the military resources--and the winter clothing--to take the 16,000 foot Pass. Kaul compro- mised, and sent a fifty man patrol to Tseng Jong. the patrol reached Tseng Jong before dark on October 9th without Chinese resistance. Little did the patrol know that bloody fighting-- and the China-India Border War--was only a few hours away.

So it was hardly a "routine patrol", and it was just as much an Indian attack as a Chinese one, so portraying it one-sidedly through selective quoting is not NPOV. Also, the book never says, the battle "triggered" the start of the war, as that implies causation for the start. In fact, the book gives a long historical background, build-up, and tensions leading up to the war. It says it was the first battle that took place during the Chinese offensive, but it also mentions previous skirmishes as well, so it's not even accurate to say that it was neccessarily the first battle of the war.

I've also already mentioned the inherent POV biases in saying (X were the bravest, X were the most valorous, etc) type of statements, in that these are subjective statements, and while every observer could agree on the number of soldiers, the date of an event, the amount of territory, the location of a line or coordinate, not everyone would agree on human qualities.--Yuje 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed most of your concerns. With the sentence about China taking over the world, I believe I NPOVd it so that it was more informative and less anti-Chinese. The bravoury and valour was sourced, all I had to say was who said it. Wikipedia isn't only limited to objective statements, as long as they are sourced they are fine. As for the idea that it was an Indian attack, Maxwell has been accused of showing facts with an Anti-Indian viewpoint and I do not believe his voice is the only one authorative voice that should be allowed on this article. Also, please don't delete paragraphs and other text simply because you want to fix some sentences. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference for it being part of an Indian attack doesn't come from Maxwell, it comes from Calvin. Are you claiming now that he, too is biased?

On October 10, an Indian military patrol was carrying out a routine patrol around Yumtso La only to be met by an emplaced Chinese position of some 1,000 soldiers. The patrol was forced to retreat after taking heavy fire, officially suffering 50 percent casualties. This event is signalled as the official start of the Sino-Indian War.[4]

First of all, it wasn't a "routine military patrol". And second of all, the cited source never actually says it was the official start of the Sino-Indian war, and the declaration of an official start is dubious at best since there was no declaration of war. Third of all, the source never says the war was triggered by this event. Here's what it actually says.

There were both Indian and Chinese protests about the

Chedong incident: India accused China of expansionism, and

China warned that there was a limit to her patience and self-

restraint. Unfortunately for the Indians, Chedong was another

area where China seems to have had legitimate claim. Many

Indians must have questioned India's actions in Chedong, north

of the McMahon Line (and Nehru's orders to push the Chinese

back even further); pushing military force past India's claimed

boundary clearly made India the aggressor in this and some

subsequent clashes. Much of the more serious fighting to come

in October was not in the areas which both China and India

claimed, but in areas (Tawang and Walong) where China had a

legitimate claim or where India had pushed beyond the McMahon

Line.

Sporadic fighting in the Chedong area continued for the

next few weeks, suggesting that India was determined to drive

Chinese forces back. Now, India seemed unwilling even to dis-

cuss any border issues or proposals. An October 3rd Chinese

note suggested a meeting to discuss the entire border was met

with a curt Indian refusal.

On September 26th, General Kaul assumed command of XXXIII

Corps; this Corps was hampered by widely dispursed troop con-

centrations, few weapons, inadequate supplies, and no winter

clothing. On October 5th, India created a special Border Com-

mand under the command of General Kaul. Kaul was already in

NEFA, preparing an "all out effort" to expel the Chinese from

Thag La.

On October 9th, General Kaul ordered General John Dalvi,

Commander of the Seventh Brigade, to take Yumtso La Pass.

Dalvi argued that he lacked the military resources--and the

winter clothing--to take the 16,000 foot Pass. Kaul compro-

mised, and sent a fifty man patrol to Tseng Jong. the patrol

reached Tseng Jong before dark on October 9th without Chinese

resistance. Little did the patrol know that bloody fighting--

and the China-India Border War--was only a few hours away.

--Yuje 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you simply reverted back (deleting several paragraphs of material in the process), while simply ignoring this. As I pointed out, your claim that the Chinese triggered the war, and that it was a routine patrol, is stated nowhere in this cited source, and in fact, points out otherwise. I also added context to the statement about the start of this battle. They were ordered to attack the Chinese, as well, and after a victory, the Chinese forces withheld their fire to let them withdraw, and chose not to pursue. I also added information on the diplomatic exchanges that happened during the offensive, which is important, since the fighting stopped, but restarted with an Indian offensive later. I didn't include any subjective material, such as perceptions on various actions, speculation on the intentions of either side, or so on, only included the dates, facts, numbers, and actions. You chose to delete all this with a simple note of NPOV, with no discussion. Simply citing a meme does not give an excuse to delete mass amounts of text.

You also stated that you had no problem including the number of Indian outposts north of the McMahon line, but I've noticed you deleting that three times already in your edits since them.

Oh, and this source is not Maxwell, but Calvin from the US Marine War College. Are you claiming that he's biased also? --Yuje 09:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's more of your changes I thought was biased:

China holds part of Indian territory then withdraws per unilateral ceasefire

changed from

[Chinese]] victory, Subsequent ceasefire

I think any NPOV can agree that Indian forces were deleted militarily. However, the change isn't NPOV, since it was changed to imply that the territory which China held for a time was legitimate Indian territory, instead of a disputed territory that others (China, Pakistan), may not have regarded as legitimate.

The war occurred in the North East Frontier Agency region and the Aksai Chin region. The battles were at extremely high altitudes of the Himalayas and some of the battles involved numerous mountainous maneuvors. These particular regions were chosen for invasion mainly because of the border disputes and the Tibetan influence over the region. After the first unexpected Chinese offensive, they could hold numerous high mountainous regions which would be difficult to recapture. attack to dislodge the enemy and reclaim high ground in a mountain warfare would require a far higher ratio of attackers to defenders, which is further exacerbated by the high altitude and freezing temperatures.

I don't see a problem wit this, it seems mostly just facts, though it's uncited. However, if this is what you wanted to restore, you could have done it without deleting all the other stuff.

According to controverisal author Neville Maxwell, in November, India responded by adopting a "forward policy" of placing military outposts in disputed areas.

Non-controversial authors say the same thing, too. The forward policy was an actual historical policy. This looks like an ad hominem attack, implying that the existence of the forward policy is controversial because of the supposed controversy of the author.

privy to the otherwise confidential Henderson Brooks Report

This was deleted. I don't see a problem with stating his credentials has being one of the people who has seen the report. Is this fact controversial or POV as well?

Their actions in the battle against Chinese troops were appreciated by India as some of largest occurrences of bravery and valour in the war.

I just noticed that you address one of my NPOV concerns here, and you have my thanks for it. I didn't notice this, so I'll restore it.

The rest of the changes are just cosmetic reordering and rearrangement, so I don't see any major problems so far, nor did I see any major loss of information while reverting to the previous version, since it's still present in the article. --Yuje 09:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This article

This article is probably the most biased article on Wikipedia. This war signalled that China was the dominant power in the Asian continent, to create this sense of greatness China successfully invaded India, put the Indians in their place and then withdrew knowing that the Indians know who is the stronger military. India's economy and political image sufferred and China succeeded in their mission. All this extra unsourced stuff really doesn't belong to the article and is incredibly biased (and very badly written as well). Traing 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I found it is mostly done by User:Ksyrie, who seems to have taken an ownership point of view on this page. I'm going to be taking a look at their edits. They seem to want it seem like India had strategically advanced into good positions on Chinese territory before the Chinese suddenly became aware of this and decided to fight back. I believe India could have only advanced very slightly into Chinese soil before the Chinese military repelled them with their stronger manpower and firepower. The article as it was created by Ksyrie shows China as consistently politically weak, always suing for peace in the face of the danger of war with India. This was not the case, China wanted to show the rest of the world that it was not a lesser power than India and this was the perfect way to show it. Please don't make it look like China is a middle power-type nation that suddenly upset the great power, because that's what happened in the Korean War (great power upset superpower) but not in the Sino-Indian War. China was confident. Traing 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Find sources for your assertions. If you have objections to some of the edits, then use citable reputable sources, and don't delete already cited sources. I deleted some of his uncited statements, but restored the cited descriptions of the battles which you removed.--Yuje 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jung's Book and Epoch Times are not credible sources

Novels and tabloid articles are not credible sources for historical facts. Jung's book and the Epoch Times are both strongly biased. They severely tarnish the quality of this article.

Traing's POVed edits

• Diff of his changes

1. Both the casus belli for the Chinese and Indian sides are mentioned. The Chinese one is cited, while the Indian one is not. He deleted it and replaced it with a unilateral Indian view
2. "In the summer of 1961, China began patrolling along the McMahon Line. In November, India responded by adopting a "forward policy" of placing military outposts in disputed areas." changed to "According to Neville Maxwell...". The Bernard Calvin book[6], Gregory Clark[7], Hindustan Times[8], etc all detail the Forward Policy. It's not simply a Maxwell opinion, and it looks like he's trying to discredit it by claiming it's only an opinion.
3. He deleted the entire paragraph: "On October 9th, General Kaul ordered General John Dalvi, Commander of the Seventh Brigade, to take Yumtso La Pass. On 10 October, an Indian military patrol advanced towards Yumtso La only to be met by an emplaced Chinese position of some 1,000 soldiers. The patrol was forced to retreat after taking heavy fire, officially suffering 50 percent casualties (7 killed, 7 missing, and 11 wounded), while the Chinese suffered 33 killed or wounded. The Chinese allowed them to withdraw, and held their fire as they retreated back across the bridge. They also buried the Indian dead with full military honors, in full view of the retreating Indian forces. This was the first occurence of heavy fighting in the war." With the loss of the paragraph came the loss of a lot of important information. He replaced it with a paragraph containing this line, "This event is signalled as the official start of the Sino-Indian War.(ref name="Calvin") China began advancing into Indian territory.(ref name="epoch")" The Calvin book doesn't actually say anywhere in the book, that there was an "official" start of the war. If so, I want an exact quote. The Epoch Times source[9] doesn't actually say this. Not a single date appears in it. This battle happened on Oct 10. The Chinese offensive and advance didn't occur till Oct. 20. Traing replaced a factually accurate paragraph with a false one.
4. Traing deleted this paragraph, "After four days of fierce fighting, the Chinese succeeded in securing a substantial portion of the disputed territory, and the fighting reached a lull, as Chinese forces refrained from further assaults. On the same day (October 24), Zhou Enlai ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing: 1) a negotiated settlement of the boundary, 2) that both sides disengage and withdraw twenty kilometers from present lines of actual control, 3) a Chinese withdrawal north in NEFA, and 4) that China and India not cross lines of pre-sent control in Aksai Chin. Nehru's October 27 reply express interest in the restoration of peace and friendly relations, but instead suggested a return to the "boundary prior to 8 September 1962". Zhou's November 4th reply clarified his offer as a return to the Indian-claimed McMahon Line in NEFA and the traditionally claimed MacDonald Line in Aksai Chin. On November 8, the Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to "drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India", and a November 14 letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal. Nehru was adamant to drive Chinese soldiers of what he called "the sacred soil of India"." Again loss of a lot of important information.
5. Traing deleted this paragraph, "The fighting resumed on the eastern theater on November 14th (Nehru's birthday), with an Indian offensive launched from Walong. The offensive failed, and the Chinese launched a counteroffensive which followed the retreating Indians and penetrated their defensive positions.(ref name="Calvin")" He replaced it with this: "After Zhou received Nehru's letter of defiance, he ordered his troops to launch a large-scale attack on India which would finally close the war and put the PLA in a strong position.(ref name="Calvin") The Calvin book doens't actually say this. It says that the Indian forces resumed the fighting with an offensive. Quoting from the book, "Even though Chinese strength at Rima (see Map Seven page 27) was estimated at a Division, the Walong force was planning to attack the Chinese on November 14th, Nehru's birth-day. General Kaul had planned a "first major success againstthe enemy" as a birthday present to Nahru. On November 14th, two companies of the Kumaon battalion, supported by mortars and artillery, launched an assault against a strategic hill held by company of Chinese fire, then stopped fifty yards from the crest, exhausted." The fighting resumed on Nov. 14, but the Chinese offensives on both fronts were launched on Nov. 17th and 18th. Again, Traing is inserting false statements into the article.
6. Traing deleted this paragraph, "On the western theater, PLA forces launched an infantry attack on November 18th near Chushul village. While frontal attacks were repelled, rear and flanking attacks succeeded, and five hours into the attack, succeeded in forcing an Indian withdrawal from every Indian position east of the Chinese claim line. The Chinese stopped at the claim line and did not assault the village." Especially telling was that he deleted the fact that the forces stopped short of the claim line.
7. Traing deleted this paragraph, "By November 20 (six days after the resumption of combat), there was no organised Indian resistance anywhere in the disputed territories. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, November 21. Later that same evening, Nehru made an appeal to the United States for armed aid, including airstrikes. The United States replied by sending an aircraft carrier towards the Bay of Bengal, but it was ordered back after the ceasefire. Zhou had first given the announcement to Indian charge d'affaires on November 19, (before India's request for United States air strikes) but New Delhi did not recieve it until 24 hours later.(ref name="Calvin")...And replaced it with this one: "The Chinese government claims the PLA penetrated close to the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly fifty kilometers from the Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border. Facing the idea of a bombing on Indian towns, the United States Navy sent an aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal due to reach there in late Nov(ref name="China-India Border War")". There are numerous problems with his replacements. First of all, the "Chinese government" doesn't claim, unnless the book publised by the US Marine College is the "Chinese government". In other words, another lie inserted by Traing. Second of all, he deleted the mention of the ceasefire. Third of all, the Calvin book never mentions that the aircraft carrier was sent because of bombing on Indian towns, but because of Nehru's request. If not, I want an exact quotation from the book of where it says this. Lastly, Traing inserted statements implying the ceasefire was becasue of the aircraft carrier. The Calvin book explicitly mentions that the ceasefire was declared before Nehru's request for US aid. Let me qutoe from the boook, "Dramatically, on November 20th, Chou Enlai publically announced a ceasefire. Actually, Chou had given the details of the ceasefire to the Indian charge d'affaires in Peking on the evening of November 19th (before India's request for United States air strikes), but New Delhi did not receive the report for over 24 hours." Again, that's being dishonest, by deliberately altering the chronological order, and then deleting cited facts which contradict this.
8. Traing added this sentence " While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India.(ref name="Dobell")" Where's the source for the first sentence, because the Dobell source certainly doesn't say this.
9. And he certainly doesn't have a source for this paragraph, either, "China's land gains prompted Pakistan to trigger the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, however, they failed against the Indian troops. In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Pakistan expected China to provide military support, but it was left alone as India successfully conquered East Pakistan and turned it into Bangladesh." Source for Pakistani motivations? Source for Pakistani expectations? India "conquered" East Pakistan (as opposed to it declaring independence)? Again, more of his problematic edits.
10. "Since then, the Chinese government began rigorous diplomatic leaps to reduce the negative light in which they were perceived as a result of their aggression" Source for this statement? I placed a {{Fact}} tag, he deleted it. Probably because he doesn't have one.
11. Traing deleted Henry Kissenger's response to the Maxwell book.
12. Deleted Alastair Lamb book reference.

• As shown, Traing's edits are highly problematic, and POV. --Yuje 11:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like readers to see the changes through the diffs and not through Yuje's words. Who accused me of deleting paragraphs I did not delete. Accused me of deleting paragraphs in other cases when I just reworded them. He minces my words: when I say The ceasefire also meant that China could avoid American intervention as the United States' aircraft carrier was sent back in response to the ceasefire., I am not implying China called for a ceasefire because of the Americans. It seems clear that because of the ceasefire China avoided American intervention. Yuje's POVed edits are problematic for this article. Traing 07:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Traing, I would appreciate if you can refute each of Yujie's above claims point by point, using links where applicable to support your claim that you did not delete certain paragraphs, rather than picking on one syntactic issue and using that to justify reverting all Yujie's edits.BeyRel 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Right:

1. Yuje's casus indicates that the war started months before the actual phases of the war shown by the article occurred. The cassus for the beginning of the official war was clearly the 1000-man attack on the Indian patrol, which triggered further Chinese successes in the coming months. I don't think presented the views is needed here.
2. It is Wikipedia's policy to attribute comments like these to the person who made them, in this case, according to Neville Maxwell, India did this. Yuje is breaking Wikipedia's policies.
3. Yuje is making up things to try and defame me. Look at the diff and you will see that I simply rephrased the paragraph to remove POV. However Traing says I deleted it. I expect that comment to be striked out.
4. I SIMPLY DID NOT DELETE THAT PARAGRAPH. If it was an accident then be more careful before accusing a person. If it wasn't then that is simply bad conduct. I expect that comment to be striked out.
5. I fixed that thing and readded Yuje's sentences.
6. Zhou said that and it is the claim of the Chinese government. The ceasefire information belongs in the next section and thus it is removed because it makes for less repetitive reading. Secondly, again you mince the truth by saying that what I am saying is false. Well I quote from Calvin: "Late on the evening of November 20th, prime Minister Nehru made an urgent and open appeal to the United States for armed intervention against the Chinese; he asked for bomber and fighter squadrons to begin air strikes on Chinese troops in Indian territory "if they continued to advance" and cover for Indian cities "in case the Chinese air force tried to raid them." So all I add is true.
7. It's obvious as to why Pakistan supports wars against India...do you want me to provide sources on why?
8. Maybe Yuje doesn't look at diffs carefully enough, I have referenced that from Hanhimaki.
9. That's why Zhou tried to explain the war to the US! We have a source for China being in a bad light, we have a source for Zhou trying to take China out of that bad light. Thus my sentence stands.
10. This article isn't about the book

Done. Traing 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More of Traing's edits

(his diff here)

1. Again, the Chinese casus belli is clearly cited and provided, and yet he deletes it again, in favor of presenting only the Indian POV. Multiple sources clearly highlight armed conflicts even before October, and Zhou clearly states the reason for war. I don't think Traing understands what a casus belli is. It's the reason a country goes to war. In China's case, it was because as Zhou stated, because of Indian troops north of the McMahon line. According to Traing, the Chinese casus belli was an attack on Indian lines. In other words, he's using circular logic and saying that starting the war was China's reason for starting the war!
2. "The beginning of the war was triggered by a Chinese attack on a routine Indian military patrol." Find an exact quote that says this. The Calvin book says it was not a routine military patrol, but that it was ordered into Chinese-controlled territory with the express goal of expelling the Chinese.
3. "November, India responded by adopting a "forward policy" of placing military outposts in disputed areas." was deleted, and changed to this: "Neville Maxwell referred to this as the forward policy.". As I said before, not only Maxwell refers to this as the Forward Policy. The Bernard Calvin book[10], Gregory Clark[11], Hindustan Times[12], Noorani[13] etc all detail and name the Forward Policy. Traing looks like he is trying to discredit it by attributing the Forward Policy as one man's opinion.
4. "The patrol was forced to retreat after taking heavy fire, officially suffering 50 percent casualties (7 killed, 7 missing, and 11 wounded), while the Chinese suffered 33 killed or wounded. The Chinese allowed them to withdraw, and held their fire as they retreated back across the bridge. They also buried the Indian dead with full military honors, in full view of the retreating Indian forces. This was the first occurence of heavy fighting in the war." Traing deleted this, without explanation.
5. Traing reworded this sentence "fighting reached a lull, as Chinese forces refrained from further assaults" to "Having achieved the Chinese government's mission of putting the Indians in their place, there was no reason to actually maintain forces in undisputed Indian territory"(ref name=Calvin)". Show the exact quote in the Calvin book where it says this. Traing takes it from a description, to a subjective one now, adding in POVed motivations and his opinions which he stated above, and are not actually in the book.
6. Traing added this: "Zhou was adamant to launch a large-scale attack on India which would finally close the war and put the PLA in a strong position, thus it took only hours for the Chinese to resume attacks on Aksai Chin and NEFA.(ref name="Calvin")" Nowhere in the book does it say this about Zhou Enlai. In fact, there's not a single mention of him in between his offer to negotiate during the lull, and his declaration of ceasefire. If not, provide the exact quote. Looks like he's putting words in the author's mouth. Nor does it say that the offensive resumed within hours. In fact, the book contains a timeline at the end, and here's what it says [14]. It shows that the Indian offensive lasted an entire day, and the Chinese were able to control Walong only two days afterwards, not hours, like Traing claims.

• November 14, 1962 - Nehru's birthday - Indians launch an attack on Chinese north of Walong
• November 15, 1962 - the Indian offensive fails
• November 16, 1962 - Chinese troops overrun Walong

1. "The Chinese stopped at the claim line and did not assault the village." Traing deleted this from the information about the attack in Chushul village, without an expalanation.
2. Traing deleted this, "By November 20 (six days after the resumption of combat), there was no organised Indian resistance anywhere in the disputed territories. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, November 21. Later that same evening, Nehru made an appeal to the United States for armed aid, including airstrikes. The United States replied by sending an aircraft carrier towards the Bay of Bengal, but it was ordered back after the ceasefire. Zhou had first given the announcement to Indian charge d'affaires on November 19, (before India's request for United States air strikes) but New Delhi did not recieve it until 24 hours later." And changed it to this:"The Chinese government claims the PLA penetrated close to the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly fifty kilometers from the Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border. With the Chinese outnumbering every Indian division and facing the idea of a bombing on Indian towns, the United States Navy sent an aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal due to reach there in late November." Traing deleted any mentions of the ceasefire, and also of Nehru requesting the aircraft carrier. Later, he adds a quote implying that the ceasefire occured primarily to allow the Chinese forces to avoid American intervention. Again, misleading through selective quotation. The Calvin book makes it clear the ceasefire was announced chronologically before the request for an aircraft carrier, and that the ceasefire did not take this as a reason into account.
3. Traing deleted this "The PLA withdrew to positions it had occupied before the war and on which China had staked its diplomatic claim. China also returned all weapons and vehicles seized from Indian troops during the war, and released all prisoners unconditionally. " And replaced it with this: "China kept 33% of the territory they had captured and returned the rest" First of all, he's deleting valid information, and second of all, he's implying all the territory in Chinese control was "captured", instead of disputed. The Indian army never held effective control of 100% of all the territory they claimed, but Traing is implying that all of Chinese-held land was "captured", and implying it was illigitimate. The Chinese forces kept 33% of disputed territory, not 33% of territory they actually gained. Here's what the book actually says:

   The pre-McMahon line along the foot of the hills. Chou had simply restated the compromise that he had been offering for over three years: India could keep the disputed territory north to the McMahon Line in NEFA, but China would keep the disputed territory in Aksai Chin. Of the 47,000 square miles of disputed border land, Chou's ceasefire gave a full 68% (the 32,000 square miles of NEFA) to India, and kept only 32% (the 15,000 miles of Aksai Chin) for China! Rather than the "victor keeping the spoils," Peking kept only what was strategically vital: the area surrounding her critical military road in Aksai Chin.

4. "Since then, the Chinese government began rigorous diplomatic leaps to reduce the negative light in which they were perceived as a result of their aggression." Again, POVed as one-sided aggression, still no citation on it, and in fact he deleted the citation request.
5. "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India." Another inserted POVed statement. How many will he continue to make?

To conclude, Traing has made numerous troubling POVed statements, serious factual errors (or deliberate lies), and has even misquoted cites to justify non-existent statements in those very sources himself. Traing obviously believes strongly in what he is doing, as seen by his posts above, yet I wonder how he believes he can only convince other people with blatent editorializing, misleading, and deletion of cited and factual statements. Because of these POV edits, I have to revert again. Seriously, learn to stop deleting facts, learn to stop editorializing and inserting your own opinions everywhere. --Yuje 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope s/he could be neutral,from the sources which I could find,it was the indian army who took the initiative for this war....Deleting the verifiable sources are not welcome in Wiki.--Ksyrie 11:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. According to Calvin, the war started on October 10 with the Chinese offensive. There are sources saying the Chinese simply wanted this war to impose their strength, which they did quite effectively. Please bring something other than a politician trying to make his country's image better in the eyes of the United States.
2. Fixed, deleted 'routine' since it causes too much controversy here.
3. Fixed, deleted mention of Neville Maxwell.
4. Again, making things up, I did not delete the paragraph, if you look at the diff, I EXPANDED it. Again, I expect you to strike out that comment as invalid, that's common courtesy. I would appreciate it if you didn't make things up like that.
5. Calvin says clearly: "Only hours after the Walong defeat, fighting would resume in both Aksai Chin and Se La.". The timeline is in brief, the text is more detailed.
6. Fixed.
7. I explained that in the above discussion, repetition of points that have been rebutted does not help.
8. I added detail and yes China captured that territory during the war, there is nothing wrong with my changes here.
9. That's obvious, that's why Zhou went to America!
10. Have added a source.

Done again, many of your comments are valid but some of them are just not true (accusing me of deleting things I did not delete) and I won't accept that. Traing 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why you stated the war broke at october?In fact battle started in June..I felt you just want to gloss over the very early stage of the war.--Ksyrie 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The war started in October according to Calvin. By the way, I noticed your edits prior to mine and they were way more POV than mine have ever been accused of being and also contained bad grammar and redundant headers (no offense meant, just a general comment), greatly reducing the quality of the article. However, it did not occur to Yuje to revert you, but he suddenly appeared when I made my first message on this talk page. Traing 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called real life. If you notice my contribs page, during Kysyrie's main period of edits, I didn't make any edits to Wikipedia at all, neither on this page or any other. After my return, I noticed incredibly biased edits and changes, mostly based on user:NobleEagle's previous edits, and acted accordingly.

1. It's clear you don't know what a casus belli is. Look it up in a dictionary. "An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war." A casus belli is the reason for a country to go to war. Obvioiusly, the Chinese and Indians had different reasons for war, and obviously, their attack wasn't the Chinese reason for war, but an implementation of it.
2. He deleted this line, "After four days of fierce fighting, the Chinese succeeded in securing a substantial portion of the disputed territory, and the fighting reached a lull, as Chinese forces refrained from further assaults. On the same day (October 24), Zhou Enlai ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru." and replaced it with this, "By October 24th, the PLA had advanced within Indian territory and taken advantage of the unprepared Indian troops to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India." Again, POV changes, by changing "disputed territory" to "Indian territory", deleted the part about the refrain from further assaults, and the order to stop advancing. And "take advantage"? You'd probably be just as quick to delete it if I used the phrasing "take advantage" to describe the actions of Indian soldiers, such as during the forward policy, for example. And lastly, what source says this resulted in its strong diplomatic position? If it were in such a strong diplomatic position, why weren't they abel to solve it diplomatically?
3. When Chinese entered disputed regions, Traing's edits say, ""They entered parts of Indian administered regions and much angered the Indians in doing so." When Indian forces entered disputed regions, Traing's edits say, "He, of course, did not believe he was intruding on Chinese territory." More editorializing, eh? Either delete this, or I'll add that the Indian forces were entering Chinese-administered regions (which they were), and that the Chinese did not believe they were intruding on Indian territory.
4. He re-added this, "Zhou was adamant to launch a large-scale attack on India which would finally close the war and put the PLA in a strong position, thus it took only hours for the Chinese to resume attacks on Aksai Chin and NEFA." Again, where in the book does it give Zhou's motivations for it? Again, both the description in the book and the timeline given contradict this. Indian offensive Nov 14, fails Nov 15, Chinese offensive on Nov 17, days later, not hours. The book says fighting resumed, within hours, not a Chinese attack.
5. Deleted line, "The Chinese stopped at the claim line and did not assault the village.", without ever explaining why (and then claiming he did).
6. Again, deletion of this paragraph, "By November 20 (six days after the resumption of combat), there was no organised Indian resistance anywhere in the disputed territories. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, November 21. Later that same evening, Nehru made an appeal to the United States for armed aid, including airstrikes. The United States replied by sending an aircraft carrier towards the Bay of Bengal, but it was ordered back after the ceasefire. Zhou had first given the announcement to Indian charge d'affaires on November 19, (before India's request for United States air strikes) but New Delhi did not recieve it until 24 hours later." He keeps deleting this, and the replaced line implies that the United States move was an independent one, as opposed to India requesting military aid (after the declared ceasefire). I reworded it to incorporate why Nehru requested aid, but I hope Traing doesn't try to delete the chronological order of the events again.
7. "The United States Air Force flew in supplies to India in November 1962, but neither side wished to continue hostilities. The PLA withdrew to positions it had occupied before the war and on which China had staked its diplomatic claim. China also returned all weapons and vehicles seized from Indian troops during the war, and released all prisoners unconditionally." Deleted without expalanation.
8. Again the addition of this sentence, "China kept 33% of the territory they had captured and returned the rest". This number includes the Aksai Chin, which was disputed territory that India never held administrative control of 100% of, and the book makes this clear. So stating that China catpured it during the war is inaccurate. The book states that the Chinese forces withdrew to positions held on Nov 7, prior to the start of the conflict The wording is also not neutral, since "captured territory" is more loaded than "disputed territory". If you're talking about the positions that the Chinese occupied during the war, then China kept 100% of the Aksai Chin and returned 100% of the eastern territories.
9. "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India." Given Traing's previous record of putting words in the mouths of authors (such as with the use of the Epoch Times source), I want to see an exact quotation of what the book actually says. Did an actual Pakistani minister say this, was it Henry Kissenger's opinion that this was so, or did Pakistan issue a government statement declaring it appreciated Chinese agression?
10. Citation still needed for this statement. "Since then, the Chinese government began rigorous diplomatic leaps to reduce the negative light in which they were perceived as an aggressor.". Zhou's conversation with Nixon was over a decade later, during normalizing US-PRC relations. You know, Nixon in China and all that? Prior to this, the US did not even recognize the PRC. Tell me how this is instead a "rigorous diplomatic leap to reduce the negative light in which they were percieved as an aggressor." Based on Nixon's and Kissenger's own statements, they changed their perceptions not because of any "rigorous diplomatic leaps", but because of a better understanding of the facts.

Other changes:

1. "It is important to remember that this war coincided with the Cuban Missile Crisis and was viewed by the western nations at the time as another act of aggression by the Communist bloc. (ref name="Cuba") The Chinese side, although in a militarily advantageous position, thus had strong strategic reasons to contain and conclude the conflict as quickly as possible." First of all, why is it "important to remember" this? Why editorialize? The link only gives a timeline to the Cuban missile crisis half a world away, and doens't contain a single mention of China, and it seems to be drawing an OR link between the two events. Deleted this. --Yuje 11:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

1. Fixed.
2. It's common political science that you have more bargaining power when you are in territory which was previously administered by another nation. Fixed remaining concerns.
3. The attacks in Aksai Chin and NEFA hours after the Indian defeat were Chinese attacks, that's quite obvious.
4. Fixed. The ceasefire stuff is in the section below that one.
5. The paragraph is not neutral. It implies that the PLA retreated immediately to positions before the war, not making it clear that they keep Aksai Chin to this date.
6. Fixed.
7. The sources says because of China's actions in 1962 Pakistan expected help from them in 1971 and were most disappointed when it wasn't received. Pakistan, at this time, also expected help from the US and UK, which it also did not receive.
8. To try and explain the conflict is a diplomatic move.

Traing 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My reply:

1. No you didn't. You claimed that neutral sources give a Chinese attack as a casus belli. 1)The source doens't say this. If you care to, quote where it does. In fact, the book summarizes both country's reasons for conflict. Nations continue to go to war, especially if negotiations yield no compromise, over issues that are strategically impor- tant to them. "India had long been concerned about maintaining a buffer zone between her and her powerful neighbors--Russia and China--to the north. China not only felt that Aksai Chin was legitimately hers (especially with little or no Indian presence in the area to indicate otherwise), but she was also adamant about the area because of the strategically important military highway which bisected it. There may well have been room for compromise over these issues, but stuubornness and India's aggressive forward policy resulted in armed conflict. World leaders must heed other nations' stated vital strategic objectives. " 2)Again, you don't understand what a casus belli is. Look up the definition again. A casus belli is a justification for going to war. There is no "neutral casus belli", since by definition, someone neutral did not participate in the war, and thus does not have a casus belli!. Why would a neutral need a casus belli, since they're not trying to start or join a war and thus have no need to justify it? Jeez. Look up casus bell in any dictionary, on wikipedia, or on any political science book.
2. No OR. Cite a source that the events that occured actually gave it a diplomatically strong position. Traing's edits constantly push to suggest that the war put China into a negative light diplomatically, and yet simultaneously keeps insisting that China was also gaining diplomatic strength and trying to take advantage of it. And please don't try to pass off as being remotely knowledgeable about political science when you don't even know what a casus bell is.
3. Traing keeps on deleting Chinese victory from the infobox. Every single source indicates that China was victorious in the war, and it was military successful as well, so it's hardly POV to indicate it. The Calvin book, for example, makes states it quite clearly, and Traing's edits indicate he regards it as a "neutral source". It says, "With the disintegration of 48 Brigade at 3 a.m. on Novem- ber 20th, no organized Indian military force was left in NEFA (nor in Aksai Chin). Militarily, the Chinese victory was complete, and the Indian defeat absolute." Traing seems to have no problem with existing textbox info in Indo-Pakistani wars which indicate Indian victories, in fact, he personally added text to this article which indicated that India was victorious against Pakistan in a war. So quit deleting this for the the sake of your POV and your wounded ego already.
4. It's quite clear that India never had administraive and de-facto control of all of the Aksai Chin, and hadn't for years, and haven't even noticed the highway going through it. To claim that it was captured during the war is inaccurate. "Disputed territory" is a more neutral term than "Indian territory".
5. Traing keeps changing this sentence, "There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line." to "There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 which China believes were part of its territory". Again, please stop weaseling. Three sources (Calvin, Noorani, Maxwell, indicate the first (north of the McMahon line), not the second, and this is an important indication, because it's cited in the Chinese casus belli, and while the Aksai Chin was disputed territory, the area north of the McMahon line wasn't. Please stop deleting this.
6. Traing seems to repeatedly keep on deleting this sentence, "On October 9th, General Kaul ordered General John Dalvi, Commander of the Seventh Brigade, to take Yumtso La Pass". No edit summary, no answers to my previous inquiries, just a delete. It's clearly cited, clearly indicated, and as a simple statement of fact, offers no POV or editorializing, unlike some other edits I could care to name. Traing does seem quite delete-happy about sentences.
7. Traing also deleted this line again, despite me calling on him for the third time, and him not answering it. "The Chinese allowed them to withdraw, and held their fire as they retreated back across the bridge. They also buried the Indian dead with full military honors, in full view of the retreating Indian forces. This was the first occurence of heavy fighting in the war." Again, no explanation, no edit summaries, no discussion. He keeps on insisting that the war was initiated by a Chinese attack, even editorializes to try to justify it, but deletes the details mentioned in the previous line, and deleting this line.
8. Again, the Cuba source doesn't contain a single mention of China, only the US and USSR. Trying to draw OR conclusions between this and and Chinese actions half a world away without citations won't cut it.
9. Traing deleted this line, "The Chinese stopped at the claim line and did not assault the Chusul itself.". No expalation, as usual.
10. Traing deleted this line, no explanation. "By November 20 (six days after the resumption of combat), there was no organised Indian resistance anywhere in the disputed territories."
11. Traing deleted this line, "The United States replied by sending an aircraft carrier towards the Bay of Bengal, but it was ordered back after the ceasefire. Zhou had first given the ceasefire announcement to Indian charge d'affaires on November 19, (before India's request for United States air strikes) but New Delhi did not recieve it until 24 hours later.". He claims it was covered in the ceasefire section, but it wasn't. He simply deleted it. His edits imply the ceasefire was ordered to avoid airstrikes, when the ceasefire was in fact ordered before the carrier was even sent.
12. Deleted Zhou quote, no reason given.
13. Traing changed this line, "The PLA withdrew to positions it had occupied before the war and on which China had staked its diplomatic claim (keeping 32% of the disputed territory and returning 68%)." The Chinese had de-facto control of Aksai Chin before the war.
14. "Since then, the Chinese government began rigorous diplomatic leaps to reduce the negative light in which they were perceived as a result of their aggression." Still no cite for the "rigorous diplomatic leaps", and deleted cite tag again, only an excuse that one conversation is a diplomatic move. Right, that's a evidence of systematic "rigorous diplomatic leaps" despite no official diplomatic contact for a decade between the war and the this conversation (which wasn't even focused on the war, I might add). Please, stop ORing and BSing, and provide a source. I'm deleting this line. Don't bring it back till you have your source.

Why does Traing like deleting simple facts, but insist on keeping editorials that tell the reader what to think? He makes edits that say "It's important to remember this..." and "China's motives were this..." and "the world considered this..." while deleting lines that say, "these outposts were north of these geographic coordinates", and "the ceasefire happened before a request for an aircraft carrier" and "General Kaul ordered Dalvi to take this pass", "Chinese forces stopped at the claim line", and "after the ceasfire, they returned prisoners", and so on? From his first complaint on this page

1. OK, I understand
2. Political science is not only based on casus belli and wars in general. It's a very broad topic. It's common knowledge, it's effectively a "You are not in a position to bargain with us" type case.
3. This is more informative in an infobox than to simply say "Chinese victory; subsequent ceasefire", victory doesn't mean anything, did it mean China drove troops out of China, did it mean an Indian patrol surrendered. And of course there was a ceasefire. WP:NPA
4. It was previously listed as part of India, thus it was previously Indian territory. China exercized very little control over it.
5. Because it's misrepresentation of facts. Kaul first ordered Dalvi to secure the pass but then decided against it. I feel you are fully aware of this but just want to make it seem like India was slowly invading.
6. Undue weight. It's common military practice and Calvin just mentions it to tell everyone that common military practice occurred.
7. I'm sure you are aware of the Cold War, the Communist Bloc and the fear the rest of the world had over communists. That was why the US feared them. I quote Calvin: "Western nations, especially the United States, were already suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; after all, People's Republic leader Mao had stated that "The way to world conquest lies through Havana, Accra, and Calcutta."
8. I have to point out that much of what you add is plagiarism. I added that China did not go past Aksai Chin, which is enough and much more informative.
9. It gives an implication that India had collapsed and was completely disorganized when it was in fact readying itself to retake the territories and had called to the US to help them in this.
10. It is covered effectively enough.
11. Politicians aren't considered a source of fact on Wikipedia.
12. India had control, that's why China had to go to war to capture it, otherwise there shouldn't have been resistance and fighting at the border if there had already been de facto control.
13. I'll reword it.

Traing 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, source that Zhou was attempting to "take advantage" using a superior diplomatic position?
2. Not a problem to expand on the short infobox description, but again, that you keep on wanting to delete which side was the victor seems suspect and not but a litle biased, considering you have no problem indicating Indian victories in other situations. However, the description of "capturing Indian territory" is biased, because the Chinese forces did not consider it to be legitimate Indian territory, and it never ventured into undisputed Indian territory. "Disputed territories" is a more preferable term.
3. Again, I want the exact quotation, not a paraphrase, of what the Hanhimaki book says. Multiple times in your previous edits have sources been misquoted, or the citation simply not existing, as with the Epoch Times source, the Cuba source never mentioning Chinese involvement with coordinating with the crisis, the claim from the book of a "routine" military patrol, and so on. Exact quote from the book, please. What does it say, and who said it?
4. When was Aksai Chin listed as part of India, and by whom? India? Here's what the book says,

   It is significant that while over 47,000 square miles of frontier were in contention between China and India, that the fighting was confined to areas where the Chinese felt that they had legitimate claims. In Walong, the British (O'Callaghan, in 1914) had moved the previously agreed British and Chinese border markers northward. In Tawang, portions of India's forward policy extended even north of their claim, the McMahon Line. And in Aksai Chin, the Chinese firmly believed that the (1899) MacDonald-Macartney Line had been the accepted boundary for decades. In any case, no official boundary, over the 2,500 miles frontier, had ever been negotiated and established between the two countries.

In other words, there was no negotiated boundary between India and China. Only India and the British Empire listed it as part of India. The Maxwell book, for example, says "The Indian Amy map showed Galwan valley as one of the best routes to move into Chinese-held territory, which was one of Kaul's orders to establish a post in November 1961. The terrain in the valley was extremely difficult and the Chinese had already had a post there since at least 1959.", which means that Chinese control of areas of the Aksai Chin existed years before the start of this war. Labeling it as Indian t

1. Traing changed this sentence yet again. "There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line". All three sources claim this fact, as well as that they were north of the McMahon line, meaning both India and China considered it to be Chinese territory. Traing changes it to "past areas China considered to be its territory." Misrepresentation of both the facts and the source. He ignores me calling him on this deletion again.
2. Traing delets this whole section, "The Chinese allowed them to withdraw, and held their fire as they retreated back across the bridge. They also buried the Indian dead with full military honors, in full view of the retreating Indian forces. This was the first occurence of heavy fighting in the war.". I have a hard time beleiving that Traing wants to delete this setion because of "undue weight". He changed the description of the Indian general ordered to take a pass to it being a "routine patrol", he previous inserted an incorrect statement that this battle started a Chinese advance into India, he has mentioned several times this as being an aggressive invasion, and he keeps deleting mention that the generals were ordered to take the position from the Chinese. This leads me to believe he is deleting this for POV reasons. It certainly doesn't sound like standard military practice to withhold fire from retreating units, and it doesn't seem like Indian troops extended the same courtesy back. Both the Maxwell and Calvin book find this incident notable enough to record.
3. The line about the forces stopping at the claim line near Chushul need to be readded. Traing's edits seem like he's trying to imply that the war in the Aksai Chin ended because of high casualties on both sides. Possible, but it's also possible that for political reasons Chinese forces chose not to advance further past the claim line. Both Calvin and Maxwell support the second position, so while I don't believe in using Wikipedia to advocate such a position, it should note that attack halted short of the claim lime, since this line plays an important role in the two side's arguments for legitimacy in the war.
4. Again, the Cuba source makes not a single mention of China. It's true that the Cuba missile crisis was occuring near that time. However, Traing is making an OR assertion not supported by the source that the war was coordinated with the events of this crisis. And it even tells the reader outright that Chinese policy was to end the war to coincide with the crisis, despite the fact that studies on the war have not done so. That time was in the middle of the Sino-Soviet split, and in fact China was denouncing Soviet actions in the Cuban missile crisis while the USSR was more supportive of India suring the war. Thus, your edits suggesting that western nations viewed the war alongside the missile crsis as a coordinated communist event is suspect, unless you actually produce a source saying so.
5. The deletion of the chronological events of the aircraft carrier to not lead to it being sufficiently covered. Again, your version of the article implies that the ceasefire resulted in a fear of airstrikes, since you explicitly deleted the segment which says that the ceasefire was declared before the request for an aircraft carrier. You could simply have added that Nehru called for US airstrikes as part of a plan to retake them, but instead, you deleted it all and wrote a summary that the ceasefire was a result of the aircraft carrier, which sounds deliberately misleading.
6. Zhou isn't being cited as a source for fact, but for the speech itself, which is notable, since it ended the war. Same situation as your addition of the speech by the Delhi home minister.
7. There was resistance and fighting at the border even at locations north of the McMahon line, which neither side claimed was Indian territory, as several sources attest. And those several sources also attest that India did not have defacto control of Aksai Chin and thus didn't even know of the exitence of a highway in the area until years after it was built. In addition, it was never universally recognized as Indian territory. Which is why they should be indicated as disputed territories. --Yuje 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you point out where it says that so I can fix it?
2. Victory is a subjective word and I prefer not to use it. Can you please point out where I have placed information on Indian victories in infoboxes??
3. I used the source from it's use in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. So no, I don't possess the book, but if you see that article it draws the same facts from the book as I have written here. You may want to ask over there for a quote.
4. Where's the paragraph/sentence in dispute again?
5. Fixed
6. I didn't add the information about a routine patrol. I deleted it. And it is WP:Undue weight
7. I understand the problem now, I fixed it.
8. Calvin speaks of how Western nations considered it an attack by the Communist bloc, the Cuban Missile Crisis obviously added to this fear of communists.
9. I did not do any such thing. I only wrote the fact that the ceasefire stopped the US from intervening.
10. I may be mistaken about your concerns can you point out which speech you are referring to?
11. Aksai China was part of the Indian state of Kashmir in 1947.

Traing 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More of Traing's edits 2

Thanks for the fixes. Quick points:

• Looks like you don't actually have a source saying on Pakistan's motives, and you just made it up, since you can't even provide what the cite says. If you haven't read a cite, and don't know what it says, then don't make up statements based on them. The book itself is not cited in the book you mentioned, other than being listed as further reading. Since you make the claims, burden of proof is on you.
• Kaul's orders to take the pass aren't undue weight. It wasn't a minor skirmish, it was a strategic objective. I'll expand on it, and explain that he chose to send the patrol instead of assaulting.
• The only think Calvin says about the Cuban missile crisis was that it preoccupied Russia. It doesn't say anything about western nations drawing a connection between this
• Aksai Chin was also part of Xinjiang and the eastern area was part of South Tibet, too. India can make the claims, but it never had control of all of Kashmir, or all of the Aksai Chin. This link which you so gracious provided, says about areas claimed by India, that "Indian forces cannot be physically present on every inch of ground and therefore to say that Chinese have claimed more land over time may be incorrect. Old Demchok was never on the Indian side of the LAC. Moreover, the Indian forces do not recognize a difference between Old Demchok and New Demchok." Labelling such areas never controlled by India as "captured Indian land" is POVed. Here's a map which shows the Chinese-controlled areas prior to September 7, 1962. [15] Taken from this article [16]. The article clearly claims that the Chinese had occupied these areas prior to the war, not India. --Yuje 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Later border disputes"?

To me, it is much better to focus on what has happened in 1962 war. There is no need to second guess the diplomatic action and words of war since then. From the description leading up to the war, it is very clear the position held by both side and the arguments and skirmish were and are the extension of the same old argument. The following section sounds more like a face saving rather than neutral POV.

In 1967, an armed conflict between the two sides occurred in Sikkim. The conflict was dubbed the "Chola incident". A group of Indian Gurkha rifles noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post in Sikkim. After a heated argument over the control of a boulder, a Chinese soldier bayoneted an Indian sentry, triggerring the start of a short-range firefight. The Chinese troops signalled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there. The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the border. The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.

In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the dispute area and set up an observation post for the summer in Sumdorong Cha Valley. The Indian team left the area before the winter. In the winter of 1986, the Chinese deployed their troops to the Sumdorong Chu before the Indian team could arrive in the summer and built a Helipad at Wandung. The New Delhi government reacted swiftly and the Chinese withdrew before any conflict could arise

-- 128.231.88.4 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Yuje's edits

I'm not the only one who has made controversial edits diff:

1. Yuje consistently rewords NEFA to say north of the McMahon Line when Calvin says the battle was in disputed territory in NEFA.
2. Yuje consistenly simplifies the result to simply say "Chinese victory" instead of a more informative description.
3. Yuje deleted this paragraph without explanation: "In 1913-14, representatives of Britain, China, and Tibet attended a conference in Simla, India and drew up an agreement concerning Tibet's status and borders. The McMahon Line, a proposed boundary between Tibet and India for the eastern sector, was drawn by British negotiator Henry McMahon on a map attached to the agreement. All three representatives initialed the agreement, but Beijing immediately objected to the proposed Sino-Tibet boundary and repudiated the agreement. After approving a note which stated that China could not enjoy rights under the agreement unless she ratified it, the British and Tibetan negotiators signed the Simla Convention as a bilateral accord. McMahon had been instructed not to sign bilaterally with Tibetans if China refused, but he did so without the Chinese representative present and then kept the declaration secret. "
4. Yuje renames "Events leading up to the war" as the "Indian Forward Policy".
5. Yuje deleted "One week prior to the war, Zhou Enlai visited Nehru in New Delhi, promising there would be no war between the nations and reiterating his wishes to solve the dispute diplomatically.", again no explanation.
6. Yuje removed the Sino-Indian War image with a map showing Aksai Chin and NEFA, again, no explanation.
7. Removed sourced information: "In the winter of 1986, the Chinese deployed their troops to the Sumdorong Chu before the Indian team could arrive in the summer and built a Helipad at Wandung. The New Delhi government reacted swiftly and the Chinese withdrew before any conflict could arise" and replaced it with unsourced information "In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the dispute area and set up an observation post for the summer in Sumdorong Cha Valley. The Indian team left the area before the winter."
8. Removed sourced information: "On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962."

I request answers to these problems. Traing 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The 43 number as past the McMahon line is clearly given in the Noorani source[17].
2. I reworded it to be more neutral, to say "disputed territory" instead of "Indian territory", and "occupy" instead of "captured"
3. Look at it more carefully. It's a duplicated paragraph, repeated word for word, in the paragraph above. Oh, and Traing claimed I deleted it without explanation. I clearly explaned in my edit summary it was a duplicate paragraph. [18]
4. Wrong. It's a Ksyrie edit I didn't notice it while editing and in any case didn't see a substantial problem with it.
5. You made an entire series of POVed edits, which I detailed. I listed some 20+ points above that I thought were biased. I didn't have the time to sit down and sift through each of them individually one by one, so I did a full revert.
6. Ditto.
7. Ditto.
8. Ditto.

--Yuje 09:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When I revert in this dispute I go through all the edits you made and add any legitimate ones. I would reccomend you doing the same. And while it is Ksyrie's edit, by letting it be included you are making it your edit just like you keep accusing me of talking about "routine military patrols" when I added nothing of the sort, just reverted to a version which had such text in it. And I believe it is wrong to place China's claims on Tibet, it's military buildup along the border and all of the negotiations prior to the war into the heading of "India's Forward Policy". Traing 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I mean by misquoting and misleading

Traing added this edit: "China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam) and also has silenced its claims over most of Arunachal Pradesh apart from Tawang.(ref name="IPCS")Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies(/ref) This is controversial, as this means the intrusion within these regions were completely unjustified during the war."

I invite anyone to go read those two articles and see exactly where it says this. The first summarizes Chinese border disputes, and says nowhere that China gave up the most of the Arunachal Pradesh claim, nor does it make mention of Tawang. The second one accuses India of being soft on the border dispute, nothing of Chinese silencing claims on Arunachal Pradesh. And from there, Traing adds his own little editorial to tell us readers that that this is controversial and that China's claims were "completely unjustified". I invite anyone to look at the links themselves and compare with Traing's edits, quoted above.--Yuje 09:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You donn't need to refute him one instance by one instance.The Wiki asked for verifiable resources and he just came up with the resources which favoured his POV.Go direct add what you find,Maybe sometimes there are contradictory statements in the wiki article,but the readers can make their conclusions.User:Traing is totally biased,s/he keep other from talking and tried to maintain his or her POV in this article whatever the truth is.--Ksyrie 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing this only to try to convince Traing, but to justify my edits, and to explicitly list out the parts I thought were POV, so that he can try to improve his edits in the future to be less POV, if he feels inclined to do so. If not, listing all these points also lets other editors know which particular points are biased, inaccurate, or misleading, and why, and they can correct the article also without me having to patrol the page against trolls and POV-pushers. --Yuje 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit the final sentence does not comply with wikipolicy. But the first source says China has given up claims on Assam and Sikkim. The second source says China claims Tawang for itself, as opposed to the entirety of Arunachal Pradesh, that's why it has silenced it's claim. Traing 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? The first link says,

With the Indian parliament resolution in 1994 to include the POK areas in their claims, the Chinese position has also changed slightly. The Indian PM's stated commitment to recover the Shaksgam valley led to hardening of the Chinese stand and after exchanging maps of the Middle sector there has been no progress in the process till date. However, from June 2003 China agreed that it had only 14 land neighbors instead of the earlier claim of 15 (the claim on Sikkim was dropped and its accession to India was recognized).

and

The Chinese also now identify the eastern sector as the most important disputed area a shift from their position of several decades ago. There has also been a change in China's position from solving the border dispute "immediately" when talks began to "ultimately" in 1982-83, stating that it was a complicated issue and would be solved by the next generation.

and

The Zhou Enlai visit in 1960 had come up with an offer for swapping territories - for India to accept Chinese claims in Aksai Chin in return for China accepting Indian claims in Arunachal. Now that the Chinese have shifted their focus to saying that the eastern sector is the most important, what is the possibility of agreement on an LAC?

and

he Chinese negotiating position has hardened over the years and the longer the delay, the harder the position gets

and

Indian forces cannot be physically present on every inch of ground and therefore to say that Chinese have claimed more land over time may be incorrect. Old Demchok was never on the Indian side of the LAC. Moreover, the Indian forces do not recognize a difference between Old Demchok and New Demchok.

and

The LAC clarification was put on the backburner following the beginning of the Special Representative talks. However, the clarification of the LAC has not been dropped. The Chinese had only asked for going from the easy to the more difficult. It was expected that as we moved from the easier to more difficult areas, things would take more time.

It doesn't say anywhere in the article about giving up claims anywhere. In fact, it seems to indicate the opposite. The second link doesn't say this, either. It was the response to the Chinese claim on eastern sector. And just as recently as half a year ago, the claims to the entirety of the eastern portion were restated by the Chinese. [19] So, not even the first sentence is accurate.--Yuje 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The first sources says "the claim on Sikkim was dropped and its accession to India was recognized". That wasn't so hard... Traing 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Where's the part about the claim to Arunachal Pradesh being dropped? Did that come out of nowhere? Again, the article doesn't say this, but Traing's edit claims this, and then says that therefore Chinese claims in the eastern section, which lie in Arunachal Pradesh were unjustified. First, he misquotes the source and makes a false statement, and then a POV claim based on the first.--Yuje 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and again, I want the full quote for this statement, "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India." from the Hanhimaki source. What is the full quote and who said it? Given the misleading edits and misquoting done with this source, I remain suspicious of this one untill I see the full quotation. --Yuje 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It says that within Arunachal Pradesh, China is claiming Tawang. Indicating that the rest of Arunachal Pradesh is out of their interests. I'll see whether I can find another source. Traing 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble. Just a few months ago, the Chinese ambassador to India restated the Chinese claims to the Arunachal Pradesh, all of it, not just Tawang. [20], and this was an official statement, not an off the cuff remark. --Yuje 09:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)