Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes

Non English sources

@Fenal Kalundo: Since you added a couple of sources in Chinese language to the article, as per WP:NOENG, I request you to provide quotations from those sources for all the content you added, so that it can be verified. And regarding the figures that you modified, [1] - this source clearly says, the New China News Agency report broadcast by Peking Radio said that "unspecified" number of Chinese causalities occurred during the clashes. So this will stay in the infobox until a clarification is provided on this. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: Thanks for the formatting. I have re-edited my contents so they all have quotations now. In regards to the casualties, China side does have the loss count and the source has been clearly provided in my quotations. It is misleading to add unilateral conclusion in the overview, those content should be added in the sub-sections below. --Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fenal Kalundo Ping works only if you do it the first time you save your edit. And [2] - this source is not an Indian source. Neither is it endorsing any "Indian version". Its neither written by an Indian and more importantly, it is internationally published and reviewed. So what is your justification in inserting its observations under "Indian version"? Its observation that India was victorious defeating Chinese forces, is a neutral third party assessment. So it does not stay in "Indian version". Unless you can provide another such independent reliable source which says something otherwise about the result of the clashes, this one will stay in the lead without change.
• Also the first line of the lead which you're repeatedly modifying, and writing India version claims the Nathu La and Cho La incidents were a series of military clashes between India and China in the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.: I'm not sure what on earth you are trying to do over here! What's India's version in that? Please clarify. Did China's version said otherwise? As you yourself wrote here, did China say that these incidents were some Olympic games and not military clashes?
• Lastly, the line which you wrote in this edit: all violent conflicts between India and Kingdom of Sikkim started after 1968.: You did not provide a quote from which you were adding that information, so I don't know what that source says about it. In any case, that information is totally inaccurate as India did not have any "violent conflicts" with the Kingdom of Sikkim, and as this well published independent & reliable source tells, India acquired the state of Sikkim through a democratic referendum. It is in no way a "coup" and there were no anti India revolts before, as you wrote in this edit. In fact, there were rather anti-Chougyal (Sikkim ruler) protests as you can read at the end of this page. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  

@Tyler Durden: Thanks for the advices.

1. I rearrange the article based on your suggestion, all third party sources are put in the lead now. I modified the citation from [3] since this article doesn't mention that China "withdrew" but only said China was defeated.
2. I clarify China's description over these incidents to show the difference. The difference is while India claimed the battle location was in Sikkim, China said the clashes were limited to the central sector along the China-Sikkim border and China army didn't step into Sikkim region during that time.
3. I now add the original text into the quotation after all violent conflicts between India and Kingdom of Sikkim started after 1968..The purpose of citation is to show China perceived these incidents are irrelevant to Kingdom of Sikkim. Since this page is about the 1967 incidents, I don't want to put too much effort on how India annexed Sikkim. If you are still unhappy about this paragraph, please leave the message, I can re-edit it later.—Fenal Kalundo (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fenal Kalundo: there are serious problems with your edits. Wikipedia articles should be based on WP:THIRDPARTY sources as far as possible. India and China, being parties to the dispute, do not count as "third parties". You cannot use them to counter third party sources. You need to provide third party sources that back Chinese claims.

Secondly, it is a requirement of Wikipedia that sources must be published reliable sources. Web sites are not reliable sources. For published sources, you need to indicate author, publisher and date of publication, and if they are in foreign languages, quotes and translations as requested by Tyler Durden. Please propose your suggested content here, and achieve consensus before inserting it into the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Hi, thank you for showing me the policy. However, I argue I do provide third party source and independent reliable source here, I can add the missing information in reference if requested so, I simply just don't know the policy before. In regards to the dispute, it is clear that I did respect other's opinion and I keep all others' contribution in this page. And it should be seen that I constantly improve my work based on Tyler Durden's request and suggestion, and all gave unambiguous reasons on my every edits. Plus, history shows that I responded all Tyler Durden messages in talks and address all his concerns. I didn't see the necessary to lock the editing here, since every time there was a concern or dissent, I modified my work accordingly. Therefore I here request to remove the protection on this page so I can continue improve my work based on the new information suggested by you. Regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

There's been far too much edit warring, which is not acceptable. Figure things out on the talk page first, please. El_C 09:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Fenal Kalundo: I'm glad that you brought a good third party source now, instead of bringing another Chinese website. This is the first respectable source that you apparently used. But then again this is what you wrote from it: some other third party source shows it was only a border conflict without clear war-goal and India side suffered a higher casualty at the end. Of it, "it was only a border conflict without clear war-goal" - this part is clear WP:SYNTH if not totally WP:OR. Its a misinterpretation of the source. The source nowhere says such things like "without clear war-goal". And it also mentions:

At Nathu La, under the shadow of India's military expansion, efforts by both sides to strengthen their control of the pass resulted in a Chinese attack on September 11, 1967. (p 198) (emphasis mine)

• Now about the "higher causality" part which you wrote, Taylor perhaps did not take note of the figures of Indian Defence Ministry and hence he is presenting only the numbers from Chinese side. But in any case that's not the issue here. If you want to add information about the causalities in the lead, you may do so with another para. The figure of causalities has got nothing to do with which side faced defeat. This para is meant to describe the result of the clashes, of which Taylor also clearly mentions:

Indian artillery soon responded, sparking a three-day duel in which many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed because India controlled the high ground near the pass. (p 198) (emphasis mine)

• You conveniently ignored this. Now my case that according to third party scholarly sources (both this and Taylor), China faced defeat in the clashes, still remains. No independent respectable source said otherwise. If we have two perspectives by neutral scholarly sources regarding the result of the war, we shall include both of them in that para, in the lead. Or else, this alone will stay.
• Also the WP:POV choice of wording you were using here through this edit, is another problem. Like in the lead:

• While some third party source backs Indian claim that... vs some other third party source shows it... (shows?)
• Chinese version says vs India version claims ("India version claims"? Is 'version' not enough to say that it has been claimed?)

• Please see WP:LEADSENTENCE — The first sentence (of the lead) should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Different parties have different cognition on the Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La). - This line which you were writing clearly does not fit that description. We should tell the reader what Nathu La and Cho La incidents are.
• For that, this line: Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La) were a series of military clashes between India and China alongside the border of the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate. - is a reasonable and appropriate description, as supported by all sources. The Chinese version also does not dispute that the incidents were military clashes, and that they occurred near the Sikkim's border (Central sector is obviously alongside that border).
• And as it goes, India's version also apparently does not deny the "barbed wire" theory in China's claims as observed by this source and this source, which are cited in Taylor's book (citation 106 in p 198). Its just that it had a background of Chinese constructing some trenches to the Sikkemese side of the border.
• Since this page is about the 1967 incidents, I don't want to put too much effort on how India annexed Sikkim - I'm afraid that is exactly what you have been trying to do since the beginning of your contribution to this article, that too in a quite fraudulent manner. This quote which you added in your recent edit —

锡金甘托克及周边地区民众爆发大规模示威游行，要求废除《印锡合约》，维护国家主权。由于印度军警的介入，游行活动转变为暴乱，蔓延至锡金全境。在这次暴乱中，印度军警共击伤击毙锡金民众63200余人，逮捕主张国家独立的“激进分子”3327名，其中处死336名。

— is apparently not taken from the website source that is cited there, or any other Chinese source that has been used so far. You most probably wrote it yourself. The numbers "63200", "3327" and "336" in that quote appear nowhere in that source or other sources. And when I put in Google Translate it gave, "anti India demonstrations took place in Sikkim; in those riots Indian military and police killed 63200 people; arrested 3327, of which 336 were executed". What the heck is this? Even if any website source tells such information, that source is totally unreliable. For your kind information, things like 'human rights' and 'free press' are not jokes in India. 100 killings of security forces get wide and long lasting attention & reportage in India. If anything close to what you wrote had really happened, it would've been studied to death by scholars for years, and many respectable sources would've reported it. I already elaborated to you in my previous post, about what protests actually occurred in Sikkim, and how India acquired Sikkim, as per scholarly sources. What you're writing in the article is a blatant distortion of facts. Also anyway, this content is irrelevant to the 1967 incidents. Please refrain from such disruptive editing.

• This is all I can tell you. If you have any reasonable objections to something that I've noted above, you are welcome to explain them here. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Fenal Kalundo, you should know that reliable sources doesn't support any of the stats provided by the single media/gossip source that you have been using. We need to stop relying on a single unreliable source that has pulled statistics out of nowhere (WP:NOHOAXES). D4iNa4 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Tyler Durden: Let me address your concerns one by one. First, I think your shouldn't intentionally take words out of context, since the original text is"

Second, India appeared to become more aggressive in asserting its claims near the border. At Nathu La, under the shadow of India's military expansion, efforts by both sides to strengthen their control of the pass resulted in a Chinese attack on September 11, 1967. (p 198) (emphasis mine)

It is more the trigger of this conflict rather than the goal. Also, in this article it said:

On September 11, 1967, Chinese Forces at Nathu La in the central sector unleashed a punishing attack on Indian forces. (p 197) (emphasis mine)

It states very clear that this was a "punishing attack", thus, a border conflict without clear war-goal. Not as described by Indian source that has a war-goal to "invade Sikkim".

• In regards to the casualty, I don't really understand why skeptical and resentful attitudes are put on the figure shown in this article. Of course the number of casualty in any public source comes from either India or China, where else these papers can collect data from? In regards to the winning side, sure I agree that casualty can't define the winning side in a "war". However, in China's perspective of view, it is just a "border conflict without clear war-goal", or a "punishing attack". There is no winning side in such events, but only the side suffered higher casualty.
• Therefore, there does have two perspectives on the result. Both "China defeated" and "no war-goal" description should stay.
• In regards to the cognition of Nathu La and Cho La incidents, I agree the version of Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La) were a series of military clashes between India and China alongside the border of the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.
• In regards to the "barbed wire", the difference I want to show here is that while Indian source considered these incident started by China's invasion, Chinese source considered these incident started because Indian Army crossed the border.
• I think you should be more careful to charge other with fraud, and doubt other's intention. Like I said, the purpose for me to add this article here is to show that "China doesn't recognize these incident as relevant to Sikkim". This article is an introduction about the recent history of Kingdom of Sikkim, the whole article doesn't mention that China has any relationship with Sikkim's annexation by India. This quotation is added only by your request since you said you want to confirm. First, this "website source", if you scroll down you will find this is an article consist of three pages, and the quoted text I used is on the second page. Second, this is not a website source, this is a news article from a qualified news website in China, which should be as reliable as those Indian articles used as reference in this page.

In regards to the quoted text:

锡金甘托克及周边地区民众爆发大规模示威游行，要求废除《印锡合约》，维护国家主权。由于印度军警的介入，游行活动转变为暴乱，蔓延至锡金全境。在这次暴乱中，印度军警共击伤击毙锡金民众63200余人，逮捕主张国家独立的“激进分子”3327名，其中处死336名。

—your translation is not very accurate, the text said 63200 ppl were killed or wounded, not 63200 were killed.

• I still want to thank you for helping me improve my work in respect of many ways, though those work doesn't progress very well at this stage. I suggest we both keep an open mind on this issue, I think the only thing we can do here is to show as many information as possible to the audience and let them to judge. Regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fenal Kalundo:, I will wait for Tyler Durden to retort to your response. But here is my two cents on points raised by you:

• The points raised by you here about a border conflict without a clear "war-goal" is not backed by actual claims/text in the source. This is pure conjecture and does not adhere to the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No_original_research. There is also no connection between the words "punishing attack" and "no clear war-goal" and it is unclear to me how you even draw this conclusion.
• Casualty figures need not necessarily come from Indian or Chinese sources. Many a times neutral estimates (based on ground reports or intelligence reports) are used to depict accurate figures when there is a likelihood of artificial inflation. Plus, there is always a side which comes on top in such events. One cannot simply state that since there was "no war-goal" (which as per above is pure synthesis on your part) there is no result. As per neutral estimates, this was an Indian victory and you need to provide another reliable reference which states otherwise.
• With regards to translation, when providing non-English sources, the onus is on the editor to either provide a neutral translation of the reference. In the absence of this, we are forced to use google translate (or other such tools). It is hard to take your word on "our translation is not very good" when we cannot verify what is stated in the reference.
• Most of this is largely based on single web-site source which looks unreliable to me. I did a quick lookup of the cnwnews and did not find anything on which media group this or where it is based out of. I would strongly urge this discussion to be based purely on scholarly work which is peer-reviewed rather then web-site sources which have not been verified. I am not sure what you mean when you say "qualified news website".

Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Adamgerber80 for taking the time to give a reply to Fenal Kalundo. These incidents were obviously border skirmishes, somewhat more violent ones than usual, as the scholarly sources say so, and also given the estimates of causalities of both sides. There is no point denying that. Along with the WP:OR issues that Adamgerber pointed out in Fenal Kalundo's arguments, I would like to add:
• After seeing other threads on this talk page, I have come across this another third party source, which has only a one-liner about the incident, yet with an explicit statement saying that the clashes "resulted in Jelep La being occupied by the Chinese forces." Interestingly, there is a strong contracting point to this observation from an Indian Army Major general, Sheru Thapliyal's account (citation 4 below):

• During the 1965 War between India and Pakistan, the Chinese gave an ultimatum to India to vacate both Nathu La and Jelep La passes on the Sikkim-Tibet border. For some strange reason, the Mountain Division, under whose jurisdiction Jelep La was at that time, vacated the pass. It remains under Chinese possession till date. However, Lt. Gen Sagat Singh, true to form, refused to vacate Nathu La.

• Anyhow, now we're basically left with three well-published third party sources:

• 1) (Hoontrakul p 37): with a list of wars and armed conflicts in Asia from 1946-2000, which mentions this incident saying, India was victorious and China was defeated.
• 2) (G.V.C. Naidu p 103): that the clashes resulted in Jelep La being occupied by the Chinese forces.
• 3) (Taylor p 198): that "many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed because India controlled the high ground near the pass."

• So that's where we are currently at, and we need to base the 'result' content taking into account, these observations.
• Not as described by Indian source that has a war-goal to "invade Sikkim". & Indian source considered these incident started by China's invasion (India considered it as China's invasion? Where?) Dear Fenal Kalundo, with all due respect, you have to read the Indian sources (which are present in citations 3 & 4 below) and understand what they tell, before you make such baseless claims. We can discuss about what Indian sources say, after you do so.
• Regarding the quote, while adding the citation, you should have linked the second page of the article itself, from where the quote is taken, instead of linking the first page. I obviously don't understand Chinese, so I can't notice that there is a second page in that site. Also regarding its meaning, you did not provide a translation. Now anyways, I went overboard in accusing you of fraud, for that I apologise. I should have assumed good faith. But as you said about that source: This article is an introduction about the recent history of Kingdom of Sikkim, the whole article doesn't mention that China has any relationship with Sikkim's annexation by India. - this itself is quite dubious. Because G.V.C. Naidu (p 77) notes: "India's annexation of Sikkim during 1973-1975 raised another diplomatic confrontation between the two countries." If China had no relation with Sikkim's affairs and its annexation by India, why would it have a diplomatic confrontation with India after annexation? And particularly regarding the content in the quote: 63200 people were killed or wounded — that's a pretty huge massacre (in 1968). And it is apparently supported by no meaningful sources. As I have already said, you will find numerous impeccable scholarly sources even if something close to that had really occurred. You must not write quotes with such sensational information on Wikipedia using such absurd sources. I want to politely tell you that your choice of sources is leading you to nowhere but darkness. Please refrain from using those crappy "qualified news websites in China" or whatever they are. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden,@Adamgerber80: Adamgerber80, since your concerns seem overlap Tyler Durden's, here I will only respond to Durden's questions. If you have any further concerns, please specify them below, thanks.

• In regards to "no war-goal", if you insist, I can replace my words with the original text like "China side consider these military clashes as punishing attack". What do you say?
• In regards to the outcome. I think first I should make this straight -- I'm not here to counter your argument that "there was a result and China was defeated". Actually in every my edit, these kind of information was reserved. I'm only here to provide an another perspective, which is it is "a punishing attack" (Taylor p 197). Or, based on my new finding: China's objective was to "deter Indian forward posture along border" (Taylor p 64). This is still different with Indian perspective which describe Chinese Army as attacking side and was defeated because was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October, since "deter Indian forward posture along border" makes China the defending side.
• So, it is clear that two different perspectives exist. They should be put together in this page.
• In regards to invasion. quoted:The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. To me, it is an "invasion" already, and China was defeated because it failed that "invasion". But since it may look different in your definition, I will change my words to "infiltrated" in the future.
• I think I need to restate myself, "I'm here to add information on these incidents only, I don't want to put too much effort on how Sikkim was annexed by India". Since you insist, here is why China's diplomatic confrontation came from:

从1974年5月下旬开始，“民族党”领导层实行紧急动员，一方面，在锡金国内各主要城市，召集民众，尤其是青年学生和社会中下层贫民，举行“反对殖民主义宪法”的示威运动，并紧急联络锡金各主要政治党派，谋求以政治联盟的手段抵制议会表决；另一方面，频繁与世界各主要国家外交机构接触，并致函联合国秘书长与安理会，揭露印度企图兼并锡金的阴谋，请求国际干涉。
在“民族党”一连串救亡行动中，以谋求中国干涉最为积极。2005年印度外交协会解密的资料显示，从1974年5月29日起，至当年6月20日止，短短23天时间内，“民族党”共向中国驻南亚各国和驻联合国外交机构、商务团体、民间团体发送请求“政治调停”和“武装干预”的电函149封，平均日均接近7封，这在现代国际关系史上，是极为罕见的。
(Translation:Since the end of May 1974, the "National Party" leadership carried out emergency mobilization. On the one hand, in the major cities of Sikkim, they convene the people, especially young students and the poor, held a "anti-colonial constitution" protest and urgently contact with the major political parties around the world, and sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary and the UN Security Council to expose India's consipiracy to annex Sikkim and request international intervention.
In the "National Party's" series of salvation operations, the most active attempt is to seek China's intervention. According to the information declassified by the Indian Diplomatic Association in 2005, from 29 April, 1974 to 20 June of the same year, within a short period of 23 days, the "National Party" has sent a total of 149 letters to Chinese institutions in South Asian countries and in the United Nations, Chinese business groups, and Chinese civil social groups to request for "political mediation" and "military intervention", averagely 7 letters per day. This is extremely rare in the history of modern international relations.)

• I really request we stop discuss affairs about Sikkim, since I have no intention to add "China doesn't recognize these incidents as relative to Sikkim" in the lead. I only want to add this into section of "Chinese version", so I think it is not necessary for us to discuss more about this.
• In regards to the source choice, I hope we don't use double standards here. If all "crappy information from unilateral source" are excluded：

The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. During the Cho La and Nathu La incidents, Indian losses were 88 killed in action and 163 wounded, while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded.
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces.

—I'm afraid the only thing left that backed by reference are merely The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim and The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces. Moreover, in this reference I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference, there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book is economics, not military or international relationship. I don't understand how these sources are considered reliable while my findings are not? Best regards, —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In regards to invasion. quoted: "The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October." To me, it is an "invasion" already, and China was defeated because it failed that "invasion". - this is WP:OR.

As for the Sikkim's history, which you yourself brought it up into the article and here, by making all funny claims: the Sikkim National Party which according to your crappy source, was protesting in May 1974 with all "young students and the poor" against "India's conspiracy to annex Sikkim" and knocking particularly China's door so badly, won one single seat out of 32 in the elections in April 1974,[4] and later India annexed Sikkim after a democratic referendum which resulted in "overwhelming support" for the removal of monarchy and a full merger with India. Please read the pages 79 and 80 of the source that I cited here, which is a third-party well published scholarly source, if you really want to know what happened in Sikkim's history during these events.

The Pongsak Hoontrakul source that you are comparing with your "findings" from Chinese news websites, is a book published by Palgrave Macmillan, a highly reputed international publisher. Regarding the Indian sources(citations 3 and 4 below), they are far more respectable than the news websites. Taylor Fravel cites them in his book(citation 106 in p 198) while writing about these incidents. About the rest of the sources, I'm not the one who brought them to this article or the talk page. In fact, I came here only after you entered and started writing substandard content from your "wonderful" source which comes nowhere near WP:RS. You should look up the edit history and check who added other sources and wrote content from other sources. But anyhow, none of them give ultra garbage information like: 63200 people were killed or wounded, and 3327 were arrested, of which 336 were executed by Indian forces — Since you don't understand why your "findings" from the sources you choose, are not being considered reliable, what is your justification in inserting this quote and making it as a basis for writing content? Can you please bring at least one decent source that backs that quote, of such controversial nature? So, in 1968, such a huge massacre took place all in one event, and yet no people could raise voice against it, no scholar/newspaper/organisation took note of it & no notable person talked about it, but magically a Chinese news website, out of the blue, came to report on it in 2015? Please post this nonsense on someone's Facebook page, not on Wikipedia. — Tyler Durden (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden Please ping me next time so I can respond in time.

• Like I said before, I don't think discussion about Sikkim is very relevant to this page. And like I said very early, if you are unhappy with my quotation, I can modify it because the purpose for this citation is to explain why China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim. The point is, your argument seems can't counter that "China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim". So, I think their is no necessary to discuss this issue any further here.
• In addition to history of Sikkim, I raised many other argument about current dispute in my previous respond. Please address them directly otherwise I have to consider that you tacitly approve my opinions and the disputes in regards to what you don't address are solved. Best regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fenal Kalundo

• I don't understand this fixation with the word "punishing attack". That word has no meaning in the English warfare terminology. What do you even understand from this word or wish to convey?
• I have said this before and I will repeat it again, please provide neutral reliable sources to back your claims. You cannot peddle a random web-page as a reliable source when compared to peer-reviewed books. Yes there are two sides to every story but we have to use reliable sources to tell the other view. There is no indication that this indeed is the official Chinese version of the incident. I would highly recommend you to read up Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources to better understand this. I am not in the favor for adding any new information in this article based on this webpage. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fenal Kalundo: your argument seems can't counter that "China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim." — Did I write anywhere that China recognizes Nathu la and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim ? No, right? So the onus is on you to provide WP:RS for China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim, if you want to write it in the article. Not my problem. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Adamgerber80: First, "punishing attack" was an military action like what China did in Sino-Vietnamese War which has no territory claim or any other war-goal but only to punish the opponent or show supremacy.
• Second, about the source I used, I have deleted the Quora-like source after listened to Tyler Durden's suggestion. In regards to other non-English sources I used, like I said they are all "news article" from "qualified news website in China (which means the website is run by a registered news company)". I have checked the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and I think they are qualified as "News sources". Otherwise, I don't understand why sources used in here are appropriate:

The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. During the Cho La and Nathu La incidents, Indian losses were 88 killed in action and 163 wounded, while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded.
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces.

—The only information backed by third-party reference are merely The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim and The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces. Moreover, in this reference I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference, there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book is economics, not military or international relationship. For other sources, except only one scholar source from India, they are all news article and even includes a PDF file without any publication information. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fenal Kalundo: My dear friend, see the dictionary definition of the word "punishing": In this context, the meaning of the word is Severe and debilitating (because obviously not Physically and mentally demanding; arduous), i.e., China launched a severe and debilitating attack. So what you infer from "punishing attack" is inappropriate. Another point, as you noted: Chinese objective was to "deter Indian forward posture along border" (Taylor p 64), is what we have to rely upon.

See WP:HISTRS. As I already explained above, given the kind of information it is reporting, that Chinese news webpage is nowhere near WP:RS. Its way too absurd to write history from it.

Yes, there are problems with the present content. Especially with the causality figures, which are representing only the India's figures. The article has to be improved and expanded, a lot. And the two Indian newspapers shall be replaced by Sheru Thapliyal and G. S. Bajpai (citations 3 & 4 below), and the content (if anything problematic is taken from those newspaper sources) can be modified according to Thapliyal and Bajpai, for Indian accounts. The PDF is from Shodhganga, by the way, which documents theses papers from various Indian universities. — Tyler Durden (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: For the definition of "punishing attack", I just answer Adamgerber80 that what I try to convey. If you think there is a dispute on this definition, I accept we use only the original text "China unleash a punishing attack". For "deter Indian forward posture along border" (Taylor p 64), if you insist we should add this in, I have no problem with that, but we have to note that there have two perspectives on the nature of these incidents.

In regards to the source, if you think we should raise the standard here to that limit the citation to only scholar source, I have no problem. Otherwise, I can't accept that one news website (like the ref 3 you mentioned) is better or more reliable than another, that is bias. Best regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden:,@Adamgerber80:,@Kautilya3:: Thank you all for the attentions. I think we are very close to a consensus now. Since all unresolved disputations here are concentrated on WP:RS, I here suggest:

1. All new information added to this page should be cited from reliable and verifiable scholar source.

2. All source that doesn't meet the requirement (1) in current content should be replaced by reliable and verifiable scholar source or be removed.

I think this suggestion can form an unambiguous editing discipline here hence reduce disputation about the source in the future. I'd like to start my work after 3 June. Before that, I sincerely want to hear your opinions about my suggested editing discipline so that we can improve it together to a editing dieseline that satisfy all involving parties. Best regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those are basic requirements of Wikipedia editing. Other than reliable sources, notable sources can also be mentioned, with WP:In-text attribution, provided their content is important to document a point of view. But a point of view cannot override a reliable source.

Since it is clear that the topic is highly disputed, please propose your changes and objections on the talk page first, and achieve consensus before editing the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The article heavily relies on Taylor Fravel's book on Chinese causality how ever Fravel's book itself relies on Reference No. 103 which is nian yihou which seems to be Chinese source. So how much reliable is this source? Can anyone explain it?KP6912 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How else would you get Chinese causality count? HUMINT is probably nonexistent for this. Non-Chinese sources are probably MASINT estimate at best, which has its own inherent shortcoming (see casualty estimation).

Also I just looked into related Reference No. 102, which refers to this book (Wang Chenghan's Memoirs). I can't find full text of the book online, but based on excerpts from Internet postings, it appears Wang Chenghan was the Chinese Deputy Commander for Tibetan Region at the time. (Quote: 摘自《王诚汉回忆录》（1964年-1968年任西藏军区副司令员）; translation: From "Wang Chenghan's Memoirs" (Tibet Military District Deputy Commander from 1964-1968) ) --Voidvector (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your link says "As of September 16, a total of more than 500 people were annihilated."(截至9月16日，共歼敌500余人。) is this even believable? From your excerpt link?KP6912 (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Quoting WP:NPOVS, "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral."

Also Taylor Fravel didn't use that as his source for causality, He used this site which is probably more reliable. From what I gather that webpage is part of the curated section of a Chinese website for military observers. Not sure where their sources came from, but they have really detailed info about the engagement, such as Chinese estimates of Indian forces and troop movements (e.g. 印军112旅所部110人在其中校营长指挥下 / Indian forces of 112 brigades with which 110 was assigned to the command of the Lt Colonel). --Voidvector (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree but still your new link says " annihilated more than 550. " all in all Chinese sources seem to be far more less realisticKP6912 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For future editors, Chinese source posted by User:Xc 0102 here appears to be relatively official 660-page history book of PLA 11th Army Division, not sure of ISBN if there is any. --Voidvector (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

References

ARBIP restrictions now in effect

El_C 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion about omitting text in related to "territory change"

To all:

First of all, I hope editors who oppose omitting understand that, a military clash doesn't naturally connect with territory change. By policy it is the responsibility of editors who wants to put these content in the main space to provide supporting sources. By now, there is no such sources are provided. Therefore the burden of seeking consensus falls on the editors who want to include those content, not in opposite.

I notice that this page is about a military event however in the main article there are a lot of content describing the territory change on Sikkim. These two things do not naturally connect with each other. Thus here, in accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, I request editors who support to keep this territory change information to provide Source and Citation that clearly and directly indicate that "Nathu La and Cho La clashes" leads to the territory change on Sikkim.

This is a repost of the same request I raised three days ago, I would omit all text in related to "territory change" if this one is unchallenged. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to be a positive contributor, you should stop wasting other editor's time trying to argue your POV on this single article. You can go spend time improving articles like Kingdom of Sikkim or History of Sikkim. In addition, instead of questioning existing curated sources, you might want to consider providing your own "reliable sources". --Voidvector (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope you understand this is not a place to talk about other than content. If you don't want to talk a bout content then I have nothing to say with you. And it is something about WP:VNOTSUFF, not WP:RS. Those the information itself may be reliable that doesn't mean it should be included without providing the connection with the topic of this page. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoting what you said 2 lines above -- "...leads to the territory change on Sikkim", I am telling you those other Sikkim articles need love as well. It is fairly obvious from your contribution log that only care about this single article. --Voidvector (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Result / Outcome

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that the new source provided is written by Brahma Chellaney, a well-known Indian security hawk (see [5]). Definitely not a neutral source. More neutral sources such as Van Praagh) mention about 300 casualties on each side, without proclaiming a victor. -Zanhe (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reverts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) casualty claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing challenges

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor Fravel is not making the claim on an independent basis as he has cited military general Wang Chenghan's self-published memoirs who fought in this war. But Wikipedia has policies and such statement contradict WP:PRIMARY. If you are going to cite such primary sources then we would need to modify the main Sino-Indian War as well since primary sources claimed to have caused 10x casualties than China.[6] Coming back to this war, note that The New China News Agency as cited above, which is the organ of Chinese government, has said that "unspecified number" of casualties were suffered by China. Clearly state sponsored media is a more reliable source than an involved military general which does not deserve mention anywhere on this article. Azuredivay (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Name

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

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

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

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

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