Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fenal Kalundo (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 2 July 2017 (→Discussion about omitting text in related to "territory change"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sources?

I think it's best this article and the article about the "1987 Sino-Indian skirmishes" are given restricted edits. There are many trolls around here who are changing the result of these two incidents to Chinese or Indian victories, whereas in reality the PLA invasions were repelled by the Indian military and signed a ceasefire in 1987, not too sure about 1967, NO country won these skirmishes.

Just wondering, are there any other sources for this incident aside from that website? It worries me that this website doesn't include references or a bibliography. It doesn't even include an author name, so you can't even credit it to someone. Without another source to double-check with, one basically has to take this anonymous author on faith that everything s/he says is correct.

A usual way to confirm the verificability of something would be to find two or more non-related sources which also describe it. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

The article itself has a number of inaccuracies. It says Sikkim was a part of NEFA. Actually, it was still an independent country at the time. It also says China claimed it as part of South Tibet. That's not actually true, either. South Tibet contains roughly (but not exactly) the area in modern-day Arunachal Pradesh, and doesn't include Sikkim. And Sikkim doesn't appear on the PRC's official claimed borders. --Yuje 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it occurred. Source A Source B Source C Source D. The author of the Bharat Rakshak page is LN Subhramanian. China no longer claims Sikkim, they earlier did claim it. Traing 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you really don't have any secondary sources, do you? The BR sources you provided is a webpage with no sources or citations, and the three you just gave me don't contain any information. One is an anonymously written article (using the psuedonym Zhang Fei) that mentions Chola in a single sentence, the other is a web forum question, and the Marine source just list the name but doesn't give any actual information. Again, the Bharat Rakshat webpage doesn't provide any sources, citations, or books, so it doesn't give a reliable way to verify the information.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."
And provide a source for the Sikkim claim. --Yuje 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bharat Rakshak Source is the Indian Military History of it. It is representative of the views of the Indian military and is notable in that. Remember it was a minor skirmish and thus it is only listed by many as an event that occurred, with few details given. China gave no attention to the incident and did not follow up on it at all, so you won't find a Chinese source. Also what's so exceptional about saying that this incident happened. Just because China chooses what to document and what not to does not make it exceptional. Traing 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This version of events is given on the page Sino-Indian War:

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, triggering the start of a short-range firefight.[41] The Chinese troops signaled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there.[41] The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the disputed LAC.[41] The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.

Yet the BR page doesn't cite any sources or references, and no other sources have been provided yet. So there aren't any independent sources to confirm BR's version of the events, and since it doesn't cite sources, one basically has to take it on faith that BR's recollection of event is accurate. I don't just mean Chinese sources; there are no other sources of any kind, Chinese, Indian, or independent provided. --Yuje 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IPCS source on Sino-Indian War + CNN sources presented there detail China's dropping of it's initial claim on Sikkim. Traing 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It said the Chinese claim was that it did not reocgnize Sikkim as a part of India, but as an independent country under illegal Indian occupation. Not the same as territorial claims that it was part of South Tibet, which you state in the article. Provide sources.--Yuje 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could any enlightened soul provide us with more sources to support the article? There is presently a lack of good accounts of the incident, and relying completely on Bharat-Rakshak isn't exactly the smartest thing to do.

Sources

There are few reliable offical sources about this conflict. Very hard to say which side was winning. Many sources cited from this wikipedia (please check their dates and web caches).

Especially for the casualties, reliable references are needed.

Please offer reliable sources from ALL Indian, Chinese and English sources. (Alex Kuper (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Neutrality

The article seems written from an Indian perspective, but it would be helpful to hear Chinese objections to the current version. (Alex Kuper (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The sentence "Unfortunately the guide got lost and Captain Parulekar and B Coy fumbled on the black rocks." definitely brings the neutrality of this article in question. I would definitely like to see some Chinese sources added and for the language to be cleaned up. FiReSTaRT (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/History/1962-71/270-Chola-Incident.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messup

This article is being totally messed up

Chinese tactical victory?? really?

I would hope some serinor editor gets the right info and freezes the page from furthur editing by some over patriotic idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.180.236 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are Chola and Sikkim the same place? If so, why is there no mention of the Chola incident in the Sikkim article? Should the two articles be merged? Biscuittin (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cho La (like Nathu La) is a high-altitude mountain pass (La) in the state of Sikkim. I don't think that the two articles should be merged.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use reliable, neutral sources

@D4iNa4 and Capitals00: Please stick with neutral, scholarly sources such as this book by MIT professor Taylor Fravel. It's far more neutral and reliable than the sources in the old version you restored. -Zanhe (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find that a very new user came on to canvass and recruit users[1][2][3] against this article. You have to note that material was here since this article was created, and there are enough reliable sources for saying that it was an Indian victory. Causalities figures are correct too. "Americana corporation" is a self publishing firm, not a reliable source. And your other reference[4] gives information only about 1 October. Nothing about 2 October - 10 October, which is incomplete. Thus it is unfair to delete other reliable sources that have provided mainstream and complete analysis. Capitals00 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been infested with POV pushers using biased sources, copyright violators, and possible sockpuppets since it was created. Greentea555 was the first person who actually added neutral academic sources to this article, and was reverted by Capitals00 and D4iNa4, two editors who have both been blocked for sockpupetting (are you two related?). It's wrong for Greentea555 to canvass other users, but I don't really need to be canvassed. I've been editing this article since 2011 (mostly removing blatant copyvio and unsourced edits). -Zanhe (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Americana source per your concern (it's not needed anyway). The other two sources Naidu et al and Fravel are rock solid and provide far more information about the conflict. -Zanhe (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jelep La was closed by 1962 already and reopened by 2006.[5] It means that your source is rather a fringe when it says that occupation of Jelep La was changed after this conflict. Other source[6] says that at Nathu La, PLA forces were "outgunned". You can't use just one favorable source over few others. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are Jelep La's closing and reopening in 2006 relevant to this article? And how is the PLA being "initially outgunned" at Nathu La relevant to an article about Cho La? You're evading the real issue, which is that your preferred version largely relies on non-neutral and unreliable sources, by bringing up irrelevant details. -Zanhe (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese defeat in 1967 is a well known and well-sourced fact. Then, why is this harakiri?Ghatus (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it were indeed a well known fact, why do scholars, even Indian ones, state otherwise? (e.g. Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli) I have yet to see a single neutral, scholarly source that establishes that "well known fact". And what does harakiri have anything to do with this? -Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not canvass, I was asking if the users in question had any information regarding the topic, which seemed like propaganda. LATER, I did my own research and found that neutral sources indicate a ceasefire, not an Indian victory. Greentea555 (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ridiculous casualties claims of 88 Indian dead and 300 Chinese dead comes from an Indian Defense Minister, see here [7] at parliament of all places (and those who know about the Indian parliament know the gibberish that goes on there) according to a biased Indian source. It does not come from any neutral source. The neutral source by M. Fravel, here [8], gives a more neutral figure of 36 dead Indians and an unknown amount of dead Chinese. With the limited amount of neutral sources, we should rely on what is certain and not what is biased/violates NPOV. Also, this incident is one of many, for example over here [9] it states that in 1968 there was another skirmish, but why aren't there articles for this (like the last one there are limited neutral sources, but sadly for the Cho la case it seems to be misrepresented by various Indian sources)? Clearly this incident has been blown out of proportion by Indian books. This was simply a minor incident and India did not win according to neutral sources. Greentea555 (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've not followed what has been going on here but I will say this: NOTHING FROM GYAN PUBLISHERS IS RELIABLE. End. Of. Story. They are well-known plagiarists and often mirror crappy Wikipedia content. They are listed at WP:MIRROR, I've given another example at User:Sitush/Common#Gyan and, well, I could probably give at least another hundred examples. So, regardless of the detailed dispute here, if any of the statements are sourced to Gyan we should either remove them or re-sourced them. Please also note that Gyan operate some similarly useless imprints. This is old news, people: they've been found out on Wikipedia time and time again over the years. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sitush for the insight. For the limited sources that are from good publishers, don't you think we should base the article off of what we know, which is from here: [[1]], where it states "In 1967, skirmishes between the Chinese and Indian forces at Nathu La and Cho La resulted in Jelep La being occupied by the Chinese forces". Don't you think that is the fairest conclusion? It is also from a well-known publisher, Springer. Greentea555 (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know very little about the incident and I'm not contributing much anywhere on WP at the moment. I came here in response to a note on my talk page re: the reliability of Gyan. If people cannot agree on the reliability of some other source(s) then I suggest a trip to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had expected Greentea555 to be saying that "not even a single source is Gyan publishing", but he is saying it just opposite now. None of the current sources have anything to do with Gyan Publishing. Also claiming that China got Jelep La is misinformation. See map[10] it was always an Indian region. Capitals00 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The casualty numbers (340 Chinese, and 88 Indians) are originally from a Gyan source, see this. According to MIT scholar Taylor Fravel [11], who is far more reliable, the casualty was 36 Indian deaths, and an unknown number of Chinese. -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those dozens of older sources[12][13][14] have to do nothing with Gyan, only because Gyan also said 2+2 = 4, doesn't means it becomes false. Capitals00 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first source seems useful, as it points out that the casualty figures are estimates by the Indian Defence Minister (the second source has essentially the same info; and the third is an unreliable personal website). We should include that claim in the article (when the protection expires), with all the usual caveats. It has not been verified by any independent source, and Prof. Taylor Fravel seems to be unconvinced by its reliability, saying in his book that the Chinese casualty is unknown. -Zanhe (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ G. V. C. Naidu; Mumin Chen; Raviprasad Narayanan, eds. (2014). India and China in the Emerging Dynamics of East Asia. Springer. p. 103. ISBN 978-81-322-2138-8.

Protected edit request on 22 November 2015

with reference of at least 3 sites chola incident was described. as it seems some chinese national feel ashamed about their loss and doubt about it. as it is a skirmish not a big war, naturally it was not highlighted that way. But the result was clear and previously mentioned in wikipedia article of the same name. only inside details was reveled, which is surely known by Indian officials and PLA try to cover that. chola and nathu la incidents actually happened and it created Sikim district of India. no doubt in that in any history. Cooltunir (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooltunir: Your main "contribution" to Wikipedia so far is this, a blatantly POV and unsourced essay which you copy-and-pasted from someone's blog without attribution. My advice is to give WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV a good read, and add content supported by WP:BESTSOURCES. -Zanhe (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Zanhe's comment.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@zahne still dont get why numbers are odd?

When did China occupy Jelep La pass?

Can any one provide any authentic source that Jelep La pass was ever occupied by China? If not, then the new source entered is a hoax. The pass was and is still operated by India.source-1Source-2. The new book neither elaborates nor gives any source for the 2-3 lines it wrote on 1967.Ghatus (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a hoax especially when it is coming from a unreliable source that has no more than 1 sentence to talk about this whole war. Capitals00 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new source is authored by Prof. S. Kondapalli of Jawaharlal Nehru University, and is in a book co-edited by two Indian and one Taiwanese scholars, including G V C Naidu, Chairman of JNU's Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies. It is published by the academic publisher Springer (in 2014, not 1967 as you claim). Calling such a scholarly work "hoax" betrays a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. By contrast, the two sources cited by Ghatus above are Indian news reports that do not discuss the control of Jelep La at all. -Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a hoax. No WP:RS says that Jelep La pass is/was ever controlled by China. A sourceless & explanationless one liner does not prove anything. It will be removed. Further, it's clear from the newspaper articles that the pass is controlled by India. Ghatus (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarship does not become "hoax" just because you don't like it. And the two news reports say nothing about the 1967 conflict, or who controls Jelep La. Even if they did, "for information about academic topics, scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." (quote from WP:RS). But there's no point wasting more time reasoning with someone who seems to lack even basic reading comprehension skills. -Zanhe (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zanhe, thank you for your valuable input. I agree that scholarly works should bear a precedent over the unverifiable works of non-notable authors who may or may not be operating upon special interests. I agree that we should focus on what is accurate and based on sound sources. Greentea555 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ghatus, it is very silly of you to call this academic source, which is far better than most other sources listed here as a "hoax". This does not show impartiality and it is not recommended behavior on wikipedia. I hope you realize and understand. I hope you learn that wikipedia should be a place of collective collaboration for what is impartial, accurate, and right. Greentea555 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From same book[15], it says the India kept Sikkim and it raised tension for China. There is no reason to think that Jelep La was ever a part of China or they ever annexed it, it is misleading.

I did edited this article before, and presented Chinese sources accepting this,[16] why source was removed? It was real.

"On the morning of September 11, 1967, over 60 Indian aggressor troops intruded into Chinese territory by crossing the China-Sikkim boundary at Nathu La. Under the cover of fierce artillery fire, the Indian troops launched an attack on the Chinese frontier guards. Thereupon, they opened artillery fire on the Chinese frontier guards at Jelep La. Up til noon, the Indian aggressor troops already killed or wounded 25 Chinese frontier guards. They also destroyed Chinese civilian houses and temples."[17][18]

India had conquered Jelep La.[19] Thus it was an Indian victory. MapSGV (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Of course India kept Sikkim, which was never in contention. But that says nothing about who controlled Jelep La, which is a border pass between Sikkim and Tibet normally controlled by both countries. The book unequivocally says China took Jelep La after the Cho La incident (though that does not necessarily mean they still have sole control today).
2. The Chinese news report only says that the Indians attacked Chinese positions at Jelep La, and does not say if they succeeded in taking it. There's no way to tell who won from that report. Besides, it's against WP policy to analyze a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, that's the scholars' job. Our job is to write content based on WP:SECONDARYSOURCES published by scholars. -Zanhe (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you say Jelep La, you talk about Sikkim because Jelep La is inside Sikkim. Yes there are sources saying that China withdrawn[20] and it was an Indian victory. MapSGV (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really have to question your WP:COMPETENCE with statements like that. Again, Jelep La is on the border between Sikkim and Tibet, the control of undisputed Sikkimese (or Tibetan, for that matter) territory says nothing about the control of the border pass. And the book you cited does not say who was victorious (even if we ignored the fact that it's written by Claude Arpi, a French dentist turned Indian political commentator, not a scholar). -Zanhe (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jelep La is in Sikkim which is in India. So, Chinese victory claim is hoax. So, a faltu book can not be a WP:RS. It will be removed on 15th.Ghatus (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


More sources for supporting Indian victory:-
  • "In 1967 the Chinese invaded Nathu La and Chola etc. but had to withdraw with heavy losses."[21]
  • "a day-long military conflict in Sikkim, which became an Indian state in 1975"[22]
  • "the PLA launched a direct attack on the Indian armed forces at Nathu La, on the Sikkim-Tibet border." "The attack was repulsed at all points." "The Chinese were also known to have suffered at least twice as many causalities as Indians in this encounter between Indian and Chinese armed forces." "Many observers felt India scored a psychological victory over the Chinese for the latter's unilateral ceasefire in 1962."[23]
  • "the scene of bloody artillery duels in September 1967 when Indian troops beat back attacking Chinese forces".[24]
Many reliable sources over an isolated source.
Your book also supports MapSVG's research. "In 1967, India began to erect barbed wire fencing to form a barrier between the two sides", "PLA commander however, viewed this as seizure of Chinese territory, resulting in verbal protests and shoving matches into early September." And ""many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed."[25] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Nathu La incident also and rename article

Per my comments in ongoing AFD, I suggest modifying this article to cover the just-previous Nathua La incident also. And move to Nathu La and Cho La incidents. doncram 00:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders and leaders

Any reason why there is barely anything here for this page, but is well-cited for the 1962 page? Seems a bit off to me. Just a lack of sources? I know one comander Sagat Choudhary or something, his name was earlier there in the article but now has been reomved. FightersMegamix (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Causality

Causality count is not found in Google scan of the book. Can someone provide better citation or scan? --Voidvector (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per MBlaze's edit comment, https://books.google.com/books?id=BiluAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=wounded --Voidvector (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably provide "Indian claim" and "China claim" of casualty count. However, it is difficult to reconcile the Chinese reports with this article as the time frame used are different. Most Chinese reports I read so far covers the incident from September to October.
Looking at two Chinese sources, they are consistent on claim of 607 Indian death in September. They are somewhat inconsistent on Chinese casualty. One source claims on Chinese side, there were 127 casualty of which 32 were death (中方伤亡123名，其中阵亡者32名). Second source claim 1 death and 9 wounded (一亡九傷) however goes on to describe some follow up incidents in which the article didn't tally. In a follow up incident on October 1, 1967, it said Indian forces killed 1 Chinese officer and wounded 1 other (當場打死打傷中國官兵各一人) in an "attempted kidnap", all involved in the kidnap (8 Indian "Gurkhas") were killed. In retaliation, Chinese shelled Indian positions causing 195 casualties (將前來挑釁的印軍兩個連的官兵斃傷大半（一百九十五名）). --Voidvector (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK i have figured out the Chinese translations for those place names, the first incident was Nathu La (in September), and the latter was Cho La (in October). I have added those info to the article using my previously mentioned first source, which turn out to be a syndicated article from DuoWei News. --Voidvector (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need expanding

This article is missing background information. Some Chinese articles I read so far goes into detail about Sikkim politics before joining India. In addition, some also bring geopolitics with Pakistan and Chinese Cultural Revolution into context, which were in the same time period. In addition, most English articles also mention Chinese ultimatum which turned out to be a "bluff". The details of the engagement can also be added, the Chinese sources are lacking about Nathu La (basically said PLA retreated), but they have pretty good detail about Cho La (some scuffle between board guards(?) that lead to artillery engagement). --Voidvector (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral sources agree that China suffered more causalities, so why you need a source that has been created recently by a random source? It's not reliable enough. In any case we cannot claim any sources to be "Indian sources", just because they are contrary to a chinese journalism website. Capitals00 (talk)
Furthermore your source, which lacks any academic currency says "Later, the Indian army and additional artillery attack, the Chinese army with mortars to fight back, shelling lasted 4 days and 3 nights before the end. In this battle, the Indian army a total of 607 casualties, Chinese casualties 123, of which 32 were killed." But you didn't put "123" as Chinese casualties, thus making me confident that you are not assuming good faith here. Capitals00 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
32 + 91 = 123. Casualty includes both death and injury. We can rephrase the words in the box.
Regarding the claim of "academic sources", if you look up the author of Indian claim of casualty source, Bidanda Chengappa, he works for Centre for Land Warfare Studies which is a think tank. Sure, think tanks are academic, but they are probably the most politically biased academic source out there. That said, I would still consider them as source, but with a grain of salt.
To give you some background of what I have been doing the last month in my edit time, I have been editing various articles on Chinese western and southern borders and expanding upon them. You can look at Template:China–Nepal border crossings and Template:Mountain passes of China all the included articles and see my edits.
Currently this article is just a casualty count billboard, with no substantive information about the incident. I had the intention of expanding it with info about background & what transpired. In fact my research was mostly done:
  • The article by Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal published by CLAWS has the Indian account of the incident - an Indian source I added
  • The Duowei News article has the Chinese account
  • There was another detailed account of the incidents by a Indian soldier that I have to dig further in my history to find
However, seeing how contentious the article is, I stopped short of craft those edits. --Voidvector (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also like to thank you for contributing to talk discussion. --Voidvector (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that the figures do lack sources and the media source that you have used is pulling out random estimations. How they can be labeled as "chinese estimates"? Capitals00 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using self published article from a media site for mentioning deaths and wounded figures is not qualifying use of WP:RS. Figures look hoax, if they were any true China would be winner of this conflict. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: Can you find another source for the figure you are supporting? "dominated by non-academic Indian sources" you claimed, while I see at least 4 sources that are non-Indian. I found another source that says "India had suffered 251 casualties in all in the shooting conflicts" and while "The Chinese casualties ranged between 300 and 600".[26] Capitals00 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zahne: I found better source that says Chinese officials had stated that there was unspecified amount of Chinese causalities. I have added it to infobox, China had made no claims on Indian causalities. Capitals00 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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, [27] - 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  • Fenal Kalundo Ping works only if you do it the first time you save your edit. And [28] - 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)[reply]
@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 [29] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @Fenal Kalundo: I'm glad that you brought a good third party source[1] 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[2] 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[3] and this source,[4] 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.
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)[reply]
  • @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[1] 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[1] 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[1]. 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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,[5] 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)[reply]
@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。[6]
(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[7] 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,[8][9] while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded.[10][8]
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces.[11][12][13]

—I'm afraid the only thing left that backed by reference are merely The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim[7] and The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces[11]. Moreover, in this reference[7] I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference[11], there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book[11] 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)[reply]
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,[30] 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.[14] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • @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[7] 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,[8][9] while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded.[10][8]
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces.[11][15][13]

—The only information backed by third-party reference are merely The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim[7] and The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces[11]. Moreover, in this reference[7] I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference[11], there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book[11] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Fravel, M. Taylor. Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes. Princeton University Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 1400828872.
  2. ^ Hoontrakul, P.; Balding, C.; Marwah, R. The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics. Springer. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412362.
  3. ^ Bajpai, G. S. China's Shadow Over Sikkim: The Politics of Intimidation. Lancer Publishers. pp. 184–195. ISBN 9781897829523.
  4. ^ Sheru Thapliyal. "The Nathu La skirmish: when Chinese were given a bloody nose". Centre for Land And Welfare Studies. Force Magazine (2004).
  5. ^ Naidu, G. V. C.; Chen, Mumin; Narayanan, Raviprasad. India and China in the Emerging Dynamics of East Asia. Springer. p. 103. ISBN 9788132221388.
  6. ^ http://www.cnwnews.com/html/soceity/cn_ls/lsjm/20150810/743178_2.html
  7. ^ a b c d e f Bruce Elleman; Stephen Kotkin; Clive Schofield (2015). Beijing's Power and China's Borders: Twenty Neighbors in Asia. M.E. Sharpe. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-7656-2766-7.
  8. ^ a b c d Chengappa, Bidanda M. (2004). India-China relations: post conflict phase to post cold war period. A.P.H. Pub. Corp. p. 63. ISBN 978-81-7648-538-8.
  9. ^ a b Lok Sabha Debates. Lok Sabha Secretariat. 1967.
  10. ^ a b Chapter 2: THE PERIOD OF STALEMATE (1963-1975)
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.
  12. ^ "50 years after Sino-Indian war". Millennium Post. 16 May 1975. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
  13. ^ a b "Kirantis' khukris flash at Chola in 1967". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  14. ^ Scott, David. Handbook of India's International Relations. Routledge. pp. 79–80. ISBN 9781136811319.
  15. ^ "50 years after Sino-Indian war". Millennium Post. 16 May 1975. Retrieved 12 July 2013.

Jelep La

"Chinese forces were said to have occupied the Jelep La as the result of these clashes" on lead is WP:UNDUE and inaccurate, because the source fails to detail that India had conquered Jelep La back. It was discussed before here as well and a source provided by user MapSGV included the following:-
"At 07:40 hours on the morning of September 11, 1967, over sixty Indian aggressor troops intruded into Chinese territory by crossing the China-Sikkim boundary at Natu La. Under the cover of fierce artillery fire, the Indian troops launched an attack on the Chinese frontier guards. Thereupon, they opened artillery fire on the Chinese frontier guards at Jelep La. Up till noon, the Indian aggressor troops already killed or wounded 25 Chinese frontier guards. They also destroyed Chinese civilian houses and temples."[31][32][33]
This was written on the evening of September 11, by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in a note Indian Embassy in China.
Point is that when India had already conquered the territory back, why it needs to be mentioned as China's gain in the lead? It will be better if this specific event has been included in some section. Capitals00 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information you are providing is only about the first day of the clashes at Nathu La, while the clashes lasted for 3-4 days. I know that the content on Jelep La is dubious, as per what Thapliyal is saying, but I have taken it to the lead with a footnote, since it came from a third-party source. I want the opinion of other editors on this. Pinging @Kautilya3: and @Adamgerber80: for the same. — Tyler Durden (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you guys are debating. But here are some citations I find:
  • Indians vacated Jelep La in 1965, but not Nathu La.[1]
  • Same here.[2]
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Eekelen, Willem van (2015), Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute with China: A New Look at Asian Relationships, BRILL, pp. 235–, ISBN 978-90-04-30431-4
  2. ^ Singh, V K (2005), Leadership in the Indian Army: Biographies of Twelve Soldiers, SAGE Publications, pp. 309–, ISBN 978-0-7619-3322-9

.

ARBIP restrictions now in effect

El_C 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion about improving this page

To all:

Thank you for paying attention to this page. I'm trying to improve the quality of this page so that it better adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia and especially the "neutral point of view".

At this stage, I have some concerns of the current content on this page, specifically:

1. "Information about territory change": 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. 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, otherwise these contents should be omitted.

2. "Mispresentation on statement of opinion": I notice that in main article it says "According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces.[1]". The problem is in book "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics" in page 37 it writes that the source for this statement may from "3. Author", which makes it an opinion and highly inappropriate to state it as a fact in accordance to WP:RSOPINION. Therefore I request who support this conclusion replace the source here otherwise this should be omitted since opinions usually should not be included in article about historical matters.

3. "inappropriate citation": I notice for the whole article, in-text citations are only provided at the end of each paragraph. It is inappropriate since it indicates that all sources cited at the end support the content in their paragraph while in fact they don't. While the each source provided at the end of paragraphs only support part of the content in its paragraph, they should be cited after sentences instead to increase preciseness. I here request the editor who created these content help me to fix this problem together.

These are some acute problems in the main page, I hope we can solve them first so that nothing in the main page doesn't adhere to the policy, before I can start working on details to further improve this article.

Again, thank you all for the attention. Fenal Kalundo (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still going to right great wrongs, then I am afraid you are not going to help improving the article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: I find even in the link you provided me here "right great wrongs", in which it stated clearly that source should chosen from "which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources". This the same demand as I asked in my first two concerns. The third one is also demanded by Wikipedia:CS. By adhering to the Wikipedia:Five pillars, it should improve the quality of the article. Fenal Kalundo (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To all:

I also notice that though this version seems includes lots of new content than before, the context of current one is confusing and information provided is scattered without connecting to each other. Let's please work on organizing the text.

In addition, I notice that though near 20 scholar sources are in presence, the main article still gives unduly weight to the information that cited from an "online media"[2], Let's please also work on this. Fenal Kalundo (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing citation, you might want to look into other inline citation templates. --Voidvector (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fenal Kalundo Kindly don't remove the reliable sources and replace with citation needed tag. Capitals00 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: Kindly you should read my discussion before groundlessly assert something is reliable, specifically that is in the second one "Mispresentation on statement of opinion". I have challenged the reliability of this source[1], plz prove it is actually reliable before added back. I think we should all show respect to other editors and adhere to the Wikipedia policy here. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your personal opinions, the book is published by Palgrave Macmillan, it is a WP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: I hope you understand taking editing issue personal at very beginning will lead you nowhere. I will make it clearer here, in accordance to WP:RSOPINION, quoted: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".. In addition, in accordance to WP:UNDUE, quoted: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. -- for a statement put in lead and only backed by one poor source while nearly 20 scholar sources in presence is obviously "unduly weighted". I hope we can start discussing content now, if you keep refusing to discuss then I have no choice but ask for Outside Help, plz consider it as notification. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have been told earlier that websites are not reliable sources, scholarly books are. We haven't included a minority view but a major view, backed by a number of sources. Capitals00 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: I hope you can address my concerns directly instead of saying something irrelevant, I gave TWO concrete and specific reason for omitting this text. If you disapprove, please challenge my rationale directly. Only one unreferenced stand-alone statement in one book is not "a number of". -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About 5 different reliable sources were provided by other user on the section above that support the "victory". Capitals00 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: Then please just add them to the citation in the main article. For now, it is still an poor source represented a minority. The purpose for this discussion is exactly about giving time for editors to provide supplemental sources. Without them, the statement of "India victory" should be move to "see also" or other places that match its weight. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They could be added, but there is still no thing such as "minority" opinion. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.
  2. ^ Sheru Thapliyal (Retired Major General of the Indian Army, who commanded the Nathu La Brigade.). "The Nathu La skirmish: when Chinese were given a bloody nose". www.claws.in. Force Magazine (2009). Retrieved 2017-05-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathu_La_and_Cho_La_clashes&oldid=788645421"