This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2017 China鈥揑ndia border standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page has serious grammar errors which need correction. Also, the page appears present the issue with a slight bias towards the Chinese Government's position. MCQknight ( talk) 03:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@ No1lovesu and MBlaze Lightning:, I see repeated reverts. Can you please discuss the issues so that we can come to agreement? At this stage, I foresee a full protection happening. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per later developments, there has been escalation in other areas of the border as well
. Possibly there is a better title than the current one available, but a clear candidate has not emerged in the discussion.
No such user (
talk)
07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 China鈥揑ndia border standoff 鈫
2017 Doklam standoff 鈥 More accurate and precise. India doesn't even recognize the disputed territory as theirs and recognizes it as Bhutan's. I know that the soldiers involved in this standoff are Indians and Chinese but to avoid confusion rename this article as 2017 Doklam standoff.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk) 23:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk 20:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk
17:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: final relist
This article's series of events starts at June 29. It doesn't mention the events of June 16th, where Indian troops crossed the LAC into actual Chinese territory in order to stop Chinese road construction that was still on Chinese territory. By excluding this, it seems to be presenting a false narrative of how the standoff actually started. Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13683/this-lakeside-border-brawl-between-indian-and-chinese-troops-has-sent-tensions-soaring 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 67.180.218.14 ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3, All the links to China's official position paper "The Facts and China's Position Concerning the Indian Border Troops' Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sector into the Chinese Territory (2017-08-02)" worked perfectly, and the paper came out right away after one click for my edited version at
00:34, 20 August 2017 Adam4math (talk | contribs) m . . (23,960 bytes) (+562) . . (undo)
However, after you made the changes in two steps at
11:59, 20 August 2017 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (24,022 bytes) (+62) . . (Use sfn for the China document) (undo | thank)
21:52, 20 August 2017 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) m . . (24,218 bytes) (-4) . . (鈫払ibliography: Fixing style/layout errors) (undo | thank)
they do not work anymore.
You un-necessarily added "[page needed]" every time this document is cited so that the reader has to click several times and still could not find the link. China's short position paper, just like those of India and Bhutan, is for people to look into. But after what you did to the links, the reader would get confused and frustrated - just as I myself was when I tried those links after your edits above. This no doubt will make the reader to hate whatever is connected to this document: China.
Today, I supplied the page numbers for every "[page needed]":
03:26, 25 August 2017 Adam4math (talk | contribs) m . . (24,277 bytes) (-122) . . (added requested page numbers for references at 4 places.) (undo)
but the document still does not open directly. For this version (at 03:26, 25 August 2017), China's position paper is cited as [3], [8], [15], [16] (these numbers may change when new references are added later). Also, the last occurrence of [16] does not have the same page number as the earlier one, which was fine before your edits since no page number was required. Can you fix all of these? Thanks. Adam4math ( talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi CMaldoror, I added the following comment on the media's reported "Nehru letter":
The text in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) in the above does not sound authentic, since in the same cited article [32] it stated "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to northern Sikkim and not to the tri-junction". "This clearly refers to" vs "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to": which one do you want the reader to believe? This is the media's unofficial claim about Nehru's letter, but the current India government has not said anything about it so far for the current contentious dispute.
Adam4math ( talk) 18:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this reader comment from the article text. Please discuss the issues here, not in the main space.
Comment by a reader: The text in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) in the above does not sound authentic, since in the same cited article [1] it stated "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to northern Sikkim and not to the tri-junction". "This clearly refers to" vs "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to": which one do you want the reader to believe? This is the media's unofficial claim about Nehru's letter, but the current India government has not said anything about it so far for the current contentious dispute.
References
- ^ "Letters show Nehru didn't endorse British-era treaty with China on Sikkim border". 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-08-24.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
After rushing to the media with a whole bunch of half-baked information (he didn't even know where Doklam was initially), Manoj Joshi has now produced a well-researched article. This should be considered the authoritative statement of his views and override whatever he said in the media.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Clearly this article is written by Indians and merely shows Indians' POV which is not neutral at all. -- Whaterss ( talk) 11:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
-- This is not a banana measuring contest. You may always help improve Wikipedia by offering neutral sources and expanding the article. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Xooxwiki ( talk 鈥 contribs) 11:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3, Record shows that you composed the section on Disengagement. You effort is appreciated. I disagree on a couple of sentences for reasons below.
"Both countries also said that they would continue to patrol the Doklam area"? I notice this is from a report by Washington Post but no other major newspaper in the west mentions this. China did say it would continue patrol Doklam and much more as recorded on its foreign official ministry official web page at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1487932.shtml but no such statement can be found on India's MEA web site except its short and only "Press Statement on Doklam disengagement understanding". Who will believe that India would continue to patrol the Doklam area after such a standoff in which China asserted India violated its territorial sovereignty and trampled international law after it crossing an international boundary to face the Chinese, and that an US senior administration official said US was concerned about sovereignty issues and adherence to international law as Hindustantimes reported one day earlier on 27 August, 2017? Is this standoff fun at all, and India intends to go into Doklam again to cause another one? This does not make sense. I do not think Washington Post can be trusted on such a report, because India's official statement does not have any such statement. I think this sentence should be removed.
"Indian MEA issued a second statement later in the day that both the sides have withdrawn "under verification"."? No such a "second statement" can be found anywhere except what the media claimed. This sentence should be removed also if no genuine source can be found to backup the statement. On the other hand, official release from China's foreign ministry says "In light of the changes on the ground, China will accordingly make necessary adjustments and deployment."
Reuters is the most neutral among all the major media reports on any issue (see wikipedia article on this). I believe its reports are more trustworthy. Truthreigns ( talk) 05:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Undid revision 798152295 by Truthreigns (talk); WP:POV pushing; if you want to contest existing content use the talk page; and stop adding government propaganda
All government statements potentially include propaganda. They are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can only be used when validated by secondary sources.
The only Indian/Chinese source used in that section is for the Bhutanese statement. The rest are all WP:THIRDPARTY.
Let me also highlight this passage from the Washington Post article from the 28th:
Mao Siwei, former Chinese consul general in the Indian city of Kolkata, said the statements were deliberately "vague" because of the sensitivity of the issue and the reluctance of either side to show weakness. "Judging from experience and common sense, I guess both sides have come to the following agreement: Firstly, on principle, China would stop its road building and India would withdraw its troops; secondly, regarding the timing, India would withdraw first and China would withdraw later."
Your effort to add PRIMARY source statements that contradict the experts "common sense" is a serious problem. When you cite SECONDARY sources, you need to accurately summarise the entire source, not cherry pick statements that you find convenient for your POV. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
You cant say it's propaganda so you cannot post china's statement , while you automatically ignore that indian media always lies and they are also propaganda , it's double-standered. -- 瑙f斁鐨勯珮鍔犵储 ( talk) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The Sino-Indian conflict has been resolved as far as I know. Although I do question the neutrality of Western media, I would say it is useless to "protest" anything at all. However, my compatriot, your sayings here may only let these people think that we are whining about something. In fact, we did everything right and in accordance with the international law. So, yes, my compatriots, fear not any media biases, our lands are secure as usual.----
鎼嶉綃 (
talk)
03:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Aw hohoho it's ok I was feeling bad about these guys' saying of "Poor indians" and stuff. You need to understand that some of my compatriots do not know how to express themselves in a democratic environment. Please do not take it personal or feel bad, they are probably middle school kids.
They do sometimes have difficulties understanding Wikipedia's policies.
Now. I do not really know much about this conflict since I find it boring........
Hohoho.---- 鎼嶉綃 ( talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I have made some changes on current situation of site as some media reports claim that both side troops still on stand off site and they just moved 150 meter back each. Financial Express claimed it here [ [4]]. The matter is solved as per both nations official but there is no doubt that still both nation troops are patrolling there. 啶膏啶た啶 啶膏た啶傕す ( talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This time I add some non-Chinese neutral media sources, and I think it is no guilty to describe something really happens, such as statement released from both sides ministry. -- 瑙f斁鐨勯珮鍔犵储 ( talk) 18:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it can be considered as part of the standoff, but an indian UAV crossed the border and crashed in China. Indian authority claimed they lost contact with the UAV during a training mission.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42261725 http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201712/07/WS5a294201a310fcb6fafd44c2.html 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 133.130.103.216 ( talk) 04:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the picture. It's not Chinese boundary and Bhutan has also claim on it. Show it is disputed territory instead. Phani84 ( talk) 16:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I will be looking at Wikipedia policy more closely. Nevertheless, common sense would dictate that the picture on the article contains POV and unverifiable information. There should clearly be an obligation upon the user who uploaded it to provide verifiable sources that what the picture contains is accurate. As it stands, the picture is UNVERIFIED and should be promptly removed.
ASavantDude ( talk) 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, as the Chinese Foreign Ministry is one of the parties to the Border dispute, the additions of sources of information clearly flout 'Neutral Point of View' policies, and the pictures are therefore liable to be removed in due course. Discussion on the Talk page is likely Wikipedia policy concerning the fate of these images.
ASavantDude ( talk) 23:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Added a Dubious tag to the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Bibliography reference. In due course, it would be reasonable (ie: Wikipedia policy) to remove dubious pictures, references, etc...
ASavantDude ( talk) 23:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Siddsg Can you please explain why the source used here is reliable? Blogs are generally avoidable, as they involved minimal editorial oversight. Kautilya3 Your input would be appreciated. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notifying interested editors that a new academic paper has been published in Asian Affairs, with an analysis of the pre-1962 border (including Aksai Chin, Galwan, etc.), the 2017 clashes, the June 2020 skirmishes, the border management system, and proposals from both sides.
Its coverage on the 2017 standoff goes beyond much of what is in the WP article right now, so we should definitely integrate it. It's not freely accessible without academic access, so if nobody else does it now, I might get around to it eventually. 鈥 MarkH21 talk 03:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think `Nipal` is a typo for `Nepal`. If so, it should be fixed. Itchyjunk ( talk) 05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest editing in the infobox of the page to put "part of China-India Relations". I was going to do it myself, but I can't because of page protection. Please check this message. StormStep04 ( talk) 17:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2017 China鈥揑ndia border standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page has serious grammar errors which need correction. Also, the page appears present the issue with a slight bias towards the Chinese Government's position. MCQknight ( talk) 03:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@ No1lovesu and MBlaze Lightning:, I see repeated reverts. Can you please discuss the issues so that we can come to agreement? At this stage, I foresee a full protection happening. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per later developments, there has been escalation in other areas of the border as well
. Possibly there is a better title than the current one available, but a clear candidate has not emerged in the discussion.
No such user (
talk)
07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 China鈥揑ndia border standoff 鈫
2017 Doklam standoff 鈥 More accurate and precise. India doesn't even recognize the disputed territory as theirs and recognizes it as Bhutan's. I know that the soldiers involved in this standoff are Indians and Chinese but to avoid confusion rename this article as 2017 Doklam standoff.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk) 23:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk 20:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk
17:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: final relist
This article's series of events starts at June 29. It doesn't mention the events of June 16th, where Indian troops crossed the LAC into actual Chinese territory in order to stop Chinese road construction that was still on Chinese territory. By excluding this, it seems to be presenting a false narrative of how the standoff actually started. Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13683/this-lakeside-border-brawl-between-indian-and-chinese-troops-has-sent-tensions-soaring 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 67.180.218.14 ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3, All the links to China's official position paper "The Facts and China's Position Concerning the Indian Border Troops' Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sector into the Chinese Territory (2017-08-02)" worked perfectly, and the paper came out right away after one click for my edited version at
00:34, 20 August 2017 Adam4math (talk | contribs) m . . (23,960 bytes) (+562) . . (undo)
However, after you made the changes in two steps at
11:59, 20 August 2017 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (24,022 bytes) (+62) . . (Use sfn for the China document) (undo | thank)
21:52, 20 August 2017 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) m . . (24,218 bytes) (-4) . . (鈫払ibliography: Fixing style/layout errors) (undo | thank)
they do not work anymore.
You un-necessarily added "[page needed]" every time this document is cited so that the reader has to click several times and still could not find the link. China's short position paper, just like those of India and Bhutan, is for people to look into. But after what you did to the links, the reader would get confused and frustrated - just as I myself was when I tried those links after your edits above. This no doubt will make the reader to hate whatever is connected to this document: China.
Today, I supplied the page numbers for every "[page needed]":
03:26, 25 August 2017 Adam4math (talk | contribs) m . . (24,277 bytes) (-122) . . (added requested page numbers for references at 4 places.) (undo)
but the document still does not open directly. For this version (at 03:26, 25 August 2017), China's position paper is cited as [3], [8], [15], [16] (these numbers may change when new references are added later). Also, the last occurrence of [16] does not have the same page number as the earlier one, which was fine before your edits since no page number was required. Can you fix all of these? Thanks. Adam4math ( talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi CMaldoror, I added the following comment on the media's reported "Nehru letter":
The text in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) in the above does not sound authentic, since in the same cited article [32] it stated "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to northern Sikkim and not to the tri-junction". "This clearly refers to" vs "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to": which one do you want the reader to believe? This is the media's unofficial claim about Nehru's letter, but the current India government has not said anything about it so far for the current contentious dispute.
Adam4math ( talk) 18:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this reader comment from the article text. Please discuss the issues here, not in the main space.
Comment by a reader: The text in (This clearly refers to ...... were not involved) in the above does not sound authentic, since in the same cited article [1] it stated "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to northern Sikkim and not to the tri-junction". "This clearly refers to" vs "Nehru鈥檚 letter seems to refer to": which one do you want the reader to believe? This is the media's unofficial claim about Nehru's letter, but the current India government has not said anything about it so far for the current contentious dispute.
References
- ^ "Letters show Nehru didn't endorse British-era treaty with China on Sikkim border". 2017-07-04. Retrieved 2017-08-24.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
After rushing to the media with a whole bunch of half-baked information (he didn't even know where Doklam was initially), Manoj Joshi has now produced a well-researched article. This should be considered the authoritative statement of his views and override whatever he said in the media.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Clearly this article is written by Indians and merely shows Indians' POV which is not neutral at all. -- Whaterss ( talk) 11:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
-- This is not a banana measuring contest. You may always help improve Wikipedia by offering neutral sources and expanding the article. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Xooxwiki ( talk 鈥 contribs) 11:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3, Record shows that you composed the section on Disengagement. You effort is appreciated. I disagree on a couple of sentences for reasons below.
"Both countries also said that they would continue to patrol the Doklam area"? I notice this is from a report by Washington Post but no other major newspaper in the west mentions this. China did say it would continue patrol Doklam and much more as recorded on its foreign official ministry official web page at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1487932.shtml but no such statement can be found on India's MEA web site except its short and only "Press Statement on Doklam disengagement understanding". Who will believe that India would continue to patrol the Doklam area after such a standoff in which China asserted India violated its territorial sovereignty and trampled international law after it crossing an international boundary to face the Chinese, and that an US senior administration official said US was concerned about sovereignty issues and adherence to international law as Hindustantimes reported one day earlier on 27 August, 2017? Is this standoff fun at all, and India intends to go into Doklam again to cause another one? This does not make sense. I do not think Washington Post can be trusted on such a report, because India's official statement does not have any such statement. I think this sentence should be removed.
"Indian MEA issued a second statement later in the day that both the sides have withdrawn "under verification"."? No such a "second statement" can be found anywhere except what the media claimed. This sentence should be removed also if no genuine source can be found to backup the statement. On the other hand, official release from China's foreign ministry says "In light of the changes on the ground, China will accordingly make necessary adjustments and deployment."
Reuters is the most neutral among all the major media reports on any issue (see wikipedia article on this). I believe its reports are more trustworthy. Truthreigns ( talk) 05:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Undid revision 798152295 by Truthreigns (talk); WP:POV pushing; if you want to contest existing content use the talk page; and stop adding government propaganda
All government statements potentially include propaganda. They are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can only be used when validated by secondary sources.
The only Indian/Chinese source used in that section is for the Bhutanese statement. The rest are all WP:THIRDPARTY.
Let me also highlight this passage from the Washington Post article from the 28th:
Mao Siwei, former Chinese consul general in the Indian city of Kolkata, said the statements were deliberately "vague" because of the sensitivity of the issue and the reluctance of either side to show weakness. "Judging from experience and common sense, I guess both sides have come to the following agreement: Firstly, on principle, China would stop its road building and India would withdraw its troops; secondly, regarding the timing, India would withdraw first and China would withdraw later."
Your effort to add PRIMARY source statements that contradict the experts "common sense" is a serious problem. When you cite SECONDARY sources, you need to accurately summarise the entire source, not cherry pick statements that you find convenient for your POV. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
You cant say it's propaganda so you cannot post china's statement , while you automatically ignore that indian media always lies and they are also propaganda , it's double-standered. -- 瑙f斁鐨勯珮鍔犵储 ( talk) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The Sino-Indian conflict has been resolved as far as I know. Although I do question the neutrality of Western media, I would say it is useless to "protest" anything at all. However, my compatriot, your sayings here may only let these people think that we are whining about something. In fact, we did everything right and in accordance with the international law. So, yes, my compatriots, fear not any media biases, our lands are secure as usual.----
鎼嶉綃 (
talk)
03:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Aw hohoho it's ok I was feeling bad about these guys' saying of "Poor indians" and stuff. You need to understand that some of my compatriots do not know how to express themselves in a democratic environment. Please do not take it personal or feel bad, they are probably middle school kids.
They do sometimes have difficulties understanding Wikipedia's policies.
Now. I do not really know much about this conflict since I find it boring........
Hohoho.---- 鎼嶉綃 ( talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I have made some changes on current situation of site as some media reports claim that both side troops still on stand off site and they just moved 150 meter back each. Financial Express claimed it here [ [4]]. The matter is solved as per both nations official but there is no doubt that still both nation troops are patrolling there. 啶膏啶た啶 啶膏た啶傕す ( talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This time I add some non-Chinese neutral media sources, and I think it is no guilty to describe something really happens, such as statement released from both sides ministry. -- 瑙f斁鐨勯珮鍔犵储 ( talk) 18:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it can be considered as part of the standoff, but an indian UAV crossed the border and crashed in China. Indian authority claimed they lost contact with the UAV during a training mission.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42261725 http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201712/07/WS5a294201a310fcb6fafd44c2.html 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 133.130.103.216 ( talk) 04:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the picture. It's not Chinese boundary and Bhutan has also claim on it. Show it is disputed territory instead. Phani84 ( talk) 16:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I will be looking at Wikipedia policy more closely. Nevertheless, common sense would dictate that the picture on the article contains POV and unverifiable information. There should clearly be an obligation upon the user who uploaded it to provide verifiable sources that what the picture contains is accurate. As it stands, the picture is UNVERIFIED and should be promptly removed.
ASavantDude ( talk) 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, as the Chinese Foreign Ministry is one of the parties to the Border dispute, the additions of sources of information clearly flout 'Neutral Point of View' policies, and the pictures are therefore liable to be removed in due course. Discussion on the Talk page is likely Wikipedia policy concerning the fate of these images.
ASavantDude ( talk) 23:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Added a Dubious tag to the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Bibliography reference. In due course, it would be reasonable (ie: Wikipedia policy) to remove dubious pictures, references, etc...
ASavantDude ( talk) 23:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Siddsg Can you please explain why the source used here is reliable? Blogs are generally avoidable, as they involved minimal editorial oversight. Kautilya3 Your input would be appreciated. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notifying interested editors that a new academic paper has been published in Asian Affairs, with an analysis of the pre-1962 border (including Aksai Chin, Galwan, etc.), the 2017 clashes, the June 2020 skirmishes, the border management system, and proposals from both sides.
Its coverage on the 2017 standoff goes beyond much of what is in the WP article right now, so we should definitely integrate it. It's not freely accessible without academic access, so if nobody else does it now, I might get around to it eventually. 鈥 MarkH21 talk 03:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think `Nipal` is a typo for `Nepal`. If so, it should be fixed. Itchyjunk ( talk) 05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest editing in the infobox of the page to put "part of China-India Relations". I was going to do it myself, but I can't because of page protection. Please check this message. StormStep04 ( talk) 17:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)