This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Reports are coming out mostly on twitter, but articles like this one of The Print are also being written. Therefore, the skirmish is ongoing and the article will be edited to reflect this. Note that details are unclear at the moment since this is recent information, so there will be a degree of inaccuracy as always. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This is where the standoff is happening, literally on the door to the Shyok valley. The distance from there to the LAC is a little over 4 km. The width of the valley at that point is about 400 m. It progressively narrows as it goes up before becoming essentially a water channel. The reports seem to imply that the Chinese brought heavy equipment through there, and came ready to build bunkers! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the Shyam Saran Report 2013 mentioned in this Indian Express opinion piece a good addition here? Should mention of it be removed, more so as it isn't needed in the background of this particular article? I have also added a contradictory citation Shyam Saran denies any report on Chinese incursions. But the mention by an Indian Ambassador is revealing as to how serious all this is in terms of area - "India having lost 640 sq km due to “area denial†set by PLA patrolling". DTM ( talk) 12:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do not change the section "strategic talk" to something merely as "reactions". I agree something better than "strategic talk" can be used. Please help find a better name. Thanks. DTM ( talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am unable to edit the page due to some sort of protection, so can someone add Indo-Tibetan Border Police to the list of Indian units involved? The ITBP is a paramilitary force different from the Indian Army, and is the defending force on the Indo-China border (contrary to its name, ITBP defends the LAC with Aksai Chin which is, according to the Chinese, a part of Xinjiang and not Tibet). SignificantPBD ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: Recent news articles from trustworthy sources verify the involvement of the ITBP in the border skirmishes.
Hence, I am taking the liberty of making the edit now. SignificantPBD ( talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Can this be added as one of the triggers in the article?
As Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen was sworn in on Wednesday for a second term, two Members of Parliament from India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were among the dignitaries from 41 countries who sent in messages of congratulation that were played at the inaugural ceremony...the two MPs were among 92 foreign dignitaries from 41 countries, who were virtually present at the event via video messages. (The Hindu)
DTM ( talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Flaughtin, did you have any specific quote or link in mind when you said this " if anybody should get a quote it's Trump because he is the one making the remark"? DTM ( talk) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This revert by Kautilya3 made me think if WP has a preference against video sources, which led me to Wikipedia:Video links. It says that a video can be used as a reference if it adheres to the usual reliability standards. Hence I have reinstated the comment by Rtd. General Hasnain. If someone is aware of any WP policy which makes a distinction between video and textual references, please provide a link in this section. Thanks. SignificantPBD ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark and Vanamonde93:, can you please explain to this editor why an AV media is not a good source for this kind of a subject? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
"Q. 23. What was the exact point where the alignment cut the western half of Pangong Lake? And what was the exact point where it left the Pangong Lake?
A. The co-ordinates of the point where it reached the Pangong Lake were Long. 78° 49' E, Lat. 33° 44' N. It crossed to the southern bank of the lake at a point Long. 78° 43' E, Lat. 33° 40' N. Then it went in a south-easterly direction along the watershed dividing the Tongta river and the other rivers flowing into the Spanggur Lake, till it reached Mount Sajum.
Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, 1960, Part 1, p. 53
Both OpenStreetMap (which says it using the LSIB database) and Google show the LAC at Finger 4.
They also show the same line as the Chinese claim line [4], even though to the south of the lake, a Chinese editor has recently made a change.
The Indian claim line is to the right of the Khurnak Fort [5]. So, it is well beyond all the "fingers". (The finger 8, the last one I had heard of, just about reaches Sirijap). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
However, as the Indian side was trying to back its claim at the negotiating table, the Chinese Army constructed a metal-top road and claimed the area to be part of Aksai Chin area, the sources said, adding many a times the Indian army has used the same road to patrol the area and lay claim over it.
The Chinese road at the moment comes all the way up to the end of Finger 4 on the right side, where it has a turnaround [6]. (I can grant you that Google satellite images could be a few months old. But I would say the whole point of putting a turnaround there is to declare it to be the terminal.)
The last stretch from Sirijap to Finger 4 was added on OpenStreetMap in December 2016 [7]. The other stretch from Khurnak Fort to Sirijap was also added at the same time [8].
The road to Khurnak Fort (a primary road) was added in 2013 [9]. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The Indian road to Finger 3 was added in 2013 [10]. At that time it was classified as an "unclassified road". About a year ago, it was marked as a tertiary road, with asphalt surfacing.
The previous stretch was added in 2016 [11] but the original stretch from Phobrang was added in 2013 [12]. So, somehow the middle piece got left out for 3 years. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The Indian media have been putting out various claims, which I find quite dubious. I will take some of them from this India Today article.
China had built road up to 5 km on the Indian side of the LAC in 1999, during the Kargil war with Pakistan.
China, on the other hand, says the LAC passes through Finger 2. It has been patrolling up to Finger 4- mostly in light vehicles, and at times up to Finger 2.
The confrontation that took place in May happened at Finger 5. And, the current theatre of eye-to-eye confrontation is Finger 2, where the Chinese rushed in the aftermath of the confrontation.
A statement in NDTV says:
The likely trigger for the face-off was China's stiff opposition to India laying a key road in the Finger area around the Pangong Tso Lake and the construction of another road connecting the Darbuk-Shayok-Daulat Beg Oldie road in Galwan Valley.
According to Chinese military sources quoted by the news agency [Global Times], India has "built defence fortifications and obstacles to disrupt Chinese border defence troops' normal patrol activities". [1]
Kautilya3, CNN is citing its affiliate News18, headquartered in Noida and Nagar, owned by Network18 Group headquartered in Mumbai and owned by Reliance Industries. Therefore, it would be accurate to label the casualties figure as an Indian claim. Additionally, Hindustan times quotes the Indian army, who are giving the same numbers (4 Indian and 7 Chinese soldiers) as News18. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
DTM ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Can someone tell the reasoning behind this edit: [14]? I don't understand how a former ambassador's comment is "wild". SignificantPBD ( talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall, the pattern shows the PLA’s desperate design to snatch the lake at Lukung through a three-pronged strategy of attacking from Sirijap in the north, Chuchul in the south and through the lake water from middle. This is the key chokepoint from where the Chinese can cut off Indian access to the entire flank of Chip Chap plains, Aksai Chin in the east and Shayok Valley to the north, which means that Indian control is pushed to the west of the Shyok river and south of the Indus river, forcing India to accept both rivers as natural boundaries. And once China gets control of the southern side of the Karakoram it can easily approach Siachen Glacier from the Depsang corridor and meet at Tashkurgan junction from where the CPEC crosses into Gilgit-Baltistan. source
Not really. It is still wild. Stobdan seems to fall into the camp of Indian commentators that believe that no evidence other than their clairvoyance is needed for presenting issues. A scholar's review of his book says:
Unfortunately, glaring flaws prevent The Great Game in the Buddhist Himalayas from fulfilling its potential. The book presents its claims, but seldom puts flesh on the bones of its argument. Moreover, these claims are sometimes, frankly, contradictory. [15]
I suggest we drop him as a source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Closed for the time being as per recent article updates. Can be reopened as needed.. ( non-admin closure) DTM ( talk) 09:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 China–India skirmishes → (1) 2020 China–India border skirmishes (2) 2020 China–India skirmishes and standoff (3) 2020 China–India border skirmishes and standoff (4) 2020 China–India border standoff – In the beginning of May the title mentioning only skirmishes was accurate, but now it has developed into a standoff as per media reports used in the article. DTM ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Please can someone remove the move template at the top of the article. I have tried twice but the bot has placed it back automatically. I have also closed the move discussion above Talk:2020_China–India_skirmishes#Requested_move_8_June_2020 for now. DTM ( talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It cites a tweet out of context for the Chinese casualties (5 killed 11 injured) Which only the Indian media is reporting. The original poster of the tweet has also expressed her concern that the Indian media is quoting her out of context: https://twitter.com/bycongwang/status/1272835039823163394
SpicyBiryani (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says 43 Chinese soldiers were killed. For clarification, it should be stated that this is Indian sources. Manfredxu99 ( talk) 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed a constant stream of Indian sources/editors (intentionally or unintentionally) taking statements like this out of context, or (intentionally or unintentionally) misleading others by labeling Indian claims as neutral. This is an ongoing event and many will come to Wikipedia, having good faith in the validity of the claim made. Falsely labeling such claims and indulging in WP:CHERRYPICKING in times like this helps fake news spread, which is the last thing we need in a major event like this. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently after the miss-representation of the Chinese figure, now there has been a miss-representation of the Indian figure [16]. The cited source (and every other source) clearly states 20 soldiers were killed. An editor has changed "killed" incorrectly and contrary to the cited source to "casualties". A term which is used for both killed and injured. This needs to be corrected. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A few editors are constantly presenting the figure 43 cited by ANI as representing only killed Chinese soldiers, despite the fact (as per the source) its 43 killed AND injured. The editors have been constantly removing "and injured" from the infobox. Example [17]. This needs to stop and looked after since its a miss-represantation of the cited source. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
According to the linked sources, this 43 figure comes from "Indian Intercepts". Surely, this can not be seen as neutral and independent? I think this 43 casualty figure should be removed as the only source is "Indian Intercepts". Enigmie ( talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, the Chinese casualties are, as mentioned before, from an India source, which is definitely unreliable and biased when it comes to most things Chinese. More importantly the wording is heavily implying that China suffered 43 deaths because of the way it is structured. First you have "43 casualties" on top, then "7 injured" below. This can easily lead to the misconception that 43 Chinese soldiers have died with 7 injured. So I recommend doing this:
This is in accordance to many of the casualty preview on most pages like Korean war, Vietnam war so on and so forth. Nebakin ( talk) 03:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Casualty reported under Indian sources as 20 and 43. I believe the author wanted to write Chinese side and repeated Indian sources 2409:4071:E01:BB4F:4AD5:BB98:8B63:7DF4 ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ZEBO ALPHA ( talk) 10:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change x to y ZEBO ALPHA ( talk) 10:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "43 killed" from Indian sources to "43 killed or seriously injured" Viratkohli2011 ( talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian officials claim about chinese casualities but have no such proof, by any means not even in international media. 39.36.173.178 ( talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The tention between china and india started on 5 may 2020 at Ladakh galwan valley and now 20 solidure of india had been died till at the month of june ans negociation had also reach to end at lietunent general level but no result has been found in highest deligation negociation.India cliam that he had killed 45 chinese solidure but yet china had not confirm it.BBC reported that 20 indian solidure had been killed in Ladakh conflict.Chinese army had put thier 100 camps in galwan valley and settlite picture can told us purly.China cliam that his projected area in Ladakh is 90000 sqare kilometer but in 1962 india chiana war china conqest 38000 sqare kilometer.Now again conflict is raising up since 5 may 2020 and chinese army proving its integritity because india had been revoked article 370 and 35 A.The confilict is continuing
Muslim Rajan pur ( talk) 03:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
answered=no
to reiterate your request when you have worded it in a suitable form. Regards,
âŸÂ Field Marshal Aryan âŸ
04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Chinah to China, because it is a misspelling. Top of the page in the Belligerents overview where the belligerent nations of India and China are stated. There it says "Chinah" which should be "China" in correct English. 2001:981:1797:1:D15B:8951:1B32:E2E9 ( talk) 08:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
below india, with support of usa should also be written below first Image 2405:204:1000:1583:4D35:EAD3:F5A1:CFB2 ( talk) 03:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The page is already too long. Archiving facility should be already placed here now. NHS2008 ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For clarity: shouldn't both of the source for Chinese casualties indicate that they are estimates as no one knows the actual number yet? Also for the Indian source, it should specify that is estimates both KIA and WIA as the US source specifies KIAs
For consistancy the Indian casualty number currently listed should be listed as confirmed KIA, and should also include that there are about 135 WIAs:
And 34 MIA:
https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/amp/ 172.97.13.129 ( talk) 05:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
answered=no
to reiterate request. --
Field Marshal Aryan (
talk)
07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to change "Hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer)."
to
"Hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer) according to Indian sources."
, in accordance with the rest of the article. The reasoning is to provide context of where the sources are coming from and to be consistent with the sidebar. Goinghard5 ( talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok suggestion accepted. Can we change the article please?
~~~~
. Regards,
âŸÂ Field Marshal Aryan âŸ
16:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)@ Voortrekker70: Your mention of 5 Chinese deaths is backed up only by a broken link. Please fix it with another cite or remove. DTM ( talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It does not look like any credible source has confirmed the exact number of Chinese deaths. A reporter of Global timeswas quoted by most reports, but Global Times has distanced itself from claiming specific number Hcandi ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Its a dubious figure. https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/16/5-chinese-soldiers-dead-the-bizarre-case-of-a-chinese-journalists-indian-news-source
US Intelligence reports 35 Chinese soldiers killed. According to the U.S. assessment, the Chinese government considers the casualties among their troops as a humiliation for its armed forces and has not confirmed the numbers for fear of emboldening other adversaries, the source says. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6395:ACEB:6D37:3D63:708D:7AA3 ( talk) 10:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The User:Aman.kumar.goel said my edit changing the figures from 43 or 35 killed depending on source to the same numbers but casualties (including killed and wounded) is a misrepresentation. The news sources clearly state the casualties are both dead and injured. I don't want to waste time on an edit war so I will just lay out quotes I am relying on from Indian news sources. I don't think this editor should be allowed to edit this article. I don't think he is behaving in good faith.
Thank you User:Talleyrand20 for your earlier edit.
Greatvictor999 ( talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't India have a scholar who is an expert in the LAC and who has recently said/authored something about this particular face-off? Or China for that matter? Some expert insight into the LAC? Someone who has written a book in the past on the topic and then authored some recent news article etc DTM ( talk) 14:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not able to understand at all that what Trojanishere is trying to do here. The version clearly mentions that these are US sources under the column of belligerent sources which are supposed to covered separately from third parties. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 19:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Drat8sub. I simply rephrased many of the sentences of the article because the article had so many grammatical errors. The contributors liberally used "the" at places where they shouldn't be. And they also omit "the" at many places that they should. You are telling me to read the talk page. There is nothing on the talk page about not allowing people to fix grammatical mistakes. I'm just trying to help people so that they don't get a stroke while reading the article because of the many grammatical mistakes. Also, America is not a continent. "The Americas" can be considered as a continent. "America" is universally accepted as a name for the U.S.A. I highly doubt that you know what you are doing if you don't even know basic English. Please let us have a conversation and evaluate all the edits that I made before you just flip a switch and revert my hours of painstaking editing.
Best regards, Steve RealIK17 ( talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Chinese casualties:
Also i do not support the use of US news as a source for official US claims. It is a private company and should not be representing official US claims until the relevant US departments make a statement. Nebakin ( talk) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add extra lines. Change "and so far, Indian media sources have claimed casualties of at least 43 Chinese soldiers including dead and injured[6] (including death of an officer)." to
"and so far, Indian media sources have claimed casualties of at least 43 Chinese soldiers including dead and injured[6] (including death of an officer). American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News [Reference]. According to the U.S. assessment, the Chinese government considers the casualties among their troops as a humiliation for its armed forces and has not confirmed the numbers for fear of emboldening other adversaries, the source says." Reference: https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-16/dozens-killed-as-india-china-face-off-in-first-deadly-clash-in-decades 2409:4072:6395:ACEB:6D37:3D63:708D:7AA3 ( talk) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeing users swap between June 15 and 16 within this wiki article for the date of the 2nd physical conflict, should we be sticking to just the 15th or the 16th?
The Nepalese road construction in the disputed area is consistent with Chinese interests and being conducted concurrently along with the skirmishes and concurrently challenging Indian's claim ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nepal-seems-to-be-following-chinas-road-map-on-lipulekh/articleshow/76416738.cms) ( talk) 13:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It was reported that there were roughly 2 dozen critically injured Indian troops and just over 110 with more minor injuries that still required hospitalisation. Should these numbers also be reported in the casualty section? Trojanishere removed the edit citing that those numbers should not be included as the estimated casualties on the Chinese side are only for the dead and/or seriously injured and that it wouldn't be a fair comparison to include any of the injured Indian soldiers.
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Pakistan's claim as well.
https://dnd.com.pk/over-47-indian-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-valley-ladakh-by-chinese-forces/191776 24.84.237.87 ( talk) 03:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
å·²ç¶“åŠ å…¥å·´åŸºæ–¯å¦ä¾†æº-- 葉åˆå˜‰ ( talk) 04:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The Dispatch News Desk (DND) is an international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan for distributing news in Russian, English, and Urdu languages...The content of the reports is editorially regulated according to news values, accuracy, copyright protected, and independent of any advertising and sponsorship carried. DND Breaking News provides urgent news items distributed as and when necessary. The same is posted on our news portals at www.dnd.com.pk and www.dispatchnewsdesk.com as DND is also a moderated web-based community message board for feedback, comments, and reaction from readers. DND has field reporters and contributors all over Pakistan as well as in Central Asia, South Asia, and Eastern Europe.
I could see some part of the article is supported by references from youtube channels. Can someone provide correct reference for the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTheme ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
With edits like these [23] [24] (both by apparent newly created accounts) the miss-interpretation of Chinese casualties has continued, with these editors inserting exclusively the word "killed", despite the fact the original cited source (ANI) states 43 Chinese soldiers were killed or injured (collective English word/term being casualties). These disruptive edits need to be looked after. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Reports are coming out mostly on twitter, but articles like this one of The Print are also being written. Therefore, the skirmish is ongoing and the article will be edited to reflect this. Note that details are unclear at the moment since this is recent information, so there will be a degree of inaccuracy as always. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This is where the standoff is happening, literally on the door to the Shyok valley. The distance from there to the LAC is a little over 4 km. The width of the valley at that point is about 400 m. It progressively narrows as it goes up before becoming essentially a water channel. The reports seem to imply that the Chinese brought heavy equipment through there, and came ready to build bunkers! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the Shyam Saran Report 2013 mentioned in this Indian Express opinion piece a good addition here? Should mention of it be removed, more so as it isn't needed in the background of this particular article? I have also added a contradictory citation Shyam Saran denies any report on Chinese incursions. But the mention by an Indian Ambassador is revealing as to how serious all this is in terms of area - "India having lost 640 sq km due to “area denial†set by PLA patrolling". DTM ( talk) 12:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do not change the section "strategic talk" to something merely as "reactions". I agree something better than "strategic talk" can be used. Please help find a better name. Thanks. DTM ( talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am unable to edit the page due to some sort of protection, so can someone add Indo-Tibetan Border Police to the list of Indian units involved? The ITBP is a paramilitary force different from the Indian Army, and is the defending force on the Indo-China border (contrary to its name, ITBP defends the LAC with Aksai Chin which is, according to the Chinese, a part of Xinjiang and not Tibet). SignificantPBD ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: Recent news articles from trustworthy sources verify the involvement of the ITBP in the border skirmishes.
Hence, I am taking the liberty of making the edit now. SignificantPBD ( talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Can this be added as one of the triggers in the article?
As Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen was sworn in on Wednesday for a second term, two Members of Parliament from India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were among the dignitaries from 41 countries who sent in messages of congratulation that were played at the inaugural ceremony...the two MPs were among 92 foreign dignitaries from 41 countries, who were virtually present at the event via video messages. (The Hindu)
DTM ( talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Flaughtin, did you have any specific quote or link in mind when you said this " if anybody should get a quote it's Trump because he is the one making the remark"? DTM ( talk) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This revert by Kautilya3 made me think if WP has a preference against video sources, which led me to Wikipedia:Video links. It says that a video can be used as a reference if it adheres to the usual reliability standards. Hence I have reinstated the comment by Rtd. General Hasnain. If someone is aware of any WP policy which makes a distinction between video and textual references, please provide a link in this section. Thanks. SignificantPBD ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark and Vanamonde93:, can you please explain to this editor why an AV media is not a good source for this kind of a subject? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
"Q. 23. What was the exact point where the alignment cut the western half of Pangong Lake? And what was the exact point where it left the Pangong Lake?
A. The co-ordinates of the point where it reached the Pangong Lake were Long. 78° 49' E, Lat. 33° 44' N. It crossed to the southern bank of the lake at a point Long. 78° 43' E, Lat. 33° 40' N. Then it went in a south-easterly direction along the watershed dividing the Tongta river and the other rivers flowing into the Spanggur Lake, till it reached Mount Sajum.
Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, 1960, Part 1, p. 53
Both OpenStreetMap (which says it using the LSIB database) and Google show the LAC at Finger 4.
They also show the same line as the Chinese claim line [4], even though to the south of the lake, a Chinese editor has recently made a change.
The Indian claim line is to the right of the Khurnak Fort [5]. So, it is well beyond all the "fingers". (The finger 8, the last one I had heard of, just about reaches Sirijap). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
However, as the Indian side was trying to back its claim at the negotiating table, the Chinese Army constructed a metal-top road and claimed the area to be part of Aksai Chin area, the sources said, adding many a times the Indian army has used the same road to patrol the area and lay claim over it.
The Chinese road at the moment comes all the way up to the end of Finger 4 on the right side, where it has a turnaround [6]. (I can grant you that Google satellite images could be a few months old. But I would say the whole point of putting a turnaround there is to declare it to be the terminal.)
The last stretch from Sirijap to Finger 4 was added on OpenStreetMap in December 2016 [7]. The other stretch from Khurnak Fort to Sirijap was also added at the same time [8].
The road to Khurnak Fort (a primary road) was added in 2013 [9]. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The Indian road to Finger 3 was added in 2013 [10]. At that time it was classified as an "unclassified road". About a year ago, it was marked as a tertiary road, with asphalt surfacing.
The previous stretch was added in 2016 [11] but the original stretch from Phobrang was added in 2013 [12]. So, somehow the middle piece got left out for 3 years. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The Indian media have been putting out various claims, which I find quite dubious. I will take some of them from this India Today article.
China had built road up to 5 km on the Indian side of the LAC in 1999, during the Kargil war with Pakistan.
China, on the other hand, says the LAC passes through Finger 2. It has been patrolling up to Finger 4- mostly in light vehicles, and at times up to Finger 2.
The confrontation that took place in May happened at Finger 5. And, the current theatre of eye-to-eye confrontation is Finger 2, where the Chinese rushed in the aftermath of the confrontation.
A statement in NDTV says:
The likely trigger for the face-off was China's stiff opposition to India laying a key road in the Finger area around the Pangong Tso Lake and the construction of another road connecting the Darbuk-Shayok-Daulat Beg Oldie road in Galwan Valley.
According to Chinese military sources quoted by the news agency [Global Times], India has "built defence fortifications and obstacles to disrupt Chinese border defence troops' normal patrol activities". [1]
Kautilya3, CNN is citing its affiliate News18, headquartered in Noida and Nagar, owned by Network18 Group headquartered in Mumbai and owned by Reliance Industries. Therefore, it would be accurate to label the casualties figure as an Indian claim. Additionally, Hindustan times quotes the Indian army, who are giving the same numbers (4 Indian and 7 Chinese soldiers) as News18. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
DTM ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Can someone tell the reasoning behind this edit: [14]? I don't understand how a former ambassador's comment is "wild". SignificantPBD ( talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall, the pattern shows the PLA’s desperate design to snatch the lake at Lukung through a three-pronged strategy of attacking from Sirijap in the north, Chuchul in the south and through the lake water from middle. This is the key chokepoint from where the Chinese can cut off Indian access to the entire flank of Chip Chap plains, Aksai Chin in the east and Shayok Valley to the north, which means that Indian control is pushed to the west of the Shyok river and south of the Indus river, forcing India to accept both rivers as natural boundaries. And once China gets control of the southern side of the Karakoram it can easily approach Siachen Glacier from the Depsang corridor and meet at Tashkurgan junction from where the CPEC crosses into Gilgit-Baltistan. source
Not really. It is still wild. Stobdan seems to fall into the camp of Indian commentators that believe that no evidence other than their clairvoyance is needed for presenting issues. A scholar's review of his book says:
Unfortunately, glaring flaws prevent The Great Game in the Buddhist Himalayas from fulfilling its potential. The book presents its claims, but seldom puts flesh on the bones of its argument. Moreover, these claims are sometimes, frankly, contradictory. [15]
I suggest we drop him as a source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Closed for the time being as per recent article updates. Can be reopened as needed.. ( non-admin closure) DTM ( talk) 09:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 China–India skirmishes → (1) 2020 China–India border skirmishes (2) 2020 China–India skirmishes and standoff (3) 2020 China–India border skirmishes and standoff (4) 2020 China–India border standoff – In the beginning of May the title mentioning only skirmishes was accurate, but now it has developed into a standoff as per media reports used in the article. DTM ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Please can someone remove the move template at the top of the article. I have tried twice but the bot has placed it back automatically. I have also closed the move discussion above Talk:2020_China–India_skirmishes#Requested_move_8_June_2020 for now. DTM ( talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It cites a tweet out of context for the Chinese casualties (5 killed 11 injured) Which only the Indian media is reporting. The original poster of the tweet has also expressed her concern that the Indian media is quoting her out of context: https://twitter.com/bycongwang/status/1272835039823163394
SpicyBiryani (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article says 43 Chinese soldiers were killed. For clarification, it should be stated that this is Indian sources. Manfredxu99 ( talk) 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed a constant stream of Indian sources/editors (intentionally or unintentionally) taking statements like this out of context, or (intentionally or unintentionally) misleading others by labeling Indian claims as neutral. This is an ongoing event and many will come to Wikipedia, having good faith in the validity of the claim made. Falsely labeling such claims and indulging in WP:CHERRYPICKING in times like this helps fake news spread, which is the last thing we need in a major event like this. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently after the miss-representation of the Chinese figure, now there has been a miss-representation of the Indian figure [16]. The cited source (and every other source) clearly states 20 soldiers were killed. An editor has changed "killed" incorrectly and contrary to the cited source to "casualties". A term which is used for both killed and injured. This needs to be corrected. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A few editors are constantly presenting the figure 43 cited by ANI as representing only killed Chinese soldiers, despite the fact (as per the source) its 43 killed AND injured. The editors have been constantly removing "and injured" from the infobox. Example [17]. This needs to stop and looked after since its a miss-represantation of the cited source. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
According to the linked sources, this 43 figure comes from "Indian Intercepts". Surely, this can not be seen as neutral and independent? I think this 43 casualty figure should be removed as the only source is "Indian Intercepts". Enigmie ( talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, the Chinese casualties are, as mentioned before, from an India source, which is definitely unreliable and biased when it comes to most things Chinese. More importantly the wording is heavily implying that China suffered 43 deaths because of the way it is structured. First you have "43 casualties" on top, then "7 injured" below. This can easily lead to the misconception that 43 Chinese soldiers have died with 7 injured. So I recommend doing this:
This is in accordance to many of the casualty preview on most pages like Korean war, Vietnam war so on and so forth. Nebakin ( talk) 03:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Casualty reported under Indian sources as 20 and 43. I believe the author wanted to write Chinese side and repeated Indian sources 2409:4071:E01:BB4F:4AD5:BB98:8B63:7DF4 ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ZEBO ALPHA ( talk) 10:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change x to y ZEBO ALPHA ( talk) 10:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "43 killed" from Indian sources to "43 killed or seriously injured" Viratkohli2011 ( talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian officials claim about chinese casualities but have no such proof, by any means not even in international media. 39.36.173.178 ( talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The tention between china and india started on 5 may 2020 at Ladakh galwan valley and now 20 solidure of india had been died till at the month of june ans negociation had also reach to end at lietunent general level but no result has been found in highest deligation negociation.India cliam that he had killed 45 chinese solidure but yet china had not confirm it.BBC reported that 20 indian solidure had been killed in Ladakh conflict.Chinese army had put thier 100 camps in galwan valley and settlite picture can told us purly.China cliam that his projected area in Ladakh is 90000 sqare kilometer but in 1962 india chiana war china conqest 38000 sqare kilometer.Now again conflict is raising up since 5 may 2020 and chinese army proving its integritity because india had been revoked article 370 and 35 A.The confilict is continuing
Muslim Rajan pur ( talk) 03:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
answered=no
to reiterate your request when you have worded it in a suitable form. Regards,
âŸÂ Field Marshal Aryan âŸ
04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Chinah to China, because it is a misspelling. Top of the page in the Belligerents overview where the belligerent nations of India and China are stated. There it says "Chinah" which should be "China" in correct English. 2001:981:1797:1:D15B:8951:1B32:E2E9 ( talk) 08:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
below india, with support of usa should also be written below first Image 2405:204:1000:1583:4D35:EAD3:F5A1:CFB2 ( talk) 03:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The page is already too long. Archiving facility should be already placed here now. NHS2008 ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For clarity: shouldn't both of the source for Chinese casualties indicate that they are estimates as no one knows the actual number yet? Also for the Indian source, it should specify that is estimates both KIA and WIA as the US source specifies KIAs
For consistancy the Indian casualty number currently listed should be listed as confirmed KIA, and should also include that there are about 135 WIAs:
And 34 MIA:
https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/amp/ 172.97.13.129 ( talk) 05:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
answered=no
to reiterate request. --
Field Marshal Aryan (
talk)
07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to change "Hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer)."
to
"Hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer) according to Indian sources."
, in accordance with the rest of the article. The reasoning is to provide context of where the sources are coming from and to be consistent with the sidebar. Goinghard5 ( talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok suggestion accepted. Can we change the article please?
~~~~
. Regards,
âŸÂ Field Marshal Aryan âŸ
16:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)@ Voortrekker70: Your mention of 5 Chinese deaths is backed up only by a broken link. Please fix it with another cite or remove. DTM ( talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It does not look like any credible source has confirmed the exact number of Chinese deaths. A reporter of Global timeswas quoted by most reports, but Global Times has distanced itself from claiming specific number Hcandi ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Its a dubious figure. https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/16/5-chinese-soldiers-dead-the-bizarre-case-of-a-chinese-journalists-indian-news-source
US Intelligence reports 35 Chinese soldiers killed. According to the U.S. assessment, the Chinese government considers the casualties among their troops as a humiliation for its armed forces and has not confirmed the numbers for fear of emboldening other adversaries, the source says. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6395:ACEB:6D37:3D63:708D:7AA3 ( talk) 10:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The User:Aman.kumar.goel said my edit changing the figures from 43 or 35 killed depending on source to the same numbers but casualties (including killed and wounded) is a misrepresentation. The news sources clearly state the casualties are both dead and injured. I don't want to waste time on an edit war so I will just lay out quotes I am relying on from Indian news sources. I don't think this editor should be allowed to edit this article. I don't think he is behaving in good faith.
Thank you User:Talleyrand20 for your earlier edit.
Greatvictor999 ( talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't India have a scholar who is an expert in the LAC and who has recently said/authored something about this particular face-off? Or China for that matter? Some expert insight into the LAC? Someone who has written a book in the past on the topic and then authored some recent news article etc DTM ( talk) 14:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not able to understand at all that what Trojanishere is trying to do here. The version clearly mentions that these are US sources under the column of belligerent sources which are supposed to covered separately from third parties. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 19:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Drat8sub. I simply rephrased many of the sentences of the article because the article had so many grammatical errors. The contributors liberally used "the" at places where they shouldn't be. And they also omit "the" at many places that they should. You are telling me to read the talk page. There is nothing on the talk page about not allowing people to fix grammatical mistakes. I'm just trying to help people so that they don't get a stroke while reading the article because of the many grammatical mistakes. Also, America is not a continent. "The Americas" can be considered as a continent. "America" is universally accepted as a name for the U.S.A. I highly doubt that you know what you are doing if you don't even know basic English. Please let us have a conversation and evaluate all the edits that I made before you just flip a switch and revert my hours of painstaking editing.
Best regards, Steve RealIK17 ( talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Chinese casualties:
Also i do not support the use of US news as a source for official US claims. It is a private company and should not be representing official US claims until the relevant US departments make a statement. Nebakin ( talk) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add extra lines. Change "and so far, Indian media sources have claimed casualties of at least 43 Chinese soldiers including dead and injured[6] (including death of an officer)." to
"and so far, Indian media sources have claimed casualties of at least 43 Chinese soldiers including dead and injured[6] (including death of an officer). American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News [Reference]. According to the U.S. assessment, the Chinese government considers the casualties among their troops as a humiliation for its armed forces and has not confirmed the numbers for fear of emboldening other adversaries, the source says." Reference: https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-16/dozens-killed-as-india-china-face-off-in-first-deadly-clash-in-decades 2409:4072:6395:ACEB:6D37:3D63:708D:7AA3 ( talk) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeing users swap between June 15 and 16 within this wiki article for the date of the 2nd physical conflict, should we be sticking to just the 15th or the 16th?
The Nepalese road construction in the disputed area is consistent with Chinese interests and being conducted concurrently along with the skirmishes and concurrently challenging Indian's claim ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nepal-seems-to-be-following-chinas-road-map-on-lipulekh/articleshow/76416738.cms) ( talk) 13:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It was reported that there were roughly 2 dozen critically injured Indian troops and just over 110 with more minor injuries that still required hospitalisation. Should these numbers also be reported in the casualty section? Trojanishere removed the edit citing that those numbers should not be included as the estimated casualties on the Chinese side are only for the dead and/or seriously injured and that it wouldn't be a fair comparison to include any of the injured Indian soldiers.
This
edit request to
2020 China–India skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Pakistan's claim as well.
https://dnd.com.pk/over-47-indian-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-valley-ladakh-by-chinese-forces/191776 24.84.237.87 ( talk) 03:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
å·²ç¶“åŠ å…¥å·´åŸºæ–¯å¦ä¾†æº-- 葉åˆå˜‰ ( talk) 04:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The Dispatch News Desk (DND) is an international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan for distributing news in Russian, English, and Urdu languages...The content of the reports is editorially regulated according to news values, accuracy, copyright protected, and independent of any advertising and sponsorship carried. DND Breaking News provides urgent news items distributed as and when necessary. The same is posted on our news portals at www.dnd.com.pk and www.dispatchnewsdesk.com as DND is also a moderated web-based community message board for feedback, comments, and reaction from readers. DND has field reporters and contributors all over Pakistan as well as in Central Asia, South Asia, and Eastern Europe.
I could see some part of the article is supported by references from youtube channels. Can someone provide correct reference for the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTheme ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
With edits like these [23] [24] (both by apparent newly created accounts) the miss-interpretation of Chinese casualties has continued, with these editors inserting exclusively the word "killed", despite the fact the original cited source (ANI) states 43 Chinese soldiers were killed or injured (collective English word/term being casualties). These disruptive edits need to be looked after. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)