![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I have nominated this article as a Good Article. DTM ( talk) 11:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If these clashes are ongoing as the article indicates it seems unlikely that this article will be sufficiently stable in the near future to meet criteria #5. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mr. James Dimsey: why? âusernamekiran (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Usernamekiran: Hello, and I'm sorry that I'had retver your edits, but it is no longer an outgoing event and thank you for your kindness; and you proved to me that you are a model for the ideal editor, but a small note it was recommended to alert me and ask me about what you want on my talk page rather than the article talk page. Because it is not a place where the actions of editors are alerted, but issues related to the editing of articles are raised; but there is nothing wrong I repeat my thanks and appreciation to you. Mr. James Dimsey ( talk) 15:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ SerChevalerie: since the beginning of these skirmishes China agreed to take the back forces after talks a few times. I have already provided recent sources in the thread above stating the skirmishes are ongoing. That's the whole point of the tag. Things are updating rapidly. And yes, the skirmishes are still ongoing. âusernamekiran (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the skirimishes over? The infobox currently shows that they ended on 6 July cited to this Al Jazeera source about the troops pulling out of Galwan valley. The Indian Express too reported that troops have pulled out of Hot Springs and Gogra is next. Do we consider this as the end? Noticed some edits reverted yesterday, changing the lead to the past tense. SerChevalerie ( talk) 04:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21 has made recent edits on this page where the editor has removed the mention of Xi Jinping as the President of China and instead use the word 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP. I think these were unnecessary edits. All around the world Xi is known as the president of China, not as the 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP. President is the popular and commonly used term. While I agree that 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP might be a more important post in China than the President, but it reduces to a domestic issue. Here, the overwhelming audience knows him as the president of China rather than the 'Paramount Leader'. Therefore, I believe we should use a more pervasive and common term in this page. Trojanishere ( talk) 11:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
General Secretary Xi Jinpingsince it is more common than
paramount leaderin RSes and is less confusing to the average person since itâs also formally the highest ranking official. However, paramount leader is more accurate in the sense that when the roles are not held by the same person (e.g. Deng Xiaoping) the paramount leader is the only one who matters. Either should be equally valid.Either way, it really doesnât make sense to use the figurehead title of President of China. Itâs only sometimes used to describe him because A) it sounds more familiar in parallel to the title of many leaders of other nations, and B) he removed the term limit for the position. By the way, I didnât write
Paramount leaderin originally, but I did restore it. â MarkH21 talk 11:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Presidentisnât the sole title used in RSes as you seem to suggest. The WSJ even published an article specifically about not calling Xi Jinping the
President: article; the WSJ has more articles using
General Secretary: another. Some Indian media use
General Secretaryas well, e.g. ThePrint, because using
President of Chinawould be like mentioning the figurehead President of India Ram Nath Kovind. â MarkH21 talk 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Notified Talk:Xi Jinping and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China since this is about how to generally refer to the person in articles. â MarkH21 talk 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand that the President is not the most powerful office in China. If we are going only on the highest ranking, though, I am not sure why you would have even agreed to Paramount Leader in the first place, since that does not represent a formal office. Like I said, the standard should be conventional use: how Xi in generally referred to in similar contexts. Given that this is a conflict between two sovereign states, and Xi's authority vis-Ă -vis Narendra Modi is his status as head of state, not head of the CCP, President fits better than Secretary General. That is why I brought up Vietnam and Cuba: even though their status as "President" ranked below that of their status as secretaries of their respective parties, they were/are not generally called by that title unless it specifically about their relationship with said parties. Also, diplomatic protocol was proven in my link to the White House announcement. For more evidence: In addition to the State Department standard, "President" is also how the foreign ministries of Germany, Russia, and Japan all refer to him (the latter using ĺ˝ĺŽśä¸ťĺ¸, the established translation for which is President of the People's Republic of China), to pick three other countries. I am positive the overwhelming majority of similar ministries bar Taiwan do the same. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
General Secretarydiplomatically by the Trump Administration and Secretary of State: 2019 WSJ report about how theyâve made it a point to not call Xi by âPresidentâ, usage as recent as yesterday. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China is also the highest-ranking official in the Peopleâs Republic period. Itâs not like itâs a party position thatâs independent from the Chinese government system. â MarkH21 talk 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, what should be interpreted? The majority is saying 'President' but there seems to be no consensus. What do you say: Trojanishere, MarkH21, Kautilya3? -- Field Marshal Aryan ( talk) 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Is this a request for comment? It looks like one but also is not in the list. AnomalousAtom ( talk) 10:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The United States government is an anti-communist and anti-Chinese government. I already proved this before. Their intelligence too ahs bene involved in working against their enemies, of course they will as they are a state arm. I got blocked before I could carry on the conversation, don't mean to do it endlessly but I hope I can gather a consensus. I recommend that Indian sources and American sources not be differentiated as they're both likely to be biased regardless of beligerence. LĂŠKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
LĂŠKashmiriSocialiste: see WP:BIASED. Rupert Loup ( talk) 01:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
LĂŠKashmiriSocialiste, are you referring to the infobox? Because there is clear attribution there:
Other sources:
35 killed (15 June, per U.S. News & World Report)
SerChevalerie ( talk) 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie ( talk) 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)35 killed (15 June, per U.S. Intelligence)
Modified as
Other sources:
On 15 June:
35 killed (per U.S. Intelligence, as reported by U.S. News & World Report)
SerChevalerie ( talk) 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I recently made a number of edits to remove original research and claims that were not supported by citations and add additional context. Kautilya reverted them en masse, citing a specific small case. To avoid an editing war, I'll list the gist of my edits, and we can ideally hash out the issue here:
- The existing article repeatedly links to the article " Chinese land grabbing". A cursory look at the actual article in question finds that it regards controversial aggressive commercial purchases of territory by Chinese businesses or the Chinese government, which is of course inapplicable to warfare. As a result I removed the links.
- The existing article employs WP:N and WP:SYNTH while violating WP:NPOV to confidently allege Chinese engaging in a strategy known as "salami slicing", attributed to "observers." In reality, the citation is to a single Indian news article, while a separate case in which Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) denounces Chinese expansionism without making any "salami slicing" allegations is also cited despite being irrelevant to the claim. As a result, I separated out McConnell's comments and noted the specific sourcing of the allegation.
- The existing article mentions a Chinese military buildup in the background section. In fact, all the sources are from after the beginning of the crisis, and it's hence heavily misleading to list them in the background section. I distinguished that these events occurred chronologically in late May or early June after the skirmishes had begun, while keeping them in the background section.
- The existing article broadly mentions in the background section the 2017 Doklam standoff between India/China in Bhutan, and that "China has also been increasing its footprint with India's neighbours â Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan; so from India having a monopoly in the region, China is now posing a direct challenge to New Delhi's influence in South Asia." I added considerably more cited context to these background claims with details of Chinese improved relations with Nepal, Nepalese conflict with India, Chinese leasing of a Sri Lankan port, and Chinese relations with Pakistan. Kautilya3 specifically took issue with a specific passage here in which I described China as 'supporting' India during the 2019 Balakot airstrike clashes with Pakistan, citing [2]. I acknowledge that 'supporting India' is likely too strong of a descriptor [a better one would perhaps be "China refrained from supporting its traditional ally Pakistan, describing the Indian airstrike as aimed at terror installations and urging dialogue between the two nations"] and am willing to edit or remove that passage, but believe that it is unreasonable to remove the entirety of my edits based on this single case.
I realize that a number of authors have strong nationalistic feelings, being associated with the countries in question. As an American [not a citizen of the PRC or the Republic of India, though the U.S. tends to be anti-PRC], I understand that this may be personal for many editors as they feel their nation to be under attack, but Wikipedia is a resource that serves the entire world. Just as it would be unreasonable to rely entirely on American sources when discussing cases in which India and the United States have been opposed [e.g. the Bangladesh Liberation War, in which President Nixon foolishly supported Pakistan and ignored reports of genocide], it is not realistic to extend Indian sources to indicate a global opinion or consensus in its conflicts with China. I hope we can discuss this case constructively to work it out among us. Reyne2 ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
China refrained from supporting its traditional ally Pakistan, describing the Indian airstrike as aimed at terror installations" is not supported by the source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
According to a report by Deccan Herald, India launched a retaliation against the Galwan skirmish. Read this article by The Quint. Should this be mentioned here on Wikipedia?â⯠Vaibhavafro⯠đŹ 11:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ritabharidevi: Please could you explain the intention behind this (addition of a citation to lead). DTM ( talk) 11:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Teja srinivas, you have removed a section of "Public response in J&K and Ladakh", citing "disproportionate focus on tiny population of Kashmir while completely ignoring much larger public reaction in all of india". Fine upto this, but nothing is added in this article which is not backed by RS, not a propaganda section at all, so please don't address the tone of the writing rather respond to the substance of the argument. I think since the article was created every section has gone under microscope, the talk page is for that purpose only. So, please elaborate your argument describing what else you want to see in the section or which public response is missing from the article, you must suggest with reliable sources. Thank you. Drat8sub ( talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
"Congressman Ted Yoho made a statement on 27 June saying that, "China's actions towards India fall in line with a larger trend of the Communist Party of China using the confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to launch large scale military provocations against its neighbours in the region, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Vietnam [...]"
This type of stuff severely depreciates Wikipedia.
200.68.142.26 ( talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC) baden k.
Can I go ahead and remove these lines? Any objections or suggestions?:
REASON: They say too little in too many words. What they do convey is not important or relevant. DTM ( talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
An article in The Quint used for referencing the Sikkim section and an Indian solider punching a Chinese soldier is now blanked. The source says "This story has been removed pending editorial and legal review". There is no archived version. I guess the source should be removed along with any content that it solely supports. DTM ( talk) 12:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I am shifting these two lines from the lead into the body (interesting to note that there is no mention of this in the body as per
MOS:LEAD requirement other than the line Some Indian soldiers had also been momentarily taken captive
):
Several news outlets stated that 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese on 18 June.[11] An unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[19]
And replacing it with a shorter:
Media reports stated that soldiers were taken captive on both sides and released in the coming few days
Also, the only source to say that Chinese soldiers were captured is by former Army Chief Gen VK Singh who is now a legislator. So that should be mentioned accordingly.
Several news outlets stated that 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese on 18 June.[11]
According to Gen VK Singhan unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[19]
If anyone can write the lead line in a better way please do so. Accordingly I am removing the better source needed template. (This whole taking captives business is shady, unlike the Abhinandan Varthaman one, but oh well....) DTM ( talk) 11:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
That's why I've been trying to change Indian "sources" to Indian "claims". Non of these "sources" are confirmed nor are the reliable. Third party doesn't mean they are reliable. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
On the Indian side ten soldiers were reported to have been taken captive while the Chinese numbers remain unconfirmed." DTM ( talk) 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ MarkH21: I think your edit summary logic is very weak "a single US congressman out of 435 isnât due for international reactions" Please DO NOT take advantage of this situation of lack of oversight and the implementation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. DTM ( talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Since there are some suggestions above related to missing reactions from China - I have created a new sub section for it and started it off with China arresting a netizen for spreading rumours relating to the Galwan clash. DTM ( talk) 15:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
According to a Hindustan Times
article, these PLA chaps are also part of the Ladakh aggression entourage (and not already mentioned in the article):
How about mentioning them in a footnote? The infobox is getting quite big, or maybe collapsible section.
DTM (
talk)
15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The Hindu article on his statements actually had a misleading headline, with the word "unilaterally" being skipped:
'Clarifying LAC could create new disputes: Chinese envoy' [1]
He did not say that China is against delimiting the LAC, he said China is against unilaterally delimiting the LAC.
Here is what he actually said:
"If one side unilaterally delimits the LAC as per its own understanding during the negotiations, that could create new disputes and that would be a departure from the original purpose of clarification of the LAC."
Yes - China has refused to demarcate the LAC since 2002/03, but the cited source doesn't support what's mentioned in the main article. Better sources are needed. Either we should include the word "unilaterally" in the main text, or include additional sources.
Can @ Drat8sub please clarify why this edit was reverted?
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 20:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many sources available to say that China has stalled the process of LAC demarcation since 2002-03. It's a well known fact regarding the border negotiations. As a compromise, we can do this: correct what is attributed to him (by including the word "unilaterally" and quoting him properly) - and then include a line stating the above fact about LAC demarcation, with sources. How does that sound? That will give readers the complete context. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The section is growing larger, currently at 13 sources. I understand that they're high quality and provide a more detailed outlook on the subject, but can they be trimmed down to somewhere between 5 to 10? SerChevalerie ( talk) 17:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Have trimmed it down to 10 now. Added info on China possibly being upset with India over India-US "flirting". SerChevalerie ( talk) 21:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Have currently removed the below sources from the section, since I don't think they add much of "Further reading" value:
(1) is a report on the parliamentary panel's advice after the Doklam conflict.
(2), (3), (4) are opinion pieces about what the Indian government could do, moving forward; whether we should ally with the US or not.
(5) is a news report about how Chinese "martial artists" were brought to Ladakh just before the Galwan skirmish. Five new militia divisions, including former members of a Mount Everest Olympic torch relay team and fighters from a mixed martial arts club, presented themselves for inspection at Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, on June 15, official military newspaper China National Defense News reported.
I don't see much value in keeping the first (2), (3), (4) as "Further reading", since they are succinct opinion pieces anyway. (1) could be moved inline to describe the situation before the skirmishes (maybe in "Diplomatic response", although that has more to do with our ties with China). (5) could be moved inline to describe the situation at Galwan just before and during the skirmish, in some part of the "Eastern Ladakh" section. Do let me know what you all think. Best regards, SerChevalerie ( talk) 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Does the references say the same thing that this line says in the lead: In the beginning of August 2020, Government of China's customs data showed that Chinese exports to India had fallen by 25% as compared to the previous year for the same period.
The two references used basically report the same data:
This is important enough to get its own sub-header right; or do I merge it with the rest of the economic sanctions section? DTM ( talk) 10:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Indiaâs imports from China, its largest trading partner in goods, had fallen to a record low of $3.2 billion both in the months of April and May, coinciding with Indiaâs lockdown on account of the pandemic. Imports subsequently rose to $4.8 billion in June and further to $5.6 billion in July, almost back to the pre-lockdown level of $5.8 billion reported in March, in part, economists said The Hindu 11 August
Can someone please clarify why we are including the Tibetan government in exile as reliable sources, and that too on multiple locations? No government in the world recognizes them. In what universe are their views considered important enough to be published here?
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 21:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.Taiwan is formally recognized by 14 UN member states. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile is formally recognized by 0 UN member states. That said, the reaction of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile is a relevant viewpoint for the China-India skirmishes along the Ladakh-Tibet border despite it not being a recognized country. â MarkH21 talk 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the Taiwan point - there's no equivalence between Taiwan and Tibet. And if there is consensus on including the views of that "government", fine - its already quoted earlier on the page. But I disagree that it should be quoted in the 'International reactions' section, which only includes self-governing countries and multi-national organizations like the UN, not non-government organizations. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 13:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Tibetan diaspora and refugees support the CTA by voting for members of Parliament, the President and making annual financial contributions..... Its internal structure is government-like; it has stated that it is "not designed to take power in Tibet"; rather, it will be dissolved "as soon as freedom is restored in Tibet" in favor of a government formed by Tibetans inside Tibet.... that doesn't sound like a normal private company... take the CCP in China... is that legitimate?... is CCP a legitimate representation of the people of China? And who said the international reaction/response section is limited to governments? The header just says "international reactions". We could easily create another subheader for CTA if no one is willing to budge. DTM ( talk) 05:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I have started a timeline for this article since copy-editing the diplomatic section was becoming confusing, it is only in prose just now. It also makes it easier for condensing the matter now in a more complete way >> Timeline of 2020 ChinaâIndia border standoff. I wanted common events to somehow be grouped together, so I created a key. Is the key alright or should the key be removed, I haven't seen timeline with a key, however I have seen colour coded tables? DTM ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Even though it is an opinion piece, it could still be considered for inclusion in the article right? Will this be India's reaction or China's reaction to India's reaction? (Source: CGTN - Indian media mustn't react irresponsibly to the Galwan incident - Andrew Korybko - 22 June)
The Indian people were under the false impression that their country was a "superpower," which is why the latest events are so shocking to them. A lot of them simply can't accept that China successfully defended its territorial integrity from Indian aggression. CGTN
DTM ( talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I feel this particular quote seems odd without context. The source has some other opinions to offer, which could alternatively be considered:
Instead of seeking to calm tensions between the two neighbors, Indian media is dangerously pressuring the authorities to undertake another military adventure to save face.
or
They're attempting to play people like puppets by convincing them that the best course of action is to boycott Chinese products even though this would amount to serious self-inflicted harm to the already beleaguered Indian economy since China is its largest trade partner...
SerChevalerie ( talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh no Chinese opinions are propaganda but Indian opinions and literal US Senate backed opinions need to stay. Logic? YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 06:03, 16 August 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I have nominated this article as a Good Article. DTM ( talk) 11:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If these clashes are ongoing as the article indicates it seems unlikely that this article will be sufficiently stable in the near future to meet criteria #5. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Mr. James Dimsey: why? âusernamekiran (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Usernamekiran: Hello, and I'm sorry that I'had retver your edits, but it is no longer an outgoing event and thank you for your kindness; and you proved to me that you are a model for the ideal editor, but a small note it was recommended to alert me and ask me about what you want on my talk page rather than the article talk page. Because it is not a place where the actions of editors are alerted, but issues related to the editing of articles are raised; but there is nothing wrong I repeat my thanks and appreciation to you. Mr. James Dimsey ( talk) 15:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ SerChevalerie: since the beginning of these skirmishes China agreed to take the back forces after talks a few times. I have already provided recent sources in the thread above stating the skirmishes are ongoing. That's the whole point of the tag. Things are updating rapidly. And yes, the skirmishes are still ongoing. âusernamekiran (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the skirimishes over? The infobox currently shows that they ended on 6 July cited to this Al Jazeera source about the troops pulling out of Galwan valley. The Indian Express too reported that troops have pulled out of Hot Springs and Gogra is next. Do we consider this as the end? Noticed some edits reverted yesterday, changing the lead to the past tense. SerChevalerie ( talk) 04:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21 has made recent edits on this page where the editor has removed the mention of Xi Jinping as the President of China and instead use the word 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP. I think these were unnecessary edits. All around the world Xi is known as the president of China, not as the 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP. President is the popular and commonly used term. While I agree that 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP might be a more important post in China than the President, but it reduces to a domestic issue. Here, the overwhelming audience knows him as the president of China rather than the 'Paramount Leader'. Therefore, I believe we should use a more pervasive and common term in this page. Trojanishere ( talk) 11:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
General Secretary Xi Jinpingsince it is more common than
paramount leaderin RSes and is less confusing to the average person since itâs also formally the highest ranking official. However, paramount leader is more accurate in the sense that when the roles are not held by the same person (e.g. Deng Xiaoping) the paramount leader is the only one who matters. Either should be equally valid.Either way, it really doesnât make sense to use the figurehead title of President of China. Itâs only sometimes used to describe him because A) it sounds more familiar in parallel to the title of many leaders of other nations, and B) he removed the term limit for the position. By the way, I didnât write
Paramount leaderin originally, but I did restore it. â MarkH21 talk 11:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Presidentisnât the sole title used in RSes as you seem to suggest. The WSJ even published an article specifically about not calling Xi Jinping the
President: article; the WSJ has more articles using
General Secretary: another. Some Indian media use
General Secretaryas well, e.g. ThePrint, because using
President of Chinawould be like mentioning the figurehead President of India Ram Nath Kovind. â MarkH21 talk 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Notified Talk:Xi Jinping and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China since this is about how to generally refer to the person in articles. â MarkH21 talk 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand that the President is not the most powerful office in China. If we are going only on the highest ranking, though, I am not sure why you would have even agreed to Paramount Leader in the first place, since that does not represent a formal office. Like I said, the standard should be conventional use: how Xi in generally referred to in similar contexts. Given that this is a conflict between two sovereign states, and Xi's authority vis-Ă -vis Narendra Modi is his status as head of state, not head of the CCP, President fits better than Secretary General. That is why I brought up Vietnam and Cuba: even though their status as "President" ranked below that of their status as secretaries of their respective parties, they were/are not generally called by that title unless it specifically about their relationship with said parties. Also, diplomatic protocol was proven in my link to the White House announcement. For more evidence: In addition to the State Department standard, "President" is also how the foreign ministries of Germany, Russia, and Japan all refer to him (the latter using ĺ˝ĺŽśä¸ťĺ¸, the established translation for which is President of the People's Republic of China), to pick three other countries. I am positive the overwhelming majority of similar ministries bar Taiwan do the same. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
General Secretarydiplomatically by the Trump Administration and Secretary of State: 2019 WSJ report about how theyâve made it a point to not call Xi by âPresidentâ, usage as recent as yesterday. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China is also the highest-ranking official in the Peopleâs Republic period. Itâs not like itâs a party position thatâs independent from the Chinese government system. â MarkH21 talk 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, what should be interpreted? The majority is saying 'President' but there seems to be no consensus. What do you say: Trojanishere, MarkH21, Kautilya3? -- Field Marshal Aryan ( talk) 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Is this a request for comment? It looks like one but also is not in the list. AnomalousAtom ( talk) 10:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The United States government is an anti-communist and anti-Chinese government. I already proved this before. Their intelligence too ahs bene involved in working against their enemies, of course they will as they are a state arm. I got blocked before I could carry on the conversation, don't mean to do it endlessly but I hope I can gather a consensus. I recommend that Indian sources and American sources not be differentiated as they're both likely to be biased regardless of beligerence. LĂŠKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
LĂŠKashmiriSocialiste: see WP:BIASED. Rupert Loup ( talk) 01:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
LĂŠKashmiriSocialiste, are you referring to the infobox? Because there is clear attribution there:
Other sources:
35 killed (15 June, per U.S. News & World Report)
SerChevalerie ( talk) 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie ( talk) 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)35 killed (15 June, per U.S. Intelligence)
Modified as
Other sources:
On 15 June:
35 killed (per U.S. Intelligence, as reported by U.S. News & World Report)
SerChevalerie ( talk) 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I recently made a number of edits to remove original research and claims that were not supported by citations and add additional context. Kautilya reverted them en masse, citing a specific small case. To avoid an editing war, I'll list the gist of my edits, and we can ideally hash out the issue here:
- The existing article repeatedly links to the article " Chinese land grabbing". A cursory look at the actual article in question finds that it regards controversial aggressive commercial purchases of territory by Chinese businesses or the Chinese government, which is of course inapplicable to warfare. As a result I removed the links.
- The existing article employs WP:N and WP:SYNTH while violating WP:NPOV to confidently allege Chinese engaging in a strategy known as "salami slicing", attributed to "observers." In reality, the citation is to a single Indian news article, while a separate case in which Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) denounces Chinese expansionism without making any "salami slicing" allegations is also cited despite being irrelevant to the claim. As a result, I separated out McConnell's comments and noted the specific sourcing of the allegation.
- The existing article mentions a Chinese military buildup in the background section. In fact, all the sources are from after the beginning of the crisis, and it's hence heavily misleading to list them in the background section. I distinguished that these events occurred chronologically in late May or early June after the skirmishes had begun, while keeping them in the background section.
- The existing article broadly mentions in the background section the 2017 Doklam standoff between India/China in Bhutan, and that "China has also been increasing its footprint with India's neighbours â Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan; so from India having a monopoly in the region, China is now posing a direct challenge to New Delhi's influence in South Asia." I added considerably more cited context to these background claims with details of Chinese improved relations with Nepal, Nepalese conflict with India, Chinese leasing of a Sri Lankan port, and Chinese relations with Pakistan. Kautilya3 specifically took issue with a specific passage here in which I described China as 'supporting' India during the 2019 Balakot airstrike clashes with Pakistan, citing [2]. I acknowledge that 'supporting India' is likely too strong of a descriptor [a better one would perhaps be "China refrained from supporting its traditional ally Pakistan, describing the Indian airstrike as aimed at terror installations and urging dialogue between the two nations"] and am willing to edit or remove that passage, but believe that it is unreasonable to remove the entirety of my edits based on this single case.
I realize that a number of authors have strong nationalistic feelings, being associated with the countries in question. As an American [not a citizen of the PRC or the Republic of India, though the U.S. tends to be anti-PRC], I understand that this may be personal for many editors as they feel their nation to be under attack, but Wikipedia is a resource that serves the entire world. Just as it would be unreasonable to rely entirely on American sources when discussing cases in which India and the United States have been opposed [e.g. the Bangladesh Liberation War, in which President Nixon foolishly supported Pakistan and ignored reports of genocide], it is not realistic to extend Indian sources to indicate a global opinion or consensus in its conflicts with China. I hope we can discuss this case constructively to work it out among us. Reyne2 ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
China refrained from supporting its traditional ally Pakistan, describing the Indian airstrike as aimed at terror installations" is not supported by the source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
According to a report by Deccan Herald, India launched a retaliation against the Galwan skirmish. Read this article by The Quint. Should this be mentioned here on Wikipedia?â⯠Vaibhavafro⯠đŹ 11:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ritabharidevi: Please could you explain the intention behind this (addition of a citation to lead). DTM ( talk) 11:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Teja srinivas, you have removed a section of "Public response in J&K and Ladakh", citing "disproportionate focus on tiny population of Kashmir while completely ignoring much larger public reaction in all of india". Fine upto this, but nothing is added in this article which is not backed by RS, not a propaganda section at all, so please don't address the tone of the writing rather respond to the substance of the argument. I think since the article was created every section has gone under microscope, the talk page is for that purpose only. So, please elaborate your argument describing what else you want to see in the section or which public response is missing from the article, you must suggest with reliable sources. Thank you. Drat8sub ( talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
"Congressman Ted Yoho made a statement on 27 June saying that, "China's actions towards India fall in line with a larger trend of the Communist Party of China using the confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to launch large scale military provocations against its neighbours in the region, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Vietnam [...]"
This type of stuff severely depreciates Wikipedia.
200.68.142.26 ( talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC) baden k.
Can I go ahead and remove these lines? Any objections or suggestions?:
REASON: They say too little in too many words. What they do convey is not important or relevant. DTM ( talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
An article in The Quint used for referencing the Sikkim section and an Indian solider punching a Chinese soldier is now blanked. The source says "This story has been removed pending editorial and legal review". There is no archived version. I guess the source should be removed along with any content that it solely supports. DTM ( talk) 12:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I am shifting these two lines from the lead into the body (interesting to note that there is no mention of this in the body as per
MOS:LEAD requirement other than the line Some Indian soldiers had also been momentarily taken captive
):
Several news outlets stated that 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese on 18 June.[11] An unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[19]
And replacing it with a shorter:
Media reports stated that soldiers were taken captive on both sides and released in the coming few days
Also, the only source to say that Chinese soldiers were captured is by former Army Chief Gen VK Singh who is now a legislator. So that should be mentioned accordingly.
Several news outlets stated that 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese on 18 June.[11]
According to Gen VK Singhan unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[19]
If anyone can write the lead line in a better way please do so. Accordingly I am removing the better source needed template. (This whole taking captives business is shady, unlike the Abhinandan Varthaman one, but oh well....) DTM ( talk) 11:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
That's why I've been trying to change Indian "sources" to Indian "claims". Non of these "sources" are confirmed nor are the reliable. Third party doesn't mean they are reliable. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
On the Indian side ten soldiers were reported to have been taken captive while the Chinese numbers remain unconfirmed." DTM ( talk) 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ MarkH21: I think your edit summary logic is very weak "a single US congressman out of 435 isnât due for international reactions" Please DO NOT take advantage of this situation of lack of oversight and the implementation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. DTM ( talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Since there are some suggestions above related to missing reactions from China - I have created a new sub section for it and started it off with China arresting a netizen for spreading rumours relating to the Galwan clash. DTM ( talk) 15:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
According to a Hindustan Times
article, these PLA chaps are also part of the Ladakh aggression entourage (and not already mentioned in the article):
How about mentioning them in a footnote? The infobox is getting quite big, or maybe collapsible section.
DTM (
talk)
15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The Hindu article on his statements actually had a misleading headline, with the word "unilaterally" being skipped:
'Clarifying LAC could create new disputes: Chinese envoy' [1]
He did not say that China is against delimiting the LAC, he said China is against unilaterally delimiting the LAC.
Here is what he actually said:
"If one side unilaterally delimits the LAC as per its own understanding during the negotiations, that could create new disputes and that would be a departure from the original purpose of clarification of the LAC."
Yes - China has refused to demarcate the LAC since 2002/03, but the cited source doesn't support what's mentioned in the main article. Better sources are needed. Either we should include the word "unilaterally" in the main text, or include additional sources.
Can @ Drat8sub please clarify why this edit was reverted?
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 20:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many sources available to say that China has stalled the process of LAC demarcation since 2002-03. It's a well known fact regarding the border negotiations. As a compromise, we can do this: correct what is attributed to him (by including the word "unilaterally" and quoting him properly) - and then include a line stating the above fact about LAC demarcation, with sources. How does that sound? That will give readers the complete context. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The section is growing larger, currently at 13 sources. I understand that they're high quality and provide a more detailed outlook on the subject, but can they be trimmed down to somewhere between 5 to 10? SerChevalerie ( talk) 17:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Have trimmed it down to 10 now. Added info on China possibly being upset with India over India-US "flirting". SerChevalerie ( talk) 21:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Have currently removed the below sources from the section, since I don't think they add much of "Further reading" value:
(1) is a report on the parliamentary panel's advice after the Doklam conflict.
(2), (3), (4) are opinion pieces about what the Indian government could do, moving forward; whether we should ally with the US or not.
(5) is a news report about how Chinese "martial artists" were brought to Ladakh just before the Galwan skirmish. Five new militia divisions, including former members of a Mount Everest Olympic torch relay team and fighters from a mixed martial arts club, presented themselves for inspection at Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, on June 15, official military newspaper China National Defense News reported.
I don't see much value in keeping the first (2), (3), (4) as "Further reading", since they are succinct opinion pieces anyway. (1) could be moved inline to describe the situation before the skirmishes (maybe in "Diplomatic response", although that has more to do with our ties with China). (5) could be moved inline to describe the situation at Galwan just before and during the skirmish, in some part of the "Eastern Ladakh" section. Do let me know what you all think. Best regards, SerChevalerie ( talk) 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Does the references say the same thing that this line says in the lead: In the beginning of August 2020, Government of China's customs data showed that Chinese exports to India had fallen by 25% as compared to the previous year for the same period.
The two references used basically report the same data:
This is important enough to get its own sub-header right; or do I merge it with the rest of the economic sanctions section? DTM ( talk) 10:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Indiaâs imports from China, its largest trading partner in goods, had fallen to a record low of $3.2 billion both in the months of April and May, coinciding with Indiaâs lockdown on account of the pandemic. Imports subsequently rose to $4.8 billion in June and further to $5.6 billion in July, almost back to the pre-lockdown level of $5.8 billion reported in March, in part, economists said The Hindu 11 August
Can someone please clarify why we are including the Tibetan government in exile as reliable sources, and that too on multiple locations? No government in the world recognizes them. In what universe are their views considered important enough to be published here?
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 21:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.Taiwan is formally recognized by 14 UN member states. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile is formally recognized by 0 UN member states. That said, the reaction of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile is a relevant viewpoint for the China-India skirmishes along the Ladakh-Tibet border despite it not being a recognized country. â MarkH21 talk 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the Taiwan point - there's no equivalence between Taiwan and Tibet. And if there is consensus on including the views of that "government", fine - its already quoted earlier on the page. But I disagree that it should be quoted in the 'International reactions' section, which only includes self-governing countries and multi-national organizations like the UN, not non-government organizations. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 13:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Tibetan diaspora and refugees support the CTA by voting for members of Parliament, the President and making annual financial contributions..... Its internal structure is government-like; it has stated that it is "not designed to take power in Tibet"; rather, it will be dissolved "as soon as freedom is restored in Tibet" in favor of a government formed by Tibetans inside Tibet.... that doesn't sound like a normal private company... take the CCP in China... is that legitimate?... is CCP a legitimate representation of the people of China? And who said the international reaction/response section is limited to governments? The header just says "international reactions". We could easily create another subheader for CTA if no one is willing to budge. DTM ( talk) 05:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I have started a timeline for this article since copy-editing the diplomatic section was becoming confusing, it is only in prose just now. It also makes it easier for condensing the matter now in a more complete way >> Timeline of 2020 ChinaâIndia border standoff. I wanted common events to somehow be grouped together, so I created a key. Is the key alright or should the key be removed, I haven't seen timeline with a key, however I have seen colour coded tables? DTM ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Even though it is an opinion piece, it could still be considered for inclusion in the article right? Will this be India's reaction or China's reaction to India's reaction? (Source: CGTN - Indian media mustn't react irresponsibly to the Galwan incident - Andrew Korybko - 22 June)
The Indian people were under the false impression that their country was a "superpower," which is why the latest events are so shocking to them. A lot of them simply can't accept that China successfully defended its territorial integrity from Indian aggression. CGTN
DTM ( talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I feel this particular quote seems odd without context. The source has some other opinions to offer, which could alternatively be considered:
Instead of seeking to calm tensions between the two neighbors, Indian media is dangerously pressuring the authorities to undertake another military adventure to save face.
or
They're attempting to play people like puppets by convincing them that the best course of action is to boycott Chinese products even though this would amount to serious self-inflicted harm to the already beleaguered Indian economy since China is its largest trade partner...
SerChevalerie ( talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh no Chinese opinions are propaganda but Indian opinions and literal US Senate backed opinions need to stay. Logic? YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 06:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)