![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 February 2016. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
@ Fenal Kalundo: Since you added a couple of sources in Chinese language to the article, as per WP:NOENG, I request you to provide quotations from those sources for all the content you added, so that it can be verified. And regarding the figures that you modified, [1] - this source clearly says, the New China News Agency report broadcast by Peking Radio said that "unspecified" number of Chinese causalities occurred during the clashes. So this will stay in the infobox until a clarification is provided on this. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
India version claims the Nathu La and Cho La incidents were a series of military clashes between India and China in the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.: I'm not sure what on earth you are trying to do over here! What's India's version in that? Please clarify. Did China's version said otherwise? As you yourself wrote here, did China say that these incidents were some Olympic games and not military clashes?
all violent conflicts between India and Kingdom of Sikkim started after 1968.: You did not provide a quote from which you were adding that information, so I don't know what that source says about it. In any case, that information is totally inaccurate as India did not have any "violent conflicts" with the Kingdom of Sikkim, and as this well published independent & reliable source tells, India acquired the state of Sikkim through a democratic referendum. It is in no way a "coup" and there were no anti India revolts before, as you wrote in this edit. In fact, there were rather anti-Chougyal (Sikkim ruler) protests as you can read at the end of this page. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
1. I rearrange the article based on your suggestion, all third party sources are put in the lead now. I modified the citation from
[3] since this article doesn't mention that China "withdrew" but only said China was defeated.
2. I clarify China's description over these incidents to show the difference. The difference is while India claimed the battle location was in Sikkim, China said the clashes were limited to the central sector along the China-Sikkim border and China army didn't step into Sikkim region during that time.
3. I now add the original text into the quotation after all violent conflicts between India and Kingdom of Sikkim started after 1968.
.The purpose of citation is to show China perceived these incidents are irrelevant to Kingdom of Sikkim. Since this page is about the 1967 incidents, I don't want to put too much effort on how India annexed Sikkim. If you are still unhappy about this paragraph, please leave the message, I can re-edit it later.—
Fenal Kalundo (
talk) 19:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
some other third party source shows it was only a border conflict without clear war-goal and India side suffered a higher casualty at the end. Of it, "it was only a border conflict without clear war-goal" - this part is clear WP:SYNTH if not totally WP:OR. Its a misinterpretation of the source. The source nowhere says such things like "without clear war-goal". And it also mentions:
At Nathu La, under the shadow of India's military expansion, efforts by both sides to strengthen their control of the pass resulted in a Chinese attack on September 11, 1967. (p 198) (emphasis mine)
Indian artillery soon responded, sparking a three-day duel in which many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed because India controlled the high ground near the pass. (p 198) (emphasis mine)
While some third party source backs Indian claim that...vs
some other third party source shows it...(shows?)
Chinese version saysvs
India version claims("India version claims"? Is 'version' not enough to say that it has been claimed?)
Different parties have different cognition on the Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La).- This line which you were writing clearly does not fit that description. We should tell the reader what Nathu La and Cho La incidents are.
Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La) were a series of military clashes between India and China alongside the border of the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.- is a reasonable and appropriate description, as supported by all sources. The Chinese version also does not dispute that the incidents were military clashes, and that they occurred near the Sikkim's border (Central sector is obviously alongside that border).
Since this page is about the 1967 incidents, I don't want to put too much effort on how India annexed Sikkim- I'm afraid that is exactly what you have been trying to do since the beginning of your contribution to this article, that too in a quite fraudulent manner. This quote which you added in your recent edit —
锡金甘托克及周边地区民众爆发大规模示威游行,要求废除《印锡合约》,维护国家主权。由于印度军警的介入,游行活动转变为暴乱,蔓延至锡金全境。在这次暴乱中,印度军警共击伤击毙锡金民众63200余人,逮捕主张国家独立的“激进分子”3327名,其中处死336名。
Second, India appeared to become more aggressive in asserting its claims near the border. At Nathu La, under the shadow of India's military expansion, efforts by both sides to strengthen their control of the pass resulted in a Chinese attack on September 11, 1967. (p 198) (emphasis mine)
On September 11, 1967, Chinese Forces at Nathu La in the central sector unleashed a punishing attack on Indian forces. (p 197) (emphasis mine)
Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La) were a series of military clashes between India and China alongside the border of the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.
锡金甘托克及周边地区民众爆发大规模示威游行,要求废除《印锡合约》,维护国家主权。由于印度军警的介入,游行活动转变为暴乱,蔓延至锡金全境。在这次暴乱中,印度军警共击伤击毙锡金民众63200余人,逮捕主张国家独立的“激进分子”3327名,其中处死336名。
During the 1965 War between India and Pakistan, the Chinese gave an ultimatum to India to vacate both Nathu La and Jelep La passes on the Sikkim-Tibet border. For some strange reason, the Mountain Division, under whose jurisdiction Jelep La was at that time, vacated the pass. It remains under Chinese possession till date. However, Lt. Gen Sagat Singh, true to form, refused to vacate Nathu La.
Not as described by Indian source that has a war-goal to "invade Sikkim".&
Indian source considered these incident started by China's invasion(India considered it as China's invasion? Where?) Dear Fenal Kalundo, with all due respect, you have to read the Indian sources (which are present in citations 3 & 4 below) and understand what they tell, before you make such baseless claims. We can discuss about what Indian sources say, after you do so.
This article is an introduction about the recent history of Kingdom of Sikkim, the whole article doesn't mention that China has any relationship with Sikkim's annexation by India.- this itself is quite dubious. Because G.V.C. Naidu (p 77) notes: "India's annexation of Sikkim during 1973-1975 raised another diplomatic confrontation between the two countries." If China had no relation with Sikkim's affairs and its annexation by India, why would it have a diplomatic confrontation with India after annexation? And particularly regarding the content in the quote:
63200 people were killed or wounded— that's a pretty huge massacre (in 1968). And it is apparently supported by no meaningful sources. As I have already said, you will find numerous impeccable scholarly sources even if something close to that had really occurred. You must not write quotes with such sensational information on Wikipedia using such absurd sources. I want to politely tell you that your choice of sources is leading you to nowhere but darkness. Please refrain from using those crappy "qualified news websites in China" or whatever they are. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October, since "deter Indian forward posture along border" makes China the defending side.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. To me, it is an "invasion" already, and China was defeated because it failed that "invasion". But since it may look different in your definition, I will change my words to "infiltrated" in the future.
从1974年5月下旬开始,“民族党”领导层实行紧急动员,一方面,在锡金国内各主要城市,召集民众,尤其是青年学生和社会中下层贫民,举行“反对殖民主义宪法”的示威运动,并紧急联络锡金各主要政治党派,谋求以政治联盟的手段抵制议会表决;另一方面,频繁与世界各主要国家外交机构接触,并致函联合国秘书长与安理会,揭露印度企图兼并锡金的阴谋,请求国际干涉。
在“民族党”一连串救亡行动中,以谋求中国干涉最为积极。2005年印度外交协会解密的资料显示,从1974年5月29日起,至当年6月20日止,短短23天时间内,“民族党”共向中国驻南亚各国和驻联合国外交机构、商务团体、民间团体发送请求“政治调停”和“武装干预”的电函149封,平均日均接近7封,这在现代国际关系史上,是极为罕见的。 [6]
(Translation:Since the end of May 1974, the "National Party" leadership carried out emergency mobilization. On the one hand, in the major cities of Sikkim, they convene the people, especially young students and the poor, held a "anti-colonial constitution" protest and urgently contact with the major political parties around the world, and sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary and the UN Security Council to expose India's consipiracy to annex Sikkim and request international intervention.
In the "National Party's" series of salvation operations, the most active attempt is to seek China's intervention. According to the information declassified by the Indian Diplomatic Association in 2005, from 29 April, 1974 to 20 June of the same year, within a short period of 23 days, the "National Party" has sent a total of 149 letters to Chinese institutions in South Asian countries and in the United Nations, Chinese business groups, and Chinese civil social groups to request for "political mediation" and "military intervention", averagely 7 letters per day. This is extremely rare in the history of modern international relations.)
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7] on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. During the Cho La and Nathu La incidents, Indian losses were 88 killed in action and 163 wounded, [8] [9] while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded. [10] [8]
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces. [11] [12] [13]
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7]and
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces [11]. Moreover, in this reference [7] I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference [11], there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book [11] is economics, not military or international relationship. I don't understand how these sources are considered reliable while my findings are not? Best regards, — Fenal Kalundo ( talk) 04:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
In regards to invasion. quoted: "The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October." To me, it is an "invasion" already, and China was defeated because it failed that "invasion".- this is WP:OR.
63200 people were killed or wounded, and 3327 were arrested, of which 336 were executed by Indian forces— Since you don't understand why your "findings" from the sources you choose, are not being considered reliable, what is your justification in inserting this quote and making it as a basis for writing content? Can you please bring at least one decent source that backs that quote, of such controversial nature? So, in 1968, such a huge massacre took place all in one event, and yet no people could raise voice against it, no scholar/newspaper/organisation took note of it & no notable person talked about it, but magically a Chinese news website, out of the blue, came to report on it in 2015?
your argument seems can't counter that "China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim."— Did I write anywhere that China recognizes Nathu la and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim ? No, right? So the onus is on you to provide WP:RS for China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim, if you want to write it in the article. Not my problem. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7] on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. During the Cho La and Nathu La incidents, Indian losses were 88 killed in action and 163 wounded, [8] [9] while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded. [10] [8]
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces. [11] [15] [13]
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7]and
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces [11]. Moreover, in this reference [7] I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference [11], there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book [11] is economics, not military or international relationship. For other sources, except only one scholar source from India, they are all news article and even includes a PDF file without any publication information. — Fenal Kalundo ( talk) 10:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
For future editors, Chinese source posted by User:Xc 0102 here appears to be relatively official 660-page history book of PLA 11th Army Division, not sure of ISBN if there is any. -- Voidvector ( talk) 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
References
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
El_C 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
across a wide range of articles (including biographies) concerning India, Pakistan and Hinduism. El_C 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
To all:
First of all, I hope editors who oppose omitting understand that, a military clash doesn't naturally connect with territory change. By policy it is the responsibility of editors who wants to put these content in the main space to provide supporting sources. By now, there is no such sources are provided. Therefore the burden of seeking consensus falls on the editors who want to include those content, not in opposite.
I notice that this page is about a military event however in the main article there are a lot of content describing the territory change on Sikkim. These two things do not naturally connect with each other. Thus here, in accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, I request editors who support to keep this territory change information to provide Source and Citation that clearly and directly indicate that "Nathu La and Cho La clashes" leads to the territory change on Sikkim.
This is a repost of the same request I raised three days ago, I would omit all text in related to "territory change" if this one is unchallenged. -- Fenal Kalundo ( talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Two things, I want to bring up about the Infobox Result
-- Voidvector ( talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Razer2115, as you can see, there was no consensus about the description "Indian victory". I used the language of the Chellaney source, which seems fairly accurate. This was a border conflict, not a war. I don't think it is appropriate to use terms like "victory". The fact that the Chinese forces were beaten back is clearly covered in the body, notwithstanding Van Praagh's cursory summary cited above.-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The Chinese were not beaten back in Cho La, they held their ground and beaten back the Indian invasion. This information is stated in the Chinese source cited for the Chinese casualties. The fact Cho La is still held by both China and India today shows the Chinese were not beaten back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.167 ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
keep telling that ccp propaganda to yourself the reality is chinese were beaten back there was no invasion from indian side to begin with Aryanjaiswal1234 ( talk) 06:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are edits reverted every time a NPOV is done? Every single source in this article is Indian and the new accuracy edits + casualty fixes are reverted. according to WP:RV reverts are done to prevent "vandalism or other disruptive edits." "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting." Cho La is under Chinese control AFTER the war, and corrections made on that are reverted. Chinese deaths and wounded corrections were reverted. A photo of Indian nagotiators is reverted. What is this? YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 13:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
Sorry but according to WP:RS "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." In fact both of my sources were Independent sources and in my opinion way more objective than the citated so called "scholarly source." Many has brought it up before me and every single logical edit was reverted. I don't see how an Indian scholar's opinion piece is "scholar" and how my sources are a violation. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I can see virtually 50% of the sources are either Indian government released or citated Indian opinion pieces. Reverting my edits and citing WP:RS is not logical in this instance. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 13:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
Thanks. I'll use the cited scholar source used in the articles. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
“On the other hand, the Indian Defence Ministry reported: 88 killed and 163 wounded on the Indian side, while 340 killed and 450 wounded on the Chinese side, during the two incidents.
”
“The military duel lasted one day,[16] and boosted Indian morale.[12] According to Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal, the Chinese were forced to withdraw nearly three kilometers in Cho La during this clash.[4]
”
I hope you understand the rules you sent me yourself, as you don’t seem very well abiding it on checking Indian sources with your rule of thumb. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not carry your own bias into this. Government sources are government sources, no such thing as Indian sources weighing more because you think so. China also published its figures in the 1967 war, they held back just this time in 2020. It's more than prejudice to assume Indian sources weighs more and just simply revert my edits. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 10:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
If you are gonna delete my edits, discuss and persuade me with reasoning instead of just vandalizing. I just added a corresponding Chinese source on par with Indian government sources. If you are gonna remove mine, according to NPOV, you shouldn’t have Indian backed sources to start with. I feel like you are trying to skew the narrative. That article you showed me also proved me right on Chinese figures. I don’t see anything else wrong with adding Chinese figures with Chinese sources. If you don’t wish to be neutral, don’t edit. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 10:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how is it not to be removed altogether if thats the case. false balancing only works if the otherside is using proper sources. This article does not. This article is clearly so skewed to feed Indian POV that its impossible to stay WP:GF. Some people are clealy not hiding their intentions and DON'T WANT both voices to be heard. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 04:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
According to YuukiHirohiko's edit to the infobox the CCF strength was as follows. I have applied strikethrough to the part that Kautilya3 disputes:
In YuukiHirohiko's version it is clear that 4th and 6th Companies were ordinary infantry companies (that is what a rifle company is). Kautilya3's version is unclear whether they are ordinary infantry companies or whether they are machine gun companies. A machine gun company has medium machine guns and provides fire support. @ Kautilya3: do you really object to this change? If so, why?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@ YuukiHirohiko: Is this a published book? If so, please can we have publishers details such as ISBN, date of publication, name of publisher, author. If it is not a published book, what is it? And how do people access it? Is it bilingual? Or is Battle records of the 11th Division of the People's Liberation Army a translation of the real title?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
YuukiHirohiko's edit to the infobox puts the CCF version of casualties in a propaganda-type fashion: Chinese sources say X, but the Indians claim Y.
@ Kautilya3: Do you have an objection to the CCF version being expressed in the same way as the Indian version, as follows:
Indian claims: 88 killed, 163 wounded.[8][9] | Chinese claims: 32 dead, 91 wounded.[11] |
Chinese claims: 607 casualties in Nathu La, 195 casualties in Cho La.[10] | Indian claims: 340 killed, 450 wounded.[9] |
The order should be own side first, other side second. So with CCF forces: for their own casualties, CCF claims go before Indian claims. And with Indian forces: Indian claims go before CCF claims.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1 I am fine with the formatting changes you suggest. For the new numbers that YuukiHirohiko would like to enter, I am afraid WP:RS is not satisfied. Only published sources would qualify for RS. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The New China News Agency report, broadcast by Peking Radio, said that an unspecified number of Chinese soldiers were killed or wounded.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Why the article name is 'Nathu La and Cho La clashes'. It should be directly 'Second Sino-Indian War' or '1967 Sino-Indian War'. Clash means to be small scale but violent conflict. But it was a war more than a clash. So why is the article title not changed to War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.153.185 ( talk) 02:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
this conflict was strategic and planned with high casualties. this is certainly an armed conflict as per oxford therefore it should be renamed. this is no misor clash with a dozen or so casualties. this was certainly an armed conflict/war between china and india over disputed territory. i hope someone does the needful. General Phoenix ( talk) 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 February 2016. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
@ Fenal Kalundo: Since you added a couple of sources in Chinese language to the article, as per WP:NOENG, I request you to provide quotations from those sources for all the content you added, so that it can be verified. And regarding the figures that you modified, [1] - this source clearly says, the New China News Agency report broadcast by Peking Radio said that "unspecified" number of Chinese causalities occurred during the clashes. So this will stay in the infobox until a clarification is provided on this. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
India version claims the Nathu La and Cho La incidents were a series of military clashes between India and China in the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.: I'm not sure what on earth you are trying to do over here! What's India's version in that? Please clarify. Did China's version said otherwise? As you yourself wrote here, did China say that these incidents were some Olympic games and not military clashes?
all violent conflicts between India and Kingdom of Sikkim started after 1968.: You did not provide a quote from which you were adding that information, so I don't know what that source says about it. In any case, that information is totally inaccurate as India did not have any "violent conflicts" with the Kingdom of Sikkim, and as this well published independent & reliable source tells, India acquired the state of Sikkim through a democratic referendum. It is in no way a "coup" and there were no anti India revolts before, as you wrote in this edit. In fact, there were rather anti-Chougyal (Sikkim ruler) protests as you can read at the end of this page. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
1. I rearrange the article based on your suggestion, all third party sources are put in the lead now. I modified the citation from
[3] since this article doesn't mention that China "withdrew" but only said China was defeated.
2. I clarify China's description over these incidents to show the difference. The difference is while India claimed the battle location was in Sikkim, China said the clashes were limited to the central sector along the China-Sikkim border and China army didn't step into Sikkim region during that time.
3. I now add the original text into the quotation after all violent conflicts between India and Kingdom of Sikkim started after 1968.
.The purpose of citation is to show China perceived these incidents are irrelevant to Kingdom of Sikkim. Since this page is about the 1967 incidents, I don't want to put too much effort on how India annexed Sikkim. If you are still unhappy about this paragraph, please leave the message, I can re-edit it later.—
Fenal Kalundo (
talk) 19:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
some other third party source shows it was only a border conflict without clear war-goal and India side suffered a higher casualty at the end. Of it, "it was only a border conflict without clear war-goal" - this part is clear WP:SYNTH if not totally WP:OR. Its a misinterpretation of the source. The source nowhere says such things like "without clear war-goal". And it also mentions:
At Nathu La, under the shadow of India's military expansion, efforts by both sides to strengthen their control of the pass resulted in a Chinese attack on September 11, 1967. (p 198) (emphasis mine)
Indian artillery soon responded, sparking a three-day duel in which many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed because India controlled the high ground near the pass. (p 198) (emphasis mine)
While some third party source backs Indian claim that...vs
some other third party source shows it...(shows?)
Chinese version saysvs
India version claims("India version claims"? Is 'version' not enough to say that it has been claimed?)
Different parties have different cognition on the Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La).- This line which you were writing clearly does not fit that description. We should tell the reader what Nathu La and Cho La incidents are.
Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La) were a series of military clashes between India and China alongside the border of the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.- is a reasonable and appropriate description, as supported by all sources. The Chinese version also does not dispute that the incidents were military clashes, and that they occurred near the Sikkim's border (Central sector is obviously alongside that border).
Since this page is about the 1967 incidents, I don't want to put too much effort on how India annexed Sikkim- I'm afraid that is exactly what you have been trying to do since the beginning of your contribution to this article, that too in a quite fraudulent manner. This quote which you added in your recent edit —
锡金甘托克及周边地区民众爆发大规模示威游行,要求废除《印锡合约》,维护国家主权。由于印度军警的介入,游行活动转变为暴乱,蔓延至锡金全境。在这次暴乱中,印度军警共击伤击毙锡金民众63200余人,逮捕主张国家独立的“激进分子”3327名,其中处死336名。
Second, India appeared to become more aggressive in asserting its claims near the border. At Nathu La, under the shadow of India's military expansion, efforts by both sides to strengthen their control of the pass resulted in a Chinese attack on September 11, 1967. (p 198) (emphasis mine)
On September 11, 1967, Chinese Forces at Nathu La in the central sector unleashed a punishing attack on Indian forces. (p 197) (emphasis mine)
Nathu La and Cho La incidents, (11–14 September 1967 for Nathu La; 1–10 October 1967 for Cho La) were a series of military clashes between India and China alongside the border of the Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim, then an Indian protectorate.
锡金甘托克及周边地区民众爆发大规模示威游行,要求废除《印锡合约》,维护国家主权。由于印度军警的介入,游行活动转变为暴乱,蔓延至锡金全境。在这次暴乱中,印度军警共击伤击毙锡金民众63200余人,逮捕主张国家独立的“激进分子”3327名,其中处死336名。
During the 1965 War between India and Pakistan, the Chinese gave an ultimatum to India to vacate both Nathu La and Jelep La passes on the Sikkim-Tibet border. For some strange reason, the Mountain Division, under whose jurisdiction Jelep La was at that time, vacated the pass. It remains under Chinese possession till date. However, Lt. Gen Sagat Singh, true to form, refused to vacate Nathu La.
Not as described by Indian source that has a war-goal to "invade Sikkim".&
Indian source considered these incident started by China's invasion(India considered it as China's invasion? Where?) Dear Fenal Kalundo, with all due respect, you have to read the Indian sources (which are present in citations 3 & 4 below) and understand what they tell, before you make such baseless claims. We can discuss about what Indian sources say, after you do so.
This article is an introduction about the recent history of Kingdom of Sikkim, the whole article doesn't mention that China has any relationship with Sikkim's annexation by India.- this itself is quite dubious. Because G.V.C. Naidu (p 77) notes: "India's annexation of Sikkim during 1973-1975 raised another diplomatic confrontation between the two countries." If China had no relation with Sikkim's affairs and its annexation by India, why would it have a diplomatic confrontation with India after annexation? And particularly regarding the content in the quote:
63200 people were killed or wounded— that's a pretty huge massacre (in 1968). And it is apparently supported by no meaningful sources. As I have already said, you will find numerous impeccable scholarly sources even if something close to that had really occurred. You must not write quotes with such sensational information on Wikipedia using such absurd sources. I want to politely tell you that your choice of sources is leading you to nowhere but darkness. Please refrain from using those crappy "qualified news websites in China" or whatever they are. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October, since "deter Indian forward posture along border" makes China the defending side.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. To me, it is an "invasion" already, and China was defeated because it failed that "invasion". But since it may look different in your definition, I will change my words to "infiltrated" in the future.
从1974年5月下旬开始,“民族党”领导层实行紧急动员,一方面,在锡金国内各主要城市,召集民众,尤其是青年学生和社会中下层贫民,举行“反对殖民主义宪法”的示威运动,并紧急联络锡金各主要政治党派,谋求以政治联盟的手段抵制议会表决;另一方面,频繁与世界各主要国家外交机构接触,并致函联合国秘书长与安理会,揭露印度企图兼并锡金的阴谋,请求国际干涉。
在“民族党”一连串救亡行动中,以谋求中国干涉最为积极。2005年印度外交协会解密的资料显示,从1974年5月29日起,至当年6月20日止,短短23天时间内,“民族党”共向中国驻南亚各国和驻联合国外交机构、商务团体、民间团体发送请求“政治调停”和“武装干预”的电函149封,平均日均接近7封,这在现代国际关系史上,是极为罕见的。 [6]
(Translation:Since the end of May 1974, the "National Party" leadership carried out emergency mobilization. On the one hand, in the major cities of Sikkim, they convene the people, especially young students and the poor, held a "anti-colonial constitution" protest and urgently contact with the major political parties around the world, and sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary and the UN Security Council to expose India's consipiracy to annex Sikkim and request international intervention.
In the "National Party's" series of salvation operations, the most active attempt is to seek China's intervention. According to the information declassified by the Indian Diplomatic Association in 2005, from 29 April, 1974 to 20 June of the same year, within a short period of 23 days, the "National Party" has sent a total of 149 letters to Chinese institutions in South Asian countries and in the United Nations, Chinese business groups, and Chinese civil social groups to request for "political mediation" and "military intervention", averagely 7 letters per day. This is extremely rare in the history of modern international relations.)
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7] on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. During the Cho La and Nathu La incidents, Indian losses were 88 killed in action and 163 wounded, [8] [9] while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded. [10] [8]
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces. [11] [12] [13]
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7]and
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces [11]. Moreover, in this reference [7] I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference [11], there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book [11] is economics, not military or international relationship. I don't understand how these sources are considered reliable while my findings are not? Best regards, — Fenal Kalundo ( talk) 04:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
In regards to invasion. quoted: "The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October." To me, it is an "invasion" already, and China was defeated because it failed that "invasion".- this is WP:OR.
63200 people were killed or wounded, and 3327 were arrested, of which 336 were executed by Indian forces— Since you don't understand why your "findings" from the sources you choose, are not being considered reliable, what is your justification in inserting this quote and making it as a basis for writing content? Can you please bring at least one decent source that backs that quote, of such controversial nature? So, in 1968, such a huge massacre took place all in one event, and yet no people could raise voice against it, no scholar/newspaper/organisation took note of it & no notable person talked about it, but magically a Chinese news website, out of the blue, came to report on it in 2015?
your argument seems can't counter that "China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim."— Did I write anywhere that China recognizes Nathu la and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim ? No, right? So the onus is on you to provide WP:RS for China doesn't recognize Nathu La and Cho La incidents as related to Sikkim, if you want to write it in the article. Not my problem. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7] on 1 October 1967, but was repulsed by the Indian Army by 10 October. During the Cho La and Nathu La incidents, Indian losses were 88 killed in action and 163 wounded, [8] [9] while Chinese casualties were estimated to be 340 killed in action and 450 wounded. [10] [8]
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military withdrawal from Sikkim after being defeated by Indian forces. [11] [15] [13]
The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim [7]and
The end of the conflicts saw a Chinese military defeated by Indian forces [11]. Moreover, in this reference [7] I can't even find any text says"The Chinese People's Liberation Army infiltrated parts of Sikkim"; and in this reference [11], there is only a stand alone statement said "China: defeated" without providing any details and the topic of this book [11] is economics, not military or international relationship. For other sources, except only one scholar source from India, they are all news article and even includes a PDF file without any publication information. — Fenal Kalundo ( talk) 10:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
For future editors, Chinese source posted by User:Xc 0102 here appears to be relatively official 660-page history book of PLA 11th Army Division, not sure of ISBN if there is any. -- Voidvector ( talk) 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
References
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
El_C 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
across a wide range of articles (including biographies) concerning India, Pakistan and Hinduism. El_C 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
To all:
First of all, I hope editors who oppose omitting understand that, a military clash doesn't naturally connect with territory change. By policy it is the responsibility of editors who wants to put these content in the main space to provide supporting sources. By now, there is no such sources are provided. Therefore the burden of seeking consensus falls on the editors who want to include those content, not in opposite.
I notice that this page is about a military event however in the main article there are a lot of content describing the territory change on Sikkim. These two things do not naturally connect with each other. Thus here, in accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, I request editors who support to keep this territory change information to provide Source and Citation that clearly and directly indicate that "Nathu La and Cho La clashes" leads to the territory change on Sikkim.
This is a repost of the same request I raised three days ago, I would omit all text in related to "territory change" if this one is unchallenged. -- Fenal Kalundo ( talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Two things, I want to bring up about the Infobox Result
-- Voidvector ( talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Razer2115, as you can see, there was no consensus about the description "Indian victory". I used the language of the Chellaney source, which seems fairly accurate. This was a border conflict, not a war. I don't think it is appropriate to use terms like "victory". The fact that the Chinese forces were beaten back is clearly covered in the body, notwithstanding Van Praagh's cursory summary cited above.-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The Chinese were not beaten back in Cho La, they held their ground and beaten back the Indian invasion. This information is stated in the Chinese source cited for the Chinese casualties. The fact Cho La is still held by both China and India today shows the Chinese were not beaten back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.167 ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
keep telling that ccp propaganda to yourself the reality is chinese were beaten back there was no invasion from indian side to begin with Aryanjaiswal1234 ( talk) 06:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are edits reverted every time a NPOV is done? Every single source in this article is Indian and the new accuracy edits + casualty fixes are reverted. according to WP:RV reverts are done to prevent "vandalism or other disruptive edits." "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting." Cho La is under Chinese control AFTER the war, and corrections made on that are reverted. Chinese deaths and wounded corrections were reverted. A photo of Indian nagotiators is reverted. What is this? YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 13:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
Sorry but according to WP:RS "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." In fact both of my sources were Independent sources and in my opinion way more objective than the citated so called "scholarly source." Many has brought it up before me and every single logical edit was reverted. I don't see how an Indian scholar's opinion piece is "scholar" and how my sources are a violation. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I can see virtually 50% of the sources are either Indian government released or citated Indian opinion pieces. Reverting my edits and citing WP:RS is not logical in this instance. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 13:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
Thanks. I'll use the cited scholar source used in the articles. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
“On the other hand, the Indian Defence Ministry reported: 88 killed and 163 wounded on the Indian side, while 340 killed and 450 wounded on the Chinese side, during the two incidents.
”
“The military duel lasted one day,[16] and boosted Indian morale.[12] According to Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal, the Chinese were forced to withdraw nearly three kilometers in Cho La during this clash.[4]
”
I hope you understand the rules you sent me yourself, as you don’t seem very well abiding it on checking Indian sources with your rule of thumb. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not carry your own bias into this. Government sources are government sources, no such thing as Indian sources weighing more because you think so. China also published its figures in the 1967 war, they held back just this time in 2020. It's more than prejudice to assume Indian sources weighs more and just simply revert my edits. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 10:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
If you are gonna delete my edits, discuss and persuade me with reasoning instead of just vandalizing. I just added a corresponding Chinese source on par with Indian government sources. If you are gonna remove mine, according to NPOV, you shouldn’t have Indian backed sources to start with. I feel like you are trying to skew the narrative. That article you showed me also proved me right on Chinese figures. I don’t see anything else wrong with adding Chinese figures with Chinese sources. If you don’t wish to be neutral, don’t edit. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 10:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how is it not to be removed altogether if thats the case. false balancing only works if the otherside is using proper sources. This article does not. This article is clearly so skewed to feed Indian POV that its impossible to stay WP:GF. Some people are clealy not hiding their intentions and DON'T WANT both voices to be heard. YuukiHirohiko ( talk) 04:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
According to YuukiHirohiko's edit to the infobox the CCF strength was as follows. I have applied strikethrough to the part that Kautilya3 disputes:
In YuukiHirohiko's version it is clear that 4th and 6th Companies were ordinary infantry companies (that is what a rifle company is). Kautilya3's version is unclear whether they are ordinary infantry companies or whether they are machine gun companies. A machine gun company has medium machine guns and provides fire support. @ Kautilya3: do you really object to this change? If so, why?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@ YuukiHirohiko: Is this a published book? If so, please can we have publishers details such as ISBN, date of publication, name of publisher, author. If it is not a published book, what is it? And how do people access it? Is it bilingual? Or is Battle records of the 11th Division of the People's Liberation Army a translation of the real title?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
YuukiHirohiko's edit to the infobox puts the CCF version of casualties in a propaganda-type fashion: Chinese sources say X, but the Indians claim Y.
@ Kautilya3: Do you have an objection to the CCF version being expressed in the same way as the Indian version, as follows:
Indian claims: 88 killed, 163 wounded.[8][9] | Chinese claims: 32 dead, 91 wounded.[11] |
Chinese claims: 607 casualties in Nathu La, 195 casualties in Cho La.[10] | Indian claims: 340 killed, 450 wounded.[9] |
The order should be own side first, other side second. So with CCF forces: for their own casualties, CCF claims go before Indian claims. And with Indian forces: Indian claims go before CCF claims.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1 I am fine with the formatting changes you suggest. For the new numbers that YuukiHirohiko would like to enter, I am afraid WP:RS is not satisfied. Only published sources would qualify for RS. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The New China News Agency report, broadcast by Peking Radio, said that an unspecified number of Chinese soldiers were killed or wounded.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Why the article name is 'Nathu La and Cho La clashes'. It should be directly 'Second Sino-Indian War' or '1967 Sino-Indian War'. Clash means to be small scale but violent conflict. But it was a war more than a clash. So why is the article title not changed to War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.153.185 ( talk) 02:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
this conflict was strategic and planned with high casualties. this is certainly an armed conflict as per oxford therefore it should be renamed. this is no misor clash with a dozen or so casualties. this was certainly an armed conflict/war between china and india over disputed territory. i hope someone does the needful. General Phoenix ( talk) 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)