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 10 |
This article inarguably favors more to Indian. Actually, the author tried to prove that China invaded India and then was defeated. In various aspects, the view on this historical incident is different from China. To write such an controversial topic, the author should be more careful and neutral. It will give more insight to just state the facts and not to cite so many disputable documents from the India government. More worse, the author was always trying to give many sensational comments which favors the Indian side. Personally, I don't like this article at all. It's written very bad and give a worst example of prejudice in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncode ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Except Pakistan maybe 74.99.82.190? 99.238.137.107 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
From a strictly military standpoint, the author(s) of this article is biased in the sense that the overall course of the battles and the entire war are neglected in favor of the individual actions of a few small units of Indian soldiers. Moreover, the tone suggests Indian victory, or perhaps stalemate, when in fact the war was an overwhelming military victory for the Chinese, in terms of casualties and strategic objectives achieved. This can be supported by most sources. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yuxuan dang (
talk •
contribs) 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading through this article and it feels like it was written by a bureaucrat in the Ministry of History or something in India. Various little snippets of Indian heroism completely irrelevant to the strategy and/or progression of the conflict is peppered throughout. Someone should fix this as it also makes this article overly long and dreary to read. -anonymous dude who's not chinese nor indian
Yup totally agree this article needs some major clearing up to reach even a basic from of NPOV. Right now it is extremely biased towards the Indian POV. Although it quotes a lot of sources most if not all of them seem to be sites from an Indian POV (I was unable to locate a link to a Chinese site). Again agree that the length is too long plus the style in which it is written seems too opinionated for an encyclopaedia - another anonymous dude who is not Chinese/Indian
Can't agree more. Among various articles on Wiki concerning issues between China and other countries I've ever read, this is the worst one, with the POV pushed to Indian side significantly since the section"Chinese offensive". Can't help to register a new account in order to call for a thourough re-editing. Nogoodnamesareavailablenow 09:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This entire article must have repeated the phrase "beating off Chinese waves" about a hundred times, complete with the heroic imagery of isolated Indian squads holding off hordes of communists for days on end. Yet in the end it was the Indians who were dying in far greater numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.55.123 ( talk) 04:29:38, August 19, 2007 (UTC) This article is truely an offense to neutral policy of wiki. Throughout the article, it is full of lies, cheating, deliberate omission. I strongly suggest it should be re-edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pncode ( talk • contribs).
Or just delete the whole thing and write up a short concise article. The article reads like a bad war novel, and is just way too long and full of Indian biased writing. Can't believe i wasted 30 minutes of my life reading this crap. Just.James 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree - this section must be totally re-written. A simple deletion would be preferable than the propoganda put forward here. Reading through the text and adding up the "massive Chinese causualties" inflicted by mere handfuls of Indian "defenders", you'd think that there were 300 (brave and righteous) Indians against 1,000,000 (evil invading) Chinese, as well as how the Chinese only stopped their aggression (from the tone, apparently unprovoked) when their supplies ran out. Imagine my surprise when I read a) Indians killed were more than double the Chinese deaths: 3,128 to 1,460, b) the honourable Indians did not take a single Chinese captive while the savage Chinese captured 3,968 (unilaterally returning all but a handful of PoW fatalities, which is still far greater than the number of Indians killed), c) China did not cross the border claimed by India, let alone advance to the boundary claimed by China, d) contrasting the state of preparation of India to China in the previous passages to China's supposed "logistical problems" - how many days was the conflict and is it at all conceivable that the Chinese, who so carefully planned/plotted this ran out of supplies??? e) China had total dominance over India and chose to unilaterally halt once they expelled the Indians from the bases and outposts they built in territory India recognized as Chinese (talk about an act of war)...and even withdrew 20 km past the boundary claimed by India, and finally f) China returned Indian equipment because it was too expensive to ship it to Beijing??? Apparently China doesn't have any military bases anywhere near India that could use the equipment, and Beijing is the closest military establishment to India...that must be why poor China didn't have the logistics to press their savage invasion. Some of the above is acknowledged in the article, but are by far obscured by pro-Indian propoganda (and some is buried in the footnotes). Reading between the lines (very deeply between the lines) I think it's pretty cool of China not to wipe out India when the conflict was totally one-sided, and with U.S. interference far from imminent. Plus, you'd think that China might not have been too afraid of U.S. intervention in the remote border of India/China, not so soon after China fought the U.N. to a standstill in the much more easily accessible Korean Peninsula. Vlouie01 ( talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the article from an Indian history textbook? It is so biased and does not deserve to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.239.227 ( talk) 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an AWFUL article. I have never seen such a biased article on wikipedia written about a historicla event. Seemingly every paragraph in the "Chinese Offensive" section involves phrases about how the Indian soldiers fought to the death, how they fought for hours, how they repelled Chinese forces, how their accurate artillery fire harmed Chinese forces, and the constant reminders that the Indians lost because of inferior numbers. Really, I would be EMBARASSED to be the editor who wrote that gunk. Funny how the only sources are from Indian historical websites. Nice one. 99.230.114.99 ( talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Like everyone else, this article is totally biased towards the Indian POV. It seeks to make China along with Pakistan as too aggressive and scheming, adding too much emphasis on Indian casualty and heroism. Pakistan wasn't even part of the conflict yet articles about ensuing wars and relations were included. 128.91.61.82 ( talk) 20:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
All I had edited are deliberately removed for demonstrating the indian who suffered while chinese were invaders. It was Lying by omission or mislead these users want to convince the readers that chinese were invaders while indians were peace goers.But in reality,It was the indian who were more provocative and the 1962 chinese offence was just the chiense preemptive war to counterweight.-- Ksyrie 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
the article/the wikipedia's page on this war is false, China didn't fully win the war. China took the control of Aksai Chin ( a part of Kashmir ), whereas India took the control of the eastern states, Arunachal prdaesh, Assam and their sister states
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sino-Indian_War"
Traing added this line, "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India.", and cited (J Hanhimaki The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy).
Given his previous misquotes, I had cause for suspicion, correctly, as it turns out. When I pressed him, it turns out he doesn't actually have a cite from the book.
Traing said, "I used the source from it's use in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. So no, I don't possess the book, but if you see that article it draws the same facts from the book as I have written here. You may want to ask over there for a quote."
Hanhimaki was never actually cited in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article, only listed as "further reading", and Traing says he never even read the book before. In other words, he made up the claim, and then added a cite (which he never even bothered reading) to justify it afterwards. This line is leaving the article immediately unless he provides an actual quotation from the source showing what it says. -- Yuje 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a serious danger that the war between India and Pakistan might spread. For some months, officials in Islamabad warned that in the event of war, China would not be neutral, and Indian leaders - who signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union in October - replied that they would not be alone either. Kissinger reportedly suggested in Islamabad in July that it would be helpful if India received a signal from China that it was strongly committed to maintaining the unity of Pakistan and that in case of war, China would not remain a "silent spectator." In December, Kissinger thought there was a real possibility that Beijing might go to war. He instructed his assistant that if the Chinese informed the U.S. that they were going to move, Washington should reply that it would not ignore Soviet intervention. Apparently, no word of discouragement was to be offered, though the entire region might be consumed in war, and the U.S. guarantee would, if anything, make a Chinese decision for war more likely. However, the Chinese proved more restrained than Kissinger and did not get involved
Where does it say anywhere within that paragraph that "Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India"? The sentence also presupposes two points in dispute 1)that China was aggressive in the first place, that the disputed lands were disputedly Indian. It's like me saying, "Yuje fully supports Traing's wifebeating." It presupposes the two points that Traing 1)has a wife and 2)beats this wife, without having proved it in the first place. -- Yuje 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Traing, I noticed you have made a lot of unnecessary and biased editing, including some simple distortion of fact. How could you change Neville Maxwell's book title from India's China War to China's India War. I respect everyone has their own view, politically and nationally, or what ever, but make sure when you are editing the text, you are no longer just an Idian or a Chinese, you are editor in a strictly neutral point of view. This is called professionalism.
- Neville Maxwell's China's India War [7]
Ningye 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth nothing that Neville Maxwell is profoundly anti-Indian in his writings and opinions and such his stance on the issue can hardly be considered neutral. 99.238.137.107 17:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See also above section, where Traing simply made up statements and then put a random book name to them. He kept evading when I asked for the actual quotes, until finally admitting he never even read the source. I'd advise all editors to scrutinize Traing's edits closely, because of his frequent misquotes and misattributions, and sometimes, even outright lying. From his edit history, it looks like his account was made just to edit this page alone, and he doesn't seem to be above using questionable edits.-- Yuje 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, you know full well that after I revert it I spend large amounts of time trying to accomodate any worthy edits you may have made which I should include. I admit I was being a deceptive newbie at the start of my Wikipedia time. But your attempt to create random policies against me is insulting and I think against the spirit of Wikipedia. an example of me accomodating your concerns after reverting. If you take a simple look at the history, you will see that I have hardly ever reverted and not edited directly after a revert. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page and now that you have none left you decided to try and impose a restriction-rule on my edits. Traing 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indian claim the legal border line,the McMahon Line seemed not so legal.Some british just drawed a line and didn't get any valid agreement or treaty.And the clever indian wanted to repeat what the englishman had done before.-- Ksyrie 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The traditional territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir goes upto Yarkand and Karakash rivers and includes Aksai Chin as part of Ladakh and trans-karakoram tract better known as Shaksgam Valley as part of Raja of Shigar's territory, yet it was excluded from the McMahon line. The area upto Yarkand river isn't claimed by India; just the tract north of K2 which Pakistan ceded to China in the 60's. In fact the current Indian claim stops at Karakoram Pass which leaves quite a bit of territory to the north which is traditionaly Indian, on the Chinese side, Indians are being remarkably generous it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.64.216 ( talk) 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I found Traing's edition of the peace process arrives to a conclusion of his own. There is no neutral material to back it up.
For example, "China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. [4]". What do you mean 'fairly'. When, Where and What did China do as referred in this paragraph? Reference IPCS is not found and is it a neutral source that can be verified independently?
Another example, "Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.". First, when is the past two years. Please always spell out at which date, or from when to when, what has happened. Secondly, where is Chumar or Chumar region? Is there any proof from Chinese source that they concede it to India or the area is not in dispute? From my understanding, it's part of vague concept of LAC which was and is disputed by both sides.
Please edit and remove those inaccurate claims.
128.231.88.4 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962. [5] Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute. [4] The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. [4] China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point. [4]
I can access the IPCS source just fine. Traing 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been lot of inconsistency on both the sides. Claims remain more or less unilateral in nature. There have been steps towards border domination by both sides and more so by China (through the militarization of Tibet) and China is in a more advantageous position owing to its efforts in this regard.
There are currently 14 areas under dispute - eight in the Western sector and six in the Eastern sector. In the Middle sector the disputes have more or less been solved though there is a fear on the Indian side that Chinese would have advantageous artillery deployment positions. Moreover, the last two years has seen increased Chinese patrolling in Chumar which is not a disputed area.
Yuje, what do you want???? You cannot place restrictions on me for every one of my edits. I am citing directly from internet-based references. WHAT is your problem??? Your comment that I should have to go to the talk page for consensus before editing is against the spirit of Wikipedia, anon IPs that conform to your POV have more rights than a logged in user like me who is getting to know Wikipedia slowly. You cannot undermine the spirit of Wikipedia. Traing 06:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje has broken the 3RR policy, which is stopping me from reverting Yuje's version (as that'll mean I break it to). But in a show of goodwill, I will not report you and let your edits stand for now, I hope you pay attention to real Wikipedia policies next time before making up your own random restrictions. Traing 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, you claim to explain all your edits, so start explaining:
I reverted because you reverted prior to the start of your editting, deleting all the information added subsequent to your last edit. This is extremely disrepectful to other editors, to start all your series of edits with reverts, and only afterwards selectively reinserting them only when I expose your deletions. Since many of your previous edits have included falsified cites, I asked you to list your edits and sources/reasons first before adding them, which you're doing now, and I appreciate. -- Yuje 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Much as I mentioned on my edit summaries as well as on this talk page, your additions aren't just mere additions, you revert, then make your additions, losing information in the process. Nothing stops you from simply making your edits to the current version of the page, but you delete all edits after yours, and then add your new edits on top of old versions of the page. In doing so, you never bother to explain or justify your deletions. -- Yuje 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Traing 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Yuje 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Yuje 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright guys... I was just passing by and noticed that this is starting to look like an edit war. Would you guys be amenable to filing a Request for Comment? — Umofomia 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm logging off for now, but I still plan on expanding some more. But I'd appreciate if you don't disrupt my editting by reverting again, and "incorporating selected changes" before I'm done. -- Yuje 14:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Per BBC, China never acknowledged the India sovereignty to Sikkim, however, it did soften its position and may tacitly accept it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3015840.stm
China, for its part, has agreed to start border trade through the north-east Indian state of Sikkim - a move that is being seen as an acceptance by Beijing of India's claim over that area.
But it is more accurate not to overstate the fact as Traing states:
China recognised the territory of Sikkim and Assam [4] as belonging to India
Please cite China official source. Don't revert my editing based on your POV. Ningye 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
IPCS is fine, but it is not a neutral source. It's the think tank in India and aimed to facilitate and promote its agenda. See IPCS from their "about us" page http://www.ipcs.org/About_us.jsp
The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) was established in August 1996 as an independent think tank devoted to studying security issues relating to South Asia.
The Institute maintains close liaison with the Indian Ministries of Defence and External Affairs.
The fact it mentioned are OK, but its opinion can only be cited to help the reader to understand the arguments of the both sides and has to be marked as such one sided opinion.
Ningye 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreement on Sikkim is fine per CNN. I incorporate that with dates. Also correct some typos by Traing the third time like "triggerring" -> "triggering". Ningye 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Traing states the following based on this IPCS article. http://www.ipcs.org/newIpcsSeminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2184
On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962. [5] Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China. [4] The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. [4] China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point. [4]
This IPCS article is more like a personal discussion and comments between Dr. Srikanth Kondapalli and Prof. Mira Sinha Bhattacharjea. Deleted.
Moreover, Traing stretches the fact even in the article. The article states only
Moreover, the last two years has seen increased Chinese patrolling in Chumar which is not a disputed area.
yet Traing's edit, "Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China." (emphasize added). Both parties regularly exchanges maps and diplomatic notes on the dispute. It's still an ongoing thing.
And "China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point." (emphasize added) is clearly POV, which has no mention and facts backing it up at all. Please at least elaborate what the steps China has had taken and what advantageous military positions has had happened before this paragraph could be accepted.
Traing, please base your statement with neutral sources and facts. Not all articles are acceptable. The statement from one side is only admissible when it is helpful for the readers to understand both side's story. It needs to be clearly marked as such too. See WP:RS
Ningye 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Traing, you revert back my changes without any reasons. Can you learn to discuss the questions before posting controversial/misleading edits?
Ningye 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And that, boys and girls, is today's lesson in the importance of reading comprehension. It helps to actually read the sources one is allegedly citing.-- Yuje 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
He writes:
An analysis of the sources show that they are a mixture of the Indian official history and the anti-Indian history by Neville Maxwell. However they are all placed under the heading of "according to the Indian official history". Yuje says that we should attribute all comments to their authors, which I agree with, but his selectiveness seems misleading. Traing 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, can you prove that "History of the Conflict with China, 1962" is the official history presented by India. As I am able to find extremely little on the history compared to what less official sources present. I would like proof that it is the official history and would appreciate some sense of verifiability. Traing 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Garver says
"Sun Shao, Chen Zhibin, Ximalaya shan de xue, zhong yin zhanzheng shilu
(Snows of the Himalaya mountains, the true record of the China-India war), Taiyuan: Bei Yue wenyi chubanshe, 1991, p. 95. As far as I can ascertain, this was China's first book-length study of the 1962 war. It was not a scholarly, but a popular work. It lacked reference notes and was written in an often-breezy style......."The book was banned shortly after its appearance, but this author was lucky enough to find the book on a street
bookstall of a small city in Sichuan before it was banned."
The next book sourced by him is published in 1998. Anyway, your simply deletion of the sentence wasn't good enough. Traing 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/562/562-vk-singh.htm
RESOLVING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
V.K. Singh, Lt. General (retired), The Indian Army; former Director General Military Operations, Delhi
Just an FYI for both parties. Mikeslackenerny 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article isnot neutral.The indian name Northeast Frontier Agency and chinese name South Tibet should be treated in the same way,while some contributors deliberately deleting the chinese name South Tibet in the favour of their emotion.The war broke out in the disputable area,so all the name should be cited.-- Ksyrie 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is getting quite long, most of the information is pre-war, can anyone suggest a good name for a subarticle. Maybe something like Leadup to the Sino-Indian War. Traing 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Gawd, that sounds clumsy. I guess it would not be wrong to say just "Indian Army", as the Air Force had at best only limited support role, and the Navy none atall.
Is there an Orbat available for this conflict?
And yeah, article is too long. Please make a seperate site for the lead up. (hehe easy for me to say.. you guys have done the excellent slog work)
Mikeslackenerny 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Guys, anyone had a look at http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/ ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Can someone remove the chola incident from the article because firstly, the source is biased and secondly, because the source does not exist anymore. Futher searches about the event reveal nothing except for the source quoted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.169.41.42 ( talk) 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
1. http://faculty.winthrop.edu/haynese/india/medals/SSM65.html Nathula Chola (1967) - instituted on 8 May 1975 (as one of the original bars for the medal), this bar was awarded for service along the Sino-Indian border for one day of service in the border incidents at Nathula (11-16 September 1967) or Chola (1 October 1967) - air force personnel would qualify by one operational sortie during these periods
2. http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_past.asp Sino – Indian Chola Incident (1967)
In the second, on October 1 1967, a group of Indian Gurkha Rifles soldiers noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post near a boulder in Sikkim. After a heated argument over the control of a boulder, a Chinese soldier bayoneted an Indian sentry, triggering the start of a short-range knife and fire-fight.[58] The Chinese troops signaled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there.[58] The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the disputed LAC.[58] The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.[58]
Mikeslackenerny 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See huge source: http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/10-4-66.shtml
The Colombo Conference
Meanwhile at the invitation of the Government of Ceylon, Conference of six non-aligned nations -- Ceylon, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Ghana and the UAR -- had met at Colombo on December 10 with the purpose of seeking ways and means of bringing the two angry giants together. The positions taken up by each participant appear to have differed widely. Thus Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, referred in her opening speech to the danger that the dispute represented for India's policy of non-alignment and the UAR, whose strong support for the Indian cause Pandit Nehru has gratefully acknowledged, considered that there should be no territorial gains from military operations. General Ne Win of Burma and Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, on the other hand, were chiefly resolved not to tread on anyone's toes.
However the Conference reached agreement on certain proposals and requested Mrs Bandaranaike to convey them in person to New Delhi and Peking. the proposals and subsequent clarifications made to India provided that in Ladakh China should, as she had offered, withdraw her forces 20 kilometres behind what he alleged to be the line of November 1959, while Indian forces might move right up to this line; the demilitarised zone should be administered by civilian posts of both sides. In the eastern sector both sides might move troops right up to the McMahon line except in the Chedong and Longju areas, where there was a difference of opinion about the former line of control; China and India should decide jointly what to do about these. As for the central sector, the Conference suggested that its problems would "be solved by peaceful means without resorting to force". These strictly temporary arrangements were designed merely to reduce tension and make it possible for the two sides to negotiate.
Chou En-lai informed Mrs. Bandaranaike on January 19 that China accepted the proposals "in principle", but he seemed inclined to make important reservations. In particular he wanted India to accept a suggestion he had previously made to Mr Nehru on December 31, that Indian troops keep out of the NEFA, while the Peking "People's Daily" of January 26 remarked pointedly that there were disputes over all sectors of the boundary." It seemed possible that China might lay serious claim not merely to parts
of Ladakh as previously, but to all or part of the NEFA, where she had made intensive propaganda during her period of occupation. In India the Lok Sabha accepted the proposals in toto on January 25; but Mr Nehru said that there could be no negotiations until China did the same.
Mikeslackenerny 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This chinese link puts it at 1460
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history4/62/20050317/12174607.html
From some Chinese book called "The red walls witness"
摘自《红墙见证录》,当代中国出版社尹家民
http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx%3Fproduct_id%3D8776496
Book can be purchased above. Was published in 2004.
Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There is another source for Chinese casualties (and a recount of the 62 war, has lots of tidbits). [19]
This states, that according to 1 ebook, Deng Lifeng, Zhong-Yin Bianzheng, p. 10. Deng puts total Chinese casualties at approximately 2400.,the Chinese Army suffered:
722 Killed 1697 injured
Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
So, as per the two sources, I will state Chinese Killed as 722-1460, injured at 1697.
OTOH, Chinese claims of Indian Casualties is almost the same as what India released:
Xu Yan, Zhong-Yin Bian Jie, P. 184. says According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured.
PoW no. is right. Killed or Injured = (Indian Admission is 1383 killed + 1696 missing (presmed dead) + 1047 injured = 4126
This can be compared to Chinese claims (above) of 4897, so is approx right (And how exactly would the chinese know how many IA soldiers were wounded?)
Any objections anyone?
Mikeslackenerny 07:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the original Chinese cite from the book above: http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2005-07/31/content_3279638.htm
中印邊境自衛反擊作戰歷時1個月,我軍在西段清除了印軍全部人侵據點,在東段進到了非法的"麥線"以南靠近傳統習慣線附近地區。作戰中,全殲印軍3個旅,基本殲滅印軍3個旅,另殲滅印軍4個旅各一部。俘印軍第七旅旅長季 ·普·達爾維准將以下3900余人,擊斃印軍第六十二旅旅長霍希爾·辛格准將以下4800余人,總計殲滅入侵印軍8700余人。繳獲各種火炮300余門、飛機5架、坦克10輛、汽車400輛、各種槍6300余支(挺),及其他武器彈藥和軍用物資。在反擊作戰中,我軍共傷亡2400余人。
One can use a Chinese translation s/w to see above.
Mikeslackenerny 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Another source: Chinese border guards in the country, wiping out TNI three brigades (No. 7 Brigade, 62 Brigade, Artillery brigade 4), the basic Terminator TNI three brigades (112 Brigade, the 48th Brigade, 65 Brigade), Another Terminator TNI 5 Brigade, the 67th Brigade, the 114 Brigade, one of the 129 Brigade, 62 killed in Indian brigade Hexier Xingezhunjiang following 4885. 7 POW Indian brigade quarter Pronk Darfur Gen following 3,968 (of whom 26 field-grade officers, second lieutenants 29). 缴获:飞机5架、坦克9辆、汽车437辆、88mm加农炮13门、88mm榴弹炮36门、75mm山炮12门、106.7mm迫击炮27门、106mm无后座力炮6门、81mm迫击炮142门、51mm迫击炮144门、轻重机枪631挺、长短枪5,772支、火箭筒112具、枪榴弹发射器(掷弹筒)32具、枪弹4,120,591发、炮弹79,720发、手榴弹16,921枚、地雷14,848枚电台(报话机)520部,炮兵观测仪等其他器材735部(具)。Seized : five aircraft, nine tanks, 437 vehicles, 13 cannons, Dimensions, Dimensions howitzers 36, 12 75mm mountain artillery, mortar 106.7mm 27, 106 mm recoilless cannons 6. 142 81-mm mortars, 144 51mm mortars, light and heavy machine guns 631, the length of the gun 5, 772, 112 rocket-propelled grenades, grenade launchers (grenade launcher) 32, bullet 4,120,591 hair. issued 79,720 shells, 16,291 pieces of grenades, landmines 14,848 pieces of radio (portable radio transmitter) 520. artillery observation instruments, and other equipment 735 (with).
中国边防部队阵亡722人(其中军官82名、士兵640名),负伤1,697人(其中军官173名、士兵1,524名)消耗:炮弹22,976发、枪弹701,342发、手榴弹7,080枚、爆破筒64节、炸药2,050k9,喷火油料677L,损坏122mm榴弹炮1门、机枪18挺、长短枪81支、40mm火箭筒2具、电台(步话机)5部、汽车12台。Chinese border guards killed 722 people (82 of whom are officers, soldiers, 640), a wounded. 697 people (173 of whom are officers and 1,524 soldiers) consumption : 22976 artillery shells hair, Bullet 701,342 hair, 7,080 pieces of hand grenades, 64 blaster, explosives 2,050k9. guaranteed oil 677L, damaged a 122mm howitzer, 18 machine guns, 81 guns and rifles. two 40mm rocket launchers, radio (walkie-talkie) 5, 12 cars.
from http://bwl.top81.cn/war_cn/india/304.htm, 1962 Chinese border guards returned to the Indian Army weapons and equipment list (Graphic)
Mikeslackenerny 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Would also like China and India since 1967, the Nathula Pass Pass Zhuola, and the conflict ________________________________________ Http://military.china.com 2005-07-12 10:16 : 51 A large small --
After 1963, China's armed forces in the China-India border two things retreat, the re-implementation of the disengagement segregation policy The armed forces of the two lots is limited direct contact with China and Sikkim in the border (then Indian Sikkim 2-3 mountain infantry brigade ), tin border TNI trying to provoke the Chinese army in the border tin Nathula Pass. have repeatedly crossed the demarcation of the border tin, mobile pillar, build fortifications, erecting telephone. Aircraft have repeatedly intruded into China's airspace for Tibet Kangba, East Asia and other places for reconnaissance.
After 1966, China launched the "Cultural Revolution" upsurge in 1967, lives around the massive rise, the impact of military authorities seizing weapons also to the numerous, unrest also spread to Tibet, to a greater or lesser extent. To China for strategic reconnaissance, the Indian Army deployed Alpino 112 brigade, Artillery 17th Brigade in 1967, 11 to 14 September in the border tin Nathula Pass to the Chinese garrison launched offensive.
Earlier in September, the Indian Army continued cross-border forcibly erecting barbed wire, Chinese garrison repeated serious warning, TNI ignored. September 7, the Indian soldier with a bayonet to stab two Chinese soldiers. September 11 morning 7:30 army mountain infantry brigade an even 112 in a battalion under the command of Lieutenant Colonel, it divides to Nathula Pass approximation of the Chinese outpost. Chinese garrison strictly "fired the first shot" of discipline, restraint, the invasion of the Indian Army issued a serious warning. TNI officers and soldiers of the Chinese restraint as a sign of weakness, 8:00-7 pm, the first shot and threw grenades, despite this positive TNI commander was shot Lipancheng sacrifice spot, and another six wounded soldiers.
I then CMC border garrison of the "tit-for-tat, SIT, not a sign of weakness, not lose out" instructions, I Border Mission in unbearable situation, immediately launched a counterattack, only seven minutes, the end of the battle, army officers and soldiers killed 67 people, with 40 rocket launchers to the Indian Army in China set up the full seven fortifications destroyed. 8:15, the Indian military regime fled, the military discipline, without leaving the country to pursue.
The Indian side failed, then the artillery brigade to the 17th China launched a massive artillery attack. Therefore, the Chinese army has said. Originally, the Chinese army on the border tin conflict is the principle of "cross-border officers can not, bullet shells also hit the neighboring countries can not land "and the Sino-Indian border conflict" not more transit officers, India can not take the initiative to the artillery fire, but encountered enemy territory to me artillery fire and resolutely counter "different, But this time the Indian Arrogance, approved by the Central Military Commission. I Disan 0 8 artillery regiment organized more than 30 mortar doors on August 2 and 120 mortar responded to the Indian Army. The shelling lasted four days and three nights, eight Indian shelling positions playing dumb, the two command posts, two observation and 23 fortifications and two vehicles were destroyed, and the majority of more than 540 officers and men of the Indian Army, Indian artillery declines. PV in at 22:00 on the 13th stopped shelling.
After the situation was reported to the Central and Premier Zhou Enlai personally instructed : "The enemy is not fire a cannon. I would stop shooting. "14 noon, our stop shelling attack.
This war, the Indian Army were killed or injured 607 people, in addition to the enemy's military provocation in a death and nine injuries, the basic prejudice. TNI forced under the white flag of the Chinese territory accept the transfer of the body of the Indian army, and weapons and ammunition.
TNI has not lost all hopes, at 11:20 a.m. on October 1. Indian Gurkhas, a platoon leader wing rate of seven soldiers penetrated table mountain pass the Chinese side. Gurkhas, armed with machetes to the Chinese soldiers heckled Chinese soldiers spot warning Gorkha guys not care about it, rashly in one go. Chinese soldiers kidnapped want to exit. On hearing the news, rushed to the near post indignation of the Chinese officers and soldiers, and looting from comrade-in-arms, a platoon leader of the Gorkha launched border. Gurkhas soldiers miff, drew a pistol shooting to the Chinese officers and soldiers, and the rest to the Gorkha soldiers of the Chinese officers and soldiers shooting, instantly killed and wounded one of the officers and men of the Chinese people. Meanwhile, Zhuola, Indian Pass near the artillery also used 51-mm and 81-mm mortar fire to the Chinese territory.
Head gambling sacrifice comrade-in-arms of the Chinese officers and soldiers immediately returned fire, the invasion of 8 Gorkha soldiers all killed. 12:00 sharp, fierce artillery with the Indian artillery fire suppression, 2 Indian provocation will not even most of the majority of the officers and men (195), 29 destroying fortifications. TNI declines, then in the evening 19:55 shelling stopped.
At that time, the brothers still Maohaizi August 9-year-old, 54-uncle in a military division soldiers San 0, They have also leave was canceled, ready for combat, the war on standby to Tibet. But not too long, because the Indian side is the peaceful settlement of disputes, mission canceled, and they did not to Tibet.
Since then, the Indian military summed up the Sino-Indian war lessons, the Chinese army has "fired the first shot" principle, if not found shot, it would not have been against the Chinese army, so emboldened breakthrough "their retreat 20 kilometers disengagement" restrictions (in fact only China's unilateral evacuation), constantly crossed the line of actual control in the Chinese army under the eyelids point. To the 80s, and in some areas, and even in-depth practical side of the line of control in China, 10 km.
1986 to 1987, the Chinese border garrison under instructions of the Central Military Commission, had organized a number of irregularities, 87 explosive situation reached the level of considerable tension. Double Stone had participated in the open air to Tibet airport emergency action, which did, and left him!
Hong Kong Wenhui Daily news: An Indian diplomacy department senior official disclosed that, the Indian government has released two in 1962 in the China and India frontier war the Chinese soldier which captures, two people are imprisoned in India for 41 years. These two have been long ago awarded the martyr the soldier, returned to the Sichuan native place.
The official said that, two respectively are 61 year old of and 65 year-old Chinese prisoners of war, for 41 years are imprisoned east India the Ranchi mental hospital. Visits China and the China and India relations along with Indian premier further fixes, the Indian government gives two people China. India's diplomats stated that, "Two people returned to the Sichuan native place, China and India had agreed the event keeps secret."
????
Mikeslackenerny 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030727-104257-8893r.htm Another source, http://www.aiipowmia.com/updates/updt0800.html
27 AUG 00: Two Chinese prisoners of war have been found in an Indian mental asylum where they spent the past 35 years. The two inmates, Shih Liang and Yang Chen, have been held at the Central Institute of Psychiatry in the east Indian state of Bihar since 1965, the South China Morning Post said. The two were arrested in 1962 during a bloody Sino-Indian border war across the Himalayas and were held at a jail in New Delhi on charges of espionage, it said. Three years later, the Indian army took them to the asylum. Neither the Indian nor Chinese government appears to know about the two men, the Post said. The newspaper quoted India's Home Affairs Ministry as saying that it has no knowledge of the two prisoners, while the Foreign Ministry in Beijing said it would investigate the matter before responding.
http://mha.nic.in/pr0900.htm 01.09.2000(2)
Reports relating to 'Two Chinese Prisoners of War' in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi
Reports relating to two Chinese Prisoners of War (Indo China War of 1962) languishing in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi have appeared in media.
Factual position is clarified as under:-
One MA Shiblung ( at present 63 years of age) a Chinese national was arrested in 1964. He was seen roaming around, talking in Chinese and was harboring suspicious ideas that people are about to kill him. With the help of an interpreter, it was noted that he believed himself to be the President of China and his brother as Prime Minister of China. . He was initially restrained in Tihar Jail where he developed feeding problem and had to be fed intranasally. He was sent to Hospital for Medical Diseases, Shahadra and subsequently was admitted to Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi in 1970. He continued to show hallucinatory behaviour, talking and smiling to self and sudden shouting. A Committee was constituted to examine the patient MA Shiblung. The Committee found him to be a burnt out case of Chronic Schizophrenia. The Psychiatrist Physician recommended that he may be treated as out patient.
Similarly another Chinese national Yang Chia Lun (at present 62 years of age) was reported to have entered India for better prospects. Mr. Yang Chia Lun was admitted to Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi. A Committee was constituted to examine the patient Yang Chia Lun. The Committee found him to be a burnt out case of Chronic Schizophrenia who doesn't require in patient care in the hospital. The Psychiatrist Physician recommended that he may be treated as out patient.
The article is too long. What is needed to be done is to copy and paste paragraphs into new more specific articles and then writing only one sentence here describing what that paragraph means or if it is a detailed one then a couple of sentences may be required. At the moment the article has more info on the events before and after the war then it has on the war so I suggest expanding that (and no subarticles are needed for that) while moving the rest. Proposed subarticles are:
Traing 07:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoever read Jung Chang wrote in the article: "China began preparations for war with India in May or June."
And here's what it actually says:
Mao had been planning War with India on the border issue for some time. China had refused to negotiate the boundary that had been deliniated by the British in colonial times, and insisted it be renegotiated, or at least formalized by the two now sovereign states. India regarded the border as settled and not negotiable, and the two sides were deadlocked. As border clashes worsened, Peking quietly prepared for war during May-June 1962. Chou later told Americans that "Nehru was getting very cocky . . . and we tried to keep down his cockiness." But Mao was chary [sic] of starting a war, as he was worried about the security of the nuclear test site at Lop Nor in northwest China, which was beyond the range of American U-2 spy planes flying from Taiwan, but lay within range from India. Part of the fallout from the war was that India allowed U-2s to fly from a base at Charbartia, from where they were able to photograph China's first A-bomb test in 1964.
Mao was also concerned that he might ahve to fight on two fronts. Chiang Kai-shek was making his most active preparations since 1949 to invade the Mainland, fired by the hope that the population would rise up and welcome him because of the famine. Mao took the prospect of a Nationalist invasion seriously, moving large forces to the southeast coast opposite Taiwan, while he himself hunkered down in his secret shelter in the Western Hills outside Peking.
It later goes on to say that the decision was made in October, after Mao was able to blackmail Kruschev and the USSR into supporting China. -- Yuje 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I plan to add a section, or a note in the aftermath, about the Indian movie Haqeeqat (Reality), which was made in 1964 and told of the last ditch battle at Rezang La for the defence of Chulshul in Ladakh sector.
Is there any popular culture reference from China?
Mikeslackenerny 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1. PoWs no is accurate, as it is confirmed by both Indian and Chinese sources 3968. 2. Number of Killed = 1,383 and Missing = 1,696. This is what Calvin says, and attributes it to official Indian sources. Not sure what sources he means. The term missing has no real meaning almost 50 year later, and I propose we remove it.
So total supposed dead are = 3079 (All sectors) According to Garver.
The Tawang Memorial is dedicated to the 2420 martyrs killed in the Kameng sector during the 1962 Indo-China war
As to western secror, we can guess at casualties after looking at the battles and the no. of dead listed there. (Chulshul etc.)
Athale (Official History) says a total of 2616 were killed or seriously wounded. [24]
Mikeslackenerny 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Yuje 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The main problem with this article is that there are simply to many pro-chinese and pro-indian contributors to the article. This is coming from an external observer.
I'm trying to shorten the article per Wikipedia guidelines by using smaller articles to represent the conflict before the start of the war but you are restoring it completely to make the article unbearably long. Traing 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dr pda's article size script reveals that the readable prose on this article is at 79KB; far too large. Please read
WP:LENGTH for a discussion of appropriate readable prose size and
WP:SS on summary style.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow.. the article has evolved brilliantly over the past couple of months. Informative and well referenced article.. good job. -- Grubb 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The political map of India has a caption stating that the map shows Bhutan as part of India, when Bhutan is infact shaded a different colour to India. Can someone clarify? Traing 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What the heck is this? The whole article just turn into an Indian propaganda piece. Many parts of the article said Indians inflicted higher casualties to the Chinese than the other way around. And it almost onesidely talk about Indian army's bravary and make the Chinese troop look stupid.
-- Yuje 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article (which was very interesting, as it's about a war I knew little about), factual content and depth of coverage look to be very good. The style might benefit from a bit of a polish, though: I've had a go at copyediting the introduction, mainly trying to improve its flow. Whilst I have been careful not to alter any of the content, proofreading is always welcome... and please accept my apologies for any errors that might have crept in ;)
If consensus is agreeable, I'm happy to work through the rest of the article - although reading the comments above, it might be best to wait until the points mentioned have been dealt with. Let me know what you think. EyeSerene TALK 19:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the proof-reading and corrections where I have inadvertently dropped stuff!
A couple of points:
Any comments etc, let me know either here or my talk page ;) EyeSerene TALK 11:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Further update: The last 2 paragraphs of the Tibet controversy section might benefit from a read through - to keep the original content, I had to reword parts of it in a way that might have introduced a POV bias (I hope not, but it's difficult to neutrally proofread your own work!). BTW, I've also added the LoC tag to the top of this page (forgot to do this earlier) and will request a further proofreading from other LoC editors when we've done the copyedit if that's ok. EyeSerene TALK 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I smell heavy Indo-POV in the first half of this section. Simly quoting sources from IN's mil. general or Rediff columnists would not lead to NPOV. Those one-side stories like: "in 1951 and 52, the government of China asserted that there were no frontier issues to be taken up with India" are unquestionably lies. See Maxwell's India's China War which gives us totally different accounts. I suggest to add this - 210.0.204.29 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As the article is in a state of flux at the moment, I'll hold off on any further ce until it's settled down again ;) EyeSerene TALK 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, most of the edits you made were again simply lengthening an already too-long article. All the stuff about Thag La and the McMahon Line is already present in small article. It has not disappeared, there's no point copy-pasting on to here again. Then the article will become too long.And in other cases you simply blank entire paragraphs and sections, that is not neutral and does not help the article in question at all. Please let's negotiate making a better article as opposed to this mindless revert warring with you readding material which can be found on Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and other pages. Traing 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So now what are you doing? You're just blank mass reverting without even bothering to look at the content of the edits, or answering the listed criticisms. --
Yuje 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because I don't have time does not mean I cannot justify my edits. I will no go through every difference we have in this diff:
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).. The Indian government maintained that the intention of the McMahon Line was to set the border along the highest ridges, and that the international border fell on the highest ridges of Thag La, about 3 to 4 miles (4.8 to 6.4 km) north of the line drawn by
Henry McMahon on the treaty map.
[13]
[15] Brigadier John Dalvi, who was commanding the Indian troops there, would later write of this claim: "The Chinese had raised a dispute about the exact alignment of the McMahon Line in the Thagla Ridge area. Therefore the Thagla-Dhola area was not strictly territory that 'we should have been convinced was ours' as directed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, and someone is guilty of exceeding the limits prescribed by him."
[16] Indian claims kept, Chinese claims on the original line, evidence of actual location of McMahon Line, Dalvi's doubts deleted without summary.Original version
Traing's version:
To those advocating it as a source. Read the article. It's not written even by a columnist or reporter. It's an editorial. And his speculation on the cause of the war being the Great Leap Forward is just that: speculation. He writes in the article that he's speculating, and he doesn't offer any proof, evidence, or arguments for his views. No other scholars or governments or books on the Sino-Indian war seriously advocate the views he present. By Wikipolicy, we should not assign Undue weight to extreme minority views. Speculation from a nobody editorialist should not be treated with equal weight as published studies and books on the war. -- Yuje 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In exact words: Daily Times "China indicated that it was ready to drop its claim to Sikkim, which had merged with India in 1975." If it had to drop its claim then it obviously claimed it at one time. Traing 07:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[41]-- Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets have a big picture folks. Above mentioned "PRC's claims" on Sikkim has nothing to do with claiming suzerainty over the region. The socalled "claim" is exactly China's position on India's status as Sikkim's suzerain/sovereign. And in common sense, skimishes occured in the Sino-Sikkimese borders only shows that the boundaries still haven't been officially delimited yet, it has nothing to do with socalled "China's Imperialist Dream". Calm down! - 219.79.120.208 10:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As an analogy can we say that PRC laid claims (sovereignty/suzerainty) over North Korea while conflicts occurred within the region between PRC and US forces? - 219.79.120.208 11:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all! I've been keeping a watch on this article since it started becoming unstable and I just thought I ought to make a couple of points. Firstly, the copyedit I began was only intended to help out with the readability of the article. I don't know enough about the subject to make independent edits, so please don't view any copyediting I've done as "approving" or "confirming" anything. I just go with what's there at the time ;) Secondly, like everything on WP, anything I have written is totally subject to change by any other editor; a copyedit does not give an article a kind of "official version" status, and the LoCE are just ordinary editors who feel we can contribute to WP by doing what we (hope) we have a skill for! I should probably have checked the article history for stability before starting the ce: it was not my intention to provide ammunition for a dispute, and I apologise if I have.
I hope this article settles down and the differences here can be resolved. Both Yuje and Triang have put a lot of effort into the article, and you should be proud of your work and enthusiasm. If we can get past the POV dispute I'm sure it can be improved to GA status. All the best to both of you! EyeSerene TALK 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Here there are two points of contention. Firstly, is it right for the infobox to blatantly say "Chinese victory" to describe the result of the war. Secondly, it is clear that China returned to areas in Aksai Chin it already occupied. But is it right to say that they "affirmed total control of Aksai Chin".
My views here are clear. The result seems fine as it stands BUT if we are to go with Yuje and says that the end of the war saw China and India return to prewar positions then the result MUST be status quo ante bellum. However, I believe that isn't right as Indian posts WERE within China's claimed area of Aksai Chin and it is because of this that the Chinese had to actually overrun these posts to "affirm total control" of Aksai Chin. Traing 07:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"By the end of 1961, Nehru had sent enough Indian Army troops into Aksai Chin to establish about 43 posts on the Ladakh frontier claimed by China. Many of the Indian outposts were parallel to, but about 100 miles from, the first Chinese military road. However, three of the outposts were near Konga Pass, in the vicinity of the second Chinese highway."
You have been accusing me of carelessness and other things with my reverts above. Well you didn't seem to have much of a problem earlier. It don't mean anything of meaning by this, I just want you to know that you should forgive and be forgiven for things like these, don't try and condemn me on something which you have done earlier. Traing 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I firstly think that a request for comment should be filed and the discussion opened up to other editors. Secondly, it is necessary to keep opinions, revisionist history and claims out of the article. Stick purely to facts, not opinions. There is no need to introduce passages speculating on India and China's respective territorial designs on Bhutan or Sikkim. Stick solidly by WP:ATT and WP:NPOV - if in doubt, don't introduce the data or make it clear that it was a scholarly opinion, not necessarily a fact. I suggest that since both Bhutan and Sikkim are featured articles, you simply replicate the information on this particular issue given in those articles, in the "History" sections.
From my own knowledge, there has always been a degree of speculation regarding Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim in India - between 1947-49, India signed protectorate treaties (of the same nature that the British had signed) with Sikkim and Bhutan; the latter two retained full independence while India provided for their defense and exercised some influence in foreign affairs. Both Sikkim and Bhutan were shut off from the outside world for a long time. India has never claimed Bhutan. In the case of Sikkim, there has been a problem between the Chinese design on the state and the Chogyal's desire for independence. Since 1962, India has been aggressive in keeping out Chinese influence in Sikkim. As the Chogyal's rule was highly unstable and unpopular, the Sikkimese government collapsed and India assumed the administration of the state and formally annexed it - strategically, to keep it from falling to Chinese hands.
Just state the facts on (1) the protectorate treaties, (2) a brief note on what the Indian and Chinese foreign policies were on those states. As far as talking of India's annexation of Sikkim, keep it 1-2 sentences (no opinions). It is not needed to go deep into those issues in this article. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 07:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please quote text where the Indian Official History says that on July 22, Indian troops were ordered to fire on Chinese troops in self-defence? Furthermore, please source the claim that while Indian troops previously only fired in self-defence, it was now decided that they could fire based on their own discretion. Traing 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, you have been arguing with me for a long time about the idea that China did not occupy any posts on Dhola. But reading over your version, it also says that China occupied posts on Dhola. So is this just argument for argument's sake or what? Traing 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You can see my updated version on User:Traing/Sino-Indian War. I think it addresses all concerns and I am ready to consider any new concerns. Traing 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It IS a compromise version, I have added many things that you have added. What hypocrisy is this? You blame me for allegedly not providing a compromise version while you say yourself that you aren't perpared to compromise on any part of your version. Well, I would let anyone edit my version of the page but I hold the discretion to revert them (in my userspace) if I find their edits unacceptable but considering your views that the current version is perfect I don't think there is any logic at all in your little statement above. But for the record, yes, Wikipedia is collaborative and I wouldn't mind you adding information to my version or making minor changes, but knowing you, you will just copy and paste from your version onto mine and state it as a comrpomise. Hypocrisy Yuje. And all the discussion above relates to differences between mine and your versions, if they weren't related to that then why would there be discussion? Please don't avoid addressing my version. And please tell me clearly? Do you oppose my summaries of your version in my version? Traing 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, I find the headings you provided in extreme bad faith. Traing 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That happened months ago when i was new. Answer this question with a yes or a no, will you ever forgive me for adding false information which was subsequently deleted? I have tried to see you as a good editor who is Chinese and thus obviously would bear a Chinese POV. Everyone has a POV, it's natural. But you have never even tried to see me in a positive light (judging by your replies against me and your talking to me in the third person). Traing 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell
This RfC is related to a conflict between two users:
User:Traing (me) and
User:Yuje. It is undoubtable that both have POVs on the issue but both of them attempt neutrality. They are currently conflicting on numerous issues detailed above. In basic terms
here is the diff
more updated diff between the versions supported by both editors, with Yuje's on the left and Traing on the right. 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
More detail (although it is written by Traing and might not be completely neutral There have been very few other outside editors to contribute and resolve the dispute, so we two have been arguing for many months for various reasons. About a month ago, Traing moved large chunks of the article to Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and Events leading to the Sino-Indian War and summarized the article in his own words here (thereby cutting the size of the article by approx. 20kb). Traing has been continually doing this with any of Yuje's edits that he considered too long, as Traing holds the belief that the article should emphasize on the war as opposed to the events leading up and the causes. The current dispute is in many ways drawn out of Yuje's complete opposition to this move, as he has stated that the longer the article is, the more likely it is to be considered a featured article. Copyediting was taking place before the recent dispute started, this was mainly being undertaken by User:EyeSerene. Another point of dispute is Yuje's blanking of a paragraph which contained information about Mao wanting to increase morale in China by success against India and his blanking of 4 other paragraphs which contained heavily summarized information about later skirmishes between India and China. Yuje claims that these were unnecessary, Traing claims that they are summarized adequately and do not detract from the article. Other points of conflict are all content-related, please see the diff above to explore them and also explore the conversations above which have become increasingly heated. 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje objected to the version by Traing not only because of deletions, but because of a large number of inaccuracies and POVs present in the version advocated by Traing. I've listed multiple instances in which Traing engaged in selective deletions of material, leaving the article in an unbalanced and POV depiction. As I have listed, he would often delete the evidence cited by non-Indian sources, and leaving only the Indian one in.
Traing has claimed that I blanked a paragraph about Mao. I would like to point out that the exact same paragraph exists in the subpage which Traing has created. In other words, When I object to Traing's removal of content from the main page, he claimed that this was completely acceptable, since the information was contained in subpages still, but when I do it, he keeps on objecting. As I pointed out in the case of the Mao paragraph, Traing had engaged in selective deletion there, as well. The original paragraph cited three books which provided evidence that China was not prepared to go to war, and he deleted all mentions of these, and kept only an editorial, which says that Mao was preparing to go to war to placate domestic critics.
Traing has claimed that I blanked 4 other paragraphs. I considered these to be too long and lengthy, and I moved (not deleted) them to the Sino-Indian relations page, based on the same cited justification that the article should emphasize the events of thw ar as opposed to minor incidents decades afterwards. I had intended to rewrite a shorter summary, but had no chance due to my edits constantly being reverted by Traing. If you notice, at no time had he ever explained which of my edits he objected to, only mass-reverted while I consistently listed point by point which edits I changed. Even now, he has refused to explain or justify the changes he plans to make, which he has temporarily stored at User:Traing/Sino-Indian War.
I will also note that Traing has continuously reverted me, without even bothering to check the content of my edits. I had listed all the edits I made, with the accompanying reasons, but he has continued to revert even though he acknowledged meany of them to be legitimate ones. Other edits, he reverts despite being unable to provide evidence for the views he advocates on his version. He claims to "fix" the page on his own version, but all he is doing is deciding which of the edits he wants to keep, and reverting all the rest. He calls that compromise, but all he is doing reverting any statements he doesn't like (without bothering to list his reasons for any of them), and rephrasing the rest (also without bothering to list the reason for particular rephrasings). -- Yuje 22:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Calvin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Garver
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Calvin,
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dobell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Maxwell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Noorani
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).officialhistory
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Neville Maxwell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).VKSingh
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Noorani2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Noorani3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).official history
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rubin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Un-Negotiated Dispute
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 10 |
This article inarguably favors more to Indian. Actually, the author tried to prove that China invaded India and then was defeated. In various aspects, the view on this historical incident is different from China. To write such an controversial topic, the author should be more careful and neutral. It will give more insight to just state the facts and not to cite so many disputable documents from the India government. More worse, the author was always trying to give many sensational comments which favors the Indian side. Personally, I don't like this article at all. It's written very bad and give a worst example of prejudice in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncode ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Except Pakistan maybe 74.99.82.190? 99.238.137.107 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
From a strictly military standpoint, the author(s) of this article is biased in the sense that the overall course of the battles and the entire war are neglected in favor of the individual actions of a few small units of Indian soldiers. Moreover, the tone suggests Indian victory, or perhaps stalemate, when in fact the war was an overwhelming military victory for the Chinese, in terms of casualties and strategic objectives achieved. This can be supported by most sources. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yuxuan dang (
talk •
contribs) 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading through this article and it feels like it was written by a bureaucrat in the Ministry of History or something in India. Various little snippets of Indian heroism completely irrelevant to the strategy and/or progression of the conflict is peppered throughout. Someone should fix this as it also makes this article overly long and dreary to read. -anonymous dude who's not chinese nor indian
Yup totally agree this article needs some major clearing up to reach even a basic from of NPOV. Right now it is extremely biased towards the Indian POV. Although it quotes a lot of sources most if not all of them seem to be sites from an Indian POV (I was unable to locate a link to a Chinese site). Again agree that the length is too long plus the style in which it is written seems too opinionated for an encyclopaedia - another anonymous dude who is not Chinese/Indian
Can't agree more. Among various articles on Wiki concerning issues between China and other countries I've ever read, this is the worst one, with the POV pushed to Indian side significantly since the section"Chinese offensive". Can't help to register a new account in order to call for a thourough re-editing. Nogoodnamesareavailablenow 09:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This entire article must have repeated the phrase "beating off Chinese waves" about a hundred times, complete with the heroic imagery of isolated Indian squads holding off hordes of communists for days on end. Yet in the end it was the Indians who were dying in far greater numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.55.123 ( talk) 04:29:38, August 19, 2007 (UTC) This article is truely an offense to neutral policy of wiki. Throughout the article, it is full of lies, cheating, deliberate omission. I strongly suggest it should be re-edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pncode ( talk • contribs).
Or just delete the whole thing and write up a short concise article. The article reads like a bad war novel, and is just way too long and full of Indian biased writing. Can't believe i wasted 30 minutes of my life reading this crap. Just.James 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree - this section must be totally re-written. A simple deletion would be preferable than the propoganda put forward here. Reading through the text and adding up the "massive Chinese causualties" inflicted by mere handfuls of Indian "defenders", you'd think that there were 300 (brave and righteous) Indians against 1,000,000 (evil invading) Chinese, as well as how the Chinese only stopped their aggression (from the tone, apparently unprovoked) when their supplies ran out. Imagine my surprise when I read a) Indians killed were more than double the Chinese deaths: 3,128 to 1,460, b) the honourable Indians did not take a single Chinese captive while the savage Chinese captured 3,968 (unilaterally returning all but a handful of PoW fatalities, which is still far greater than the number of Indians killed), c) China did not cross the border claimed by India, let alone advance to the boundary claimed by China, d) contrasting the state of preparation of India to China in the previous passages to China's supposed "logistical problems" - how many days was the conflict and is it at all conceivable that the Chinese, who so carefully planned/plotted this ran out of supplies??? e) China had total dominance over India and chose to unilaterally halt once they expelled the Indians from the bases and outposts they built in territory India recognized as Chinese (talk about an act of war)...and even withdrew 20 km past the boundary claimed by India, and finally f) China returned Indian equipment because it was too expensive to ship it to Beijing??? Apparently China doesn't have any military bases anywhere near India that could use the equipment, and Beijing is the closest military establishment to India...that must be why poor China didn't have the logistics to press their savage invasion. Some of the above is acknowledged in the article, but are by far obscured by pro-Indian propoganda (and some is buried in the footnotes). Reading between the lines (very deeply between the lines) I think it's pretty cool of China not to wipe out India when the conflict was totally one-sided, and with U.S. interference far from imminent. Plus, you'd think that China might not have been too afraid of U.S. intervention in the remote border of India/China, not so soon after China fought the U.N. to a standstill in the much more easily accessible Korean Peninsula. Vlouie01 ( talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the article from an Indian history textbook? It is so biased and does not deserve to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.239.227 ( talk) 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an AWFUL article. I have never seen such a biased article on wikipedia written about a historicla event. Seemingly every paragraph in the "Chinese Offensive" section involves phrases about how the Indian soldiers fought to the death, how they fought for hours, how they repelled Chinese forces, how their accurate artillery fire harmed Chinese forces, and the constant reminders that the Indians lost because of inferior numbers. Really, I would be EMBARASSED to be the editor who wrote that gunk. Funny how the only sources are from Indian historical websites. Nice one. 99.230.114.99 ( talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Like everyone else, this article is totally biased towards the Indian POV. It seeks to make China along with Pakistan as too aggressive and scheming, adding too much emphasis on Indian casualty and heroism. Pakistan wasn't even part of the conflict yet articles about ensuing wars and relations were included. 128.91.61.82 ( talk) 20:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
All I had edited are deliberately removed for demonstrating the indian who suffered while chinese were invaders. It was Lying by omission or mislead these users want to convince the readers that chinese were invaders while indians were peace goers.But in reality,It was the indian who were more provocative and the 1962 chinese offence was just the chiense preemptive war to counterweight.-- Ksyrie 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
the article/the wikipedia's page on this war is false, China didn't fully win the war. China took the control of Aksai Chin ( a part of Kashmir ), whereas India took the control of the eastern states, Arunachal prdaesh, Assam and their sister states
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sino-Indian_War"
Traing added this line, "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India.", and cited (J Hanhimaki The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy).
Given his previous misquotes, I had cause for suspicion, correctly, as it turns out. When I pressed him, it turns out he doesn't actually have a cite from the book.
Traing said, "I used the source from it's use in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. So no, I don't possess the book, but if you see that article it draws the same facts from the book as I have written here. You may want to ask over there for a quote."
Hanhimaki was never actually cited in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article, only listed as "further reading", and Traing says he never even read the book before. In other words, he made up the claim, and then added a cite (which he never even bothered reading) to justify it afterwards. This line is leaving the article immediately unless he provides an actual quotation from the source showing what it says. -- Yuje 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a serious danger that the war between India and Pakistan might spread. For some months, officials in Islamabad warned that in the event of war, China would not be neutral, and Indian leaders - who signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union in October - replied that they would not be alone either. Kissinger reportedly suggested in Islamabad in July that it would be helpful if India received a signal from China that it was strongly committed to maintaining the unity of Pakistan and that in case of war, China would not remain a "silent spectator." In December, Kissinger thought there was a real possibility that Beijing might go to war. He instructed his assistant that if the Chinese informed the U.S. that they were going to move, Washington should reply that it would not ignore Soviet intervention. Apparently, no word of discouragement was to be offered, though the entire region might be consumed in war, and the U.S. guarantee would, if anything, make a Chinese decision for war more likely. However, the Chinese proved more restrained than Kissinger and did not get involved
Where does it say anywhere within that paragraph that "Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India"? The sentence also presupposes two points in dispute 1)that China was aggressive in the first place, that the disputed lands were disputedly Indian. It's like me saying, "Yuje fully supports Traing's wifebeating." It presupposes the two points that Traing 1)has a wife and 2)beats this wife, without having proved it in the first place. -- Yuje 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Traing, I noticed you have made a lot of unnecessary and biased editing, including some simple distortion of fact. How could you change Neville Maxwell's book title from India's China War to China's India War. I respect everyone has their own view, politically and nationally, or what ever, but make sure when you are editing the text, you are no longer just an Idian or a Chinese, you are editor in a strictly neutral point of view. This is called professionalism.
- Neville Maxwell's China's India War [7]
Ningye 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth nothing that Neville Maxwell is profoundly anti-Indian in his writings and opinions and such his stance on the issue can hardly be considered neutral. 99.238.137.107 17:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See also above section, where Traing simply made up statements and then put a random book name to them. He kept evading when I asked for the actual quotes, until finally admitting he never even read the source. I'd advise all editors to scrutinize Traing's edits closely, because of his frequent misquotes and misattributions, and sometimes, even outright lying. From his edit history, it looks like his account was made just to edit this page alone, and he doesn't seem to be above using questionable edits.-- Yuje 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, you know full well that after I revert it I spend large amounts of time trying to accomodate any worthy edits you may have made which I should include. I admit I was being a deceptive newbie at the start of my Wikipedia time. But your attempt to create random policies against me is insulting and I think against the spirit of Wikipedia. an example of me accomodating your concerns after reverting. If you take a simple look at the history, you will see that I have hardly ever reverted and not edited directly after a revert. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page and now that you have none left you decided to try and impose a restriction-rule on my edits. Traing 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indian claim the legal border line,the McMahon Line seemed not so legal.Some british just drawed a line and didn't get any valid agreement or treaty.And the clever indian wanted to repeat what the englishman had done before.-- Ksyrie 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The traditional territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir goes upto Yarkand and Karakash rivers and includes Aksai Chin as part of Ladakh and trans-karakoram tract better known as Shaksgam Valley as part of Raja of Shigar's territory, yet it was excluded from the McMahon line. The area upto Yarkand river isn't claimed by India; just the tract north of K2 which Pakistan ceded to China in the 60's. In fact the current Indian claim stops at Karakoram Pass which leaves quite a bit of territory to the north which is traditionaly Indian, on the Chinese side, Indians are being remarkably generous it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.64.216 ( talk) 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I found Traing's edition of the peace process arrives to a conclusion of his own. There is no neutral material to back it up.
For example, "China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. [4]". What do you mean 'fairly'. When, Where and What did China do as referred in this paragraph? Reference IPCS is not found and is it a neutral source that can be verified independently?
Another example, "Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.". First, when is the past two years. Please always spell out at which date, or from when to when, what has happened. Secondly, where is Chumar or Chumar region? Is there any proof from Chinese source that they concede it to India or the area is not in dispute? From my understanding, it's part of vague concept of LAC which was and is disputed by both sides.
Please edit and remove those inaccurate claims.
128.231.88.4 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962. [5] Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute. [4] The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. [4] China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point. [4]
I can access the IPCS source just fine. Traing 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been lot of inconsistency on both the sides. Claims remain more or less unilateral in nature. There have been steps towards border domination by both sides and more so by China (through the militarization of Tibet) and China is in a more advantageous position owing to its efforts in this regard.
There are currently 14 areas under dispute - eight in the Western sector and six in the Eastern sector. In the Middle sector the disputes have more or less been solved though there is a fear on the Indian side that Chinese would have advantageous artillery deployment positions. Moreover, the last two years has seen increased Chinese patrolling in Chumar which is not a disputed area.
Yuje, what do you want???? You cannot place restrictions on me for every one of my edits. I am citing directly from internet-based references. WHAT is your problem??? Your comment that I should have to go to the talk page for consensus before editing is against the spirit of Wikipedia, anon IPs that conform to your POV have more rights than a logged in user like me who is getting to know Wikipedia slowly. You cannot undermine the spirit of Wikipedia. Traing 06:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje has broken the 3RR policy, which is stopping me from reverting Yuje's version (as that'll mean I break it to). But in a show of goodwill, I will not report you and let your edits stand for now, I hope you pay attention to real Wikipedia policies next time before making up your own random restrictions. Traing 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, you claim to explain all your edits, so start explaining:
I reverted because you reverted prior to the start of your editting, deleting all the information added subsequent to your last edit. This is extremely disrepectful to other editors, to start all your series of edits with reverts, and only afterwards selectively reinserting them only when I expose your deletions. Since many of your previous edits have included falsified cites, I asked you to list your edits and sources/reasons first before adding them, which you're doing now, and I appreciate. -- Yuje 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Much as I mentioned on my edit summaries as well as on this talk page, your additions aren't just mere additions, you revert, then make your additions, losing information in the process. Nothing stops you from simply making your edits to the current version of the page, but you delete all edits after yours, and then add your new edits on top of old versions of the page. In doing so, you never bother to explain or justify your deletions. -- Yuje 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Traing 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Yuje 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Yuje 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright guys... I was just passing by and noticed that this is starting to look like an edit war. Would you guys be amenable to filing a Request for Comment? — Umofomia 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm logging off for now, but I still plan on expanding some more. But I'd appreciate if you don't disrupt my editting by reverting again, and "incorporating selected changes" before I'm done. -- Yuje 14:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Per BBC, China never acknowledged the India sovereignty to Sikkim, however, it did soften its position and may tacitly accept it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3015840.stm
China, for its part, has agreed to start border trade through the north-east Indian state of Sikkim - a move that is being seen as an acceptance by Beijing of India's claim over that area.
But it is more accurate not to overstate the fact as Traing states:
China recognised the territory of Sikkim and Assam [4] as belonging to India
Please cite China official source. Don't revert my editing based on your POV. Ningye 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
IPCS is fine, but it is not a neutral source. It's the think tank in India and aimed to facilitate and promote its agenda. See IPCS from their "about us" page http://www.ipcs.org/About_us.jsp
The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) was established in August 1996 as an independent think tank devoted to studying security issues relating to South Asia.
The Institute maintains close liaison with the Indian Ministries of Defence and External Affairs.
The fact it mentioned are OK, but its opinion can only be cited to help the reader to understand the arguments of the both sides and has to be marked as such one sided opinion.
Ningye 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreement on Sikkim is fine per CNN. I incorporate that with dates. Also correct some typos by Traing the third time like "triggerring" -> "triggering". Ningye 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Traing states the following based on this IPCS article. http://www.ipcs.org/newIpcsSeminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2184
On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962. [5] Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China. [4] The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. [4] China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point. [4]
This IPCS article is more like a personal discussion and comments between Dr. Srikanth Kondapalli and Prof. Mira Sinha Bhattacharjea. Deleted.
Moreover, Traing stretches the fact even in the article. The article states only
Moreover, the last two years has seen increased Chinese patrolling in Chumar which is not a disputed area.
yet Traing's edit, "Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China." (emphasize added). Both parties regularly exchanges maps and diplomatic notes on the dispute. It's still an ongoing thing.
And "China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point." (emphasize added) is clearly POV, which has no mention and facts backing it up at all. Please at least elaborate what the steps China has had taken and what advantageous military positions has had happened before this paragraph could be accepted.
Traing, please base your statement with neutral sources and facts. Not all articles are acceptable. The statement from one side is only admissible when it is helpful for the readers to understand both side's story. It needs to be clearly marked as such too. See WP:RS
Ningye 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Traing, you revert back my changes without any reasons. Can you learn to discuss the questions before posting controversial/misleading edits?
Ningye 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And that, boys and girls, is today's lesson in the importance of reading comprehension. It helps to actually read the sources one is allegedly citing.-- Yuje 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
He writes:
An analysis of the sources show that they are a mixture of the Indian official history and the anti-Indian history by Neville Maxwell. However they are all placed under the heading of "according to the Indian official history". Yuje says that we should attribute all comments to their authors, which I agree with, but his selectiveness seems misleading. Traing 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, can you prove that "History of the Conflict with China, 1962" is the official history presented by India. As I am able to find extremely little on the history compared to what less official sources present. I would like proof that it is the official history and would appreciate some sense of verifiability. Traing 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Garver says
"Sun Shao, Chen Zhibin, Ximalaya shan de xue, zhong yin zhanzheng shilu
(Snows of the Himalaya mountains, the true record of the China-India war), Taiyuan: Bei Yue wenyi chubanshe, 1991, p. 95. As far as I can ascertain, this was China's first book-length study of the 1962 war. It was not a scholarly, but a popular work. It lacked reference notes and was written in an often-breezy style......."The book was banned shortly after its appearance, but this author was lucky enough to find the book on a street
bookstall of a small city in Sichuan before it was banned."
The next book sourced by him is published in 1998. Anyway, your simply deletion of the sentence wasn't good enough. Traing 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/562/562-vk-singh.htm
RESOLVING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
V.K. Singh, Lt. General (retired), The Indian Army; former Director General Military Operations, Delhi
Just an FYI for both parties. Mikeslackenerny 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article isnot neutral.The indian name Northeast Frontier Agency and chinese name South Tibet should be treated in the same way,while some contributors deliberately deleting the chinese name South Tibet in the favour of their emotion.The war broke out in the disputable area,so all the name should be cited.-- Ksyrie 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is getting quite long, most of the information is pre-war, can anyone suggest a good name for a subarticle. Maybe something like Leadup to the Sino-Indian War. Traing 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Gawd, that sounds clumsy. I guess it would not be wrong to say just "Indian Army", as the Air Force had at best only limited support role, and the Navy none atall.
Is there an Orbat available for this conflict?
And yeah, article is too long. Please make a seperate site for the lead up. (hehe easy for me to say.. you guys have done the excellent slog work)
Mikeslackenerny 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Guys, anyone had a look at http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/ ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Can someone remove the chola incident from the article because firstly, the source is biased and secondly, because the source does not exist anymore. Futher searches about the event reveal nothing except for the source quoted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.169.41.42 ( talk) 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
1. http://faculty.winthrop.edu/haynese/india/medals/SSM65.html Nathula Chola (1967) - instituted on 8 May 1975 (as one of the original bars for the medal), this bar was awarded for service along the Sino-Indian border for one day of service in the border incidents at Nathula (11-16 September 1967) or Chola (1 October 1967) - air force personnel would qualify by one operational sortie during these periods
2. http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_past.asp Sino – Indian Chola Incident (1967)
In the second, on October 1 1967, a group of Indian Gurkha Rifles soldiers noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post near a boulder in Sikkim. After a heated argument over the control of a boulder, a Chinese soldier bayoneted an Indian sentry, triggering the start of a short-range knife and fire-fight.[58] The Chinese troops signaled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there.[58] The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the disputed LAC.[58] The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.[58]
Mikeslackenerny 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See huge source: http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/10-4-66.shtml
The Colombo Conference
Meanwhile at the invitation of the Government of Ceylon, Conference of six non-aligned nations -- Ceylon, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Ghana and the UAR -- had met at Colombo on December 10 with the purpose of seeking ways and means of bringing the two angry giants together. The positions taken up by each participant appear to have differed widely. Thus Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, referred in her opening speech to the danger that the dispute represented for India's policy of non-alignment and the UAR, whose strong support for the Indian cause Pandit Nehru has gratefully acknowledged, considered that there should be no territorial gains from military operations. General Ne Win of Burma and Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, on the other hand, were chiefly resolved not to tread on anyone's toes.
However the Conference reached agreement on certain proposals and requested Mrs Bandaranaike to convey them in person to New Delhi and Peking. the proposals and subsequent clarifications made to India provided that in Ladakh China should, as she had offered, withdraw her forces 20 kilometres behind what he alleged to be the line of November 1959, while Indian forces might move right up to this line; the demilitarised zone should be administered by civilian posts of both sides. In the eastern sector both sides might move troops right up to the McMahon line except in the Chedong and Longju areas, where there was a difference of opinion about the former line of control; China and India should decide jointly what to do about these. As for the central sector, the Conference suggested that its problems would "be solved by peaceful means without resorting to force". These strictly temporary arrangements were designed merely to reduce tension and make it possible for the two sides to negotiate.
Chou En-lai informed Mrs. Bandaranaike on January 19 that China accepted the proposals "in principle", but he seemed inclined to make important reservations. In particular he wanted India to accept a suggestion he had previously made to Mr Nehru on December 31, that Indian troops keep out of the NEFA, while the Peking "People's Daily" of January 26 remarked pointedly that there were disputes over all sectors of the boundary." It seemed possible that China might lay serious claim not merely to parts
of Ladakh as previously, but to all or part of the NEFA, where she had made intensive propaganda during her period of occupation. In India the Lok Sabha accepted the proposals in toto on January 25; but Mr Nehru said that there could be no negotiations until China did the same.
Mikeslackenerny 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This chinese link puts it at 1460
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history4/62/20050317/12174607.html
From some Chinese book called "The red walls witness"
摘自《红墙见证录》,当代中国出版社尹家民
http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx%3Fproduct_id%3D8776496
Book can be purchased above. Was published in 2004.
Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There is another source for Chinese casualties (and a recount of the 62 war, has lots of tidbits). [19]
This states, that according to 1 ebook, Deng Lifeng, Zhong-Yin Bianzheng, p. 10. Deng puts total Chinese casualties at approximately 2400.,the Chinese Army suffered:
722 Killed 1697 injured
Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
So, as per the two sources, I will state Chinese Killed as 722-1460, injured at 1697.
OTOH, Chinese claims of Indian Casualties is almost the same as what India released:
Xu Yan, Zhong-Yin Bian Jie, P. 184. says According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured.
PoW no. is right. Killed or Injured = (Indian Admission is 1383 killed + 1696 missing (presmed dead) + 1047 injured = 4126
This can be compared to Chinese claims (above) of 4897, so is approx right (And how exactly would the chinese know how many IA soldiers were wounded?)
Any objections anyone?
Mikeslackenerny 07:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the original Chinese cite from the book above: http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2005-07/31/content_3279638.htm
中印邊境自衛反擊作戰歷時1個月,我軍在西段清除了印軍全部人侵據點,在東段進到了非法的"麥線"以南靠近傳統習慣線附近地區。作戰中,全殲印軍3個旅,基本殲滅印軍3個旅,另殲滅印軍4個旅各一部。俘印軍第七旅旅長季 ·普·達爾維准將以下3900余人,擊斃印軍第六十二旅旅長霍希爾·辛格准將以下4800余人,總計殲滅入侵印軍8700余人。繳獲各種火炮300余門、飛機5架、坦克10輛、汽車400輛、各種槍6300余支(挺),及其他武器彈藥和軍用物資。在反擊作戰中,我軍共傷亡2400余人。
One can use a Chinese translation s/w to see above.
Mikeslackenerny 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Another source: Chinese border guards in the country, wiping out TNI three brigades (No. 7 Brigade, 62 Brigade, Artillery brigade 4), the basic Terminator TNI three brigades (112 Brigade, the 48th Brigade, 65 Brigade), Another Terminator TNI 5 Brigade, the 67th Brigade, the 114 Brigade, one of the 129 Brigade, 62 killed in Indian brigade Hexier Xingezhunjiang following 4885. 7 POW Indian brigade quarter Pronk Darfur Gen following 3,968 (of whom 26 field-grade officers, second lieutenants 29). 缴获:飞机5架、坦克9辆、汽车437辆、88mm加农炮13门、88mm榴弹炮36门、75mm山炮12门、106.7mm迫击炮27门、106mm无后座力炮6门、81mm迫击炮142门、51mm迫击炮144门、轻重机枪631挺、长短枪5,772支、火箭筒112具、枪榴弹发射器(掷弹筒)32具、枪弹4,120,591发、炮弹79,720发、手榴弹16,921枚、地雷14,848枚电台(报话机)520部,炮兵观测仪等其他器材735部(具)。Seized : five aircraft, nine tanks, 437 vehicles, 13 cannons, Dimensions, Dimensions howitzers 36, 12 75mm mountain artillery, mortar 106.7mm 27, 106 mm recoilless cannons 6. 142 81-mm mortars, 144 51mm mortars, light and heavy machine guns 631, the length of the gun 5, 772, 112 rocket-propelled grenades, grenade launchers (grenade launcher) 32, bullet 4,120,591 hair. issued 79,720 shells, 16,291 pieces of grenades, landmines 14,848 pieces of radio (portable radio transmitter) 520. artillery observation instruments, and other equipment 735 (with).
中国边防部队阵亡722人(其中军官82名、士兵640名),负伤1,697人(其中军官173名、士兵1,524名)消耗:炮弹22,976发、枪弹701,342发、手榴弹7,080枚、爆破筒64节、炸药2,050k9,喷火油料677L,损坏122mm榴弹炮1门、机枪18挺、长短枪81支、40mm火箭筒2具、电台(步话机)5部、汽车12台。Chinese border guards killed 722 people (82 of whom are officers, soldiers, 640), a wounded. 697 people (173 of whom are officers and 1,524 soldiers) consumption : 22976 artillery shells hair, Bullet 701,342 hair, 7,080 pieces of hand grenades, 64 blaster, explosives 2,050k9. guaranteed oil 677L, damaged a 122mm howitzer, 18 machine guns, 81 guns and rifles. two 40mm rocket launchers, radio (walkie-talkie) 5, 12 cars.
from http://bwl.top81.cn/war_cn/india/304.htm, 1962 Chinese border guards returned to the Indian Army weapons and equipment list (Graphic)
Mikeslackenerny 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Would also like China and India since 1967, the Nathula Pass Pass Zhuola, and the conflict ________________________________________ Http://military.china.com 2005-07-12 10:16 : 51 A large small --
After 1963, China's armed forces in the China-India border two things retreat, the re-implementation of the disengagement segregation policy The armed forces of the two lots is limited direct contact with China and Sikkim in the border (then Indian Sikkim 2-3 mountain infantry brigade ), tin border TNI trying to provoke the Chinese army in the border tin Nathula Pass. have repeatedly crossed the demarcation of the border tin, mobile pillar, build fortifications, erecting telephone. Aircraft have repeatedly intruded into China's airspace for Tibet Kangba, East Asia and other places for reconnaissance.
After 1966, China launched the "Cultural Revolution" upsurge in 1967, lives around the massive rise, the impact of military authorities seizing weapons also to the numerous, unrest also spread to Tibet, to a greater or lesser extent. To China for strategic reconnaissance, the Indian Army deployed Alpino 112 brigade, Artillery 17th Brigade in 1967, 11 to 14 September in the border tin Nathula Pass to the Chinese garrison launched offensive.
Earlier in September, the Indian Army continued cross-border forcibly erecting barbed wire, Chinese garrison repeated serious warning, TNI ignored. September 7, the Indian soldier with a bayonet to stab two Chinese soldiers. September 11 morning 7:30 army mountain infantry brigade an even 112 in a battalion under the command of Lieutenant Colonel, it divides to Nathula Pass approximation of the Chinese outpost. Chinese garrison strictly "fired the first shot" of discipline, restraint, the invasion of the Indian Army issued a serious warning. TNI officers and soldiers of the Chinese restraint as a sign of weakness, 8:00-7 pm, the first shot and threw grenades, despite this positive TNI commander was shot Lipancheng sacrifice spot, and another six wounded soldiers.
I then CMC border garrison of the "tit-for-tat, SIT, not a sign of weakness, not lose out" instructions, I Border Mission in unbearable situation, immediately launched a counterattack, only seven minutes, the end of the battle, army officers and soldiers killed 67 people, with 40 rocket launchers to the Indian Army in China set up the full seven fortifications destroyed. 8:15, the Indian military regime fled, the military discipline, without leaving the country to pursue.
The Indian side failed, then the artillery brigade to the 17th China launched a massive artillery attack. Therefore, the Chinese army has said. Originally, the Chinese army on the border tin conflict is the principle of "cross-border officers can not, bullet shells also hit the neighboring countries can not land "and the Sino-Indian border conflict" not more transit officers, India can not take the initiative to the artillery fire, but encountered enemy territory to me artillery fire and resolutely counter "different, But this time the Indian Arrogance, approved by the Central Military Commission. I Disan 0 8 artillery regiment organized more than 30 mortar doors on August 2 and 120 mortar responded to the Indian Army. The shelling lasted four days and three nights, eight Indian shelling positions playing dumb, the two command posts, two observation and 23 fortifications and two vehicles were destroyed, and the majority of more than 540 officers and men of the Indian Army, Indian artillery declines. PV in at 22:00 on the 13th stopped shelling.
After the situation was reported to the Central and Premier Zhou Enlai personally instructed : "The enemy is not fire a cannon. I would stop shooting. "14 noon, our stop shelling attack.
This war, the Indian Army were killed or injured 607 people, in addition to the enemy's military provocation in a death and nine injuries, the basic prejudice. TNI forced under the white flag of the Chinese territory accept the transfer of the body of the Indian army, and weapons and ammunition.
TNI has not lost all hopes, at 11:20 a.m. on October 1. Indian Gurkhas, a platoon leader wing rate of seven soldiers penetrated table mountain pass the Chinese side. Gurkhas, armed with machetes to the Chinese soldiers heckled Chinese soldiers spot warning Gorkha guys not care about it, rashly in one go. Chinese soldiers kidnapped want to exit. On hearing the news, rushed to the near post indignation of the Chinese officers and soldiers, and looting from comrade-in-arms, a platoon leader of the Gorkha launched border. Gurkhas soldiers miff, drew a pistol shooting to the Chinese officers and soldiers, and the rest to the Gorkha soldiers of the Chinese officers and soldiers shooting, instantly killed and wounded one of the officers and men of the Chinese people. Meanwhile, Zhuola, Indian Pass near the artillery also used 51-mm and 81-mm mortar fire to the Chinese territory.
Head gambling sacrifice comrade-in-arms of the Chinese officers and soldiers immediately returned fire, the invasion of 8 Gorkha soldiers all killed. 12:00 sharp, fierce artillery with the Indian artillery fire suppression, 2 Indian provocation will not even most of the majority of the officers and men (195), 29 destroying fortifications. TNI declines, then in the evening 19:55 shelling stopped.
At that time, the brothers still Maohaizi August 9-year-old, 54-uncle in a military division soldiers San 0, They have also leave was canceled, ready for combat, the war on standby to Tibet. But not too long, because the Indian side is the peaceful settlement of disputes, mission canceled, and they did not to Tibet.
Since then, the Indian military summed up the Sino-Indian war lessons, the Chinese army has "fired the first shot" principle, if not found shot, it would not have been against the Chinese army, so emboldened breakthrough "their retreat 20 kilometers disengagement" restrictions (in fact only China's unilateral evacuation), constantly crossed the line of actual control in the Chinese army under the eyelids point. To the 80s, and in some areas, and even in-depth practical side of the line of control in China, 10 km.
1986 to 1987, the Chinese border garrison under instructions of the Central Military Commission, had organized a number of irregularities, 87 explosive situation reached the level of considerable tension. Double Stone had participated in the open air to Tibet airport emergency action, which did, and left him!
Hong Kong Wenhui Daily news: An Indian diplomacy department senior official disclosed that, the Indian government has released two in 1962 in the China and India frontier war the Chinese soldier which captures, two people are imprisoned in India for 41 years. These two have been long ago awarded the martyr the soldier, returned to the Sichuan native place.
The official said that, two respectively are 61 year old of and 65 year-old Chinese prisoners of war, for 41 years are imprisoned east India the Ranchi mental hospital. Visits China and the China and India relations along with Indian premier further fixes, the Indian government gives two people China. India's diplomats stated that, "Two people returned to the Sichuan native place, China and India had agreed the event keeps secret."
????
Mikeslackenerny 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030727-104257-8893r.htm Another source, http://www.aiipowmia.com/updates/updt0800.html
27 AUG 00: Two Chinese prisoners of war have been found in an Indian mental asylum where they spent the past 35 years. The two inmates, Shih Liang and Yang Chen, have been held at the Central Institute of Psychiatry in the east Indian state of Bihar since 1965, the South China Morning Post said. The two were arrested in 1962 during a bloody Sino-Indian border war across the Himalayas and were held at a jail in New Delhi on charges of espionage, it said. Three years later, the Indian army took them to the asylum. Neither the Indian nor Chinese government appears to know about the two men, the Post said. The newspaper quoted India's Home Affairs Ministry as saying that it has no knowledge of the two prisoners, while the Foreign Ministry in Beijing said it would investigate the matter before responding.
http://mha.nic.in/pr0900.htm 01.09.2000(2)
Reports relating to 'Two Chinese Prisoners of War' in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi
Reports relating to two Chinese Prisoners of War (Indo China War of 1962) languishing in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi have appeared in media.
Factual position is clarified as under:-
One MA Shiblung ( at present 63 years of age) a Chinese national was arrested in 1964. He was seen roaming around, talking in Chinese and was harboring suspicious ideas that people are about to kill him. With the help of an interpreter, it was noted that he believed himself to be the President of China and his brother as Prime Minister of China. . He was initially restrained in Tihar Jail where he developed feeding problem and had to be fed intranasally. He was sent to Hospital for Medical Diseases, Shahadra and subsequently was admitted to Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi in 1970. He continued to show hallucinatory behaviour, talking and smiling to self and sudden shouting. A Committee was constituted to examine the patient MA Shiblung. The Committee found him to be a burnt out case of Chronic Schizophrenia. The Psychiatrist Physician recommended that he may be treated as out patient.
Similarly another Chinese national Yang Chia Lun (at present 62 years of age) was reported to have entered India for better prospects. Mr. Yang Chia Lun was admitted to Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi. A Committee was constituted to examine the patient Yang Chia Lun. The Committee found him to be a burnt out case of Chronic Schizophrenia who doesn't require in patient care in the hospital. The Psychiatrist Physician recommended that he may be treated as out patient.
The article is too long. What is needed to be done is to copy and paste paragraphs into new more specific articles and then writing only one sentence here describing what that paragraph means or if it is a detailed one then a couple of sentences may be required. At the moment the article has more info on the events before and after the war then it has on the war so I suggest expanding that (and no subarticles are needed for that) while moving the rest. Proposed subarticles are:
Traing 07:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoever read Jung Chang wrote in the article: "China began preparations for war with India in May or June."
And here's what it actually says:
Mao had been planning War with India on the border issue for some time. China had refused to negotiate the boundary that had been deliniated by the British in colonial times, and insisted it be renegotiated, or at least formalized by the two now sovereign states. India regarded the border as settled and not negotiable, and the two sides were deadlocked. As border clashes worsened, Peking quietly prepared for war during May-June 1962. Chou later told Americans that "Nehru was getting very cocky . . . and we tried to keep down his cockiness." But Mao was chary [sic] of starting a war, as he was worried about the security of the nuclear test site at Lop Nor in northwest China, which was beyond the range of American U-2 spy planes flying from Taiwan, but lay within range from India. Part of the fallout from the war was that India allowed U-2s to fly from a base at Charbartia, from where they were able to photograph China's first A-bomb test in 1964.
Mao was also concerned that he might ahve to fight on two fronts. Chiang Kai-shek was making his most active preparations since 1949 to invade the Mainland, fired by the hope that the population would rise up and welcome him because of the famine. Mao took the prospect of a Nationalist invasion seriously, moving large forces to the southeast coast opposite Taiwan, while he himself hunkered down in his secret shelter in the Western Hills outside Peking.
It later goes on to say that the decision was made in October, after Mao was able to blackmail Kruschev and the USSR into supporting China. -- Yuje 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I plan to add a section, or a note in the aftermath, about the Indian movie Haqeeqat (Reality), which was made in 1964 and told of the last ditch battle at Rezang La for the defence of Chulshul in Ladakh sector.
Is there any popular culture reference from China?
Mikeslackenerny 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1. PoWs no is accurate, as it is confirmed by both Indian and Chinese sources 3968. 2. Number of Killed = 1,383 and Missing = 1,696. This is what Calvin says, and attributes it to official Indian sources. Not sure what sources he means. The term missing has no real meaning almost 50 year later, and I propose we remove it.
So total supposed dead are = 3079 (All sectors) According to Garver.
The Tawang Memorial is dedicated to the 2420 martyrs killed in the Kameng sector during the 1962 Indo-China war
As to western secror, we can guess at casualties after looking at the battles and the no. of dead listed there. (Chulshul etc.)
Athale (Official History) says a total of 2616 were killed or seriously wounded. [24]
Mikeslackenerny 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Yuje 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The main problem with this article is that there are simply to many pro-chinese and pro-indian contributors to the article. This is coming from an external observer.
I'm trying to shorten the article per Wikipedia guidelines by using smaller articles to represent the conflict before the start of the war but you are restoring it completely to make the article unbearably long. Traing 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dr pda's article size script reveals that the readable prose on this article is at 79KB; far too large. Please read
WP:LENGTH for a discussion of appropriate readable prose size and
WP:SS on summary style.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow.. the article has evolved brilliantly over the past couple of months. Informative and well referenced article.. good job. -- Grubb 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The political map of India has a caption stating that the map shows Bhutan as part of India, when Bhutan is infact shaded a different colour to India. Can someone clarify? Traing 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What the heck is this? The whole article just turn into an Indian propaganda piece. Many parts of the article said Indians inflicted higher casualties to the Chinese than the other way around. And it almost onesidely talk about Indian army's bravary and make the Chinese troop look stupid.
-- Yuje 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article (which was very interesting, as it's about a war I knew little about), factual content and depth of coverage look to be very good. The style might benefit from a bit of a polish, though: I've had a go at copyediting the introduction, mainly trying to improve its flow. Whilst I have been careful not to alter any of the content, proofreading is always welcome... and please accept my apologies for any errors that might have crept in ;)
If consensus is agreeable, I'm happy to work through the rest of the article - although reading the comments above, it might be best to wait until the points mentioned have been dealt with. Let me know what you think. EyeSerene TALK 19:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the proof-reading and corrections where I have inadvertently dropped stuff!
A couple of points:
Any comments etc, let me know either here or my talk page ;) EyeSerene TALK 11:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Further update: The last 2 paragraphs of the Tibet controversy section might benefit from a read through - to keep the original content, I had to reword parts of it in a way that might have introduced a POV bias (I hope not, but it's difficult to neutrally proofread your own work!). BTW, I've also added the LoC tag to the top of this page (forgot to do this earlier) and will request a further proofreading from other LoC editors when we've done the copyedit if that's ok. EyeSerene TALK 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I smell heavy Indo-POV in the first half of this section. Simly quoting sources from IN's mil. general or Rediff columnists would not lead to NPOV. Those one-side stories like: "in 1951 and 52, the government of China asserted that there were no frontier issues to be taken up with India" are unquestionably lies. See Maxwell's India's China War which gives us totally different accounts. I suggest to add this - 210.0.204.29 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As the article is in a state of flux at the moment, I'll hold off on any further ce until it's settled down again ;) EyeSerene TALK 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, most of the edits you made were again simply lengthening an already too-long article. All the stuff about Thag La and the McMahon Line is already present in small article. It has not disappeared, there's no point copy-pasting on to here again. Then the article will become too long.And in other cases you simply blank entire paragraphs and sections, that is not neutral and does not help the article in question at all. Please let's negotiate making a better article as opposed to this mindless revert warring with you readding material which can be found on Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and other pages. Traing 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So now what are you doing? You're just blank mass reverting without even bothering to look at the content of the edits, or answering the listed criticisms. --
Yuje 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because I don't have time does not mean I cannot justify my edits. I will no go through every difference we have in this diff:
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).. The Indian government maintained that the intention of the McMahon Line was to set the border along the highest ridges, and that the international border fell on the highest ridges of Thag La, about 3 to 4 miles (4.8 to 6.4 km) north of the line drawn by
Henry McMahon on the treaty map.
[13]
[15] Brigadier John Dalvi, who was commanding the Indian troops there, would later write of this claim: "The Chinese had raised a dispute about the exact alignment of the McMahon Line in the Thagla Ridge area. Therefore the Thagla-Dhola area was not strictly territory that 'we should have been convinced was ours' as directed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, and someone is guilty of exceeding the limits prescribed by him."
[16] Indian claims kept, Chinese claims on the original line, evidence of actual location of McMahon Line, Dalvi's doubts deleted without summary.Original version
Traing's version:
To those advocating it as a source. Read the article. It's not written even by a columnist or reporter. It's an editorial. And his speculation on the cause of the war being the Great Leap Forward is just that: speculation. He writes in the article that he's speculating, and he doesn't offer any proof, evidence, or arguments for his views. No other scholars or governments or books on the Sino-Indian war seriously advocate the views he present. By Wikipolicy, we should not assign Undue weight to extreme minority views. Speculation from a nobody editorialist should not be treated with equal weight as published studies and books on the war. -- Yuje 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In exact words: Daily Times "China indicated that it was ready to drop its claim to Sikkim, which had merged with India in 1975." If it had to drop its claim then it obviously claimed it at one time. Traing 07:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[41]-- Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets have a big picture folks. Above mentioned "PRC's claims" on Sikkim has nothing to do with claiming suzerainty over the region. The socalled "claim" is exactly China's position on India's status as Sikkim's suzerain/sovereign. And in common sense, skimishes occured in the Sino-Sikkimese borders only shows that the boundaries still haven't been officially delimited yet, it has nothing to do with socalled "China's Imperialist Dream". Calm down! - 219.79.120.208 10:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As an analogy can we say that PRC laid claims (sovereignty/suzerainty) over North Korea while conflicts occurred within the region between PRC and US forces? - 219.79.120.208 11:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all! I've been keeping a watch on this article since it started becoming unstable and I just thought I ought to make a couple of points. Firstly, the copyedit I began was only intended to help out with the readability of the article. I don't know enough about the subject to make independent edits, so please don't view any copyediting I've done as "approving" or "confirming" anything. I just go with what's there at the time ;) Secondly, like everything on WP, anything I have written is totally subject to change by any other editor; a copyedit does not give an article a kind of "official version" status, and the LoCE are just ordinary editors who feel we can contribute to WP by doing what we (hope) we have a skill for! I should probably have checked the article history for stability before starting the ce: it was not my intention to provide ammunition for a dispute, and I apologise if I have.
I hope this article settles down and the differences here can be resolved. Both Yuje and Triang have put a lot of effort into the article, and you should be proud of your work and enthusiasm. If we can get past the POV dispute I'm sure it can be improved to GA status. All the best to both of you! EyeSerene TALK 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Here there are two points of contention. Firstly, is it right for the infobox to blatantly say "Chinese victory" to describe the result of the war. Secondly, it is clear that China returned to areas in Aksai Chin it already occupied. But is it right to say that they "affirmed total control of Aksai Chin".
My views here are clear. The result seems fine as it stands BUT if we are to go with Yuje and says that the end of the war saw China and India return to prewar positions then the result MUST be status quo ante bellum. However, I believe that isn't right as Indian posts WERE within China's claimed area of Aksai Chin and it is because of this that the Chinese had to actually overrun these posts to "affirm total control" of Aksai Chin. Traing 07:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"By the end of 1961, Nehru had sent enough Indian Army troops into Aksai Chin to establish about 43 posts on the Ladakh frontier claimed by China. Many of the Indian outposts were parallel to, but about 100 miles from, the first Chinese military road. However, three of the outposts were near Konga Pass, in the vicinity of the second Chinese highway."
You have been accusing me of carelessness and other things with my reverts above. Well you didn't seem to have much of a problem earlier. It don't mean anything of meaning by this, I just want you to know that you should forgive and be forgiven for things like these, don't try and condemn me on something which you have done earlier. Traing 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I firstly think that a request for comment should be filed and the discussion opened up to other editors. Secondly, it is necessary to keep opinions, revisionist history and claims out of the article. Stick purely to facts, not opinions. There is no need to introduce passages speculating on India and China's respective territorial designs on Bhutan or Sikkim. Stick solidly by WP:ATT and WP:NPOV - if in doubt, don't introduce the data or make it clear that it was a scholarly opinion, not necessarily a fact. I suggest that since both Bhutan and Sikkim are featured articles, you simply replicate the information on this particular issue given in those articles, in the "History" sections.
From my own knowledge, there has always been a degree of speculation regarding Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim in India - between 1947-49, India signed protectorate treaties (of the same nature that the British had signed) with Sikkim and Bhutan; the latter two retained full independence while India provided for their defense and exercised some influence in foreign affairs. Both Sikkim and Bhutan were shut off from the outside world for a long time. India has never claimed Bhutan. In the case of Sikkim, there has been a problem between the Chinese design on the state and the Chogyal's desire for independence. Since 1962, India has been aggressive in keeping out Chinese influence in Sikkim. As the Chogyal's rule was highly unstable and unpopular, the Sikkimese government collapsed and India assumed the administration of the state and formally annexed it - strategically, to keep it from falling to Chinese hands.
Just state the facts on (1) the protectorate treaties, (2) a brief note on what the Indian and Chinese foreign policies were on those states. As far as talking of India's annexation of Sikkim, keep it 1-2 sentences (no opinions). It is not needed to go deep into those issues in this article. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 07:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please quote text where the Indian Official History says that on July 22, Indian troops were ordered to fire on Chinese troops in self-defence? Furthermore, please source the claim that while Indian troops previously only fired in self-defence, it was now decided that they could fire based on their own discretion. Traing 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, you have been arguing with me for a long time about the idea that China did not occupy any posts on Dhola. But reading over your version, it also says that China occupied posts on Dhola. So is this just argument for argument's sake or what? Traing 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You can see my updated version on User:Traing/Sino-Indian War. I think it addresses all concerns and I am ready to consider any new concerns. Traing 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It IS a compromise version, I have added many things that you have added. What hypocrisy is this? You blame me for allegedly not providing a compromise version while you say yourself that you aren't perpared to compromise on any part of your version. Well, I would let anyone edit my version of the page but I hold the discretion to revert them (in my userspace) if I find their edits unacceptable but considering your views that the current version is perfect I don't think there is any logic at all in your little statement above. But for the record, yes, Wikipedia is collaborative and I wouldn't mind you adding information to my version or making minor changes, but knowing you, you will just copy and paste from your version onto mine and state it as a comrpomise. Hypocrisy Yuje. And all the discussion above relates to differences between mine and your versions, if they weren't related to that then why would there be discussion? Please don't avoid addressing my version. And please tell me clearly? Do you oppose my summaries of your version in my version? Traing 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje, I find the headings you provided in extreme bad faith. Traing 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That happened months ago when i was new. Answer this question with a yes or a no, will you ever forgive me for adding false information which was subsequently deleted? I have tried to see you as a good editor who is Chinese and thus obviously would bear a Chinese POV. Everyone has a POV, it's natural. But you have never even tried to see me in a positive light (judging by your replies against me and your talking to me in the third person). Traing 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell
This RfC is related to a conflict between two users:
User:Traing (me) and
User:Yuje. It is undoubtable that both have POVs on the issue but both of them attempt neutrality. They are currently conflicting on numerous issues detailed above. In basic terms
here is the diff
more updated diff between the versions supported by both editors, with Yuje's on the left and Traing on the right. 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
More detail (although it is written by Traing and might not be completely neutral There have been very few other outside editors to contribute and resolve the dispute, so we two have been arguing for many months for various reasons. About a month ago, Traing moved large chunks of the article to Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and Events leading to the Sino-Indian War and summarized the article in his own words here (thereby cutting the size of the article by approx. 20kb). Traing has been continually doing this with any of Yuje's edits that he considered too long, as Traing holds the belief that the article should emphasize on the war as opposed to the events leading up and the causes. The current dispute is in many ways drawn out of Yuje's complete opposition to this move, as he has stated that the longer the article is, the more likely it is to be considered a featured article. Copyediting was taking place before the recent dispute started, this was mainly being undertaken by User:EyeSerene. Another point of dispute is Yuje's blanking of a paragraph which contained information about Mao wanting to increase morale in China by success against India and his blanking of 4 other paragraphs which contained heavily summarized information about later skirmishes between India and China. Yuje claims that these were unnecessary, Traing claims that they are summarized adequately and do not detract from the article. Other points of conflict are all content-related, please see the diff above to explore them and also explore the conversations above which have become increasingly heated. 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yuje objected to the version by Traing not only because of deletions, but because of a large number of inaccuracies and POVs present in the version advocated by Traing. I've listed multiple instances in which Traing engaged in selective deletions of material, leaving the article in an unbalanced and POV depiction. As I have listed, he would often delete the evidence cited by non-Indian sources, and leaving only the Indian one in.
Traing has claimed that I blanked a paragraph about Mao. I would like to point out that the exact same paragraph exists in the subpage which Traing has created. In other words, When I object to Traing's removal of content from the main page, he claimed that this was completely acceptable, since the information was contained in subpages still, but when I do it, he keeps on objecting. As I pointed out in the case of the Mao paragraph, Traing had engaged in selective deletion there, as well. The original paragraph cited three books which provided evidence that China was not prepared to go to war, and he deleted all mentions of these, and kept only an editorial, which says that Mao was preparing to go to war to placate domestic critics.
Traing has claimed that I blanked 4 other paragraphs. I considered these to be too long and lengthy, and I moved (not deleted) them to the Sino-Indian relations page, based on the same cited justification that the article should emphasize the events of thw ar as opposed to minor incidents decades afterwards. I had intended to rewrite a shorter summary, but had no chance due to my edits constantly being reverted by Traing. If you notice, at no time had he ever explained which of my edits he objected to, only mass-reverted while I consistently listed point by point which edits I changed. Even now, he has refused to explain or justify the changes he plans to make, which he has temporarily stored at User:Traing/Sino-Indian War.
I will also note that Traing has continuously reverted me, without even bothering to check the content of my edits. I had listed all the edits I made, with the accompanying reasons, but he has continued to revert even though he acknowledged meany of them to be legitimate ones. Other edits, he reverts despite being unable to provide evidence for the views he advocates on his version. He claims to "fix" the page on his own version, but all he is doing is deciding which of the edits he wants to keep, and reverting all the rest. He calls that compromise, but all he is doing reverting any statements he doesn't like (without bothering to list his reasons for any of them), and rephrasing the rest (also without bothering to list the reason for particular rephrasings). -- Yuje 22:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Calvin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Garver
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Calvin,
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dobell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Maxwell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Noorani
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).officialhistory
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Neville Maxwell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).VKSingh
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Noorani2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Noorani3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).official history
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rubin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Un-Negotiated Dispute
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).