Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The TASS report

The TASS report suggesting 45 Chinese killed clearly got their information from Indian military sources, so therefore it cannot be interpreted as Russia directing claiming 45 Chinese were killed. It is true that the cited TASS report says 45 Chinese were killed in the skirmish, but TASS published another article regarding the 45 Chinese killed retrieved from "https://tass.com/world/1195605," which says according to "Indian military source." Evidently, The "45 killed" did not magically appear out of random for obvious reasons since Russia was not personally there to witness the skirmish. You cannot subjectively cite an article that favours India's image in the skirmish because you are making it seem like Russia claimed 45 Chinese killed, but in reality Russia only reiterated what the Indian military said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.238.67 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The TASS article numbered 1195605 and dated 31 August 2020 states '45 Chinese soldiers had been killed and wounded' while attributing it to an Indian source. The TASS article numbered 1254813 and dated 10 February 2021 states '45 Chinese servicemen dead' and does not provide an attribution. '45 Chinese soldiers had been killed and wounded' is not the same as '45 Chinese servicemen dead'. This, along with the fact that the two articles have a time gap of more than five months, makes it evident that the two claims do not share a single primary source. Assuming that the two claims share a single source when the articles do not explicitly say so is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The newer article among the two, numbered 1254813 and dated 10 February 2021, states 'at least . . . 45 Chinese servicemen dead' as a matter of fact and not as a claim, while also not providing an attribution. Thus making it clear that the Russian state news agency TASS is of the view that at least 45 Chinese servicemen died as a result of the clash. Rockcodder (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with him and I think that the TASS article is used as a manipulation. It is obvious to me that the TASS article is based on an Indian source and in no way reflects the Russian position. What you are doing is playing with ambiguity. HanKim20 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@HanKim20:Please indent your posts correctly. I have already edited the article to mention both the initial and later reports from the TASS in the infobox and the 'casualties and losses' section. I have also mentioned that the initial report cites Indian sources. And where does the article mention that the report from the TASS reflects the Russian position? Rockcodder (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Request to add the military ranks of the Chinese soldiers based on the reference under the section table 2020–2022 China–India skirmishes#Wartime gallantry awards to Chinese_soldiers.223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Only one source provided for the ranks of the soldiers, which in itself seems speculative and I cannot guarantee WP:NPOV ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: You may add additional/trustworthy sources for the claims made for the request to be re-evaluated at a later time. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Add the military ranks to this table based on the source from the Klaxon article:

Awards/Citations/Titles conferred	Posthumous	Name	References
Guardian of the Frontier Hero, Order of July the First	Yes	Chen Hongjun
Hero of Defending China's Border Forces, First-class merit citation	Yes	Chen Xiangrong
Hero of Defending China's Border Forces, First-class merit citation	Yes	Xiao Siyuan
Hero of Defending China's Border Forces, First-class merit citation	Yes	Wang Zhuoran
Heroic Regimental Commander in Border Defense	No	Qi Fabao

References

TASS figures

The manipulation is very evident here that Indian users are manipulating readers regarding the TASS report by taking words out of context and locking pages for changes that they don’t agree with. The TASS report has already been discussed to include both the initial report and later report. Both report explicitly stated at least 20 deaths, so why is it only the 45 Chinese death is included? If that’s not manipulation, I do not know what it is. One of them also explicitly stated “according to Indian military source.” You cannot subjectively ignore articles that doesn’t favor India’s image. Such clear manipulation is a violation of Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV policy.!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:907:1B9:5C0:75F4:AF39:A4FA (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We are sticking to this figure which remains undisputed by TASS, the Russian agency no matter how much you personally disagree with the figure. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What you are doing is manipulating readers by subjectively citing articles that favors your personal belief. As I have mentioned, both articles mentioned "45 Chinese killed" but one of which clearly said "according to Indian sources." It is clearly not a coincidence which in no way represents the Russia point of view. However, if you so must cite that figure, that report also says "at least 20 Indian servicemen dead." Why don't you also add that to the Indian side? Is it because you want to save face by manipulating foreign readers on Wikipedia which is supposed to be a non-biased source per the WP:NPOV policy that everybody including you should respect? UnbiasedPerson (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

TASS is not a good source, it dropping "according to Indian sources" does not say we should follow. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Thorough talk discussion requires back and forth discussion. If the IP editor is not the same person as UnbiasedPerson, moreover, there are three editors involved and Third Opinion is only available for editors with exactly two editors. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

---

2020–2022 China–India skirmishes → 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes – The last reported skirmish in the article and in reliable sources was in January 2021. 20 months since the last skirmish is sufficient for the series of skirmishes to have ended (even if tensions persist). < Atom (Anomalies) 08:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• AnomalousAtom I'm not objecting, but this was requested previously in the other direction ([1]) so probably should go to a full WP:RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Relist note the contested technical request came onto this talk page for only 3 days. relisting to give the request at least the customary 7 days for discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Srnec (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result of the conflict

The conflict is clearly inactive, and effectively over if the page title is anything to go by. Kautilya3 how is it too early to declare a result? Even if you think this specific conflict is still not over, shouldn't 'Stalemate' or something similar at least be stated in the 'Status' section?

ADifferentMan (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, it is not "over". The largest bit of the Chinese occupation, in Depsang Plains/Depsang Bulge, said to be 900 square kilometres, is still under Chinese occupation. So is a part of the Demchok region. Whether it will ever be "over" is not clear.

In the second place, Wikipedia prohibits WP:OR. You have no business making your own decisions here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 How does this indicate the skirmishes are ongoing? The last skirmishes were back in 2021, and again the page title was changed to match, with the same reasoning. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that the status should say 'Change in status quo of ground positions, negotiations and de-escalation in progress'. We should probably not go into the details in the infobox, but the change in status quo is a de facto shifting of the LAC westwards.

By the way, the table of corps-commander talks timeline needs to be updated. The Discoverer (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this would be reasonable for the time being, it's better than leaving the conflict vaguely 'not over'. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Read again WP:NOR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Guess what, the conflict isn't over. There was an engagement on Friday that left at least 6 troops injured.XavierGreen (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Result being blanked

Why the result is being removed with no proper reason? Which reliable source is doubting that India (since 2020) lost land to China? @Kautilya3, Capitals00, The Discoverer, and Aman.kumar.goel: 103.176.11.185 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

All edits to the infobox need WP:CONSENSUS. So, please provide your sources and tell us who calculated this figure and how. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Consensus is required only when there is actual dispute. There is no dispute here because the information has been verified by the provided sources.[2] 103.176.11.185 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As stated by this source [3], India lost control of some 2000 sq km, and as with any territorial changes, the Infobox would need to be updated with a Chinese victory. 火热毁灭 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Victory or Defeat has to be mentioned by the source. I support restoring the information of losing 2,000 sq km area to infobox though. Yoonadue (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I am stll contesting the infobox entry. But I can't spend time on it right now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

How is illegally crossing the LAC which your leaders designed as a line for both country's after the 1962 War, is a Chinese victory I simply dont get this the Chinese government doesn't claim Ladakh is part of China unlike Arunachal Pradesh so your ridiculously arrogantly proud of the fact that your Government or your army was the aggressor here and stole land which they dont claim again crossing the LAC (which they themselves designed in 1962) from a another country. 2402:E280:3D48:133:13A:E40F:F243:271 (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

China should rename the LAC to China land stealing border in 2023. 2402:E280:3D48:133:13A:E40F:F243:271 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Now I understand why Chinese is called a Expansionist power. 2402:E280:3D48:133:13A:E40F:F243:271 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont think India has lost 2,000 sq km area its just that the PLA hasn't disengaged (or not ready to withdraw from some areas from the LAC on the Indian side) hence its like ceded or ceding some territory to China. What's the point in establishing the LAC by the Chinese side in 62 as a border when the Chinese themselves dont except it I can understand the Indians dont except it since they claim Aksai Chin but China doesn't claim Ladakh. 2402:E280:3D48:133:13A:E40F:F243:271 (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont think India has lost 2,000 sq km area its just that the PLA hasn't disengaged (or not ready to withdraw from some areas from the LAC on the Indian side) hence its like ceded or ceding some territory to China. What's the point in establishing the LAC by the Chinese side in 62 as a border when the Chinese themselves dont except it I can understand the Indians dont except it since they claim Aksai Chin but China doesn't claim Ladakh. 2402:E280:3D48:133:13A:E40F:F243:271 (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Change result to be status quo bellum 157.49.184.156 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The result section

With no confirmation from whether the Indian govt or Chinese govt or any third party these accusations of losing 2000sqkm is false , it’s based on one analyst view in the articles how can this be shown as fact when neither govt and confirmed it or Any third party has confirmed it therefore it should be changed to stand off still on going V952010 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation or denial by China or India would be a wp:primary source. They may have self-serving interests to not make statements regarding this. Such a source would only be acceptable to cite that they made such a statement. Adakiko (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Result is wrong

Both PM Modi and President Xi said that there were no territorial changes. So this is incorrect. 70.171.38.58 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It is correct per the seven wp:secondary sources that indicate "2,000 sq km land ceded". Modi & Xi are wp:primary sources. They may have reasons for stating such that are different. Perhaps not wanting to admit the loss — not wanting to provoke a war, for instance. e.g. their statements are self-serving. See Conflict of interest. Please support your heading with reliable, secondary sources. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Error in the box

There's an error in the box. Ram Nath Kovind the President of India's name is missing. It's him first then Narendra Modi. Can someone correct this? 124.40.246.231 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent Talks

I think details in the infobox should be re-looked at as India now has gained access to Depsang and Demchok. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

India claim of LAC contradict what can be seen on google earth timeline feature.

it seem the Indian narrative that "the buffer zone is in Indian side" does not appear to be accurate. even if we ignore the lines draw by google(google drawn line do not seem to reflect the map in this article, sometime the line follow disputed territory, sometime it follow LAC, sometime google just do their own thing). what I want to look at isn't the line google drew, but the visible road that exist, those road can show us who is in control. I am not going to go into argument over where the LAC should be, wiki is not a place for original research. rather this is just to remind and point out while editing this article, that alot of it is just narrative and not factual. and should be present as such.

why there is this confusion may come from the fact that both side actually allow the other side to patrol their side of the LAC, and that the ability to patrol does not mean it is in their side of the LAC. i suspect that alot of these inaccuries comes from the media not understanding and realising the arrangement of the LAC. but this is just speculation. again this is written only to make people aware that there maybe issues. 2406:3003:2060:3135:ED23:A7EE:6BBE:3C1C (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum

https://hindupost.in/world/pakistan-has-to-patch-up-some-of-its-problems-with-bharat-before-formally-partnering-with-brics/#

Oficcial report says that the situation before the 2020 skirmishes happened has been restored so I request to change the status and keep it at status quo ante bellum N0riooo (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)