Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources?

I think it's best this article and the article about the "1987 Sino-Indian skirmishes" are given restricted edits. There are many trolls around here who are changing the result of these two incidents to Chinese or Indian victories, whereas in reality the PLA invasions were repelled by the Indian military and signed a ceasefire in 1987, not too sure about 1967, NO country won these skirmishes.

Just wondering, are there any other sources for this incident aside from that website? It worries me that this website doesn't include references or a bibliography. It doesn't even include an author name, so you can't even credit it to someone. Without another source to double-check with, one basically has to take this anonymous author on faith that everything s/he says is correct.

A usual way to confirm the verificability of something would be to find two or more non-related sources which also describe it. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

The article itself has a number of inaccuracies. It says Sikkim was a part of NEFA. Actually, it was still an independent country at the time. It also says China claimed it as part of South Tibet. That's not actually true, either. South Tibet contains roughly (but not exactly) the area in modern-day Arunachal Pradesh, and doesn't include Sikkim. And Sikkim doesn't appear on the PRC's official claimed borders. --Yuje 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it occurred. Source A Source B Source C [www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1168355495/last-1168355495/THE+INDO-CHINESE+CHOLA+INCIDENT Source D]. The author of the Bharat Rakshak page is LN Subhramanian. China no longer claims Sikkim, they earlier did claim it. Traing 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So you really don't have any secondary sources, do you? The BR sources you provided is a webpage with no sources or citations, and the three you just gave me don't contain any information. One is an anonymously written article (using the psuedonym Zhang Fei) that mentions Chola in a single sentence, the other is a web forum question, and the Marine source just list the name but doesn't give any actual information. Again, the Bharat Rakshat webpage doesn't provide any sources, citations, or books, so it doesn't give a reliable way to verify the information.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

And provide a source for the Sikkim claim. --Yuje 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bharat Rakshak Source is the Indian Military History of it. It is representative of the views of the Indian military and is notable in that. Remember it was a minor skirmish and thus it is only listed by many as an event that occurred, with few details given. China gave no attention to the incident and did not follow up on it at all, so you won't find a Chinese source. Also what's so exceptional about saying that this incident happened. Just because China chooses what to document and what not to does not make it exceptional. Traing 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This version of events is given on the page Sino-Indian War:

A group of Indian Gurkha rifles noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post 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 firefight.[41] The Chinese troops signaled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there.[41] The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the disputed LAC.[41] The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.

Yet the BR page doesn't cite any sources or references, and no other sources have been provided yet. So there aren't any independent sources to confirm BR's version of the events, and since it doesn't cite sources, one basically has to take it on faith that BR's recollection of event is accurate. I don't just mean Chinese sources; there are no other sources of any kind, Chinese, Indian, or independent provided. --Yuje 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The IPCS source on Sino-Indian War + CNN sources presented there detail China's dropping of it's initial claim on Sikkim. Traing 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It said the Chinese claim was that it did not reocgnize Sikkim as a part of India, but as an independent country under illegal Indian occupation. Not the same as territorial claims that it was part of South Tibet, which you state in the article. Provide sources.--Yuje 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could any enlightened soul provide us with more sources to support the article? There is presently a lack of good accounts of the incident, and relying completely on Bharat-Rakshak isn't exactly the smartest thing to do.

Sources

There are few reliable offical sources about this conflict. Very hard to say which side was winning. Many sources cited from this wikipedia (please check their dates and web caches).

Especially for the casualties, reliable references are needed.

Please offer reliable sources from ALL Indian, Chinese and English sources. (Alex Kuper (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/History/1962-71/270-Chola-Incident.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Messup

This article is being totally messed up

Chinese tactical victory?? really?

I would hope some serinor editor gets the right info and freezes the page from furthur editing by some over patriotic idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.180.236 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article seems written from an Indian perspective, but it would be helpful to hear Chinese objections to the current version. (Alex Kuper (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The sentence "Unfortunately the guide got lost and Captain Parulekar and B Coy fumbled on the black rocks." definitely brings the neutrality of this article in question. I would definitely like to see some Chinese sources added and for the language to be cleaned up. FiReSTaRT (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Are Chola and Sikkim the same place? If so, why is there no mention of the Chola incident in the Sikkim article? Should the two articles be merged? Biscuittin (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cho La (like Nathu La) is a high-altitude mountain pass (La) in the state of Sikkim. I don't think that the two articles should be merged.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2015

with reference of at least 3 sites chola incident was described. as it seems some chinese national feel ashamed about their loss and doubt about it. as it is a skirmish not a big war, naturally it was not highlighted that way. But the result was clear and previously mentioned in wikipedia article of the same name. only inside details was reveled, which is surely known by Indian officials and PLA try to cover that. chola and nathu la incidents actually happened and it created Sikim district of India. no doubt in that in any history. Cooltunir (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cooltunir: Your main "contribution" to Wikipedia so far is this, a blatantly POV and unsourced essay which you copy-and-pasted from someone's blog without attribution. My advice is to give WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV a good read, and add content supported by WP:BESTSOURCES. -Zanhe (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done per Zanhe's comment.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@zahne still dont get why numbers are odd?

Please use reliable, neutral sources

@D4iNa4 and Capitals00: Please stick with neutral, scholarly sources such as this book by MIT professor Taylor Fravel. It's far more neutral and reliable than the sources in the old version you restored. -Zanhe (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I find that a very new user came on to canvass and recruit users[1][2][3] against this article. You have to note that material was here since this article was created, and there are enough reliable sources for saying that it was an Indian victory. Causalities figures are correct too. "Americana corporation" is a self publishing firm, not a reliable source. And your other reference[4] gives information only about 1 October. Nothing about 2 October - 10 October, which is incomplete. Thus it is unfair to delete other reliable sources that have provided mainstream and complete analysis. Capitals00 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Capitals00 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The article has been infested with POV pushers using biased sources, copyright violators, and possible sockpuppets since it was created. Greentea555 was the first person who actually added neutral academic sources to this article, and was reverted by Capitals00 and D4iNa4, two editors who have both been blocked for sockpupetting (are you two related?). It's wrong for Greentea555 to canvass other users, but I don't really need to be canvassed. I've been editing this article since 2011 (mostly removing blatant copyvio and unsourced edits). -Zanhe (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Americana source per your concern (it's not needed anyway). The other two sources Naidu et al and Fravel are rock solid and provide far more information about the conflict. -Zanhe (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jelep La was closed by 1962 already and reopened by 2006.[5] It means that your source is rather a fringe when it says that occupation of Jelep La was changed after this conflict. Other source[6] says that at Nathu La, PLA forces were "outgunned". You can't use just one favorable source over few others. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How are Jelep La's closing and reopening in 2006 relevant to this article? And how is the PLA being "initially outgunned" at Nathu La relevant to an article about Cho La? You're evading the real issue, which is that your preferred version largely relies on non-neutral and unreliable sources, by bringing up irrelevant details. -Zanhe (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese defeat in 1967 is a well known and well-sourced fact. Then, why is this harakiri?Ghatus (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If it were indeed a well known fact, why do scholars, even Indian ones, state otherwise? (e.g. Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli) I have yet to see a single neutral, scholarly source that establishes that "well known fact". And what does harakiri have anything to do with this? -Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not canvass, I was asking if the users in question had any information regarding the topic, which seemed like propaganda. LATER, I did my own research and found that neutral sources indicate a ceasefire, not an Indian victory. Greentea555 (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The ridiculous casualties claims of 88 Indian dead and 300 Chinese dead comes from an Indian Defense Minister, see here [7] at parliament of all places (and those who know about the Indian parliament know the gibberish that goes on there) according to a biased Indian source. It does not come from any neutral source. The neutral source by M. Fravel, here [8], gives a more neutral figure of 36 dead Indians and an unknown amount of dead Chinese. With the limited amount of neutral sources, we should rely on what is certain and not what is biased/violates NPOV. Also, this incident is one of many, for example over here [9] it states that in 1968 there was another skirmish, but why aren't there articles for this (like the last one there are limited neutral sources, but sadly for the Cho la case it seems to be misrepresented by various Indian sources)? Clearly this incident has been blown out of proportion by Indian books. This was simply a minor incident and India did not win according to neutral sources. Greentea555 (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I've not followed what has been going on here but I will say this: NOTHING FROM GYAN PUBLISHERS IS RELIABLE. End. Of. Story. They are well-known plagiarists and often mirror crappy Wikipedia content. They are listed at WP:MIRROR, I've given another example at User:Sitush/Common#Gyan and, well, I could probably give at least another hundred examples. So, regardless of the detailed dispute here, if any of the statements are sourced to Gyan we should either remove them or re-sourced them. Please also note that Gyan operate some similarly useless imprints. This is old news, people: they've been found out on Wikipedia time and time again over the years. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush for the insight. For the limited sources that are from good publishers, don't you think we should base the article off of what we know, which is from here: [], where it states "In 1967, skirmishes between the Chinese and Indian forces at Nathu La and Cho La resulted in Jelep La being occupied by the Chinese forces". Don't you think that is the fairest conclusion? It is also from a well-known publisher, Springer. Greentea555 (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I know very little about the incident and I'm not contributing much anywhere on WP at the moment. I came here in response to a note on my talk page re: the reliability of Gyan. If people cannot agree on the reliability of some other source(s) then I suggest a trip to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I had expected Greentea555 to be saying that "not even a single source is Gyan publishing", but he is saying it just opposite now. None of the current sources have anything to do with Gyan Publishing. Also claiming that China got Jelep La is misinformation. See map[10] it was always an Indian region. Capitals00 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The casualty numbers (340 Chinese, and 88 Indians) are originally from a Gyan source, see this. According to MIT scholar Taylor Fravel [11], who is far more reliable, the casualty was 36 Indian deaths, and an unknown number of Chinese. -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Those dozens of older sources[12][13][14] have to do nothing with Gyan, only because Gyan also said 2+2 = 4, doesn't means it becomes false. Capitals00 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The first source seems useful, as it points out that the casualty figures are estimates by the Indian Defence Minister (the second source has essentially the same info; and the third is an unreliable personal website). We should include that claim in the article (when the protection expires), with all the usual caveats. It has not been verified by any independent source, and Prof. Taylor Fravel seems to be unconvinced by its reliability, saying in his book that the Chinese casualty is unknown. -Zanhe (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

When did China occupy Jelep La pass?

Can any one provide any authentic source that Jelep La pass was ever occupied by China? If not, then the new source entered is a hoax. The pass was and is still operated by India.source-1Source-2. The new book neither elaborates nor gives any source for the 2-3 lines it wrote on 1967.Ghatus (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a hoax especially when it is coming from a unreliable source that has no more than 1 sentence to talk about this whole war. Capitals00 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The new source is authored by Prof. S. Kondapalli of Jawaharlal Nehru University, and is in a book co-edited by two Indian and one Taiwanese scholars, including G V C Naidu, Chairman of JNU's Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies. It is published by the academic publisher Springer (in 2014, not 1967 as you claim). Calling such a scholarly work "hoax" betrays a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. By contrast, the two sources cited by Ghatus above are Indian news reports that do not discuss the control of Jelep La at all. -Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a hoax. No WP:RS says that Jelep La pass is/was ever controlled by China. A sourceless & explanationless one liner does not prove anything. It will be removed. Further, it's clear from the newspaper articles that the pass is controlled by India. Ghatus (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship does not become "hoax" just because you don't like it. And the two news reports say nothing about the 1967 conflict, or who controls Jelep La. Even if they did, "for information about academic topics, scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." (quote from WP:RS). But there's no point wasting more time reasoning with someone who seems to lack even basic reading comprehension skills. -Zanhe (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Zanhe, thank you for your valuable input. I agree that scholarly works should bear a precedent over the unverifiable works of non-notable authors who may or may not be operating upon special interests. I agree that we should focus on what is accurate and based on sound sources. Greentea555 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus, it is very silly of you to call this academic source, which is far better than most other sources listed here as a "hoax". This does not show impartiality and it is not recommended behavior on wikipedia. I hope you realize and understand. I hope you learn that wikipedia should be a place of collective collaboration for what is impartial, accurate, and right. Greentea555 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

From same book[15], it says the India kept Sikkim and it raised tension for China. There is no reason to think that Jelep La was ever a part of China or they ever annexed it, it is misleading.

I did edited this article before, and presented Chinese sources accepting this,[16] why source was removed? It was real.

"On the morning of September 11, 1967, over 60 Indian aggressor troops intruded into Chinese territory by crossing the China-Sikkim boundary at Nathu La. Under the cover of fierce artillery fire, the Indian troops launched an attack on the Chinese frontier guards. Thereupon, they opened artillery fire on the Chinese frontier guards at Jelep La. Up til noon, the Indian aggressor troops already killed or wounded 25 Chinese frontier guards. They also destroyed Chinese civilian houses and temples."[17][18]

India had conquered Jelep La.[19] Thus it was an Indian victory. MapSGV (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Of course India kept Sikkim, which was never in contention. But that says nothing about who controlled Jelep La, which is a border pass between Sikkim and Tibet normally controlled by both countries. The book unequivocally says China took Jelep La after the Cho La incident (though that does not necessarily mean they still have sole control today).

2. The Chinese news report only says that the Indians attacked Chinese positions at Jelep La, and does not say if they succeeded in taking it. There's no way to tell who won from that report. Besides, it's against WP policy to analyze a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, that's the scholars' job. Our job is to write content based on WP:SECONDARYSOURCES published by scholars. -Zanhe (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

When you say Jelep La, you talk about Sikkim because Jelep La is inside Sikkim. Yes there are sources saying that China withdrawn[20] and it was an Indian victory. MapSGV (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I really have to question your WP:COMPETENCE with statements like that. Again, Jelep La is on the border between Sikkim and Tibet, the control of undisputed Sikkimese (or Tibetan, for that matter) territory says nothing about the control of the border pass. And the book you cited does not say who was victorious (even if we ignored the fact that it's written by Claude Arpi, a French dentist turned Indian political commentator, not a scholar). -Zanhe (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Jelep La is in Sikkim which is in India. So, Chinese victory claim is hoax. So, a faltu book can not be a WP:RS. It will be removed on 15th.Ghatus (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources for supporting Indian victory:-

• "In 1967 the Chinese invaded Nathu La and Chola etc. but had to withdraw with heavy losses."[21]

• "At the same time in September and October 1967, on the northern border across the Nathu La in Sikkim and in Cho La, China once again demonstrated the fire of its artillery. But this time the Indian soldiers did not budge from an inch of Indian territory."https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qYK0BhcgwaQC&pg=PA95&dq=cho+la+1967++india+china]

• "a day-long military conflict in Sikkim, which became an Indian state in 1975"[22]

• "the PLA launched a direct attack on the Indian armed forces at Nathu La, on the Sikkim-Tibet border." "The attack was repulsed at all points." "The Chinese were also known to have suffered at least twice as many causalities as Indians in this encounter between Indian and Chinese armed forces." "Many observers felt India scored a psychological victory over the Chinese for the latter's unilateral ceasefire in 1962."[23]

• "the scene of bloody artillery duels in September 1967 when Indian troops beat back attacking Chinese forces".[24]

Many reliable sources over an isolated source.

Your book also supports MapSVG's research. "In 1967, India began to erect barbed wire fencing to form a barrier between the two sides", "PLA commander however, viewed this as seizure of Chinese territory, resulting in verbal protests and shoving matches into early September." And ""many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were destroyed."[25] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Cover Nathu La incident also and rename article

Per my comments in ongoing AFD, I suggest modifying this article to cover the just-previous Nathua La incident also. And move to Nathu La and Cho La incidents. doncram 00:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Any reason why there is barely anything here for this page, but is well-cited for the 1962 page? Seems a bit off to me. Just a lack of sources? I know one comander Sagat Choudhary or something, his name was earlier there in the article but now has been reomved. FightersMegamix (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Causality

Causality count is not found in Google scan of the book. Can someone provide better citation or scan? --Voidvector (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

per MBlaze's edit comment, https://books.google.com/books?id=BiluAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=wounded --Voidvector (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We can probably provide "Indian claim" and "China claim" of casualty count. However, it is difficult to reconcile the Chinese reports with this article as the time frame used are different. Most Chinese reports I read so far covers the incident from September to October.

Looking at two Chinese sources, they are consistent on claim of 607 Indian death in September. They are somewhat inconsistent on Chinese casualty. One source claims on Chinese side, there were 127 casualty of which 32 were death (中方伤亡123名，其中阵亡者32名). Second source claim 1 death and 9 wounded (一亡九傷) however goes on to describe some follow up incidents in which the article didn't tally. In a follow up incident on October 1, 1967, it said Indian forces killed 1 Chinese officer and wounded 1 other (當場打死打傷中國官兵各一人) in an "attempted kidnap", all involved in the kidnap (8 Indian "Gurkhas") were killed. In retaliation, Chinese shelled Indian positions causing 195 casualties (將前來挑釁的印軍兩個連的官兵斃傷大半（一百九十五名）). --Voidvector (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK i have figured out the Chinese translations for those place names, the first incident was Nathu La (in September), and the latter was Cho La (in October). I have added those info to the article using my previously mentioned first source, which turn out to be a syndicated article from DuoWei News. --Voidvector (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Need expanding

This article is missing background information. Some Chinese articles I read so far goes into detail about Sikkim politics before joining India. In addition, some also bring geopolitics with Pakistan and Chinese Cultural Revolution into context, which were in the same time period. In addition, most English articles also mention Chinese ultimatum which turned out to be a "bluff". The details of the engagement can also be added, the Chinese sources are lacking about Nathu La (basically said PLA retreated), but they have pretty good detail about Cho La (some scuffle between board guards(?) that lead to artillery engagement). --Voidvector (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral sources agree that China suffered more causalities, so why you need a source that has been created recently by a random source? It's not reliable enough. In any case we cannot claim any sources to be "Indian sources", just because they are contrary to a chinese journalism website. Capitals00 (talk)

Furthermore your source, which lacks any academic currency says "Later, the Indian army and additional artillery attack, the Chinese army with mortars to fight back, shelling lasted 4 days and 3 nights before the end. In this battle, the Indian army a total of 607 casualties, Chinese casualties 123, of which 32 were killed." But you didn't put "123" as Chinese casualties, thus making me confident that you are not assuming good faith here. Capitals00 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

32 + 91 = 123. Casualty includes both death and injury. We can rephrase the words in the box.

Regarding the claim of "academic sources", if you look up the author of Indian claim of casualty source, Bidanda Chengappa, he works for Centre for Land Warfare Studies which is a think tank. Sure, think tanks are academic, but they are probably the most politically biased academic source out there. That said, I would still consider them as source, but with a grain of salt.

To give you some background of what I have been doing the last month in my edit time, I have been editing various articles on Chinese western and southern borders and expanding upon them. You can look at Template:China–Nepal border crossings and Template:Mountain passes of China all the included articles and see my edits.

Currently this article is just a casualty count billboard, with no substantive information about the incident. I had the intention of expanding it with info about background & what transpired. In fact my research was mostly done:

• The article by Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal published by CLAWS has the Indian account of the incident - an Indian source I added
• The Duowei News article has the Chinese account
• There was another detailed account of the incidents by a Indian soldier that I have to dig further in my history to find

However, seeing how contentious the article is, I stopped short of craft those edits. --Voidvector (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also like to thank you for contributing to talk discussion. --Voidvector (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It does seem that the figures do lack sources and the media source that you have used is pulling out random estimations. How they can be labeled as "chinese estimates"? Capitals00 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Using self published article from a media site for mentioning deaths and wounded figures is not qualifying use of WP:RS. Figures look hoax, if they were any true China would be winner of this conflict. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Can you find another source for the figure you are supporting? "dominated by non-academic Indian sources" you claimed, while I see at least 4 sources that are non-Indian. I found another source that says "India had suffered 251 casualties in all in the shooting conflicts" and while "The Chinese casualties ranged between 300 and 600".[26] Capitals00 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zahne: I found better source that says Chinese officials had stated that there was unspecified amount of Chinese causalities. I have added it to infobox, China had made no claims on Indian causalities. Capitals00 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Jelep La

"Chinese forces were said to have occupied the Jelep La as the result of these clashes" on lead is WP:UNDUE and inaccurate, because the source fails to detail that India had conquered Jelep La back. It was discussed before here as well and a source provided by user MapSGV included the following:-

"At 07:40 hours on the morning of September 11, 1967, over sixty Indian aggressor troops intruded into Chinese territory by crossing the China-Sikkim boundary at Natu La. Under the cover of fierce artillery fire, the Indian troops launched an attack on the Chinese frontier guards. Thereupon, they opened artillery fire on the Chinese frontier guards at Jelep La. Up till noon, the Indian aggressor troops already killed or wounded 25 Chinese frontier guards. They also destroyed Chinese civilian houses and temples."[27][28][29]

This was written on the evening of September 11, by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in a note Indian Embassy in China.

Point is that when India had already conquered the territory back, why it needs to be mentioned as China's gain in the lead? It will be better if this specific event has been included in some section. Capitals00 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The information you are providing is only about the first day of the clashes at Nathu La, while the clashes lasted for 3-4 days. I know that the content on Jelep La is dubious, as per what Thapliyal is saying, but I have taken it to the lead with a footnote, since it came from a third-party source. I want the opinion of other editors on this. Pinging @Kautilya3: and @Adamgerber80: for the same. — Tyler Durden (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you guys are debating. But here are some citations I find:

• Indians vacated Jelep La in 1965, but not Nathu La.
• Same here.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

.

Commander ranks and positions

I don't think we need to list the ranks and positions of the commanders. It makes the box hard to read. --Voidvector (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about improving this page

To all:

Thank you for paying attention to this page. I'm trying to improve the quality of this page so that it better adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia and especially the "neutral point of view".

At this stage, I have some concerns of the current content on this page, specifically:

1. "Information about territory change": I notice that this page is about a military event however in the main article there are a lot of content describing the territory change on Sikkim. Thus here, in accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, I request editors who support to keep this territory change information to provide Source and Citation that clearly and directly indicate that "Nathu La and Cho La clashes" leads to the territory change on Sikkim, otherwise these contents should be omitted.

2. "Mispresentation on statement of opinion": I notice that in main article it says "According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces.". The problem is in book "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics" in page 37 it writes that the source for this statement may from "3. Author", which makes it an opinion and highly inappropriate to state it as a fact in accordance to WP:RSOPINION. Therefore I request who support this conclusion replace the source here otherwise this should be omitted since opinions usually should not be included in article about historical matters.

3. "inappropriate citation": I notice for the whole article, in-text citations are only provided at the end of each paragraph. It is inappropriate since it indicates that all sources cited at the end support the content in their paragraph while in fact they don't. While the each source provided at the end of paragraphs only support part of the content in its paragraph, they should be cited after sentences instead to increase preciseness. I here request the editor who created these content help me to fix this problem together.

These are some acute problems in the main page, I hope we can solve them first so that nothing in the main page doesn't adhere to the policy, before I can start working on details to further improve this article.

Again, thank you all for the attention. Fenal Kalundo (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are still going to right great wrongs, then I am afraid you are not going to help improving the article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I find even in the link you provided me here "right great wrongs", in which it stated clearly that source should chosen from "which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources". This the same demand as I asked in my first two concerns. The third one is also demanded by Wikipedia:CS. By adhering to the Wikipedia:Five pillars, it should improve the quality of the article. Fenal Kalundo (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

To all:

I also notice that though this version seems includes lots of new content than before, the context of current one is confusing and information provided is scattered without connecting to each other. Let's please work on organizing the text.

In addition, I notice that though near 20 scholar sources are in presence, the main article still gives unduly weight to the information that cited from an "online media", Let's please also work on this. Fenal Kalundo (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead of removing citation, you might want to look into other inline citation templates. --Voidvector (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fenal Kalundo Kindly don't remove the reliable sources and replace with citation needed tag. Capitals00 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Kindly you should read my discussion before groundlessly assert something is reliable, specifically that is in the second one "Mispresentation on statement of opinion". I have challenged the reliability of this source, plz prove it is actually reliable before added back. I think we should all show respect to other editors and adhere to the Wikipedia policy here. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite your personal opinions, the book is published by Palgrave Macmillan, it is a WP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I hope you understand taking editing issue personal at very beginning will lead you nowhere. I will make it clearer here, in accordance to WP:RSOPINION, quoted: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".. In addition, in accordance to WP:UNDUE, quoted: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. -- for a statement put in lead and only backed by one poor source while nearly 20 scholar sources in presence is obviously "unduly weighted". I hope we can start discussing content now, if you keep refusing to discuss then I have no choice but ask for Outside Help, plz consider it as notification. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you have been told earlier that websites are not reliable sources, scholarly books are. We haven't included a minority view but a major view, backed by a number of sources. Capitals00 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I hope you can address my concerns directly instead of saying something irrelevant, I gave TWO concrete and specific reason for omitting this text. If you disapprove, please challenge my rationale directly. Only one unreferenced stand-alone statement in one book is not "a number of". -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

About 5 different reliable sources were provided by other user on the section above that support the "victory". Capitals00 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Then please just add them to the citation in the main article. For now, it is still an poor source represented a minority. The purpose for this discussion is exactly about giving time for editors to provide supplemental sources. Without them, the statement of "India victory" should be move to "see also" or other places that match its weight. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

They could be added, but there is still no thing such as "minority" opinion. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I will move this sentence to see also until you add them in. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• @Fenal Kalundo: Please make some sensible arguments. There is no need to "prove" that a WP:SECONDARY scholarly source is reliable when it is published by an internationally reputed publisher like Palgrave Macmillan. Such quality sources base their observations on quite reliable data. It is not an "opinion" as you are claiming. It is a neutral third-party assessment. The author of the book is also an independent third-party source, obviously, since we absolutely have no reason to assume otherwise. The line next to this also, in a way, corroborates this observation saying, "Many PLA fortifications at Nathu La were said to be destroyed" citing Taylor Fravel, an impeccable scholarly source. This sentence is not even written in Wiki's voice, but is stated with attribution - "According to an independent source..". If you honestly think that it is a minority view and is being given undue weight in the lead, you have to find other secondary scholarly sources that contradict this source and its observations, for disputing it. Till now you have done no such thing. Only then can there be a debate on this, by comparing the sources and their observations regarding their reliability. Until then, this discussion is a pure waste of time.
• Sheru Thaplial is a well-published WP: PRIMARY source for Indian version. Even Taylor Fravel cites it in his work, while discussing these accounts. It has been used with attribution - "according to the Indian version..". When there is corroboration for its observations from secondary scholarly sources like Taylor Fravel or William van Eekelen, the attribution is appropriately omitted. There is no WP:NPOV problem here.
• The article does not say anywhere that these clashes led to any territorial changes in Sikkim. Both of these military clashes took place at the Sikkim-China border. Indian forces were present at the border because Sikkim was then an Indian protectorate. These events roused India's concerns about China's intentions regarding Sikkim - scholar John Garver says so. These clashes near the Sikkim border, between Indian and Chinese forces, were clearly an issue of international relations between India and China. Several heated notes were exchanged between the foreign affairs ministries of both nations, during the clashes were going on. The aftermath section has to obviously discuss the border tensions and the relations between India and China in the latter stages. When Sikkim was annexed by India, China raised a hue and cry, and did not recognize Sikkim as India's integral part. When it did recognize so in 2003, it "led to a thaw" in Sino-Indian relations. All of this is stated by multiple reliable sources which also mention these 1967 clashes at the same place, while discussing the India-China relations. It is in this context of bilateral relations between India and China, the Sikkim content is discussed in aftermath section. It is very much relevant.
• It would be great if you stop this POV-pushing in foolish and boring ways, for removing appropriate content - just because you don't like it. 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think my demand is quite simple and straight, and it is very reasonable -- add more supporting sources. Giving some conclusive information in lead is a lot of credit, the sources to back it up must match this status. For now, there is none. I have actually ask for a source check in Reliable sources noticeboard in section "14. Can I conclude this source unreliable?" and the discussion there conclude, quoted, "Well Dupey and Dupey say it was an inconclusive campaign. So I think this is ore an issue of Undue weight being given to one version of events, rather then an RS issue."

Please start to listen to what others say, this is not a really discussion if you just keep ignoring my argument and unwilling to make any compromise. I am putting this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard now, please consider it as notification. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about omitting text in related to "territory change"

To all:

First of all, I hope editors who oppose omitting understand that, a military clash doesn't naturally connect with territory change. By policy it is the responsibility of editors who wants to put these content in the main space to provide supporting sources. By now, there is no such sources are provided. Therefore the burden of seeking consensus falls on the editors who want to include those content, not in opposite.

I notice that this page is about a military event however in the main article there are a lot of content describing the territory change on Sikkim. These two things do not naturally connect with each other. Thus here, in accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, I request editors who support to keep this territory change information to provide Source and Citation that clearly and directly indicate that "Nathu La and Cho La clashes" leads to the territory change on Sikkim.

This is a repost of the same request I raised three days ago, I would omit all text in related to "territory change" if this one is unchallenged. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to be a positive contributor, you should stop wasting other editor's time trying to argue your POV on this single article. You can go spend time improving articles like Kingdom of Sikkim or History of Sikkim. In addition, instead of questioning existing curated sources, you might want to consider providing your own "reliable sources". --Voidvector (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope you understand this is not a place to talk about other than content. If you don't want to talk a bout content then I have nothing to say with you. And it is something about WP:VNOTSUFF, not WP:RS. Those the information itself may be reliable that doesn't mean it should be included without providing the connection with the topic of this page. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoting what you said 2 lines above -- "...leads to the territory change on Sikkim", I am telling you those other Sikkim articles need love as well. It is fairly obvious from your contribution log that only care about this single article. --Voidvector (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)