Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Attribution & government responses regarding Pangda

@Kautilya3: Regarding this revert, the WP:INTEXT attribution was based on descriptions given by several RSes (emphasis mine):

• In a statement, Bhutan's ambassador to India, Major General Vetsop Namgyel, said "there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan." China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that [...] Indian broadcaster NDTV first reported the satellite images.
  — CNN

• Indian media as well as Australian and US-based think tanks claim that the Chinese construction of the village of Pangda, on the west bank of the Torsa River, is 2.5km (1.5 miles) inside the Bhutanese border. [...] Bhutanese ambassador to India Vetsop Namgyel rejected the Indian reports about the village, saying “there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan”. [...] Bhutanese journalist Tenzing Lamsang said that the third-party reports were based on open-source information such as a Google Maps representation of the border, which was not accurate [...] The Chinese foreign ministry said the construction was in China's territory.
  — South China Morning Post

• Bhutan's officials denied the village was on their territory. Bhutan's Ambassador in India Vetsop Namgyel told The Hindu, “There is no Chinese village inside Bhutan.”
  — The Hindu

• Reports showing the construction of a Chinese village inside sovereign Bhutanese territory are incorrect, the envoy of Bhutan has told The Hindu. The statement from Ambassador Vetsop Namgyel came a day after sections of the Indian media reported the presence of a Chinese-built village approximately 2 km inside the Bhutanese border. "There is no Chinese village inside Bhutan,” said Ambassador Namgyel, categorically denying reports in the media that suggested settlements are near the area of the 2017 confrontation between Indian and Chinese troops on the Doklam plateau.
  — The Hindu

• Bhutan has denied claims by a Chinese journalist and satellite imagery expert that China has constructed a village more than two kilometres inside its territory. [...] Bhutan's ambassador to India, Major General V. Namgyel has categorically denied the journalist's claim. “There is no Chinese village inside Bhutan," [...] Lamsang, editor of The Bhutanese newspaper, also stressed that Bhutan border troops had not reported any such construction of a village in that area.
  — The Wire

It doesn't have to specifically say Indian media per se (that was based on the SCMP wording, but obviously other outlets have picked the story up), but it is WP:DUE to mention the official government responses given the reporting by several RSes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC); copyediting, add quotes from The Wire and second The Hindu article — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but you can't say "media said this BUT China said that". That is textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS. China doesn't trump THIRDPARTY reliable sources. SCMP is doing something like that. But the SCMP is pretty much involved now. You have cited CNN. There is no reason not to treat it as an RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The weightage to the government sources has to be rrrrrreally low here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The response by the governments is still a significant viewpoint that was reported by multiple RSes (this isn't citing government sources themselves); leaving it out is WP:UNDUE. How about a second sentence without the "but", as directly reported by the sources, i.e.

Bhutanese officials and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that the village was in Bhutanese territory.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So? The Bhutanese government doesn't become a reliable source just because their statement was reproduced in a hundred newspapers. Their statement stands on its own. It neither establishes facts nor contradicts them. It basically has nothing to do with the reality as reported by the reliable sources or Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting to cite the Bhutanese government as a reliable source. The reliable sources are CNN, SCMP, and The Hindu. This is a statement about the government responses cited to CNN, SCMP, and The Hindu. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Doklam border as per the US office of geographer

If you are not claiming that it is a reliable source why would you add it to the sentence with a "BUT", as if the Chinese and Bhutanese governments are the authorities, who trump the newspaeprs. "Too bad Indian media, we have it all sorted out." That is a ridiculously POV phrasing! And the SCMP even bothers to quote some moronic Bhutanese journalist who claims Google Maps isn't "accurate". He might not know that Google Maps prints the US Office of Geographer's data. But we do. Here is the line shown on the Stanford University visualiser. And if you bother to see the OpenStreetMap, you will find so many lines marked that it gives a new meaning to salami slicing. China has enough slices marked up to last a century! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If you read my second comment in this section, I said How about a second sentence without the "but" and suggested just adding the standalone sentence:

Bhutanese officials and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that the village was in Bhutanese territory.

The original "but" was not intended to be a statement of truth over the preceding clause, but just to note that the two positions are contradictory to each other (e.g. A thinks X but B thinks Y); but I already suggested getting rid of the "but".

By the way, that Bhutanese journalist is the same one cited by the original NDTV article, cited by The New York Times, and labeled as a Bhutanese expert by The Hindu. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not even the second sentence, the 10th sentence may be. We often leave out government denials when they defy common sense and widely known facts. Since you have read the New York Times piece, you know that they left it out. That would be the responsible thing to do. Pinging Slatersteven for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that Bhutan itself does not claim that the village is in Bhutan. It would be utterly WP:UNDUE to only state that something is in Bhutan without the widely reported follow-up that Bhutan does not claim it. Government denials of reports are often mentioned for due weight because they are noteworthy or surprising. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

OK< are the any RS that say Buutan does not claim the village?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The block of sources at the top of this section all state that Bhutan denied the reports that the village was built on Bhutanese territory, e.g. Bhutan's officials denied the village was on their territory or Bhutan has denied claims by a Chinese journalist and satellite imagery expert that China has constructed a village more than two kilometres inside its territory. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the New York Times did not state the Bhutanese position. CNN did (via the statement of the ambassador). Per NYT, "“The Chinese obviously seem to be losing patience,” Tenzing Lamsang, editor of the newspaper The Bhutanese". This editor is apparently batting for the Bhutanese government, given how all the media quoted him. That is all there is about the Bhutanese position in the NYT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we could say "the Bunatnes ambadsadsor said Chinese had no villages inside its boarder". What they do not seen to suppsort is "they have denied this vilalge".Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

That's a fair option as well, even if slightly longer.

The RSes do directly say that they denied that the village is in Bhutan, although the quote from the ambassador does not directly do so. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sovereignty, integrity or both

Regarding the subsection header — "Official statements on territorial sovereignty". Should it be called "Official statements on territorial integrity" instead? DTM (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It depends. India calls it "integrity". China calls it "sovereignty" (or at least their language is translated that way). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Indian sources are not "US Intelligence sources" and are often fake news

NDTV is used as an source for the statement "35 Chinese soldiers dead" and the "60,000 chinese troops on border" NDTV is not US Intelligence sources, it is an left-wing Indian source and thus highly disreputable. There are no sources that state number of Chinese causalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sure you have some reliable sources that say that NDTV is "disreputable"? Also that you have actually read the cited article and found no mention of "US Intelligence sources"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

please change the title from 2020 China-india skirmish to 2020-2021 Indo-Sino skirmishes Bruhbruhindia (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Seagull123 Φ 23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

India's loss of 600 square miles of territory after this skirmish

India lost a significant amount of territory after the skirmish and disengagement was recently announced.

The India has practically agreed China's demand regarding line of actual control (LAC).

The four main areas are Galwan valley , Gogra, Hot Springs and Pangong Tsao, specially in Galwan valley where the two major mountain top are now controlled and dominated by Chinese and enable China to attack the city of Leh.

India lost nearly 600 square miles of territory.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/01/india-china-himalayas-ladakh-standoff/

This needs to be mentioned in the article.--208.104.194.194 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to produce sources that say that India has "lost territory". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see the link.

"Since then, there have been multiple attempts at disengagement and de-escalation on the disputed border, but the political and military talks—the last one was held on Nov. 6—have been futile. The Chinese have refused to restore the pre-May status quo in Ladakh, where they now control an additional 600 square miles of territory."

--208.104.194.194 (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Refused to restore" said in January does not imply "have lost" in February. Your claim is WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to what you say. But we cannot jump the gun and start making our own claims. We need to wait for the dust to settle and expert commentary to arrive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood.

However, with disengagement now in process and China showed no signs of giving territories back to India. It seems that India have folded because it can not get support from the United States, India's lost of 600 square miles or 1554 square km of land to China are going to be permanent in the area of Galwan valley , Gogra, Hot Springs and South Pangong Tsao.

Also the wording: "(China) they now control an additional 600 square miles of territory." is from the original source written by Sushant Singh, a senior fellow with the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. This is a creditable reference.

One more thing, the disengagement is only in the Pangon Tsao area, not Galwan valley, Gora and Hot Springs, especially Galwan valley which is the most important area in this conflict and also where India lost most of its 600 square miles of territory to China.

--208.104.194.194 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What change would you like to make to the aricle? Please specify in the "Change X to Y" format. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Kautilya3 for the reply. I found more article, this time a Western article Bloomberg describing the situation which yield similar results compare to the one from Foreign Policy.

Please take a look.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-11-01/china-gained-ground-on-india-during-bloody-summer-in-himalayas

Now, answering your question. I would like to see territorial changes in the article. Basically, China gained around 300 to 600 square miles or 760 to 1540 square Km of land from India in this skirmish and pushed the LAC further toward the 1959 claim. Thank you, --208.104.194.194 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This also from November 2020. It doesn't say anything about the current situation.

DiplomatTesterMan, the territorial changes are too diffused on this huge page. Would it be worthwhile to create a separate section on it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Found more references.

India's loss of territory in Depsang totalling 900 square km

What Rajnath Left Out: PLA Blocks Access to 900 Sq Km of Indian Territory in Depsang
https://thewire.in/diplomacy/depsang-ladakh-india-china-rajnath-singh-parliament

Making sense of the Depsang incursion
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/making-sense-of-the-depsang-incursion/article4689838.ece

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The latest troop deployment and satellite showed China gaining huge amount of territories from India and pushed the actual LAC near 1959 pre war line.

http://tieba.baidu.com/photo/p?kw=%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA%E6%AF%8D%E8%88%B0&flux=1&tid=7229182594&pic_id=33b51e178a82b9019056e179648da9773812ef4f&pn=1&fp=2&see_lz=0&red_tag=g2873225466

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Debunk YK Joshi's Wild Imagination with official Chinese reference and 3 latest major western including US sources and now Indian reference. Only 4 or 5 Chinese soldiers died.

Chinese source found.

The Chinese causality is 4 dead.

边境冲突中誓死捍卫国土，4名边防官兵英勇牺牲

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2021_02_19_581548.shtml

I would also cautious using YK Joshi's comment. He was using nothing but the TASS's number and TASS was referencing from the US source which stated 35 one year ago. There have not been any Chinese source stating the Chinese causality until now and it is only 4 which is no were near the 45 TASS was stating.

This all seems like another Indian media propaganda effort.

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

        From your reference 1. It was referencing a twitter account.

Which YK Joshi said: "I don't want to make an estimate, but when the [Galwan] incident happened, we observed more than 60 PLA causalities being picked up by stretchers. Can't say with authority if dead or injured. But recently Russian agency TASS put out a figure of 45, and I think that figure we could look at. It could be more than that."

So according to YK Joshi. He has no idea about Chinese causality. His words are nothing but speculation and he even referenced the TASS and he was guessing on that.

How does this constitute a reliable reference or "expert" opinion ?

An article written based on a twitter account is an expert opinion?

Here is the twitter account that stated YK Joshi's speculation and wild immigration.

https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/1362290339923435522/photo/1

      3 More references. This time Western sources:

  China reveals four soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India 

Reuters
https://news.trust.org/item/20210219002053-utq4r/

NASDAQ
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/china-reveals-4-soldiers-killed-in-june-2020-border-clash-with-india-2021-02-18

Yahoo
https://sports.yahoo.com/china-reveals-four-soldiers-killed-012643860.html#:~:text=China%20reveals%20four%20soldiers%20killed%20in%20June%202020%20border%20clash%20with%20India,-Thu%2C%20February%2018&text=BEIJING%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20China%20said,men%20were%20given%20posthumous%20awards.

      Indian reference on Chinese casualty showed 5 Chinese died.

China officially admits five military officers, soldiers killed in Galwan clash with Indian Army

"Beijing, February 19

Five Chinese military officers and soldiers were killed in last year's Galwan Valley clash in eastern Ladakh with the Indian Army, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) officially acknowledged for the first time on Friday.

Five Chinese frontier officers and soldiers stationed in the Karakoram Mountains have been recognised by the Central Military Commission of China (CMC) for their sacrifice in the border confrontation with India, which occurred in the Galwan Valley in June 2020, the PLA Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese military reported on Friday.

Those killed included Qi Fabao, the regimental commander from the PLA Xinjiang Military Command, state-un Global Times quoted PLA Daily report as saying.

A total of 20 Indian soldiers died in the Galwan Valley clash, regarded as the worst in over four decades at the India-China border."

The latest Indian reference closely matches the references from China and Western counter part therefore is indeed reliable.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/china-officially-admits-five-military-officers-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-clash-with-indian-army-214636

Since now the official Chinese death number is far lower than the US source and the Russian TASS source which essentially cited the US source. Now with dust cleared and rumors busted. I suggesting removing those two US and Russian source which are now proven totally unreliable and unrealistic !

Chinese, Indian and Western references on Chinese causality using the latest sources. Chinese side is ONLY 4 or 5 Dead

Chinese source found.

The Chinese causality is 4 dead.

边境冲突中誓死捍卫国土，4名边防官兵英勇牺牲

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2021_02_19_581548.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  More recent update

Found another credible Chinese source CGTN with each soldier's name published.

China honors soldiers martyred in June's border conflict

"Four Chinese soldiers, who were sacrificed during a border confrontation in June 2020, were posthumously awarded honorary titles and first-class merit citations, the Central Military Commission (CMC) announced on Friday.

The CMC unveiled names and stories of the martyrs for the first time to commemorate their sacrifice for defending national sovereignty and territory. Chen Hongjun was awarded the honorary title of "hero" for defending national territory. Chen Xiangrong, Xiao Siyuan and Wang Zhuoran were awarded first-class merit citations.

Qi Fabao, a colonel who led the soldiers, was seriously injured during the clashes. Qi was conferred with the honorary title of "hero colonel."

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-02-19/China-honors-soldiers-martyred-in-June-s-border-conflict-Y03WzUnVgk/index.html

     3 More references. This time Western sources:

  China reveals four soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India 

Reuters
https://news.trust.org/item/20210219002053-utq4r/

NASDAQ
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/china-reveals-4-soldiers-killed-in-june-2020-border-clash-with-india-2021-02-18

Yahoo
https://sports.yahoo.com/china-reveals-four-soldiers-killed-012643860.html#:~:text=China%20reveals%20four%20soldiers%20killed%20in%20June%202020%20border%20clash%20with%20India,-Thu%2C%20February%2018&text=BEIJING%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20China%20said,men%20were%20given%20posthumous%20awards.

   Chinese source that is dedicated to bust India's previous false claim on Chinese casualty

China unveils details of 4 PLA martyrs at Galwan Valley border clash for first time, reaffirming responsibility falls on India

"This is the first time China has unveiled casualties and details of these officers and soldiers' sacrifice, four of whom died when dealing with the Indian military's illegal trespassing of the Galwan Valley Line of Actual Control (LAC). The awards process also revisited the whole incident - how the Indian military deployed a large number of soldiers who premeditatedly hid, trying to force the Chinese military to concede. How the Chinese soldiers defended the sovereignty of the country amid attacks of steel tubes, cudgels and stones was also highlighted."

"A total of 20 Indian soldiers died in the skirmish. This is the worst border conflict between the two countries in nearly 45 years. Indian media had previously boasted that the Chinese military suffered more deaths in the region."

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202102/1215914.shtml

    Latest Indian reference on Chinese casualty showed 5 Chinese died.

China officially admits five military officers, soldiers killed in Galwan clash with Indian Army

"Beijing, February 19

Five Chinese military officers and soldiers were killed in last year's Galwan Valley clash in eastern Ladakh with the Indian Army, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) officially acknowledged for the first time on Friday.

Five Chinese frontier officers and soldiers stationed in the Karakoram Mountains have been recognised by the Central Military Commission of China (CMC) for their sacrifice in the border confrontation with India, which occurred in the Galwan Valley in June 2020, the PLA Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese military reported on Friday.

Those killed included Qi Fabao, the regimental commander from the PLA Xinjiang Military Command, state-un Global Times quoted PLA Daily report as saying.

A total of 20 Indian soldiers died in the Galwan Valley clash, regarded as the worst in over four decades at the India-China border."

The latest Indian reference closely matches the references from China and Western counter part therefore is indeed reliable.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/china-officially-admits-five-military-officers-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-clash-with-indian-army-214636

The official Chinese death number is far lower than the US source and the Russian TASS source which essentially cited the US source. Now with dust cleared and rumors busted. I suggesting removing those two US and Russian source which are now proven totally unreliable and unrealistic !

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Pangong deal and Indian propaganda

It seems to me that the Chinese basically wanted to deny Finger 4 to India, and in the recent deal, India has essentially conceded that. Why is the Indian media declaring victory? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Most likely just to save face while losing territories to China.

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3.

Could you please provide a reference to the recent deal? Also please describe what is in the recent deal.

If India conceded territory to China in Pangong Tsao area, does India' land loss match that in Bloomberg, around 50 square km ?

Thank you,

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Found latest development and expert opinon.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/lac-withdrawal-plan-gives-china-the-edge-213337

LAC withdrawal plan gives China the edge

Written by Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (retd), Indian Military Commentator

"Keeping politics aside, relevant questions need to be asked about the ongoing LAC withdrawal plan. One of India’s worst fears of squandering gains on the ground for restoring the adverse situation on the LAC is turning out to be true. China looks set to get what it has wanted: not all, but most of it, including consummation of its 1959 claim line."

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you found a source. On the deal, I was going to recommend

Explained | The disengagement plan between India and China along the LAC

For commentary, I would recommend Karan Thapar's interview of Shivshankar Menon

https://thewire.in/external-affairs/watch-early-days-mustnt-draw-big-conclusions-on-chinese-withdrawal-ex-nsa-shivshankar-menon

One correction however: Karan Thapar characterised the north bank Pangong deal as one of "matching concessions". I don't agree. We document on this page that Finger 8 was China's 1960 claim line, which they called their "traditional customary boundary". Now they demanded more. India essentially gave it. The fact that China has agreed not to patrol it is little comfort. That will only last till the next standoff. The next standoff will come, sooner than you expect.

So, the square kilometres are irrelevant. What is relevant is that China is demanding new territory. The same thing happened in the Galwan Valley, and it has been given. In a hush-hush way. So, we can easily predict what will happen at Gogra and Depsang as well. The Indian media is meanwhile going gung-ho on pictures of Chinese troops withdrawing. Today's India lives on myths and images, not facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

   Katilya3, I really thank you for your neutral stands.

Since now the dust settled and it is now clear that China has pushed LAC to the 1959 standard and gained at least 1000 square km of land.

Also, the Chinese casualty is far lower than the Indians and the latest references completely debunked the two previous US and Russia TASS source.

Will you make the changes according? Also, add in that China has pushed the LAC to the 1959 pre war status and gained 1000 square km of land into the article; also please remove the two US and Russia's TASS source since now they are proven false ?

Thank you,

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

India through the Chinese eyes

How about we call this the "Chiang Kai-Shek Line"?

Or this the "Zhongua Minghuo Line"?

From a 2013 strategy document:

After India’s independence, at the same time that [India] received intact the United Kingdom’s colonial political borders, it fully carried on with the United Kingdom’s imperial expansionist military strategic thought; the most important part of this was the idea of so- called “Indocentrism.” The core of this was to treat Kashmir, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Assam as “the internal lines of India’s defense;” to incorporate Tibet into its sphere of influence as a “buffer state;” and to treat the illegally concocted McMahon Line and the Johnson-Ardagh Line as its “security inner ring.” Nehru viewed the South Asian subcontinent and the Indian Ocean as a “security ring,” and pursued a regional security policy that had India as its main body. In addition, India also absorbed local traditional ideas of strategy. For example, it treated peripheral countries as its main opponents to be guarded against and as the targets of its operations; it was deeply affected by the traditional ideas of its historically famous strategist Chanakya, “that treated neighbors as enemies and that dealt with those who were far away and attacked those who were near,” and the “law of fish.”[17: Translator’s note: That big fish eat little fish.]

From BBC Zhonwen:

When it comes to the border between India and China, which was founded as an independent nation in 1947, it is necessary to review the colonial history of the British Empire in India and the three lines drawn by the British Empire: "Johnson Line", "McMahon Line" and "Ma Jiye-Dou" Nele Line" [Macdonald Line]. The names of the three lines are officials of the British Empire. These three lines are related to the history of the British Empire's cannibalization and invasion of the Qing Empire, and the reality of the current sovereignty dispute between China and India.

China may be a superpower today. But a superpower with a "colonial complex". And India is still a colony in all but name. Why else would they stick to those stupid colonial lines? And we haven't even begun to talk about "national humiliation" yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that China sees India as a colony ?

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Only when India gives up "Kashmir, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Assam" will it cease to be a colony. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

     Kautilya3. Now you are acting irrational. After all, this is Wikipedia. We can not use our emotions nor personal opnions to write the article, only facts backed up with reliable sources and expert opinions.

Now with the dust settled and rumors busted.

Please change the articles accordingly.

Thank you,

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

明日褥法 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please outline the edit you would like made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It is now Official. The first US and Russia's TASS sources on Chinese casualty are proven totally false and outdated. Suggest remove both of them !!

The official Chinese death number of just 4 or 5 dead according to the latest Chinese, Indian and Western references is far lower than the US source and the Russian TASS source which essentially cited the US source last year in May. 'Now with dust cleared and rumors busted. I suggesting removing those two US and Russian source which are now proven outdated and unrealistic !'

Also one Very important thing. The first US source from last year cited that 35 Chinese died did not provide proper link as where did it get that figure from. Later Russia's TASS recited that particular US source which created a double rumor and false information. Now, with the latest Chinese reference and Western references including US reference come out that completely debunked the first US reference that was creating misleading information from the start.

It is safe to say that the first US reference which is now both outdated and incorrected state 35 Chinese death must be removed !

   This will comply with Wikipedia's neutral tone and reliable reference rules !!

Admins please act !

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That is entirely misleading. These reports emerged from People's Daily China tweet which said that 4 were awarded but never mentioned the amount of the Chinese soldiers killed. It does not matter if some sources aren't capable of understanding that tweet and instead misrepresented it. But there are enough sources such as TOI who have correctly interpreted it. VoidVoice you must note this too. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't cite Chinese government records as the truth here, neither Indian sources, which is one of the conflicting sides. Also, take TASS with a grain of salt as its Russian-government media. Though Chinese claims are notable enough. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

     How is this entirely misleading? When 20 Indians died, the Indian media stated their names and awarded them according. Now the Chinese side released the names of their side of dead and awarded them as well. The latest Chinese as well as Western and Indian sources citing it all confirmed this. 4 Chinese fought bravely and died while one commanding officer was seriously injured. All five of them received awards while other Chinese soldiers whom suffered very minor injuries did not.

However, one thing is for certain. The Indian sources from Foreign Policy as well as Bloomberg did not use the US source that cited 35 dead. They both said that unknown amount of Chinese casualty. This means that neither Indian nor western source such as Bloomberg acknowledge the initial US source stating 35 Chinese dead. Also the initial US source was speculating the reason why China did not releasing its casualty by guessing that: "According to the U.S. assessment, the Chinese government considers the casualties among their troops as a humiliation for its armed forces and has not confirmed the numbers for fear of emboldening other adversaries, the source says." It had incorrectly guessed it in June of 2020. The reality is the complete opposite! The Chinese have accomplished almost all of its objectives: 1. Captured key strategic locations such as Galawan valley, Gogra and Depsang, even in Pangong Tsao. 2. Push the LAC to the 1959 consummation. 3. While suffering tiny loss of forces, 4 dead compare to India's 20 dead!

As dust settled in October 2020, the result of the conflict became clear! China pushed India all the way back to the initial 1959 LAC and gained nearly 600 square miles of territory from India while capturing key strategic locations such as Galwan valley, Gogra and Depsang. Even Kautilya3 acknowledge this in his comments. Kautilya3 even thinks that the deal in Pangong Tsao was a win for China because finger 8 was the 1960 Chinese demand and now China has pushed India all the way to Finger 4 ! India gave concession to China in Galwan valley in a hush hush way and now in Pangong Tsao. He even thinks that the same thing will happen in Gogra.

"Since then, there have been multiple attempts at disengagement and de-escalation on the disputed border, but the political and military talks—the last one was held on Nov. 6—have been futile. The Chinese have refused to restore the pre-May status quo in Ladakh, where they now control an additional 600 square miles of territory."

"As troops in the Himalayas hunker down for the brutal winter, the outcome of the worst clashes in decades is becoming clear: China has pushed further into territory once patrolled exclusively by India."

"The government, which has demonstrated immense resolve by matching soldier for soldier and height for height, determined to stand up to China, seems to have suddenly cracked and, surprisingly, given in to Beijing’s pressure. Unacclimatised to deployment in winter, it was the PLA that was keen to pull back and descend from the heights which it had occupied for the first time after 1962. The alacrity with which Chinese tanks, guns and troops pulled back last week was surprising."

"Keeping politics aside, relevant questions need to be asked about the ongoing LAC withdrawal plan. One of India’s worst fears of squandering gains on the ground for restoring the adverse situation on the LAC is turning out to be true. China looks set to get what it has wanted: not all, but most of it, including consummation of its 1959 claim line."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/01/india-china-himalayas-ladakh-standoff/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-11-01/china-gained-ground-on-india-during-bloody-summer-in-himalayas
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/lac-withdrawal-plan-gives-china-the-edge-213337

The latest Chinese source as well as Indian and Western source further debunk the initial US source by reaffirming the Chinese death at only 4 or 5, no where near the 35 from last year's US source.

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2021_02_19_581548.shtml
https://news.trust.org/item/20210219002053-utq4r/

The initial US source from last year stating 35 dead need to be removed !!
https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-16/dozens-killed-as-india-china-face-off-in-first-deadly-clash-in-decades

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

YK Joshi's revelations

Lieutenant General YK Joshi, current commander of the Indian Army's Northern Command, whose sphere of responsibility extends from the LoC (including the extension beyond NJ9842) to the Line of Actual Control, having the largest number of troops, has revealed in an interview to a CNN-News18's correspondent that Chinese People's Liberation Army suffered sizeable number of casualties during the Galwan Valley clashes with the Indian troops, more that what India had been reporting hitherto. His revelations with regards to the Chinese casualties have become a talking point amongst the journalists,[6] and unsurprisingly so. He has also seconded the TASS's figures concerning the PLA's fatalities during the Galwan clashes. Here is the relevant excerpt from the interview:

While the incident happened, we had our OPs sitting and observing the area. We were able to count a large number of casualties, which were being picked up on stretchers and taken back. More than 60 actually, but whether they were fatal or non-fatal, we can't say with authority so I will not give a figure. But recently, TASS, the Russian agency had put out a figure of 45 and I think that could be the figure we can look at.

At Least 45 Chinese Soldiers Were Killed, Says Lt Gen YK Joshi

Given this is coming straight from the horse's mouth, shouldn't we update the Indian claims in the infobox accordingly? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - No it did not. YK Joshi never said that 45 dead. Have you read his twitter account? [7].

Which YK Joshi said: "I don't want to make an estimate, but when the [Galwan] incident happened, we observed more than 60 PLA causalities being picked up by stretchers. Can't say with authority if dead or injured. But recently Russian agency TASS put out a figure of 45, and I think that figure we could look at. It could be more than that. --208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Chinese source found. The Chinese causality is 4 dead. 边境冲突中誓死捍卫国土，4名边防官兵英勇牺牲 https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2021_02_19_581548.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.104 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC) From your reference 1. It was referencing a twitter account. Which YK Joshi said: "I don't want to make an estimate, but when the [Galwan] incident happened, we observed more than 60 PLA causalities being picked up by stretchers. Can't say with authority if dead or injured. But recently Russian agency TASS put out a figure of 45, and I think that figure we could look at. It could be more than that." So according to YK Joshi. He has no idea about Chinese causality. His words are nothing but speculation and he even referenced the TASS and he was guessing on that. How does this constitute a reliable reference or "expert" opinion ? An article written based on a twitter account is an expert opinion? Here is the twitter account that stated YK Joshi's speculation and wild imagination. https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/1362290339923435522/photo/1 Words like, it could be, I don't want to make an estimate, Can't say with authority if dead or injured, It could be more than that. These are clear speculation or personal onions or crystal ball, which clearly break Wikipedia's definition of a reference. It can not even be used as a reference, let along a reliable one ! --208.104.49.104 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, this would support "60+ dead or injured (Indian claim)". But I would wait for some decent WP:SECONDARY sources to appear before inserting it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  This may support India's claim of 60 Chinese casualty but not dead. Only 4 or 5 Chinese died in this conflict compare to 20 Indian died. 

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

TASS number is based on unverified Indian sources, circulating since last summer

According to the latest news.

A Russian Foreign Ministry official says the “45 Chinese servicemen” dead number, shared by TASS news was based on “unverified Indian sources”.

https://twitter.com/timchimself/status/1362596756962205698

https://twitter.com/aadilbrar/status/1362597711162314753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1362597711162314753%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sinodefenceforum.com%2Ft%2Fladakh-flash-point.8738%2Fpage-813

Since members here used twitter to show YK Joshi's revelations.

It is also fair to do so regarding Russia's TASS

--208.104.49.104 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ministry of Foreign affairs of Russia confirmed that the 45 Chinese dead is based on "unverified Indian sources", there is no need to repeat the Indian claim, remove the 45 Chinese dead for TASS. (https://twitter.com/timchimself/status/1362596756962205698) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.71.98 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over numbers

KyloRen3, MBlaze Lightning and Wareon have all reverted my edits on false premises. All three edit mainly India related articles with pro-India POV. As assuming good faith is only or obvious cases of misunderstanding, I'm going to be blunt. I know there are Indian nationalists coordinating off this site on social media to edit wikipedia and you three magically showed up to RV me three times gaming three revert rule. You each only have one RV but I will have three if I edit again.

Even ignoring this and pretending nothing is going on, your reverts are all on false premises. The accounts I cited have been verified by the owners on third party sites liked linkin and muckrack for journalists and they are accounts of a Russian government official and journalist and as primary sources they can be used in articles. Explain yourselves now before this little incident of trying to game the system gets reported.Batumkik (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, another way to think about it is to say that your edits are indeed problematic and run afoul of a number of our policies. That's why three editors deemed it fit to remove them. I certainly don't' t appreciate you waltzing in and slinging unfounded taunts and ad hominem attacks. Twitter can be used as a primary source if the handle is verified, among other conditions, but here that's not even the case to begin with, and no reliable source seemed to have picked it up either. The views expressed by a single, so-called official also cannot be equated with that of the the whole of the ministry. Hope this helps. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Both Twitter accounts were verified on other reliable websites. Chernyshov verified that timchimself is his "blog" on linkedin and Aadil Brar verified on the journalist catalogue muckrack that aadilbrar is his Twitter account He worked for BBC, National Geographic and Indian publications like the Quint before. Neither was Timur Chernyshov's statement equated with the entire ministry. The edits stared he was a Russian foreign ministry official and he rejected the TASS numbers as copied from Indian sources. All of your accusations are false and were addressed in the edit summaries already.Batumkik (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If we start using tweets, we also need to take into account expert commentary such as that from Professor Taylor Fravel:

Important note: PLA Daily story that revealed the deaths was about decorations for gallantry awarded by the CMC and the actions by these five soldiers. It was not a complete account of clash or designed to provide a full accounting of all casualties.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

This could have been up for discussion, until the Chinese spokeswoman shuts down all speculation (see reuters)HanKim20 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese numbers

It is a pity that a lot of hullaballo has been generated out of the numbers produced by Chinese media yesterday. As far as I can see, no announcement was made by the Chinese government or the PLA about the casualties in the Galwan clash. The government has given honours for five soldiers and the PLA Daily wrote a write-up. Other than the fact that four of these soldiers have died (thereby showing that there were some casualties on the Chinese side), nothing more is known. I would have preferred to delete the line about Chinese claims on casualties from the infobox, if not for the fact that it would have generated a lot of heat which I can do without. So, I added the keyword "admitted 4 deaths and 1 injury". This keyword should not be removed.

Some excerpts from the New York Times article:

The account in the army’s official newspaper was China’s first explicit acknowledgment that its soldiers had died in the clash on June 15,...

Until now, China had only obliquely referred to “losses” during the clash last summer. The article did not present the four deaths as an exhaustive count.

The idea that only these four soldiers died is speculation and WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

HanKim20, "You must first gain approval on the discussion page before imposing this word, not the other way round. From what I read on Chinese sites, they speak of 4 deaths as an exhaustive count. You should note that we speak from the point of view of China ""per china"" and Chinese sources indicate 4 deaths, there are other points of view of course, but here this is "per china"" The discussion is taking place here. Please provide your sources here. Mind you that The New York Times is a highly authentic WP:SECONDARY source. It says that it is not an exhaustive count of Chinese casualties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't need to see the new york times, I am looking on the official PLA newspaper and on the Chinese government websites, the sources are very clear that only 4 Chinese soldiers died.

Here, an article from Reuters " China reveals four soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India"

I quote sentences from the article :

When asked why China was only revealing details now, a foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a news briefing it is because there had been too many “rumours, lies and fake news” since.

Asked if this means no other Chinese soldiers died during the whole standoff that stretched for eight months after the June clash, Hua said: “Yes, I understand that’s the case.”

I'm not saying that China is necessarily telling the truth, I'm just saying that this is China's official position, there are of course other points of view HanKim20 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have added your Reuters source as a citation. Can you point us to the Chinese sources you keep referring to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is the same of Reuters, Hua Chunying which closed all speculation on further losses.--HanKim20 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not making an unambiguous claim. His words are vague and dubious. For now, WP: SECONDARY sources say the Chinese lost more, we report the same. Wareon (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I repeat, i'm not saying that China is necessarily telling the truth, I'm just saying that this is China's official position, there are of course other points of view.

There are already other points of view on the page, but here we are talking from the point of view of CHINA ("" "PER CHINA" "" not "" "PER INDIA"), not from the point of view of another country, and its spokesperson clearly affirmed that China had only 4 losses, and no more, that closes all speculation.HanKim20 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the folks above have said that Chunying's words are not very unambiguous. Do you have a WP:SECONDARY source that evaluates the unambiguity of his statement? It would be helpful to us if you can supply one, because we can't dismiss the NYT source just like that. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For me, Hua Chunying's sentence is very clear For the NYT source they just said it was still unclear whether China was going to report further losses, however the press conference closed any speculation on further losses. Let us not forget that we are speaking from the point of view of China, and a phrase from the spokesperson for China could not be clearer. It should be noted that if the NYT did not note the clarification of Hua Chunying, it may be because they were expelled from China, while reuters was present during the press conference.HanKim20 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

rant

/* too many Indians with their fake news on Wikipedia */ if we listened to Indian media sources and Indian politicans you would have an range of 0 deaths to 200 deaths, everyone knows India is #1 in spam and fake news in the world. all Indian media sources should be put in the box of unqualified sources and the article should remove all traces of Indian fake news. it is revolting to see these Indians defile Wikipedia the same that is happened to Quora, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please add

"Chinese blogger Qiu Ziming charged over ‘malicious’ India border casualty posts" .At least two people were prosecuted by the Chinese police in the relevant incident.Bagida520 (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

True... Indian journalists seemed to have picked it up too[8] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am still waiting for contradictions on the reuters article where the Chinese spokeswoman is shutting down any speculation on the death toll. If no one is able to contradict the reuters article I will take this as an endorsement. HanKim20 (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

US intelligence

@Kautilya3: It wasn't right to merge NYT figure with that of US News. "per US intelligence" and "per American intelligence official" should not be cobbled together. They are also offering two different estimates and both articles were published different times. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I don't see how it matters. On Wikipedia, we aim to summarise the sources. We don't need to state each source separately. The US News figure was a lone source without corroboration from any other. So, combining it with the NYT strengthens rather than weakens the information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Galevan valley conflict.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2021

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: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

---

2020 China–India skirmishes → 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes – The skirmishes have continued into early 2021. The article title needs to be updated in this regard. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support No brainer. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support They are still happening. Prins van Oranje 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There is clearly still something happening in 2021. Sun8908 _Talk 10:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support still ongoing...MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Indeed. VoidVoice (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is still some activity in 2021. KyloRen3 (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2021 (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.

China released footage of the skirmishes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7kx40EwOJc Key points:

- Indian soldiers violated the previous consensus and unilaterally crossed the border to build infrastructure and conduct recon missions.

- Video shows massive horde of Indian troops crossing/at the border, armed with shields and clubs.

- Qi Fabao, a regimental commander, went to negotiate but was attacked by said horde. This led to a skirmish, where Qi Fabao was injured. Soldiers Cheng Hongjun and Chen Xiangrong died while rescuing him. Xiao Siyuan and Wang Zhouran died after crossing the river and rescuing other soldiers stuck in the encirclement.

- Reinforcements later arrived and inflicted large amounts of damage on the Indian army, probably when the 20 Indian soldiers died.

- A number of awards were given out to combatants. Watch from 2:49 onwards.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Pieces of that video have been kicking around for 6 monts now and we have always recognized it as Indian territory, which Nathan Russer confirmed today.

You can't blame the Chinese troops. China defines so many hundreds of borders that they have no clue which one to follow. May they rest in peace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that all this would have happened after they killed Colonel B. Santosh Babu. If the Chinese commander still thought he could "negotiate", well, what can I say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR. Also, can't trust the Chinese government for obvious reasons. Wait for third-party coverage. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

NDTV's Vishnu Som has identified the man leading the Indian troops as Captain Soiba Maningba of 16 Bihar battalion. He is from Manipur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Please state the reasons that we can not trust the Chinese government ? This is a Chinese-Indian matter and both sides have the right to speak !

Also, note that the footage is from last year's May 2020, conflict at Galwan valley where only 4 Chinese died and 20 Indian died ! --208.104.49.104 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

208.104.49.104, because China is an authoritarian country with little to no free media and high amounts of censorship? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

More about this video. There shows less than 10 Chinese soldiers in the video at day time where the Indians claim that around 60 carried by stretcher is not possible !

The Chinese counter attack at night that resulted the death of at least 20 Indians. Also the video showed that India left most of its wounded behind and Chinese are the one that treated them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.104 (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Chinese counter attack at night, crushed Indians.

The latest video showing Chinese counter attacked at night that resulted the death of 20 Indians.

India leaving most of its wounded behind.

https://twitter.com/KushigumoAkane/status/1362736577760305152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1362736577760305152%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sinodefenceforum.com%2Ft%2Fladakh-flash-point.8738%2Fpage-973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.104 (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. < Atom (Anomalies) 18:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest source showing that India most likely to lose 900 square km of territory to China permanently !

Rahul Gandhi glare on government ‘cowardice’ on China

According to the latest source: "Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday said the Narendra Modi government’s “cowardice” will lead to tragic consequences, predicting that India’s territory in Depsang captured by China will not be recovered.

Referring to a report suggesting the build-up of Chinese soldiers across the Line of Actual Control (LAC), Rahul tweeted, “China mobilized its conventional & cyber forces to threaten India. The Government of India buckled. Mark my words, our land in Depsang is gone and DBO (Daulat Beg Oldie) is vulnerable. The Government of India’s cowardice will lead to tragic consequences in the future.”

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/rahul-gandhi-glare-on-government-cowardice-on-china/cid/1808434#.YEA17DtVvRk.twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.104 (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay but why would this tweet be important enough to affect the article? < Atom (Anomalies) 18:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Recorded Future

The article says: "According to a cybersecurity firm, a severe blackout in Mumbai on 13 October 2020 has been linked to an attack ('flow of malware') by China, though is yet to be officially confirmed by the Indian government."

The New York Times article says "The investigators who wrote the Recorded Future study, said that 'the alleged link between the outage and the discovery of the unspecified malware' in the system 'remains unsubstantiated.'"

Recorded Future is not the firm that linked the malware to the blackout. They tried to discredit the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.23.221 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked the original sources and you appear to be correct. The India Today article reported that the "Maharashtra cyber department suspects that a malware attack could be responsible for Mumbai's power outage last month." The New York Times article says that the Recorded Future study found that "Chinese malware was flowing into the control systems that manage electric supply across India" but that the link to the Mumbai blackout was unsubstantiated according to Recorded Future.

I will replace the following sentence

"According to a cybersecurity firm, a severe blackout in Mumbai on 13 October 2020 has been linked to an attack ('flow of malware') by China, though is yet to be officially confirmed by the Indian government."

with

"The Maharashtra cyber department suspected that a severe blackout in Mumbai on 13 October 2020 was caused by a malware attack. A February 2021 study by cybersecurity firm Recorded Future found that Chinese malware flowed into Indian electricity supply control systems after the skirmishes in 2020, but said that the link between the malware and Mumbai power outage "remains unsubstantiated". The Maharashtra cyberintelligence report is expected to be released in early March 2021.

< Atom (Anomalies) 18:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:DiplomatTesterMan I cannot edit the article directly. Could you review this change and make it if you find these additional details appropriate? Thanks! < Atom (Anomalies) 18:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have installed a slight rewording of the first two sentences. I omitted the last one on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. When the report comes out we can look into it. (Pinging User:DiplomatTesterMan, so he is aware.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Reported

The word "reported" has been used over 50 times in the article. "According to" 16 times. DTM (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Table

This article can't be represented as a table.

Draft

Location	Engagement	Escalation	Disengagement	Deescalation
Depsang	No	Yes	No engagement (?)
Pangong Tso			February 2021
Galwan	June 2020	June 2020	June 2020	No
Gogra	No	Yes	July 2020

+deinduction DTM (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Stabbing in the back

DiplomatTesterMan, I am not sure why you removed the "stabbing in the back" part of the quote. It is a very important part of the Chinese narrative. And it is not a "perception", but rather interpretation and "knowledge production" (not that I like that term, but that is what it is). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for edit in the "Logistics" section

. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The current article is as follows:

Following unsuccessful diplomatic talks and stalled military disengagement and de-escalation process, China and India prepared themselves to maintain sustained deployment in Ladakh throughout the winter. Temperatures in parts of Aksai Chin and Ladakh, a high altitude cold desert, drops as low as 40 °C. While some areas of the region see heavy snowfall, eastern Ladakh sees winds of up to 60 kmph. Shyok River in Pangong Tso freezes, as does water in pipes.

Here it should be -40 °C and not 40° C. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Doing... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Special:Diff/1015776660 ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Request

It should be mentioned in the results section of the infobox that India lost several hundred square kilometers of territory to China in the clashes. This has been discussed in previous talk pages and many RS, such as Foreign Policy, Bloomberg, etc., confirm this. What terminology is used is up for discussion (lost, or China took, or China illegally took, I don't really care). China has asserted control of this territory for some time, and will likely do so for the forseeable future, though is very liable to change. Infoboxes account for this; look at the Battle of Al Hudaydah infobox, recent territorial changes are mentioned, and if reversed, mentioned again. To reiterate, the current physical situation on the ground, even in flux, should mentioned in the infobox. Any ideas, comments? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:19FB:2B26:FEB3:C4F8 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Commanding Officer Death

In the section about commanders, like Indian Santosh Babu, another chinese commander of probably the same rank was reportedly killed. And an incident about punching, an Indian lieutenant punched a Chinese officer probably of rank major. This incident became popular on social media. SReader21 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Chinese blogger gets jail time

Can we include the news about "Labixiaoqiu" getting 8 months jail time for having reported on the Chinese death numbers? Source: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-blogger-gets-8-months-in-prison-for-galwan-casualties-post-2453816?pfrom=home-ndtv_topstories Xooxwiki (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Results

Results need to be divided into two labels: Results, Status.
Currently in the infobox under "Result" there are two points:

Casualties on both sides

Disengagement in process but clashes continue

The second line could be updated to:

Disengagement in process but clashes continue

The following could be added:

Change in the rules of engagement (ANI, The Wire, TOI)

Indian imposed economic sanctions (Rationale, there is an entire section called "economic sanctions")

Increase in mutual distrust (Reuters, The Wire)

Change in battle of order and related military modernisation (ANI HT Belfer)

There is also a label for "Territory". "Unknown changes" could be used for this label. (However changes in LAC are not the same as changes in official borders. Best that this remains blank.)

Casualties and losses

Now that there is an identical section on the casualties and losses in the main body; is there any way we can simplify the infobox content under this section? DTM (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

PLA ORBAT

Would it be better to keep the PLA ORBAT (Chinese order of battle in the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes) to commands, corps, division, regiments, battalion, company etc rather than the actual equipment? Does the Galwan valley skirmish get an "order of battle" article? Or merge it into this one? DTM (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have that much information available? I am amazed! I think battalion is the lowest level we need to go to. The Galwan valley ORBAT can be simply a section on that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Striking DTM (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

DTM, the current Order of Battle information is undue (and quite tedious, going up front on the page). The general readership of this page needs a more high-level summary. Also 1 Corps was designated to be deloyed sometime late in the day. It is not clear whether it is deployed yet. Note also that it is a "strike corps", meant to be used for offensive operations, not defence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3. Have a relook, i've made some changes. DTM (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looks much better. But we also need something for "pre-Galwan". Are we completely blank on that? Certainly the Leh-based troops can be considered pre-Galwan? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

OSM map error

The zoom layers of the Pangong Tso fingers OSM map has some errors in it. DTM (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to say what is an error and what is not. Everybody is doing guesswork. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources confused about Gogra/Hot Springs

Tanvi Madan has tweeted that the current disengagement covers Gogra/PP 17A, while Hot Springs/PP 15 is still remaining [9]. It turns out that PP15 is further west, at the "trijunction" of the Galwan, Changlung and Kugrang river basins [10]. I don't know of any "Hot Springs" in that area, but it is pretty clear that PP15 is there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pie Chart of Survey

A user had added a pie chart that says survey conducted by Economic Times. However upon checking no such reference is found in the pie chart. Please avoid adding such political promotion materials. Moreover, not significant to the article / section.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Galevan valley conflict.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ecogreengoblin (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "Che inese" should be replaced with "Chinese", it is a typo

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

About India

As a Wikipedia, we should not focus on describing India because of the advantages of English, but should remain objective and neutral. I hope you can refer to the content of Chinese Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorx (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lindorx, I have reverted almost all the edits you made today because they do not adhere to English Wikipedia policies. They either constitute WP:Original research, or use weak (unreliable sources), or give WP:UNDUE weight to issues. You have also deleted well-sourced material because you claim they are not "sufficiently neutral" or some such thing.

Taking Original research first, here is an example passage you added:

The former economic observer reporter Qiu Ziming with the net name of "spicy pen ball" thought on Sina Weibo that China concealed the real death number and satirized and slandered the survival of the top-level leader and the death of his subordinates, which aroused the public anger of netizens. Qiu Ziming's microblog account was banned by Sina microblog administrator for one year because of distorting facts, slandering and disparaging officers and soldiers defending the country and guarding the border; At 20:00 that night, the microblog administrator sent a notice again, saying that the account "spicy pen ball" and another account "ball night travel" held by the user of the account were closed in accordance with laws and regulations. That night, he was also arrested and pleaded guilty by the Nanjing public security organ.

References

Apparently the new source you added is deprecated (declared unreliable). You have added a new source in addition to the existing one. Even so, where does it say that he "satirised and slandered"? where does it say he "arouse the public anger of netizens"?

When you write "because of distorting facts, slandering and disparaging officers and soldiers, is this your view, or the source's view, or the administrator's view? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC) amended. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Title Change

Change the year of the title from “2020-2021” to “2020-2022”. Thotianaa (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Rockcodder (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)