Jump to content

Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Gentle notice

I have nominated this article as a Good Article. DTM (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is still changing quickly, can a review be done while edits are at rapid pace? Vici Vidi (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Vici Vidi, I may have rushed the GA nom. Yes one of the criteria for a GA is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I think significant changes aren't really happening and I am hopefully things settle down fast specifically in relation to this article. The changes being made now are not exactly significant so to speak; more like touching up, heavy touching up, but touching up nevertheless. If I am mistaken and something big does happen again, then oh well, I will nominate it later then. DTM (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

GAN?

If these clashes are ongoing as the article indicates it seems unlikely that this article will be sufficiently stable in the near future to meet criteria #5. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's too soon. Perhaps we could wait a month or something like that. Super Ψ Dro 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, Super Dromaeosaurus, too soon or not that is a matter of discussion, but simply it's not unstable. The criterion is about edit war related to removal or addition of materials which has not been brought for consensus. Any article including FA, FL or GA may be subject to edit war, that does not mean the article is not good. It's simply about if the edit war is for content dispute or not. Here in recent one week there were no significant edit war or materials removed which come under content dispute. I agree with DiplomatTesterMan, "significant changes aren't really happening". Drat8sub (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

End of the skirmishes

"recent event" tag

@Mr. James Dimsey: why? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Hello, and I'm sorry that I'had retver your edits, but it is no longer an outgoing event and thank you for your kindness; and you proved to me that you are a model for the ideal editor, but a small note it was recommended to alert me and ask me about what you want on my talk page rather than the article talk page. Because it is not a place where the actions of editors are alerted, but issues related to the editing of articles are raised; but there is nothing wrong I repeat my thanks and appreciation to you. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. James Dimsey: Hi. Thank you for your prompt, and polite reply. The skirmishes are still going on. These are the news under 24 hours Hitvada, NDTV, and moderndiplomacy.eu. I dont know about moderndiplomacy.eu, but rest of the sources are trustworthy, and reliable sources. The skirmishes are still going on, and the article needs update. I am reinstating the tags. Thank you. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, please point out the exact recent events so that we may update them, and achieve consensus that significant updation should be made for the tags to be valid. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, you haven't exactly pinpointed why you feel the tag is necessary. Besides, of the 3 sources you have provided, only NDTV is reliable and even that is only an opinion piece. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: since the beginning of these skirmishes China agreed to take the back forces after talks a few times. I have already provided recent sources in the thread above stating the skirmishes are ongoing. That's the whole point of the tag. Things are updating rapidly. And yes, the skirmishes are still ongoing. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, this leads to a much bigger discussion on whether things are actually deescalating or not. If they are, as Al Jazeera and Indian Express claim, then we can't say that "Things are updating rapidly." SerChevalerie (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

End of the skirmishes?

Are the skirimishes over? The infobox currently shows that they ended on 6 July cited to this Al Jazeera source about the troops pulling out of Galwan valley. The Indian Express too reported that troops have pulled out of Hot Springs and Gogra is next. Do we consider this as the end? Noticed some edits reverted yesterday, changing the lead to the past tense. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The conflict is still ongoing, along with prevailing issues at Galwan valley, Panging Tso is still a bigger issues for which another meeting will be there. Not a end of this skirmish. And we also don't know what is Indian Govt stand of the status quo ante. Drat8sub (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it is too soon to say this has ended, but also impossible to say this hasn't ended. If there is a flareup on the weekend, we'll still put it in this article and not a new event. Ruling on whether we are in a brief lull or a lasting truce can only be done in the future. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Noticed that Drat8sub has reverted the infobox to reflect that it is an ongoing conflict. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is ongoing. We haven't heard of any deescalation about Pangong Lake fingers and the estimate is that it will take a long time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we refer to Xi Jinping as 'Paramount Leader' or President in this article.

MarkH21 has made recent edits on this page where the editor has removed the mention of Xi Jinping as the President of China and instead use the word 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP. I think these were unnecessary edits. All around the world Xi is known as the president of China, not as the 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP. President is the popular and commonly used term. While I agree that 'Paramount Leader' of the CCP might be a more important post in China than the President, but it reduces to a domestic issue. Here, the overwhelming audience knows him as the president of China rather than the 'Paramount Leader'. Therefore, I believe we should use a more pervasive and common term in this page. Trojanishere (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

  • General Secretary or Paramount leader: Using President of China would just be sloppy, since it isn’t a position of importance and our articles clearly describe (and reflect the countless RSes) that paramount leader (effective leader) and General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (highest ranking official) are the important positions in China.
    For what it’s worth, I would generally use General Secretary Xi Jinping since it is more common than paramount leader in RSes and is less confusing to the average person since it’s also formally the highest ranking official. However, paramount leader is more accurate in the sense that when the roles are not held by the same person (e.g. Deng Xiaoping) the paramount leader is the only one who matters. Either should be equally valid.
    Either way, it really doesn’t make sense to use the figurehead title of President of China. It’s only sometimes used to describe him because A) it sounds more familiar in parallel to the title of many leaders of other nations, and B) he removed the term limit for the position. By the way, I didn’t write Paramount leader in originally, but I did restore it. — MarkH21talk 11:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • President or Leader Simply because these are the terms used by WP:RS such as the WSJ. Paramount leader is not an official term, it simply means someone who hold the most power in Chinese politics. In the present scenario, Xi, the president holds the most power and is thus the Paramount leader too. Since both the terms here are not conflicting (as of today) we can safely use President. Also, my personal view is that Paramount Leader is kind of propagandist like Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. Nevertheless, globally Xi is recognised as the President of PRC and not as the Paramount Leader, hence the name. -- ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  12:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and Chairman of the Central Military Commission are the important offices held by someone holding the title paramount leader, the Presidency is a ceremonial position without power. You also misunderstand which if the names is propagandistic... the styling “President of China” for Xi is unused domestically and exists almost entirely for foreign propaganda purposes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the domestic media says. Remember that the domestic media in China is almost entirely a government mouthpiece. Wikipedia must say what independent and WP:RS say, even if it is not sometimes technically correct in terminology. Also, even if it is a domestically used term, the wiki page should be using a globally recognised term for easier understanding. And regarding propaganda, if anything "paramount leader" is what seems to be the propaganda term. If still objection is raised upon the use of the term 'President', I suggest that the term 'leader' be used instead. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟ 18:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand... In english Chinese domestic media almost exclusively uses President of China because thats the chosen english propaganda title, in mandarin (aka for domestic consumption) Chinese domestic media never refers to their head of state as President (this would confuse the domestic audience greatly because President is a lesser office than Xi’s others). China wants you to call their leader President, its not a natural english language title for the Chinese head of state. WP:RS regularly use all of the above terms, there is no media consensus here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for any previous misunderstanding. So what you are saying is that China wants its leader to be called 'paramount leader' by its citizens but 'president' by foreigners? Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟ 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
He is generally referred to as General Secretary or Chairman domestically, those are the two positions which make up the rather informal paramount leader tradition. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, wasn't chairman retired after Mao's death, because the party didn't want one person with so much individual power? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Its complicated, the title of the office was officially changed from Chairman to General Secretary but that was in 1982 not when Mao died and it was a name change not a change in the powers of the office. Colloquially the General Secretary is still often referred to as Chairman, especially in a familiar or respectful way. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
President isn’t the sole title used in RSes as you seem to suggest. The WSJ even published an article specifically about not calling Xi Jinping the President: article; the WSJ has more articles using General Secretary: another. Some Indian media use General Secretary as well, e.g. ThePrint, because using President of China would be like mentioning the figurehead President of India Ram Nath Kovind. — MarkH21talk 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I actually had done a quick google search with the term "Xi Jingping" and went to the news tab to see what term was being used to describe him primarily. However, now, upon realizing that it is incorrect and actually a propaganda term, I am willing to change my views. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟ 04:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Notified Talk:Xi Jinping and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China since this is about how to generally refer to the person in articles. — MarkH21talk 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  • General Secretary or Paramount leader, President of China as the headliner is only for foreign consumption... He is almost never referred to that way in domestic media and the leader of the CCP/China is not a President as most of the world recognizes the term (for example President Putin, President Duterte or President Tsai, all come from at least nominally democratic systems and are primarily referred to domestically as President, unlike Putin Xi cant even claim to be the leader of a *nominally* democratic state). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not true that the term is exclusively democratic: Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Alexander Lukashenko, Paul Biya, and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo are some of the many who go or went by the title President despite glaringly undemocratic systems of governance. Like Prime Minister, it refers to a position, and it is a stretch to assume that people automatically think President = Freely-elected, Democratic President. The use of the title President is also not purely propaganda; it is done because when referred to in foreign contexts, Xi's authority is derived qua his position as head of state, not his position as head of Party, which does not have sovereign status. Thus, the convention to refer to him as President in all diplomatic occasions, as is done for other Party-state leaders, like Nguyễn Phú Trọng of Vietnam (e.g. by the White House). Insofar as this article is literally about a conflict between two sovereign nations, following the standard diplomatic protocol seems to be all the more compelling. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Alexander Lukashenko, Paul Biya, and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo were all the heads of state of nominally democratic countries, nobody said anything about freely elected etc. Also just fyi Xi’s authority absolutely comes from the party first and the state second, remember that in China party is a level above state unlike a country like America where party is a level below state. Also why in the world would wikipedia ever follow diplomatic protocol? Thats an absurd proposition. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "nominal"? That the country in question characterizes itself as democratic, even if it is blatantly undemocratic? This can't be your standard, because China would certainly meet it, given how often Party-state media characterize China as democratic. In fact, not all of the leaders claim to be democratic–Lukashenko explicitly calls himself authoritarian. So your standard must be "any country with a Party-State structure like China should have its leader called by the party-used name." This at first seems to check out with how historical usage treated Soviet leadership, but that is only because a President of the Soviet Union quite literally did not exist until one year before its collapse. On the other hand, rarely was Fidel Castro referred to as First Secretary; almost universally, he was called Prime Minister or President. Ditto, Vietnamese and Lao leaders. Going with diplomatic protocol is reasonable insofar as it represents the norms for referring to heads of state of one-party states. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Updating with another example: Eritrea has not had elections in 28 years, and the National Assembly has not convened in 18 (per Politics of Eritrea); the People's Front for Democracy and Justice, chaired by Isaias Afwerki, is the only legal political party and the source of his power and authority, yet he is almost never called "Chairman Isaias Afwerki" as opposed to "President Isaias Afwerki" (in English contexts, I have no idea what he is called in local media in Tigrinya). WhinyTheYounger (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The BBC piece opens with "Alexander Lukashenko's victory in the presidential elections in Belarus came as no surprise to opposition supporters or Western observers.” As far as I know China doesn't have a general election for the president, even a sham one. One difference that should be noted is that President is the top office in each country you’ve mentioned so far, but in China its the third most powerful office. The only exceptions would be Vietnam and Cuba, in which the Presidency is inferior to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam just like it is in China. Also just a note, in most of those systems the President is also the commander in chief... Thats not true in the Chinese system, the civilian government has no control over the PLA which is a branch of the Party. The PLA swears allegiance to the Party not the state. We should address him by the most important office he holds, not the third most important. You also haven't presented any evidence that your preferred wording comports with diplomatic protocol, I trust you have a reliable source to share with us? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand that the President is not the most powerful office in China. If we are going only on the highest ranking, though, I am not sure why you would have even agreed to Paramount Leader in the first place, since that does not represent a formal office. Like I said, the standard should be conventional use: how Xi in generally referred to in similar contexts. Given that this is a conflict between two sovereign states, and Xi's authority vis-à-vis Narendra Modi is his status as head of state, not head of the CCP, President fits better than Secretary General. That is why I brought up Vietnam and Cuba: even though their status as "President" ranked below that of their status as secretaries of their respective parties, they were/are not generally called by that title unless it specifically about their relationship with said parties. Also, diplomatic protocol was proven in my link to the White House announcement. For more evidence: In addition to the State Department standard, "President" is also how the foreign ministries of Germany, Russia, and Japan all refer to him (the latter using 国家主席, the established translation for which is President of the People's Republic of China), to pick three other countries. I am positive the overwhelming majority of similar ministries bar Taiwan do the same. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick browse through the list shows that all the major newspapers in English routinely call him "Chinese president". Just restricting to The New York Times, it called him Chinese president 213,000 times vs. Chinese leader 47,900 times. The two are not mutually exclusive. But clearly The New York Times doesn't think calling him Chinese president is "sloppy" or wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s a malformed search query, almost none of the hits are from the NYT. — MarkH21talk 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • President. While I agree that the term is imperfect, the terms Paramount Leader and General Secretary present their own problems. First, Paramount Leader is not an actual, legal title for any formal office in the CCP or Chinese government, so that seems inappropriate. Second, both are potentially unclear/abstruse for readers not familiar with the Party-state and its naming conventions. To the average reader, President will convey the necessary information: Xi Jinping is the highest leader of China. Yes, the role is ceremonial, but General Secretary of the CCP is not a state position, and is thus strange to use in this context. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If we want to convey that he’s the highest leader why not use the title which actually conveys that? Implying that the President is the highest leader of China is misleading, they aren’t and not I don’t know any source that says they are. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
See above. My point is that General Secretary does not convey that any better than President, which as has been established, is the term that is overwhelmingly used in public discourse in English (as well as by other countries, see my comment above re: how German, Russia, and Japanese foreign ministries refer to him). Moreover, if we really want to get into nitpicky details, it is again important to note the reason why diplomatic standard is to address Xi as President: because that is the title by which he as the sovereign of a state has authority to represent China. The CCP, while it might wish otherwise, is not recognized as the government of China per se, which is why Xi does not visit other countries as the General Secretary of China, but as its President, which will absolutely be the case when he is speaking with India. Similarly, if Wang Yi were to travel to India as Foreign Minister, I guarantee you he would be referred to as the PRC foreign minister, even though State Councilor outranks that title. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Xi Jinping has been called General Secretary diplomatically by the Trump Administration and Secretary of State: 2019 WSJ report about how they’ve made it a point to not call Xi by “President”, usage as recent as yesterday. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China is also the highest-ranking official in the People’s Republic period. It’s not like it’s a party position that’s independent from the Chinese government system. — MarkH21talk 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
What the US Government advises people to call the Chinese head of state is irrelevant. It should even be met with heavy scepticism, due to the sour relations between the two. They are practically enemy superpowers right now; anything they say about the other is meant to bring them down. If China suddenly told everyone to call the President of the USA as "Supreme Leader of the United States" or "Republican Leader", would we consider it? I think that a lot of people, especially those in the West, should look at how they have double standards for the US and the PRC. JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will concede that it appears the current US administration deliberately avoids "President", apparently as a political move that seems predicated on the idea—debunked above in my comment about Presidents like Lukashenko and Amin—that the term is the exclusive domain of democrats. The existence of the report by WSJ underlines how novel/strange that it is that the administration avoids "president". The evidence I provide in the above thread with HorseEyedJack still shows that usage by global diplomatic bodies overwhelmingly prefers "President" to "General Secretary". This, again, makes sense: GS is for the Party, President is for the State. Yes, the Party is the State, but Trumpian flourish notwithstanding, the distinction is still clearly relevant, as it has been with Fidel Castro, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, and others. So we are back again at WP:RS; we should just go with the vast majority of sources in media and international relations use. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
President It's the "Prime Minister of India's" direct counterpart. If we write "General Secretary of the Communist Party of China", we should change "Prime Minister of India" to "Parliamentary Chairperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party of India". JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it’s the direct counterpart for the President of India Ram Nath Kovind since it’s a ceremonial head of state position. On the other hand, General Secretary is the highest ranking official and leader of China. — MarkH21talk 18:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake. I mean the "President of India"'s direct counterpart. If this article was about the Communist Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party, then it would be appropriate to use General Secretary and other party positions. But this article is about relations between two countries, so these people shouldn't be referred to with their partisan positions. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really an apples to apples comparison, since China is a one-party state. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Since we are talking about formal positions, China is formally a multi-party state with eight legally recognised political parties. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • General Secretary. Why not be more accurate with which role is relevant? If we can use the title that has power then we should. It wouldn't be useful information to use figurehead titles for any country (should we talk about Queen Elizabeth II for every major UK decision?). AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • President, simply because most RS describe him with the designation. It is of course imperfect as demonstrated above but it's still preferable over general secretary which is a party position. Moreover the occupant of the position does hold real power regardless of whether the title used itself is ceremonial, if this wasn't the case then the question of using an alternative would be more meritorious, imv. I don't see the relevance of paramount leader which has no formal stipulation nor is it used by the RS. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Based on this discussion, what should be interpreted? The majority is saying 'President' but there seems to be no consensus. What do you say: Trojanishere, MarkH21, Kautilya3? --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a very general aspect and only a handful of editors have commented, we can let the discussion sit for longer. — MarkH21talk 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the input. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this a request for comment? It looks like one but also is not in the list. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not. Will give this more time. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Does this discussion extrapolate to every single article of his or is only limited to this? Hasn't this discussion been done before somewhere else? Why is this even being discussed on this page. It should be discussed in the BLP. DTM (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
DTM has a point. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan and SerChevalerie: Yeah this is a bit confusing. I haven’t seen a centralized discussion about this elsewhere (although it may exist, there are several places where this could have taken place).
I’ll create a centralized RfC at Talk:Xi Jinping to resolve this across all articles clearly and simultaneously. — MarkH21talk 00:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

United States is a biased source

The United States government is an anti-communist and anti-Chinese government. I already proved this before. Their intelligence too ahs bene involved in working against their enemies, of course they will as they are a state arm. I got blocked before I could carry on the conversation, don't mean to do it endlessly but I hope I can gather a consensus. I recommend that Indian sources and American sources not be differentiated as they're both likely to be biased regardless of beligerence. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No government is a reliable source. And, for real reliable sources, we don't discriminate based on countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That isn't true. All governments are not biased against China or in favor of it. But there's probably no bigger enemy of China than USA, involved in verbal, diplomatic, economic and proxy conflict. It isn't a discrimination based on countries but their bias. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing "true" or "false" about it. I am telling you Wikipedia policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste: see WP:BIASED. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump administration has been involved in making baseless claims against China, whether it's CoVid or else. USA is definitely biased and I won't trust a country that had fought communism for decades. USA fulfils bias criteria to the hilt. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
LéKashmiriSocialiste, which sources exactly do you have a problem with? We have only summarised what the sources say, giving proper attribution wherever necessary (eg. "According to Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State,...", "The New York Times reported that..." etc. That's hardly problematic or biased. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
US News & World Report cites US intelligence to state 35 Chinese soldiers were killed. It's not hard to imagine US maybe trying to discredit and spread disinformation against someone it has been wary of for decades. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste, are you referring to the infobox? Because there is clear attribution there:

Other sources:
35 killed (15 June, per U.S. News & World Report)

SerChevalerie (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I suggest you check the source article. U.S. News & World Report admits to getting the figure of 35 killed from US intelligence. Read the article: [1]. Also I'll mention the relevant portion of the article which has US news & World Report saying it got it's figures from American intelligence: "American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News. " So there you have it, their original source is an enemy of China and communism. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why that's problematic to include in the article, given that it is attributed. I think we can close this discussion here. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It is problematic because United States intelligence is a biased source. But also the infobox doesn't attribute that US News & World Report got it from American intelligence. Biased sources should either be removed or it should be articulated who is the original source in the infobox. US News & World Report isn't the original source. This discussion can't be closed, because it is about following the rules and embracing a biased source even if that isn't the intention. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We can simply attribute it as

35 killed (15 June, per U.S. Intelligence)

SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I tried that originally, but someone reverted me earlier. Even if I actually pinpointed the actual source. Hopefully no one will needlessly revert. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We should revert to "PER USNEWS WORLD REPORT" because NO OTHER SOURCES (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, BBC, etc..) NO ONE has confirmed this, only US news. It is not natural, there is no other citation confirming this.Rwat128 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Modified as

Other sources:

On 15 June:

35 killed (per U.S. Intelligence, as reported by U.S. News & World Report)

SerChevalerie (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Background section

I recently made a number of edits to remove original research and claims that were not supported by citations and add additional context. Kautilya reverted them en masse, citing a specific small case. To avoid an editing war, I'll list the gist of my edits, and we can ideally hash out the issue here:

- The existing article repeatedly links to the article "Chinese land grabbing". A cursory look at the actual article in question finds that it regards controversial aggressive commercial purchases of territory by Chinese businesses or the Chinese government, which is of course inapplicable to warfare. As a result I removed the links.

- The existing article employs WP:N and WP:SYNTH while violating WP:NPOV to confidently allege Chinese engaging in a strategy known as "salami slicing", attributed to "observers." In reality, the citation is to a single Indian news article, while a separate case in which Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) denounces Chinese expansionism without making any "salami slicing" allegations is also cited despite being irrelevant to the claim. As a result, I separated out McConnell's comments and noted the specific sourcing of the allegation.

- The existing article mentions a Chinese military buildup in the background section. In fact, all the sources are from after the beginning of the crisis, and it's hence heavily misleading to list them in the background section. I distinguished that these events occurred chronologically in late May or early June after the skirmishes had begun, while keeping them in the background section.

- The existing article broadly mentions in the background section the 2017 Doklam standoff between India/China in Bhutan, and that "China has also been increasing its footprint with India's neighbours – Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan; so from India having a monopoly in the region, China is now posing a direct challenge to New Delhi's influence in South Asia." I added considerably more cited context to these background claims with details of Chinese improved relations with Nepal, Nepalese conflict with India, Chinese leasing of a Sri Lankan port, and Chinese relations with Pakistan. Kautilya3 specifically took issue with a specific passage here in which I described China as 'supporting' India during the 2019 Balakot airstrike clashes with Pakistan, citing [2]. I acknowledge that 'supporting India' is likely too strong of a descriptor [a better one would perhaps be "China refrained from supporting its traditional ally Pakistan, describing the Indian airstrike as aimed at terror installations and urging dialogue between the two nations"] and am willing to edit or remove that passage, but believe that it is unreasonable to remove the entirety of my edits based on this single case.

I realize that a number of authors have strong nationalistic feelings, being associated with the countries in question. As an American [not a citizen of the PRC or the Republic of India, though the U.S. tends to be anti-PRC], I understand that this may be personal for many editors as they feel their nation to be under attack, but Wikipedia is a resource that serves the entire world. Just as it would be unreasonable to rely entirely on American sources when discussing cases in which India and the United States have been opposed [e.g. the Bangladesh Liberation War, in which President Nixon foolishly supported Pakistan and ignored reports of genocide], it is not realistic to extend Indian sources to indicate a global opinion or consensus in its conflicts with China. I hope we can discuss this case constructively to work it out among us. Reyne2 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reyne2, a lot of people have contributed to this article, and I can't vouch for it all. So if there are any problematic statements in the page, please feel free to flag them or correct them. I would have no objection to such editing.
My problem is that you have WP:UNDUEly expanded the Background section, which is a common tendency of editors with almost all pages dealing with current political disputes. We only admit such content in the Background section as the reliable sources state as forming the background. When the connection is not immediate, we only depend on recognised experts (not random news commentaries). Secondly, when we do cover such "background" information, we do it in the most cursory way and avoid making contentious value judgements. Such judgements were in fact present in almost the entire content you have added. By the way, even your revised statement, "China refrained from supporting its traditional ally Pakistan, describing the Indian airstrike as aimed at terror installations" is not supported by the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So it's not a contentious value judgment or WP:UNDUE to state " One reason stated by observers is Chinese land grabbing involving encroaching upon small parts of enemy territory over a large period, a tactic also referred to as salami slicing" based on a single source, but it is to remove it. Got it. This is why I don't edit Wikipedia very much. Reyne2 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are some more sources. Please feel free to read them and cite them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Reyne2 that the statement on the "land grabbing" is WP:UNDUE, better sourcing is required. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A Galwan 'retaliation' by India?

According to a report by Deccan Herald, India launched a retaliation against the Galwan skirmish. Read this article by The Quint. Should this be mentioned here on Wikipedia?— Vaibhavafro 💬 11:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

These are talking about the same incident on 15/16 night. DTM (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition of citation

@Ritabharidevi: Please could you explain the intention behind this edit (addition of a citation to lead). DTM (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Public response

Teja srinivas, you have removed a section of "Public response in J&K and Ladakh", citing "disproportionate focus on tiny population of Kashmir while completely ignoring much larger public reaction in all of india". Fine upto this, but nothing is added in this article which is not backed by RS, not a propaganda section at all, so please don't address the tone of the writing rather respond to the substance of the argument. I think since the article was created every section has gone under microscope, the talk page is for that purpose only. So, please elaborate your argument describing what else you want to see in the section or which public response is missing from the article, you must suggest with reliable sources. Thank you.Drat8sub (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I reverted this as while J&K and Ladakh are tiny, there are also adjacent to the clashes. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Teja srinivas, Yes, that is one of the reasons I added the public response of only those two places - adjacent to the clashes. (I had Arunachal & Sikkim & HP in mind also) Also the larger public reaction has not been ignored at all, the economic response section is huge :D I also added two lines about the burning of the Chinese flag and Xi's puppets. Though I agree that there is matter out there that could expand this with a line or two more on India's reaction.
I was also thinking that the Reactions and International Reactions should be merged. But then even as it is seems alright.DTM (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The section has been partly expanded to convey more responses from India. It should be noted that the Incidents section is full of reactions. DTM (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

inflammatory BS

"Congressman Ted Yoho made a statement on 27 June saying that, "China's actions towards India fall in line with a larger trend of the Communist Party of China using the confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to launch large scale military provocations against its neighbours in the region, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Vietnam [...]"

This type of stuff severely depreciates Wikipedia.

200.68.142.26 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC) baden k.

I have toned down the statement seeing that those are just Member of Congress. Drat8sub (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(this is for the IP if still around) I don't get how this is depreciation? Care to elaborate a little more? DTM (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Shorten or remove entirely

Can I go ahead and remove these lines? Any objections or suggestions?:

After the clash, several Chinese military helicopters were spotted flying near the Indian border on at least two occasions. India deployed several Sukhoi Su-30MKI jets to the area. Reports that Chinese helicopters had repeatedly violated Indian airspace were denied by the Indian government.[86][87]

REASON: They say too little in too many words. What they do convey is not important or relevant. DTM (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Please feel free to remove them, and other similar lines that fall in the WP:NOTNEWS category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a large section in Eastern Ladakh that needs some work, in case anyone is up to it: According to Indian defence analyst..... to the end of the paragraph. It doesnt need to be that long does it? (I pray 🙏 someone is up for the copy-editing :D) DTM (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

An article in The Quint used for referencing the Sikkim section and an Indian solider punching a Chinese soldier is now blanked. The source says "This story has been removed pending editorial and legal review". There is no archived version. I guess the source should be removed along with any content that it solely supports. DTM (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Until the article is un-retracted by the publisher, that seems the best course of action. — MarkH21talk 12:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, I have run IABot on the page and have rescued the link. MarkH21 does make a good point, though. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie, thank you for finding the archived link!
I have removed the source as per above both comments above.
I shifted the major throwing a punch to efn. But even that is reported by The Quint with the same author who has been retracted above. I believe there is now no reliable source that covers the major punching on 10 May in Sikkim.
Should the efn also be removed? DTM (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, without a reliable source we go into WP:OR territory. You could keep it as a comment in the wiki markup, so that if any source is found in the future, it can be immediately restored. I don't support the efn without an RS.
Alternatively you could keep it in the efn and attribute it to the dead URL, now that we have found the archived link. Could mention why it's moved to the efn (i.e. because the original source is under review). SerChevalerie (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If it is retracted (or blanked pending review) by the publisher, I support removing it from Wikipedia. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Both keeping (as wiki markup or efn attributed to dead link) and removing the content in question makes sense... DTM (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Soldiers captured 15/16, shuffling of content

I am shifting these two lines from the lead into the body (interesting to note that there is no mention of this in the body as per MOS:LEAD requirement other than the line Some Indian soldiers had also been momentarily taken captive):

Several news outlets stated that 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese on 18 June.[11] An unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[19]

And replacing it with a shorter:

Media reports stated that soldiers were taken captive on both sides and released in the coming few days

Also, the only source to say that Chinese soldiers were captured is by former Army Chief Gen VK Singh who is now a legislator. So that should be mentioned accordingly.

Several news outlets stated that 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese on 18 June.[11] According to Gen VK Singh an unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[19]

If anyone can write the lead line in a better way please do so. Accordingly I am removing the better source needed template. (This whole taking captives business is shady, unlike the Abhinandan Varthaman one, but oh well....) DTM (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why I've been trying to change Indian "sources" to Indian "claims". Non of these "sources" are confirmed nor are the reliable. Third party doesn't mean they are reliable. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, lead should be summarised but that does not mean you should not put numbers when a specific numbers are available for one side. Secondly, you have removed but where did you add details in the body?? I did not find that in the body. Please let me know.
YuukiHirohiko, I think you got this whole thing totally wrong. Indian sources means sources from India, means news reportage, press, media. And Indian claims means, claimed by Indian Govt. or Indian Army. Thats why its Indian source, not claims. Indian Govt or Army did not claim any number of casualties till date. I hope you go it. Drat8sub (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft8sub, I found that explanation helpful, thanks. Didn't realise that the Indian government or Army has not made any official claims. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Drat8sub: Whenever you can't find something, a good way is to use the find/search tool. Can you now find where it is? DTM (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added to the lead the numbers as per above, "On the Indian side ten soldiers were reported to have been taken captive while the Chinese numbers remain unconfirmed." DTM (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Chinese Foreign Ministry and the Indian Army denied any detention of Indian soldiers according to al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/china-releases-indian-soldiers-days-ladakh-clash-reports-200619033527314.html) So I added a little about it. I am new, so I don't know much. Any improvisation about it is appreciated.Anonymous2611 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Logic for removing content

@MarkH21: I think your edit summary logic is very weak "a single US congressman out of 435 isn’t due for international reactions" Please DO NOT take advantage of this situation of lack of oversight and the implementation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. DTM (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: If you're referring to this edit, sorry I meant two Congressmen instead of one in my edit summary. The previous version (up until this edit) attributed the reaction solely to Ted Yoho and Ami Bera, who are indeed just two members of the US House of Representatives out of its 435 members.
It's not really due weight to note tweets from lawmakers who aren't in major positions from the various third party countries in "International Reactions". For comparison, the rest of the US bullet currently only includes statements from the US President, Secretary of State, Senate Majority Leader, and Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The section should be limited to statements from prominent officials/agencies. — MarkH21talk 07:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! DTM (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

China reactions

Since there are some suggestions above related to missing reactions from China - I have created a new sub section for it and started it off with China arresting a netizen for spreading rumours relating to the Galwan clash. DTM (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, read that today, quite interesting !! Drat8sub (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Quite a bit of expansion still needed though making sure there isn't too much overlap! DTM (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

According to HT

According to a Hindustan Times article, these PLA chaps are also part of the Ladakh aggression entourage (and not already mentioned in the article):

  1. Lt Gen Haijiang Wang, Commander, Tibet Military District // same person Wang Haijiang DTM (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Lt Gen Liu Wanglong, Commander, Xinjiang Military District
  3. Major General Liu Geping, Commander Qinghai Military District

How about mentioning them in a footnote? The infobox is getting quite big, or maybe collapsible section. DTM (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Can be introduced in the infobox with collapsible box, if true. Any other citations??? Drat8sub (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Sun Weidong's statements

The Hindu article on his statements actually had a misleading headline, with the word "unilaterally" being skipped:

'Clarifying LAC could create new disputes: Chinese envoy'[1]

He did not say that China is against delimiting the LAC, he said China is against unilaterally delimiting the LAC.

Here is what he actually said:

"If one side unilaterally delimits the LAC as per its own understanding during the negotiations, that could create new disputes and that would be a departure from the original purpose of clarification of the LAC."

Yes - China has refused to demarcate the LAC since 2002/03, but the cited source doesn't support what's mentioned in the main article. Better sources are needed. Either we should include the word "unilaterally" in the main text, or include additional sources.

Can @Drat8sub please clarify why this edit was reverted?

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure, is that all you did in your edits?? Your edits were reverted because, you have removed a lot of sourced content per BRD and with that misleading edit summary when something is added with consensus was enough for me to revert. Drat8sub (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
You have added some materials too, can be added, will check. Drat8sub (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I never said thats all I edited. This Talk section is only about one particular edit I made. Everything I edited is available for all to see. The edit summary is just a summary - it need not contain EVERY single detail that is edited, since that record is already available. You just sweepingly reverted :::ALL of my edits without discussion (good way to make new editors feel welcome btw), saying that all the originals were arrived by consensus, yet, I don't see much discussion of those topics on the Talk page at all.
Thanks for offering to check my other edits. It's probably a good idea to check edits BEFORE reverting them.
Also - you didn't answer the question of THIS talk section.
Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Honoredebalzac345: Which better/additional sources are you referring to? DTM (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources available to say that China has stalled the process of LAC demarcation since 2002-03. It's a well known fact regarding the border negotiations. As a compromise, we can do this: correct what is attributed to him (by including the word "unilaterally" and quoting him properly) - and then include a line stating the above fact about LAC demarcation, with sources. How does that sound? That will give readers the complete context. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/clarifying-lac-could-create-new-disputes-chinese-envoy/article32232724.ece

"Further reading" section

The section is growing larger, currently at 13 sources. I understand that they're high quality and provide a more detailed outlook on the subject, but can they be trimmed down to somewhere between 5 to 10? SerChevalerie (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's okay with everyone, we could move some of them to be inline references. I volunteer to do this. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
+1. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
No, please don't do that. If they are in "Further reading", we at least know that they are possibly junk and need to be trimmed. If you move them to citations, the junk will remain there for ever.
Personally, I don't see a problem with a long Further reading list. The situation is evolving. If anybody reads one of these sources and finds them pointless, please feel free to remove them, citing your reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I am volunteering to do exactly that, filter out the possible junk and move the more important ones to inline sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 DTM (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Have trimmed it down to 10 now. Added info on China possibly being upset with India over India-US "flirting". SerChevalerie (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on sources

Have currently removed the below sources from the section, since I don't think they add much of "Further reading" value:

  1. Mathew, Liz (19 June 2020). "After Doklam, House panel had urged govt to be wary of China". The Indian Express.
  2. Tharoor, Shashi (24 June 2020). "Driving India into US arms is a risk China is willing to take". South China Morning Post.
  3. Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (26 June 2020). "How did India manage to lose its neighbourhood? Answers lie at home". The Indian Express.
  4. Bhushan, Bharat (26 June 2020). "China Crisis: What Are India's Options Beyond Aligning With US?". TheQuint.
  5. "China sent martial artists to LAC before deadly clash: State media". Al Jazeera. Agence France-Presse. 28 June 2020.

(1) is a report on the parliamentary panel's advice after the Doklam conflict.
(2), (3), (4) are opinion pieces about what the Indian government could do, moving forward; whether we should ally with the US or not.
(5) is a news report about how Chinese "martial artists" were brought to Ladakh just before the Galwan skirmish. Five new militia divisions, including former members of a Mount Everest Olympic torch relay team and fighters from a mixed martial arts club, presented themselves for inspection at Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, on June 15, official military newspaper China National Defense News reported.

I don't see much value in keeping the first (2), (3), (4) as "Further reading", since they are succinct opinion pieces anyway. (1) could be moved inline to describe the situation before the skirmishes (maybe in "Diplomatic response", although that has more to do with our ties with China). (5) could be moved inline to describe the situation at Galwan just before and during the skirmish, in some part of the "Eastern Ladakh" section. Do let me know what you all think. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please double check

Does the references say the same thing that this line says in the lead: In the beginning of August 2020, Government of China's customs data showed that Chinese exports to India had fallen by 25% as compared to the previous year for the same period. The two references used basically report the same data:

This is important enough to get its own sub-header right; or do I merge it with the rest of the economic sanctions section? DTM (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: It doesn't say that the decline was due to the sanctions or boycotts, but only notes that the decline came during a time of increased calls for boycotts. So I'm not sure it can be labeled plainly as "Consequences of economic sanctions". If there is to be a subsection header, perhaps something like "Decline in Chinese imports" may be more faithful to the source. — MarkH21talk 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I actually think the fall has more to do with the pandemic lockdown and government measures during the lockdown in relation to China rather than the aftermath of the border dispute.

India’s imports from China, its largest trading partner in goods, had fallen to a record low of $3.2 billion both in the months of April and May, coinciding with India’s lockdown on account of the pandemic. Imports subsequently rose to $4.8 billion in June and further to $5.6 billion in July, almost back to the pre-lockdown level of $5.8 billion reported in March, in part, economists said The Hindu 11 August

This particular article from The Hindu doesn't even mention the border clash. DTM (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tibetan Government in Exile

Can someone please clarify why we are including the Tibetan government in exile as reliable sources, and that too on multiple locations? No government in the world recognizes them. In what universe are their views considered important enough to be published here?

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why it's not a reliable source. "No government in the world recognizes them."– the statement does not go well with NPOV. And in that Universe which the govt. is about, and that universe is called Tibet, and the Chinese consider Ladakh as a part of Tibet. Drat8sub (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
But surely, the burden of proof is on the original editor? The person who added it has to clarify why it IS a RS, not the other way round?
Also - no, Chinese do not consider Ladakh as par of Tibet. Point out one statement made by the PRC government were it claims that Ladakh is part of Tibet. In fact, they don't even consider Aksai Chin to be part of Tibet; most of it is included in XUAR.
Moreover, even if they did, that would have nothing to do with the TIbetan govt in exile in Dharamshala, that has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Any fringe group can start an exile government anywhere. The Tibetan government in exile has nothing to do with Tibet. Nor do they represent the Tibetan people. It's not clear why their views on India-China clashes are considered important enough to be included here.
Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Also - why is "Tibet" listed as a country under "International Reactions". Is Tibet a country? Why is it listed among all other recognized countries?
Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Honoredebalzac345: "But surely, the burden of proof is on the original editor?" - Really? And didn't you notice Taiwan too? Why shouldn't that be removed too in the same way as Tibet? DTM (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I think Honoredebalzac345 is referring to WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
Taiwan is formally recognized by 14 UN member states. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile is formally recognized by 0 UN member states. That said, the reaction of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile is a relevant viewpoint for the China-India skirmishes along the Ladakh-Tibet border despite it not being a recognized country. — MarkH21talk 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the Taiwan point - there's no equivalence between Taiwan and Tibet. And if there is consensus on including the views of that "government", fine - its already quoted earlier on the page. But I disagree that it should be quoted in the 'International reactions' section, which only includes self-governing countries and multi-national organizations like the UN, not non-government organizations. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, Honoredebalzac345, the Central Tibetan Administration article says The Tibetan diaspora and refugees support the CTA by voting for members of Parliament, the President and making annual financial contributions..... Its internal structure is government-like; it has stated that it is "not designed to take power in Tibet"; rather, it will be dissolved "as soon as freedom is restored in Tibet" in favor of a government formed by Tibetans inside Tibet.... that doesn't sound like a normal private company... take the CCP in China... is that legitimate?... is CCP a legitimate representation of the people of China? And who said the international reaction/response section is limited to governments? The header just says "international reactions". We could easily create another subheader for CTA if no one is willing to budge. DTM (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
As much as I would love to hear your views on the legitimacy of the CCP and the Tibetan govt in exile, this is not the right place for it. We are not here to pass OUR judgement, but to pass the judgement of RSes.
For other pages, the standard structure is (I've done this myself) to have different subsections under 'International Reactions' e.g. Countries, Organizations etc. Then we can have the Tibetan govt in exile under 'Organizations'. So I agree with you, we can create a subheader.
10:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Honoredebalzac345 (talk)

Key or No Key

Kautilya3, I have started a timeline for this article since copy-editing the diplomatic section was becoming confusing, it is only in prose just now. It also makes it easier for condensing the matter now in a more complete way >> Timeline of 2020 China–India border standoff. I wanted common events to somehow be grouped together, so I created a key. Is the key alright or should the key be removed, I haven't seen timeline with a key, however I have seen colour coded tables? DTM (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: It's not clear to me that the key is actually very helpful. The distinction between "notable skirmish" and "skirmish” isn’t clear, for instance, while whether a meeting between officials of both countries was "bilateral" or an announcement by one country was "unilateral" should be inherently clear. It adds more visual clutter in my opinion than it serves a clarifying role.
Also we should probably move this discussion to that article's talk page? — MarkH21talk 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, the explanation makes sense. Since the page has been sorted out I will just go ahead and move this discussion to the timeline talk page. DTM (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Timeline of the 2020 China–India skirmishes
DTM (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A usable quote?

Even though it is an opinion piece, it could still be considered for inclusion in the article right? Will this be India's reaction or China's reaction to India's reaction? (Source: CGTN - Indian media mustn't react irresponsibly to the Galwan incident - Andrew Korybko - 22 June)

The Indian people were under the false impression that their country was a "superpower," which is why the latest events are so shocking to them. A lot of them simply can't accept that China successfully defended its territorial integrity from Indian aggression. CGTN

DTM (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, obviously not. It is propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
An opinion piece can't be used to describe India's reaction nor to describe China's reaction unless it happened to be from a subject-matter expert (WP:RSOPINION) or an official from either government (WP:ABOUTSELF). This one clearly is not either. — MarkH21talk 11:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Unless its an opinion piece from an Indian or western analyst. Then they can be used as much as one wants, apparently.Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the quote could/should be used. Honoredebalzac345 has a point. There are already Indian opinion pieces in the article. They should be removed then. DTM (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel this particular quote seems odd without context. The source has some other opinions to offer, which could alternatively be considered:

Instead of seeking to calm tensions between the two neighbors, Indian media is dangerously pressuring the authorities to undertake another military adventure to save face.

or

They're attempting to play people like puppets by convincing them that the best course of action is to boycott Chinese products even though this would amount to serious self-inflicted harm to the already beleaguered Indian economy since China is its largest trade partner...

SerChevalerie (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh no Chinese opinions are propaganda but Indian opinions and literal US Senate backed opinions need to stay. Logic? YuukiHirohiko (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020–2021_China–India_skirmishes/Archive_4&oldid=1113875181"