Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

China has crossed into Indian territory

Reports are coming out mostly on twitter, but articles like this one of The Print are also being written. Therefore, the skirmish is ongoing and the article will be edited to reflect this. Note that details are unclear at the moment since this is recent information, so there will be a degree of inaccuracy as always. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Galwan standoff location

This is where the standoff is happening, literally on the door to the Shyok valley. The distance from there to the LAC is a little over 4 km. The width of the valley at that point is about 400 m. It progressively narrows as it goes up before becoming essentially a water channel. The reports seem to imply that the Chinese brought heavy equipment through there, and came ready to build bunkers! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is so much easier to understand all this on a map! I don't think it is even possible without a map for the lay person! DTM (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Just recording that Nathan Ruser has disagreed with this interpretation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The maps in this are also interesting. article with maps DTM (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And India Today walks the mile for this map! DTM (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Shyam Saran Report

Is the Shyam Saran Report 2013 mentioned in this Indian Express opinion piece a good addition here? Should mention of it be removed, more so as it isn't needed in the background of this particular article? I have also added a contradictory citation Shyam Saran denies any report on Chinese incursions. But the mention by an Indian Ambassador is revealing as to how serious all this is in terms of area - "India having lost 640 sq km due to “area denial” set by PLA patrolling". DTM (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New section naming

Please do not change the section "strategic talk" to something merely as "reactions". I agree something better than "strategic talk" can be used. Please help find a better name. Thanks. DTM (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The section will duly be expanded of course. DTM (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How about "International response"? SignificantPBD (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the section should signify just "response" but rather interactive cause and effect. Response seems like one statement and that's it. I have labelled it has "strategic diplomacy", how's this? Actually "international response" and "strategic diplomacy" even denote separate things, meaning both could find their way into the article. DTM (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

I am unable to edit the page due to some sort of protection, so can someone add Indo-Tibetan Border Police to the list of Indian units involved? The ITBP is a paramilitary force different from the Indian Army, and is the defending force on the Indo-China border (contrary to its name, ITBP defends the LAC with Aksai Chin which is, according to the Chinese, a part of Xinjiang and not Tibet). SignificantPBD (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look at this article: [1], which says, "The sources said that the joint patrolling team of the army and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) were “completely overwhelmed when an unusually large body of PLA troops, eight times the usual size of a battalion (about 1,000 combat men) took over points near the Pangong Lake in the Galwan Valley” of Ladakh." SignificantPBD (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have severe doubts about the status of The Quint as a [[WP:RS}reliable source]] and its quoting of unnamed military sources makes that status doubly-doubtful. Looking through previous threads about The Quint at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard shows that opinion on its usefulness as a source for verifiability purposes is mixed. I suggest you find some independently corroborating sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The only other reference that I can find is [2]. Although this article does not explicitly mention any ITBP personnel being involved in the skirmishes, it does state that ITBP is India's first line of defence on the LAC which makes it quite obvious that it is involved in the border tensions. Since this article covers the overall border tensions and not the few physical confrontations, this source should be good enough. SignificantPBD (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Unfortunately, that's not a good enough source. WP:SYNTH specifically enjoins against taking different sources and saying A + B = C. Which specific forces are involved in border confrontations is a significant detail so we would require a good, reliable source saying that both the ITBP and the Army were involved. One doubtful source saying that plus one source that doesn't say that at all but could be read that way if you add in other information does not meet the Core Content Policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, and for putting forward your concerns in such a clear manner. SignificantPBD (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Recent news articles from trustworthy sources verify the involvement of the ITBP in the border skirmishes.

• India-China border standoff: More Army troops, ITBP men moved to Ladakh
• Covid-19 delayed Indian exercise, Chinese moved into key positions

Hence, I am taking the liberty of making the edit now. SignificantPBD (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

BJP MPs attend Taiwan event

Can this be added as one of the triggers in the article?

As Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen was sworn in on Wednesday for a second term, two Members of Parliament from India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were among the dignitaries from 41 countries who sent in messages of congratulation that were played at the inaugural ceremony...the two MPs were among 92 foreign dignitaries from 41 countries, who were virtually present at the event via video messages. (The Hindu)

DTM (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read about any defence or diplomatic expert linking the growing Indo-ROC relations with the border tensions. There are many bitter points in the Indo-PRC relationship, but not all of them can be a trigger for military movement.

SignificantPBD (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any conspiracy theories related to this. Just like there is an entire page for COVID conspiracies. Or maybe the best way forward would just be to find all the reasons and list them in the article so as to give a better overview to readers. DTM (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There are many possible reasons behind the Chinese aggression, but most of them are defence-specific. Take for example this report: [3] which hints at the Chinese plan to widen the de-facto Sino-Pak border by connecting Aksai Chin to Gilgit-Baltistan through Ladakh. Such reports may look like conspiracy theories simply because of their sheer impact in the Asian geopolitics, but they are backed by prominent experts. On the other hand, events like Indian MPs virtually participating in Taiwanese President's swearing-in ceremony, or India tightening its control over Chinese FDI, are surely notable political and economical incidents but linking them to the border tensions would be an overstatement. SignificantPBD (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

How about the Second Cold War as a reason? DTM (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be interesting to make a simple list of all the reasons the media has put out there for the current dispute:

• REASON 1:
• REASON 2:
• REASON xyz:

DTM (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump quote

Flaughtin, did you have any specific quote or link in mind when you said this " if anybody should get a quote it's Trump because he is the one making the remark"? DTM (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DiplomatTesterMan no, I think the Pompeo one is good enough although if you have to put a Trump quote in his tweet about playing the role of mediator would be best. Flaughtin (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. DTM (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AV source vs Print media?

This revert by Kautilya3 made me think if WP has a preference against video sources, which led me to Wikipedia:Video links. It says that a video can be used as a reference if it adheres to the usual reliability standards. Hence I have reinstated the comment by Rtd. General Hasnain. If someone is aware of any WP policy which makes a distinction between video and textual references, please provide a link in this section. Thanks. SignificantPBD (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that we generally prefer print media. But I have reverted it not only because it was AV, but also because it is too much of an opinion about supposed China's big strategy rather than about the immediate issues. There are hundreds of opinions like these in the media. So, why this one in particular? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I should also complain that there is not enough being written about facts, the actual happenings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is no definite policy in place, a case-by-case analysis is required. You have to understand that there cannot be a proven reasoning behind China's sudden aggression. All we have are speculations by various military and diplomatic experts. The theory of Himalayan sector being a distraction to limit Indian naval presence in the IOR, and particularly the Malacca Strait, is just one of those speculations. When you say that hundreds of these float around in the media, it needs to be realized that not all of them are notable enough by WP standards. Even if multiple notable expert opinions exist, there is no reason for us to choose to include only a subset of those. Also, that comes with the inherent risk of applying our own personal judgement on these opinions which is surely not how an ideologically neutral encyclopedia should be written. As far as your desire for more factual information is concerned, let me add that I share it with you. But its lack is somewhat obvious because of the highly complex nature of the LAC and the differing facts being told by the media. Unlike strategic speculations regarding the cause, the actual happenings on the ground cannot be presented as opinions. That is why I am mostly interested in the diplomatic fallout of the skirmishes, and that gets reflected in my edits. SignificantPBD (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. The WP:BURDEN for arguing for inclusion of content rests on those who want to include it. Nothing says that Generals are proven experts on international relations and their analysis of why a foreign power is behaving in a certain way has any validity. Nor is the Republic TV best known for authoritative reporting or analysis.

Moreover, in an international dispute, you cannot load up the page with one side's analysis of the other side. That is inherently WP:POV. If you want to include opinions, please find established WP:THIRDPARTY experts on international relations and Chinese studies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark and Vanamonde93:, can you please explain to this editor why an AV media is not a good source for this kind of a subject? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

While there is nothing wrong with quoting expert opinions, we should err on the side of caution when using a primary source (a video in which the opinion is stated falls in that category) because they are not contextualized. If you can find reliable secondary sources that reference that opinion, that would be the better way to go. --regentspark (comment) 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I have justified the inclusion of the comment. If you still have doubts regarding the notability of the speaker, please note that Hasnain is the former commander of the 15 Corps of the Indian Army (which looks after the Kashmir region), and his opinion pieces have been published in various mainstream media sources like the Indian Express, Firstpost, Deccan Chronicle, etc. I don't know how else would one define an expert. As far as your want for inclusion of the Chinese analysis is concerned, please feel free to add it yourself. Anyway my understanding is that the Chinese sources aren't much clear on what they perceive to be the cause, but I am no avid reader of the Global Times.

@RegentsPark Your comment regarding a secondary source being a better option is valid, but there are limitations regarding that; one can't expect an NDTV referring to a Republic TV interview because of purely competitive reasons. A lot of these limitations have been discussed at Wikipedia:Interviews. As far as the official policy (WP:PSTS) is concerned, note that I indirectly quoted the expert instead of analyzing his comment. This is an acceptable use of a primary source.

Surprisingly, I have already used up a lot of my effort and time to justify a quite simple edit. Hopefully you folks are satisfied with my response. SignificantPBD (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the actual edit, and probably shouldn't because I can't judge the credibility of either the general or the program where he made the statement. But, in principle, I do think it better to avoid direct references to primary sources because secondary sources are necessary to properly interpret them. For example, if X says Y about Z in a primary source, a secondary source can contextualize the statement Y both by placing it in the proper context of Z as well as within what is known about X. This also happens to be our policy (WP:PRIMARY). Notice that the example of use is "passages to describe the plot" of novels. Assuming the general said what you write, the fact that they said it is a fact, but it is completely uncontextualized. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What RegentsPark said. Comments by a talking head on television are approximately equal to an interview or op-ed by the same person in a print source, and we would not usually give those much weight unless they're an expert in the field. While army generals do have expertise, they may also be heavily invested in these events, and as such their opinions need to be treated with great caution. This is particularly true when the host service is Republic TV, whose tendency to take strong and/or polarizing positions has been widely noted in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pangong Lake intricacies

LAC and claim lines

Official declaration of the Chinese boundary

"Q. 23. What was the exact point where the alignment cut the western half of Pangong Lake? And what was the exact point where it left the Pangong Lake?
A. The co-ordinates of the point where it reached the Pangong Lake were Long. 78° 49' E, Lat. 33° 44' N. It crossed to the southern bank of the lake at a point Long. 78° 43' E, Lat. 33° 40' N. Then it went in a south-easterly direction along the watershed dividing the Tongta river and the other rivers flowing into the Spanggur Lake, till it reached Mount Sajum.

Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, 1960, Part 1, p. 53

Both OpenStreetMap (which says it using the LSIB database) and Google show the LAC at Finger 4.

They also show the same line as the Chinese claim line [4], even though to the south of the lake, a Chinese editor has recently made a change.

The Indian claim line is to the right of the Khurnak Fort [5]. So, it is well beyond all the "fingers". (The finger 8, the last one I had heard of, just about reaches Sirijap). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have put in the side box the official statement made by Chinese officials in 1960 as to where their 'traditional boundary' lay. When I checked those coordinates, I was shocked to discover that they were at Finger 8! So the Indian media has been telling the truth all along. The Chinese do seem to have encroached into Finger 4 in recent years. I also found a news report from 2013, which says that the Chinese had recently constructed a road up to Finger 4. The OpenStreetMap line is also from 2013 based on LSIB3 released in that year. The news report says:

However, as the Indian side was trying to back its claim at the negotiating table, the Chinese Army constructed a metal-top road and claimed the area to be part of Aksai Chin area, the sources said, adding many a times the Indian army has used the same road to patrol the area and lay claim over it.

I am really, really shocked! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering Tibet is an occupied country, immorally and illegally seized by China, I hope your shock is getting better rapidly ...

Chinese road

The Chinese road at the moment comes all the way up to the end of Finger 4 on the right side, where it has a turnaround [6]. (I can grant you that Google satellite images could be a few months old. But I would say the whole point of putting a turnaround there is to declare it to be the terminal.)

The last stretch from Sirijap to Finger 4 was added on OpenStreetMap in December 2016 [7]. The other stretch from Khurnak Fort to Sirijap was also added at the same time [8].

The road to Khurnak Fort (a primary road) was added in 2013 [9]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that a "metal-top road" was built up to Finger 4 in 2013 or earlier. But the Chinese maps probably did not publish it till 2016, which explains the delay in it making into the OpenStreetMap. The Chinese might have also been prevented from using the road for several years. But a well-covered incident in 2016 invoving a high-powered PLA contingent seems to have brought it into the open. ITBP men intercepted them, after they came 5.5 km into the Indian territory (which would put them close to Finger 4).

A garbled reference in another news story indicates that the ITBP men went there by boat, from the Thakung post on the southern shore.

Claude Arpi wrote about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Indian road

The Indian road to Finger 3 was added in 2013 [10]. At that time it was classified as an "unclassified road". About a year ago, it was marked as a tertiary road, with asphalt surfacing.

The previous stretch was added in 2016 [11] but the original stretch from Phobrang was added in 2013 [12]. So, somehow the middle piece got left out for 3 years. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Some Indian media claims

The Indian media have been putting out various claims, which I find quite dubious. I will take some of them from this India Today article.

• China had built road up to 5 km on the Indian side of the LAC in 1999, during the Kargil war with Pakistan.

There is no sign of any Chinese road on the Indian side of the LAC. The OpenStreetMap edits indicate that the stretch of the road from Khurnak Fort to Finger 4 might have been built during 2013–2016. Some of the ground work could have been done during the Kargil War however.

• China, on the other hand, says the LAC passes through Finger 2. It has been patrolling up to Finger 4- mostly in light vehicles, and at times up to Finger 2.

If China claims up to Finger 2, it is does not seem to be published anywhere. As far as we know, the Chinese claim line coincides with the LAC, which is at Finger 4.

• The confrontation that took place in May happened at Finger 5. And, the current theatre of eye-to-eye confrontation is Finger 2, where the Chinese rushed in the aftermath of the confrontation.

I think both the claims are dubious. Some confrontation could have taken place at Finger 5. But it is unlikely that 72 Indian soldiers went to patrol beyond Finger 4 and got injured in scuffles. Finger 2 is also unlikely because Indians have infrastructure and ready backup there whereas the Chinese would be on foot. The most likely scene of confrontation is likely to be between Finger 3 and Finger 4 where both the Indians and the Chinese are equally disadvantaged. Lt. Gen. Panag also suggests this [13]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A statement in NDTV says:

• The likely trigger for the face-off was China's stiff opposition to India laying a key road in the Finger area around the Pangong Tso Lake and the construction of another road connecting the Darbuk-Shayok-Daulat Beg Oldie road in Galwan Valley.

The first claim is dubious because as we have seen above, the road construction by India and China in the Panggong Lake area happened around the same time, during 2013–2016. Moreover, the Chinese road comes right up to the LAC whereas the Indian road stops a "finger" away. So it is hard to see how the Chinese could be objecting to the road construction. Rather, the problem, according to Lt Gen Panag, is that India has built a post at Finger 3. While Gen Panag says the Chinese also have a post at Sirijap, it is not really much of a post. There is a jetty and two buildings. It is more like a rest area than a post meant for long-term stationing of troops.

As for the second claim, it is true that the Chinese object to the Indian road construction in the Galwan valley. The Indian intent would seem to be to lay a road right up to the LAC whereas the Chinese roads in the Galwan valley are about 20 km away. So, China is likely asking for parity.

The Indians are likely to respond that the Indian constructions are in undisputed territory whereas the Chinese infrastructure is in territory claimed by India. In the Demchok sector, for example, India has told its own people that the Chinese infrastructure building was within its own territory and so it could not object to it (even though India was abiding by the restrictions that the Chinese had imposed). So there seem to be differing interpretations of the agreements that are in place. How this gets resolved remains to be seen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Lt Gen Panag is being given a lot of weightage. DTM (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I just disagreed with one of Panag's comments. But, in general, if the quality of information pushes some commentators to the top, that is only to be welcomed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There could be road-building involved. The satellite picture shows the beginning of road construction going around Finger 3. But this has to be understood in the context of the post at Finger 3. If completed, this road would dramatically reduce the post-to-LAC access for Indians, without any comparable infrastructure on the Chinese side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Some Chinese media claims

• According to Chinese military sources quoted by the news agency [Global Times], India has "built defence fortifications and obstacles to disrupt Chinese border defence troops' normal patrol activities".

This is consistent with Lt Gen Panag's observation that the Chinese object to the post at Finger 3. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

News18 is an Indian source providing Indian claims

Kautilya3, CNN is citing its affiliate News18, headquartered in Noida and Nagar, owned by Network18 Group headquartered in Mumbai and owned by Reliance Industries. Therefore, it would be accurate to label the casualties figure as an Indian claim. Additionally, Hindustan times quotes the Indian army, who are giving the same numbers (4 Indian and 7 Chinese soldiers) as News18. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS and better find a reliable source if you want to undermine the numbers. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the CNN story attributes it to News18, but the word "claim" or anything resembling it wasn't used. If there are multiple figures stated in RS, we might distinguish them from each other by calling them claims. When there is no such disagreement, labelling something as a "claim" in inappropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess it should be labelled as 'Indian official figures' or 'Per India', since the numbers seem to be those of the Indian armed forces, but sounds more credible as you said. Aman.kumar.goel, as Kautilya3 said, the IA's numbers are the only ones that have been provided so far. SpicyBiryani (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Stated reasons for current dispute

China

1. Wang Shida, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, current tensions along the LAC linked to a change the status of Jammu and Kashmir, backed by BJPs "double confidence" in its vote share, and US relations.
2. ?
3. ?

India

1. Raja Mohan, growing power imbalance between China and India is the main cause of the dispute, with everything else such as location of the dispute or international ties of India, being mere detail.
2. Ashok Kantha, these skirmishes are part of a growing Chinese assertiveness in both the Indo-China border and the South China sea.
3. Phunchok Stobdan, Chinese are trying to take the Pangong Tso lake, which could essentially force India to redraw its borders, also possibly even exposing the Siachen Glacier to Chinese presence.
4. General Syed Ata Hasnain, skirmishes are a means of strategic messaging to China's neighbours in a post-COVID world, and to make India prioritize the Himalayan sector over the maritime Indian Ocean region, which is more vulnerable for the Chinese.
5. Pravin Sawhney, cause of the current standoff is the division of Jammu-Kashmir into two union territories, infrastructure development to construct a feeder road in the Galwan valley to link up the DSDBO road. Amit Shah declared in parliament that Aksai Chin was part of the Ladakh UT.
6. Siddiq Wahid, "BJP’s ideological zealotry, political impatience and deficit in geo-strategic sensibility [...] cartographic assertiveness ignores the reality that the territory of erstwhile J&K is disputed, even by its strategic ally the United States, let alone China". BJP ministers claiming that all that now remains is for India to regain Gilgit and Baltistan. What was once a bilateral dispute, BJP has made it a multilateral one.
7. Gautam Bambawale, cause is the division of Jammu-Kashmir into two union territories.
8. Ashley J. Tellis part of "China’s salami-slicing tactics" in the rest of Asia, encounters and significant buildup "suggests a high degree of Chinese premeditation", result of bifurcation of JK. Impact of COVID-19.
9. Happymon Jacob, New Delhi’s comments about Aksai Chin last year, infrastructure development, Beijing sending a message to New Delhi to get in line, reminder for "finalising a border agreement with China".
10. ?

World

1. Taylor Fravel said that China is responding to India's infrastructure development in Ladakh, such as the DSDBO road. He also added that it is a show of strength for China amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, which originated in Wuhan and has damaged both the Chinese economy and its diplomatic relationships.
2. Jeff M. Smith bears some similarity with what has been going at the Sino-Indian border before, more volatile than before.
3. ?
4. ?

DTM (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess the reasoning is saturating itself now. DTM (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Wild comment?

Can someone tell the reasoning behind this edit: [14]? I don't understand how a former ambassador's comment is "wild". SignificantPBD (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is an op-ed. And nobody else has expressed such an extreme view. The gentleman was an ambassador to Kyrgizstan, for 2 years. That doesn't make him an expert on China. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The importance of Stobdan's assessment lies in the fact that he is from Ladakh. Anyway, my understanding is that Wikipedia leaves the task of assessing the "notability" of a statement to trustworthy third-party media outlets, which makes it quite clear that Stobdan's statement should find a place in this article. SignificantPBD (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

He was the "Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Jammu & Kashmir" as per mpidsa. But if you read what is written, maybe my paraphrasing makes the statement seem even wilder. I have cut out the entire middle part.

Overall, the pattern shows the PLA’s desperate design to snatch the lake at Lukung through a three-pronged strategy of attacking from Sirijap in the north, Chuchul in the south and through the lake water from middle. This is the key chokepoint from where the Chinese can cut off Indian access to the entire flank of Chip Chap plains, Aksai Chin in the east and Shayok Valley to the north, which means that Indian control is pushed to the west of the Shyok river and south of the Indus river, forcing India to accept both rivers as natural boundaries. And once China gets control of the southern side of the Karakoram it can easily approach Siachen Glacier from the Depsang corridor and meet at Tashkurgan junction from where the CPEC crosses into Gilgit-Baltistan.source

Does the statement make more sense if the entire story is conveyed? DTM (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really. It is still wild. Stobdan seems to fall into the camp of Indian commentators that believe that no evidence other than their clairvoyance is needed for presenting issues. A scholar's review of his book says:

Unfortunately, glaring flaws prevent The Great Game in the Buddhist Himalayas from fulfilling its potential. The book presents its claims, but seldom puts flesh on the bones of its argument. Moreover, these claims are sometimes, frankly, contradictory.[15]

I suggest we drop him as a source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, so you are suggesting dropping one source based on the inaccuracy of another not directly related source?... Even though all the current comments of others as to why this current confrontation is happening are mere calculated opinions? Alright I guess. DTM (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not directly related? Stobdan's comments here are very much part of his "Great Game" thesis, which is being shot down by scholars as being speculative and not evidence-based. That is exactly what I have been saying here. The other scholars all cite evidence. This man has none. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Stobdan's views are good enough to be reported by mainstream media outlets. We are not in the business of judging how solid someone's claims are. Let's leave that job to the readers. SignificantPBD (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed the line related to Stobdan to "Indian diplomat Phunchok Stobdan points to the occurrence of a larger strategic shift and that India should be alert to it." as per source. But now it doesn't really say anything. DTM (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2020

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: Closed for the time being as per recent article updates. Can be reopened as needed.. (non-admin closure) DTM (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 China–India skirmishes → (1) 2020 China–India border skirmishes (2) 2020 China–India skirmishes and standoff (3) 2020 China–India border skirmishes and standoff (4) 2020 China–India border standoff – In the beginning of May the title mentioning only skirmishes was accurate, but now it has developed into a standoff as per media reports used in the article. DTM (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I think it is clear now that the "standoff" aspect the dominant feature of the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neither of above - There was no fighting so can't be skirmish. Stand-off is called between parallel force. Forces are not equal in any of the three aspects. More than that China occupied a large portion and established bases. So, the best fitted option will be "2020 Sino–Indian border confrontation". Drat8sub (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Confrontation is a good word to use here. DTM (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The deaths change the equation for article naming. DTM (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2020 (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.

Request

Please can someone remove the move template at the top of the article. I have tried twice but the bot has placed it back automatically. I have also closed the move discussion above Talk:2020_China–India_skirmishes#Requested_move_8_June_2020 for now. DTM (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Added bot deny temp, fixed. DTM (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop citing Asian news press as neutral

It cites a tweet out of context for the Chinese casualties (5 killed 11 injured) Which only the Indian media is reporting. The original poster of the tweet has also expressed her concern that the Indian media is quoting her out of context: https://twitter.com/bycongwang/status/1272835039823163394

SpicyBiryani (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

The article says 43 Chinese soldiers were killed. For clarification, it should be stated that this is Indian sources. Manfredxu99 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done, as per the latest revision. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep it neutral, and stop taking things out of context please.

I've noticed a constant stream of Indian sources/editors (intentionally or unintentionally) taking statements like this out of context, or (intentionally or unintentionally) misleading others by labeling Indian claims as neutral. This is an ongoing event and many will come to Wikipedia, having good faith in the validity of the claim made. Falsely labeling such claims and indulging in WP:CHERRYPICKING in times like this helps fake news spread, which is the last thing we need in a major event like this. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, some seem to mistake the 43 killed and injured figure as only 43 killed. Kindly read the talk page before editing to ensure such mistakes are not made. Again, we want to avoid spreading fake news. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC).

Yup. Exactly as I stated above. EkoGraf (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, PRC has neither rejected nor confirmed Indian claims. It just acknowledged casualties on both sides but refused to state numbers. Till a conflicting source emerges, Indian claim should better be written as "Indian figures" or "Per India". Same as before, we don't even have any ambivalent Chinese statement that refutes these figures and labeling figures as Indians can be useful. You further have added a Pov tag to a well neutrally written article with no political tone for a reason I can't figure out. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with attributing the claim. And I attempted a few times to write in "43 killed and injured (15 June; per Asian News International)", but the attribution was quickly removed along with the "injured" part. So due to this constant removal and miss-interpretation I think SpicyBiryani was right in adding the POV tag. But now it seems the constant reverting has calmed down so there may not be a need for the tag anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian fatalities

Apparently after the miss-representation of the Chinese figure, now there has been a miss-representation of the Indian figure [16]. The cited source (and every other source) clearly states 20 soldiers were killed. An editor has changed "killed" incorrectly and contrary to the cited source to "casualties". A term which is used for both killed and injured. This needs to be corrected. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Missrepresantation of Chinese deaths

A few editors are constantly presenting the figure 43 cited by ANI as representing only killed Chinese soldiers, despite the fact (as per the source) its 43 killed AND injured. The editors have been constantly removing "and injured" from the infobox. Example [17]. This needs to stop and looked after since its a miss-represantation of the cited source. EkoGraf (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the term causality be used instead (43 casualties) since the word causality doesn't necessarily imply death. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as well (43 casualties). However, writing just "43 killed" is a miss-representation of the cited source and a violation of several Wikipedia guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the linked sources, this 43 figure comes from "Indian Intercepts". Surely, this can not be seen as neutral and independent? I think this 43 casualty figure should be removed as the only source is "Indian Intercepts".Enigmie (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the Chinese casualties are, as mentioned before, from an India source, which is definitely unreliable and biased when it comes to most things Chinese. More importantly the wording is heavily implying that China suffered 43 deaths because of the way it is structured. First you have "43 casualties" on top, then "7 injured" below. This can easily lead to the misconception that 43 Chinese soldiers have died with 7 injured. So I recommend doing this:

(XXX estimates:) 43 Killed and Injured

(YYY estimates:) 7 Injured

This is in accordance to many of the casualty preview on most pages like Korean war, Vietnam war so on and so forth. Nebakin (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Casualty reported under Indian sources as 20 and 43. I believe the author wanted to write Chinese side and repeated Indian sources 2409:4071:E01:BB4F:4AD5:BB98:8B63:7DF4 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Format your proposed change as “X to Y". Manabimasu (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Change ZEBO ALPHA (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Signature 11:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Change x to y ZEBO ALPHA (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Signature 11:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

change "43 killed" from Indian sources to "43 killed or seriously injured" Viratkohli2011 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not in the source provided. El_C 19:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Indian officials claim about chinese casualities but have no such proof, by any means not even in international media. 39.36.173.178 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - please make a request in the standard format, i.e. please change x to y. Ed6767 talk! 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The tention between china and india started on 5 may 2020 at Ladakh galwan valley and now 20 solidure of india had been died till at the month of june ans negociation had also reach to end at lietunent general level but no result has been found in highest deligation negociation.India cliam that he had killed 45 chinese solidure but yet china had not confirm it.BBC reported that 20 indian solidure had been killed in Ladakh conflict.Chinese army had put thier 100 camps in galwan valley and settlite picture can told us purly.China cliam that his projected area in Ladakh is 90000 sqare kilometer but in 1962 india chiana war china conqest 38000 sqare kilometer.Now again conflict is raising up since 5 may 2020 and chinese army proving its integritity because india had been revoked article 370 and 35 A.The confilict is continuing

Muslim Rajan pur (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify Please clearly mention the changes you want to be seen in the format of change X to Y. You seem to have provided a summary of the entire event which the article already does pretty well. Change the answered parameter to answered=no to reiterate your request when you have worded it in a suitable form. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟ 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Please change Chinah to China, because it is a misspelling. Top of the page in the Belligerents overview where the belligerent nations of India and China are stated. There it says "Chinah" which should be "China" in correct English. 2001:981:1797:1:D15B:8951:1B32:E2E9 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

below india, with support of usa should also be written below first Image 2405:204:1000:1583:4D35:EAD3:F5A1:CFB2 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done If you meant to add the US in the infobox as a belligerent on India's side then I'm sorry it won't be done because US is not directly involved in the conflict. Till now all reports have been of Trump saying that he can 'mediate' between the two. If you can give references and sources that prove your point, then it could be done. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it will make no sense to add any other party below China or India. I see someone was adding "Nepal" earlier but it made no sense either. NHS2008 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive?

The page is already too long. Archiving facility should be already placed here now. NHS2008 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added archive service through Lowercase sigmabot III for now. You may change the parameters for fine tuning if you want to. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

For clarity: shouldn't both of the source for Chinese casualties indicate that they are estimates as no one knows the actual number yet? Also for the Indian source, it should specify that is estimates both KIA and WIA as the US source specifies KIAs

For consistancy the Indian casualty number currently listed should be listed as confirmed KIA, and should also include that there are about 135 WIAs:

https://www.news18.com/news/india/pla-death-squads-hunted-down-indian-troops-in-galwan-in-savage-execution-spree-say-survivors-2673347.html

And 34 MIA:

https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/amp/ 172.97.13.129 (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Check the banner at the top of the page. It specifically says "initial reports may be unreliable". Change to answered=no to reiterate request. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Request to change "Hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer)."

to

"Hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer) according to Indian sources."

, in accordance with the rest of the article. The reasoning is to provide context of where the sources are coming from and to be consistent with the sidebar. Goinghard5 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: "According to Indian sources, hand-to-hand combat on 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officer)[11] and at least 43 Chinese soldiers becoming casualties (including the death of an officer).

Reason : Till now there hasn't been much, if any, disclosure from the Chinese side and this entire sentence is based on what Indian sources say, not just the Chinese casualty part. Even Chinese sources are referring to the Indian ones. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟ 04:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok suggestion accepted. Can we change the article please?

 Done: Goinghard5, your request has been carried out. You can view it here (if you don't mind the failed link in the edit summary). Also, please sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟ 16:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese deaths

@Voortrekker70: Your mention of 5 Chinese deaths is backed up only by a broken link. Please fix it with another cite or remove. DTM (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Please re insert with sources. DTM (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It does not look like any credible source has confirmed the exact number of Chinese deaths. A reporter of Global timeswas quoted by most reports, but Global Times has distanced itself from claiming specific number Hcandi (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Its a dubious figure. https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/16/5-chinese-soldiers-dead-the-bizarre-case-of-a-chinese-journalists-indian-news-source

US Intelligence reports 35 Chinese soldiers killed. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6395:ACEB:6D37:3D63:708D:7AA3 (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

43 or 35 killed

The User:Aman.kumar.goel said my edit changing the figures from 43 or 35 killed depending on source to the same numbers but casualties (including killed and wounded) is a misrepresentation. The news sources clearly state the casualties are both dead and injured. I don't want to waste time on an edit war so I will just lay out quotes I am relying on from Indian news sources. I don't think this editor should be allowed to edit this article. I don't think he is behaving in good faith.

• "Per source: The Chinese Army is estimated to have suffered 35 casualties, including those seriously injured and killed, during the clash with Indian troops at Galwan Valley in Eastern Ladakh on Monday night, officials said quoting US intelligence reports." Economic Times
• Per source: "Indian intercepts reveal that the Chinese side suffered 43 casualties including dead and seriously injured in face-off in the Galwan Valley," ANI said quoting sources. India Today

Thank you User:Talleyrand20 for your earlier edit.

Greatvictor999 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The source which I restored supports 35 deaths and shouldn't be misrepresented as "35 deaths or injuries". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

More recently published news describe the 35 casualties as both counting killed and injured. You also edited the page to change the 43 casualties (killed and injured) to 43 killed when it directly contradicts the source. That is an act of bad faith editing. Greatvictor999 (talk)

The source cited says 35 killed explicitly and not casualties. As for changing 43 casualties to killed, my bad. I edited and published an older revision. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

LAC scholar

Doesn't India have a scholar who is an expert in the LAC and who has recently said/authored something about this particular face-off? Or China for that matter? Some expert insight into the LAC? Someone who has written a book in the past on the topic and then authored some recent news article etc DTM (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Happymon Jacob is the only Indian scholar I know who is still active in looking at the China border issues. His column in The Hindu is here. His interview of HS Panag is worth listening to. Sumit Ganguly and Manjit Pardesi wrote a column in Foreign Policy, but they are focused on international relations rather than border issues per se.

Unfortunately, the scholars and commentators are hampered by the garbled information put out by the Indian government and the military. They may have also backed off from asking hard questions in order to give the government space to negotiate. But I expect the government's honeymoon is now over. The so-called "differing perceptions" theory is now dead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have read Happymon Jacob's book on the LOC, (even placed a picture of the book and him in Gurmehar Kaur's article); I hope he comes out with a book on the LAC that is just as reader friendly. Doesn't India have the concept of embedded journalists, any embedded journalists currently on the LAC, no Barkha Dutt's, not that they would be less garbled in terms of information. Thanks for the links. This can add to the list of reasons below. DTM (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The next thing you they might employ What3Words -they might need that level of precision! kencf0618 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm not able to understand at all that what Trojanishere is trying to do here. The version clearly mentions that these are US sources under the column of belligerent sources which are supposed to covered separately from third parties. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well if @Trojanishere: doesn't have any problem now, I'll restore the revered version. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

@Drat8sub. I simply rephrased many of the sentences of the article because the article had so many grammatical errors. The contributors liberally used "the" at places where they shouldn't be. And they also omit "the" at many places that they should. You are telling me to read the talk page. There is nothing on the talk page about not allowing people to fix grammatical mistakes. I'm just trying to help people so that they don't get a stroke while reading the article because of the many grammatical mistakes. Also, America is not a continent. "The Americas" can be considered as a continent. "America" is universally accepted as a name for the U.S.A. I highly doubt that you know what you are doing if you don't even know basic English. Please let us have a conversation and evaluate all the edits that I made before you just flip a switch and revert my hours of painstaking editing.

Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Drat8sub I concur with above that you should be careful about your edits here. 27.57.173.221 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RealK17 American refers to a citizen of US essentially in general. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese deaths should be listed primary as Unknown before other claims

Chinese casualties:

Unknown

Indian Claims

Other Claims

Also i do not support the use of US news as a source for official US claims. It is a private company and should not be representing official US claims until the relevant US departments make a statement. Nebakin (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It says "American sources", it does not state "American government". Nothing stated asserts that its directly a claim of the US government.XavierGreen (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It says American Intelligence. The last I check American Intelligence Agencies are part of the US government. Nebakin (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nebakin Mentioning 'Unkown' under Chinese casualties won't serve any purpose. Because it not 'unknown' from the Chinese side, instead they have refused to share the casualties figures saying they don't want the public mood in the two countries to be affected by that. So, that seems deliberate. Therefore I do not support anything of that sort. Trojanishere (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

The fact is that Chinese casualties are unknown, something can be unknown on purpose, e.g. classified documents. Nebakin (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Add extra lines. Change "and so far, Indian media sources have claimed casualties of at least 43 Chinese soldiers including dead and injured[6] (including death of an officer)." to

"and so far, Indian media sources have claimed casualties of at least 43 Chinese soldiers including dead and injured[6] (including death of an officer). American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News [Reference]. 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." Reference: https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-16/dozens-killed-as-india-china-face-off-in-first-deadly-clash-in-decades 2409:4072:6395:ACEB:6D37:3D63:708D:7AA3 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:NotTheFakeJTP Not anymore. AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding Reported Times

I'm seeing users swap between June 15 and 16 within this wiki article for the date of the 2nd physical conflict, should we be sticking to just the 15th or the 16th?

Stick to GMT. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's better to go with IST as per MOS:TIMEZONE. One can go with Chinese time too, but I would advice against that because the whole of China hs just one time zone and the events are too far from Beijing to be represented by its time zone. Regards,  ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  05:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Nepal be included as a party that supports China?

The Nepalese road construction in the disputed area is consistent with Chinese interests and being conducted concurrently along with the skirmishes and concurrently challenging Indian's claim (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nepal-seems-to-be-following-chinas-road-map-on-lipulekh/articleshow/76416738.cms) (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To say that Nepal supports China in this conflict, you need a source that says exactly that. Please avoid WP:OR and refrain from WP:Edit warring.

There is no "Nepalese road construction" in the source either.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what is meant by "Nepalese road construction." Nepal has no road in the disputed area, It is India's road which Nepal is protesting against. That alone is insufficient to say Nepal supports China in this conflict.-- Ab207 (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This needs a good source saying this, not conjuncture. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There are suggestions like [18] and [19] but in the other direction of China inspiring Nepal for their own border conflict with India. AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding Injured Troops

It was reported that there were roughly 2 dozen critically injured Indian troops and just over 110 with more minor injuries that still required hospitalisation. Should these numbers also be reported in the casualty section? Trojanishere removed the edit citing that those numbers should not be included as the estimated casualties on the Chinese side are only for the dead and/or seriously injured and that it wouldn't be a fair comparison to include any of the injured Indian soldiers.

Where is your source? 27.57.173.221 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick search got me the following sources from India:

https://www.news18.com/news/india/chinese-violence-completely-unprecedented-govt-should-be-firm-in-statements-lt-gen-ds-hooda-2673939.html

https://www.mynation.com/india-news/unmaskingchina-stones-iron-batons-barbed-wire-used-by-pla-to-attack-brave-unarmed-indian-soldiers-qc2dys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wped87 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We cannot go on cramming everything into the infobox. The Chinese 'casualties' are being used because there is no clarity on exact deaths as they have refused to give info. So one has no other option. Further, many Indian reports now claim over 50 casualties on the Chinese side. Should we include them? No. Because we try to include the information that is consistent across the board and has broad acceptance. Trojanishere (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

The estimates for China currently available include both dead and injured, so how would it be inconsistent to include India's reports on their own injured along side their reports for their dead? I would think that India would be accurate in reporting on their own casualties compared to reporters' making estimates regarding China, so that statement regarding the 50 claim you make is not relevant nor comparable in this situation. Wped87 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The estimates about China aren't 'both dead and injured' but instead they are 'dead and seriously injured'. There is a difference. See the citation again. So like that when you try to include those Indian figures about injuries it will include all the very minor injuries too. But on the Chinese side, we have 'seriously injured' as per the citation. So those injuries could end up being fatal too. There is a huge difference. Therefore those shouldn't be used side by side in the infobox as they distort the real picture. Trojanishere (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Please add Pakistan's claim as well.

https://dnd.com.pk/over-47-indian-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-valley-ladakh-by-chinese-forces/191776 24.84.237.87 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

已經加入巴基斯坦來源--葉又嘉 (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, but I'm unable to confirm the reliability of that source. El_C 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it comes from somewhere else? AnomalousAtom (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question. The Dispatch News Desk (DND) is an international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan for distributing news in Russian, English, and Urdu languages...The content of the reports is editorially regulated according to news values, accuracy, copyright protected, and independent of any advertising and sponsorship carried. DND Breaking News provides urgent news items distributed as and when necessary. The same is posted on our news portals at www.dnd.com.pk and www.dispatchnewsdesk.com as DND is also a moderated web-based community message board for feedback, comments, and reaction from readers. DND has field reporters and contributors all over Pakistan as well as in Central Asia, South Asia, and Eastern Europe. The content of the story came from "admin2" who has ~1500 posts, whatever that means. El_C 04:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The editor wrote that it was published by "巴基斯坦新聞局". In Google Translate that says "Pakistan Information Bureau"? Maybe I can look in Urdu/Hindi. AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Where do you see that? When I click on the By Central News Desk link I get directed to https://dnd.com.pk/author/admin2. El_C 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It was in the Wikipedia article not the DND article: [20]. I have found one article that is also reporting 47 deaths, from UrduPoint: [21]. My Urdu is not good, but it says the information was reported by journalist Sabir Shakir on a TV channel. I think he works for ARY News. AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the deep dive, AnomalousAtom. El_C 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Also reported by Daily Qudrat (newspaper) [22]. I do not personally think these reports are accurate but who knows what is right now? The reports here are probably reliable enough for "Other sources: ___ (per Pakistani newspapers)". AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder how they arrived at that number, though. India would be the one to announce official figures about their own casualties. How would Pakistani press (especially) get access to this data? El_C 05:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Good question. If the numbers are correct, the only explanation that I can think of would be anonymous Chinese or Indian sources like the US News & World Report article. The articles only say things like "There are reports that say", "There are sources that say". AnomalousAtom (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources might be here from Indian and Chinese claims or intelligence agencies like did with US figures. Ant other third party source here is totally unrelated to conflict. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But it is just as relevant as the US figures which should be included. AnomalousAtom (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Pakistani sources do not merit a place under 'other sources'. I think they are should not be included in any manner, certainly not in the infobox. All the reports seem to be originating from only one source and that too is unexplained about how the figures were reached. They might be also 'propaganda' pieces since Pakistan is India's arch-enemy and closest Chinese ally. American sources can be the nearest one can come to a 'neutral pov' who has enough intelligence capabilities to know the extent of the damage. Trojanishere (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

India is an American ally, and if I recall correctly, American intelligence releases such assessments AFTER the conflict, to more reliable sources like NYT, Reuters etc right? This could very much just be an attempt to appease a large audience for the website, since no other reliable source has verified these clams. So it's about as credible as Pakistani sources. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

India isn't an American ally and has always historically remained neutral in disputes between China and the US. If it was an American ally why would it buy the S-400 air defence systems from Russia which the US has put under the CAATSA endangering various sanctions? Why would it buy Iranian oil when the rest of the world, including Pakistan, stopped doing so after the US warned of sanctions? Further, the Galwan skirmish is already over. The casualties we are talking about are only from that particular faceoff. Other than that no deaths have taken place anywhere else. And even Indian govt sources are citing a US intelligence report. They wouldn't have gone by a website's claim. Would they? https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece -- Trojanishere (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Is youtube a reliable source? WP:NOYT

I could see some part of the article is supported by references from youtube channels. Can someone provide correct reference for the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTheme (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You should point out which Youtube video you are exactly referring to. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To build on what Aman Kumar Goel said, it really depends on what Youtube video. BBC, New York Times, Times of India, Xinhua, and other reliable news sources have Youtube channels with content that could be considered reliable sources (assuming the news agency itself is). It's just a different medium than print or website, but same source. Youtube channels belonging to conspiracy theorists or random individuals with no known background or anything would not be reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Action on the LAC | Blitzkrieg with Major Gaurav Arya. Republic TV. 6 June 2020. Retrieved 8 June 2020. [Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7ZBHj7h3d4]. Some of the TV news channel gives personal opinion opposed to the ground truth which are not acceptable. However, I saw that this reference was added for personal opinion of retired Indian Army, might be making it authentic.

Continued miss-interpretation of Chinese casualties

With edits like these [23][24] (both by apparent newly created accounts) the miss-interpretation of Chinese casualties has continued, with these editors inserting exclusively the word "killed", despite the fact the original cited source (ANI) states 43 Chinese soldiers were killed or injured (collective English word/term being casualties). These disruptive edits need to be looked after. EkoGraf (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)