Wikipedia

Talk:Sino-Indian War

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HagermanBot (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 11 April 2007 (Yuje didn't sign: "→"Violated" treaty: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Yuje in topic "Violated" treaty
Learn more about this page
WikiProject iconChina B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps workgroup to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the map-needed parameter.
WikiProject iconIndia: History / Politics B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Chinese / Indian / South Asia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Chinese military history task force
Taskforce icon
Indian military history task force
Taskforce icon
South Asian military history task force

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

For older discussion, see Archive 1 - Archive 2


What some users want to cover up

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • It was the indian government who took the initiatives to break the status quo by the forward policy.
  • It was the Indian troops who took the first attack in the disputable zone,while some users just want to neglect it or deny it.
  • It was the Indian government who didn't want to solve it by diplomatic methods

All I had edited are deliberately removed for demonstrating the indian who suffered while chinese were invaders. It was Lying by omission or mislead these users want to convince the readers that chinese were invaders while indians were peace goers.But in reality,It was the indian who were more provocative and the 1962 chinese offence was just the chiense preemptive war to counterweight.--Ksyrie 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please provide sources. India's forward policy was in response to Chinese advances in Aksai Chin. India wanted to cut of their resource supply and thus force them to retreat back into Chinese territory. Traing 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Blaming the forward policy is an arguement Maxwell came up with long after the war was over. At the time, China didn't blame India. They said it all the fault of the "imperialistic" McMahon Line. For India, it was only the legal boundary which was non-negotiable. IMO, negotiations on the legal boundary would have been a waste of time since the two sides are so far apart on this issue. But there was plenty of diplomatic activity concerning the line of actual control, no man's lands, etc. When Nehru told parliament in 1959 about the road through Aksai Chin, he said it wasn't worth fighting for. Kauffner 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I doubt whether the Aksai Chin is within the chinese claimed border or indian claimed border.And aksai chin seems to be far from the either the line of actual control or McMahon Line.--Ksyrie 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

New list of unexplained deletions by Traing

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  1. "They entered parts of Indian administered regions and much angered the Indians in doing so. Of course, they did not believe they were intruding upon Indian territory.[1]" Traing deleted the second sentence, even though the Calvin source says clearly says they did not believe themselves to be intruding on Indian territory. On the other hand, when discussing Indian troops moving past the McMahon line, Traing inserted this very line in, "[the Indian commander], of course, did not believe he was intruding on Chinese territory." More than a little biased, I would say, since the deletion of the first and insertion of the second come from the same editor.
  2. Deleted all the italicized parts. "One of the major factors leading up to China's eventual conflicts with India troops was India's stance on Tibet. There was "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian efforts to undermine Chinese control of Tibet, Indian efforts which were perceived as having the objective of restoring the pre-1949 status quo ante of Tibet"[2] The other was "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory along the border.[2] John W. Garver argues that the first perception was incorrect based on the state of the Indian military and polity in the 1960s, it was, nevertheless a major reason for China's going to war. However, he argues the second perception to be largely accurate. [2]" The author gives two reasons that China entered the war. Traing quotes the first, as well as the author's conclusions on it, but is unwilling to let me quote the second. This kind of selective quoting shows bias.
  3. Traing changed altered this paragraph (deleting most of the information) yet again. "Zhou had first given the ceasefire announcement to Indian charge d'affaires on November 19, (before India's request for United States air strikes) but New Delhi did not recieve it until 24 hours later.[1] The aircraft carrier was ordered back after the ceasefire.[1] Chinese troops still engaged in some battle with retreating Indian troops[3], but for the most part the ceasefire signalled an end to the fighting. The United States Air Force flew in supplies to India in November 1962, but neither side wished to continue hostilities." His first excuse for deleting it was that it should be covered in the ceasefire section. I moved it to the ceasefire section, but he still deleted it. The book says that Zhou sent the message on Nov 19, and Nehru recieved it 24 hours later. 24 hours after the 19th is Nov 20. Simple math, right? Traing changes to date to indicate that Nehru recieved it on the 22, 3 days later, and deleted the section indicating that Zhou's ceasefire came before the request for an aircraft carrier. Which is misleading, since it alters the ceasefire date, and reorders the events to indicate that the US sent forces (without Nehru's request), and prepared to bomb, and only then the ceasefire was announced 3 days after the request for an aircraft carrier. This is false and misleading.
  4. " China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam) and also has silenced its claims over most of Arunachal Pradesh apart from Tawang.[4][5] This is controversial, as this means the intrusion within these regions were completely unjustified during the war.[4]" I indicated above exactly how misleading and misquoted this was. The neither link says this, and in fact, indicate the opposite, and even Traing admits the second sentence violates Wiki policy. He restored it again.
  5. "According to a study published by the United States Marine Corps, western nations at the time regarded China as an aggressor in the China-India border war, and the war as part of a monolithic communist objective for a world dictatorship of the proletariat.[1] (However, the study itself concludes that Chinese actions show a "pattern of conservative aims and limited objectives, rather than expansionism" and that "stubbornness and India's aggressive forward policy resulted in armed conflict."[1])" Traing deleted the italicized parts. He's willing to quote certain parts of the book, and some of its conclusions, but not others. Again, bias.
  6. "In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the dispute area and set up an observation post for the summer in Sumdorong Cha Valley. The Indian team left the area before the winter." Traing deleted this again, without explanation. --Yuje 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would appreciate it if you let me complete my editing before accusing. Much of what you have said, I already fixed some of your issues.
  1. Fixed already. You should've waited till my editing was over.
  2. Fixed already. You should've waited till my editing was over and checked the more recent diff.
  3. Calvin says the ceasefire was declared by Zhou on November 21.
  4. Fixed already. You should've waited till my editing was over.
  5. I request you to reword it and fit it in better with the prose. To have all that randomly in brackets just doesn't work out.
  6. Unsourced.
Traing 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • "In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the dispute area and set up an observation post for the summer in Sumdorong Cha Valley. The Indian team left the area before the winter." This is given in the Noorani source, which is cited there in the same paragraph.
For the rest, I'll give you some time to finish your changes before parsing them again. --Yuje 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

More deceptive and misleading use of cites

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Traing added this line, "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India.", and cited (J Hanhimaki The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy).

Given his previous misquotes, I had cause for suspicion, correctly, as it turns out. When I pressed him, it turns out he doesn't actually have a cite from the book.

Traing said, "I used the source from it's use in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. So no, I don't possess the book, but if you see that article it draws the same facts from the book as I have written here. You may want to ask over there for a quote."

Hanhimaki was never actually cited in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article, only listed as "further reading", and Traing says he never even read the book before. In other words, he made up the claim, and then added a cite (which he never even bothered reading) to justify it afterwards. This line is leaving the article immediately unless he provides an actual quotation from the source showing what it says. --Yuje 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was quite sure it was but turns out it wasn't. Sincerely sorry about that, this is the source for the paragraph from Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which says that Pakistan expected Chinese intervention. For the paragraph you have shown above, what exactly is the problem? Pakistan supported China, Pakistan's old enemy is India.

There was a serious danger that the war between India and Pakistan might spread. For some months, officials in Islamabad warned that in the event of war, China would not be neutral, and Indian leaders - who signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union in October - replied that they would not be alone either. Kissinger reportedly suggested in Islamabad in July that it would be helpful if India received a signal from China that it was strongly committed to maintaining the unity of Pakistan and that in case of war, China would not remain a "silent spectator." In December, Kissinger thought there was a real possibility that Beijing might go to war. He instructed his assistant that if the Chinese informed the U.S. that they were going to move, Washington should reply that it would not ignore Soviet intervention. Apparently, no word of discouragement was to be offered, though the entire region might be consumed in war, and the U.S. guarantee would, if anything, make a Chinese decision for war more likely. However, the Chinese proved more restrained than Kissinger and did not get involved

Pakistan expected China Traing 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say anywhere within that paragraph that "Pakistan appreciated China aggression in the lands of old enemy India"? The sentence also presupposes two points in dispute 1)that China was aggressive in the first place, that the disputed lands were disputedly Indian. It's like me saying, "Yuje fully supports Traing's wifebeating." It presupposes the two points that Traing 1)has a wife and 2)beats this wife, without having proved it in the first place. --Yuje 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What do you dispute? That Pakistan supported China or that Pakistan's old enemy is India? Traing 07:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I dispute the neutrality of the assertion as fact that China was the aggressor. I also dispute that the war was supported by Pakistan. Your Hanhimaki cite turned out to be fake, and the second one says nothing of Pakistan's position in the Sino-Indian War. The Dobell source, which you misquoted, as I highlighted below, shows that Pakistan actually felt threatened, as the war meant western aid to India. --Yuje 10:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The text I propose says "While Western nations did not view China favourable for this war,[1] Pakistan, which has a turbulent relationship with India after the Indian partition, improved it's relations with China after the war.[6]". I don't know how you have a problem with that. Traing 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Neville Maxwell's China's India War??

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Traing, I noticed you have made a lot of unnecessary and biased editing, including some simple distortion of fact. How could you change Neville Maxwell's book title from India's China War to China's India War. I respect everyone has their own view, politically and nationally, or what ever, but make sure when you are editing the text, you are no longer just an Idian or a Chinese, you are editor in a strictly neutral point of view. This is called professionalism.

  • Neville Maxwell's China's India War[7]

Ningye 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did not do that, it must have been someone else that edited during my edits or something like that. Sorry about that. Traing 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the last time, stop making up claims from cites

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
  • Traing: "The war begun on 10 October". Where does the Calvin book say this? Give the exact quote.
    • Here's my source. (India: A Year of Stability and Change, Ralph J. Retzlaff, Asian Survey, Vol. 3, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1962: Part II. (Feb., 1963), pp. 96-106.) It says, "On October 20 China mounted major attacks in hot11 Laclakh and NEFA and the undeclared war began."
      • Calvin: "The serious fighting of the 1962 China-India Border War extended from October 10, 1962, until November 20, 1962. " Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        • It doesn't make sense,he said serious fighting took occur from october 10,it's ture,but the serious fighting doesn't mean the start of war.It's only the start of this serious fighting.I will appreciate the June,the day the first conflict to be the start of this war.--Ksyrie 09:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Traing: "New Delhi received the ceasefire letter 24 hours later, on November 22."(ref name = "Calvin")
    • Calvin book: "Dramatically, on November 20th, Chou Enlai publically announced a ceasefire. Actually, Chou had given the details of the ceasefire to the Indian charge d'affaires in Peking on the evening of November 19th ('before India's request for United States air strikes), but New Delhi did not receive the report for over 24 hours." No matter how you add, India never recieved the ceasefire on Nov 22. Traing moved the dates around so that it looks like China declared a ceasefire after Nehru requested US assistance.
      • Ah yes, I was mistaken, Zhou said the ceasefire would begin on November 21, OK. Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        • He still reverts back this this very same inaccurate version. Geez. Stop reverting to your own version (ignoring all the additions of other users along the way) and then selectively adding in only bits and pieces of other's edits only when you're caught making false statements, or misquoting sources.
  • Traing: "China kept the territory which they had captured in Aksai Chin but returned all the territory from the North East Frontier Agencyref name="Calvin"/)."
    • Calvin book, "Chou had simply restated the compromise that he had been offering for over three years: India could keep the disputed territory north to the McMahon Line in NEFA, but China would keep the disputed territory in Aksai Chin."
    • This map shows China controlled the area before the start of the war.
      • I don't understand your issue with saying that China took over the territory during the war! Disputed and captured aren't antonyms!
      • That doesn't address my comment above. Traing 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
          • Your edit says China captured the Aksai Chin territory during the war. The map clearly shows that China occupied those areas before the war (and thus, weren't "captured"), and that the additional areas in the Aksai Chin that they did occupy during the war, they returned afterwards. --Yuje 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Traing: "China is treated as the aggressor in the China-India border war, and the war was part of a monolithic communist objective for a world dictatorship of the proletariat" (ref name = "Calvin")
      • It said Monolithic world conquest objective in Calvin and I reworded it.
  • Traing: "While most nations did not view China favourable for this war," (no source)
    • Calvin book: "Western nations, especially the United States, were already suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; [..] These western nations, including a suspicious United States, appeared to minimize, or not fully to understand, the China-India dispute background. [..] These same nations saw China's goals as monolithic intent on world conquest, and clearly viewed China as the aggressor in the Border War."
    • Edit Traing deleted: "According to a study published by James Calvin from the United States Marine Corps, western nations at the time viewed China as an aggressor during the China-India border war, and the war as part of a monolithic communist objective for a world dictatorship of the proletariat"
  • Traing: "Pakistan, which has a turbulent relationship with India after the Indian partition, was more appreciative of China's war against India.(Trairef name="Dobell")"
    • Dobell[1]: "In late autumn, however, the undeclared Sino-Indian War and the Western reaction to it heightened tension in Pakistan considerably."
    • Dobell: "[Mohammed Ali] indicated that any aid [from Western nations to India] should be considered only in relation to existing tensions and that the Kashmir dispute should be settled before measures were taken which might prolong the Sino-Indian conflict." I doubt Traing even bothered to read the Dobell source. The article says that the war shook Pakistan because it meant western aid to India, its nemesis, while Traing claims Pakistan appreciated this war.
  • Traing: "China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam) and also has quitened its claims over most of Arunachal Pradesh apart from Tawang." (ref name = "IPCS")
    • IPCS[2]: "With the Indian parliament resolution in 1994 to include the POK areas in their claims, the Chinese position has also changed slightly. The Indian PM's stated commitment to recover the Shaksgam valley led to hardening of the Chinese stand and after exchanging maps of the Middle sector there has been no progress in the process till date. However, from June 2003 China agreed that it had only 14 land neighbors instead of the earlier claim of 15 (the claim on Sikkim was dropped and its accession to India was recognized)." China never claimed Sikkim as part of NEFA, it just never recognized India's annexation of it.
    • Chinese ambassador Sun Yuxi [3]: "In our position, the whole of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory'. And 'Tawang is only one of the places in it. We are claiming all of that. That is our position".
  • One of Traing's earlier edits: "Zhou was adamant to launch a large-scale attack on India which would finally close the war and put the PLA in a strong position, thus it took only hours for the Chinese to resume attacks on Aksai Chin and NEFA.(ref name="Calvin"/)

See also above section, where Traing simply made up statements and then put a random book name to them. He kept evading when I asked for the actual quotes, until finally admitting he never even read the source. I'd advise all editors to scrutinize Traing's edits closely, because of his frequent misquotes and misattributions, and sometimes, even outright lying. From his edit history, it looks like his account was made just to edit this page alone, and he doesn't seem to be above using questionable edits.--Yuje 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I got involved on this page and want to follow one project at a time. Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok,just take a look at what the Traing had written,s/he is a sly fox,by means of omission' or misleading or distortion,s/he just wanted to give the readers the impression the Indians were totally innocents good boys.--Ksyrie 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I had to go after writing that comment above so I didn't fix the ceasefire date. Sorry about that. Traing 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


Yep. Traing has made countless bad edits. Only when I catch him on it does he promise to fix them. And then after saying he would fix them, he always inevitably reverts back to this old versions. See his reverts [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[9] [10] [11] [12]

Notice how he never bothers explaining or justifying his multiple deletions. I specifically have to call him on them one by one and expose them systematically before he acknowledges them and then promises to fix them (and then doesn't, and reverts back to his own version in the next round). Traing needs to start justifying his deletions before he makes them, instead consntatly reverting back to his own version and only selectively restoring edits when he gets caught in the act. --Yuje 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yuje, you know full well that after I revert it I spend large amounts of time trying to accomodate any worthy edits you may have made which I should include. I admit I was being a deceptive newbie at the start of my Wikipedia time. But your attempt to create random policies against me is insulting and I think against the spirit of Wikipedia. an example of me accomodating your concerns after reverting. If you take a simple look at the history, you will see that I have hardly ever reverted and not edited directly after a revert. I have addressed your concerns on the talk page and now that you have none left you decided to try and impose a restriction-rule on my edits. Traing 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Consensus. Since many, if not most of your edits have been controversial and misleading, you need to build concensus with other editors first. Your current way is to simply revert to your own version, without justify losing all the deletes on the way, and not explaining any new edits, even though many of them are controversial. If I hadn't went and double-checked every single one of your edits for deceptions, they might have stood on the current page. Given this, many of your edits look suspicious and POV, so to gain concensus, you should, by Wikipedia policy, explain and clearly justify them on the talk page. --Yuje 06:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It that line McMahon Line legal?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indian claim the legal border line,the McMahon Line seemed not so legal.Some british just drawed a line and didn't get any valid agreement or treaty.And the clever indian wanted to repeat what the englishman had done before.--Ksyrie 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not at all surprising you hold those views. Traing 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Peace process" conclusion?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found Traing's edition of the peace process arrives to a conclusion of his own. There is no neutral material to back it up.

For example, "China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking.[4]". What do you mean 'fairly'. When, Where and What did China do as referred in this paragraph? Reference IPCS is not found and is it a neutral source that can be verified independently?

Another example, "Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.". First, when is the past two years. Please always spell out at which date, or from when to when, what has happened. Secondly, where is Chumar or Chumar region? Is there any proof from Chinese source that they concede it to India or the area is not in dispute? From my understanding, it's part of vague concept of LAC which was and is disputed by both sides.

Please edit and remove those inaccurate claims.

128.231.88.4 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962.[5] Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.[4] The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking.[4] China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point.[4]

I can access the IPCS source just fine. Traing 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

There has been lot of inconsistency on both the sides. Claims remain more or less unilateral in nature. There have been steps towards border domination by both sides and more so by China (through the militarization of Tibet) and China is in a more advantageous position owing to its efforts in this regard.

There are currently 14 areas under dispute - eight in the Western sector and six in the Eastern sector. In the Middle sector the disputes have more or less been solved though there is a fear on the Indian side that Chinese would have advantageous artillery deployment positions. Moreover, the last two years has seen increased Chinese patrolling in Chumar which is not a disputed area.

Yuje

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yuje, what do you want???? You cannot place restrictions on me for every one of my edits. I am citing directly from internet-based references. WHAT is your problem??? Your comment that I should have to go to the talk page for consensus before editing is against the spirit of Wikipedia, anon IPs that conform to your POV have more rights than a logged in user like me who is getting to know Wikipedia slowly. You cannot undermine the spirit of Wikipedia. Traing 06:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

My problem? You're not simply adding new sources. You're reverting and deleting old information, ignoring other's edits on the way. And I and a few other users regard a great many of your edits as controversial, and policy is that you should try to achieve Wikipedia:Concensus, so you should try going and explaining and justifying your edits and discuss them. So far, you have never explained any reverts or deletions. --Yuje 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
What's all that above? Also, can you please allow me to revert you and then make some edits and then revert back and that is the version I support. Thanks. Traing 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yuje has broken a REAL Wikipedia policy

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yuje has broken the 3RR policy, which is stopping me from reverting Yuje's version (as that'll mean I break it to). But in a show of goodwill, I will not report you and let your edits stand for now, I hope you pay attention to real Wikipedia policies next time before making up your own random restrictions. Traing 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Didn't realize I broke the 3RR rule, but if I did, then so did you, since each my of edits was itself reverted by you, and you start all your edits with a revert. --Yuje 07:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, see our last 4 reverts each:
06:46, 4 April 2007 Y
06:42, 4 April 2007 T
06:40, 4 April 2007 Y
06:38, 4 April 2007 T
01:44, 4 April 2007 Y
23:10, 3 April 2007 T
10:49, 3 April 2007 Y
06:12, 3 April 2007 T
And two of my reverts haven't strictly been reverts, as one of them had about 30 edits following it in which I accomodated many of the edits in your version and added more. Traing 07:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yuje, explain these then:

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yuje, you claim to explain all your edits, so start explaining:

  1. Replaced date= October 10 — November 21, 1962[8] with date= October 20 — November 21, 1962. POV-pushing??? Surely not.
  2. Deleted "China's policy on Tibet did much to heighten the conflict and tensions between the two nations.[2] The perceptions of India as a capitalist expansionist body intent on the independence of Tibet to create a buffer zone between India proper and China was fundamentally erroneous.[2] The negative rhetoric led to what Zhou himself called the Sino-Indian conflict.[2] Because of these false fears, China treated every next move from India in the 1960s with suspicion and the Indian Forward Policy sealed Chinese suspicions of Indian expansionism and led to their decision for war with India.[2]"
  3. Deleted "Garver argues that one of the major factors leading to China's decision for war with India was a common tendency of humans "to attribute others behavior to interior motivations, while attributing their own behavior to situational factors."[2]. Studies from China published in the 1990s confirmed that the root cause for China going to war with India was the perceived aggression in Tibet, with the forward policy simply catalyzing the aggressive Chinese reaction.[2]"
  4. Deleted "China kept the territory which they had affirmed total control of in Aksai Chin but returned all the territory captured from the North East Frontier Agency[1]. China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam).[4][5] Over the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by both sides unconditionally as a show of goodwill.[1]"
  5. Deleted "The CIA had already begun operations in bringing about change in Tibet.[2]" which is a fact which provides context.
  6. Replaced "Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China.[4]" to Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.[4]
Other changes we have already discussed above. Traing 07:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reverted because you reverted prior to the start of your editting, deleting all the information added subsequent to your last edit. This is extremely disrepectful to other editors, to start all your series of edits with reverts, and only afterwards selectively reinserting them only when I expose your deletions. Since many of your previous edits have included falsified cites, I asked you to list your edits and sources/reasons first before adding them, which you're doing now, and I appreciate. --Yuje 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

And you need to explain these

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  1. Deletion of these lines: "On October 9th, General Kaul ordered General John Dalvi, Commander of the Seventh Brigade, to take Yumtso La Pass. However, Dalvi argued that the forces lacked the necessary supplies and Kaul instead sent a fifty-man patrol [1][9]. These 50 Indian troops were met by an emplaced Chinese position of some 1,000 soldiers.[1] "
  2. "The Chinese side, although in a militarily advantageous position, thus had strong strategic reasons to contain and conclude the conflict as quickly as possible.{{fact}" Still no source and deletion of citation tag.
  3. "Zhou was adamant to launch a large-scale attack on India which would finally close the war and put the PLA in a strong position, thus it took only hours for the Chinese to resume attacks on Aksai Chin and NEFA" Nowhere in the book does it say this. I asked for a book cite. You didn't answer, but restored again.
  4. Deletion of multiple lines from this paragraph. "Zhou had first given the ceasefire announcement to Indian charge d'affaires on November 19, (before India's request for United States air strikes) but New Delhi did not recieve it until 24 hours later.[1] The aircraft carrier was ordered back after the ceasefire.[1] Chinese troops still engaged in some battle with retreating Indian troops who had not recieved the ceasefire order and fired upon them[1], but for the most part the ceasefire signalled an end to the fighting. The United States Air Force flew in supplies to India in November 1962, but neither side wished to continue hostilities."
  5. Deletion of external link and statistics "The PLA withdrew to the Line of Actual Control, which China had occupied before the war (map) and on which it staked its diplomatic claim[10] (keeping the Aksai Chin, which comprised 32% of the disputed territory and returning North East Frontier Agency, which comprised 68%)[1]."
  6. Still no source, deletion of citation tag, "Since then, the Chinese government have tried to reduce the negative light in which they were perceived as a result of their aggression.[citation needed]"
  7. Deletion of italicized parts. In 1972, Neville Maxwell a British journalist and historian, wrote a controversial book which was highly critical of Indian Government; titled "India's China War", which was banned in India[11].
  8. Deletion of book listings.

Much as I mentioned on my edit summaries as well as on this talk page, your additions aren't just mere additions, you revert, then make your additions, losing information in the process. Nothing stops you from simply making your edits to the current version of the page, but you delete all edits after yours, and then add your new edits on top of old versions of the page. In doing so, you never bother to explain or justify your deletions. --Yuje 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. I did not delete, I reworded to make it a simpler and more straightforward read.
  2. Will delete.
  3. It says in the Calvin book that fighting resumed hours later in Aksai Chin and NEFA.
  4. I compressed it, did not delete lines, I reworded it.
  5. It's not good article writing to have external links in the middle of the text. So I reworded it.
  6. Put two and two together! You don't need to copy everything from a source, that's plagiarism (something which you're edits have included in the past). China looks bad in worldview - Zhou talks to Nixon about it - China doesn't look so bad in worldview. It is simply logic.
  7. Making things up?? My version which I have stored shows my inclusion of this.
  8. Making things up again...

Done. Traing 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. You didn't "reword" anything. Your edit was just a revert, the same paragraph with those lines deleted.
  2. Zhou was adamant to launch a large-scale attack on India which would finally close the war. Where's the source for this? It never says this in the Calvin book? I asked you multiple times, and you never provided a source, yet keep adding it back.
  3. Your edit is wrong. The Calvin book never says the ceasefire was initiated to avoid airstrikes, the Garver source says the ceasefire was part of the operation planning even before the war started. You also deleted mention of that the ceasefire occured chronologically before the Indian request. You also kept the mention of Chinese troops engaging Indians in battle, but deleted the mentions that it was because some Indians didn't recieve the ceasefire and thus kept fighting. Your version doesn't contain any information or rewording, only deleted information, plus the sentence about the ceasefire undertaken to avoid airstrikes, which the Calvin book doesn't support.
  4. You're placing undue emphasis on a conversation. Using that same logic of "putting two and two together", I can also insert the statement, "The government of India has made efforts to portray itself as a victim and China as an aggressor.", based on their published Official history.
  5. Diff
  6. Diff

--Yuje 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. Yes, I did reword it my version bears the text. "On October 9th, Kaul and General Dalvi agreed to send a patrol of 50 soldiers to Yumtso La Pass in the North East Frontier Agency"
  2. Oh, so that's the issue. Well I think Chinese actions in quick attacks and then the calling of a unilateral ceasefire indicated that they wanted the war to be over with as soon as possible.
  3. I don't understand your parandoid interpretation of my edits. The dates have been inserted and all the line says is that America did not become militarily involved in the war because of the ceasefire!
  4. It's not undue emphasis, it's one line on a conversation which was previously recounted in large quotes.
  5. my version has fixed it.
  6. [my version has fixed it.
Regards. Traing 23:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I reworded the whole section and expanded on the entire campaign. I think this point is moot now.
  • "Well I think Chinese actions in...." And that's the problem. Wikipedia:No Original Research.
  • My "paranoid interpretation" of your edits comes from all the misquotes, fabrications, and POVs which I have listed above.
  • Zhou is just stating his government's official position, in a conversation. How is that "Since then, the Chinese government have tried to reduce the negative light in which they were perceived as a result of their aggression." Indian politicians have made official government statements numerous times as well. Would you characterize Indian politicians as making "rigorous diplomatic leapss" at downplaying Indian provcations as well?

--Yuje 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

RfC?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Alright guys... I was just passing by and noticed that this is starting to look like an edit war. Would you guys be amenable to filing a Request for Comment? —Umofomia 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changes

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  1. "The Chinese government never commissioned an official report on the war." Where does Garver say this?
  2. "The first book-length analysis of the war from China which was allowed to be sold was published in 1998." Where does it say that Xu Yan's book was teh first?
  3. "On September 8, 1962, a 600-strong PLA unit launched an attack on one of the Indian posts at Dhola on the Thagla Ridge, just north of the McMahon Line" Calvin and Maxwell say it was actually a 60-man patrol, and that the Indian commander exaggerated. Calvin and Maxwell say they only settled into dominating positions, not attacking. Garver says this situation went for twelve days without any shooting. That's quite a poor attack if I ever saw one.
  4. For the patrol, the Yumtso La attack, the Dhola post, and the Thagla Ridge, I consolidated all of it into a seperate subsection, since all these events lead up to or are a part of Operation Leghorn, and all take plage on Thagla.
  5. Moved (and kept) Traing's edits on Chinese motives for war, and expanded using the Garver source.
  6. Incorporated Chinese and Indian views from the Indian and PLA histories, respectively. Since both of these are necessarily POV, when cited, they are quoted as "According to the official Indian history", etc.
  7. "China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam).[4][5]" China's claims on Sikkim aren't territorial. It never recognized India's 1975 annexation of Sikkim and regarded it as an occupied country until recently. Thus, the Sikkim claims have nothing to do with the Sino-Indian War, and didn't even originate until a decade after the war and I removed this section from the ceasefire section.

I'm logging off for now, but I still plan on expanding some more. But I'd appreciate if you don't disrupt my editting by reverting again, and "incorporating selected changes" before I'm done. --Yuje 14:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. It says: "Chinese publications on the war themselves do not mention specific dates or events and use generalized terms" - this is on p 69.
  2. p. 70
  3. Change it, I can't say I added that information.
  4. OK.
  5. Thank-you
  6. Is there a weblink for the Indian histories, so far it seems rather selective citing.
  7. Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh have been the historical dispute-points between China and India. I don't have time to do full replies now. Traing 06:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trade through border between China and India near Sikkim

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Per BBC, China never acknowledged the India sovereignty to Sikkim, however, it did soften its position and may tacitly accept it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3015840.stm

China, for its part, has agreed to start border trade through the north-east Indian state of Sikkim - a move that is being seen as an acceptance by Beijing of India's claim over that area.

But it is more accurate not to overstate the fact as Traing states:

China recognised the territory of Sikkim and Assam[4] as belonging to India

China has officially recognized Sikkim as part of India. Traing 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please cite China official source. Don't revert my editing based on your POV. Ningye 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

IPCS!!!! Why waste my time, are these accepted? [13][14] Traing 09:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

IPCS is fine, but it is not a neutral source. It's the think tank in India and aimed to facilitate and promote its agenda. See IPCS from their "about us" page http://www.ipcs.org/About_us.jsp

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) was established in August 1996 as an independent think tank devoted to studying security issues relating to South Asia.

The Institute maintains close liaison with the Indian Ministries of Defence and External Affairs.

The fact it mentioned are OK, but its opinion can only be cited to help the reader to understand the arguments of the both sides and has to be marked as such one sided opinion.

Ningye 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreement on Sikkim is fine per CNN. I incorporate that with dates. Also correct some typos by Traing the third time like "triggerring" -> "triggering". Ningye 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Traing's POV and IPCS doesn't qualify as reliable source

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Traing states the following based on this IPCS article. http://www.ipcs.org/newIpcsSeminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2184

On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962.[5] Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China.[4] The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking.[4] China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point.[4]

This IPCS article is more like a personal discussion and comments between Dr. Srikanth Kondapalli and Prof. Mira Sinha Bhattacharjea. Deleted.

Moreover, Traing stretches the fact even in the article. The article states only

Moreover, the last two years has seen increased Chinese patrolling in Chumar which is not a disputed area.

yet Traing's edit, "Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China." (emphasize added). Both parties regularly exchanges maps and diplomatic notes on the dispute. It's still an ongoing thing.

And "China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point." (emphasize added) is clearly POV, which has no mention and facts backing it up at all. Please at least elaborate what the steps China has had taken and what advantageous military positions has had happened before this paragraph could be accepted.

Traing, please base your statement with neutral sources and facts. Not all articles are acceptable. The statement from one side is only admissible when it is helpful for the readers to understand both side's story. It needs to be clearly marked as such too. See WP:RS

Ningye 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


Traing, you revert back my changes without any reasons. Can you learn to discuss the questions before posting controversial/misleading edits? Ningye 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What the books say VS what Traing says (the sequel)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Traing says, "The motive for the Forward Policy was to cut off the supply routes for Chinese troops posted in NEFA and Aksai Chin"
    • Calvin says, "India's purpose was to pursue the forward policy to drive the Chinese out of any area New Delhi considered hers."
    • Calvin says, "In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas."
    • Calvin says, "The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies.".
  • Traing says, "The Forward Policy was having success in cutting out supply lines of Chinese troops who had advanced South of the McMahon Line"
    • Calvin says, "The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies. China's reaction any new Indian outpost, though, was usually to surround it with superior forces."
  • Traing writes, "Over the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by both sides unconditionally as a show of goodwill."
    • Calvin says, "The Chinese then began repatriating Indians through Bomdi La. The sick and wounded were returned during December, 1962. Other prisoners of war were returned over the next six months."
    • Maxwell says, "Not one Chinese prisoner was taken by the Indians."

And that, boys and girls, is today's lesson in the importance of reading comprehension. It helps to actually read the sources one is allegedly citing.--Yuje 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yuje attempting to mislead

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

He writes:

According to the official Indian history, a decision was made on September 9 to evict the Chinese from the southern part of the Thagla Ridge, by force, if necessary.[12] Officers at the Indian Defense Ministry had expressed the concern that Indian maps showed Thag La as Chinese territory; they were told to ignore the maps[13]. Two days later, it was decided that "all forward posts and patrols were given permission to fire on any armed Chinese who entered Indian territory".[12] However, Nehru's directives to Defense Minister V.K. Krishna Menon were unclear, and the response, code named Operation LEGHORN, got underway only slowly. As the Chinese numbers were exaggerated to 600 instead of about 50 or 60, a battalion of 400 Punjab riflemen was sent to Dhola.[13]

An analysis of the sources show that they are a mixture of the Indian official history and the anti-Indian history by Neville Maxwell. However they are all placed under the heading of "according to the Indian official history". Yuje says that we should attribute all comments to their authors, which I agree with, but his selectiveness seems misleading. Traing 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I usually only attribute subjective criteria, like motives or validity of claims to authors. Statements like, "Mao was afraid of this" or "Nehru wanted this" are subjective, because we can never know what they were actually thinking, and authors can only speculate or make educated guesses on them. So are things like "X country felt this way" or "X's claim was more legitimate". Simple statements of facts, such as "a battalion of 400 riflemen were sent", or "this minister said X" aren't subjective, because the numbers can actually be counted, and the statements of what someone said are recorded or written down. However, if you dispute that the facts are true, I don't mind listing the name of the source that says this.--Yuje 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
When you say something relating to the Indian thought process before the war is attributed to the Indian official history, it gains much more credibility. However, you mixed Maxwell and the Indian official history claims so that a sense came about that all the things that Maxwell said were Indian official history, when in fact he presents anything but the Indian side of events. Especially when you imply that the Indian official history states "Officers at the Indian Defense Ministry had expressed the concern that Indian maps showed Thag La as Chinese territory; they were told to ignore the maps"Traing 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I didn't "imply" that Indian official history stated that. The statement is clearly cited and unambiguosly cited to Maxwell. I mentioned the Indian history explicitly because that was the source of the decision. As I said, it's not a big deal, I've already added editted it to show that Maxwell says so. I don't see how it's much of a difference as what the defense ministers said are probably part of the official record and attributable to multiple sources anyhow. --Yuje 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indian Official History

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yuje, can you prove that "History of the Conflict with China, 1962" is the official history presented by India. As I am able to find extremely little on the history compared to what less official sources present. I would like proof that it is the official history and would appreciate some sense of verifiability. Traing 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Garver lists "History of the Conflict with China" as India's official history. It's author, Athale, is credited in articles as author of the official history: [15][16]. Sukumaran, whom you have cited numerous times, also names it as the official Indian history[17][18]. The publisher of the book itself is listed in the book as "History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India". --Yuje 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

First booklength analysis

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Garver says

"Sun Shao, Chen Zhibin, Ximalaya shan de xue, zhong yin zhanzheng shilu

(Snows of the Himalaya mountains, the true record of the China-India war), Taiyuan: Bei Yue wenyi chubanshe, 1991, p. 95. As far as I can ascertain, this was China's first book-length study of the 1962 war. It was not a scholarly, but a popular work. It lacked reference notes and was written in an often-breezy style......."The book was banned shortly after its appearance, but this author was lucky enough to find the book on a street

bookstall of a small city in Sichuan before it was banned."

The next book sourced by him is published in 1998. Anyway, your simply deletion of the sentence wasn't good enough. Traing 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The sentence wasn't accurate. The PLA history was published in 1994, Xu Yan's book in 1993, so it's clear that the first book allowed to be published wasn't in 1998. Garver doesn't specifically say when the first one after 1991 was published, and his claim of Sun Shao's book being first was uncertain, in any case. So the deleted sentence was inaccurate as far as the date goes, AND the author doesn't say what the actual one is. --Yuje 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another Source

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/562/562-vk-singh.htm


RESOLVING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE V.K. Singh, Lt. General (retired), The Indian Army; former Director General Military Operations, Delhi

Just an FYI for both parties. Mikeslackenerny 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll take a look at it. --Yuje 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thankyou. Traing 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


"Violated" treaty

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
By signing the Simla Agreement with Tibet, the British had violated the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 This strikes me rather emotional word choice. It's hardly unusual for treaties to be inconsistent with each other. An Anglo-Russian convention is a bilateral matter between Britain and Russia. It's not reasonable for China to use it to claim rights. The 1907 convention was initially a concern for British, but it was renounced by Russia in 1917 and by Russia and Britain jointly in 1921. As for the Sino-British treaty, it was renounced when China invaded Tibet in 1910. So it wasn't even an issue at the time. Kauffner 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can you elaborate on those two points? The source I used didn't mention them. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuje (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Cite error: The named reference Calvin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cite error: The named reference Garver was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Calvin, was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
  5. ^ a b c d e India soft on Arunachal Pradesh
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dobell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Maxwell, Neville, India's China War, New York, Pantheon, 1970.
  8. ^ Calvin. War was never declared and thus the beginning of the conflict is a matter of dispute. According to James Barnard Calvin's Timeline, the first heavy fighting occurred on October 10. Calvin's chapter detailing the Border War also begins on October 10.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Maxwell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Noorani was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ McCarthyism's Indian rebirth
  12. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference officialhistory was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Neville Maxwell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Indian_War&oldid=121858050"