Talk:Sino-Indian War

For older discussion, see Archive 1 - Archive 2

NPOV

I was just reading through this article and it feels like it was written by a bureaucrat in the Ministry of History or something in India. Various little snippets of Indian heroism completely irrelevant to the strategy and/or progression of the conflict is peppered throughout. Someone should fix this as it also makes this article overly long and dreary to read. -anonymous dude who's not chinese nor indian

Yup totally agree this article needs some major clearing up to reach even a basic from of NPOV. Right now it is extremely biased towards the Indian POV. Although it quotes a lot of sources most if not all of them seem to be sites from an Indian POV (I was unable to locate a link to a Chinese site). Again agree that the length is too long plus the style in which it is written seems too opinionated for an encyclopaedia - another anonymous dude who is not Chinese/Indian

What some users want to cover up

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

New list of unexplained deletions by Traing

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." 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" The other was "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory along the border. 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. " 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. The aircraft carrier was ordered back after the ceasefire. Chinese troops still engaged in some battle with retreating Indian troops, 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. This is controversial, as this means the intrusion within these regions were completely unjustified during the war." 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. (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.")" 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)

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)

• "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)

More deceptive and misleading use of cites

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)

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)

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)

What do you dispute? That Pakistan supported China or that Pakistan's old enemy is India? Traing 07:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

The text I propose says "While Western nations did not view China favourable for this war, Pakistan, which has a turbulent relationship with India after the Indian partition, improved it's relations with China after the war.". I don't know how you have a problem with that. Traing 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Neville Maxwell's China's India War??

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

Ningye 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

For the last time, stop making up claims from cites

• 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)
      • 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)

• 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)
      • 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!
      • The map shows that they controlled the territory on September 1962 before the war. --Yuje 07:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That doesn't address my comment above. Traing 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • • 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)
• 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"
    • I don't remember making that edit but I'll fix it anyway. Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But you didn't. You reverted back to this misquoted version. --Yuje 10:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• 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.
    • Rworded. Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• 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".
    • I already fixed that I thought... Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• 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"/)
  • Here is the Calvin book. I challenge anyone to find where the book actually says this.

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)

I got involved on this page and want to follow one project at a time. Traing 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It that line McMahon Line legal?

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)

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

China recognizes the McMahon Line as a "Line of Actual Control," but not as a legal boundary. The difference doesn't seem to have any practical significance. It's just a silly word game, "a distinction without a difference," as the lawyers say. The 1962 war was about Mao's need to whup someone so that everyone would know he was still the man even after Liu humiliated him. There are some real Sino-Indian boundary disputes involving bits of territory like Thagla Ridge or Kongka Pass. But the McMahon Line issue is bogus -- it doesn't involve any actual territory. Kauffner 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Peace process" conclusion?

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.". 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)

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. Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute. The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Yuje has broken a REAL Wikipedia policy

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)

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)

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)

Yuje, explain these then:

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

1. Replaced date= October 10 — November 21, 1962 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. 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. The negative rhetoric led to what Zhou himself called the Sino-Indian conflict. 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."
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.". 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."
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. China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam). Over the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by both sides unconditionally as a show of goodwill."
5. Deleted "The CIA had already begun operations in bringing about change in Tibet." 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." to Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.

Other changes we have already discussed above. Traing 07:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

And you need to explain these

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 . These 50 Indian troops were met by an emplaced Chinese position of some 1,000 soldiers. "
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. The aircraft carrier was ordered back after the ceasefire. Chinese troops still engaged in some battle with retreating Indian troops who had not recieved the ceasefire order and fired upon them, 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 (keeping the Aksai Chin, which comprised 32% of the disputed territory and returning North East Frontier Agency, which comprised 68%)."
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."
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.
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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

RfC?

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)

• The two main contributors are rapidly changing their opinions,unless they cann't make an agreement.--Ksyrie 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

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)." 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)

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)

Trade through border between China and India near Sikkim

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 as belonging to India

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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. Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China. The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point.

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)

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)

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

• 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)

You said it yourself: "The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies.". Meanwhile, the fact that you don't allow me to write about why the Forward Policy started and wrote three times about why it continued (becasue of it's initial success) in the article. Including twice in the same paragraph, makes me feel that your motives aren't all so noble as I originally thought. Traing 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuje attempting to mislead

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. 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. 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". 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Indian Official History

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)

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)

First booklength analysis

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)

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)

Another Source

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)

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

Thankyou. Traing 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Violated" treaty

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)

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).

I got it from Walt van Praag's book. Melvyn Goldstein's book has the original documents concerning Simla from the British archive. They mention only the Anglo-Russian treaty, never the Sino-British treaty. As far a source on the Web goes, you can check here: These arrangements [Simla] were in breach of the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907, and a release to cover them was sought from Russia. This difficulty disappeared when in 1917, the Communist Government in Russia repudiated all the international engagements of the tsars, and when in 1921, the 1907 Treaty was cancelled by agreement. Kauffner 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Northeast Frontier Agency

This article isnot neutral.The indian name Northeast Frontier Agency and chinese name South Tibet should be treated in the same way,while some contributors deliberately deleting the chinese name South Tibet in the favour of their emotion.The war broke out in the disputable area,so all the name should be cited.--Ksyrie 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Calvin uses NEFA. Yuje even uses NEFA. Traing 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese name for the area is South Tibet and the Indian name is Arunachal. Using the British colonial name NEFA may bring up some objections, but it's perhaps a bit more NPOV than picking either other name, since the British aren't involved in the dispute anymore. As for Aksai Chin, I believe that's a Uyghur name for the area that's used by both sides. --Yuje 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NEFA was the official Indian name at the time of the war. The Indians changed the name to Arunachal later on. The British called it the North East Frontier Tract. Kauffner 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Long

The article is getting quite long, most of the information is pre-war, can anyone suggest a good name for a subarticle. Maybe something like Leadup to the Sino-Indian War. Traing 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Military of India" phrase in the intro

Gawd, that sounds clumsy. I guess it would not be wrong to say just "Indian Army", as the Air Force had at best only limited support role, and the Navy none atall.

Is there an Orbat available for this conflict?

And yeah, article is too long. Please make a seperate site for the lead up. (hehe easy for me to say.. you guys have done the excellent slog work)

Mikeslackenerny 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources (with pics!)

Guys, anyone had a look at http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/ ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

They are Fair Use images that can be used with a proper Fair Use rationale and explanation. I've seen that website previously and may upload the images in the future after I have time to consider the Fair Use rationale for each image. Traing 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chola Incident

Can someone remove the chola incident from the article because firstly, the source is biased and secondly, because the source does not exist anymore. Futher searches about the event reveal nothing except for the source quoted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.169.41.42 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. The Chola Incident website doesn't list any of its references or citations, and when I asked Traing for other sources, at the talk for it, Talk:1967 Sino-Indian skirmish, he didn't provide anything except for a web forum and a list which gives nothing more than a name. Without independent confirmation, one basically has to take it on faith that the events as described by that webpage are factually accurate and didn't embroider up the facts.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." If all that is given as the source for this incident is a single webpage that doesn't list any of its sources and references, then it doens't look to reliable. --Yuje 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

BR is a reliable source on Indian military info with many of the articles on the site being written by those who knew first-hand of the incident or those who were at least involved with it. This is a minor incident which China does not speak of and thus one canot expect Chinese sources to balance the view. Traing 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The BR source doesn't give any references or citations. Not only are no Chinese sources listed, but no independent sources are listed either, nor any official sources, or news articles, or books, or anything else, just a single webpage which doesn't list its sources. Regardless of your personal feelings about the site, it certainly doesn't satisfy Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. --Yuje 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How reliable bharat-rakshak is is partly the issue, but more importantly, why is there no other account of the chola incident.

Other sources than Bharat Rakshak for the 1967 Chola incident

1. http://faculty.winthrop.edu/haynese/india/medals/SSM65.html Nathula Chola (1967) - instituted on 8 May 1975 (as one of the original bars for the medal), this bar was awarded for service along the Sino-Indian border for one day of service in the border incidents at Nathula (11-16 September 1967) or Chola (1 October 1967) - air force personnel would qualify by one operational sortie during these periods

2.http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_past.asp Sino – Indian Chola Incident (1967)

The sources provide no information at all pertaining to the events of the Chola Incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.169.41.40 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Exactly.

In the second, on October 1 1967, a group of Indian Gurkha Rifles soldiers noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post near a boulder in Sikkim. After a heated argument over the control of a boulder, a Chinese soldier bayoneted an Indian sentry, triggering the start of a short-range knife and fire-fight.[58] The Chinese troops signaled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there.[58] The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the disputed LAC.[58] The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.[58]

All the non-BR sources only mention an "incident". No other sources gives any indication of the argument, bayonetting, or the fire fight, and the fact that this is given only by BR without references makes it extremeley suspicious. --Yuje 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the Chinese source I have posted. It mentions it all too.

Mikeslackenerny 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I have missed the source...but could you post it again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.169.41.37 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Aftermath: The Colombo Conference of Dec10-12 1962

See huge source: http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/10-4-66.shtml

The Colombo Conference

Meanwhile at the invitation of the Government of Ceylon, Conference of six non-aligned nations -- Ceylon, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Ghana and the UAR -- had met at Colombo on December 10 with the purpose of seeking ways and means of bringing the two angry giants together. The positions taken up by each participant appear to have differed widely. Thus Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, referred in her opening speech to the danger that the dispute represented for India's policy of non-alignment and the UAR, whose strong support for the Indian cause Pandit Nehru has gratefully acknowledged, considered that there should be no territorial gains from military operations. General Ne Win of Burma and Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, on the other hand, were chiefly resolved not to tread on anyone's toes.

However the Conference reached agreement on certain proposals and requested Mrs Bandaranaike to convey them in person to New Delhi and Peking. the proposals and subsequent clarifications made to India provided that in Ladakh China should, as she had offered, withdraw her forces 20 kilometres behind what he alleged to be the line of November 1959, while Indian forces might move right up to this line; the demilitarised zone should be administered by civilian posts of both sides. In the eastern sector both sides might move troops right up to the McMahon line except in the Chedong and Longju areas, where there was a difference of opinion about the former line of control; China and India should decide jointly what to do about these. As for the central sector, the Conference suggested that its problems would "be solved by peaceful means without resorting to force". These strictly temporary arrangements were designed merely to reduce tension and make it possible for the two sides to negotiate.

Chou En-lai informed Mrs. Bandaranaike on January 19 that China accepted the proposals "in principle", but he seemed inclined to make important reservations. In particular he wanted India to accept a suggestion he had previously made to Mr Nehru on December 31, that Indian troops keep out of the NEFA, while the Peking "People's Daily" of January 26 remarked pointedly that there were disputes over all sectors of the boundary." It seemed possible that China might lay serious claim not merely to parts

of Ladakh as previously, but to all or part of the NEFA, where she had made intensive propaganda during her period of occupation. In India the Lok Sabha accepted the proposals in toto on January 25; but Mr Nehru said that there could be no negotiations until China did the same.

Mikeslackenerny 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Casualties

This chinese link puts it at 1460

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history4/62/20050317/12174607.html

From some Chinese book called "The red walls witness"

摘自《红墙见证录》，当代中国出版社尹家民

http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx%3Fproduct_id%3D8776496

Book can be purchased above. Was published in 2004.

Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is another source for Chinese casualties (and a recount of the 62 war, has lots of tidbits). [19]

This states, that according to 1 ebook, Deng Lifeng, Zhong-Yin Bianzheng, p. 10. Deng puts total Chinese casualties at approximately 2400.,the Chinese Army suffered:

722 Killed 1697 injured

Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So, as per the two sources, I will state Chinese Killed as 722-1460, injured at 1697.

OTOH, Chinese claims of Indian Casualties is almost the same as what India released:

Xu Yan, Zhong-Yin Bian Jie, P. 184. says According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured.

PoW no. is right. Killed or Injured = (Indian Admission is 1383 killed + 1696 missing (presmed dead) + 1047 injured = 4126

This can be compared to Chinese claims (above) of 4897, so is approx right (And how exactly would the chinese know how many IA soldiers were wounded?)

Any objections anyone?

Mikeslackenerny 07:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original Chinese cite from the book above: http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2005-07/31/content_3279638.htm

中印邊境自衛反擊作戰歷時1個月，我軍在西段清除了印軍全部人侵據點，在東段進到了非法的"麥線"以南靠近傳統習慣線附近地區。作戰中，全殲印軍3個旅，基本殲滅印軍3個旅，另殲滅印軍4個旅各一部。俘印軍第七旅旅長季 ·普·達爾維准將以下3900余人，擊斃印軍第六十二旅旅長霍希爾·辛格准將以下4800余人，總計殲滅入侵印軍8700余人。繳獲各種火炮300余門、飛機5架、坦克10輛、汽車400輛、各種槍6300余支（挺），及其他武器彈藥和軍用物資。在反擊作戰中，我軍共傷亡2400余人。

One can use a Chinese translation s/w to see above.

Mikeslackenerny 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source: Chinese border guards in the country, wiping out TNI three brigades (No. 7 Brigade, 62 Brigade, Artillery brigade 4), the basic Terminator TNI three brigades (112 Brigade, the 48th Brigade, 65 Brigade), Another Terminator TNI 5 Brigade, the 67th Brigade, the 114 Brigade, one of the 129 Brigade, 62 killed in Indian brigade Hexier Xingezhunjiang following 4885. 7 POW Indian brigade quarter Pronk Darfur Gen following 3,968 (of whom 26 field-grade officers, second lieutenants 29). 缴获：飞机5架、坦克9辆、汽车437辆、88mm加农炮13门、88mm榴弹炮36门、75mm山炮12门、106.7mm迫击炮27门、106mm无后座力炮6门、81mm迫击炮142门、51mm迫击炮144门、轻重机枪631挺、长短枪5,772支、火箭筒112具、枪榴弹发射器（掷弹筒）32具、枪弹4，120，591发、炮弹79，720发、手榴弹16，921枚、地雷14，848枚电台（报话机）520部，炮兵观测仪等其他器材735部（具）。Seized : five aircraft, nine tanks, 437 vehicles, 13 cannons, Dimensions, Dimensions howitzers 36, 12 75mm mountain artillery, mortar 106.7mm 27, 106 mm recoilless cannons 6. 142 81-mm mortars, 144 51mm mortars, light and heavy machine guns 631, the length of the gun 5, 772, 112 rocket-propelled grenades, grenade launchers (grenade launcher) 32, bullet 4,120,591 hair. issued 79,720 shells, 16,291 pieces of grenades, landmines 14,848 pieces of radio (portable radio transmitter) 520. artillery observation instruments, and other equipment 735 (with).

　　中国边防部队阵亡722人（其中军官82名、士兵640名），负伤1，697人（其中军官173名、士兵1，524名）消耗：炮弹22，976发、枪弹701，342发、手榴弹7，080枚、爆破筒64节、炸药2，050k9，喷火油料677L，损坏122mm榴弹炮1门、机枪18挺、长短枪81支、40mm火箭筒2具、电台（步话机）5部、汽车12台。Chinese border guards killed 722 people (82 of whom are officers, soldiers, 640), a wounded. 697 people (173 of whom are officers and 1,524 soldiers) consumption : 22976 artillery shells hair, Bullet 701,342 hair, 7,080 pieces of hand grenades, 64 blaster, explosives 2,050k9. guaranteed oil 677L, damaged a 122mm howitzer, 18 machine guns, 81 guns and rifles. two 40mm rocket launchers, radio (walkie-talkie) 5, 12 cars.

from http://bwl.top81.cn/war_cn/india/304.htm, 1962 Chinese border guards returned to the Indian Army weapons and equipment list (Graphic)

Mikeslackenerny 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese take on Nathula and Chola

http://66.249.91.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history2/06/11027560/20050712/12475305.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2Bsite:military.china.com%2B%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%258D%25B0%25E8%25BE%25B9%25E5%25A2%2583%25E6%2588%2598%25E4%25BA%2589%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GFRC_enAU204AU204

Would also like China and India since 1967, the Nathula Pass Pass Zhuola, and the conflict ________________________________________ Http://military.china.com 2005-07-12 10:16 : 51 A large small --

After 1963, China's armed forces in the China-India border two things retreat, the re-implementation of the disengagement segregation policy The armed forces of the two lots is limited direct contact with China and Sikkim in the border (then Indian Sikkim 2-3 mountain infantry brigade ), tin border TNI trying to provoke the Chinese army in the border tin Nathula Pass. have repeatedly crossed the demarcation of the border tin, mobile pillar, build fortifications, erecting telephone. Aircraft have repeatedly intruded into China's airspace for Tibet Kangba, East Asia and other places for reconnaissance. 　　 After 1966, China launched the "Cultural Revolution" upsurge in 1967, lives around the massive rise, the impact of military authorities seizing weapons also to the numerous, unrest also spread to Tibet, to a greater or lesser extent. To China for strategic reconnaissance, the Indian Army deployed Alpino 112 brigade, Artillery 17th Brigade in 1967, 11 to 14 September in the border tin Nathula Pass to the Chinese garrison launched offensive. 　　 Earlier in September, the Indian Army continued cross-border forcibly erecting barbed wire, Chinese garrison repeated serious warning, TNI ignored. September 7, the Indian soldier with a bayonet to stab two Chinese soldiers. September 11 morning 7:30 army mountain infantry brigade an even 112 in a battalion under the command of Lieutenant Colonel, it divides to Nathula Pass approximation of the Chinese outpost. Chinese garrison strictly "fired the first shot" of discipline, restraint, the invasion of the Indian Army issued a serious warning. TNI officers and soldiers of the Chinese restraint as a sign of weakness, 8:00-7 pm, the first shot and threw grenades, despite this positive TNI commander was shot Lipancheng sacrifice spot, and another six wounded soldiers. 　　 I then CMC border garrison of the "tit-for-tat, SIT, not a sign of weakness, not lose out" instructions, I Border Mission in unbearable situation, immediately launched a counterattack, only seven minutes, the end of the battle, army officers and soldiers killed 67 people, with 40 rocket launchers to the Indian Army in China set up the full seven fortifications destroyed. 8:15, the Indian military regime fled, the military discipline, without leaving the country to pursue. 　　 The Indian side failed, then the artillery brigade to the 17th China launched a massive artillery attack. Therefore, the Chinese army has said. Originally, the Chinese army on the border tin conflict is the principle of "cross-border officers can not, bullet shells also hit the neighboring countries can not land "and the Sino-Indian border conflict" not more transit officers, India can not take the initiative to the artillery fire, but encountered enemy territory to me artillery fire and resolutely counter "different, But this time the Indian Arrogance, approved by the Central Military Commission. I Disan 0 8 artillery regiment organized more than 30 mortar doors on August 2 and 120 mortar responded to the Indian Army. The shelling lasted four days and three nights, eight Indian shelling positions playing dumb, the two command posts, two observation and 23 fortifications and two vehicles were destroyed, and the majority of more than 540 officers and men of the Indian Army, Indian artillery declines. PV in at 22:00 on the 13th stopped shelling. 　　 After the situation was reported to the Central and Premier Zhou Enlai personally instructed : "The enemy is not fire a cannon. I would stop shooting. "14 noon, our stop shelling attack. 　　 This war, the Indian Army were killed or injured 607 people, in addition to the enemy's military provocation in a death and nine injuries, the basic prejudice. TNI forced under the white flag of the Chinese territory accept the transfer of the body of the Indian army, and weapons and ammunition. 　　 TNI has not lost all hopes, at 11:20 a.m. on October 1. Indian Gurkhas, a platoon leader wing rate of seven soldiers penetrated table mountain pass the Chinese side. Gurkhas, armed with machetes to the Chinese soldiers heckled Chinese soldiers spot warning Gorkha guys not care about it, rashly in one go. Chinese soldiers kidnapped want to exit. On hearing the news, rushed to the near post indignation of the Chinese officers and soldiers, and looting from comrade-in-arms, a platoon leader of the Gorkha launched border. Gurkhas soldiers miff, drew a pistol shooting to the Chinese officers and soldiers, and the rest to the Gorkha soldiers of the Chinese officers and soldiers shooting, instantly killed and wounded one of the officers and men of the Chinese people. Meanwhile, Zhuola, Indian Pass near the artillery also used 51-mm and 81-mm mortar fire to the Chinese territory. 　　 Head gambling sacrifice comrade-in-arms of the Chinese officers and soldiers immediately returned fire, the invasion of 8 Gorkha soldiers all killed. 12:00 sharp, fierce artillery with the Indian artillery fire suppression, 2 Indian provocation will not even most of the majority of the officers and men (195), 29 destroying fortifications. TNI declines, then in the evening 19:55 shelling stopped. 　　 At that time, the brothers still Maohaizi August 9-year-old, 54-uncle in a military division soldiers San 0, They have also leave was canceled, ready for combat, the war on standby to Tibet. But not too long, because the Indian side is the peaceful settlement of disputes, mission canceled, and they did not to Tibet. 　　 Since then, the Indian military summed up the Sino-Indian war lessons, the Chinese army has "fired the first shot" principle, if not found shot, it would not have been against the Chinese army, so emboldened breakthrough "their retreat 20 kilometers disengagement" restrictions (in fact only China's unilateral evacuation), constantly crossed the line of actual control in the Chinese army under the eyelids point. To the 80s, and in some areas, and even in-depth practical side of the line of control in China, 10 km. 　　 1986 to 1987, the Chinese border garrison under instructions of the Central Military Commission, had organized a number of irregularities, 87 explosive situation reached the level of considerable tension. Double Stone had participated in the open air to Tibet airport emergency action, which did, and left him!

This is a good source for the chinese account...but the translation is obviously not very good and takes away the meaning of many important aspects of the incident. Perhaps someone could provide a good translation?

I might consider reading that whole section if paragraphs were inserted.--Yuje 00:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you understand how to read chinese, the source really gives a darn good account of the chinese perspective.

India had 2 Chinese PoW from '62??

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=zh_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fmilitary.china.com%2fzh_cn%2fhistory2%2f06%2f11027560%2f20050712%2f12476522.html

Hong Kong Wenhui Daily news: An Indian diplomacy department senior official disclosed that, the Indian government has released two in 1962 in the China and India frontier war the Chinese soldier which captures, two people are imprisoned in India for 41 years. These two have been long ago awarded the martyr the soldier, returned to the Sichuan native place.

The official said that, two respectively are 61 year old of and 65 year-old Chinese prisoners of war, for 41 years are imprisoned east India the Ranchi mental hospital. Visits China and the China and India relations along with Indian premier further fixes, the Indian government gives two people China. India's diplomats stated that, "Two people returned to the Sichuan native place, China and India had agreed the event keeps secret."

????

Mikeslackenerny 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030727-104257-8893r.htm Another source, http://www.aiipowmia.com/updates/updt0800.html

27 AUG 00: Two Chinese prisoners of war have been found in an Indian mental asylum where they spent the past 35 years. The two inmates, Shih Liang and Yang Chen, have been held at the Central Institute of Psychiatry in the east Indian state of Bihar since 1965, the South China Morning Post said. The two were arrested in 1962 during a bloody Sino-Indian border war across the Himalayas and were held at a jail in New Delhi on charges of espionage, it said. Three years later, the Indian army took them to the asylum. Neither the Indian nor Chinese government appears to know about the two men, the Post said. The newspaper quoted India's Home Affairs Ministry as saying that it has no knowledge of the two prisoners, while the Foreign Ministry in Beijing said it would investigate the matter before responding.

GoI replies to the same

http://mha.nic.in/pr0900.htm 01.09.2000(2)

Reports relating to 'Two Chinese Prisoners of War' in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi

Reports relating to two Chinese Prisoners of War (Indo China War of 1962) languishing in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi have appeared in media.

Factual position is clarified as under:-

One MA Shiblung ( at present 63 years of age) a Chinese national was arrested in 1964. He was seen roaming around, talking in Chinese and was harboring suspicious ideas that people are about to kill him. With the help of an interpreter, it was noted that he believed himself to be the President of China and his brother as Prime Minister of China. . He was initially restrained in Tihar Jail where he developed feeding problem and had to be fed intranasally. He was sent to Hospital for Medical Diseases, Shahadra and subsequently was admitted to Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi in 1970. He continued to show hallucinatory behaviour, talking and smiling to self and sudden shouting. A Committee was constituted to examine the patient MA Shiblung. The Committee found him to be a burnt out case of Chronic Schizophrenia. The Psychiatrist Physician recommended that he may be treated as out patient.

Similarly another Chinese national Yang Chia Lun (at present 62 years of age) was reported to have entered India for better prospects. Mr. Yang Chia Lun was admitted to Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi. A Committee was constituted to examine the patient Yang Chia Lun. The Committee found him to be a burnt out case of Chronic Schizophrenia who doesn't require in patient care in the hospital. The Psychiatrist Physician recommended that he may be treated as out patient.

Proposed sub-articles

The article is too long. What is needed to be done is to copy and paste paragraphs into new more specific articles and then writing only one sentence here describing what that paragraph means or if it is a detailed one then a couple of sentences may be required. At the moment the article has more info on the events before and after the war then it has on the war so I suggest expanding that (and no subarticles are needed for that) while moving the rest. Proposed subarticles are:

• Johnson Line
• Events leading up the Sino-Indian War
• Preparations for the Sino-Indian War
• 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish
• Nathu La incident

Traing 07:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should focus on 1962-63. Now it's a history of Sino-Indian boundary disputes. This theory that the 1962 war was caused by a boundary dispute is presented as undisputed fact -- and I must strongly disagree. Kauffner 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why? It does seem to be what most conventional scholarship presents, except for perhaps Indian sources. --Yuje 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese offensive on Oct. 20 occurred simultaneously on two fronts 1,000 km apart. There was only one highway between China proper and Tibet at that time and it must have taken months to move up the supplies needed.[20] So Maxwell's thesis that the offensive was triggered by fighting near Thagla Ridge in early October is not plausible. Mao wanted to punish India for giving the Dalai Lama refuge in 1959. He delayed for as long as possible because he worried that India would retaliate by allowing U-2 flights. In the summer of 1962, Russia agreed to sell India high attitude MiG-21 fighters, so Mao could see that a window of opportunity was about to shut. The Chinese withdrew from NEFA when their supplies ran out. So they must have planned from the beginning to go in and come back out. This hard to explain if you assume that the underlying issue is a border dispute.

Although Sino-Indian War was small in military terms, it was a major turning point in terms of internal Chinese politics. Before the war, only the party was glorified in official propaganda, but afterwards the army was emphasized: "Learn from the People's Liberation Army," Lin Biao, Lei Feng, and so forth. This prefigured the Cultural Revolution when the party was marginalized and army officers put in charge.

Shifting power to the army allowed Mao to get revenge against Liu, Deng and the other party leaders who foiled his "great leap forward" policy. The official line is that GLP was a development program defeated by "three years of natural disasters." But for Mao, keeping China in "glorious poverty" and starvation was the point of GLP. The Khmer Rouge become his heros later on. They did to Cambodia what Mao would like to have done to China. Kauffner 04:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Zhou's diplomatic charm offensive in 1959-60 was designed to provide cover while the army prepared an invasion. By the same logic, the decision to patrol the McMahon Line in the summer of 1961 suggests that the invasion was called off at that time, probably because of the U-2 issue. Nehru learned of this from the CIA, decided the frontier was safe again, and the Forward Policy was his response. After Liu humiliated Mao at the party conference in January 1962, Mao revived the invasion plan in order to increase the prestige of the army and get back at Liu and the CCP. Kauffner 06:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The same can be argued with Burma. At the time, Burma was also claiming the McMahon Line as the basis for its boundaries, while Chinese claims included a strip of land in Northern Burma, as well as the Namwon Assigned Tract, an area taken from China and put under perpetual lease during British Administration. And at the time, nothern Burma was harboring a base for remnant nationalist forces, which had retreated there and continued to launch guerilla attacks against China from their base, as well as dominate the opium trade into China. Like with India, there were some border clashes between the two countries at places where the borders disagreed. However, unlike with India, Burma was willing to negotiate, and neither side accused the other of aggression, and the border was settled peacefully in 1960. Everything you argue could equally well apply to Burma, and were a war simply launched for political purposes to distract from the Great Leap Forward, it would also be a far smaller and more vulnerable country, and against a very real threat of KMT forces who undoutedbly planned to reinvade the mainland eventually.

On the other hand, actual recorded statements by various leaders did seem to indicate they felt the Indians were being unreasonable on the issue. See the Mao quotes, or Chen Yi's "the McMahon Line is a knife pointed at China's heart". It's hardly just a Maxwell theory, because Garver, Calvin, Whiting, and even Jung Chang say so. I doubt it's true that the army was never glorified before the Sino-Indian war. Have you ever heard of the Korean War? During this war, Chinese propaganda glorified the army's role in standing up to the American armed forces (the first time any Chinese force had won against western armed forces in some 200 years). It's true that they had planned to go back out from the very beginning, because it was never the plan to sieze the whole area, but more of "teach them a lesson" war, to end the various border provocations with a single punishing blow. It certainly worked, as the forward policy completely stopped, and the number of border clashes in the decades afterwards could be counted on one hand. --Yuje 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why India and not Burma? And what about Hong Kong and Macau, even more vulnerable than Burma? I think it's clear that Mao had a personal grudge against Nehru for reasons related to the flight of the Dalai Lama to India in 1959. What Mao thought Nehru could have done differently, I don't know. But the event was a humiliation for Mao and it is human nature to pin the blame for humiliation on others. Garver records Mao giving his first warmongering speech to the CCP Central Committee in April 1959, right after Dalai Lama's flight. This was followed up with propaganda denunciations of Nehru and a series of attacks on Indian patrols later that year. Mountbatten warned Nehru that there was "trouble brewing up" and that he should appoint at commander in chief for the Indian military.[21] Chang begins her account by writing that, "Mao had been planning War with India on the border issue for some time," i.e. he had been contemplating war for years before 1962. So I don't see any consensus in the literature supporting Maxwell's thesis that China'a 1962 offensive was a response to Indian military activity in early October.

Zhou put a smile on his face for his trip to India in April 1960, but only to distract attention from the knife that was being sharpened for India's belly. The resolution of the Sino-Burmese border issue was old news, something U Nu and Zhou had agreed to back in 1956. The formal signing of the agreeement was delayed until January 1960 to give Indians the illusion that Zhou arrived with a fresh willingness to compromise on border issues.

Thoughout the years Mao was in power, he would stir up war and crisis with other nations to enhance his power domestically. The Second Taiwan Straits Crisis in 1958 provided a pretext for a popular mobilization now seen as the beginning of the Great Leap Forward. Border conflict with Russia in the late 1960s played a similar role during the Cultural Revolution. Of course, there are reasons why it was India's turn in 1962. But which country was attacked and in what order the blows fell was incidental in terms of Mao's grand strategy.

At some point, every Chinese leaders has said something to the effect that, "We were right and the Indians caused the war." Cannot we not find similar statements by Indian leaders blaming China? Less common, but more revealing, are the statement on the record that go against the offical line, "statements against interest," as the lawyers would call them. Garver quotes Mao as stating several times in private that the causus belli was not the McMahon Line, but rather India's attempts to "seize Tibet."Kauffner 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe any sources ever advance the theory that you propose, not even Jung Chang. Garver supports the theory that the Chinese feared the Indians had designs on Tibet, and that the Forward Policy was part of a plan to gradually advance upon that territory. The Indians probably only wanted the Tibetans to be given more autonomy by the Chinese government, as well as be given a special relationship like they have with Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim, but the Chinese leadership didn't know that. After Khampa rebels were defeated, they fled, and when Chinese forces pursued them, they were fired upon by an Indian outpost at Longju, which was north of the McMahon Line, which deepened their suspicions of Indian complicity over the Tibetan rebellion, especially as India appeared to have been giving them moral support.

As for Jung Chang, I don't believe she ever suggests Mao planned the war because of the Great Leap Forward. In the section I quoted below, she says Mao prepared for war as border clashes escalated, and she never suggests what you say. I'm sure Jung would not have spared Mao if she had any evidence that what you say was indeed true. Her descriptions of Mao in other wars don't:

• In the Long March, Mao's greatest victories were battles that never occured, the Long March was a hoax and Chiang actually let him go, the only battles he actually fought were great defeats he planned in order to get rid of rivals to secure personal power, the only victories were those outside of Mao's command.
• The Sino-Japanese War was an event that Mao never partipated in, except against other Chinese, and the communist victories over Japanese were in fact because Mao's subordinates disobeyed him and fought the Japanese.
• The Chinese Civil War was won not because of the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, or even of winning battles, but because all the KMT generals that lost against the communists, like Hu Zongnan, were actually secret communist sleeper agients that deliberately lost.
• The Korean war wasn't fought because of American troops approaching the Chinese border, but because Mao deliberately wanted to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of ex-KMT soldiers against American to force the Soviets to have to support and build up China's arms industry, and Mao actively sought American nuclear war on Chinese soil in order to pressure the Soviets to build up China's nuclear industry.
• The Sino-Soviet clashes were a direct result of Mao's ego trip which led him to reject Kruschev's willingness to turn China into a superpower and instead strike off on her own and start a Chinese-led world communist movement.

In the light of all these condemnations of Mao during his other wars (and for which some have accused her of being biased or inaccurate), it seems strange that she says suprisingly little about the Sino-Indian War. She says that Mao prepared for war after border clashes, and following a border dispute, and yet I don't think anyone would doubt that she would have taken the chance to criticize Mao's personality or personal character had she the evidence for it. And yet she doesn't. The most she goes to say was that Mao used the threat of withdrawing from communist solidarity during the Cuban Missile Crisis in order to blackmail Kruschev against criticizing him. --Yuje 04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nehru gutted the Indian army soon after he became prime minister. Based on Longju and Kongka Pass in 1959, Mao must have concluded the Indians were pushovers. At Thagla Ridge in 1962, the Chinese lite camp fires, something almost unheard of in the history of warfare, a sign of total confidence. The Chinese army wasn't seriously worried about Indian agression.

I find hard to see what China gained out of the war. India retaliated by allowing U-2s to overfly Lop Nor, something Mao had tried hard to prevent. Also, India and the CIA boosted aid to the Tibetan rebels. The rebels were able to capture a truck convoy with a trove of classified PLA documents. In 1987, China and India almost went to war over some worthless valley. Ok, they actually fight and all's well that ends well. But the episode shows how the 1962 war poisoned relations for long afterward. It also inhibited trade between India and China nations until 2003, when a trade agreement was finally signed. The explosive growth of Sino-Indian trade in the last few years shows the potential that existed earlier. IMO, Mao understood that he throwing away strategic advantages, otherwise he wouldn't have waited three years to attack. For him, outmaneuvering Liu and the "capitalist roaders" was a higher priority.Kauffner 15:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of using indirect evidence for which you don't seem to be able to provide sources, why not quote Mao directly in order to find out Mao's motivations? During the planning of the war, Mao said winning the war "will guarantee at least thirty years of peace" with India, which it in fact did. None of the notes from the war planning committee mention anything about Liu Shaoqi or his band of "capitalist roaders". The entire conflict at Thag La, as well as the majority of the eastern fighting during the months of October, took place north of the McMahon Line. If the war was entirely because of Mao's personal egoism to punish Liu and because of his anger over the Dalai Lama, then what were Indian troops doing north of the McMahon Line? Again, not even Jung Chang book supports what you say, and she's the one that says Mao's intentions in Vietnam and Korea were all aimed at the goal of provoking the USA into nuking China (though if what she suggest is true, one would wonder why Mao would squander the 1962 oppurtunity to provoke American nukes). --Yuje 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What Jung Chang actually says

Whoever read Jung Chang wrote in the article: "China began preparations for war with India in May or June."

And here's what it actually says:

Mao had been planning War with India on the border issue for some time. China had refused to negotiate the boundary that had been deliniated by the British in colonial times, and insisted it be renegotiated, or at least formalized by the two now sovereign states. India regarded the border as settled and not negotiable, and the two sides were deadlocked. As border clashes worsened, Peking quietly prepared for war during May-June 1962. Chou later told Americans that "Nehru was getting very cocky . . . and we tried to keep down his cockiness." But Mao was chary [sic] of starting a war, as he was worried about the security of the nuclear test site at Lop Nor in northwest China, which was beyond the range of American U-2 spy planes flying from Taiwan, but lay within range from India. Part of the fallout from the war was that India allowed U-2s to fly from a base at Charbartia, from where they were able to photograph China's first A-bomb test in 1964.

Mao was also concerned that he might ahve to fight on two fronts. Chiang Kai-shek was making his most active preparations since 1949 to invade the Mainland, fired by the hope that the population would rise up and welcome him because of the famine. Mao took the prospect of a Nationalist invasion seriously, moving large forces to the southeast coast opposite Taiwan, while he himself hunkered down in his secret shelter in the Western Hills outside Peking.

It later goes on to say that the decision was made in October, after Mao was able to blackmail Kruschev and the USSR into supporting China. --Yuje 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that China prepared for war in May-June, then decided not to go war, but the war started in October anyway? Logically, the decision should come first, then the military preparations, and finally the war. IMO, Chang just put her sentences in the wrong order. Anil Athale, co-author of the official history, gives a clearer view of the military timeline, although I find Chang's explaination of the role of the Cuban missile crisis to be more convincing than Athale's.

The second Chang quote is misleading. The following paragraph states, "The Americans said they would not back Chiang to go to war against the Mainland, and that Chiang promised not to attack without Washington's consent" (p. 569). This happened on June 23, 1962, according to Chang's source notes. Thus Mao could prepare for the Sino-Indian War without worrying about a KMT attack. Kauffner 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1962 War in Popular Culture

I plan to add a section, or a note in the aftermath, about the Indian movie Haqeeqat (Reality), which was made in 1964 and told of the last ditch battle at Rezang La for the defence of Chulshul in Ladakh sector.

Is there any popular culture reference from China?

Mikeslackenerny 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Casualty Figures (Revision?)

1. PoWs no is accurate, as it is confirmed by both Indian and Chinese sources 3968. 2. Number of Killed = 1,383 and Missing = 1,696. This is what Calvin says, and attributes it to official Indian sources. Not sure what sources he means. The term missing has no real meaning almost 50 year later, and I propose we remove it.

So total supposed dead are = 3079 (All sectors) According to Garver.

According to [22][23], the memorial at Tawang lists 2420 dead only in the Eastern Sector (Kameng).

The Tawang Memorial is dedicated to the 2420 martyrs killed in the Kameng sector during the 1962 Indo-China war

As to western secror, we can guess at casualties after looking at the battles and the no. of dead listed there. (Chulshul etc.)

Athale (Official History) says a total of 2616 were killed or seriously wounded.[24]

Mikeslackenerny 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's logical to say that everyone missing is dead. Garver's source wasn't written at the time, it is quite recent. If Garver says 1383 killed and 1696 missing then that is what it is. Also, the Chinese casaulties figure of 700 or so seems inaccurate based on reports of various separate battles. I just doesn't work out with the math. Traing 06:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I mixed up Calvin and Garver. It was Calvin who gave the 'missing' figures. And the missing figures make no sense in 1984. Many soldiers died while returning from Bhutan, and many of there were killed by the Chinese after the ceasefire (See Athale's report on BR).

I believe the 722 figure for the Chinese could be only the Eastern Front. The Chinese source has given a break up of no. of officers and NCOs and ORs in the source. I have postted the Mandarin version in the Chinese Casualty discussion above.

Also, once the Indian Cas figures on the Western front can be confirmed, we can get a combined figure for Eastern (2420) and western. Mikeslackenerny 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Indian Army has given a list of all soldiers killed in all ops since WW-2 (including peace time ops) here: [25]. Here we can see that total no. of soldiers killed in Indo-China War (1962 + 67 + 86) is 3429 and Sikkam-Tibet (1967) clashes is 04. Need to see database and check dates od death to come to exact figures.

• • Data from the above has been mined at this site [26]. Accodingly, I have updated Indian Cas figures for 1962 and 1967. Also, if you see the site, you can see that significant action took place in 1978, 79 in Leh/Ladakh and in Sikkim again in 1980.

I see from your source that Indian casualties troops were still being killed well into December in post-ceasefire skirmishes. Perhaps that should also be included. Traing 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

December figures are included in 3128. These were the onese killed (by Chinese and the adverse weather) while coming from Bhutan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

POV changes (yet again)

• China's maps showed the land between Ladakh and Bhutan as Chinese.
  • what it actually says:"Maps accompanying the report showed both Aksai Chin in Ladakh and territory up to the Himalayan foothills, east of Bhutan as Chinese territory."
  • This was a distortion of a source (again) to imply that China had claims to Sikkim and Nepal.
    • Fixed. Traing 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Traing keeps on quoting this: "Nehru staed "We will negotiate and negotiate and negotiate to the bitter end. I absolutely reject the approach of stopping negotiations at any state."[4] Nehru stated He remained firm that there would be no boundary negotiations until Chinese troops withdrew from Aksai Chin and areas south of the British McMahon Line.[3][4]
  • Of course, when I add the conditions he offered for negotiations, Traing keeps deleting them. He does this to keep implying that Nehru was reasonable and kept on wanting to negotiate, but when keeps deleting his proposed conditions, which were the reason the Chinese rejected:
  • Calvin:"Meanwhile, the diplomatic exchanges continued. But Nehru maintained that there was little to negotiate about the frontiers claimed by India. He was prepared to discuss "minor details" of border delimitation, but only if China would first withdraw from, and renounce her claim to, Aksai Chin."
  • Maxwell"The sina qua non of a boundary settlement in the Indian view was that China must concede that Aksai Chin was Indian territory as well as accepting the McMahon Line."(emphasis in original)
    • I don't quote it. Traing 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• This was deleted, without explanation:"Fearful of flanking attacks, Indian troops also occupied positions at Tsang Le, which were inside Bhutan; Indian forces were told to ignore the line and international boundary. However, Chinese forces avoided the crossings by fording the river. Quickly seizing Indian positions and cutting off telephone lines, they were able to take control of Tsangdhar and Hathung La and were in a position to cut off escape and possible resupply for the Indian forces. However, Chinese forces ignored Tsang Le, which was inside Bhutanese territory. Indian forces withdrew back towards Tawang."
  • • Fixed. Traing 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• "On the evening of November 19, Nehru, made an appeal to the United States for armed aid, including airstrikes, if Chinese forces continued to advance, and air cover, in case of raids by the Chinese air force."
  • Calvin:"Late on the evening of November 20th, prime Minister Nehru made an urgent and open appeal to the United States for armed intervention against the Chinese;"
    • Fixed. Traing 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

--Yuje 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is that there are simply to many pro-chinese and pro-indian contributors to the article. This is coming from an external observer.

• • • • Are there any Pro-Elbonian editors out there to balance it in a 3-way see-saw? Mikeslackenerny 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing Yuje?

I'm trying to shorten the article per Wikipedia guidelines by using smaller articles to represent the conflict before the start of the war but you are restoring it completely to make the article unbearably long. Traing 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve it by extended it and giving the historical background leading up to the war, to make it a feature-length article. You look like you're trying to POV-fork the article. I noticed that in many of your edits, you claim you are "compressing", but you always seem to somehow delete important facts of the border dispute, such as the fact that the Indians modified the McMahon Line coordinates. You add in Singh saying that India considered the Himalayas to be its ancient boundaries, yet delete the part of history describing that those boundaries came from British wars with Burma in the first place. You deleted the Dalvi quotes which show that even the commander on the spot had doubts to the legitimacy of the claims he was fighting for. Viewing the last week's worth of edits, I see several pages of deletions, and no substantial editions of any sort. And of course, all the material you deleted invariably came from my edits, while you left your own untouched.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a encylopedia, a repository of knowledge, not a Cliff Notes book. A glance at the diff shows no additions, so I'm reverting to the more detailed version, and editing from there. --Yuje 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have ANY idea what a FA length is??? It is NOT 111 kb!! You would get rejected on FAC straight away!! I am using subarticles which is what you are MEANT to do. I can never accept this, it takes very long to compress paragraphs into long sentences! You seem to have no knowledge of what a feature-length article is. I mistook you for someone who had great knowledge of Wikipedia. I am not making POV deletions, I am moving the exact text of your version to subarticles where full descriptions are written, I am just summarizing. NOT deleting! Traing 07:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Traing is POV-forking. He is selectively moving out the facts he does not like out of the main article. For example, he left in Indian accusations that Chinese claims were based on imperialism, but snipped out Chinese accusations that Indian claims were based on the British empire. For example, he snips out parts which detail the changes that India made to the McMahon Line, but leaves in claims about how India regards the Himalayas as its borders, and leaves in India's interpretations that the border should be on the highest ridges. Like I said, he is very selectively snipping out the parts he doesn't like to put a very unbalanced summary. If a reader just goes through the main article and not onto the subarticle, the view presented to him is very unbalanced and POVed, because of Traing's selective snippings. Like I said, look any all his deletions/POV-forks into other articles. Almost all his deletions are taken out of my edits, none from his. And frankly, the information needs to be there, since all the authors, including Lamb, Whiting, Calvin, Maxwell, Mullik, and so on feature long background sections on their works detailing the background to the dispute. It doesn't make sense otherwise. The war itself took place during only 10 days of actual fighting. Workers have put out strikes that have lasted longer, it's the geopolitics of the war that make it significant. --Yuje 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr pda's article size script reveals that the readable prose on this article is at 79KB; far too large. Please read WP:LENGTH for a discussion of appropriate readable prose size and WP:SS on summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He editted the article in a completely POVed manner, editting out selectively, and he deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else. And almost all his cuts are taken out of my edits, which shows a POVed manner of doing so. Had I not restored the edits, they would have been gone. Also, I don't feel that his deletions were justifiable, since they are vital information for the article. On the other hand, I repeatedly asked him for sources for the Chola incident, which he did not provide, and he insisted on keeping that incident on the main article despite failing to fulfill the standards of reliable sources and notability.

If the article must be shortened, I propose that the manner in which the article be shortened and summarized be discussed here first, by multiple editors (not just me and Traing), so that there is a more balanced view on this matter, because frankly, I don't trust Traing. In previous edits to this article, he has fabricated facts and falsely claimed they were from cited sources (after I pressed him, it turned out he couldn't provide cites from the source because he never read it, and he admitted he was makign them up), on multiple instances he inserted his own opinions into the article and claimed they came from books or articles when they didn't, made up facts, and tried to delete large amounts of information in his edits. --Yuje 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was when I was new to Wikipedia! I have learnt much since then. Must you keep brining that up? I don't think you understand the concepts of subarticles? Your version is being copied verbatim into Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and Events leading to the Sino-Indian War (which is 31kb in itself!). All I'm doing is compressing the article here, which is not meant to cover all these things in as much detail as the subarticles. The fact that you add 30 kb to the article in your revert and thus take it over 100 kb means that you are in the wrong here. SandyGeorgia has said themselves that the article is too long at 78kb let alone your 111kb version. Before accusing me and making baseless reverts, find out what my edits have done. Traing 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, when Traing first joined Wikipedia, he turned to blatent lying as his option of first resort, and admitted to it only after being repeatedly being caught at it. Am I supposed to believe that this was only because you were a newbie and needed to be explicitly told that lying and fabrication are in fact wrong? If you hadn't been repeatedly caught at it, would you have gone back and changed all those made up or fabricated evidences after you stopped being a newbie? Somehow, I doubt that. --Yuje 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then I have you to thank for teaching me how things work on Wikipedia when I was a newbie. But somehow that's irrelevant to recent concerns. Traing 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article

Wow.. the article has evolved brilliantly over the past couple of months. Informative and well referenced article.. good job. --Grubb 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

The political map of India has a caption stating that the map shows Bhutan as part of India, when Bhutan is infact shaded a different colour to India. Can someone clarify? Traing 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1954 map shades Bhutan and Sikkim and the map says that the two have been attached to India by a special treaty. Look at the legend and see the difference between the lines used for international boundaries and internal boundaries. The lines used for the border with Bhutan and Sikkim (and Nepal, for that matter) don't use the international border lines that are used one the border with China and Pakistan, but uses the lines for Indian subdivisions. The 1950 map shows both as being independent countries.--Yuje 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is just glorifying the Indian army

What the heck is this? The whole article just turn into an Indian propaganda piece. Many parts of the article said Indians inflicted higher casualties to the Chinese than the other way around. And it almost onesidely talk about Indian army's bravary and make the Chinese troop look stupid.

I agree. 450w 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Find sources then which represent another line of thought over the Battle of Rezang La, or Chushul. Traing 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Just look at the write up on the Western Theatre. It is a blatant glorification of the Indian Army and details events and accounts of bravery of individual soldiers. The style of presentation makes a mockery out of this encyclopedia. BeyRel 05:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what's biased

• [Text box] Deletion of who won the war. Wars do not involve armies simply moving around back and forth. Battles are fought, and one side or the other wins. Traing kept on deleting text that says that China won the war.
• "The first heavy fighting of the war was triggered by a Chinese attack on an Indian patrol north of the McMahon Line."
  • This is incredibly biased account. There was a confrontation at Thag La Ridge, which was north of the McMahon Line. Nehru ordered the soldiers to "expel the Chinese", and Operation Leghorn was launched to do just that. The Indian troops there weren't doing routine patrols, but advancing towards Chinese positions, and the group that got attacked was moving into positions to outflank the Chinese positioned at Thag La.
    • According to Calvin this was the first heavy fighting of the war. Like it or not. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• [The McMahon Line]: "This border was intended to run through the highest ridges of the Himalayas, as the areas south of the Himalayas were traditionally Indian."
  • This is in fact the Indian claim. The text of the Simla Treaty does not say it was meant to run through the highest ridges. It was later the Indians who would claim this, and then they modified the McMahon Line to include the highest ridges. This simply states the Indian position as a fact. I'm reading Mullik's book right now, and even he doesn't consider those areas "traditionally Indian". (He said that the areas south of the Himalayas were under the greatest threat of "Chinese infiltration" as the tribals were unassimilated into India at that time, and that Indians considered the Himalayas to be Indian because they were inhabited by Tibetans, and that Indians consider Tibet to be part of Indian civilization)
    • I'll make those changes in the coming week, when I have time. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted was the portion that indicated that India in fact moved the McMahon Line northwards without treaty or negotiation, and also changed the coordinates of the line. This is simply deleted from the main article.
  • I think it writes how India was expanding north of the McMahon Line but south of the ridges. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "China's claim on areas south of the McMahon Line, encompassed in the North East Frontier Agency, were based on traditional boundaries without written or documented acceptance from anyone else apart from China."
  • This is simply cited as a fact, not as a claim.
    • OK, I'll change that over the coming week. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Both sides claim that the other's claim is strictly based on part imperial control.[18][20] V.K. Singh argues that India does not claim areas which were previously under Indian Imperial Rule, such as the lands conquered by the Mauryans or Cholas."
  • This is simply drawing a red herring. China didn't accuse India of claiming lands under previous Indian imperial rule, Zhou Enlai accused them of basing their claims on British Imperial claims. This of course conveniently deleted, while this red herring is kept. Also deleted is the very valid claim that China also doens't claim areas under previous imperial rule by the Tang or Han dynasties, which is equally true.
    • Your claim for the Tang and Han dynasties were OR and sunsourced. This claim is straight from VK Singh and is attributed to him. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "On July 1, 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directed that the frontier should be definite."
  • What the Indian government did was change their maps that had previously labeled borders as deliminated and demarcated frontiers and changed them to have established borders, and also included Sikkim and Bhutan as part of India. Demarcated means that borders are surveyed and boundary markers, fences, or posts are actually placed on the ground to establish the border. This, the map changing, and the claims over Bhutan and Sikkim were deleted.
    • OK, I'll change that over the coming week. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Dhola lay north of the McMahon Line but south of the ridges the McMahon Line was supposed to represent."
  • Again, this takes the Indian position simply as a statement of fact. The Dhola lay north of the McMahon on the actual treaty map as well. While China didn't recognize it as a legal map, they accepted this as a de-facto border open to negotiation. That the McMahon Line was supposed to be on certain ridges was the Indian position, not a statement of fact, and comes from the Indian alterations to the McMahon Line (and their insistence that this modified line was the only legal border)
    • OK, I'll change that over the coming week. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "On September 8, a 60-strong PLA unit descended to the south side of the ridge and occupied one of the Indian posts at Dhola."
  • This is a bald-faced lie. The troops did not occupy or even attack the posts at Dhola. Also deleted was the fact that the post commander deliberately exaggerated Chinese numbers to 600, and that several battations were sent by Indian in reponse to "expel the Chinese".
    • I think it's sourced. I'll look into this. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "writer Ramkumar Srinivasan speculates that the real aim of the war was to create a distraction to cover the failures of the Great Leap Forward in the 1950s[27] It is suggested that Mao also wanted to propose Lin Bao with a decisive military defeat over India which would increase his popularity as well as that of the People's Liberation Army."
  • I believe the article is placing undue emphasis on his opinion. All the other positions of intent on the war are quoted from books or articles written by historians, academics, politicians, or soldiers from the war. Ramkumar Srinivasan is none of these, in fact his article is basically an editorial, and even in his article he says that his claims are merely his own speculations.
    • It's just one opinion. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Image:Sino-Indian War.pngThis Traing map is horribly inaccurate. It doesn't included the middle sector of the dispute, and it misrepresents no less than three independent countries. Sikkim is shown as part of India, while Bhutan and Nepal are shown as part of China, none of which were true in 1962.
  • I need to replace that map when I get time. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• United States intervention section: Traing repeatedly moves this section to before the ceasefire, when in fact Nehru's request for American intervention happened after the ceasefire. In fact, Traing changed the dates several times in order to accomodate this change. In fact, after I mentioned this, and corrected it, and cited the source for it, Traing changed it back again. Nehru asked for aid on November 20, after having recieved the ceasefire announcment. Traing keeps on changing the date and placing it before the ceasefire to imply that the Chinese ceasefire came as a result of the threat of American intervention. This section should be placed after the ceasefire.
  • It doesn't make sense for this section to placed after the ceasefire. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "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"
  • All the territory they kept in the Aksai Chin was territory they had controlled "before the war", yet Traing keeps deleting this repeatedly, and keeps changing the text to say that it was seized during the war. He also deleted the original text which shows how much of the disputed territory was involved. "The PLA withdrew to positions along the Line of Actual Control, which China had occupied before the war (map) and on which it staked its diplomatic claim[16] (keeping most of the Aksai Chin, which comprised 32% of the disputed territory and returning North East Frontier Agency, which comprised 68%)." Traing also keeps deleting this map which shows that China in fact did not "keep the territory they had affirmed total control of in Aksai Chin". (They returned the portions of the Aksai Chin that they gained during the war).
    • It says "affirmed total control of". Tell me what that means. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Traing deleted the bolded portions: "According to VK Singh, China kept territory past their 1960 claim line[18], though even the Indian official history says the Chinese forces did not advance past their 1960 claim line"
  • Very nice use of selective quoting and selective deleting, Traing.
    • OK, I didn't notice that, I'll change that over the coming week. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• "By 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the Sumdorong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh (formerly NEFA), which is north of the McMahon Line as drawn on the Simla Treaty map but south of the ridge which is meant to delineate the McMahon Line"
  • Again, this is presenting the Indian interpretation of the McMahon Line as fact, when in fact the treaty map (which I uploaded to Wikipedia) and the treaty doesn't say this. This text has been altered to suggest that the treaty map (which shows the position as north of the McMahon Line) is wrong, and that India's changes to it are correct.
    • OK, I'll change that over the coming week. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--Yuje 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably get time over the next few days to look over and fix the changes I have told you I would fix. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to request for review on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Reading the article (which was very interesting, as it's about a war I knew little about), factual content and depth of coverage look to be very good. The style might benefit from a bit of a polish, though: I've had a go at copyediting the introduction, mainly trying to improve its flow. Whilst I have been careful not to alter any of the content, proofreading is always welcome... and please accept my apologies for any errors that might have crept in ;)

If consensus is agreeable, I'm happy to work through the rest of the article - although reading the comments above, it might be best to wait until the points mentioned have been dealt with. Let me know what you think. EyeSerene^TALK 19:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit update

Thanks for the proof-reading and corrections where I have inadvertently dropped stuff!

A couple of points:

• Who is V K Singh? I think his credentials and POV need to be mentioned in the article if he is to be quoted (eg "Indian historian V K Singh argues...")
• Who was T O'Callaghan? Again, I think it would be helpful to the reader to at least give his position or title (explaining what authority he had to relocate China's boundary markers!)
• I removed the following paragraph as it did not seem to fit into the article, and it made the tone of the article sound slightly POV (there are other examples of India's initial friendly intentions towards the PRC; this feels like over-doing it!):

In the coming years India strived to become China's representative in world matters, as China had been isolated from many issues.For example, India vigorously pressed, since the start of the 1950s, for the PRC to be included within the UN.

Any comments etc, let me know either here or my talk page ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• VK Singh is a retired Major General who is prominent in writing Indian military histories and biographies of major soldiers in the Indian military. He was also Former Director General of Military Operations in Delhi.

Would it be fair to call him an "Indian military historian" for the context of this article, or would you prefer a fuller description? EyeSerene^TALK 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• T O'Callaghan was the Assistant administrator of the Eastern Sector of the North East Frontier.

Thanks - I googled him but couldn't find anything! EyeSerene^TALK 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Traing 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Further update: The last 2 paragraphs of the Tibet controversy section might benefit from a read through - to keep the original content, I had to reword parts of it in a way that might have introduced a POV bias (I hope not, but it's difficult to neutrally proofread your own work!). BTW, I've also added the LoC tag to the top of this page (forgot to do this earlier) and will request a further proofreading from other LoC editors when we've done the copyedit if that's ok. EyeSerene^TALK 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit on hold

As the article is in a state of flux at the moment, I'll hold off on any further ce until it's settled down again ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why lengthen the article?

Yuje, most of the edits you made were again simply lengthening an already too-long article. All the stuff about Thag La and the McMahon Line is already present in small article. It has not disappeared, there's no point copy-pasting on to here again. Then the article will become too long.And in other cases you simply blank entire paragraphs and sections, that is not neutral and does not help the article in question at all. Please let's negotiate making a better article as opposed to this mindless revert warring with you readding material which can be found on Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute and other pages. Traing 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't lengthen the article. Some of the post-war stuff wasn't directly related to the Sino-Indian war, so I moved that to Sino-Indian relations and moved the more relevant text of the Thagla stuff in. I changed the content to be more relevant but I didn't lengthen it. I also went and NPOVized a lot of biased changes you made. Describing Chinese victory isn't biased. EVERY SINGLE OTHER BATTLE/WAR PAGE describes the victor of a conflict, if there was one, and no source describes India as a victor in this conflict. If I were to use your style of description, then WW2 would simply be "Allies occupy Germany and Japan, then withdraw afterwards". Describing the start of the war as an attack on a patrol is inaccurate. In the areas describing the origins of the conflict, you neatly cut out Chinese positions and left Indian ones in, stating them as fact without qualifying them, and you strongly present the Indian modifications to the McMahon line as a legitimate one and not with a neutral view. You deliberately altered some facts altogther. the Indian official history says that on July 22, 1962 it was decided that Indians now had permission to open fire on Chinese without acting in self-defense and to expel the Chinese from disputed areas. You changed this to "On July 22, the Forward Policy was extended to allow Indian troops to surround Chinese posts already established in disputed territory". In other words, you're fabricating BS again. You deleted all the Thagla Ridge stuff, which is directly part of the first major battle. You keep on reorganizing the chronology to put American intervention before the ceasefire and completely deleted the information about the evacuation of Tezpur to just that it was a mere claim that Chinese troops were near and chose not to attack. You added text that implies China had claims on Assam, yet not a single source shows that China ever claimed Assam. Calvin, Maxwell, Noorani, Lamb, et state that Chinese forces withdrew to the pre-war line of control, yet you keep changing the text to imply that China did not, and conquered territory during the war, and delete the sources, map, and external links which show otherwise. The Chinese and Indian governments, as well as the standard cited scholars all claim Chinese forces didn't advance past the claim line, yet you deleted all these and placed Singh's claims ahead of all these others. You didn't even bother looking at any of the changes before reverting, or you've gone back to your old habit of fabricating evidence and pushing POV again. Please end your endless and loathsome habit of selective quoting and selective deletions to support your POV views. --Yuje 05:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So now what are you doing? You're just blank mass reverting without even bothering to look at the content of the edits, or answering the listed criticisms. --Yuje 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a full reply when I get time...please hold on, at the moment you get the gist from the edit summaries. You cannot justify blanking paragraphs and then copy-pasting paragraphs in sections that you like. The "later skirmishes" section is already HEAVILY summarized. Traing 09:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't justify your edits, especially your countless deletions, and your restoration of POV edits, then you certainly shouldn't be reverting. Over the past several months, your very first reaction to EVERY SINGLE major edits is a revert. And you wonder why I keep mentioning your atrocious behavior of POVing, evidence fabrication, and endless revert warring.--Yuje 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because I don't have time does not mean I cannot justify my edits. I will no go through every difference we have in this diff:

• You have added subjectivity and deleted the FACT that China took all Indian posts they had captured in Aksai Chin. Thus you are misrepresenting facts in the infobox.
  • It is not representing the facts. The source is presented right here: maparticle The Chinese returned all territory they captured during the war. This is also what is stated by Maxwell.
    • China had de-facto rule over Aksai Chin because of their heavy military presence, but are you trying to say that Indian troops were allowed back into the posts that they previously occupied in the Western theatre? Traing 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If you want to claim that an Indian presence existed there, then find a source which states that Indian soldiers had a presence beyond the Line of Actual Control. The sources cited that the de-facto prewar border was at the Line of Actual Control. Your text which keeps implying that Inda controlled the Aksai Chin (most of which is past the LoAC) is uncited, and contradicts cited evidence.--Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • If Chinese troops were fighting Indian troops in Aksai Chin, didn't that mean Indian troops were in Aksai Chin or did they just appear out of nowhere for the war? Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • China fought the Indian troops in the parts of the Aksai Chin south of the Line of Actual Control. Map. Calvin: "On October 20th, simultaneous with the Thag La Ridge attack, the Chinese assaulted Indian posts in Chip Chap Valley, Galwan Valley, and Pangong Lake". All these locations are on the Line of Actual Control. You keep on claiming that China gained territory during the war. The parts of the Aksai Chin that were under Indian control, China returned at the end of the war. Map showing the Indian controlled parts of the Aksai Chin pre-war, and showing that China withdrew from them at the end of war--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That is not consistent. If Zhou Enlai wanted to have an east-west trade then that would encompass Aksai Chin in the west and NEFA in the east. Later the article says that the end result was the same as Zhou's earlier East-West trade. Traing 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Calvin says the first heavy fighting of the war was this attack, yet you are clogging up the lead and reducing the readability the League of Copyeditors is trying to achieve by cramming up the lead.
  • Calvin says it is the first heavy fighting. He DOES NOT say the war was "triggered by a Chinese attack on an Indian patrol". As the Calvin, Maxwell, and even the Indian official history notes, the Indian forces were attacking Chinese positions, and Nehru had publically proclaimed this force was to "expel the Chinese from Thagla". YOU are inserting in a bias.
    • The war began because of this confrontation which resulted in a buildup of Chinese troops. The lead as it stands is well written and has been copyedited, fluency and readability is an important part of an article. Traing 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Quote it. Quote the source which says "war began because of this confrontation". The current way the article is written selectively quotes and selectively excludes. It mentions the Chinese attack, but doesn't mention the Indian army's advance to Thagla and their orders to "expel the Chinese" and "free our territory". My version mentions both, that the Indians were advancing towards Chinese positions and clearly announced their intentions to attack, and that the Chinese had attacked them.--Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • However, your version is not fluent and has a bias. You are basically pointing the finger and saying childishly that they did this because they did that and because of that they did that. That's not encyclopaedic language. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • In other words, you can't provide a source justifying it. And yet you insist on reverting back to it and to name calling anyway. Great. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It is simply English Yuje...because of the confrontation here, China began its preparations for an all-out two-pronged attack. If you want to change the triggered date to 10 days later when this two-pronged attack occurred then we'll do that. Traing 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• You continually try to add your incorrect version of the survey map twice in the article. I don't know what you are trying to achieve by this repetition but it is definitely not adding to the quality of the article.
  • How is my map inccrrect? It's a map directly published by the Indian government, and it was relevant because the map changes shown were referred to in the text. On the other hand Traing keeps insisting on adding a map which shows Nepal and Bhutan as part of China, and Sikkim as part of India. Traing wants to delete an official government map as inaccurate, and he keeps on readding an inaccurate map which is factually wrong.
    • I meant that caption is incorrect. And why are you trying to repeat it, Yuje that is completely unnecessary. I assume you can read the map. You can see clearly from the map itself that the international boundary of India does NOT include Bhutan. Bhutan is shaded in with cross-hatching to indicate it's status as protectorate of India! Why can't you understand that?
      • Errr, no. Read the legend showing the international boundaries. India's borders with Bhutan are not marked as international borders, but internal borders. Where on the map is it mentioned that Bhutan is a protectorate?--Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I will confer with the user that actually said that the map showed this. Why would Bhutan be claimed as an Indian state by an official Indian survey? Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • What the user said is OR. What the article says about India's claims is cited directly from a published source, Maxwell, pg. 83.
        • User:Deeptrivia is sure about this and is confident that you are misinterpreting the Survey of India's map. Maxwell is not a neutral source by any means. Please confer with him. Traing 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• You are copy-pasting material from the sub-articles. You say However, on July 1, 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru ordered the maps to be changed to show a defined boundary and to remove mentions of undemarcated areas along the border (the maps also include Bhutan and Sikkim as part of India]].. First of all, Sikkim and Bhutan are labelled protectorates! Why say that they are labelled as part of India? Even if they were marked as such, what is the point to mention such thing. And how is this not an unnecessary expansion on the current version?
  • I am not. I am restoring to an earlier version of the article, and restoring material you deleted. The map says nowhere that they are protectorates. Maxwell's book says that the intention of the maps was to protray them as part of India, and that's a source that I can cite, and the administrative borders drawn are shown as India's internal boundaries. The claim that these were shown as protectorates is OR.
    • Again, it seems like you cannot see the actual map. You can also not understand the concept of subarticles no matter HOW I try to present them to you? I feel like I'm talking without anyone listening, because I keep telling you that material was not deleted but you insist that you are restoring deleted material. Traing 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• You are using repetition and not attributing comments properly. You wrote Zhou Enlai pointed out that the Aksai Chin boundary was undemarcated and had never been subject to treaty between the Indian and Chinese government and on the next line repeated it in different words by writing the Indian government had insufficient ground for unilaterally defining a border and claiming the Aksai Chin in 1954 without having undergone ground surveys or consultation with neighboring China. Again extended the article with repetition to prove your point.
  • I fail to see what was repetitive about in. In any case, you deleted both statements.
    • That seems to show that you don't really look at the diffs. In case you did not noticed, I summarized the two repetitive lines into once concise line which gave the gist of the two lines. Traing 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The two statements state two different points, and your "summary" doesn't adequately represent them. Please don't try to argue away a POV edit as merely a copyedit.--Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • How does it not represent them? Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You said "Zhou Enlai later argued that the Indian government could not place a claim over Aksai Chin without consultation with neighboring China." You kept his claim, but deleted all the arguments he cited. At the same time, you bolster the paragraph heavily with pro-Indian views. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • What bolstering?? Isn't that what your text was saying. It was saying that India had to confer with China and create a treaty with it. If you think the article does not say that China never signed a treaty on the boundary then maybe you aren't reading the article properly. Traing 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• You are extending the nature of the Simla agreement unnecessarily. The point gets across, China did not support the terms. You also state blatantly that the "Indian claim line is north of the McMahon Line". The wording of that gives a false impression. Parts of the Indian frontier was extended north to the highest ridges but in essence the claim line lies on the McMahon Line.
  • The Calvin, Maxwell, Noorani, and other sources all point out that the Indian claim line is north of the McMahon Line. The cited sources indicate that the Indian claim line is several miles north of the McMahon Line, while the Maxwell source gives exact coordinates for the McMahon Line, and also gives the coordinates that the Indians moved their claim line further north to. You deleted all these and changed the text to imply that the Indian modification to move the line north was in fact the correct position and true intention of the McMahon Line. Nowhere in the McMahon Line map, or on the text of the convention (both of which I have, stipulate that the border should fall upon the highest ridge), and this is attributed to a cited source as well, which I provided. You have deleted these, and replaced these with OR claims. Furthermore, on the ground, Dalvi had expressed his doubts on the legitimacy of the Indian claims, and you deleted this. According to Maxwell, Indian generals planning to "expel the Chinese" from Thagla had concerns that the Indian maps showed Thagla as part of China. You deleted this as well.
    • As User:EyeSerene has summarized, India claims the intention of the McMahon Line was to show the highest ridges but the actual McMahon Line did not do this. Leave it to the reader to judge. Do not add commentary about the legitimacy of the claim. Traing 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it's exactly cited in the "Tawang and the Unnegotiated Dispute" that the treaty does not stipulate an intention to locate the boundary at the highest ridges. The statement that the Indian claim is north of the McMahon Line is stated directly in Calvin and Maxwell. You deleted these, and replaced this with a claim that it was "fulfilling the spirit of the original border proposal." Got a source for this? I expect you don't. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes but the article says that India claims the intention of the McMahon Line was this. It does not actually say that that is the intention of the McMahon Line. Also, the "fulfilling the spirit" stuff was added by EyeSerene. More Traing-phobia by Yuje. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Very well. Unless EyeSerene can provide a source for "fulfilling the spirit" of the McMahon Line, it's getting deleted yet again. Since you keep on restoring it, I'm perfectly justified in calling you out for it. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I can remove it and replace it with my pre-copyedited version but now the page is protected. Traing 06:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• You say China cites traditional boundaries as "one of it's justification", without sourcing any other justifications, just adding commentary. You also reverse some of EyeSerene's brilliant copyediting.
  • I provided the justifications, but you deleted them from the article, remember? You erased pages' worth of border history from the article, and then you claim it doesn't exist. Sheesh. And your text is biased. Both countries partly base their claims on traditional boundaries, yet the Chinese traditional claim is placed in scare quotes, while the Indian traditional claim to the Himalayas isn't, or even noted as its traditional claim.
    • You fail to understand the basic fact that your edits were not deleted!. You can point me out to the pages of border history on the article where your text was moved to. I can't believe after all this information you still are going on about my deletions!
      • You are trying to get away with POVing this page by claiming that the previous version exists elsewhere. My point: That DOES NOT GIVE YOU AN EXCUSE TO POV THIS PAGE! You may have moved both Chinese and Indian statements and views to the other page, but on this page, you kept ONLY Indian arguments, and that's my exact point, so I restored them for POV. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No, everything on this page is accurate, sourced and very importantly, attributed. The Chinese claims are shown as Chinese claims and the Indian claims have been shown as Indian claims. Moreover, the version you are reverting contains the edits of a neutral observer EyeSerene whom I have not EVER felt the need to revert and who has been most helpful indeed. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • • "The government of India held that the original intent of the Line was for the border to be located along the highest ridges However, such a condition is not stipulated in the text of the Simla Convention. The Indian government maintained that the intention of the McMahon Line was to set the border along the highest ridges, and that the international border fell on the highest ridges of Thag La, about 3 to 4 miles (4.8 to 6.4 km) north of the line drawn by Henry McMahon on the treaty map. Brigadier John Dalvi, who was commanding the Indian troops there, would later write of this claim: "The Chinese had raised a dispute about the exact alignment of the McMahon Line in the Thagla Ridge area. Therefore the Thagla-Dhola area was not strictly territory that 'we should have been convinced was ours' as directed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, and someone is guilty of exceeding the limits prescribed by him." Indian claims kept, Chinese claims on the original line, evidence of actual location of McMahon Line, Dalvi's doubts deleted without summary.
            • "On October 4, a special Border Command was created, under Lt. Gen. B.M. Kaul, tasked with evicting the Chinese from Dhola-Thagla October 10 was the planned date for Operation Leghorn. Because of the difficulties involved in directly assaulting and taking Thag La, Kaul made the decision instead to occupy nearby Yumtso La to the west, to position his troops behind and dominate the Chinese positions." On the description of Thagla, Traing deleted all mentions of Indian military activity, including their intentions to assault Thag La.
            • "According to V.K. Singh, China kept territory past their 1960 claim line, but he does not specify where. However, both the Chinese government and the Indian government state that Chinese forces never advanced south past their claim line." Traing removed the parts that say both the governments explicitly state that Chinese forces never advanced past the claim line. He replaced it with "Indian official history does not claim this", as if it was simply an excluded fact. The Indian history explicitly states that the Chinese forces did not advance past the claim line.
            • "India's government held the view that the Himalayas were the ancient boundaries of the Indian subcontinent, and thus should be the modern boundaries of India, [13] while it is the position of the Chinese government that the disputed area in the Himalays have been geographically and culturally part of Tibet since ancient times. Traing deleted Chinese position and kept only Indian one.
            • ""The government of India held that the original intent of the Line was for the border to be located along the highest ridges[7] However, such a condition is not stipulated in the text of the Simla Convention[17]" Kept only pro-Indian view, deleted second part, which isn't even a POV or position but simply a cited statement of fact.
          • "On July 22, all Indian troops were given permission to fire upon any Chinese without acting in self-defense (Indian official history)", highlighted text replaced with "to allow Indian troops to surround Chinese posts already established in disputed territory."
          • At a Communist Party conference in Beijing in January 1962, Chinese President Liu Shaoqi denounced the Great Leap Forward as responsible for widespread famine.[27] The overwhelming majority of delegates expressed agreement, but Defense Minister Lin Biao staunchly defended Mao.[27] A brief period of liberalization followed while Mao and Lin plotted a comeback.[27] Jung Chang writes that China was preparated for war with India in May to June after the border clashes, but feared the Nationalists, which had been making active preparations for invasion from Taiwan, and had moved large forces to the southeast coast.[27] Traing deleted the portion where Chang mentioned that China was in no position for war at this time.
          • Epoch Times editorialist Ramkumar Srinivasan speculates that the real aim of China's decision for war with India was to overshadow the effects of the Great Leap Forward.[31] Transcripts from the decision for war was not made by China's leaders until early October 6, 1962, and only then were war plans drawn by China's Central Military Commission.[4] Additionally, Roderik McFarquhar states, "In May-June 1962, the main concern in Beijing was over the threat of an invasion from Taiwan... Chinese leaders would have been reluctant to provoke hostilities in the Himalayas, which might have meant diverting military resources from the main danger point along the Fujian coast."[32] Traing deleted cites showing that China was not going to war at this time, and instead keeps the editorial.
          • Chinese claims shown and Indian claims shown, eh? --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• You AGAIN readd that Sikkim and Bhutan were claimed by India when they were protectorates. Repetition doesn't get you anywhere and makes the article longer.
  • That they were claimed as part of India is sourced. I've provided it. Page 83 of the Maxwell's book, as a matter of fact.
    • Neville Maxwell, the guy that thought Indian democracy failed in the 1960s, is not a neutral source. Your very own map shows Bhutan as a protectorate. More neutral sources showing protectorate status and no claiming of control: [sikkim.nic.in/sws/sikk_his.htm][www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/in-sk.html][www.mapsofindia.com/stateprofiles/sikkim/index.html][www.manipal.edu/smims/forvisitors/sikkim.htm][27]
      • Perhaps these maps are more neutral, but the map posted on the page was India's official map. If the map is POV and biased, it's because the Government of India was POVed and biased. However, it's a historical map historically used by India, and is presented as part of the history of the war. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The Indian Government never claims Bhutan as an Indian state. Instead of your or my OR interpreation of a map which clearly shades Bhutan a different shade go and find a source that says Bhutan is claimed as an Indian state. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Maxwell, pg. 82. How many times must I repeat? --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• You delete Chang and Epoch sources simply because you disagree with their POV. The source isn't given undue weight, it is mentioned and attributed in one paragraph. Let the reader make up their mind themselves as to the validity of this one paragraph in a 95 kb article.
  • Again, it's undue weight. Here's what it originally said, and look at what Traing selective deleted.

Original version

• • • At a Communist Party conference in Beijing in January 1962, Chinese President Liu Shaoqi denounced the Great Leap Forward as responsible for widespread famine.[27] The overwhelming majority of delegates expressed agreement, but Defense Minister Lin Biao staunchly defended Mao.[27] A brief period of liberalization followed while Mao and Lin plotted a comeback.[27] Jung Chang writes that China was preparated for war with India in May to June after the border clashes, but feared the Nationalists, which had been making active preparations for invasion from Taiwan, and had moved large forces to the southeast coast.[27]
    • Epoch Times editorialist Ramkumar Srinivasan speculates that the real aim of China's decision for war with India was to overshadow the effects of the Great Leap Forward.[31] Transcripts from the decision for war was not made by China's leaders until early October 6, 1962, and only then were war plans drawn by China's Central Military Commission.[4] Additionally, Roderik McFarquhar states, "In May-June 1962, the main concern in Beijing was over the threat of an invasion from Taiwan... Chinese leaders would have been reluctant to provoke hostilities in the Himalayas, which might have meant diverting military resources from the main danger point along the Fujian coast."[32]

Traing's version:

• • • By January 1962 Mao had lost much of his influence in China, and Chinese President Liu Shaoqi felt able to lead a public condemnation of Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward[27] (although by 1966 Mao had rebuilt his position and launched the Cultural Revolution as a means of destroying his opponents, including Liu Shaoqi who was removed from office).[27] Epoch Times editorialist Ramkumar Srinivasan speculates that the real aim of China's decision to go to war with India was to distract from the effects of the Great Leap Forward.[30] Jung Chang writes that China was prepared for war by May to June after the border clashes, albeit that Chinese attention was also diverted at times by the nationalists in Formosa (Taiwan).[27]
  • In other words, Traing selectively cut and pasted out in order to present a POVed point of view. He excludes views from a military historian, and also excludes actual transcripts by the military leader, prominantly presents the speculation of an editorial as a fact, and deletes the counterevidence. This is what I mean by biasing and POV.
    • IT IS NOT DELETED, IT IS MOVED. Need I say any more, you can reword it but you are instead blanking paragraphs, which you tend to do. I summarize, you blank. Traing 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That a NPOV version exists on another page DOES NOT GIVE YOU AN EXCUSE TO POV THIS PAGE! Both arguments exist on the other page, but on this you SELECTIVELY kept arguments only on one side, and deleted all others. In addition, you are emphasizing WP:Undue emphasis on an editorial. The author on the editorial himself says he's speculating, and yet he's being quoted twice (notice that I didn't delete the other cite of him, on Motives for War), while views from other scholars presenting less pro-Indian views are being removed outright from the main page. Please stop pretending that you have even made a semblance of effort to stay nonbiased. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It is not emphasis on an editorial. It is two attributed sentences in a 94 kb article. Just because you seem to have an ideological issue with Jung Chang and Rajkumar Srinivasan does not mean that you remove them entirely. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Traing deleted these parts:
          • "At a Communist Party conference in Beijing in January 1962, Chinese President Liu Shaoqi denounced the Great Leap Forward as responsible for widespread famine.[27] The overwhelming majority of delegates expressed agreement, but Defense Minister Lin Biao staunchly defended Mao.[27] A brief period of liberalization followed while Mao and Lin plotted a comeback.[27] Jung Chang writes that China was preparated for war with India in May to June after the border clashes, but feared the Nationalists, which had been making active preparations for invasion from Taiwan, and had moved large forces to the southeast coast.[27]
          • Epoch Times editorialist Ramkumar Srinivasan speculates that the real aim of China's decision for war with India was to overshadow the effects of the Great Leap Forward.[31] Transcripts from the decision for war was not made by China's leaders until early October 6, 1962, and only then were war plans drawn by China's Central Military Commission.[4 (Garver)] Additionally, Roderik McFarquhar states, "In May-June 1962, the main concern in Beijing was over the threat of an invasion from Taiwan... Chinese leaders would have been reluctant to provoke hostilities in the Himalayas, which might have meant diverting military resources from the main danger point along the Fujian coast."[32]
          • Just because you have an ideological issue with Garver and McFarquhar does not mean you remove them entirely. Oh wait! Your usual defense is that you simply moved it to a side article, right? Guess what? Chang and Srinivasan are there too! If you remove from the main article, you say, "IT IS NOT DELETED, IT IS MOVED", but for me, it's a removal based on my idealogical biases?--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• You then copy-paste stuff about the forward policy which isn't actually replacing my version but is replacing EyeSerene's copyediting which they have placed much effort on over the past few weeks.
• And yes you are adding spurious material. You replace a simply statement of the fact that Dhola is north of the McMahon Line with full latitude coordinates and details. I am not sure when you will understand that that content is NOT deleted, it has been moved. Wikipedia contains millions of articles but you seem to see it as one giant article. Otherwise why not move this whole article into Sino-Indian history or better still, why not move it into the more generalized War article? You replace Fire was not exchanged with a detailing of for how many days and what positions were held while fire was not exchanged. You replace that Indian troops were told to "free our territory" with details on Nehru's Commonwealth Ministers meeting in London. If you at least try to look at the diffs before reverting you will see that all your content is in both this article and in Events leading to the Sino-Indian War only that it is in full text there and summarized version here!
  • Your edit, to be quite frank, is wrong. For example, you claim that the Chinese occupied Dhola post. They did not, nor did they even surround the post, (see Maxwell). You wrote that they did. You also wrote that Dhola is south of the ridge the "McMahon Line was supposed to represent". Again, you're editorializing for the Indian side here. On July 22, all Indian troops were given permission to fire upon any Chinese without acting in self-defense (Indian official history), you replaced this with "On July 22, the Forward Policy was extended to allow Indian troops to surround Chinese posts already established in disputed territory." You're simply distorting facts again. Chinese troops are shown as occupying posts they didn't occupy, Indian troops attacks are downplayed.
    • I wonder what you think you will get out of making up your own version of my version of the text. What my version really says is "In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La", it really says "Dhola lay north of the McMahon Line but south of the ridges India maintains the McMahon Line was supposed to represent". You have left out words which gives a completely different message. Again, if I have made mistakes you can fix them up, but your trend of copy-pasting alleged deleted material while blanking other material is not the way to go by any means. Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nice attempted dodge: I repeat again: On July 22, all Indian troops were given permission to fire upon any Chinese without acting in self-defense (Indian official history), you replaced this with "On July 22, the Forward Policy was extended to allow Indian troops to surround Chinese posts already established in disputed territory." Please don't try to ignore the issue of you altering facts by tossing out a red herring. Now, your text also claims the Chinese occupied Dhola post. I asked you for evidence. Cite it. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC
        • • No answer eh? Still waiting for evidence from you that the Chinese occupied Dhola post. You keep restoring it, but never bothering to justify it. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• The call for US intervention was part of the war. The call was made while the nations still considered themselves in a state of war, at least India considered itself to be in a state of war. How many times must the article repeat that the call was made after China declared a ceasefire. Again, Yuje, repetition will get you nowhere.
• You repeatedly deleted this. I've only stated this once, in the article. You repeatedly move the American intervention to before the ceasefire, to imply that the ceasefire occured as a result of American intervention. YOu also repeatedly move its chronological order in order to do so. In the past, you even changed the dates to accomodate this move. Again, back to your fabrication of facts yet again.
• You are adding your own commentary to VK Singh's article. Next to VK Singh's claims which are attributed to him, you say VK Singh does not specify where. Yuje, you can become a military historian and write an article criticizing VK Singh but at the moment you cannot criticize him in the middle of an article.
  • It's not a commentary to state that Singh does not specify at which location. If he does specify a location, point it out. Singh does not specify at which locations. Again, undue weight. Both the Chinese and Indian governments claim Chinese troops did not venture past their claim lines, so does Maxwell, Calvin, Noorani, et al. You deleted all these and kept only Singh, and put his position on a basis of equality with the Indian government's statement that the Chinese did not venture past the 1960 claim line.
    • Yes it is commentary. As long as know reputed source is criticizing Singh for his failure it is commentary. It is all attributed to Singh whose role has been confirmed by EyeSerene. Let the reader work these things out, don't add your own commentary. Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If he doesn't mention where the location is, that's a fact. No judgement is pronounced on this, only pointed out that the locations where the Chinese are supposed to have occupied past their claim line are unstated. If I've made a mistake and he actually has specified the location, then state what these locations are. Not to mention you deleted the Noorani, Calvin, Maxwell, and official Chinese government cites that China did not keep territory past the claim line, in order to try to bolster your argument towards Singh.
        • You fail to understand. YOU cannot say that Singh fails to mention where these areas are as if to question his claim. Because that is the effect it gives on the reader of the article. You are questioning his claim and adding your own OR commentary and NO this is not allowed. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Show me which part of "X locations are not specified" is an interpretation. We're not allowed to cite what authors say or don't say now? If I say "Mullik's account does not specify the number of Chinese casualties" that's OR too? If I were to make up a list of locations that he mentioned, that would be OR. You simply don't like this being stated because you want to present Singh's argument in a strong light. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• You continue adding the external links in the middle of the article, it is unnecessary and considered generally as bad formatting to have external links in the middle of the article. If you read the two versions you will see that your version does not introduce any new material.
  • Your statement states that China gained control of the Aksai Chin during the war. This is false. The map and cited article clearly show that the portion of the Aksai Chin retained in China was within China's pre-war line of control. This is also stated by Calvin, Maxwell, Lamb, et al. You keep on changing the article back to claim that Indian owned the Aksai Chin before the war and that China siezed it during. You also repeatedly deleted the statement that the Chinese withdrew to their pre-war lines.
    • Again, you are making up my version of the text. I say (and I've told you this before), that China affirmed total control of Aksai Chin ie. they expelled Indian influence from the region. Perhaps it is just a phobia that is leading you to suspect me of all these things which I am not doing.
      • China gained total control over all the disputed territory, not just the Aksai Chin. In the Aksai Chin, they advanced from the Line of Actual Control to the Chinese claim line (shown very clearly in the Noorani map which you keep deleting), and in Himalayan foothils they advanced up to the Chinese claim line, which is about 50 km from Tezpur(Official history, Maxwell, Calvin, etc), while what was left of the army under Kaul was retreating south of the Brahmaputra. Your text claims that China had total control over only the Aksai Chin and that's why they kept it. You also completely removed mentions that China withdrew from all their war gains and keep changing the facts to imply that the portions of Aksai Chin north of the Line of Actual Control were conquered by China during the war. The Chinese offensive in the Aksai Chin started in the Galwan Valley, ChipChap Valley, and Panggong Lake (Calvin). Will you actually look at the map now and see where these places are? Those places are located exactly at the LoAC, and the Chinese claim line shown on the Noorani map shows how far they advanced during the war. Your text keeps implying that Indian patrols existed past the LoAC, and that India controlled the Aksai Chin before the war. Again, stop fabricating facts. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No I does not. It means that there were Indian troops in Aksai Chin that the Chinese troops needed to expel. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, you're entirely wrong. Entirely. From Calvin: (Mid-November)"Some of the Indian defenses were to the east of the claim line; in fact, the forces east of Chushul were the only Indian forces left in Chinese-clamed territory in Aksai Chin; all other Indian posts in Chinese-claimed territory had been either withdrawn or wiped out." (Nov 17th) "Five hours into the attack, the Chinese had overrun, or forced the evacuation of, every Indian position east of the claim line. Are you still going to try to argue this point now?--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Among Traing's other issues which need serious fixing:

• • Traing wrote text implying that China had claims on both Sikkim and Assam. The link he provides does not actually say this, nor is he able to provide a source that does.
    • If China was forced to withdraw their claim from Sikkim (and numerous sources have been presented to show that), then it is obvious that they had to claim Sikkim in the first place! Here's another source. [28]
      • It says China recognized Sikkim as part of India. Guess what? The article also says, "New Delhi, for its part, has officially recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet,. "If India was forced to withdraw their claim from Tibet, then it is obvious that they had to claim Tibet in the first place!" Now, go and find a source showing that China had territorial claims on Sikkim and Assam. Not based on something you believe implied, not based on your interpretations or POV, or based on your commentary, but an actual source showing Chinese territorial claims on Sikkim.--Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Your excitement is funny. It says "India recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet" ie. it no longer recognized Tibet as an independent state. India never claimed Tibet...don't be ludicrous, there would never be basis for such a claim. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • And China never claimed Sikkim. By recognizing it as part of India, it no longer recognized it as an independent state. And you insisited that recognition mean previous claims on it, and kept insisting so. Now where were those sources showing Chinese territorial claims on Sikkim now? --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing keeps on deleting any mention that China won any battles. This is a war infobox, and somehow he claims it's POV to point out that one side one. I invite any neutral observers to open any history book, to look at any encyclopedia, or to look at any other war article on Wikipedia, for that matter, which as steadfastly refuses to state the victor of a war as Traing wishes. Again, Traing is POVing the article.
    • I believe it is more informative to tell the reader what happened and let them come to the obvious deduction that China's forces did better in this war than Indian forces. But when a war ends because of a unilateral ceasefire and is mostly not continued because of war weariness and withdrawal then you can't just plainly say Chinese victory and be over with it. Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You apparently believe that this page should be an overwhelming and special exception, whereas every single history book, military book, encyclopedia article, and every single other war-related article in Wikipedia mentions the victor and defeated in a war, this should be an article that makes no mention of this whatsover, due to Traing's completely uncited commentary and statements that the war was "mostly not continued because of war weariness" (which directly contradicts Garver, BTW). Just for emphasis:
      • India's defeat in 1962 led to an overhaul of Indian Army in terms of doctrine, training, organisation and equipment.[29]
      • "Militarily the Chinese victory was complete, the Indian defeat absolute. " (Calvin)
      • "While India was humiliated and the Indian Army was overhauled after the defeat" [30]
      • "India is still smarting from the humiliation of its defeat." [31]
      • "In virtually every battled the Chinese forces either outmaneuvered or overpowered the unprepared Indians. In less than six weeks of bloody fighting, the Chinese completely drove Indian forces back behind Chinese claim lines." (Calvin)
      • "As Director of Military Operations from 1961 to 1963, [D . K . PALIT.] had been perfectly placed to observe top civilmilitary decision-makers during the buildup, execution, and aftermath of this ignominious Indian defeat [32]
      • "Explaining India's reluctance to raise the P word with China, a retired Indian diplomat points out that the Sino-Indian war of 1962 - when China inflicted a humiliating defeat on India - has cast a long shadow over India's diplomacy with China." [33]
      • "Even though pro-peace people were currently dominant in India's elite, the article said, many others wanted a test of strength with China to revenge India's defeat in 1962." [34]
      • ...and I got tired of posting links and quotes, so here's a couple hundred more search results of news articles stating much the same thing [35]
      • I have stated so far stated these things far less bluntly than what most sources have, but you insisted on pushing the issue. You really want to leave it undecided to who won the war? Find a legit source saying India won, then. -Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't you think it is more informative to give a description of what happened instead of the subjective and variable term "victory"? Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • World War I, World War 2, United States Civil War, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Gulf War, Greco-Persian Wars. Apparently, all other war pages on Wikipedia are biased except for this one, probably because they lack the noble unbiasing efforts of Traing. Mentioning that an army was defeated in battle is apparently not NPOV now, because looking at a map and seeing which side advanced and which side broke and retreated is obviously subjective.....--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Traing doesn't want the page to state that China won the war, and claims such a statement is POV. In fact, it looks like Traing is engaged in a revert war, where he repeatedly wants the page to say that India won all its wars with Pakistan. So according to Traing, saying India won a war is NPOV, saying India lost a war to China is very POV.--Yuje 08:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing keeps Nehru's claim that India had a centuries-long legitimate and fixed border on the Aksai Chin, and he deletes this cited statement. "The western portion of the Sino-Indian boundary originates in 1834, with the Sikh Confederation's conquest of Ladakh. "
    • (Sigh). You talking as if I intentionally deleted that statement...
      • You certainly reverted this all such statements without keeping them, so I'm holding you exactly responsible for what you have done. -Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well I added it in my new version. Unlike what you have done in the past. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I've only removed biased or factually inaccurate statements, and kept the rest. Notice that I don't start all my edits with a revert, but correct previous versions. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • After having kept Nehru's eloquent statement, he conveniently delets the majority of Zhou's reply: "Zhou Enlai pointed out that the Aksai Chin boundary was undemarcated and had never been subject to treaty between the Indian and Chinese government, and that the Indian government had insufficient ground for unilaterally defining a border and claiming the Aksai Chin in 1954 without having undergone ground surveys or consultation with neighboring China."
    • Why are you using repetition? Aren't we already discussing this above? I won't answer you twice, just discussing it in one place. Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing keeps text that Singh claims the Himalayas had been Indian for centuries, and he deletes this cited sentence. "In 1826 India and China gained a common border, including the area of what is now called Myanmar, following British annexations in the Anglo-Burmese Wars."
    • (Sigh). Again you are talking as if I intentionally delete that statement, I honestly don't care about those things... Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And yet you keep deleting them time and time again...., and no one else seems to be "unintentially deleting them". especially when you are deleting ONLY the Chinese claims, and you did this simultaneous with adding the Indian claims. Oh yes, I forgot, you believe by moving the statement to another page, it's ok to bias this one. --Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • As per above. Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • And as per above, by reverting, you are explicitly taking responsibility for deleting legitimate information. If you don't want to do it, then DON'T REVERT.--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The quoted sources mention nothing of an "Indo-Tibetan" or a "Sino-Tibetan" border. Alistair Lamb, Maxwell, Calvin, and Rubin all give a clear description of the Simla convention, the division of Tibet into Inner and Outer Parts, the setting of the border, etc. Traing deleted all this "In 1913, representatives of Great Britain, China and Tibet attended a conference in Simla regarding the Sino-Indian border. Henry McMahon proposed to divide Tibet into two regions, an "Inner Tibet" which would remain under direct Chinese administration, and an autonomous "Outer Tibet" under Chinese suzereignty but not administration. He also defined a new line along the crest of the Himalayans as the boundary, the map and details of which were not given to the Chinese"
    • That comes out of copyediting and other things, I don't remember making those edits and I don't remember deleting them. I may have moved them but I didn't delete them. Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • • • As I said, you are explicitly taking responsibility for deleting legitimate information when you revert. If you don't want to be called on for your deletions, intentional or not, then DON'T REVERT.--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing deletes another cited statement. "[Maxwell] had been instructed by his superiors not to negotiate bilaterally with the Tibetans if the Chinese refused, so he signed in secret, without the Chinese representative present."
    • I compressed it here and moved it in other places. Not deleted, when will you understand that? Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And left the main page biased presenting only the Indian bias........--Yuje 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It says that Maxwell decided to negotiate bilaterally because China did not ratify it. What Indian bias??? Traing 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • ""[Maxwell] had been instructed by his superiors not to negotiate bilaterally with the Tibetans if the Chinese refused, so he signed in secret, without the Chinese representative present." You deleted the parts that they were only able to negotiate this treaty by keeping it secret, and that McMahon had been ordered not to, throwing into question its legitimacy.--Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing deleted the highlighted portion. "India's government held the view that the Himalayas were the ancient boundaries of the Indian subcontinent, and thus should be the modern boundaries of India, while it is the position of the Chinese government that the disputed area in the Himalays have been geographically and culturally part of Tibet since ancient times" Naturally, the deletion portion is the Chinese position, not the Indian one. Anyone seriously arguing that this type of deletion is NPOV?
    • Some things get caught up in the reverts of obviously unacceptable edits. Traing 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • [36] Traing's revert came 2 minutes after my reply listing all the data, maps, and sources. In other words, he's not even bothering to check whether or not edits are legitimate, he just wants to keep his POVs. --Yuje 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion of highlighted part. "The government of India held that the original intent of the Line was for the border to be located along the highest ridges However, such a condition is not stipulated in the text of the Simla Convention" His rewrite? "in these locations India extended its forward posts northward to the ridges, regarding this move as fulfilling the spirit of the original border proposal." He changes the facts to imply that India's move was supported by the original treaty, when it was never mentioned in the text. This is why I keep bringing up the issue of Traing's fabrications. Notice that the Maxwell text, which he allegedly cites, never says what Traing says, either.
    • Can you stop this Traing-phobia. This is what EyeSerene has written. Talk to them if you have concerns with what they have written. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, you didn't do the original change. By changing it back to this version, you have therefore decided to advocate it though. Same difference. EyeSerene, I will assume good faith on, since I have not noticed from him/her a history of fabrications, deletion, or revert-warring. --Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No it isn't. I full support EyeSerene and the version. But you accused me of doing things that I did not do. That just shows that you don't care about actions but just accuse continually. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • His edit or your edit, it was biased and needed to be changed. When you revert it, then it becomes your responsibility for advocating it. Stop hiding behind others when defending POV edits. --Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing deleted these highlighted parts, which were noted by Anna Louise Strong. "According to Anna Louise Strong, a Marxist living in China during 1962, the return of heavy weapons were said to be due to logistical constraints of transporting them to China, and they were returned to India as a sign of goodwill instead of destroying them or abandoning them to the natives"
    • That is another one of those things that I would add. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Then sTOP DELETING THEM! --Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I can find instances of you doing those things but saying yourself that you couldn't be bothered adding legitimate things. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, when Mikeslacksenery informed me that I had deleted some legitimate edits of his, I immediately apologized to him for not noticing, and asked him to restore them. And upon my next edits, I kept all his legitimate edits. User_talk:Mikeslackenerny#Sino-Indian_War--Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted text, "On October 4, a special Border Command was created, under Lt. Gen. B.M. Kaul, tasked with evicting the Chinese from Dhola-Thagla"
    • Not deleted be me. It was moved and a compressed version was used here. This version is "On October 4, Kaul assigned some troops with securing regions south of the Thagla Ridge.[2]". The Border command and Lt. Gen. bit is not necessary. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Original text, which cites Calvin and the Indian official history, deleted"On October 9th, Kaul and Brigadier Dalvi agreed to send a patrol of 50 soldiers to Tseng Jong, the approach to Yumtso La, to occupy the position and provide cover before the rest of the battalion would move forward for the occupation of Yumtso La.." Because of the difficulties involved in directly assaulting and taking Thag La, Kaul made the decision instead to occupy nearby Yumtso La to the west, to position his troops behind and dominate the Chinese positions.
    • Not deleted by me. It was moved and a compressed bersion was used here. It says now:"Kaul decided to first secure Yumtso La, a strategically important position, before re-entering the lost Dhola post.[10] Kaul had then realised that the attack would be desperate and the Indian government tried to stop escalation into an all-out war.[33]" Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You've deleted this statement over 6 times with 6 reverts. I could believe you the first time, but not the sixth. --Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ....and replaced with, "Kaul decided to first secure Yumtso La, a strategically important position, before re-entering the lost Dhola post. Kaul had then realised that the attack would be desperate and the Indian government tried to stop escalation into an all-out war." Traing deleted all mentions of the impending Indian assault upon the Chinese at Thagla, and even tries to imply they were negotiating for peace at this time. This is what I mean by bias.
    • It is all sourced, so what is your problem with it? How does it remove any mentions that were there in your version? I fail to understand. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You removed some sourced material, and replaced it with others. The sourced material you removed potrays India in a sympathetic light, and you deleted the others, sentences, cites, and all. And you completely removed the parts stating that Kaul had ordered battallion to advance and occupy Thagla.--Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Can't you read before accusing. Kaul decided to first secure Yumtso La before re-entering the lost Dhola post. That is occupation or advancement or whatever you want to call it. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Your account is wrong for several reasons. 1)The Chinese never occupied Dhola, they took up positions of higher ground and dominating positions above it at the top of the ridge. You still haven't shown evidence of them capturing Dhola, despite the text claiming it, and the Maxwell book explicitly says neither side opened fire for days. 2) The Indians weren't advancing to retake Dhola, but to TAKE Thagla, of which Dhola was near the base and the Chinese had occupied the top of. 3)It removed all mention of Chinese on Thagla, and removed evidence of the assault on Thagla, and replaced with "Indian government tried to stop escalation into an all-out war". If it had both statements, that India planned an assult to remove the Chinese from Thagla, and that it tried to secure peace, I could live with that. But the edit removes all evidence of an Indian attack, and outright claims that the Chinese attacked and occupied Dhola post (which they didn't), while all the time India was in self-defense (Thagla was north of the McMahon Line) and begging for peace.--Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing keeps on readding this silly map Image:Sino-Indian War.png, when a number of more accurate maps are already on the page. This map is blatently inaccurate. It inaccurately shows Sikkim as part of India, and Bhutan and Nepal as part of China. Notice how Traing explicitly makes the correction that Bhutan and Nepal aren't part of China, but is silent on Sikkim. Again, he is being deceptive, by letting this inaccuracy pass.
    • Map is deleted, I will fix it up and upload it again. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Traing also deleted a number of categories.
    • Read about subcategories. And it was Shyamsunder that deleted these. Again you just blame everything on Traing. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

--Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You state in your edit summary "Fine, I will summarize them. Needing a summary does not justify deletion of countless edits". Well actually I already summarized them countless times for you including once during our little revert war yesterday. But it looks like your summary didn't come out in the middle of your edit. Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Epoch Times source

To those advocating it as a source. Read the article. It's not written even by a columnist or reporter. It's an editorial. And his speculation on the cause of the war being the Great Leap Forward is just that: speculation. He writes in the article that he's speculating, and he doesn't offer any proof, evidence, or arguments for his views. No other scholars or governments or books on the Sino-Indian war seriously advocate the views he present. By Wikipolicy, we should not assign Undue weight to extreme minority views. Speculation from a nobody editorialist should not be treated with equal weight as published studies and books on the war. --Yuje 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

China claimed Sikkim

In exact words: Daily Times "China indicated that it was ready to drop its claim to Sikkim, which had merged with India in 1975." If it had to drop its claim then it obviously claimed it at one time. Traing 07:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, no implied or interpreted claims. That's OR, far beyond simply stating what Singh stated or didn't state, which you truly bristled at. Where are the actual mention of territorial claims? Why aren't they shown on these maps? Nor mentioned in the Calvin book? Or Maxwell? Why does Rubin explicitly mention that there were no territorial disputes on the Sikkim border? Image:China India western border 88.jpgImage:China India eastern border 88.jpg

Chinese claims were always that the Indian army's overthrow of the Sikkimese monarch was illigitimate. Sikkim's Chogyal had this to say at annexation: "I have no words when the Indian army was sent today in a surprise attack on Sikkim Guards who are less than 300 strong and were trained, equipped and officered by the Indian army who looked upon each other as comrades This is a most treacherous and black day in the history of democratic India in solving the survival of our little country by use of arms." After annexation, he was kept under Indian house arrest for the rest of his life.

Non-implied quotation from news source:

"Till then, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s official website had mentioned Sikkim as an independent country, contesting Sikkim’s accession to India in 1975."

[37]--Yuje 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not at all neutral to have the deposed leader give his views about a matter. It's like asking the Taiwanese nationalists about the creation of the PRC, or asking Taksin Shinawat about the coup in Thailand. I am sure you don't consider the Tapei Times a neutral source but why would it lie that China claimed part of Sikkim? [38] If it did not claim Sikkim. Why did many of the post-1962 skirmishes which you blanked occur in modern-day Sikkim state? Traing 07:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets have a big picture folks. Above mentioned "PRC's claims" on Sikkim has nothing to do with claiming suzerainty over the region. The socalled "claim" is exactly China's position on India's status as Sikkim's suzerain/sovereign. And in common sense, skimishes occured in the Sino-Sikkimese borders only shows that the boundaries still haven't been officially delimited yet, it has nothing to do with socalled "China's Imperialist Dream". Calm down! - 219.79.120.208 10:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite calm and have mentioned know imperialist dream. I do not understand the common sense that you have tried to propose. The conflicts occurred within Sikkim between Indian forces and Chinese forces continually through the late 60s and then in the 80s suggest Chinese claims over areas considered within Sikkim. Traing 07:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of a copyedit

Hello all! I've been keeping a watch on this article since it started becoming unstable and I just thought I ought to make a couple of points. Firstly, the copyedit I began was only intended to help out with the readability of the article. I don't know enough about the subject to make independent edits, so please don't view any copyediting I've done as "approving" or "confirming" anything. I just go with what's there at the time ;) Secondly, like everything on WP, anything I have written is totally subject to change by any other editor; a copyedit does not give an article a kind of "official version" status, and the LoCE are just ordinary editors who feel we can contribute to WP by doing what we (hope) we have a skill for! I should probably have checked the article history for stability before starting the ce: it was not my intention to provide ammunition for a dispute, and I apologise if I have.

I hope this article settles down and the differences here can be resolved. Both Yuje and Triang have put a lot of effort into the article, and you should be proud of your work and enthusiasm. If we can get past the POV dispute I'm sure it can be improved to GA status. All the best to both of you! EyeSerene^TALK 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue of result of war

Here there are two points of contention. Firstly, is it right for the infobox to blatantly say "Chinese victory" to describe the result of the war. Secondly, it is clear that China returned to areas in Aksai Chin it already occupied. But is it right to say that they "affirmed total control of Aksai Chin".

My views here are clear. The result seems fine as it stands BUT if we are to go with Yuje and says that the end of the war saw China and India return to prewar positions then the result MUST be status quo ante bellum. However, I believe that isn't right as Indian posts WERE within China's claimed area of Aksai Chin and it is because of this that the Chinese had to actually overrun these posts to "affirm total control" of Aksai Chin. Traing 07:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, above Yuje tries to prove that Indian posts were NOT in Chinese-claimed territory but he attempts to prove this by quoting a source showing the war's progress in mid-November, which is near the end of the war. Thus that argument lacks substance. Traing 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue of legit edits being caught up in reverts

You have been accusing me of carelessness and other things with my reverts above. Well you didn't seem to have much of a problem earlier. It don't mean anything of meaning by this, I just want you to know that you should forgive and be forgiven for things like these, don't try and condemn me on something which you have done earlier. Traing 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Defuse edit war

I firstly think that a request for comment should be filed and the discussion opened up to other editors. Secondly, it is necessary to keep opinions, revisionist history and claims out of the article. Stick purely to facts, not opinions. There is no need to introduce passages speculating on India and China's respective territorial designs on Bhutan or Sikkim. Stick solidly by WP:ATT and WP:NPOV - if in doubt, don't introduce the data or make it clear that it was a scholarly opinion, not necessarily a fact. I suggest that since both Bhutan and Sikkim are featured articles, you simply replicate the information on this particular issue given in those articles, in the "History" sections.

From my own knowledge, there has always been a degree of speculation regarding Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim in India - between 1947-49, India signed protectorate treaties (of the same nature that the British had signed) with Sikkim and Bhutan; the latter two retained full independence while India provided for their defense and exercised some influence in foreign affairs. Both Sikkim and Bhutan were shut off from the outside world for a long time. India has never claimed Bhutan. In the case of Sikkim, there has been a problem between the Chinese design on the state and the Chogyal's desire for independence. Since 1962, India has been aggressive in keeping out Chinese influence in Sikkim. As the Chogyal's rule was highly unstable and unpopular, the Sikkimese government collapsed and India assumed the administration of the state and formally annexed it - strategically, to keep it from falling to Chinese hands.

Just state the facts on (1) the protectorate treaties, (2) a brief note on what the Indian and Chinese foreign policies were on those states. As far as talking of India's annexation of Sikkim, keep it 1-2 sentences (no opinions). It is not needed to go deep into those issues in this article. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 07:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)