Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes

message: El_C 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, to User:El_C, are you aware this page has nothing to do with India-Pakistan disputes?  I don't see how Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan could possibly apply to this page, which is about border incidents between China and India.  Could you please retract or clarify? --doncram 13:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware. Restrictions are not limited to Indo-Pakistani articles. Like with BJP and other articles—if it's India-related per se., it can fall under the restrictions. I.e. . El_C 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ARBIP|ARBIP]] restrictions now in effect

message: To all:
First of all, I hope editors who oppose omitting understand that, a military clash doesn't naturally connect with territory change. By policy it is the responsibility of editors who wants to put these content in the main space to provide supporting sources. By now, there is no such sources are provided. Therefore the burden of seeking consensus falls on the editors who want to include those content, not in opposite. 
I notice that this page is about a military event however in the main article there are a lot of content describing the territory change on Sikkim. These two things do not naturally connect with each other. Thus here, in accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, I request editors who support to keep this territory change information to provide Source and Citation that clearly and directly indicate that "Nathu La and Cho La clashes" leads to the territory change on Sikkim.
This is a repost of the same request I raised three days ago, I would omit all text in related to "territory change" if this one is unchallenged. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to be a positive contributor, you should stop wasting other editor's time trying to argue your POV on this single article. You can go spend time improving articles like Kingdom of Sikkim or History of Sikkim. In addition, instead of questioning existing curated sources, you might want to consider providing your own "reliable sources". --Voidvector (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you understand this is not a place to talk about other than content. If you don't want to talk a bout content then I have nothing to say with you. And it is something about WP:VNOTSUFF, not WP:RS. Those the information itself may be reliable that doesn't mean it should be included without providing the connection with the topic of this page. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting what you said 2 lines above -- "...leads to the territory change on Sikkim", I am telling you those other Sikkim articles need love as well. It is fairly obvious from your contribution log that only care about this single article. --Voidvector (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about omitting text in related to "territory change" 

message: Two things, I want to bring up about the Infobox Result
* It is a little difficult to verify the cite of Pongsak Hoontrakul's book for the result (Indian victory) since it is used for a lot of stuff in this article. However, given the result is a contentious topic, could someone add the quote (or exact page) from the book so it is easier to find? I have added  to that line. 
* Most other modern conflict articles use expanded bullets for its result field (e.g. Iraq War, Vietnam War), that might be applicable here to provide addition historical context. 
--Voidvector (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the quote and I have provided another source listed on above sections. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much! --Voidvector (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that the new source provided is written by Brahma Chellaney, a well-known Indian security hawk (see ). Definitely not a neutral source. More neutral sources such as Van Praagh) mention about 300 casualties on each side, without proclaiming a victor. -Zanhe (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result / Outcome 

message: Why the article name is 'Nathu La and Cho La clashes'. It should be directly 'Second Sino-Indian War' or '1967 Sino-Indian War'. Clash means to be small scale but violent conflict. But it was a war more than a clash. So why is the article title not changed to War?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.153.185 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a relatively small-scale and limited clash. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, the name ought to be changed to Second Sino-Indian War as according to Oxford Languages a clash means a small but violent confrontation while a war means a state of armed conflict between different countries (abr.). It was certainly an armed conflict between China and India over disputed territory. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: this conflict was strategic and planned with high casualties. this is certainly an armed conflict as per oxford therefore it should be renamed. this is no misor clash with a dozen or so casualties. this was certainly an armed conflict/war between china and india over disputed territory. i hope someone does the needful. General Phoenix (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article as 1967 sino-indian war or second sino-indian war