Talk:Sino-Indian border dispute

message: For historical reason of WWII , it is improper to use Sino to refer China as a country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.65.173.79 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest to redirect to China-Indian border dispute 

message: http://naibaat.com.pk/Presentation/peshawar/Page13.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.157.117 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2014 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sino-Indian border dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100613183426/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers28/paper2732.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers28%5Cpaper2732.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , The direct democracy bases itself on 2 sources. One it does point to Wikipeida but it also points to an independent research publication here . In this document, it is clearly stated on Page 9 (middle column towards the bottom) that over 97% of the voters approved the merger with India. Can you explain your rationale behind terming this an unreliable source. Please do not engage in an edit war and try to put forth your point here. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute regarding reliability of Direct Democracy source 

message: I have significantly redesigned this article without deleting the content. I gave them more meanigful heading, divided the article into into 3 sectors that govt uses, identified names of locations on India and Chinese sides. Added more disputed sites. This needs further enhancements, you can help by undertaking the following:
#. Add more details to the disputed sights that are light on content and/or sources.
#. Condense some of the lengthy disputed sites e.g. Aksai Chin which has own separate article.
#. Redo the lead. 
#. Dispute resolution section: I added this as new section. This is light on details, needs escalation process, resolution mechanism at each level of escalation and so on. Border meeting points are just local and lowest level resolution point (L-1 resolution), higher level resolution points at sector, secretary, minister and bilateral-treaties-forum level are missing. I will keep adding in future if I come across, which may take next few months or years owing to my lack of current expertise and research time on this. If you already know, then please add.
#. If you find some of my sources are crap, please replace with better source but do not throw out the baby with bathwater i.e. please do not delete good content due to one bad source in (your eyes). 
#. I do not feel emotionally attached to my work, i.e. feel free to overwrite, enhance, use your articulation skills superior than mine to do your magic to this article to take it forward. 
#. If you are a Chinese, this article is lacking input from the experienced Chinese editors, specially the names of location, Chinese perception, etc or whatever else you wanna add, just go ahead. Pakis are welcome too but please do not make deliberate subtle-smart-POV disruptive-editing nuisance, keep it factual and constructive, no jealous edits please. 
# I already did what I could do, nothing more I could do to enhance except the point-5. Now, this article needs your skills to take it to the next level. Please help.
Thanks.
202.156.182.84 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry. I much prefer the old organisation. The new version has too many levels of sections, quite unnecessarily, and giving very high WP:WEIGHT to comparatively minor issues. It is definitely not an improvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

text: * About the high WP:WEIGHT to comparatively minor issues, let us randomly pick a red link from the article (disputed area that has no existing wikipedia article as of today). Bara Hoti, for example, a large area of over 700 sq km, google gives 95,000 hits on "barahoti dispute" and 1,740 google books hits. Kauirik/Kaurik, another example, of smaller but still large area of 200 sq km provides 23,000 google hits in English language alone (much more in other Indian languages, plus chinese languages). Each one of these areas are deserving of their inclusion and creation of their own wiki article, as they are significant enough in terms of geographical area (each one is several hundred sq km) and the size of media coverage (google hits). I do not watch tv, not sure of tv coverage of these topics in India, people tend to remember more the recent noise on the tv, and events that are older than couple of years tend to fade away from the public memory with tv noise about the each new dispute. We can not use that as criteria. In fact, to add the due weight, more effort is needed to create articles on each on of these red link. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: About the number of sections, it can not be helped if India and China have too many disputed areas. But, if you can find a way to condense or merge, please go ahead, no problem. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: About the preference for the older version, I recall you left a message on my wall about your distaste for lengthy unnecessary history section in the older format. Other editors have put in good efforts before me and I have tried to overcome the gaps in the article by adding the missing disputed areas, this aids the growth of wikipedia. My version is no way complete, it needs further effort from other editors. Please have a go. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Next step, I have done my part for now, I learnt a lot while editing this article both about this dispute and wikiguidelines . If you want to revert everything, go ahead, mainly because you had previously left tips on my wall. Purely for that reason alone, anyone who tried to help me, deserves a lot of gratitude from me, I am okay if you undo/revert everything. This is only for you, out of my gratitude. For other editors, I would like to understand their specific sustainable objections if they do the mega revert of my edits. Article is by no means complete, it needs further refinement from other editors. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pls review: I have significantly redesigned this article

message: The further reading The McMahon Line section has a reference which creates a second reference section Banak (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Is it fixed now? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in further reading to a second reference second 

message: Dear all,
I just added sections on "command structure" and "troops deployment" as well as noncontiguous disputed areas. These have been reguarly raised numerous times in media and tv debates over the last several years. These edits provide a good snapshot. First iteration. Next iteraton, I will also add Chinese Airbases (there are 5 large ones, 3 main and 2 backup),  and AGL to the table once I have more time to find the souce I had read sometime ago. Please review, enhance as you deem fit, insert edit tags and leave message on my talkpage if you want me to change anything or find additiona soruces/text, etc or if you dispute. I do not recognise anyone above except . If there is a consensus, feel free to move it to LAC, mcmohan line, or wherever else, as long as these edits in tabular form are retained in some article. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new sections 

message: The first funny paragraph indeed seems wrong:
Tibet actually asked for a whole bunch of territories, which they claimed that the British India snatched away from them, " (I have no idea where most of these places are but "Mon" is Tawang.) The Indian government requested that they be dealt with in the same way as the British Indian government. After several months of consideration (!), the Tibetan government agreed. The Dalai Lama was very young and so Tibet was leaderless at that time. Whoever was running the affairs had temporarily lost their grip on reality. Maxwell also covers the affair in much less detail on page 69, but doesn't validate the specifics being claimed about Tawang. So, I think this paragraph can be safely deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first funny paragraph 

message: The source being cited is . He writes:
 asks "what does this mean?" I think the plain meaning of Shakya is that the Tibetans had repudiated the 1914 agreement, but there are plenty of subtleties which Lamb discusses at length.
The 1914 agreement on McMahon Line remained completely unimplemented for more than two decades for various reasons. The British government made up its mind to implement it only around 1937 and then WW II intervened. Finally, in 1944, progress was made. South of the McMahon Line, there were three areas (district or substrict-sized units) that were under Tibetan administration: Tawang (Tawang district), Dirang (West Kameng district, south of Tawang) and Walong (on the eastern periphery).  In 1944, the British took control of Dirang and Walong (or at least set up posts there), and decided that they should return Tawang to Tibet in order to get an overall acceptance from the Tibetans. But the Tibetans were unimpressed by the offer, and they wanted Dirang and Walong returned as well. In fact, they passed a resolution in the National Assembly, whose operative line was:
(I suppose the "insect" stuff represents high censure in the Tibetan way of things.) Let us remember that the Dalai Lama was even younger in 1944 (nine years old) and the National Assembly would have been controlled by monastic orders. And these monasteries were like little fiefdoms. For example, Tawang and Dirang were under the control of Tsona Dzong. So losing them would imply loss of status and prestige to Tsona Dzong.
But the 1914 agreement was studded with various ifs and buts. The British plan was to get the McMahon Line agreed as the legal boundary and give the Tibetans as much as control as they wanted over the territories they previously held. But without an adult Dalai Lama, their ability to accomplish anything was quite limited. Steven Hoffmann writes:
But whether any of this means that the Tibetans had repudiated the McMahon Line is a bit of an interpretation. If we say that  each of these monasteries controlled perhaps 5% of the land area of Arunachal Pradesh, then the remaing 85% was uncontested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  McMahon Line "invalid" 

message: Notifying interested editors that a new academic paper has been published in Asian Affairs, with an analysis of the pre-1962 border (including Aksai Chin, Galwan, etc.), the 2017 clashes, the June 2020 skirmishes, the border management system, and proposals from both sides.
This is a reliable source providing more on the recent conflicts, so we should definitely integrate it. It's not freely accessible without academic access, so if nobody else does it now, I might get around to it eventually. — MarkH21talk 03:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New academic paper on the border conflict 

message: According to Kyle Gardner,
The first sentence is a fact. The second an opinion.
I think the author is squarely wrong in his opinion. Either he doesn't know or he hasn't bothered to find out that the Survey of India doesn't decide borders. The political bosses do. The reason the borders weren't defined was that the political bosses didn't make the decisions. It was not until 1954 that the decisions got made.
We know from all the previous works, Alastair Lamb, Parshotam Mehra, Noorani etc., that there was plenty of knowledge in the British Empire, but the politics was all screwed-up. I have no idea how CUP ended up publishing this book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: His Map 2.7 is supposedly a Survey of India map of 1915, which showed nothing in Ladakh except for Leh. So Survey of India was "ignorant". Then how did it draw this map of Upper Chang Chenmo in 1875? The cherry-picking in this book is atrocious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorance? 

message: File:Jammu and Kashmir in 1946 map of India by National Geographic.jpg|1946 Nat. Geog.
File:Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 Political Map of India.jpg|1947 Survey of India
File:Jammu and Kashmir in 1954 Political Map of India.jpg|1954 Survey of India
On China-India relations page, I found a citation to a book review by Noorani which says:
Ths article also reproduces the supposed 1947 map that occurs on the cover of Kyle Gardner's book. We don't have a copy of this map online. But I have copied it here so you can look at it. Noorani calls this the "independence day map". His implication is that between then and 1954, Nehru "unilaterally" added Aksai Chin to the terrritory of India and thereby brought upon himself the Chinese invasion!
A few points are worth noting:
* The map was printed on the independence day, but it dates back to 1938. It is what the Survey of India calls the "first edition map". That was when Olaf Caroe asked the Survey of India to show the McMahon Line as the border in the northeast. Nobody asked it to put any border for Kashmir at that time.
* Kashmir was neither part of India nor Pakistan on the independence day. So I suppose nobody paid any attention to its border.
* The 1947 map shown above ("second edition") was made after the accession of Kashmir to India (note the green border on the west). It extends the white color wash to what was assumed at that time, but the rest of the map was the same as that of 1938. 
* In particular, the border line in the north stops at 76 degrees east. It does not even cover the Karakoram Pass (77.8 E). Apparently the 1938 map did not even include Baltistan, Shyok River, Nubra River and possibly even the Pangong Lake. By Noorani's argument, Nehru added all these areas to the territory of India as well, "unilaterally" to boot. Poor China was suffering under Nehru's cartographic aggression!
The 1954 map was made soon after signing the Panch Sheel agreement. Nehru apparently got the sense that China was trying to claim Indian territory. So he mandated that defined borders should be shown on the maps. That is all that happend in 1954. In fact, some of the white colour wash had been subtracted from the 1947 map. How they decided what to include and what to exclude, I have no idea. But the MEA had a historical division by this time, and I suppose they had been studying the historical documents to decide where the  border should go. The legend on the map says it was "second edition" (of independent India map). There was apparently a "provisional" first edition map made in 1950, but I have not seen it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1954 map 

message: The document says that "China offered to hold 26% of the disputed land" as a compromise for a solution to the border question with India,... 26%? DTM (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement in document by Taylor Fravel 

message: I am just wondering what countries recognize the disputed territories as part of China Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition 

message: Foreign policy 112.79.114.243 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian foreign policy  

message: ,  suggested I can add that here, so please explain why you removed this text I had added, considering my additions as, "redundant"? -Haani40 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence about the Sino-Indian War was redundant with the following paragraph. The 'As of March 25' bit at the end of the lead I removed per WP:NOTNEWS, and because it did not agree with the WP:NPOV policy. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not added back the bit about the statements (what I added as, "Latest news") but the rest I believe are fine. Please see the discussion here.-Haani40 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still redundant. The lead should not discuss the war twice. MrOllie (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

text: This border dispute started with the conflicts starting in 1959 and I have cited sources for the same.-Haani40 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already discussed in the lead section, Aksai Chin in the first paragraph and the war in the second. The lead is supposed to be a short summary, it should not be repeating itself. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have removed the repetition. Is it acceptable (to you at least) now?-Haani40 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you added is still redundant and I continue to think the article was better before these additions. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no repetition (of text) in the lead now.-Haani40 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

text: had not reverted what I had added last, so I feel he had agreed to accept what I had added. I therefore request you both to comment.-Haani40 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct. MrOllie (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sourced content as, "redundant" 

message: Should "The Chinese minister, Zhou Enlai proves that" be "The Chinese premier (or Prime Minister?), Zhou Enlai, asserted that"? Jlaramee (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to Zhou Enlai text in section 1947-1962 

message: I propose a section be added regarding the weapons used in the border conflicts, which appear to favor use of sticks and stones. Proposed text:
In the 1996 agreement, both sides agreed to  not open fire within two kilometers from the line of actual control.  In consequence, the conflicts between the armies have involved hand-to-hand combat, at times using sticks and stones.
Inspired by this post on Twitter. Mateussf (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons used