Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Sino-Indian War (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6 >	5 >>

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Statements by outside observers

You want to make this an FA and it is within the scope of the military history project. I think it is very important to mention the reasons why a war happened and I usually tend to give there too much information with my own edits, but experience shows that most readers feel distracted by large sections 'why a war started' and simply want to read the action. I suggest that you try to work on a couple of article to highlight the field. Size really doesn't matter for a FA. Wandalstouring 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When I asked at a talk page a large discussion ensued in which the contributors declared that anything over 100kb was unacceptable. Traing 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

This entry relies too heavily on the unscholarly, pop-culture work of Chang. I object to that. This is supposed to be a balanced, dispassionate encyclopedia. El_C 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War result.

the article/the wikipedia's page on this war is false, China didn't fully win the war. China took the control of Aksai Chin ( a part of Kashmir ), whereas India took the control of the eastern states, Arunachal prdaesh, Assam and their sister states

And as the articles cited show, China didn't "take control of the Aksai Chin" during the war. It had controlled territory up to that point before the war. During the course of the war, China advanced and expelled Indian troops from the area now part of Arunachal Pradesh, and after winning, withdrew back to its pre-war line of control.--Yuje 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoted above, but just to restate in case you missed it

India's defeat in 1962 led to an overhaul of Indian Army in terms of doctrine, training, organisation and equipment.[1]
"Militarily the Chinese victory was complete, the Indian defeat absolute. " (Calvin)
"While India was humiliated and the Indian Army was overhauled after the defeat" [2]
"India is still smarting from the humiliation of its defeat." [3]
"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 [4]
"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." [5]

"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." [6]

...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 [7]

Or, for another comparison, Pakistan still holds control over part of Kashmir. Was India defeated in three wars against Pakistan, then? --Yuje 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You AGAIN fail to understand my point and go on and on without even addressing. I never said that China was defeated, I just said that to say "Chinese victory" in the infobox and leave it there is not informative and quite subjective. I also say China "affirmed total control over Aksai Chin", that doesn't mean they took it over. Yuje I am so so so tired of repeating myself. Please, I request you to read what I say before replying to it. And if you want, you can go on about India losing its three wars to Pakistan. HONESTLY. I DON'T CARE. I just want neutrality on a page I've been trying to get to FA for months and months, you can go to Indo-Pakistani Wars and say "India sufferred humiliating defeat every time they entered the battlefield". Just go and do it and don't make snide remarks. Traing 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm simply repeating simply what every reliable source on the subject says. Western, Indian, Chinese, whatever, sources say the same thing. Again, if you want to argue that saying there was a victory is subjective, you'll have to take your agenda against all those sources, as well as every war-related article in this and every other encyclopedia. You deleted not only the Chinese victory part, you deleted that the Chinese military defeated the Indian one, you deleted that there was a Chinese-led ceasefire, you deleted that the Chinese withdrew to pre-war positions, and you altered the text to say that China held the Aksai Chin as a result of the war. You want to make the article more "informative" by deleting information and adding your own subjective opinion.

However, I'm willing to compromise. If you believe "Chinese victory" to be subjective, we can present both views in the box; I'll cite all the sources which says the war ended in a Chinese victory, and you cite the sources that claim otherwise. Does that work? --Yuje 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I realised very rightly that I cannot take on what I believe to be wrong with an encyclopaedia's result-section of the infobox. My version now says "Chinese military victory". We'll just agree to compromise on that. Your version says "Chinese victory. After defeating the Indian army in all disputed regions". But that is essentially repetition of the same thing (something which you have a tendency to do), Chinese victory = Indian defeat. No need to unnecessarily add length in what should be a succint little section. I think that's over now. Traing 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, probably i maybe wrong or i m wrong. but all u said was so racist, India could kick china's ass anytime it wants. We indians trusted u and u attacked india. How could we ever trust anyone of u again? Your country didnt win, it betrayed and occupied other lands. Atleast our country is not the one that betrays their own allies, we fight fairly, not the cheap way, andt that's the Indian Army. Anyways, good job with the article, yes there was neutrality on the page.

A victory or loss can't be determined by the OPINION of some "scholars". A military defeat is complete only if there is a formal Treaty of Surrender. The end result was a cease-fire. Unless someone has access to a surrender treaty, Chinese victory is just a myth. Jvalant 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant has a point, I will refer this to the Military History Project for feedback. Traing 06:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Wow, now you Indians are even trying to deny China won the Sino-Indian war? Sure, just keep living in delusion. The whole world knows Indians lost a war in 1962. Editing wikipedia doesn't change the fact.

Again, I'm willing to offer the compromise. If scholars, military historians, and politicians (remember that most of the Indian politicians and military leaders involved wrote books after the war, and they too mention defeat) are in disagreement, then the article can simply present both views. I'll cite all the sources and noted figures that mention Chinese victory, you cite all the sources which support your position.--Yuje 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to cite when both of our versions state Chinese victory now. But the thing with your compromise is that you have not stated what my position is. I don't even know what my position is. All I think is that to simply state Chinese victory in the infobox based on the fact that China advanced to its claim lines during the war is too subjective and not useful. You can't really cite sources for that position. Traing 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You are willing to compromise on history? By the way, both of you are on the front page of the Indian newspaper DNA... http://www.dnaindia.com . A victory means a total victory. As far as reality is concerned, both the countries did not even formally declare war. I agree that the Chinese were kicking butt, what with Nehru giving that famous "My heart goes out to the people of Assam" speech - however, without a country formally surrendering or being conquered, the question of a victory does not arise. And let's not forget that one of the main reasons the Chinese backed out was the end of the Cuban missile crisis which prompted the USA to intervene on India's behalf thanks to Kennedy. Jvalant 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    Well, Mr. Jvalant, thanks for letting us know that China will gain a total victory over India without US intervene.

Hooray, I'm newsworthy now! I actually did email back in response to his questions, but I guess my email must have gotten caught in his spam filter or something. --Yuje 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really funny..."Traing is a sly fox"...I wonder who bothered to check through our pages and pages of arguments to report on it. Traing 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Venkatesan Vembu, the author of the DNA article. Before I wrote out the article, I sent out questions to Yuje, but since Traing didn't link his mail ID to his user page, I posted a message on his user page asking him to contact me. Traing didn't respond (perhaps he didnt see my message: on second thoughts, I wish I had posted my message on this Talk page) After reading Yuje's post here, I checked my Spam box, and sure enough I found his response to my questions. (I don't understand why this happened: after all, Yuje wasn't sending out spam mail.)I'm sorry this happened: I wish I had been able to incorporate both your responses. It would have made the article a bit more rich in detail.

It doesn't matter now that the article is written. I did see your message but as I didn't know who you were and who you represented I didn't see it necessary to respond. I also had no idea why a journalist was asking me to email them. But in any case, I don't think I would have had much to add.

Basically, my role in this dispute is to protect what I believe is the most neutral way the article can be represented. I have stated at times to Yuje that we are of opposite points of view and thus it is natural that we disagree, but we must be forgetting our individual points of view and be collaborating for the good of the encylopaedia and the article itself. This article itself is very good and may soon be featured on the main page, I am just trying to maintain NPOV and recently we have struck compromises to do this. Traing 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Goa, India & China

Note: The text below does not actually bear relation to the article but is instead based on getting support for a Free Goa seperatist movement—Preceding unsigned comment added by Traing (talk • contribs)

The Indians are hypocrites. The regions disputed by India and China are unmistakeably not Indian, but are Tibetan, and while some Tibetans may dispute their relations with China, it remains a fact that ethnologically and culturally, Tibet was and remains part of the Chinese sphere. The Ladakhis and Tawangese are pure Tibetans, while the rest of the tribes of South Tibet aka Arunachal (hah!) are related to the Tibetans. Strictly speaking, even Sikkim (the Lepchas & Bhutia natives) and Bhutan are part of Greater Tibel, as is the Kingdom of Mustang in Nepal.

The Indians were instigated by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. (along with Nasser's Egypt, Tito's Yugoslavia and the United Nations Organization) to provoke the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet ideological dispute, when the Soviets used their differences to mock Mao for not using military force to seize HongKong & Macao a la the Soviet's seizure of the US-Japanese propped White Russian territories in Siberia; India was instigated to show up China by invading and occupying Goa. The Chinese punished India as it deserved for its smartass impertinence, showing who is top dog, and putting the upstarts in their place.

Goa does not belong to India, and India continues to illegally and criminally occupy it. India hypocritically claims that Pakistan's title to Azad Kashmir is non-existent and that those territories continue to "belong" to India, despite Pakistan ruling them since 1950 as a result of its military occupation, yet contradicts itself by pretending that its similarly illegal and criminal actions in the case of Goa are suddenly "moral and just". Basically, it works out to: I have a right to rob my neighbor, but how dare my neighbors rob me?

We patriotic Goans pray that the vile and illogical behemoth of India goes the same way as the Soviet and Titoist empires, and that Goa be liberated from subjugation at the hands of India. We will freely welcome Chinese assistance if it is proferred.

FreeGoan http://www.freegoa.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.34.15 (talk • contribs)

This person is using Wikpedia as a channel to gather support for a seperatist movement (albeit very minor). I don't know whether this is allowed, someone please inform me. Traing 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant on this article? 75.73.188.53 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All of this Goa-rape nonsense has no place in the article.Baka man 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Repetition in Yuje's version

There are numerous instances of repetition in Yuje's version which unnecessarily increase the size of the article. Yuje has above stated that he considers my version to be in no way better than his version and stated that the article is fine "the way it is" (which is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia). Anyway, here are examples of clear-cut flaws in Yuje's verison:

"Chinese military victory. After defeating the Indian Army..." - both mean the same thing, unnecessary extension, not refined enough for infobox.
IndianSurveyMap1950 appears twice in the article.
IndianSurvey1954map appears twice in the article.
He says "[the treaty] had never been subject to treaty between the Indian and Chinese government" and then in the same sentence "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". If India had never consulted with China, obviously it had never been subject to treaty (and vice versa). If India had never consulted with China, obviously it had unilaterally defined the border. The details of Nehru wanting to declare the previously undemarcated boundaries of Aksai Chin in 1954 are also given above this paragraph. Again more repetition.
He adds "Singh claims that instead, India has always regarded the Himalayas as its traditional boundaries^[1]." just in the next paragraph where it says that India extended its boundary north to the Himalayas because of its belief that the Himalayas were always the ancient boundaries of India.
He writes that "[weapons] were returned to India as a sign of goodwill instead of destroying them or abandoning them to the natives" just one sentence after the article says "the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by China unconditionally as a show of goodwill"

Surely this incessant repetition cannot be justified. Then why does Yuje not show any willingness for adjustment? Traing 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The maps are relevant to both sections, because it showed both the varying changes in claims over the Aksai Chin, and as part of the pre-war claim changes. There's certainly precedent for allowing a graphic to be displayed twice: Genghis_Khan, a featured article, does it.
One is about its formal and legal status. His point was that the border had never been presently or historically negotiated between with any Chinese government and any Indian government, past or present. The second mention (after he made the point about its legal status) was his point that as a neighbor, India should not have simply claimed a section of undefined/disputed borders without consulting China.
According to Singh's article, China's claim to the parts of the Himalayas beyond the foothills were traditional claims. It was simply pointing out that from Singh's mention, India's claims on the Himalayas are also based on traditional beliefs as well.
The previous edit says that China returned the weapons only because of logistical concerns. However, in the actual cited article, she says that goodwill was the reason the weapons were returned instead of being destroyed or abandoned.

--Yuje 06:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Genghis Khan isn't a featured article. Why insert it into the section on the formation of the Johnson Line when the maps relate to the 1950s. The captions are the same as well. No, the repetition of images is completely unnecessary. Also note that again you claim that India claims Bhutan as its own.
No, the essence of what you are trying to say isn't a problem. It is the wording, you have said that you oppose my summary which says "Zhou later argued that the Indian government could not place a claim over Aksai Chin without consultation and treaty with neighboring China to finalize the undemarcated borders. ^[2]", but you never mentioned exactly what is misses out on. It says that there has not been consultation, treaty and that the borders are demarcated. But your extension of the sentences and usage of repetition just shouldn't be there.
Yes but that paragraph was mainly about China's traditional claim while the earlier one stated India's traditional claim that the Himalayas were its boundaries. Why use repetition is the question.
The previous sentence said that it was a show of goodwill and she says that the reason they were returned as goodwill was because of the logistical concerns of keeping them. It's just repetition that's the problem, not the content.

Traing 06:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My claim is sourced, as I keep repeating. Are you just going to delete it based on heresay and your believe that Maxwell is biased?
If the essence of what I say isn't a problem, then please stop deleting it. Both points were used by Zhou and your "summary" doesn't do it justice, it simply states his claim without giving his reasons for why he objected.
The argument was that the Chinese claim should be invalid because it was a traditional one. However, as it was pointed out, India's claim to the Himalayas was also a traditional one. If you don't like my wording, then how about the wording used in the previous version of the article? "V.K. Singh argues that the basis of these boundaries, accepted by British India and Tibet, were that the historical boundaries of India were the Himalayas and the areas south of the Himalayas were traditionally Indian and associated with India.^[1]"
And all I added was that, despite the logistical concerns, they needn't have returned the weapons; other options they considered were to destroy them or hand them to the Tibetan natives.

--Yuje 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue in this case (because I just realised that your repeated image doesn't mention Bhutan). The issue is on repetition.
OK, how about "Zhou later argued that as the boundary was undemarcated and never ratified by China, the Indian government could not unilaterally define Aksai Chin's borders".
I changed my version, see the history and see whether you like it.
OK, I incorporated that bit without mentioning the "show of goodwill" statement twice as that's repetition and makes it more unreadable. See whether you mind.

Traing 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent CIA documents

Apparently, some CIA documents on the Sino-Indian war were recently declassified. I haven't taken the time to read through the actual documents entirely yet, but some online newspapers have already reported on it.

The actual documents are online here. The documents were written during 1963-1965, so it offers quite a different perspective than more recent studies or books. I've only had time to skim through all of them. For example, in discussing Chinese motivations for war in section 3, it's attributed entirely to military and political objectives, and none to Tibet at all.

The Chinese apparently were motivated to attack by one primary consideration--their determination to retain the ground on which PLA forces stood in 1962 and to punish the Indians for trying to take that ground. In general terms, they tried to show the Indians once and for all that China would not acquiesce in a military "reoccupation" policy. The secondary reasons for the attack, which had made it desirable but not necessary, included a desire (1) to damage Nehru's prestige by exposing Indian weakness and (2) to expose as traitorous Khrushchev's policy of supporting Nehru against a Communist country. They attained almost unqualified success with the 9 first objective, but attained the second only with respect to parties already in their camp.

I'll continue with the current edits I'm planning, and then incorporate information from the CIA documents later, after having read them. --Yuje 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems good. But you can't ignore Garver, who bases his claims on Tibetan expansionism on both past and recent Chinese sources. Traing 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another article on the CIA documents, just for some Indian perspective. Chinese deception, Nehru's naivete led to '62 war--58.110.247.161 09:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Could someone please add "pt:Guerra sino-indiana" do the article? Thanks. Gabbhh 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a constant observer of Sino-Indian War, it's hard to weigh the factors associated with Sino-Indian War. It could be a well-planned Tibet expansionism or a vague military operation associated with various Cold War era myths and fears.Lustead 15:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even CIA Blame India for the War

The recent declassified CIA report has also busted some of the myth perpetuated by some amateur/pseudo experts. In the CIA report, the Indian was portrayed as an inconsiderate, arrogant, deluded & bombastic war monger, while China was portrayed as a restrain power, hesistantly dragged into the war by India. After reading the CIA report, it's seem around 95% of the blame goes to India.

Look here -> http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/POLO/polo-09.pdf

Sawadeekrap 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK India seemed a bit too self-confident, but a CIA report has also to be checked for the political background. India was quite close with the enemy, the U.S.S.R., while China wasn't that close anymore. So don't quote them as facts but quote them as CIA says that ...Wandalstouring 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Even CIA" stuff doesn't sit right. This is an old report from 1964 when India was a Soviet ally. So there was certainly no political motivation for the CIA to restrain it's criticism of Nehru. The issue of "Who lost China?" had sparked a vicious partisan debate in the U.S. that would have been fresh in people's minds at that time. If Democrats wrote this report, they would have been anxious to show that China wasn't really "lost."

The report covers information that was publically available at that time. It contains no inside information concerning China motives. The criticism of India is fine as far as it goes, but the fact remains the Chinese army was preparing an attack long before Nehru's forward policy or the border skirmishes in 1962. Based on quotes Garver gives, Mao had pretty much made up his mind back in 1959, i.e. immediately after Nehru gave the Dalai Lama asylum. Kauffner 10:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

   ::: Yea, sure, every report that does not favor India you will call it "biased" or "politically motivated"

There was also certainly no political motivation for the CIA to restrain it's criticism of Communist China especially after the Korean War. This CIA report is for internal consumption, it is not supposed to be censored or restrained in anyway. It is only censored/restrained/doctored when it goes thru the White House for the public release...as has happened to the Iraq WMD report...it is unconceivable to think that US President get a biased version of CIA report.218.208.24.235 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

CIA has many defects and internal chaos. We can't rely on CIA reports. CIA messed at times in the Cold War era, the US and the world, like its counter part KGB.Lustead 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To Lustead: The credibility of the CIA can be reviewed if readers were to read the CIA article (which, by the way, is not under contest for neutrality). The article does mention that the "CIA" wrote the articles and therefore, is responsible for the contents of its report. However, the CIA is the intelligence organization of the most powerful nation in the world, and a superpower at the time when the article was written, with access to knowledge and information that are sometimes not available to the public. Therefore, its reports are as credible, if not more so, than any published history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuxuan dang (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Typos

Every instance of "it's" in the text needs to be changed to "its". ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this article, as it appears the dispute is either over, or the participants have given up. This page is still on my watchlist, and if the edit war resumes, so will the protection. With Traing (talk · contribs) having not edited in over three weeks, this hopefully will not be the case. However, please use descriptive edit summaries and explain any potentially controversial edits on this page. - auburnpilot talk 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise version

I'm adding the compromise version from User:Traing/Sino-Indian War to the page. If you can readd POV deletions or make edits on that it's encouraged. HOWEVER, I will not appreciate you simply copy-pasting from an April 2007 version simply because that's before I summarized it. If I deleted legit content, tell me. Traing 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Still making stuff up?

"It is suggested that Mao also wanted to propose Lin Biao with a decisive military defeat over India which would increase his popularity as well as that of the People's Liberation Army.^[3] "

I challenge anyone to find anywhere where the article says that, or a single mention of Lin Biao, or a single sentence stating Mao's intentions were to win a victory to increase his popularity or that of the army. Link to Epoch Times article is right here. This is why I don't simply trust edits and go and verify each edit. Otherwise, certain POV-pushers (you know who you are) will quickly take the opportunity to sneak in all sorts of fabricated edits. --Yuje 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sneak in all sorts of fabricated edits?". I did some research and found out that this idea has been present in the article as early as your edit in November 2006. Of course, so I'm sure the certain POV pushers frankly have no idea who they are. Traing 07:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mao's intentions are only known by himself. So, claims on Mao's intentions are speculations. Postdoc 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article favors India over China

Why is article turning into a propaganda machine for the Indian army?

Anti-chinese government is like an unwritten by-law of the wiki foundation.

-- I would like to say that the communist governments tried to brain wash their people but failed, while some other governments seemed have done a good job. So I see miss-understanding toward communist China in many places.

One side used forward policy and one side stopped the war utilaterally. Let's forget about the word and check the fact. Think about who was trying to attack and who was trying to barely keep what they have and the peace. I know people from both side are brain washed by their governments but let's see the fact, again the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sombertruth (talk • contribs) 07:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Very good point. It is an irony that some people claim communism brain-wash its people, even though they themselves are literally "washed", or baptized, as they claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.68.139 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i have a question. why is it that the indian source said it have over 3000 kill while the section below indicate much less death. and the opposite for the chinese deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.244.232 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

some1 with time should rewrite this article in a neutral point of view with facts not propaganda from the indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.244.232 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the entire article needs a rewrite. The size of the article is fine as I would prefer more information over less. The problem is that almost the entire article sounds as if it were written by an Indian general attempting to explain/justify his poor performance. I have no problem with India, or favor towards China, I just think that this article is blatantly written with a bias. In addition, many portions read like a badly written newspaper article or fiction novel. The article is important and worth the time required to clean it. Thanks.Furtfurt (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is overly biased against the Chinese in favor of the Indian side. If you just read the article without looking at the process of the war, final casualties, and post war status, you'd think that the Indian army had held up several Chinese divisions with a few hundred men. Requesting a rewrite. Gryffon (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is very pro-Indian

It seems like this article has turn into an China bashing and pro-Indian article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.117.66.143 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is this? The end of this article says "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 position at this point.[49]" This is probably one of the most bias article I have seen in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.117.66.143 (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

PRO INDIAN AS USUAL

as with most indian articles this article has been infested by indians trying to rub out actual events in history wikipedia needs to clamp down on indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.127.97 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is so incredibly biased in Indian favour that it could almost be called propaganda. The Indians lost the conflict especially because of the ineptness of their armed forces respectively their Intelligence and their leaders. The Indian forces were undersupplied and not equipped to fight in such great heights. Indian Intelligence assured that the situation on the Chinese side was even worse and the Chinese would never put up a fight. These were the premises under which Operation Leghorn was instigated which was a total failure. The advancing Indian forces were met by numerically very much superior Chinese force which routed them. This event in fact started the war. After that the Chinese infiltrated the Indian positions in two offensive movements in the East and West. Since the Chinese reached their military targets and breached the Indian defensive lines, they won the war outright.

When the article implies the Indians were consciously unprepared for action because Nehru was such a big pacifist, this is outright false. The Indians tried to agressively occupy the contested areas although they were logistically unable to mount such an operation. The only reason for Operation Leghorn was the extreme arrogance of the Indian military leadership towards the Chinese military forces and their underestimation of their logistic and military capabilities. This arrogance shows even through in the article where the author implies a certain Indian military superiority had the conflict gone on. So please change the whole thing to give it some objective value. The article as it stands is not objective since it plays to the Indian POV that they were unpreparedly attacked within their rightful national boundaries by the Communist hordes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.14.60 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, very well said. I just love those Indian propaganda saying "India lost the Sino-Indian War because India trusts China too much etc and etc." The truth is India lost the war because of incredible arrogance coming from their side. Notice the whole article didn't even mention China won the war and India lost it. The Indian users here make it sounds like the war end in a draw.

Wow. It's incredible how terribly this whole article is written. I think it's fine to talk about certain people's opinions on this war, but these opinions should be clearly labeled as such. If this is how the average Indian feels about this conflict, I feel like they are not looking at their history based on empirical facts, to their own detriment. Also, in terms of a small numbers of "brave Indians" facing all these "Chinese hordes," the article talks only about Chinese attacks on Indians, but surely there were Indian attacks on Chinese entrenchments. My point is that using when one group attacks the other when the defenders have had time to entrench themselves, then of course it is likely that there will be more causalities among the attackers. In the cases where Indian forces attacked well entrenched Chinese forces, the casualties among Indians would be greater. To the people who have contributed to this article to get it like this: can you honestly believe that what you have written is unbiased? Replace China with India and read it over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.130.37 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is biased and inaccurate

I just read through this article (unfortunately) and the number of discrepancies it has with other historical military documents on this conflict is ridiculous. The article is extremely biased, and in fact, inaccurate on numerous accounts. Hopefully, someone with a little more time (and intellect) can proofread this document and edit in the correct information. Right now, its more propaganda than history. RedStorm19 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"While India has allowed more scrutiny on the events leading to the war, with numerous publications from India exposing the Indian government's inadequate handling of the matter, on the other hand, published scholarship in China is still expected to explain and justify, not to criticize, the decisions of the Chinese Communist Party, at least on such sensitive matters as war."

This statement is highly dubious. First of all, the source cited, Garver, doesn't actually make this claim about the Indian government allowing more scrutiny.

Secondly, until 2005, (when the Right to Information Act was passed in India), Indian citizens didn't have unrestricted access to government documents and communications. For decades after the war, material related to the Sino-Indian war was still restricted by the Official Secrets Act of 1923. The "publications from India exposing the Indian government's inadequate handling of the matter" are still classified.

Furthermore, publications that "compromise the sovereignty of India" are still banned in India. The whole law is cited in Maxwell's book. This has resulted in bans of books related to the Sino-Indian War which present an unfavorable view towards India: these include Maxwell's and Alistair's books. These also include publications which have maps that don't show all of Kashmir as belonging to India.

Frankly, I think the numerous comments made above about Indian bias have a good point. Biases like mentioned here will continue to creep in as long as editors continue to add in embellishments to the facts like this.--Yuje (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously biased article

Someone please read the Chinese Offensive section and the tell me that it's not biased towards the Indian side. Why is there so much mention of Indian troop heroics and awards? I don't believe I have ever read phrases like "the Indians fought to the death" and its various iterations so many times in an article. I go check the source and it turns out to be an Indian history website. I had to delete/reword it all. Had I read only the descriptions of the battles, I would've though that India completely dominated the Chinese forces in every battle, inflicting huge casualties on them, when you can see it's the other way around according to the statistics! I have no finished editing to make this part of the article NPOV, but I have a feeling it would get reverted anyways. Ashkenazi78 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Indian-POV: I removed the information about the Indian Major and his achivements. I removed many, many phrases of "heavy casualties" when describing Chinese losses since it was clear that when Indians lost men, it was due to "fighting to the death", "logistical inadequacies", and "cutoff retreat". The article made it appear as if the Indian army hardly lost any men in the conflict compared to the Chinese army!Ashkenazi78 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story - a book unsuitable for historical reference.

The reference 'Mao: The Unknown Story' and the contents based on citing this reference was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.67.190 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian articles

It seems to me this article demonstrates what is wrong with Wikipedia articles written by Indians in general - completely biased and totally unbelievable. Even a 7 year old would struggle to believe what is written here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol india got creamed by the chinese. CREAMED. Vlad Dracula (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Need archiving

This talk page is very long. Can someone archive it? Oh I see how to do it now.