Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 1

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.

I don't know... it sounds strangely like the French and Indian War to me... except it was faught almost exactly on the other side of the world! I know both are established names, but it just seems wrong. What about the French and Native American war? Or French and (whichever tribe[s] or federation of tribes the French faught) war?--Node 22:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify... I'm not proposing moving one article to a different name, I'm just proposing that it is confusing but we can't do much about it.--Node 22:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The French and Indian War was not fought between the French and the Indians. It was fought between the French and the British. The Indians were on the side of the French. Well, most of the Indians were anyway. -- Dreiss2 2:19, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

rv blanking Edward 18:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the Chinese people who post here will favour their country even though China was responsible for this war. China started the war by attacking India 10 years after it had invaded Tibet. India was fighting a war of self defence against China. India is not a militaristic nation by nature as it is a Hindu nation and Hinduism is a religion of peace. However, attacks from foes such as China and Pakistan have compelled India to build up its armed forces. India did not provoke China in any way as they launched the first strike.

To User:69.196.113.86, author of the above paragraph and of consistent POV additions to the article: your additions are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because of their major lack of neutrality. That's why they have been systematically reverted. I am now protecting this article page. If there is something that you would like to add to the article, just post it on this talk page, and if it is NEUTRAL then it will be inserted into the article and the page protection will be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to make political statements. If you need to learn more about the policies, have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. olivier 16:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Vedant

Oh ofcourse and supporting the Chinese is neutral. Wikipedia sure has an interesting view on neutral statements.

Lets see, India deployed forces north of the McMahon Line - Where is this from? A Chinese propaganda site? They sure have a lot of them. Afterall, they have to allow some internet websites you know, cant block too many search engines and sites which have a view which doesn't agree with the Communist party.

Hmm... The Chinese invasion of Tibet. I mean, they only killed a few thousand of them and displaced about 10 million of them. Go check any website (ofcourse, it cant be Xinhua news agency...). Indeed, Tibet was "liberated" by Chinese troops who were "invited" into China (for what, a party?).

Indian territorial acquisitions - So its okay for China to invade Tibet but illegal for India to take control of territories which belonged to it centuries before the British came. Yes, perfectly NEUTRAL isn't it?

Chinese were reacting to Indian provocations huh? Considering India grounded its airforce during this war because they were afraid that the Chinese would attack their cities with their airforce, I doubt they really wanted to provoke China. Ofcourse, this is a NEUTRAL site isn't it? We don't want to present any facts that support India. Afterall, we don't want to look at the Indian side, only the Chinese side.

Also, you say this was a border dispute? I say it was a "land grab". Information from Chinese, U.S., Indian and other sources reveal that China had begun transferring artillery, planes, and troops from its other fronts to the Indian front before operation ONKAR had even begun. Ofcourse, the Chinese were defending themselves... sure...

India began to actively patrol the LOAC in the 1980s and it was responsible for causing a crisis... Oh, I suppose India just felt like starting another war. Ofcourse even though the Chinese deployed 400,000 troops in the region before India started actively patrolling the LOAC. What a NEUTRAL view of things huh? Blame the Indians right? Perfectly allright...

And ofcourse, China can be trusted. No problem, Tiananmen square, what was that? Never heard of it. The Chinese government seems to think so but I doubt the people who witnessed agree if any of them are still alive...

Oh and Mao Zedong didn't go around killing any nationalists? Hmm.... The West seems to think he did a pretty good job of it. Afterall, its a little hard to get away with killing 20 million people isn't it?

Its too bad the stupidity and blindness of a Chinese leader can lead to the deaths of 4,000 Indians and 3,000 Chinese...

NEUTRAL SITE HUH?

I strongly suggest Wikipedia question the validity of the Chinese statements. However, if Wikipedia responds by locking the page when the truth is posted on a site, what does that have to say about neutrality?

Neutrality: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Many articles are unfortunately lacking neutrality, and contributors are invited to correct this lack of neutrality. This being said, it does not help to revert a potentially biased statement by another biased statement, as has been done repeatedly with this article.

Wikipedia as an entity: Wikipedia is the result of the work of thousands of people collaborating openly. Everybody is invited to do so while following the paramount rule of the Neutral Point Of View. There is no "Wikipedia thinks that" or "Wikipedia did not question that", just people who wrote certain things and other people who have amended these things over time.

Page protection: I have protected (blocked edits of) this page temporarily, following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Protection policy, which were themselves the result of a collaborative and open work. As I have mentioned above, the reason for the page protection is that your additions were not neutral and have been systematically reverted by various users.

Moving forward: if you want to correct some lack of neutrality in this article and add some information, you are welcome to do so. But please avoid making blatantly biased statements, or you will face the risk of having the rest of the community discount the value of all your contributions. It is not the "view of Wikipedia" but rather the reaction of the community of contributors working of this project, spending a lot of time on it, and willing to ensure its quality. Here is my suggestion: I am pasting the article below, so you can make changes directly to it. Feel free to discuss point by point. Once an agreement will be found, we will move the amended article to its page and things will resume to normal. Thank you. (Note: the article contains links to other articles within Wikipedia, and it usually makes sense to keep them while editing an article - see Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) for more information) olivier 06:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have just come across the article and I believe you are clearly being biased in this discussion, Olivier. The correct way to resolve an issue of bias would be to eliminate all contested aspects of the article now on the front page, allow both sides to fairly correct it, and then institute the changes when all controversies have been resolves. Right now, you automatically allow one side's supporters to win by default, and it is in their interest to continue claiming objections to the other side's corrections, no matter how objective they might be.

I am sad to say that clearly, you are biased, and you are an example of the reason why this Wikipedia will never be able to reach its full potential.

Jason

Below is the draft of the revised article. Please make your changes here while the page is protected. Once an agreement will be reached, this revised article will be moved to the article page.