Talk:2020–2021 China–India skirmishes/Archive 2

43 'casualties' vs 'killed or injured'
In the infobox: There is no benefit to using the vaguest wording, while the source literally defines the meaning as killed or injured with no uncertainty. The latter should be used. One of the current sources even discusses in detail how the casualty figure has been misinterpreted, so the clearest wording is a plus.--Cold Season (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no vague wording used in the section. The word has very clear meaning. And if you failed to understand simple English, then I am afraid you are incompetent to be doing edit in Wikipedia. Casualty means "killed or injured", the same thing you replaced the word with and that's why the section itself named as casualty section. Drat8sub (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Very civil, see WP:PERSONAL. To the matter: Here's the source literally examining how the figure has been misinterpreted. Therefore, the text needs the clearest wording. If you agree that it means 'killed and inured', then your objection is baseless and without argument. --Cold Season (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I know exactly, this would be your reply. I dealt with that before. Care to read WP:COMPETENCE, this is nowhere near to getting personal. That citation was added by me only, seeing the article history full of adding killed/ killed or injured. The primary source said "casualty". So what are you pointing to. Secondly, if "killed and injured" is added, it gives notion either 43 killed or 43 injured. So, no need to add these. Casualty is all fine. And thats why said, if you don't understand this simple English, then I am afraid, competence is required. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The header on WP:COMPETENCE is ironic "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack." I will wait for third party input from someone who's more willing to focus on content. --Cold Season (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Drat8sub. We should wait for further clarity in order to differentiate between the two terms. Till then 'casualties' does more justice. Further, the situation is still evolving dynamically with news reports coming in that Chinese casualties could be higher. Let us wait for all this fog to clear away. Trojanishere (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Hey, I'm the one who suggested to put 'casualties' there (see above discussions). The reasons to do so were:
 * 1) Edit warring over 'killed and injured' vs 'killed'. or different twisting to give more weightage to ether killed or injuredover the other
 * 2) Casualties doesn't have a vague meaning. It literally means a person killed or injured in a war or accident
 * 3) killed and injured, in fact, complicates the entire thing as some people then interpret it as 43 killed and 43 injured. The same people, I guess, would think that casualties means death.
 * --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dispute? You need to cool down. Dispute is when claiming a fact or infomation. Here, this is about ability to read or write English, to understand meaning. You are failing to understand that the word itself means  so there is no need of writing killed or injured instead of the word. Your are again and again proving my point., I think we will soon get something from govt. only or western source however the U.S.News article though claiming some intellegence is seemed to be flawed with the TOI things added in it and so still we have to wait for a better source for clarity. Drat8sub (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Repost) First of all, the Chinese casualties are, as mentioned before, from an India source, which is definitely unreliable and biased when it comes to most things Chinese. More importantly the wording is heavily implying that China suffered 43 deaths because of the way it is structured. First you have "43 casualties" on top, then "7 injured" below. This can easily lead to the misconception that 43 Chinese soldiers have died with 7 injured. So I recommend doing this:


 * (XXX estimates:) 43 Killed and Injured OR Casualties
 * (YYY estimates:) 7 Injured

This is in accordance to many of the casualty preview on most pages like Korean war, Vietnam war so on and so forth. Nebakin (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope, thats why the users added the dates along with the figures. There is no scope of confusion exists. 10 May there were injuries and on 15th June there were deaths. Drat8sub (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, the dates themselves are not helpful. No casualty preview ever include multiple dates. There is only as of present date and the estimated/known total. Nebakin (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record I changed "killed" to "killed or injured" in the infobox before seeing this discussion. I don't mind whether it says "killed or/and injured" or "casualties", but it should certainly not say "43 killed", which is false. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 43 killed cannot be kept. Again "43 killed or injured" too, it shows 43 killed or 43 injured. So, casualty is better word. Drat8sub (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either "43 killed or injured" or "43 casualties" since the English word "casualty" refers to both dead and wounded. Plus, cited source has used both variations. However, as I stated in the newly-opened section below, some newly created accounts continue to push their own OR POV and trying to write only "43 killed", which as far as I can see everyone here agrees can not be kept. EkoGraf (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

35 killed claim
, when someone reverted your edit, you should've opened a thread for a discussion, rather persistently re-adding materials. The news article is flawed as it claimed, "Indian government sources speaking on the condition of anonymity told The Times of India that 20 Indian army personnel had died in the fighting", where as it's nothing anonymous source rather Indian Army statement of soldiers killed in actions. Similarly the line "American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News" and "a source familiar" question itself and trying to justify similar situation of the TOI and more than that CIA used to give info to paper like that of NYT, WP, CNN rather than U.S.News. And if they've given to U.S.News then they must have given to NYT or WP. Wait for them. Everything can be added once better source available. Drat8sub (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like CNN's affiliate, CNN-News 18 has published a video regarding US intelligence claims. Check it out here. Will this be counted as reliable or not? open for discussion. Regards, --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The US intelligence told Indian government the "35" was casualties instead of death. What's with the inconsistency? (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Not convincing yet, first media house does not work like that, CNN-News18 has nothing to do with CNN Worldwide. They are individually controlled. Second, the anchor who is delivering has multiple times observed to have spread misinformation and it seems like refering US.News article only. And it is hardly unlikely that US knows casualty numbers but Indian counterparts don't have any clue of it. I better wait for a better source. Drat8sub (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Drat8sub, now Indian govt sources are also quoting the US intelligence reports. This points out that this can be an actual US assessment. And maybe we should include them. See this: https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/american-intelligence-believes-35-chinese-soldiers-killed-beijing-humiliated-by-casualty-us-media-report. Trojanishere (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere


 * Agreed. Just like we have mentioned Indian reports, we should add this too and add under US Sources/Reports otherwise it would be akin to hiding sources since the same sources who have quoted the US report have been used as references before in this article. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Add this as a source : https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-16/dozens-killed-as-india-china-face-off-in-first-deadly-clash-in-decades. Quoting the article "American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News. The incident took place during a meeting in the mountainous region between the two sides – both of which had agreed to disarm – to determine how the two militaries would safely withdraw their presences from the region." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZEBO ALPHA (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is US news even a reliable source? But importantly can they really be US claims when it is just supposed quotes from supposed American intelligence? Nebakin (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, , I was reluctant on that only. I think we must wait for better source. Neither US govt. said nor Indian govt./Army support that US News piece. US News says "US intellegence" who? which assesment, if it's from US Hs. of Foreign Commtt./CIA/Pentagon, they clearly gives statement on such thing. Its a number of casualty not a intellegence report that something should not be leaked. The Hindu written "Sources in the government" who? Drat8sub (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , do you really think that there will be some official comments from either Indian side or by the Americans about the Chinese casualties? Most probably no. Both countries will not comment in order to not escalate the matter further. Therefore, it is through these 3rd party 'sources' that the governments leak their estimates of casualties. And from the statement of the editor-in-chief of Global Times, it is clear that China isn't going to release the casualties so there won't be any Chinese sources. I think we should use the present American numbers and update it as and when a better version/source is available. and  what do you think? Trojanishere (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Drat8sub You need to stop engaging in nitpicking now. 27.57.173.221 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk on topic, not about my edit. I know rules and guidelines. U.S.News is not reliable source, and the article is flawed. Drat8sub (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are being disruptive that's why I mentioned. Any evidence that it is not a reliable source? You rejected every reliable source, not just US News. 27.57.173.221 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What else did I removed? Stick to the topic, the discussion is not about revert but the citations should be considered or not. If considered one must clarify the reliability. Drat8sub (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

, I am not saying that there will be any revelation from Govt. and again, if its 35 then Indian Govt will not shy of revealing that, it's a win situation for the Govt. And more than that if US govt. leaking through third party it is highly unlikely US News will be that, rather the major entities which has always been revealing such things, that is surprising here. Thats why saying we can wait for better source. Drat8sub (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Indian army sources are claiming an even higher number, and are certain of confirmed 45 deaths on the Chinese side. Yes, despite that the Indian govt will never go on record to say that. Because right now and in long term de-escalation favours India. Indian govt is already achieving its priority through, that is to get these figures of Chinese deaths to the Indian public. And, recently Indian govt sources are also citing an American Intelligence report conforming the casualties on Chineses side, See this: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece. Trojanishere (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere


 * , Indian Army sources? Is it...I don't find any source. And the Hindu is quoting the same US Report. Anyway lets see what develops in coming days. Drat8sub (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why some places are saying 35 casualties (like the "The Hindu" article mentioned previously) while some say 35 deaths (like what's currently being cited in the main article by US News), even though they are citing what appears to be the same report? Wouldn't it be more accurate to cite 35 casualties for now (until/unless the official report is released)? This is because it is more than likely that the reporter for the US News interpreted casualties as deaths as all deaths are casualties but not all casualties are deaths? Coupled with the tenancy that outlets use loose interpretations and generalisations to increase views, I would personally choose to err on the side of caution and use the "The Hindu" article's interpretation of 35 casualties as that statement appears to be more grounded and less "clickbaity". Wped87 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is wrong with the US News & World Report article. If the other articles both still say "deaths" and "casualties" then it is more likely that they are just deaths. People write "deaths" as "casualties" all the time, so they can both be right if it is deaths. It is less likely that half of the reports are wrong and half are right than both are right. AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was questioning why there were differences in the reporting with some outlets saying 35 dead, while others say that 35 is both dead and injured given that they were referring to the same report? My assumption would be that the report said casualties, but since casualties refers to are both dead and injured, the US News & World Report just assumed that casualties meant only deaths as those terms are used interchangeably in everyday speech (as you mentioned), while articles such as the one done by "The Hindu" reported casualties as casualties by definition. Wped87 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Declaration has changed?
has modified the description "Declared Chinese border point" to "1960 Declared Chinese border point" with the comment "note that the declaration has obviously changed, so a year is necessary". I am not aware of any "changed declaration" nor is it "obvious" to me how a border has "changed". Can you please explain this, ? And, please provide a reliable source for this "change". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The labeled Declared Chinese border points are from coordinates declared by China in a 1960 meeting, so it’s not inaccurate to label the year of the declaration. The Chinese clearly claims that the border is further than those points nowadays (as shown in the very map we are discussing, as well as most other maps). For instance, regarding the Pangong Lake the Chinese claims are now up to Finger 2 or Finger 4:
 * There is also no reason to contest labeling the coordinates taken from the 1960 meeting as the 1960 declared point... That’s what it is. — MarkH21talk 15:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LAC is not border. Neither India Today nor Lt Gen HS Panag speak for the Chinese Government. Only the Chinese Government can declare China's border. You claim that they have declared a new border. Where is such a declaration? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait before we even get into that, what’s being cited is literally the 1960 declaration. Do you even have a reason against the label itself?The LAC isn’t a border, but the Chinese claim borders at least as far west as the LAC. — MarkH21talk 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1960 declaration is the only declaration. Unless there is another one, it is misleading to put a date on it. LAC is the line of actual control. The Chinese control whatever they control for reasons best known to themselves. But that is the not the border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Detailed Chinese government maps since then draw the border unambiguously west of the 1960 declared point marker in the map you added, e.g. this Rutog County map (alternate link) and this Ngari Prefecture map (alternate link) from the Survey and Mapping Bureau of the Tibet Autonomous Region, and the mapping service from the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China. Chinese government maps with clearly marked borders past the 1960 declared points show that what the Chinese government claims as the India-China border has changed (I'm still trying to determine if they are uploadable since it's not clear to me what the copyright status is for Chinese government maps, but that's a different matter). — MarkH21talk 18:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1960 declaration is the only declaration. Unless there is another one, it is misleading to put a date on it. LAC is the line of actual control. The Chinese control whatever they control for reasons best known to themselves. But that is the not the border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Detailed Chinese government maps since then draw the border unambiguously west of the 1960 declared point marker in the map you added, e.g. this Rutog County map (alternate link) and this Ngari Prefecture map (alternate link) from the Survey and Mapping Bureau of the Tibet Autonomous Region, and the mapping service from the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China. Chinese government maps with clearly marked borders past the 1960 declared points show that what the Chinese government claims as the India-China border has changed (I'm still trying to determine if they are uploadable since it's not clear to me what the copyright status is for Chinese government maps, but that's a different matter). — MarkH21talk 18:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to upload them. If there are online, links are good enough. But maps by themselves don't speak. Unless there is a solemn declaration of a new border, we cannot presume that the border has changed. All we can say is that the Chinese maps draw the borders at certain locations. I added the specific words Declared Chinese border point for good reason. Unless there is a new declaration, the 1960 declaration continues to hold. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Placing that pointer without context suggests that the Chinese still declare that point to be the border, whereas modern Chinese claims are even further west. Without a year appended as context, the label Declared Chinese border point misleadingly suggests that that's what the Chinese government still claims to be the border.Putting the year doesn't suggest that there was another formal declaration, but that there is another "Chinese border point" and it would accurately reflect that the 1960 declaration does not coincide with modern claims. Just as writing "the 1897 Ardagh–Johnson Line" wouldn't mislead someone into believing that there was a another Ardagh–Johnson Line.The Chinese government has been unambiguously asserting that their border is further west. It's not mysterious why they assert control up to their modern border claims. The only "mystery" is the border claim moving west. — MarkH21talk 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also be wary of using coordinates in OpenStreetMap for mapping these border points, since you'll observe that the 1960 Indian border point at Spanggur Tso in OpenStreetMaps using their coordinates is the same distance east of the shown Indian border claim in the middle of the water. This might explain why your "Declared Chinese border point" marker is floating in the middle of the water. — MarkH21talk 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

, comparison with the Ardagh-Johnson Line is not appropriate because that line only had the status of an internal proposal within the British Indian administration. It is also well-known that the British never had a good sense of there being a "traditional boundary" north of Chang Chenmo River and they were only debating where the boundary should be, not where it was. This is not the case for the Chinese boundary declaration. Their statement says:

A "traditional customary boundary line" is not expected to change from day to day or year to year. This is not the line of actual control, which can perhaps change as a result of changes in actual control.

It is also not appropriate to compare the Chinese coordinates and Indian coordinates and claim that equal amount of error was present in both of them. They were using different coordinate systems, which were probably calibrated differently. If you want to claim certain deviations from the modern GPS system, you have to do so based on other Chinese coordinates presented in the 1960 declaration, not the Indian coordinates. I believe that the traditional customary boundary line of China (by their own declaration) is at Finger 8. There is no evidence that all the "modern claims" are any more than encroachments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I only gave the Ardagh-Johnson Line as an example of how adding a year does not imply multiplicity. Take any other event or object. Saying the "the 1962 Sino-Indian War", "the 1914 Simla Convention", "1947 Partition of India", "2020 COVID-19 pandemic", etc. does not mean that there was another Sino-Indian War, another Simla Convention, another Partition of India, nor another COVID-19 pandemic.The point about the coordinates being off is that the markers are just off in OpenStreetMap for one reason or the other (maybe because China restricts nation-wide GPS data and India has restrictions on maps of areas within 50km of its borders, maybe not). It doesn't matter what you believe based on mapping coordinates from a 1960 declaration into OpenStreetMap. That's an editor's interpretation of a primary document, and you're working on a lot of expectations and assumptions (that the traditional customary boundary line has not changed, that the Chinese interpretation of the location a traditional boundary line has not changed, that modern Chinese government maps do not reflect modern Chinese border claims, that the markers from the coordinates in OpenStreetMap are mapped correctly, that the marker in the middle of the water corresponds to Finger 8, etc.).But that doesn't even matter, because it is completely accurate to note that this declaration was from 1960 and it is misleading to omit that (based on all of the above, but especially because modern Chinese maps do not place the border there). — MarkH21talk 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this is gaslighting. Sino-Indian War, Simla Convention etc. are events, which happen in time. Boundaries are not events. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the words Take any other event or object? I’d strike out your baseless accusation.We’re also talking about a 1960 declaration (i.e. an event), but as I said, use an object instead: appending the year in “1897 Ardagh-Johnson Line”, “1914 McMahon Line”, “1953 Military Demarcation Line”, “1949 Green Line”, “1947 Radcliffe Line”, or whatever else does not imply multiplicity.The rest of my points about omission being misleading, separate from your claim of multiplicity, still stand. — MarkH21talk 09:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just keep the 1960. The declaration was from 1960 and this way it is obvious that where the Chinese says its border is has changed. Otherwise it is confusing with the line there in the map and it hides that the Chinese change. AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Arms or no arms?
Did Indian soldiers carry arms or not during Galwan 15th incident? - Accordingly the line in the article needs tweaking - or how the govt narrative changed from no arms to arms. Currently the article says "While soldiers carry firearms", I myself had changed it from the previous "Due to decades of tradition designed to reduce the possibility of an escalation, neither side was equipped with firearms. As a result, hand-to-hand combat broke out," (1) DTM (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just my speculation that they do carry arms even in those areas although the magazine must be empty to prevent accidental or rage fire. The only thing we know for sure is that they can't legally fire as the 1996 bilateral agreement says "neither side shall open fire... conduct blast operations or hunt with guns or explosives within two kilometres of the Line of Actual Control". This owrding doesn't really seem to imply that troops can't carry arms. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  16:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Field Marshal Aryan, but the videos that have appeared of Indian and Chinese soldiers clashing, in most of them I don't see any weapons. See these examples, 1, 2.... there are more. DTM (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they do seem not to be carrying guns in many cases but not in all. I do know the protocol though. Guns can be carried but they must be slung at the back with the barrel pointing down. The magazines must not be attached to the firearm and it must be carried separately in a pocket or somewhere else. See this: If soldiers on LAC carry guns It should probably settle the matter.-- Trojanishere (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * I had never seen those videos. Isn't there a possibility that they kept back their weapons to prevent any accidental fire? Also it is now confirmed that the troops were carrying arms in the recent skirmishes as per this this report: India-China Galwan border dispute: Army officers confirmed most of the soldiers in that group which clashed with the Chinese soldiers were carrying their personal weapons, and had ammunition on person. Edit: Just realised that has posted the same link. Regards,  ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  05:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Fault
A line says "However, news reports continued stating that thousands of Chinese soldiers were moving into the disputed regions in Ladakh"

It is factually incorrect because Chinese were moving towards Ladakh border, not IN Ladakh.

Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not even the Ladakh border. Towards LAC. DTM (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it should be changed to "However, news reports continued stating that thousands of Chinese soldiers were moving towards LAC" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 06:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)  — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Eastern Ladakh and Western Tibet
, I accidentally overwrote this edit of yours which mentions "Western Tibet". If I had noticed it, I would have still reverted it because there is no effort to mark "Western Tibet" locations here. Only the rivers marked because they straddle both the territories. And, also you might actually want to look at a map of Tibet to know where its boundaries are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The bottom of the map shows the western edge of Tibet Autonomous Region. I would add southwestern Xinjiang too.Half of the map covers those regions and shows points (including the rivers) along their western borders, and the section also covers areas where China claims, for instance, that the sovereignty over the Galwan Valley area had always belonged to China. So the section is also about locations asserted by one of the two sides to not be solely in Ladakh.Not a major issue though, since I agree that most of the actually marked locations are not even disputed by China to not be in Ladakh. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I actually made the map to show the DS-DBO road, but the road is not showing at this resolution. So I just said locations. They are all locations along the DS-DBO road. If "Eastern Ladakh locations" bothers you, you can change it to "Locations along the DS-DBO road". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhutan
Fighting is occurring in Bhutan between Indian and Chinese forces, this needs to be mentioned. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source for this? I haven't seen Bhutan mentioned in any of the news articles I have read on this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the source I read (which I can't find again) said it was a hotspot, and I interpreted that to mean that low-level conflict was happening there right now. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it is not from 2017? AnomalousAtom (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The now-unfindable source I read was taking about the 2020 events, and mentioned the Bhutan locale as as hotspot. I assume they meant to say sore spot. It is safe to put this down to unreliable early reporting. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Casus belli
What source says war? Or cause for it? I think the article can be more neutral. Remove Casus belli from infobox unless a source cites a government position or expert opinion.Manabimasu (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many things can be a casus belli, I agree this doesn't mean much and should be removed unless one of the parties or sources comment on it being an actually invoked casus belli. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Casus belli is interesting as you can only define it after the war has started, until a war starts its a pointless term for our purposes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Injured
As and  already noted; you need to avoid adding any injuries to infobox unless they involve seriously injured or deaths. Your own source has clarified that none are seriously injured. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is a very obvious and important difference between casualties and injuries. When we mention injuries from only one side in the infobox it will distort the real picture as injuries can be very minor too but as soon as someone says 'casualties' that means very grievous injuries have happened. And the Chinese side hasn't released the number of dead or injured. Further, the Indian govt sources have also not given any estimates of the total Chinese injuries (mind you, not casualties). Therefore, it wouldn't be proper to mention the injuries only of combatant 1 while ignoring that of combatant 2 as it may give an impression that no injuries have happened for combatant 2. It should be therefore not included in the infobox. Trojanishere (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere


 * In agreement with . There has to be a line between serious injuries and those which are not. The term 'casualty' is quite heavy and in terms of war usually means making the soldier medically/physically incapable of carrying out further assignments. This physical incapability can even include death. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * How should we interpret the fact that the first source refers to them as being 'brutally' injured? Additionally, both sources have stated that all 76 soldiers have been hospitalised. Would being hospitalised fit your definition of being 'medically/physically incapable of carrying out further assignments'? It should also be noted that they are being treated at hospitals, not regimental aid posts. Furthermore, the first source states that 18 of the soldiers have been 'seriously wounded'. How do we draw the line between casualty injuries and non-casualty injuries? OldCUO (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Look at reference number 1 from OutlookIndia. It says here '58 of them sustained minor injuries'. So what I was saying is true. That an overwhelming majority of the injuries are minor. So when we put it side by side with the Chinese numbers that are casualties, it distorts the infobox and obscures the facts. And regarding the word 'brutal', I again ask you all to read the ref no. 1 from OutlookIndia. It says that the attack was brutal (read, brutally assaulted). It implies that it is pointing out that the manner of attack was brutal not the injuries, otherwise why will it report that 58 have minor injuries? Therefore, I think it is flawed to include this figure in the infobox.,  what do you think? Trojanishere (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere


 * Yep. 18 of the soldiers, who were seriously injured, can be considered casualties while I wouldn't say the same for the rest. Even then, as per the second link, 'none of them are critical at the moment and all of them should be able to get back on duty, the officials said" and "Of the injured soldiers, 18 are at the hospital in Leh who are expected at their posts within 15 days. The remaining 56 are spread across other hospitals, who can join work in a week, the officials said." The reason why the attack was brutal is also given in the same NDTV report: "The Indian soldiers were attacked with iron rods, nail-studded clubs and rocks wrapped in barbed wire in the fight near Patrol Point 14". Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @, has again reverted your edit on the injured section.  please do not keep doing this, this is against the consensus. Trojanishere (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * , thanks for pointing that out., with all due respect, please revert back your own edit, read the discussion here, then add your objections here too. I had already mentioned that in my edit summary but it seems you didn't notice it. I must warn you that your edit regarding adding the term 'estimated' in the infobox are in violation of WP:3RR as can be seen from your contributions. Also, in your edit summary you state that reliable sources say that 76-80 have been injured, as far as i know most RS are saying 76. You didn't also provide any source for your statement that 'reliable sources reported 76 to 80' which is very important for making claims/assertions on wikipedia. Furthermore, you added back the citation number [9] which I had removed. Pray, tell me how is it adding any substance to the figures for which it has been cited? The second source backing the 76 injured claims itself states that '58 sustained minor injuries'. I won't go deeper because the matter has been discussed at length already within this section. I won't even revert your edit in accordance with WP:3RR and am asking you kindly to do so yourself. With regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  19:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @ With all due respect, last I checked, 58 minor injuries are still injuries. A broken nose is considered "minor". So are you literally just not going to include someone who has a broken nose on the list of injured soldiers list? Your logic makes no sense what so ever and as a neutral person I disagree with you on this subject. Please understand where I am coming from


 * , I understand where you are coming from, so lets work out a compromise:
 * Replace 76-80 injuries with 76 injuries (18 major, 56 minor) to give a fair picture to the reader without having to hide what sources say. Also, the source given there states the same and it says just 76 instead of 76-80.
 * Remove citation number [9] from there because, honestly, it doesn't even mention the deaths. Why is it there in the first place?
 * If you have objection, do let me know, otherwise just perform the edit yourself or state that you have no objection so I can do so. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * see the above discussion. I think what and   are trying to say is this: On the Chinese side, we have numbers for casualties, that includes only dead and seriously wounded. Whereas when you are editing the injured to be 78-80 on the Indian side, it includes all the minor injuries too. So, it is not a fair comparison in the infobox. It makes it look as if only one side had injuries. Therefore Indian numbers must also be of seriously injured. Right, ? Therefore I too request you to rollback your edit as soon as possible Bakedbutter (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Bakedbutter


 * I request or  to reinstate the 18 injured number in the article's infobox. is not giving any fruitful inputs either and keeps making the disruptive edits.Bakedbutter (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Bakedbutter


 * Agreed. Soldiers who only got minor injuries should be excluded or the nature of injuries should be specfied in the infobox. StormyCassette (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Despite my efforts to discuss a solution, has taken to liberty to continue with his edits while conveniently ignoring my pleas. Even after being pinged quite a while ago, and making edits after my message, he has not yet replied to me or raised an objection to my proposal. I will therefore conclude that he has no problem with what I have suggested above and will therefore go ahead with my edit., don't revert my edit then like you have done previously, instead try to to reach a solution/compromise through discussion on the talk page. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @ The reason why I didn't respond to you was because I agreed with you. You already made the change to what you suggested, and I didn't touch it
 * , very well. But it is advisable that you give clear replies about whether you have an objection. Not responding to something is generally not considered agreeing with it, especially when one has been directly pinged. Also please not that pinging by using  or any other template won't notify the user unless you sign your post within the same edit. Read more here. PS. I appreciate that you accepted my proposal. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Captured soldier
China didn't detain any Indian soldiers.

See

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-53102629

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-china-denies-seizing-indian-personnel-during-galwan-valley-face-off-2828683

https://www.dw.com/en/china-denies-seizing-indian-troops/a-53869186 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)  — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * , how about adding a line stating Chinese authorities denied having detained any Indian Army personnel? Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  16:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That won't make sense, because this news buzzed on Twitter and few websites.

Both India and China clearly said that no one is under detention. So social media buzz can't be added in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think what Field Marshal is trying to say is that we include both versions. We cannot make the decision ourselves here as wikipedia editors related to whether troops were detained or not. If India (govt or reliable media) say they were, and then later released, while China says no one was detained, both versions need to be put or neither. DTM (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ya that's what I was trying to convey. According to the BBC report, the Indian government gave a very ambiguous statement that none of its soldiers were missing. If they would have said something like "None of our troops were captured" then it would have been wiser to remove the claims of soldiers being captured altogether. For now, we are in a fix. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  05:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we gonna add our own theories now? Chinese Ministry have cleared that no one has been detained. I don't know why should it still be added on the basis of your personal opinions. When China or India will officially accept, then you should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)  — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Read again. I don't think my personal theories carry that much weight that so many news sources would cover it. Adding our own theories is exactly what we are not trying to do. In fact, you, incorrectly, stated that India too has denied the reports while the BBC article states that India gave an ambiguous statement which can't be used to tell whether troops were detained or not. Just because one side has contradicted the news stations, doesn't mean that we will remove it altogether. I would rather wait for India too to clarify that their troops weren't detained at all, because surely, they are aware of the news flooding and if they believe it is fake, they would issue a statement against it. Once again, China saying that it didn't detain troops doesn't mean that they didn't. Regards,  ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  07:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why are you giving weightage to BBC, over the statement of China itself. This detention news buzzed for some time on media and died after statement from China. I don't understand why is it still there, despite clarification from China. Are we gonna turn Wikipedia in a factory of fake news now? ILoveEatingBats (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia relies on RS and their coverage for information, which, in this case, was plenty. BBC is a pretty good source too. You are repeatedly failing to understand that the statement came from only one party of the conflict. How can you take China's words as the absolute truth and remove other statements based on news sources? I would recommend you wait for other editors to reply here. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  07:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the chronology.

1) Media out of no where claims 10 Indian soldiers have been released.

2) China clarifies, no such thing happened.

3) The Indian government said that none of its soldiers were missing

4) What more proof do you want? ILoveEatingBats (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Quoting the source that you have cited :

"The careful wording of the statements did little to clarify whether Chinese forces in the contested area had taken Indian soldiers into custody and subsequently released them."
 * if you could prove that the Indian government had said that none of the soldiers were missing before what was said to be the time when the soldiers were released, then I would be happy to change my view. ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  09:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. I do believe that the 10 soldiers captured line should be removed from the infobox but it would be okay to keep it in the article body. ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  09:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is BBC's opinion, which has nothing to do actual statement. What we have to focus is what officials have said. Secondly, not giving a statement doesn't mean soldiers were captured. THIS IS ADDING PERSONAL OPINION IN ARTICLE. I would recommend to remove any detain claims, as it has been proved by statement of Chinese Foreign Ministry, that it was fake news circulated in media. What is sad is that many reputed news outlets have fallen for this too in this media war. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I have to agree with above and also with that it should be removed from infobox because the claim has been rejected by both China and India. We can't use numbers from reports who's narrative contradicts with officials of both countries involved in the military conflict. Siddsg (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , Based on the above discussion and this China denies detaining Indian soldiers, I think we now have good enough reasons to omit the captured part from the Infobox ASAP. In the body of the article, we can write that some media reports said that they were captured but China denied such events. Trojanishere (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Thanks for opinion guys, but imo we should not even add about media reports, because it was fake news pushed by certain section of people. Adding that would be supporting fake news. When nor India nor China accepted that, then there is no point in adding that. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection from my side. ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  10:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You should have checked with the discussion here and raised an objection before reverting the edit made by and taking part in WP:REVTALK. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  10:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank You for this edit, but the claim is still in lead section. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I already stated here that it was fake news. What's the point of adding fake news, when it was confirmed by Chinese Foreign Ministry, that no such detention has taken place. We should note that a lot of Information warfare is going on. This is not the only fake news circulating, there are plenty others. So, we should be cautious and add only verified information. In this case, it fails, so shall be omitted. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I did not remove the entire sentence because I'm pretty sure would be having objection to that and thus we must wait for his views over here. Instead,  I have added a new sentence stating that China has denied the reports and India hasn't confirmed it.  ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  11:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * China did have detained 10 soldiers, and Indian Govt. did not deny such claim. Secondly, Chinese foreign media said, "presently they don't have anyone in their custody" on which shows they did have earlier. China never release any data and as expected never will, they took atleast 30 years to release '62 war. So, out best sources are all these reliable sources which are already placed in the article. Drat8sub (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is called WP:OR. You can't use these basis for adding the information. Show us where India admitted that soldiers were captured? Siddsg (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is not OR, not a single figure is officially accepted by neither Chinese nor Indian. If you don't want to keep this then you can't keep any of figures as no fugure is accepted by any Govt neither they deny. So, untill Govt. denies anything we should keep it as its from reliable source. In such a situation we should rely on relaible source. Secondly,, undo your reverts immediately, that Aljazeera article is initial report and did not mention what exactly the Chinese foeign ministry said. This one does. PTI, The Hindu, WSJ, NYT, WP, The Econmic Times, ET 2 are the most reliable source who covered it. So undo immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drat8sub (talk • contribs)
 * Apparently there are reports which explicitly state that China denied capturing any soldiers. Why we should discount such interpretation? Where does China admits capturing any? They have admitted deaths and injuries but haven't revealed a figure. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We go with what WP:RS publish, neither the Indian government or the Chinese government is a reliable source here guys... Beyond the fact the belligerents are *never* to be considered reliable during the conflict neither of these governments is reliable even when not in an armed conflict, China is a joke and India isn't much better. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For infobox? Sure some officials (who refused to be named) claimed that China captured 10 soldiers but this statement needs to be confirmed officially by the government sources. It cannot be even deemed as "independent". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Government statements are inferior to reliable journalism in terms of reliability. Can you provide any wikipedia policy or guideline that backs up your fringe argument that on wikipedia we must wait for a government to confirm information before we use it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, almost everything that we know about this skirmish is because of the official statements/press release by the Indian government or news from primarily Indian sources. Also, care to explain why India and China are objectively a 'joke'? Your statement was unwarranted. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  16:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the reliability of their official statements both governments are jokes... By which I mean knowledgable people hear/read their statements and laugh out loud. They habitually publish misinformation about both domestic and international affairs. Is this a surprise to you? Official statements/press release by the Indian government and news from primarily Indian sources are completely different topics, don’t conflate them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and are not helping but trolling. When Chinese Foreign Ministry itself said that no one has been detained. I don't know why have you closed your eyes on this. Read WP:BNS ILoveEatingBats (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * China did not deny, the line you are quoting is present status, like if I had a apple in a basket yesterday and I ate that, today I will say "no apple lies in my basket".
 * Indian soldiers already returned on 18 June. The Hindu (18 June 2020)


 * The statement of Chinese Foreign ministry clearly says, . on 19 June, The Economic Times


 * So there is no confusion, the Chinese side are saying that much they are asked. They are never gonna say a extra thing, and surprisingly, indian govt. also not giving any numbers and details. So no govt. is givinf any numbers of casualties. So, when multiple relaible source assuring of similar info must be added and which we must follow here.Drat8sub (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Foreign Ministry isn't a reliable source for facts, just their own attributed opinion... Just the other month their spokespeople were spreading COVID-19 conspiracy theories, see Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Just FYI accusations of trolling fall under WP:ASPERSIONS, either support your argument with policy/guidelines and relevant diffs or retract as WP:PA. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , you are repeatedly going against the consensus here on Talk page. Chinese govt has itself said that it never detained any any indian soldiers at any point in time. See this China denies detaining Indian soldiers. Yet you are including speculated versions. Please remove mentions of captured from the infobox ASAP. Trojanishere (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Where is it written "at any time" ?? and Chinese govt. also said the above quote which you are ignoring. Please don't mislead, there is no consensus. Because chinese govt. did not at any time as you are saying. So you must self revert your edit. Drat8sub (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus hasn’t been reached yet, the discussion is still active. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BNS. The fake news spreaded and later it was confirmed that no such thing happened. Read it again       ILoveEatingBats (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — ILoveEatingBats (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * None of the reliable sources refer to it as fake news. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * is correct in linking to WP:BNS. The exact words of the the foreign ministry spokesperson, even, are different depending on the news sources. This looks like a possible case of news agencies selling 'spicy' stories to gain a few more clicks on their website. Let the matter cool down. We are not a news website and it is best that we let the truth come forward regarding controversial matters like this one, instead of falling for fake news (which is very prominent in Indian news sources) even by mistake.  ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it was a sensational news, which was debunked by china itself ILoveEatingBats (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources don’t say its sensational news, nor do they say China debunked it... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did China said it hasn't detained soldiers or not? Don't beat around the bush. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Denied isn't the same as debunked, those are not synonyms and nobody says debunked. That would appear to be WP:OR on your part. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section
Here is facts,
 * 18 June:


 * 19 June:

So, at presnt condition China is saying correctly as they don't have any Indian personnel in their custody as already released on 18 June.Drat8sub (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is called WP:OR ILoveEatingBats (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you aren't being able to comprehend properly. Look at the link again. It says 'China has said it never detained Indian soldiers after Indian media reports said 10 of them were released after they were captured in a high-altitude border clash in the Himalayas which also left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead'. What does never detained mean? See this again. China says it never detained any soldiers. Isn't it clear that it not held soldiers at any time. Trojanishere (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere.
 * "China has said it never detained" is by Aljazeera but not by Chinese spokesperson. Chinese spokes person quote is clealry mentioned above. Along with that, after realising Aljazeera might stirred too much, they released another article where it says Indian army says no soldier in Chinese custody. So, per Chinese spokesperson statement "no soldier incaptivity presently" and per PTI, The Hindu, WSJ, NYT, WP, The Econmic Times, ET 2, The Print, Business Insider 10 soldiers were in captivity and released. Drat8sub (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think enough discussion have taken place, these two editors are beating around the bush, by repeating the same things again and again. Please revert them back. WP:BNS is enough to demolish their sources.

ILoveEatingBats (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but having participated heavily in this discussion, I don't feel that I am in a position to do so myself. I would strongly urge you to find uninvolved admins to go through the discussion here, interpret it and make the edit. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

, do you even went through what is written in WP:BNS, it clealry tells you when the fact is covered by multiple reliable citation independently it is all right to add. Similarly, you did not even go through WP:OR, instead you yourself are making your own perception as fact by saying "china denies". And again kindly cautioning you of further ad hominem attack on editors here, no one beating around bushes, everyone talking per reliable sources. So stop what whatever you are trying to pursue here. Drat8sub (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You read it properly. After sensational breaking news broke out, Chinese Foreign ministry cleared that no such thing has taken place. I don't know what more clarification one needs on this topic. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop this stone walling/gaslighting, you are setting another classic example for these guidelines. Here, multiple independent and esteemed RS clearly stating 10 captured and returned on 17/18 June and the chinese spokesperson clealy said on 19 June that "presently" they did not have and they hasn't captured any stating on 19 June, they did not deny any claim neither accepting. And both the statement are presented well in the lead for readers to percieve on their own. So stop being POINTy. Drat8sub (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Multiple independent sources indeed said 10 soldiers were captured, but was that true?. No!, that news was wrong, and Chinese Foreign Ministry itself cleared that. See WP:BNS, breaking sensational news many times are misleading. And you stop making your own theories. See WP:OR. Can you please call any uninvolved editor? This guy don't seem to understand what I am saying.ILoveEatingBats (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will be easy to remove "10 captured" now. How about we attribute "10 captured" with "(Indian media claim)" and also add a "Chinese sources: no one captured"? This should absolutely solve the problem here. On Chinese casualties, we can add Indian claim that many Chinese were captured and released.  Siddsg (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One violation after another, you simply don't care about the guidelines, do you? And by asking another user to bring other uninvolved editors to support your claim is a violation of Canvassing. Revist again or if you don't understand what the guidelies says, I am afraid Competence is required. " is the exact example of WP:OR, you simply ignoring the fact that, Chinese spokes person says two statement on 19th June, one says "presently we don't have any" and the other statement is "they hasn't captured" and RS says 10 soldiers captured and released on 18th. DW's interpretation does not matter but what spokesperson says that matters. So when there is two statement and clealry saying "presently they don't have" and "they hasn't captured" on the same day on 19th its clealry saying about that particular day and all RS article of 18 June saying 10 soldiers, there is no question remains on it. So, this is final time I am saying stop being pointy and stop this gaslighting and stop pinging me. I will add comment whenever I feel needed. Drat8sub (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , China did not deny anything, read the statement, it clealry says they are talking on present condition, asked day after the soldiers were returned. And the lead mentioned both the statement and allowed the readers to perceive rather than putting our own views, thats how the article remains balanced. Drat8sub (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dw.com says "China has said it did not detain any Indian soldiers, despite reports that 10 were released after being held on Beijing's side of the border. The Indian army also indicated that none of its personnel were in custody." Thus your WP:OR is misleading. I am not talking about the lead but infobox. Siddsg (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is DW's interpretation, we must stick to Chinese spokesperson's statement not what DW interpret. China says "presently has not detained any Indian personnel" and "hasn't seized any Indian personnel" on the same day on 19 June, one day after the soldiers returned and more than that VK Singh himself (source presented by you, though already publsihed originally in Times now which is not placed in the infobox) said ", we returned their men (Chinese soldiers) who had come to our side," after this there remians no confusion and more than that, the above user abused the editing privileges by canvassing multiple times. Drat8sub (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we must stick to Chinese spokesperson's, and Chinese spokesperson said "no one has been detained". Rest, what you are saying is WP:OR. And I didn't knew anything about canvassing until now, so you can't blame me. ILoveEatingBats (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

, I am afraid you are totally wrong. There is no Wikipedia policy that gives any kind of priority to a Chinese official, or any official for that matter. DW is a reliable source. If its statement appears questionable, we need to consult other RS, not attempt to interpret what the Chinese official said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not interpreting anything, thats why both statement is quoted in the lead and left for readers to percieve on their own. The user is totally igonoring the 18 June RS articles along with the 19 June article where China said "presently they don't have anyone" one day after release of Indian soldiers. Here some RS article of 19 June like DW interpreting the statement as denies whether China did not deny anything, there interpretation totally on Chinese spokesperson statement. And it does not count anymore, as VK Singh himslef accpted already the bothside had captives and released but did not mentined how many chinese were captured and added accordingly in the infobox. Drat8sub (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have removed those statements from the lead. We are not obliged to repeat what any officials say, except when they are validated by the RS as being important for something. In this case, the only thing the RS have said is that they are not talking sense. So out they go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , then the lead should also include the unknown number of chinese soldiers captured too, as revealed by VK Singh or we should wait for any figure and proper sourced content. Skeptical about timesNow. Drat8sub (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian soldiers captured by Chinese, released days later; 23 indians dead
Indian soldiers captured by Chinese and release only on 17th; four officers; Indian government did not reveal the POWs:

20 or 23 dead Indians dead?

DTM (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding POWs, Chinese govt has officially said that it has never detained any Indian soldiers at any point of time. Still you want to go with unverified claims of news agencies. See this :China denies detaining Indian soldiers. I think the captured part should be laid to rest. Neither Indian nor Chinese govt has acknowledged it (it has in fact denied it explicitly). Trojanishere (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere