Talk:Chola incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup. More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the Indian history project. This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

[edit] Sources?

Just wondering, are there any other sources for this incident aside from that website? It worries me that this website doesn't include references or a bibliography. It doesn't even include an author name, so you can't even credit it to someone. Without another source to double-check with, one basically has to take this anonymous author on faith that everything s/he says is correct.

A usual way to confirm the verificability of something would be to find two or more non-related sources which also describe it. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

The article itself has a number of inaccuracies. It says Sikkim was a part of NEFA. Actually, it was still an independent country at the time. It also says China claimed it as part of South Tibet. That's not actually true, either. South Tibet contains roughly (but not exactly) the area in modern-day Arunachal Pradesh, and doesn't include Sikkim. And Sikkim doesn't appear on the PRC's official claimed borders. --Yuje 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it occurred. Source A Source B Source C Source D. The author of the Bharat Rakshak page is LN Subhramanian. China no longer claims Sikkim, they earlier did claim it. Traing 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So you really don't have any secondary sources, do you? The BR sources you provided is a webpage with no sources or citations, and the three you just gave me don't contain any information. One is an anonymously written article (using the psuedonym Zhang Fei) that mentions Chola in a single sentence, the other is a web forum question, and the Marine source just list the name but doesn't give any actual information. Again, the Bharat Rakshat webpage doesn't provide any sources, citations, or books, so it doesn't give a reliable way to verify the information.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

And provide a source for the Sikkim claim. --Yuje 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bharat Rakshak Source is the Indian Military History of it. It is representative of the views of the Indian military and is notable in that. Remember it was a minor skirmish and thus it is only listed by many as an event that occurred, with few details given. China gave no attention to the incident and did not follow up on it at all, so you won't find a Chinese source. Also what's so exceptional about saying that this incident happened. Just because China chooses what to document and what not to does not make it exceptional. Traing 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This version of events is given on the page Sino-Indian War:

A group of Indian Gurkha rifles noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post in Sikkim. After a heated argument over the control of a boulder, a Chinese soldier bayoneted an Indian sentry, triggering the start of a short-range firefight.[41] The Chinese troops signaled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there.[41] The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the disputed LAC.[41] The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue.

Yet the BR page doesn't cite any sources or references, and no other sources have been provided yet. So there aren't any independent sources to confirm BR's version of the events, and since it doesn't cite sources, one basically has to take it on faith that BR's recollection of event is accurate. I don't just mean Chinese sources; there are no other sources of any kind, Chinese, Indian, or independent provided. --Yuje 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The IPCS source on Sino-Indian War + CNN sources presented there detail China's dropping of it's initial claim on Sikkim. Traing 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It said the Chinese claim was that it did not reocgnize Sikkim as a part of India, but as an independent country under illegal Indian occupation. Not the same as territorial claims that it was part of South Tibet, which you state in the article. Provide sources.--Yuje 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could any enlightened soul provide us with more sources to support the article? There is presently a lack of good accounts of the incident, and relying completely on Bharat-Rakshak isn't exactly the smartest thing to do.