Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cho La incident

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cho La incident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a skirmish that happened in Sikkim between Chinese forces and Indian forces. It is one of many skirmishes that are reputed to have happened during this time. The article is portraying the skirmish as some sort of great military victory battle of the Indians over the Chinese with 350 Chinese killed and 450 wounded, when in reality according to a neutral source [1] on page 197 the casualties are as followed: 36 dead for India and an unknown dead for China. This number is from Taylor Fravel who is an MIT professor as mentioned here [2]. I therefore do not think it meets notability requirements as specified here WP:Notability to warrant its own article. It is already mentioned over here China–India_relations#1960s and here Sino-Indian_War#Later_conflicts and having its own article appears to be an attempt to rehash materials from other articles to promote the same idea again and again. Similarly, I do not think the case of it being advertised as a great Indian victory is warranted and violates WP:NPOV since the sources that are making such claims are largely Indian, whereas a more neutral source here [3] on page 103 claims that the result was a ceasefire, not an Indian victory. Since the entire article revolves around this idea of it being some sort of great military battle victory for India, it should be deleted as the article violates WP:NPOV. The sources are also primarily Indian and attempts to introduce more neutral and academic sources in December 2015 did not amount to much. I think due to the lack of neutral sources and total lack of Chinese sources (and near full reliance on Indian sources), this article again violates WP:NPOV. Upon searching for material on the conflict, the majority of sources are non-neutral and non-academic. The few academic sources that do make mention of it, barely mention it, or simply focusing on the bigger picture. Due to the lack of overall neutral and academic sources available, this article not only violates WP:Notability, but it also becomes very difficult to adhere to WP:NPOV and therefore should be deleted altogether and mention of the incident should be left within the articles mentioned above. Xtremedood (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The fact that the incident is linked from two major articles suggests that having one treatment in a separate article is worthwhile. Expanded information can be provided just in this article, and the mentions can be brief. Mention in China–India_relations#1960s is basically 5 sentences (which may be reduced), and the mention in Sino-Indian_War#Later_conflicts is 1/2 sentence. Deletion of the article would mean that each of those mentions should be expanded because they must be self-contained, I guess, which is not what the nom would want.

It being advertised as a great Indian victory is something to state in the article, and is all the more reason to provide an article that will debunk the propaganda. An apparent bias in numerous sources does not mean the item is not notable, and in fact it makes it more notable, perhaps: the fact of disagreement of views/sources can and should be mentioned and explained. The view of the Indian military should be clearly identified as that. The apparent assertion of different numbers (and perhaps "ridiculous" numbers) in India's parliament seems worth mentioning (from the Talk page: "claims of 88 Indian dead and 300 Chinese dead comes from an Indian Defense Minister, see here [7] at parliament...").

Can't the article be developed using sources appropriately? The nom refers to numerous sources and seems to accept at least one source as unbiased, and even biased sources can provide non-controversial detail that is helpful. I see that the article was edit-protected for some period and that there is much discussion of sources at the Talk page that seems to suggest that some reliable sources exist (at least stating that the official Indian view is X, while an official Chinese view is not available).

An incident in which 36 (the lowest estimate for India) plus unknown number of Chinese (perhaps 2X) are killed seems significant to me, especially if this outside of a proper war. There are extensive articles about incidents in the U.S. West where just a few were killed, for example.

I agree with the nom's identification of problems in the article as it is now. It should be improved, but "AFD is not for cleanup" (wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), and the Talk page discussion was sort of working, I believe. --do ncr am 20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make mention of the two articles, the first one [4] references the incident alongside the Nathu La incident and refers to it as simply as a "clash" whereas the second source here [5] too references the incident alongside the Nathu La incident and states that a multitude of various incidents, skirmishes, and clashes have happened around that area and the Himalayas region. I still think that notability should be considered, as a minor clash among many similar clashes does not, in my opinion, warrant its own article. Xtremedood (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pair of incidents were important and stand out from the much more numerous number of border incursions (60? 150?) in that period. I don't know but gather from context that the others were perhaps just patrols which went over an asserted boundary, and might have involved some gunfire, but no deaths and few or no injuries? I see that the two incidents are mentioned together (usually? almost always?). It seems the total of deaths across the two incidents is what matters. And I see that Nathu La incident does not exist as an article, it is just a redirect to the section in major article China-India relations. So how about change this article to cover the two, together: rename it to Nathu La and Cho La incidents (currently a redlink)? The major China-India relations article should not (and doesn't) include tactical-level detail about what happened within each of the incidents (like names of officers, and acts of heroism, or specific small advances and retreats, and so on), but this combo article could. Is some such detail available? [Yes, e.g. at China's Shadow Over Sikkim: The Politics of Intimidation pages 193-195, which reports based on Indian sources about Chinese soldiers approaching "feature 15450" (which we could probably pinpoint in a geolink) and so on, and reports on what a Chinese diplomatic "Note" (which must be available in full somewhere) about a Chinese commander shouting over the border about 5 bodies, etc., and what China's "The People's Daily said on October 8, etc.] It would be useful to let the reader understand what is being termed merely an "incident" or a "clash", vs. a fighting "skirmish" or a "military conflict". Consider that what the U.S. calls an incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, apparently involved naval gunfire but no U.S. deaths and possibly 4 North Vietnamese deaths (and is covered in Wikipedia in detail involving ship names and officer names). What some call an "incident" on the China-India border is a lot bigger, it seems to me. So: combo? --do ncr am 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here's great detail about Natha Lu, like Indian general Sagat Singh reportedly having "fortitude" and refusing to obey a command to withdraw, which was appreciated two years later, and various officers and the laying of a barbed wire cable, etc., etc.. See Similar account by Maj. Gen Sheru Thapliyal (and same here covering "martyrdom" of Indian soldiers under machine gun fire, but Indian artillery observation posts being superior, at Nathu La, and less about Cho la. I find detail by googling "Indian officer Nathu La" and similar phrases. You might argue the detail is not important, but to the Indians apparently it is, and to them the idea that they "bloodied the nose" of China is important, and the incidents are notable because the Indians think it is notable, in effect. Compare to the Americans' idea that Battle of Bunker Hill (where 226 British and approx 140 colonials were killed) was a really big deal bloodying nose of Britain, when that was a tiny incident relative to many European battles, say. --do ncr am 23:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no rationale provided by nominator other than "India won this war, and I don't want to believe that", while discussion about the notability of this article is not needed, I would rather add that Xtremedood had socked on this article in order to right great wrong,[6] misrepresent sources and promote racist bias.[7] Capitals00 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep History can not be re-written by the whims of one individual. This article is well sourced.Ghatus (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the incident seems significant enough, IMO, to warrant an article by itself and the sources seem to satisfy WP:GNG. Per Doncram's suggestion, it is possible that the other major incident could be merged into this one and the article renamed, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough sources to satisfy the GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Sino-Indian conflicts, 1967 and merge into it material on Nathu La incident, which is currently a redirect to another article at rather too high level. If some one would prefer "incidents" rather than "conflicts", or some other word, I will not stand in their way. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to 1967 Sino-Indian conflicts per doncram and Peterkingiron. The nominator is correct to point out that the article has been infested with a large number of single-purpose Indian nationalistic editors who have repeatedly removed neutral, academic sources and replace them with Indian sources that try to paint a minor border clash into a great Indian victory (see talk page). The current content is garbage and needs to be rewritten, but the topic is definitely notable. -Zanhe (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced and history cannot be changed/re-written by the whims of one individual. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.