Talk:2022 Yangtse clash

The Telegraph source

I find The Telegraph report rather sensationalised.

• The fact that the government covers up the border affairs is rather standard. Even the Nehru government covered up the Aksai Chin road for at least two years, if not longer. The fact that India occupied a buffer area in Yangtse in 1986 came to light only in 2017. (I tried hard to find any earlier mentions, but didn't find any.) Some of it is for the government to give itself room for manouvre. Others to save itself from embarrassment.

• "Several incidents are taking place in the northern state of Arunachal Pradesh every month, .. sometimes engaging in violent hand-to-hand combat, often using clubs and other homemade melee weapons" is deceptive wording, where "several" morphs into "sometimes" and then "often" seamlessly, in order to give the (false?) impression that there are several violent clashes every month. The majority of these "incidents" are likely to be cross-patrolling face-offs.

• The sloppiness of the reporting is clear from the last sentence: In November 2021, the Pentagon confirmed the existence of two Chinese-built villages inside Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh. It was a village, not villages. And, the Pentagon didn't say "Arunachal Pradesh" straight out [1]. There are subtleties that The Telegraph missed or ignored.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I will grant that the report has a tinge of sensationalism, and that witholding sensitive information where necessary is common practice. Wherefore the stuff sourced to it was attributed to it in-text. But this seems to be a motif coming through in many articles lately; and they specifically point to a political animus as informing the government's conduct. This Wire piece, for instance, gets down to the nitty-gritty of the tardy announcement of the Yangtse clash, exposing that a Twitter leak by an acquaintance of an injured had the government scratching its head about future course of action, having been in denial hitherto. So there is a tangible political aspect to it that has found food for thought amongst investigative journalists, and that then becomes noteworthy. The seemingly out of place punctuation in the quote seem to create semantic confusion, but a careful reading indicates that the "often" is adverting to the combat clause, not to the incident. You are right about the erroneous claims of two Chinese villages being unearthed in Arunachal, but that is a digression appended at the end, but a problem nonetheless (maybe cut them some slack?).. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the government was trying to scrub this off the media was clear from the start. But my concern is with the specific Telegraph report, with its wooliness, erroneous details, and perhaps a lack of comprehension (always a danger with foreign press). Compare it for instance to a fairly detailed and precise report from Amritha Nayak of News18 [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, it can be discarded. Better researched articles have also cropped up in the meantime (the Australian think tank, which you cited, and this Foreign Policy piece, published today, being amongst them). I am currently in the process of going over them, and shall be making some changes accordingly... MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

But we have a problem here again. The foreign policy piece seem to cite the Telegraph in one of its paragraphs to state that Other reports suggest that clashes such as the one on Dec. 9 have taken place in Arunachal Pradesh two or three times a month on average recently, and that the Indian government has succeeded at keeping the incidents largely under wraps until now. Precisely what I had attributed to Telegraph too, and what is at issue here. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A middle ground I suggest here is that we somewhat abbreviate the text to just state what the military officials are quoted as saying in the Telegraph report with attribution, of course. This would include the stuff about faceoffs having become frequent in Arunachal Pradesh, and moreso in Yangtse, that they have happened 2-3 times a month lately, and that the government kept the matter a secret. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't have a problem. We are not obliged to reproduce what either of them says. (And, note that Sushant Singh fell into exactly the same trap as I pointed out above. Where I said it is misleading, he got misled. That is hardly reassuring.) We should just stick to Yangtse and report as well as we can what we know about Yangtse. Precise, verifiable information. Amrita Nayak has that. She says every year, two conflicts have been happening, before and after each winter. That is very good information, as far as I am concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, yeah. Although I was hoping to salvage some of the stuff from it, given that its phrasing continues to be suspect, and that no clarification is forthcoming, I've substituted the News 18 piece for it, and made changes in the text to reflect it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'Bom 6' peak

Only one source used the name 'Bom 6'. Everybody else called it 17,000 feet (5,182 metres) peak. Its actual height is 5,665 metres (18,586 ft). (27.7750°N 92.0694°E / 27.7750; 92.0694 ('Bom 6'))

India Today said: In the vicinity towards the east are the snowcapped strategic high peeks that go as high as 17,000 ft that many believe the PLA wants to take control of.

The ASPI researchers said: There is no evidence to support the claims that this intrusion aimed to capture Indian outposts and territory, despite some media reports. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not typically swayed by arguments that impugn a source on account of its exclusive take that remotely dissociates from shoddy reporting of most of the other media outlets. Sanjib Kr Baruah, the author of the piece, wrote two articles expatiating the perceived importance of this so-called gigantic "Bom6" crest allegedly rising to over 17K ft in the area, and that seemed to make sense at first blush in the context of the border clash. And while the Australian think tank's inquiry may not be so all-encompassing on account of its exclusive reliance on satelite imagery, it makes clear the existence of 6 Indian outposts on the ridgeline, numbered sequentially. That lays bare Baruah's own dodgy work on the subject, and suffices to consign him to oblivion. That, and his own description of the alleged peak that it directly overlooks the Tangwu Xiaokang is eloquent of his shoddy journalism. The appellation Bom6 may or may not exist in Indian army's parlance, but his characterization of the feature is a mere rehash of the misinformation disemminated by the inveterate, hopeless section of the media. I will sift through the media sub-section with a fine-tooth comb and rewrite where necessary. Thank you for flagging this. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Robert Barnett

A twitter thread by Robert Barnett covers a lot about the clash quite elegantly. Hopefully, all of this will appear in print some time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 2022 Sino-Indian Yangtse clash, which saw them fight hand-to-hand with melee weapons and suffer numerous injuries, occured on a very high-altitude border ridgeline that India dominates? Sources:
• hand-to-hand fighting with melee weapons
• occured on a border ridge that India dominates
• see the article where these facts occur too.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mercedes-Benz CLK LM
  • Comment: Newly created, and quite well-structured and perspicuous. Hooks embody facts that will entice a broader audience into reading the article.

Created by MBlaze Lightning (talk). Self-nominated by MBlaze Lightning (talk) at 12:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC).

• How is India's domination of the ridge interesting? If anything, I will have the hook focus on the fact that the forces were fighting with primitive weapons! Though arguably, one can argue that the appropriate article for such a hook will be the treaty. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• TrangaBellam, it's intriguing in several different ways, and to a diverse audience. First, in the sense that the ridgeline essentially forms the frontier between the two sides in the region where the clash occurred, and a layman reader would not expect something that falls on the border to be in control of a solitary contender (especially, where there are competing claims). They would ideally expect it to be a no-man's land. Second, because both sides have competing claims to the ridge, the fact that India has been able to enforce hers in the face of Chinese aggression is noteworthy, as it is often perceived as the underdog in the larger border dispute. Third, avid military readers are often interesting in the relief in such terrains: so which side controls the high ground becomes a matter of great significance, for its inherent military advantages, so that's also there. India's occupation of the ridge has also become a bone of contention between the two armies, so methinks all of this could generate interest amongst potential readers, and ergo drive traffic to the page. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, border ridges have been bones of contention between India and China for a long time, e.g., Nathu La and Cho La clashes.
• I prefer "dominates" to "controls". Each party controls its side of the ridge. So, "controls" doesn't make sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's my stated position too. India 'dominates' is apt and verifiable. Everything else is self-explanatory (that India maintains its hold over the high ground that the Chinese covet). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note, I have changed the phrase "border ridge" to "very high-altitude border ridgeline" in the hook for clarity and precision. Troop tussle at such high altitudes adds another element of appeal for the readers (thereby adding to its noteworthiness). It is also consistent with the facts that occur in the article and the richly illustrated, scholarly article provided above (or tap here). TrangaBellum may want to have a relook and note if they concur. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• I proffer an alternative to the main hook, transcribed in a pithy, straightforward, and yet provocative style, likely to entice the audience into reading the article to discover more about the incident:

• ALT1: ... that the 2022 Sino-Indian Yangtse clash saw Chinese and Indian troops fight hand-to-hand with melee weapons on a high elevation ridgeline that formed their frontier in the area?

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 seems pretty complicated and I don't think the mentions of the high elevation or ridgeline are necessary. Maybe just mention the hand-to-hand combat? I don't think most readers these days would associate troops with hand-to-hand combat so that may be a better angle to focus on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, makes sense, although doing away with the last clause regarding ridgeline forming the frontier seems more proper for the purpose to me. And while a hook encompassing just the melee information would be appealing on its own, I felt a few extra words touching on the aspect of high altitude could more accurately encapsulate the plight of the men that fought in such extremities. But if the consensus is to omit it, then consider the following alt2 hook.

• ALT2: ... that the 2022 Sino-Indian Yangtse clash saw Chinese and Indian troops engage in hand-to-hand combat with melee weapons?

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

full review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I personally prefer ALT1 as the melee fight itself is really well-known through news outlets. BorgQueen (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, BorgQueen, that was very reassuring! I would also like to see ALT1 hit the main page. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Awesome article!!!

echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)