Talk:China–India relations

External links

These links have been tagged so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it meets the requirements at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Further reading. SilkTork (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• India's Response to a Rising China: Economic and Strategic Challenges and Opportunities, Q&A with Harsh V. Pant (August 2011)
• China's Response to a Rising India, Q&A with M. Taylor Fravel (October 2011)
• The India-China Relationship:What we need to know?, January 2006
• Strategic Asia 2011–12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers – China and India, edited by Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough (National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011)
• Maritime Interactions between China and India: Coastal India and the Ascendancy of Chinese Maritime Power in the Indian Ocean
• Maritime Southeast Asia Between South Asia and China to the Sixteenth Century

Start class to GA

There is a lot of useful text and information in the article, though some work needs to be done to reach B or even C class. This is Start class: The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in several areas. Quality of the prose is not always encyclopedic (too many short paragraphs, occasionally one sentence paragraphs - needs copyediting, especially as regards flow of prose). A number of aspects of Wikipedia:Manual of Style need compliance, particularly layout (too many very short sections), and use of images (added in a haphazard manner). Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, and some statements have been tagged as needing sources since May 2020. Too much information appears to have been added piecemeal, without overall shape and control. Some sections are very dense - often with shopping lists of information with the only apparent organisation being date order. I think this article would make a good project for working on to bring to GA level, and I note in the edit history several editors (such as User:FacetsOfNonStickPans) who are quite capable of doing that. Good luck to those willing to take this article on. SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Recognition of Current Ties

Though this article provides a lot of information about historical China-India relations, I feel like it does a poor job at communicating new developments in international policy. For example, it does not cite UNCLOS violations in the SCS as being a key trigger for India's reactionary agenda. Further, there is little information about public opinion beyond just one example of how the Chinese people viewed India in 2008 and one in 2014 which does not necessarily reflect current opinion after significant expansionary moves China has taken through the Belt and Road Initiative. I think such details would be important to properly represent current foreign policy and relations between the two nations.--Arushilahiri (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Arushilahiri (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sino–Indian relations or China–India relations

According to the unified format of Wikipedia, it should be China–India relations Бмхүн (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• India China Locator.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 身毒 (Yuandu)

Here it's written that ancient India was called Shendu, but in Ancient China the pronunciation of the characters 身毒 was Yuandu and not Shendu. 46.182.107.26 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, it does appear that 身 was pronounced juān or yuān in this compound word. Remsense诉 10:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my reverted edit

I’m not sure what exactly is the reason for it, but I’m surprised to see somebody has immediately stepped in to revert my minor edits to the lead section.

The section in question reads terribly. Any editor who finds “the harmony of their relations have varied” and “post the Annexation of Tibet” to be valid grammatical constructions should not be claiming fluency in the English language.

These are not complex judgments; they should not trouble a native speaker. The entire section is amateurish, manifestly ungrammatical writing.

If you’re going to revert my translation of this mess into professional English, at least offer an acceptable alternative of your own devising.

”Harmony” is not something that can exist between two nations involved in a border war. Consonance is not a variety of dissonance, but rather its opposite.

The prefix “post” is not, in itself, a word for “after”. Putting it in front of “the” is especially inept. Foxmilder (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)