Talk:Aksai Chin

Edit request from 91.109.78.139, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under "Chinese terrain model", please change "1:150" to "1:500". The model's scale is 1:500, not 1:150. This can be checked on Google Earth, using Tools\Ruler, by measuring the separation of two of the lakes. The model is at 38°16'N 105°57'E, the real thing is at 34°N 79°E. 91.109.78.139 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.8.153.90, 19 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please reinstate Hindi: अक्साई चिन as it has been removed by User:Nightrider083 without consensus from other editors, and is affiliated with Pakistan.

92.8.153.90 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

To the IP user who keeps adding biased content

I'm writing this here instead of your talk page because your IP address keeps changing.

I've repeatedly reverted your edits because they violate Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. You obviously have done quite a bit of research on this subject, but please read Wikipedia:NPOV before further editing, otherwise you'll be just wasting your own time as well as other editors' time.

For example, your edits prominently feature a map by W.H. Johnson at the top of the article with the caption "Johnson placed the border of Kashmir with Turkistan at Bringja. (Refer accompanying maps for position of Bringja) The Map unequivocally and with out an iota of doubt depicts Hindutash pass as part of Kashmir". However, Johnson's work has been severely criticized for gross inaccuracies, with description of his boundary as "patently absurd", and he was forced to resign (see the research paper by US Navy). Your presentation of such seriously contested assertions as facts is a serious violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, not to mention your judgmental language.

In the future, please stick with reliable, neutral sources when editing. And if you have to include contested arguments from one side, counterarguments from the other side should also be included. Zanhe (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

With a little research, I've realized that you're a sock puppet of the banned user Hindutashravi. Please stop your antics immediately. Zanhe (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Zanhe, ultimately, you have provided me with what according to you is an alleged instance of POV in my version. You are free to alter any such alleged POV edits without reverting the whole article, which is like you stated well researched and well referenced. I have not removed parts of your version of the article which have references. You are also required to not revert the referenced portions. You have started using the discussion page only after I required you to do. There were POV insertions in your version which I have edited with references. The Statement that Aksai Chin was historically part of Ladakh had been part of the article for years but not provided with references. I backed the information with references. If you do not like certain referenced information, you cannot remove it to suit your whims and fancies. The article should be balanced. So, you are deciding for yourself that your version is not biased but mine is! That will not be permitted. Please restrict you edit to only those alleged POV instances without reverting the whole article. So that the article is comprehensive informative, and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.32.147 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at past discussions here, as well as your own talk page, you've had a 5-year history of disruptive editing and repeatedly violating WP's rules. You've wasted countless hours of other editors' and administrators' time undoing your edits and trying to reason with you, and I'm not going to waste any more time with you. Zanhe (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to note my agreement with the above. I feel that on articles of this nature we must be very cautious about what maps we choose to include in illustrating the history of the disputed area/s, as it could be or could seem to be that the specific selection of maps could sway the readers' perspective on the dispute itself. I am not satisfied that the current choices are the best way to achieve NPOV. 122.111.65.152 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Spam

There is a link in the first paragraph under "Name". It is rendered cursive and underlined and leads to a dating/bridal order site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.141.200 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Map in China's passport

The map in China's passport was changed to include Aksai Chin, as explained in news articles

• "China passports claim ownership of South China Sea and Taiwan," The Guardian (UK). 23 November 2012; excerpt, "China's official maps ... on passports could be seen as a provocation since it requires other countries to tacitly endorse the claims by affixing their official seals to the documents"
• Larano, Chris. "China Seeks to Calm Anger Over Passports," Wall Street Journal (US). November 28, 2012; Godfrey, Hannah. "India claims disputed borderlands with China in row over passports," The Guardian (UK). 24 November 2012; retrieved 2012-11-30 -- see image of passport page showing map of China
• Kaiman, Jonathan. "Chinese passport map causes diplomatic dispute," The Guardian (UK). 27 November 2012; excerpt, "... the map also encompasses the Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin regions on the border with India (the source of 15 failed negotiations between the two countries)"

Is it reasonable to add a sentence about this?

A wider context is suggested in many other news articles, including the Los Angeles Times which explains, "The maritime disputes between the Chinese government and its neighbors have a decades-long history, but have greatly increased in visibility over the past year as Chinese media have cycled the public’s attention from confrontations with one neighbor to another." --Ansei (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Small pink bits

What are the three other small pink bits further south from the big pink bit along the border between India and China ?

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2014

14.195.89.190 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please specify a change you wish to be made. BethNaught (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of the Indian territory. Do not write it as a disputed region to indirectly support the false Chinese claims. Rocking boyzz (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Any region that has been actively claimed by other party can be considered as disputed region. Although I agree that the claim is no more relevant, that's why it requires a citation. You can wait for some more days. If it is going to remain uncited, it will be removed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Population

Is this vast region inhabited by people? Colipon+(Talk) 15:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Colipon: Yes, the area is very sparse but there are a few villages. Some Chinese military also reside here. MB298 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Uyghur human right activist eschaping a persecuting by Uyghur nationalists for. Secret heven maded is inhabited too for eschaper Uyghurs, permntent settlement but no building by raiding from Uyghur terrorists and Chinese militery. Turkistanding (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• If there is a population, it should be listed. 142.116.194.223 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Population anno 2019 is estimated at some mere 10.000. SvenAERTS (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely agree that any population, military or civilian should be mentioned in the article. But, as Fowler&fowler rightly pointed out, it is unlikely that figures provided by a magazine are reliable. Try as I may, I could not find a better estimate of its population. Has anyone come across a reliable population estimate for the area? Harshalrach (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Road repaving was completed.

"The repavement of the highway taken up for first time in about 50 years is likely to be completed in August 2012.[19]"

Repaving was finished in 2013. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/883229.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.134 (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aksai Chin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326032121/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf to http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

[trascluded from User talk:Fowler&fowler]

Welcome back (July 1?) I'm away until a week after that. Yikes....check out the edits I made yesterday to Aksai Chin. I didn't realize until now when I looked further down the history what a battle it's been for you and Keithonearth to attempt to reign in Hindutashravi who is way out of touch with the facts. Some days (like all this week) I get to work on Aksai Chin all day, and next week will be headed over as tourists again to Ladakh but I didn't mean to jump into this article uninvited and not via the discussion page.....I was just trying to correct some of the geographic trivia (heights, rivers, Soda Plains is only the northern part) plus the rather important and verifiable fact that India showed the line variable and indistinctly until the 1954 Nehru decree; only then did their maps start showing Aksai Chin as part of India uniformly; McMahon Line and the 1963 Pakistan treaty (I added a ref to the actual text) don't apply here. (We know the guy quite well who started the erroneous speculation on the internet that the '63 Pak treaty somehow is relevant to Aksai Chin at his slick-looking "International Boundary Consultants" (one-main show) page!), etc. I'll be away, but I'm with you on your efforts to maintain a modicum of the NPOV facts in this article!....keep up the good work. DLinth (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

Idrees shah (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

aksa chin is also a part of kashmir

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

askai chin is a disputed land which is a part of india's jammu and kashmir state's ladakh region. 59.91.217.147 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yy7

Tyy Looo

AlNumanee (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

Please replace "citation needed" in the section "strategic importance" with <ref>{{cite book |last=Guo |first=Rongxing |date=2007 |title=Territorial Disputes and Resource Management |url=https://books.google.gr/books?id=z5Le627xQLgC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43 |publisher=Nova Science Publishers |page=43 |isbn=978-1-60021-445-5 |access-date=2019-06-10 }}</ref> 2A02:2149:A000:8200:FD54:61BD:C8BC:96FD (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the citation! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

IBS-85

I have in my possession a scanned copy of the IBS No. 85 which has the map showing the India-China border as an inset. It is a pdf so if anyone can help me put it in here that will be great. Welt^anschaunng 03:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Xassz (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)This is a part of India and a big city in Jammu and Kashmir state of India. Can you please add India so the location can be accurate?

 Not done The region is controlled by the Chinese administration. Also see WP:INFOBOXFLAG. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

INB discussion

Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Footage of highway route

If you read Chinese, there are a lot of footages along the highway by adventure tourists and motorists. e.g.:

• Head-mounted cam and drone footage by a motorcyclist - Aksai Chin footage is between 2:20 - 3:30. Smaller roads to all the majors border outposts are clearly labelled:
  • road sign to Tianwendian at 2:44
  • road sign to Tianshuihai at 3:05
  • road sign to 温泉 (literally "Hot Spring") at 3:05 - according to this Chinese article it is a seasonal border outpost
• Cyclist footages (mostly of scenery / animals / camping inside abandoned buildings) - this one between 1:00-14:00, this one between 11:00-17:00, this one between 6:20-9:40

--Voidvector (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

They are brilliant. Thanks for unearthing them. Why not add them to the articles as "external links"?

It would be useful to know how much it costs to maintain the road in such a perfect condition! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this. Are the cyclists riding on the highway, whose altitude is over 14,000 feet, to build their endurance, or to test it? Pretty amazing how desolate the landscape is, how bereft of human and animal presence. How do the cyclists manage on lonely stretches? I am confused about one thing. If this is the only land link between Xinjiang and Tibet, why is there so little traffic? I saw no cars, no buses, only an occasional military vehicle. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Voidvector: Aksai Chin belongs to India. As you can read Chinese, could examine the picture File:Border between Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and Tibet Autonomous Region - People Republic of China.jpg of the Tibet-Xinjiang border and figure out which side is Aksai Chin? Thanks. Also, what is Aksai Chin called in China, and how is its name written in the Chinese romanization (i.e. English)? Many thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the road has always been mainly a military supply route. Tibet is largely self-sufficient. But it can't support the military that China stations there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that image might be an old photo before the highway was fully paved (2013?). The signs just say something like "You are leaving road segment maintained by Xinjiang" and "You are entering road segment maintained by People's Armed Police 8th Road Maintenance Crew". Current state has a nice decorated gate between Tibet and Xinjiang. It does appear to have the correct kilometer marker (705km) for the border, which is attested by both this article and Baidu article. I cannot easily line up the mountains behind it.

Most of the tourists don't refer to it as Aksai Chin. I found those videos by searching nearby place names and the highway name. Most simply refer to it as "no man's land", since it is desolate with no real stores/lodges. One of the videos did mention it, but he also talked about the conflict in 1960s. Beyond that, Chinese articles would just use phonetic transcription of Aksai Chin, some would mention the etymology is Turkic for "Chinese white stone beach".

In terms of amenities, all of the cyclists in the videos I posted simply lodged in the old abandoned barrack building at Tianshuihai, (new barrack is on the other side the road). There are some the construction crew camp in the area. Written articles on Baidu seems to indicate there is a shop in one of them that sell to passer-by. --Voidvector (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

More about Chinese reference to the name, having created Huoshaoyun, I can say Chinese geologists refer to this area as "Western Kunlun" instead of "Aksai Chin". --Voidvector (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Update about the above picture: I have been scouring web searching for free licensed images that I can upload to Commons for the region. I found this website of a guy who took a similar picture. Based on his description, I was able to find the exact location of where this image was taken. The signs are still there because the new paved road was routed slightly west. You can see the signs if you zoom in enough on Google Maps/Bing. You can verify the mountains in background with Peakfinder. I put in an "estimated location" for the image. --Voidvector (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with article

@Fowler&fowler:Let me know what you are seeing wrong with the Aksai Chin page and I will work to make it more in line with the standards for WT:INDIA. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't do anything today, but, hopefully, other page watchers, such as @Kautilya3:, @El C:, and @RegentsPark: will reply. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I know you must have a reason for your revert. I will try to guess what it is as I continue to build the encylopedia's coverage of Aksai Chin. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymology from Cihai

The Cihai etymology of "中国的白石滩" (literally Chinese white stone shore) is incorrect -- the part about "stone shore" is wrong.

If we were to assume the origin of the word is from Turkic languages, then "Aksai" can still be readily read in modern Turkic languages as "white stream".

• ak - ئاق (Uyghur), ak (Turkish)
• sai - çay (Turkish), цай (Southern Altai), ساي (say) (Uyghur)

--Voidvector (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Voidvector: You are the expert here! I would like it if we could get a source from India or a scholarly source that talks about the meaning behind Aksai Chin. Surely someone wrote a book or paper about this. I wouldn't know what would be considered reliable. The meaning that Cihai gives this term may be problematic, but it may reflect the Chinese government's position or something like that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Desert of white stones" is generally how the British interpreted it, treating it as an Uyghar name. "East China", according to an Indian source, interpreting it as a "Yarkandi" name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the Chinese & British interpretations concur, even though I am not sure how they get to "sai" to mean "desert/beach" here. I am no expert, just have hobbyist interested in western China and linguistics. I would yield to published sources. --Voidvector (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Can I add the information you presented here to the names section? It seems like there is more than one interpretation, and I'd like to see all of credible & source-able ones represented. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Voidvector can perhaps clarify what kind of language is meant by "Yarkandi". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern day Yarkand speaks a Uyghur dialects. For the past 1000 years, it had a Turkic language (e.g. Chagatai language during Yarkent Khanate). Saka language (Persian/Pashto) before then. Most of those languages had their word for "east" replaced by Arabic word for "east" during Islamization. So unless we find a linguistic dictionary, difficult to verify. --Voidvector (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the transcription baishitan in "Name" section, since it doesn't offer any etymological meaning to the user. We should probably do something about this section. I am fine w/presenting 2 different views. --Voidvector (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the etymology. Feel free to edit it, as I hold no position in this debate or feel no ownership in my write up. In my research, I found that "Chin" doesn't always mean "China" even though it could be etymologically be from "Qin". For example, in the Urdu poem Tarana-e-Milli, Chin was used to refer to Central Asia. However, I cannot find any source attesting that for Turkic/Uygur/Yarkandi, and that would constitute original research anyway. --Voidvector (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Disputed territory

Hey @Fowler&fowler:, let me know what's going on here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have glanced at Is Aksai Chin disputed?, and the answer seems to be "yes it is" according to the Ministry of External Affairs- see my edit here [1] and here [2]. Therefore, calling the area 'disputed territory' is really the best way- other disputed territories like Western Sahara, the Senkaku Islands, Machias Seal Island, etc. are all written that way. Let me know what you all are thinking on this. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all. I want to propose a change to this page.

I plan to change the wording "Region administered by China" (which currently appears on this page) to "Disputed territory" (as I proposed in the past few weeks) and keep it that way until that situation is ever known to have been altered by the governments of India and China (could be for many years or decades). This edit is in effect a direct revert of this edit [3].

Justification for this edit and course of action:

1) My most recent edit demonstrates an ongoing disputed status as of the 2010s. 2) The current wording "Region administered by China" is an abuse of the "settlement_type" parameter which is supposed to be a type of settlement (see Template:Infobox settlement#Parameter names and descriptions). 3) The current wording is not neutral in tone. 4) There's nothing in the Talk:Aksai Chin archive about this specific issue that I can find to support the claim that there is some rule of Wikipedia that has been broken by making this change in wording [4]. 5) As I showed above, disputed territories are usually handled this way, and all the territory of Aksai Chin is disputed by definition.

The elapsing of a week's time should be sufficient to demonstrate that I am willing to hear out alternate opinions and am trying to find a solution everyone can work with. If more time is needed, I am willing to extend that time up to one month or more. If more points are raised after I make the change, I will try to respond to them in kind. I will not threaten to attempt to have anyone's accounts blocked during this process.

Unless any objections are lodged in response to this post over the course of the next seven days, I will make this change. This should give all interested editors ample time to mull over the issue. If in seven days when I make the edit more objections are raised, then the discussion of course continues obviously. But the point is that to me it seems manifestly obvious that this is correct course of action, but no specific objections are being raised against the edit I'm making. Only by making this change can the Aksai Chin page achieve full, balanced, neutral coverage in the English Wikipedia encyclopaedia long-term. Thanks for your time and effort. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I see you are a respected contributor. But I hope you will let me share my viewpoint on the changes I have made here. Due to obviousness of the blatant misinformation that was being spread by this page, I decided to make the change now rather than waiting a week. I still look forward to any specific rebuttals or rationales based on Wikipedia's standing policies etc. to the changes I made. From my subjective perspective, I think I'm cleaning up a rather shoddily written page, and I'm happy to do it but only if I'm not putting my account in jeopardy of being blocked. For instance, one of the things that was reverted from my work this week was the hiding of the Aksai Chin total land area figure. That total area figure which I rightly took down was only for the small section of land that was ceded by Pakistan to China, and did not include the full scope of the Aksai Chin area. I'm doing the right thing here as far as I can see- making a more reliable enclylopedia. If that conflicts with specific past discussions or anything that has happened previously, just let me know about it. I just see myself as laying out the facts as they lie, so I don't see why the reverts are happening nor what basis would be used for a block of my account for making these edits since they seem to be nothing but obvious and source-based. Thanks for your work long term. I hope I can mend my relationship with you and the other users so that this page can be really detailed and informative. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If the 'disputed territory' option is not acceptable to you, then I would say the only course left is to not write anything in that parameter. It's not technically needed and looks just fine if we don't write anything there. But I think any person arguing in good faith can see that abusing the settlement_type parameter in the way it has been abused is just not Wikipedian. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler is on holiday. So he may not respond to pings at this time.

The reason for the terminology of "Region administered by X" is that Fowler had proposed that all regions of Kashmir should be treated with this kind of wording and it was generally accepted by the editors of India and Pakistan pages. You can find the discussion in the archives of WT:INDIA. The Kashmir conflict is a wider conflict. Even though China is not an inherent part of the wider conflict, it does provide moral backing to Pakistan. So, its motives cannot be easily disentagled from the wider conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, this parameter is optional. If 'disputed territory' or another truly generic and useful description can't be included in the infobox, then I guess there is no choice but to argue for this optional parameter to be omitted from this page.

In my view, the above comment by Kautilya3 is the exact problem I'm trying to fix. "settlement_type" is not supposed to be about questions of moral backing. It's supposed to be a generic description of a type of geographical concept. The template page for this infobox has a long-standing consensus position that serves to override the above linked discussions.

settlement_type optional Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc. If set, will be displayed under the names. Might also be used as a label for total population/area (defaulting to City), if needed to distinguish from Urban, Rural or Metro (if urban, rural or metro figures are not present, the label is Total unless total_type is set).[5]

As far as I am aware, "Disputed territory" is an apt, generic description of the present-day condition of this region. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia did not come to a similar conclusion in early discussions.

The only way I would agree for the old wording to return to the way it was would be if the above quoted definition of "settlement_type" is changed on the infobox's template page. It's possible that it could be changed, but I think that the administrators "up top" that would care about such an issue and look at Wikipedia as a whole would have to be convinced by argumentation there. Until that change is made, settlement type must either be left blank (since it is optional) or include Aksai Chin within the scope of an actual type or class of settlement or geography rather than degrading the parameter by including a phrase with a proper noun in it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Caravan route via Aksai Chin

voidvector, I think the claims here as well as what existed before are highly dubious.

We know the problems with Aksai Chin. No water, no food and no grass for pack animals. A so-called "Changchenmo route" was used by small numbers of traders between Leh and Xinjiang. It went via the Changchenmo and Karakash valleys. There are plenty of campgrounds along this route. But even this route was said to have been used only by large traders, who could afford it, because they had to carry fodder for the pack animals along with their cargo (so the effective cargo capacity was reduced). Two good historians say this:

The 1890 Kashmir Gazetteer under-scored the point that most traders preferred the Karakoram routes to the Chang Chenmo detour which was longer by another 200km; not only were they shorter, they did not require pack animals to carry their own fodder.[3: Gazetteer]

East of the established route, the Changchenmo routes were tried, and proved unsatisfactory. Moorcroft's 'royal road', if it ever existed, was closed probably by the mid-seventeenth century; at all events by the early nineteenth century it was no more than a vague tradition,...

As for Tibetans directly running caravans to Xinjiang, it is pure hallucination. The Tibetans used Ladakh as their trading post, where Yarkandis bought whatever they needed. The main export of the Tibetans was wool, for which demand existed in India, not in Yarkand. Anyway, Maxwell is no historian and Garver gives no evidence for his claim. He most likely picked up this nonsense from Maxwell or Alastair Lamb. But historians don't see any evidence of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I thought the sentence was curious when I copied it for the cite, but my concern was that whether Aksai Chin has the same boundary as it does today.

As for your concern, this 1855 encyclopedia entry on "Tian Shan Nanlu" (Tarim Basin) has a subsection on Yarkand. It says "the commerce with the countries north of Hindustan and with Tibet is very considerable.", but it also has the sentence "The eastern road passes from Ilitsi to Kerya, and Tibet." My theory about the difference in boundary also aligns with my investigation into historical mining in the area, which indicates there were gold mines in Aksai Chin back in mid 1800s, but I haven't found much later mentioning of it. There are gold mines right outside of modern Aksai Chin boundary.

Also on trade route of Aksai Chin. I think it might be worthwhile to expand the History section to mention the geopolitics of 1800s trade. The British made non-trivial effort (House of Commons discussions, lobbying Maharaja) to develop/promote the Changchenmo into a serviceable caravan route to compete with Karakorum. Though I haven't dug enough to provide enough context on this (their goals, politics of northern India, etc).

P.S. You can read the Scribd book by using the search box with a term, it will reveal the page containing the term. I just used "Aksai Chin".) --Voidvector (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see my article Hindutash from 2009. Had great fun writing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Aksai Chin ("sea of white stone") is by definition an area with no water, food and fodder. The area that we now call Aksai Chin remained with Ladakh by default, when Lhasa invaded it and took away all the areas that were useful. (See Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War.) If there was a caravan route through it, it wouldn't have been left with Ladakh. There are rumours of other routes to the east of Rudok.

[The British] attempted unsuccessfully to open up a new route between Leh and Yarkand. The line they chose was east of the Karakoram pass, and took the Changchenmo valley, and the high altitude plateaux of Lingzithang, before dropping down to the Karakash river. The inspiration for this arose partly from rumours of a former 'royal road', said to have been in use during the Mughal period, largely for the trade in jade and agate from the quarries on the upper Karakash. From Najibabad at the foot of the mountains in western Uttar Pradesh, this had crossed the Great Himalaya probably by the Niti pass, and carried on via Gartok, Rudok and past the jade quarries to Khotan, easternmost of the great commercial cities of Sinkiang. There was also said to be an even more easterly route from Rudok direct to Kotan, 'over vast plains, where water, grass, and wood are obtainable at every halting-place', and on via the settlements of Polu and Keria; but that the Changpa, the region's nomadic herdspeople, were under orders from Lhasa to prevent any outsiders from using it.

Janet Rizvi, who understands trade, identifies the key requirements "water, grass and wood" at every halting place. Aksai Chin doesn't fit the bill.

It is only with modern motor transport that the old requirements became redundant. But it also required cutting motorable roads through the mountains that surround Aksai Chin. China had a powerful incentive to create such a route, for the first time in human history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Just googled Chinese. There is an Baidu wiki article on the Xinjiang-Tibet route. [6]. It says the Uyghurs called it "Tibetan route". It goes through Ashikule instead of modern boundaries of Aksai Chin. It was made impassable in late 1800s during one of the uprisings. The article mentions according to an academic expert, the other two routes on this side of Tibet are the Sanju and Yarkandi routes, which looks like variations of Karakorom (or Changchenmo). You probably right there wasn't a trade route on the eastern side of modern bounds of Aksai Chin. --Voidvector (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops: the map in the infobox has a major omission

@Voidvector: (and whoever else you can think to ping) The map [7] looks great and authoritative, but I think they actually forgot some claims that China makes on the areas near/around Demchok and Nelang. You can see those areas in this map [8] and also on Google Maps. I discovered this problem while I was working on some problems I saw in this map [9] Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically, those areas are not part of "Aksai Chin" (the white desert). It extends south till the Changchenmo valley. The areas to the south of it are other random bits that China disputes. I don't think we should cover them in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Demchok area, there is no official line of actual control, as far as I can tell. The de facto line of control is shown on OpenStreetMap, and covered in the Charding Nullah article. I also have a draft material for a proper article on the Demchok sector, but it is not ready yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I confused this map [10] and this map [11] Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Change aksai chin to gosthana 103.199.129.60 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No reliable source provided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Please rename Aksai Chin to COK China occupied Kashmir 2405:201:2804:DFB5:D58C:76A0:4898:5796 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The final sentence to the intro para reads: "The region will be administered by Republic of India in no time"

Given the current political tensions, this reads as an unsupported opinion and isn't referenced. Nationalist propaganda doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 84.68.54.91 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Ed6767 talk! 11:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The phrasing in the lead ...

... is the result of a consensus. It cannot be changed without a different consensus. The previous discussion on WT:INDIA was had the assent of WP:PAKISTAN editors and was the China project was pinged I believe. In particular, please don't change "dispute" to Kashmir conflict. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This infobox parameter is being abused. That slot is designed for generalized categories of geography like 'town', 'city', or the like. Proper nouns don't go there. I would also accept leaving it blank, but it is not the place for one-off descriptions including proper nouns. Do you acknowledge that the wording you are asking for is an abuse of the parameter? The parameter is called "settlement_type".

"settlement_type optional Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc. If set, will be displayed under the names. Might also be used as a label for total population/area (defaulting to City), if needed to distinguish from Urban, Rural or Metro (if urban, rural or metro figures are not present, the label is Total unless total_type is set)."[12]

I have blanked it out since the category is optional. How far would your concensus go? Demchok? There's no need to inject sovereignty claims in the settlement type parameter. When a parameter is used one way throughout Wikipedia (Western Sahara, etc) and then suddenly changes usage like this, it is not healthy for the Wikipedia project. The readers expect to see an abstracted category of noun into which the subject of the article fits. Do you understand? I suggest that since this optional parameter is optional, the rational, neutral and Wikipediesque course of action is to leave it blank rather than turn it into something it is not.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC) (modified)

The consensus referred to is not a treaty held in high esteem in the treaty depository in the Hague that is holy and sacred above all things. The way the word 'concensus' has been deployed in this discussion is tantamount to "don't argue buddy" or "sit down and shut up". Come on now, can you be nice? That type of mindset squeezes the life out of Wikipedia. This is a volunteer encylopedia website, and I am pointing out a clear problem. Reference and deploy the specific arguments, logic and content of the consensus, not just the word "consensus". That's my feeling. Thanks for your efforts working on this page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This page and the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia page corresponding to this English Wikipedia page have infoboxes that look very similar. The Mandarin page omits use of this parameter in their infobox. If we can't call what it is (a disputed territory) then just don't include the optional parameter. The Senkaku Islands, the South China Sea islands etc all have this kind of wording in the infobox, but I guess it's too hot to handle here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In law, there is precedent and bad precedent. I am contending that the result of the ancient and hallowed concensus is bad precedent. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo

@Fowler&fowler: I am not sure why you reverted the photo. The Karakash river photo is not located inside Aksai Chin, while Tianshuihai photo is located inside Aksai Chin. It actually took a few days for me to find a free public photo that's confidently located inside Aksai Chin.

I am 80% sure Karakash river photo is located between Mazar Pass and Kangxiwar both are north of and outside of Aksai Chin boundary. If I have a few hours, I can provide a GPS estimate for it, however, it is a painstaking process with little value (involves me aligning the peaks in the photo with PeakFinder.org). --Voidvector (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I spent an hour estimating the location of the Karakash river photo. Karakash river photo was likely taken at 36.4505°N 77.2005°E / 36.4505; 77.2005, see this image. If true, this actually makes the photo of "Yarkand River," not Karakash. --Voidvector (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Would you mind comment on why you reverted the photo earlier? If not, given that current photo is not even inside Aksai Chin, I am going to restore the Tianshuihai photo tomorrow. Alternatively, this is another photo that's also confidently located inside Aksai Chin. --Voidvector (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the skyline image to 甜水海兵站.jpg (Tianshuihai army service station). It is the best free photo currently available, see commons:Category:Aksai Chin. Feel free to change the caption to indicate the area is disputed. --Voidvector (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

1962 war map

Taylor Fravel posted this map of the 1962 war history on Twitter. I wonder if there are any new locales mentioned there that we should document.

(I presume that the roads marked are the modern ones, not from 1962). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pushing the line back or forward because of Russia

From War in High Himalaya: The Indian Army in Crisis, 1962 By D. K. Palit (pp 32)

During the next four decades the British depicted the northern and north-eastern borders of Kashmir differently at different times, the line being pushed backwards or forwards according to the degree of perceived threat from Russia. Most often it was the Johnson line, with it extravagant claim right up to the Kuen Lun range and beyond, that was shown on British maps. The Chinese at that time evinced little interest about the border with Kashmir (other than their move down to the Karakoram pass in 1890-2 or about the Aksai Chin.

Is there an exact number of lines that we know about during these four decades mentioned? DTM (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all D. K. Palit isn't a WP:HISTRS.

To the best of my knowledge, the British maps always depicted the Ardagh-Johnson Line for Aksai Chin, if it all they showed a border. (This goes with the territory. They also showed the wrong border at Demchok throughout their period.)

But internally they debated between three lines: one being the Ardagh-Johnson line, one closer to the Karakoram mountains (dubbed the "Trelawney-Saunders Line", but I have never seen a map showing it), and the other Macartney-MacDonald Line. (Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis (1990, p. 12)) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Trelawney Saunders line is marked on this map as the Foreign Office Line of 1873. You can also see it marked on page 17 of this pdf. Trelawney Saunders worked as a cartographer at the Foreign Office in London. The Discoverer (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Discoverer. That is what I suspected it had to be.

Just noting that this line puts the entire Galwan Valley including Samzungling in India. All three lines do this.

So, even the 1956 claim line of China has no basis in British lines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Languages field in the infobox

What is the basis for adding languages to the field in the infobox? Is it history, claimants, territorial control or some other criteria? I think that since there is no native population, perhaps it would be best to omit languages. The Discoverer (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the list of languages: the infobox should summarise the article text, and if there's nothing in the article text about the languages, then neither should there anything be in the infobox. I'd presumed the original intent was to list the languages spoken by the people in the military or various supporting businesses, but that was unsourced, and in the apparent absence of any established populations it doesn't make much sense anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese-administered Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese-administered Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Chinese-administered Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Chinese Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Kashmir, China" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kashmir, China. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Kashmir, China until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese-occupied Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese-occupied Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Chinese-occupied Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese Occupied Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese Occupied Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Chinese Occupied Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese-controlled Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese-controlled Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Chinese-controlled Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"China administered Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect China administered Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#China administered Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese administered Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese administered Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Chinese administered Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"China occupied Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect China occupied Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#China occupied Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

Country: INDIA Flag: Tiranga Rkvinjamuri (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This page makes the news

[13] Apparently India is annoyed that we say it is under Chinese administration. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The fuss was not about this article, but about the map previously used at Bhutan–India relations. This has been discussed at great length at Talk:Bhutan–India relations and elsewhere, and as far as I can see, the issue, at least on our side, has been resolved. – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Chinese and Uyghur script in lead

Does WP:INDIC not apply to areas claimed by India? (Chinese and Uyghur aren't Indic scripts but I think we get the point.) It's unnecessarily controversial. Should I remove it? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 09:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we have been giving a free pass to China, while clamping down on India and Pakistan. I will move the Uyghur script to the "Name" section because it is after all an Uyghur name. The Chinese scripts can go in one of those script boxes we use for Chinese names. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese name of the place is a significant piece of encyclopedic information, and WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply as this page is neither wholly nor predominantly under the scope of Wikiproject India. The fact that the area is disputed is irrelevant: you can see what well-developed articles for virtually any other disputed territory look like: Nagorno-Karabakh, Western Sahara, West Bank. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a Chinese name. It is a Turkic term that German explorers applied to the area. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the area, but I don't think 阿克赛钦 would have been exactly the name that these German explorers coined. It really looks like the sort of name that the Chinese administration would be using when referring to the place, say in publications or on road signs. That's the point for the native names given in ledes and infoboxes – they're not to clarify etymology, but to point out the names currently in use within the territory. – Uanfala (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler explained it to you here. I guess you didn't agree. So, if you want to re-add it, go ahead, but you need to add Hindi as well to indicate the disputed nature of the place. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought Folwer's views there were distinctly odd. He's referring to some sort of consensus? Why should we add Hindi though? The language isn't used anywhere near Aksai Chin. And if we need to indicate the disputed nature of the place, then we should explicitly state the nature of the place is disputed rather than rely on clever innuendo from the use of irrelevant names. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Why should we add Hindi? Because scripts represent symbolism of sovereignty. If there is an agreed consensus on maintaining the status quo (between the two countries) then we can overlook the issue. But when the consensus has broken down, we can't ignore these things. So WP:NPOV would require that either both the scripts should go up, or neither. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Name

Hi Fowler&fowler, I don't understand this revert. This content was about the name "Aksai Chin". I don't understand what motorcycle trips have to do with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

An extended disquisition sourced to primary sources about the name of a historically uninhabited area that has remained uninhabited, how is that DUE, or reliable? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether is inhabited or not makes no difference to anything. We have a page on it, and the Chinese just sent 60,000 soldiers to defend it. So it is an important topic. And we are obliged to document the facts the best way we can.

My content had plenty of secondary sources, not only Parshotam Mehra, published by OUP, but also other explorers like Hedin and Trinkler, who either validated or failed to validate what the Schlagintweits wrote. The Schlagintweits were the first ones to go to that area, and they named it, which name has later been adopted. The name itself is an important part of the identity of this place, possibly a source of the present day disputes. So I completely disagree that this material is UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Best way we can does not mean gathering everything in sight, primary and secondary, referring directly and obliquely. It is an important topic now. But it wasn't for centuries. India did not have any up-to-date knowledge in the 1950s, indeed it was clueless; the Americans had to tell the Indians about the Chinese having built a highway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So, if it is an important topic now, why shouldn't we expand the content now? I don't see what argument you are making. You are welcome to add whatever other content you can reliably source. Random innuendo won't do you any good. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

In the early 1860s, when the first edition of the Surveyor-General's map of Turkestan appeared, the question of Aksai Chin surfaced, the map showing it, as well as Lingzi Tang to its south, as part of Kashmir. The second edition—which was repudiated by the foreign department—excluded both from Kashmir's boundaries. The third edition, in 1868, reverted to the earlier, 1862 contours. Oddly, even though the correct position was shown in 1862, the name itself did not appear on maps until Henry Trotter's small sketch in 1873 mentioned Lingzi Tang 'or Aksai Chin'.

So what kind of monkeying is that? Can you explain? Was the Kashmir government asked at any stage what its borders were? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be compounding unreliable post-1947 Indian sources and 19th-century colonial accounts. You haven't referenced Kyle Gardner's The Frontier Complex: Geopolitics and the Making of the India-China Border, 1846–1962, Cambridge, 2021, nor Julia Marshall's Britain and Tibet 1765-1947: A Select Annotated Bibliography of British Relations with Tibet and the Himalayan States including Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan, Routledge, 2004. The princely state of Kashmir, more so than most Indian princely states, was in an impotent, incompetent, and corrupt state, whose communications and foreign relations were managed by the British. The name "Aksai Chin" was obviously not coined by the Schlagintweit brothers. The first mention is in their volume 1 in the letter of Mohommand Amin of Yarkand, their Chief Guide, an aged and somewhat opportunistic trader between Kuli/Leh and Yarkand, who had accompanied one brother from Kulu in present-day Himachal. Amin matter of factly calls it, "Aksáe Chin." The Schlagintweits in any case were no experts; their appointment was controversial and opposed by many leading geographers on the grounds that there were more competent people in India (presumably connected with the Trigonometric Survey). But thereafter as you probably know there were dozens of articles, books, and reports written on that region and using the slightly different romanization "Aksai Chin;" there is no evidence anywhere that either was coined (on the fly) by Bavarians en route to Turkestan. I'm afraid your edit is not reliable, nor necessary. What is in place in the Name section is adequate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If the Kashmir state was "impotent, incompetent, and corrupt state", let us not forget who installed it in the first place. These slinging matches won't get us anywhere. British India was treaty-bound to decide Kashmir's boundaries jointly, which they didn't do. There was ample corruption on the British side as well, but that is not what we are here to discuss.

The place Amin describes matter-of-factly as "Aksáe Chin" is the location where the two forts were situated. That is at the foot of Kunlun mountains. Or, it could have been the entire "blank space south of the Kunlun range", much like "Chang Thang" in later British maps. Neither of these is the meaning we are talking about. Frederic Drew went through Amin's notes and tabulated the route ("imperfectly described", but later clarified by W. H. Johnson), and there is no mention of "Aksai Chin" in his route. Nor does his map label anything as "Aksai Chin".

The specific meaning of Aksai Chin as dried or semi-dried lake basins is due to Schlagintweit.

Then he crossed the Lingzi Thang in two days and recognized this plateau as situated north of the Kara-korum Range... For the whole plain north of the Kara-korum Range, Adolph has the name of "Great Aksåe Chin" ("The white desert of Chin"). "Little Aksåe Chin" he says is below the Kisil-korum Pass. Hermann is aware that this plateau is an old lake basin, which he believes has been emptied by erosion. This view reminds us of Drew's theory which, however, is not quoted by Hermann von Schlagintweit.

From this it is clear that the specific meaning we now attach to Aksai Chin is due to Adolphe Schlagintweit. I don't know if Trotter had some more information that led him to popularise the term, but I am going to investigate that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that the Schlagintweits 'coined' the term Aksai Chin, because the word 'coined' implies that they invented the name, for which there is no evidence. We can instead say that the Schlagintweits or Adolph Schlagintweit was the first to apply the name Aksai Chin to the region that we know by this name today. The Discoverer (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it was in use earlier either. We have had plenty of British officials that went to Yarkand and returned. And the Turkic traders were coming and going all the time too. If there is corroboration to be obtained for its general use in Turkistan, we would have had it. But we don't.

In any case, as far as the English language and our literature is concerned, Adoplhe Schlagintweit named it. He is the first one to have crossed it. And he gets to name it. No further questions need be asked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I checked Trotter's report. He used "Lingzithang" throughout, and added a footnote (perhaps begrudgingly) that it is also called "Aksai Chin". I get the sense that his preference was to "Lingzithang". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Discoverer, I am afraid you have mixed up things in this edit. The map being spoken of in the text was pepared by the Quartermaster General's Office (a division of the Indian Army). The map you have added is one of Schlagintweits (Hermann and Robert, not Adolphe). These two gentlemen did not cross what we call the Aksai Chin plateau. They labelled some other lake basin in the north as "Aksai Chin". I suggest that we omit this other lake basin for now, because the current issue is being contentious enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok The Discoverer (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kautilya3: I'm sorry all this is OR. You are using old sources. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the three best recent sources about Aksai Chin: (a) Gardner, Kyle J. (2021), The Frontier Complex: Geopolitics and the Making of the India-China Border, 1846-1962, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-108-84059-0 (b) Guyot-Réchard, Bérénice (2017), Shadow States: India, China and the Himalayas, 1910–1962, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-17679-9, (c) Frankel, Francine (2020), When Nehru Looked East: Origins of India-US Suspicion and India-China Rivalry, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-006434-1 make no mention of the Schlagintweits, then too much focus on them in this article is WP:UNDUE. Besides, the focus on the name is creating further problems. What is Turkic? Which language among the vast family of Turkic languages were they speaking in Aksai Chin? Which language were they speaking in Yarkand? Were they speaking the Uyghur language in both? Or were the nomadic herders who occasionally descended upon the Soda and Lingzhi Thang plains, speaking a language that was influenced by the Tibetan group of languages? The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909, (whose 26 volumes (including Atlas (volume 25) and Index (volume 26)) I have sitting here in my study, makes no mention of Aksai Chin anywhere, only the Soda and Lingzhi Thang plains. I'm happy to upload a high-res map from the Atlas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Empires functioned very well without clearly demarcated borders; in fact, there is a case to be made that they preferred such ambiguity. They had the clout. Post-colonial states, however, began to look for precision where none had existed. Many such as India, did not have the resources, the military preparedness, the clout, trust or confidence in local populations (which were more acclimated to the region) or the alliances, to force the hand of rival claimants. They are still attempting to find in infirmly recorded history proof for their claim on the land. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Aksai chin

China has built a new air force base in this contested part of the country. Here is a link, please add this : https://m.timesofindia.com/videoshow/86114994.cms49.184.56.196 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In brief, Aksai Chin between the Macartney–Macdonald Line and Kunlun ranges as a uninhabited land during the British Raj. British Raj caravans pass through Karakoram rather than there, because there is no supply. At this point the British had still made no attempts to establish outposts or control over the Aksai Chin and only explorers would been there. Now, Aksai Chin is an integral part of the Chinese territory as Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of the Indian territory. So does Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of the Pakistani territory.

LuciferAhriman (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

Add the following item to the "see also" section.

• List of locations in Aksai Chin

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

China's August 2023 "standard map"

This parapraph needs to be added at end of section "since 1947":

On 28 August 2023, China provoked India when the PRC's Ministry of Natural Resources released an updated map of PRC where the disputed territory in Aksai Chin is depicted as a part of PRC, in China's version of its new "standard map". Other internationally disputed Asian waters and lands were also depicted on their map as a part of PRC. 2400:1A00:B050:923C:7040:BFB3:618D:AA28 (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

More correct opening, shift map

The first lines are not as accurate and precise as they could and should be. Comments on the arid condition don't need to introduce the page's information.

The map posted further down, detailing the history of boundary lines, is the best opening image for the subject.

Please shift the map, and change the text to a concise and factual opening:

Aksai Chin is the historic territory of Ladakh, India, whose boundary line has been generally accepted by the international community since 1865. In 1962, the PRC's Army invaded the territory and boundary disputes continue between India and China.

(This is compiled from the map, the existing sources, and the page's text. All other detailed info on the Line of Control, the Johnson Line (1865), etc..., who has and who hasn't, can follow.) 2400:1A00:B050:923C:7040:BFB3:618D:AA28 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomads

@Kautilya3: Are you ok with changing Prior to the 1940s, the inhabitants of Aksai Chin were, for the most part, the occasional explorers, hunters, and nomads from India who passed through the area. to Prior to the 1950, the inhabitants of Aksai Chin were, for the most part, the occasional explorers, hunters, and nomads who passed through the area.? This is what Alastair Lamb said[14] and his quote is used by multiple other scholarly sources as well.[15][16] Editorkamran (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Van Eekelen knows that these people went from India. What is your objection to it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The correct date is 1950, not 1940s. No sources except Eekelen points out race of the nomads. Van Eekelen writes: "but the occasional explorer, big-game hunter or nomad from India may be sufficient to establish continuity of title." While Lamb had written: "no one visited it except the occasional explorer, big-game hunter and nomad". It is clear that Eekelen was citing text of Lamb and has used Lamb as his source throughout the book.[17] Aren't we supposed to provide accurate information? Sumantra Bose in her book also makes no mention of particular race with regards to the nomads.[18] Editorkamran (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Both Van Eekelen and Lamb books were published in the same year (1964). Since the wording is very similar, it is possible that the phrase originally appeared in some news report or commentary in that period. But Van Eekelen's mention of "India" is based on evidence, plenty of which is in published literature and also discussed in the China-India border talks in 1960. There is no such evidence for China, either from the Tibetan side or the Xinjiang side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Eekelen cites Lamb throughout the book[19] and even on the same chapter which you are citing.[20] Its not other way around.[21] Lamb writes: "Nomads alone can find much value in the wastes of north-eastern Ladakh; and doubtless the region was visited from time to time by nomads originating from Tibet, Chinese Turkestan, and Ladakh itself. The Chinese, it seems, base much of their claim to the Aksai Chin region on these nomad activities."[22] There is clearly a dispute here, that's why several scholars have cited neutral quotation of Lamb, but no quotation of Eekelen and that's another reason why Wikipedia should use Lamb for this information. Editorkamran (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lamb has written several books. I suggest you start citing sources by WP:Full citation instead of giving url's. Neither is Alastair Lamb considered "neutral" (see that page). In any case, the passage you just quoted is pure supposition and speculation with no evidence. That is hardly scholarly, let alone being neutral. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

And what makes Eekelen to be more credible? Are you aware of any source that has made the analysis? It is not up to you to make analysis. Lamb is absolutely reliable for the information here and the quotation of Lamb ("no one visited it except the occasional explorer, big-game hunter and nomad") is neutral. It has been cited by scholarly sources such as Sneh Mahajan[23] and A.G. Noorani.[24] Why it shouldn't be included on this article when other scholars are also citing it? Editorkamran (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That sentence should probably be changed or taken out altogether. The occasional visitors were not inhabitants. There were several ancient passes, the Hindutash Pass, the Sanju Pass, and the Ilchi pass connecting the Aksai Chin, which lay below the Kunlun mountains to the Kingdom of Khotan. It is very unlikely that the flow would have been only one-way. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Fowler&fowler and Kautilya3: I am not talking of the dispute/s prior to the Sino-Indian War, I am only trying to convey that China occupied Aksai Chin (Aksai qin as they call it) in that war. Kautilya3, for your information, Fowler&fowler has removed sourced content with this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Fowler's edit summary explains clearly why it was reverted. Did you read it? The "occupation", as you call it, over a long period, through a process now known as salami slicing. You can't say that it occupied it just during the war. Neither does the source support it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The source says,

China took almost 15,000 square miles of what had been India in Aksai Chin, and has kept it ever since

, so can we paraphrase it and add,

China has kept 15,000 square miles of India's territory in Aksai Chin since the Sino-Indian War in 1962

?-Haani40 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This source doesn't go into the salami slicing process, but other sources do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: So you're saying, "don't add it" right?-Haani40 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we add this sentence and then another supporting the, 'salami slicing"?-Haani40 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence in this section can be used for the "salami slicing" of India by China.-Haani40 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I can use all kinds of words in the discussion to make my point, but they can't be put into the main space unless there are good sources doing so. As regards to what can be said in the lead about the Sino-Indian dispute, you need good sources that describe the issues succintly. The citation 2 (Columbia Gazetteer) seems to be good. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will use that.-Haani40 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done-Haani40 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough. Read this: "China would even implicitly recognize the "imperialist McMahon Line" in the eastern sector while India would accept China's strategically important control of Aksai Chin, which India had never controlled in any case." Similar information is found here as well. This is enough for you to understand that why your edits are misleading.Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They are perfectly fine sources. Take it to WP:RSN if you wish. The sources which you are putting forward are explainers of Chinese foreign policy. They are Chinese views, not "informatiion". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources provided by Abhishek confirm that there has been no change in scholarship with regards to this dispute that's why any unilateral changes to article should be avoided. Capitals00 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They only state the Chinese views. One of them even says The Chinese believed....

In any case, the content doesn't say India "controlled" (which is vague anyway), but that it "claimed". And that claim was unchanging since the time of Indian independence, and was itself based on what the British regarded as Indian territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

I am happy to take this to WP:DRN if everybody else is willing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with it. Given the repeated reversions by @Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996: it is probably necessary.-Haani40 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The sentences in both of the sources (that I provided) does not attribute the statement that India never controlled Aksai Chin at all. They treat it as a fact.

It would be too early to bring it to DRN given this dispute has recently started. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest WP:DRN because you make vague claims which don't make any sense. The text that you reverted doesn't say that India "controlled" anything. So what are you on about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You need to better stop adding disinformation to the article that has been stable for many years, especially when it hss been conclusively debunked here by showing the scholarly fact that India didn't control Aksai Chin. Capitals00 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also not China, the statement make sense as china took control over area after 1959 war and not before that. So i dont think it display any disinformation as such. Curious man123 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123: Kautilya3 is asking if this should be taken to WP:DRN - should it?-Haani40 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i guess it should be @Haani40 Curious man123 (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Haani40: See WP:TSF: Topical encyclopedias can take various special forms, such as sectionalized histories of particular fields, biographical "dictionaries", geographical gazetteers, historical timelines, and others. The layout doesn't matter; we care about the quality and kind of research and sources that produced it, and the reputation of the authors(s) and publisher – and especially of the work itself within the field to which it pertains.

Certainly you believe in the misinformation based on shoddy sources that Aksai Chin was controlled by India until 1962.[25] DRN cannot solve this misunderstanding of yours. Only scholarly sources can do and they have been already provided to you right above. Capitals00 (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Curious man123:, we are back to square one after this revert by Capitals00. You now have to take it to the next level - WP:DRN or whatever else!-Haani40 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where Abhishek0831996 and Capitals00 have answered the point above that I have now highlighted in bold face. Until they do so, their reverts are improper and merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought this discussion is already over. Regarding your comment that "text that you reverted doesn't say that India "controlled" anything", I would just say that the text inaccurately claims that China added another 15,500 sq km into Aksai Chin from 1959 - 1962. It is misleading because this information is not supported by the either (an article and a dictionary) sources. They only peddle the false claim that China got control in 1962. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You are changing goal posts. But again you are wrong. The text that you reverted doesn't say "China added [territory]". It says "China occupied", for which there are dozens of sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The reverted version says "Between 1959 and 1962 China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km." But this claim is false and it is not supported by that article or that gazetteer. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead and body differ on what Aksai Chin is

Terrain map

This article is unclear on what its topic is. The lead opens with "Aksai Chin is an arid region divided between India and China", and later says "China still controls that territory in Aksai Chin" (emphasis mine), but only lists Chinese subdivisions. The Name section says "The current meaning of the term is the area under dispute between India and China", something agreed with by the Geography section's "Aksai Chin is one of the two large disputed border areas between India and China...The line that separates Indian-administered areas of Ladakh from Aksai Chin is known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and is concurrent with the Chinese Aksai Chin claim line". In essence, the body claims Aksai Chin is the disputed area. The lead claims instead it is a wider area that is divided, but only notes Chinese divisions in line with the body's definition. Britannica seems to agree with the body, noting it is "nearly all the territory of the Chinese-administered sector of Kashmir that is claimed by India" (presumably distinguishing it from the Trans-Karakoram Tract). The Name section does contain "In 1895, the British envoy to Kashgar told the Chinese Taotai that Aksai Chin was a "loose name for an ill-defined, elevated tableland", part of which lay in Indian and part in Chinese territory", which suggests it was historically a vague geographic term, but current usage, including in this article outside of the lead, uses it as a term referring specifically to the Chinese-controlled parts of Kashmir. If we have sources for a wider meaning, that wider meaning (ie. including the current Indian-controlled territory that is considered Aksai Chin) should be included in the body and in the lead's supporting details. CMD (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"Divided between India and China" is certainly an WP:UNDUE description to go into the lead sentence. The Indian-controlled part is just some fringe area at the western periphery. But as you can see, there is heavy disputing and edit-warring going on. It is not easy to fix anything over here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The 1895 British envoy's meaning of "Aksai Chin" is now dead. Nobody uses it in that sense any more. Note the Britannica defining it as the "Chinese-administered sector of Kashmir". The part that the envoy described as being Chinese territory (to the east) is still Chinese territory (in Tibet). But it is not called "Aksai Chin" any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I certainly haven't found a current use of "Aksai Chin" to mean something other than the disputed territory. At any rate, the article topic defines the title rather than the other way around, and the topic appears to be the disputed territory rather than a potential old (defunct?) meaning. It would not be the first or last geographical name to shift meaning. A reword similar to Trans-Karakoram Tract would seem a clearer introduction for readers, although perhaps a hatnote could be added for Aksai Chin Lake. CMD (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many scholarly sources calling it Aksai Chin, so I oppose any name change.-Haani40 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I found this was actually an error introduced by an edit here. I have reverted to the original wording, which matches the body. CMD (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

Aksai Chin is Part of India and controlled by India 183.87.211.78 (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible source of the name Aksai Chin

From a Sanskrit perspective, a possible origin of the name Aksai Chin is from "Akshay Chinha". "Akshay" meaning indestructible and "Chinha" meaning sign. Possible connection to the fact that it is frozen glacial region and hence indestructible. Shri Jadhav 83 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)