This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aksai Chin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
{{
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
The map in China's passport was changed to include Aksai Chin, as explained in news articles
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)
What are the three other small pink bits further south from the big pink bit along the border between India and China ?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
14.195.89.190 ( talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Is this vast region inhabited by people? Colipon+( Talk) 15:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
[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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Idrees shah ( talk) 15:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
aksa chin is also a part of kashmir
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Tyy Looo
AlNumanee ( talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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?
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)
If you read Chinese, there are a lot of footages along the highway by adventure tourists and motorists. e.g.:
-- Voidvector ( talk) 07:24, 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)
@ 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)
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".
-- Voidvector ( talk) 02:17, 27 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)
References
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)
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]
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 [1]
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,... [2]
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)
[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. [3]
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change aksai chin to gosthana 103.199.129.60 ( talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please rename Aksai Chin to COK China occupied Kashmir 2405:201:2804:DFB5:D58C:76A0:4898:5796 ( talk) 17:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
... 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)
"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]
Geographyinitiative ( talk) 17:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC) (modified)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Country: INDIA Flag: Tiranga Rkvinjamuri ( talk) 08:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
[13] Apparently India is annoyed that we say it is under Chinese administration. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'. [1]
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)
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. [4]
References
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.cms 49.184.56.196 ( 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following item to the "see also" section.
Thank you. 119.74.238.54 ( talk) 10:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
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. [1] 2400:1A00:B050:923C:7040:BFB3:618D:AA28 ( talk) 05:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
References
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
@
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)
, so can we paraphrase it and add,China took almost 15,000 square miles of what had been India in Aksai Chin, and has kept it ever since
?- Haani40 ( talk) 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)China has kept 15,000 square miles of India's territory in Aksai Chin since the Sino-Indian War in 1962
The Chinese believed....
I am happy to take this to WP:DRN if everybody else is willing. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aksai Chin is Part of India and controlled by India 183.87.211.78 ( talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aksai Chin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
{{
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
The map in China's passport was changed to include Aksai Chin, as explained in news articles
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)
What are the three other small pink bits further south from the big pink bit along the border between India and China ?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
14.195.89.190 ( talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Is this vast region inhabited by people? Colipon+( Talk) 15:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
[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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Idrees shah ( talk) 15:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
aksa chin is also a part of kashmir
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Tyy Looo
AlNumanee ( talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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?
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)
If you read Chinese, there are a lot of footages along the highway by adventure tourists and motorists. e.g.:
-- Voidvector ( talk) 07:24, 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)
@ 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)
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".
-- Voidvector ( talk) 02:17, 27 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)
References
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)
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]
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 [1]
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,... [2]
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)
[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. [3]
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)
@ 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change aksai chin to gosthana 103.199.129.60 ( talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please rename Aksai Chin to COK China occupied Kashmir 2405:201:2804:DFB5:D58C:76A0:4898:5796 ( talk) 17:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
... 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)
"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]
Geographyinitiative ( talk) 17:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC) (modified)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Country: INDIA Flag: Tiranga Rkvinjamuri ( talk) 08:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
[13] Apparently India is annoyed that we say it is under Chinese administration. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'. [1]
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)
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. [4]
References
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.cms 49.184.56.196 ( 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following item to the "see also" section.
Thank you. 119.74.238.54 ( talk) 10:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
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. [1] 2400:1A00:B050:923C:7040:BFB3:618D:AA28 ( talk) 05:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
References
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
@
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)
, so can we paraphrase it and add,China took almost 15,000 square miles of what had been India in Aksai Chin, and has kept it ever since
?- Haani40 ( talk) 08:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)China has kept 15,000 square miles of India's territory in Aksai Chin since the Sino-Indian War in 1962
The Chinese believed....
I am happy to take this to WP:DRN if everybody else is willing. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aksai Chin is Part of India and controlled by India 183.87.211.78 ( talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. '''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)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)