Talk:Line of Actual Control

message: The LAC and PPs are closely linked. DTM (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sino-Indian border dispute << this article is also to be considered for inclusion of a sub section related to patrolling points. DTM (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Let's add one more article to this — Differing perceptions DTM (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a glossary section to the article. That section has no direct relation to this discussion and merging. DTM (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Patrol Point]] into [[Line of Actual Control]] 

message: === From 19 June 2020 ===
=== From 6 September 2020 ===
=== More baloney flying around ===
China announced a line that ran east of the Spanggur Lake, and the international community has finely documented it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , WP:NEWSORGs are not reliable sources for history. So please discuss before adding any of these nonsensical statements that the Indian media are putting out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever proposed boundary lines of Aksai Chin such as the Johnson line or MacDonald are mentioned in Wikipedia articles, they are usually followed by a statement that these lines were not formally accepted by China. Similarly, when we speak of China's 1959 or 1960 claim line, I think it makes sense to mention that these have been categorically rejected  by India. In this article, as well as on other articles on the border dispute. The Discoverer (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  HISTRS don't say that there was any line proposed in 1959. So saying that India "rejected" this non-existent line doesn't make any sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAC of Nov 7, 1959 

message: China announced a line that ran east of the Spanggur Lake, and the international community has finely documented it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , WP:NEWSORGs are not reliable sources for history. So please discuss before adding any of these nonsensical statements that the Indian media are putting out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever proposed boundary lines of Aksai Chin such as the Johnson line or MacDonald are mentioned in Wikipedia articles, they are usually followed by a statement that these lines were not formally accepted by China. Similarly, when we speak of China's 1959 or 1960 claim line, I think it makes sense to mention that these have been categorically rejected  by India. In this article, as well as on other articles on the border dispute. The Discoverer (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  HISTRS don't say that there was any line proposed in 1959. So saying that India "rejected" this non-existent line doesn't make any sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More baloney flying around 

message: Qian Feng of the Taihe Institute, Beijing; writes (i am guessing this piece is from September 2020):
But I am not quite too sure whether "notable proposals" fits into this article. DTM (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Zone of actual control" is wrong English but the meaning "border zones" or "frontier zones" is sort of implied by the foreign ministers' joint statement already. It can go in the Chinese reactions section for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Chinese proposal; line to zone 

message: , can you explain why you removed the term "notional" in the lead sentence? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the  improvements. But, I am afraid "notional" is still needed, because it exists only as a notion. It has never been demarcated or agreed. In fact, China has not even told India where it believes the line is. (It thinks telling India where its line is amounts to a "concession"!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Kautilya3: I certainly don't think we need to say notional. I have been reading more about this, and my takeaway is while yes, in some areas its position is not clear and in many or most areas its position has not been explicitly agreed by both sides, it is for most purposes (certainly for the purposes of a single intro sentence) more than a notion. This is in line with how most sources treat it. How would you feel about "disputed border"? Unlike "notional boundary", which I did not see in any source, that phrase is used frequently.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notional demarcation line 

message: , the phrase "a certain sanctity" is used to explain the deception in polite language. If you want to call it deception, please go ahead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A certain sanctity 

message: Does Lines of Actual Control need to be created, redirected to this page? DTM (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. It would be misleading to start speaking of "Lines" (in plural), since the various versions are minor variations (at least on a macro scale). But, I think there is room to mention the various controversial bits and the de facto deviations from it. There are too many perhaps! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lines of Actual Control