Talk:Aksai Chin

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 91.109.78.139, 11 October 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done -Atmoz (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 92.8.153.90, 19 November 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To the IP user who keeps adding biased content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: 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)
thread_title: Map in China's passport

message: 14.195.89.190 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify a change you wish to be made. BethNaught (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Road repaving was completed. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Idrees shah (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019 

message: Tyy
Looo
 AlNumanee (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yy7 

message: Please replace "citation needed" in the section "strategic importance" with  2A02:2149:A000:8200:FD54:61BD:C8BC:96FD (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks for the citation! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019 

message: 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.  Weltanschaunng 03:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBS-85 

message: Xassz (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The region is controlled by the Chinese administration. Also see WP:INFOBOXFLAG. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019 

message: 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)
thread_title:  INB discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: I can't do anything today, but, hopefully, other page watchers, such as , , and  will reply.  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Problems with article 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology from ''Cihai'' 

message: (and whoever else you can think to ping) The map  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  and also on Google Maps. I discovered this problem while I was working on some problems I saw in this map  Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I confused this map  and this map  Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops: the map in the infobox has a major omission 

message: Change aksai chin to gosthana 103.199.129.60 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

text: . No reliable source provided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020 

message: Please rename Aksai Chin to COK China occupied Kashmir 2405:201:2804:DFB5:D58C:76A0:4898:5796 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: Already done Ed6767 talk! 11:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: I spent an hour estimating the location of the Karakash river photo. Karakash river photo was likely taken at , see this image. If true, this actually makes the photo of "Yarkand River," not Karakash. --Voidvector (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1962 war map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Languages field in the infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinese-administered Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinese Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Kashmir, China" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinese-occupied Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinese Occupied Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinese-controlled Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "China administered Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Chinese administered Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "China occupied Kashmir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Country: INDIA
Flag: Tiranga Rkvinjamuri (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020 

message: Apparently India is annoyed that we say it is under Chinese administration. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page makes the news 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Chinese and Uyghur script in lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aksai chin 

message: 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)
replies: text: - thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023 

message: 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.Himalaya Times, " China provokes India, includes Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin in new 'standard map' ", p.3, 30 August 2023. Asian News International, 29 August, Beijing. 2400:1A00:B050:923C:7040:BFB3:618D:AA28 (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's August 2023 "standard map" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More correct opening, shift map 

message: Are you ok with changing  to ? This is what Alastair Lamb said and his quote is used by multiple other scholarly sources as well. Editorkamran (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Van Eekelen knows that these people went from India. What is your objection to it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 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. Editorkamran (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Eekelen cites Lamb throughout the book and even on the same chapter which you are citing. Its not other way around. Lamb writes: "" 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 and A.G. Noorani. Why it shouldn't be included on this article when other scholars are also citing it? Editorkamran (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomads

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead and body differ on what Aksai Chin is 

message: Aksai Chin is Part of India and controlled by India 183.87.211.78 (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible source of the name Aksai Chin