Talk:Tianshuihai

Tianshuihai

I think the lake called 'Tianshuihai' is in these maps to the immediate northeast of Mapo Tāng[1]/Thaldat Mapho Tāng [2]Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true! It is pretty common to have multiple names for places along Chinese borders. If you look at South China Sea, a lot of the the islands have 2, if not more, names. Some Chinese still refer to Vladivostok using its old Chinese name when it was a Manchu fishing village.

The few names along the highway here are also studied by Chinese geologists, which publish studies in English (e.g. [3]). You can also search there for the equivalent names. --Voidvector (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might expand this article to include those two terms. I was able to identify the location of 甜水海铅锌矿 (Tianshuihai lead zinc mine) with high confidence with this image. The "double line" in that image going NE-SW is the road. This means Tianshuihai area encompasses the half of the basin. --Voidvector (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Army service station price

For those wondering the price of lodging at the army service station, in 2016, they charged 100 RMB for a bed and 50 RMB for a meal. Supposedly double the price of the offering at the town over.[4] --Voidvector (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Macartney–Macdonald Line

The Macartney–Macdonald Line is not recognized in Qing Empires.

Follow write in Aksai Chin#History

... The British presented this line, known as the Macartney–MacDonald Line, to the Chinese in 1899 in a note by Sir Claude MacDonald. The Qing government did not respond to the note.^[1]

... In 1927, the line was adjusted again as the government of British India abandoned the Johnson line in favor of a line along the Karakoram range further south. ^[2] However, the maps were not updated and still showed the Johnson Line.^[2]

... At this point the British had still made no attempts to establish outposts or control over the Aksai Chin, nor was the issue ever discussed with the governments of China or Tibet, and the boundary remained undemarcated at India's independence.^[2]

LuciferAhriman (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are reproducing cherry-picked content from the Macartney-MacDonald Line page into all Aksai Chin pages. You can just link to it and say how it affects the subject (if it affects it at all). Also note the banner template at the top of that page, that warns you that that page does not reflect all viewpoints. The "discuss the issue" link also takes you to a talk page discussion that describes Calvin as "student research" and therefore not a reliable source, especially not for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Woodman 1969, p. 102: The proposed boundary seems never to have been considered in the same form again until Alastair Lamb revived it in 1964
^ ^a ^b ^c Calvin, James Barnard (April 1984). "The China-India Border War". Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Archived from the original on 11 November 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-14.

Someone insists on NPOV, so he think that Tianshuihai in Aksai Chin must use Kashmir map first. But it's not fair that Leh in Ladakh, Gilgit in Gilgit-Baltistan, and Skardu in Baltistan didn't use Kashmir map first. If Leh in Ladakh, Gilgit in Gilgit-Baltistan, and Skardu in Baltistan also use Kashmir map first, I have nothing to say, otherwise the first map should be the principle of current administered-control country.

LuciferAhriman (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fact that the British had still made no attempts to establish outposts or control over the Aksai Chin during the British Raj.

LuciferAhriman (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that it is ideal to display the Kashmir map first, because it is a smaller region and conveys better the significance of this location for its history as well as the current events. This is not a question of "fairness". We are here, after all, to provide information to the readers, not to carry flags for any particular country. If it is misleading or wrong, then we should of course correct it, but it is not so in this case.

Note that maps for Leh etc show the entire Kashmir region, not just the territory under a particular country. There is colour-coding to show which country is administering the location, but the entire Kashmir region is still included. The Xinjiang map does not do that.

This is not a traditional part of Xinjiang anyway. See, for example, Stanford's map of the Chinese Empire, 1908. So, no reason to give priority to Xinjiang. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you also update the Kashmir map first on Gilgit and Skardu Wikipedia website? Xinjiang is to large, so I show "China Xinjiang Southern" is better. By the way, Srinagar Wikipedia website also not show Kashmir map first for neutrality and NPOV.

LuciferAhriman (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTEWoodman1969102-1] Woodman 1969, p. 102: The proposed boundary seems never to have been considered in the same form again until Alastair Lamb revived it in 1964

[Calvin-2] Calvin, James Barnard (April 1984). "The China-India Border War". Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Archived from the original on 11 November 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-14.

[1]

[2]