Talk:Line of Actual Control

Proposed merge of Patrol Point into Line of Actual Control
The LAC and PPs are closely linked. DTM (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Bhai, Many years ago I had also added details of major passes, all Border Personnel Meeting points, and sector by sector details of disputed areas, etc. It use to be a grand article. Seems later it was partitioned out into many articles such as Line of Actual Control, Sino-Indian border dispute, Border Personnel Meeting point and Patrol Point. Ask, he has been watching, he may know the reasons of partitioning. I am okay if you guys decide to merge or leave it separate. However, I agree at least Patrol Point and Border Personnel Meeting point should be merged into Sino-Indian BPM and PP points or whatever name you like. Please note that five BPM are spread across the entire LAC/IB with China from DBO/Karakoram near Siachin to Kibithu in southeast Arunachal, whereas Patrol Points in the article as of now are spread across only Aksai Chin sector, perhaps there are PP for other sectors too. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's add one more article to this — Differing perceptions DTM (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Patrol Points" should definitely go here, as do "Differing perceptions". They are an integral part of the LAC discussion. Border Personnel Meeting Points are not. They are either some goodwill exercise or negotiation venues. They are not about border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

A Chinese proposal; line to zone
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)
 * "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)

Notional demarcation line
, can you explain why you removed the term "notional" in the lead sentence? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: thanks for asking! I think "notional demarcation line" is accurate but very complex language. I tried to explain it more gently by starting with the fact that it's a demarcation line (which I think is true, even if's a very fuzzy and debated one) and then in the next sentence explaining the important fact that its position is disputed. Perhaps we could change that second sentence to make it stronger? I am not super familiar with the sources here.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I think about it more, I see your point more strongly. I'm working on another edit now.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. I ended up changing a bunch of other things, but the main thing for this discussion is that I changed the first sentence to call the LAC a "boundary" rather than a "demarcation line". To me, "boundary" conveys a sence of fuzziness that "line" does not, and the link to demarcation line was not very helpful either because that article just seems like an arbitrary list of other geopolitical "lines". I also changed the next sentence to say it's "heavily disputed" rather than just that the sides "do not fully agree" because that more accurately reflects the heat involved. I hope you find this satisfactory, but if not, we can keep trying to find something better.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

, I agree that the need for "notional" has reduced, once the "demarcation line" term is removed. But I believe you still do not understand the situation correctly. Your text below is still not supported by the sources:


 * Where is any source saying that it is "poorly demarcated"? On the contrary, the first source has said "it is not agreed upon by the two countries, neither delineated on a map or demarcated on the ground". That is a far cry from "poorly demarcated". In fact, the same journalist has tweeted this: "The best line I have heard on the LAC in Ladakh was from a recently retired former Indian ambassador to China in an off the record conversation: "There is no LAC. Period. There is no mutually agreed line. And either side can thus make any claims it wants.""
 * "Disputed" is clear, but it is not only disputed in skirmishes. Even without skirmishes, the patrols of the two sides often run into each other and dispute it. There are standard procedures devised for how they should dispute it!
 * Skirmishes occur, not because of disputes, but because one side, generally China, decides to hammer down its idea of the LAC. (In a way, that is also how the 1962 war happened. It was "claim line" at that time, rather than the LAC, but the modalities were the same.)

You really need to come to grips with the "notional" aspect. Here is one source:

Moreover, this ambiguity is part of China's policy:

So, China does not want to agree an LAC. It will either live with the ambiguity or try to hammer it down when it pleases. Under these circumstances, it is not acceptable to pretend that there is in fact an LAC. The term "notional" is the right way of making it clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A certain sanctity
, 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)

Re inline usage of M. Fisher and L. Menon
, I had changed M. Fisher to L. Menon because of the citation that Fisher uses. The citation directs to Menon's article in the National Herald dated 1963. Further, Fisher starts off the sentence with "For India...". Therefore writing that only Fisher writes this is partly misleading. This isn't a big point or big issue. Retaining only Fisher can be seen as plausible, but I thought best to clarify. DTM (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * India is a party in the dispute and so are any Indian officials. Fisher is a WP:THIRDPARTY. You are downgrading the claim by changing the attribution. Fisher writes:
 * I don't see the italicised part as being attributed to India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Fisher-coauthored book, we find:
 * So, it is not as if Fisher didn't know and needed and Indian minister to tutor her!
 * And, Hoffman says:
 * This is the case in particular, in Depsang Bulge, where the so-called "1959 line" is beyond any posititon reached by the Chinese. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And, Hoffman says:
 * This is the case in particular, in Depsang Bulge, where the so-called "1959 line" is beyond any posititon reached by the Chinese. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the case in particular, in Depsang Bulge, where the so-called "1959 line" is beyond any posititon reached by the Chinese. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Lines of Actual Control
Does Lines of Actual Control need to be created, redirected to this page? DTM (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)