Open main menu

Talk:China–Pakistan Economic Corridor


Caspian regionEdit

The article talks about a link from the Caspian Sea to the Straits of Hormuz. At a glance this looks like some Romney geography, since the Caspian Sea is north of Iran, bordering neither China nor Pakistan. What the source actually says is "Caspian region", but I think they mean something broader than the Caspian Depression ... maybe. And it says it "improves existing links" to the landlocked region. In short, it's not a very good source, making a brief allusion to something that really could use a better explanation. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming by Caspian Sea, it is referring to Central Asia which lies north to Pakistan, while Straits of Hormuz is a reference to the Persian Gulf which lies southwest of Pakistan's coast. So it is basically discussing the potential connection between Central Asia and the Gulf region. Mar4d (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Map neededEdit

A map showing the proposed route would really add to this article. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If I understand the above template correctly, our request should be visible to the cartographically-skilled section of the Wikipedia community. (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Map issueEdit

  • Map has been removed as it was showing "Indian administered Kashmir" as "Indian occupied Kashmir" as such terms like "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" and "Indian Occupied Kashmir" are not be used on Wikipedia articles. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Central AlignmentEdit

The portion on Central Alignment should be expanded. Otherwise it is a mere stub and should be included in the "Other projects" section of CPEC roadway projects. Willard84 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring it in the light of Planning commission of Pakistan official site. Baltistani478 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC) block-evading sockpuppet

Motorway tablesEdit

A user has been repeatedly inserting motorway tables from the Pakistani Motorways wiki page. The table is not relevant to CPEC in its form since it includes numerous projects not part of CPEC such as the Northern Bypass/M-10 near Karachi which have never been mentioned as part of CPEC at all.

M1/M2/M3 have already been completed and are not part of CPEC either. M7 is not part of CPEC either. (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Weasel word insertionEdit

contributor Kautilya3 is repeatedly inserting weasel words in his/her edits regarding Baloch nationalist opposition to the project. The author not only uses the word "Punjabi dominated" government, but also uses words like "miniscule portion" and "internal colony" simply because it was written by some Indian author in a book. Such weasel wording is not permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

They are all phrases used in the source. Moreover, there is nothing WP:WEASEL about them. They are terms with reasonably precise meaning. On the other hand, you have been edit-warring, repeatedly deleting well-sourced content based on your personal opinions. This is no good. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 I have looked through the sourcing and I find it beyond poor, a source should be WP:RS before it can be considered to be above reproach and your source is not that. So the next time please take care, not to insert sources without making sure that the source is good.furthermore you have been engaging in personal attacks against this IP and have been asking people about their personal information on your TP, please do not do that again, ever. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user PprcgiEdit

User Pprcgi is repeatedly and carelessly undoing a vast amount of edits. his/her latest revisions completely deleted information regarding groundbreaking dates of Brahma Bahtar motorway, and undid clean up of "major projects" list as well. He/she also repeatedly inserts stubs and appropriates to them a completely new heading for a single sentence. Willard84 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Restored as per your justified objection. Stub issue is not justified. It is a para not sentence covered by secondary level heading. so no issue warrant discussion. Pprcgi (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) block-evading sockpuppet

It is a single sentence, but that is not even the issue. The problem is that the section is completely undeveloped. Compare your single sentence to the several paragraphs written for western/eastern alignment. 5-7 paragraphs each for those, while your paragraph is just one sentence that is almost entirely comprised of just place names. You can create a Central Alignment section, but PLEASE elaborate on the section. Add more information and not simply the proposed route. You offered no information about construction time tables, funding sources, financing, number of lanes etc etc. If you insist on placing the header, then at least make it a good section and not just a small stub.
Further, your continuous reversions are disruptive as you not only continuously re insert that one sentence, but also undo a whole host of other useful edits with factual information. You deleted new sentence that were relevant in several different sections because you undid a whole host of sourced and useful edits when you tried to re-instate your sentence. Please be more careful when reverting edits, because you're not just inserting your single sentence, you're deleting other useful information.
And further, when you revert you're re-instating extremely biased and un-sourced information added by some other user. Specifically the section "Indian attempts to sabotage CPEC" was re-instated by you, and whoever wrote that paragraph made bold and unsourced claims that India had set up a $300 million fund to sabotage CPEC without offering any proof or source whatsoever to back up that extraordinary claim. Not to mention that the heading itself is extremely biased and does not conform to wikipedia standards. Willard84 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You can expand central alignment. Your contribution will be help full. Heading of Indian sponsored terrorism is correct as per Wikipedia standards. example . Get consensus before imposing your point of view. Only then re insert your stuff. Pprcgi (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Heading of "Indian sponsored terrorism" is NOT correct because it is biased, POV. It doesnt matter if 50 Pakistanis agree, because it is still biased and POV. The paragraph I wrote which is "alleged indian activites against CPEC" is far more neutral than grand pronouncements of India engaging in terrorism based solely off allegations and an admission of guilt by yadav which no one aside from Pakistan regards as reliable. Also, the link you provide does NOT make such grand pronouncements about terrorism like your section does. The title "Pakistan's relation with militants" is far more neutral than "Indian sponsored terrorism against CPEC."
Next, the section you keep re-inserting makes the claim WITHOUT a reliable source that India has dedicated $300 million to sabotage CPEC. Please stop re-inserting such garbage without verifiable and reliable evidence/sources.
Further your continuous reverts are disruptive because you are reverting ALL changes made. Include links to Dawood wind power project etc. Willard84 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing, the "central alignment" section you wrote includes cities which are NOT even listed in the source you cited. Attock, Burhan and Mianwali are NOT listed as part of the central alignment as per your source, so please do not include those cities because that is considered unsourced information. Further, you said the Central Alignment will travel via "Basima, Khuzdar, Sukkur, Rajanpur,Dera Ghazi Khan, Layyah, Muzaffargarh, Bhakkar, Mianwali, Attock and Burhan" when in reality what is stated is that "(central) route will originate from Gwadar and reach Dera Ismail Khan via Basima, Khuzdar, Sukkur, Rajanpur, Layyah, Muzaffargarh and Bhakkar."
So the route does not travel via DI Khan. It terminates in DI Khan. Attock, Burhan, Mianwali are not part of central alignment, even by the source you quoted. Your source states that connections from DI Khan to Islamabad will be via the Western Alignment, not central alignment. Please be more careful when editing, and only include information which is in the source provided.Willard84 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
An Indian coming to disrupt Pak china economic corridor page. Indian editor why you are jealous and coming on Pakistani pages. Focus on 600 million poor's in India. I saw your editing history. You started in 2009 from Sindudesh (ANTI PAKISTANI RAW SPONSORED SINDH SEPRATIST MOVEMENT) then you tried Balawaristan (ANTI PAKISTANI RAW SPONSORED GB SEPRATIST MOVEMENT). @TripWire: @SheriffIsInTown: this user Willard84 had been adding negative stuff to the page including Baloch nationalist, security risks etc. If this heading is reasonable then why not Indian sponsored terrorism as confessed by on job Indian raw high rank officer on TV viewed worldwide. He gave complete details of Indian plans. Baltistani478 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
This is literally the dumbest accusation I've heard in a long time. Did you not even read what those first edits were? Did you even pay attention to what was edited? Or did you just look at the page and freak out? Actually look what was edited before making such ridiculous accusations based on ridiculous presumptions. By the way, have you noted who is the user who has added the most useful information to this page? Does it seem like an Indian would author huge sections and new pages related to CPEC? Such accusations are entertaining, but very weak.Willard84 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


When you can form a proper argument without resorting to hysterical abuse as to why Indian sabotage should not be mentioned then I suggest you waste someones elses time on another article. The source is reliable and is a concern to the Pakistani and Chinese government that may not fit your point of view but wikipedia is a free and fair knowledge resource which explains all sides please stop disrupting it. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:185E:14E7:36F3:AD17 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hysterical abuse," are you meaning to say that my intolerance of overtly biased and unsupported allegations is "abuse?" Maybe you can conform to wikipedia standards and not use this as a forum to vent your nationalism? Willard84 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please take your Indian nationalism elsewhere. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:E5D6:EB1B:468B:5AA6 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Another one of the dumbest accusations heard in a long time. It's a very sad sign when any balanced approach automatically gets you branded as a traitor, or that you're resorting to "hysterical abuse." Willard84 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

CPEC.jpg - really open source?Edit

User Baltistani478 included CPEC.jpg onto this page to demonstrate different corridors for this project. He/she states that the picture is direct from the Planning Commission of Pakistan and that it is open source. I suspect that government publications aren't "open source," and that this picture might be uploaded improperly. Willard84 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Chabahar port Indian comparisonEdit

I was just wondering why do Indian editors insist upon adding such huge text about a 500 million dollar port in Iran? I understand CPEC raised allot of eyebrows amongst Indians but this is not the page to compare a mouse to an elephant one day maybe India will be able to invest 46 billion dollars in another country by this is not a competition this is reality there is no comparison at all Indians may try to comfort themselves with these edits but it serves no purpose on this page add it to chabahar port page instead. (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Indian. It's quite a shame that so many of my compatriots are so easily disturbed. BTW, Chabahar is frequently cited as a rival to CPEC, so of course it deserves a mention here.
Secondly, if you think that Indian investments pale in comparison to Chinese investments, then don't you want the information and data posted here which proves that to be true? Do you have a problem with facts being presented? Because in my opinion, anyone who sees the data will conclude that CPEC is far more comprehensive. That isn't even my bias - it's self-evident when comparing $2.2 billion to $46 billion.
Don't be so threatened by facts, especially if you truly believe you're right. And don't resort to accusations against my nationality based on the facts which I've presented.Willard84 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I am a proud Indian and I must agree with the ip above including small Indian projects and writing massive paragraphs about them is undue. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:7893:E063:E448:7683 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to London. Not buying it. Clubjustin Talkosphere 04:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of OREdit

One user has suggested that including percentage calculations qualifies as original research whicch is forbidden on Wikiepedia. As per Wikipedia, O.R. includes "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. "

The last sentence is key. The calculated percentages are not "analysis or synthesis of material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Calculations do not serve to reach a conclusion not implied by sources.

Further, "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Willard84 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the percentage figure is a fact. But the idea of comparing the two using a percentage figure is your own. In fact, even the comparison might be your own. Is there a source that is comparing CPEC and Chabahar in this fashion? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
If you Google "Gwadar vs Chabahar," you'll find quite a few articles comparing the two. I'm not so clever as to have been the first to make this comparison. Just a simple google search will yield these ones that I quickly found:
"India’s investment of $500 million in the port itself is to be accompanied by a further $16 billion for a “Chabahar free trade zone,” which will incorporate rail links heading north into Afghanistan. But India's additional investment pales in comparison to China’s pledge of $46 billion to develop the Pakistani port of Gwadar, not even 125 miles from Chabahar, along with an accompanying network of railways, pipelines, and roads to connect with western China"[1]
"From a strategic point of view, Chabahar is situated just 100 km from Pakistan’s Gwadar port, the centrepiece of a $46 billion economic corridor that China is building. Though the Indian investment in Chabahar, at $500 million, does not match the scale of the Chinese project, the Chabahar port will act as a gateway for India to Central Asia bypassing the China-Pakistan arc. The long-term potential of this connectivity is immense"::[2]
Regarding the percentages, these are not considered original research:
"Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.
The recursive use of routine calculations, such as summation, products of sequences, or the calculation of averages, also do not count as original research, when interpreted by the article's reader as a summary of numerical data — i.e. when used for well-known (and consensual) forms of "numerical synthesis". In this context, the synthesis of numerical data is not original research by synthesis."
When sources have complex or technical data, and editors need to reproduce data at Wikipedia for normal people, some numerical treatment can be made. Examples:
-Use of error propagation rules when applying "routine calculation" on quantities with error values (ex. multiply 4.26 ± 0.02 by two).
-Recursive use of routine calculation over a list of numbers."


And more info here that you can read on your own.
Wikipedia:About_Valid_Routine_Calculations#Routine_calculationsWillard84 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can also read WP:SYNTHESIS which explains how even putting an "and" between two sentences can be an instance of WP:OR. What you are doing here is indeed synthesis.
Both the articles you have cited are on the Indian investment in Chabahar (not on CPEC), and they are trying to give a perspective on where it stands in the scale of things. The first article is even titled "how significant is the Iran deal?". You can't draw those comparisons out of context and insert them here. Moreover, neither of them use a percentage figure, which is your own invention and quite inappropriate for use here.
Comparisons between Gwadar and Chabahar seem perfectly reasonable. They are ports of similar kinds. But even there, it appears to me that the Gwadar port is fully Chinese-owned and Chinese-operated, essentially a Chinese base in Pakistan. That is not so for Chabahar, where, as you yourself have pointed out, it is partnership between India and Iran. Nobody imagines that Iran will ever become a client state of India and give it "bases." Perhaps Chabahar will be a "listening post" for India, but nothing of the kind has been said so far. And India has plenty of its own coastline for naval use without needing a faraway base in the Arabian sea. All these complexities are brushed under the carpet in your simple-minded percentage calculations.
I would encourage you to stick to sources, state what they say and in the contexts they say them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Willard84, your OR is not WP:CALC. Investment commitments are conditional (CPEC has several conditions too). Same is the case with China's commitments as well as India's commitments. So, you can not compare one's initial value with another's end value. And secondly, you are violating WP:SYNTHESIS, i.e.,"combining materials from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Thirdly, economic impacts are nowhere measured by just adding initial investment values. --Ghatus (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually, the Indian demand for the natural gas price seems more like a bargaining position than a "condition." But this in fact shows the commercial nature of the deal. It is not a government-to-government transaction. Once again, apples and oranges come to mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like a condition to me, because it was pretty clearly stated as such that India will invest if Iran brings it's price down to the number given by India, without using general words like "lower price." And yes, it sounds commercial. The private consortia investing in CPEC also negotiated rates for which Pakistan would buy electricity from their power plants -some of which like suki kinari area being built on no build operate transfer basis. Sounds commercial to me as well. Pakistan's government is upgrading transportation infrastructure which didn't require commercial bargaining, but even those were not dictated by China - Pakistan is simply constructing the motorway network it envisaged back in 1991. So both projects have an commercial element, but CPEC has an additional government to government component.Willard84 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


I think you're misunderstanding a few things:

1) There is no synthesis. The ideas I've presented are in those sources provided. The whole article does NOT have to be about a comparison for there to be a useful - yes, the articles are about Chabahar, but they ALSO do mention CPEC, and so nothing I've done is against the or placed out of context, because both highlight the possible importance of the project, but also acknowledge that it does not match the scope of CPEC. That is exactly in line with what I've written.

2) I think youre confusing significance with cost, and thats why you might think what I've written is against the spirit and message of those srouces.. It might look like I'm drawing unwarranted conclusions, but if you'll note, I did not in any way go against those sources by stating that the project is insignificant. All I did was remain consistent with what they wrote: which is that while being potentially important, they still do not match the value of CPEC. This is in line with both of those sources. Significance and monetary value are not the same thing, and I think you've confounded the two.

3) Refer to the sections I posted about calculations and percentages. These are NOT considered original research. Basic math isn't synthetic. As long as I don't use math to draw an illogical or unsupported conclusion, then I can include those. Nothing about the percentage figures is misleading.

4) I disagree. The port is not owned by China, it is leased to China on a contractual basis. Same with Chabahar and India. Both India and China are also paying for both ports. Implicit in the term "base" is a militaristic angle, and there is just no reliable evidence yet to suggest that. When looking at the projects, the only real difference is that China is using Gwadar as a way out of China, while India intends Chabahar to be a way IN to Central Asia. That in addition to the obvious difference in the amount being invested. You might be right in the future about it being a naval base though, but at best, those are premature conclusions without firm evidence to support that claim.

As for Iran becoming an Indian client, of course that will never happen. Iran is far wealthier and sitting on a huge amount of fossil fuels. And not to mention that Chinese economic ties with Iran are far more substantial than Indian ones. From everything I've heard, Iran is trying to avoid becoming a client state. They even have clarified the neutrality of this project. But if they would chose sides, they might chose the side that is offering way more money (China), as well as China's ambitious Silk Roads project. Willard84 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus - the calculations are not research. Refer to links above that very clearly state basic maths are permitted and are not considered OR. Secondly, yes, there are always conditions. What I calculated was the value of agreements signed. That is a fair comparison.

Next, I can see youve jumped on the synthesis bandwagon. Look at the sources posted earlier in this thread. They state the EXACT same thing as I did, which means I did not synthesize. They state that while Chabaha may be important, the value just does not compare to CPEC. That is an idea found in both those sources and was not OR by me.Willard84 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: The wording you have added today is better. As I have said, the articles you cited are trying to give a perspective on the scale. Indian readers certainly need it because this is presumably the first time that India is investing in a major infrastructure project abroad. So, an Indian newspaper certainly needs to point out that it is tiny compared to what China is investing abroad. But that is not what we are trying to do here.
Again, I repeat, comparisons between Chabahar and Gwadar are perfectly reasonable (but not between Chabahar and CPEC; Chabahar is not an "economic corridor.") But here again you may be missing key facts. Chabahar is an Iranian port, for which Iran has already spent $340 million (said to be 70% of the project) and India is doing its bit now, as agreed ahead of time. India's answer to Gwadar is a naval base at Karwar, which it is building for itself at a cost of $8 billion.[3] Chabahar is a side show.
A proper comparison between Chabahar and Gwadar should be between their economic and trading potentials and even how they compete for China's interest as detailed in references like this one.[4] I am afraid you have been barking up the wrong tree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Willard84. Percentages should be here. Pprcgi (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Willard84 the percentages give a complete picture of both projects considering its about comparing the two projects percentages should be added. If Indian editors are not comfortable with the fact that Chabahar port is minuscule compared to CPEC then maybe this section is not needed as there is no comparison in scale and cost between the two. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:A4E6:A3F:C283:FD91 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Willard84, Kautilya3 It's again a RIDICULOUS synthesis. None compares a port with an industrial corridor. It's like comparing Mumbai with Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project. Either you bring RS comparing the total economic impact of the proposed route starting from Chabahar to Afghanistan or stop this nonsense. The burden is on you. No need for childish edit wars.Ghatus (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
You right Ghatus , I deleted this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltistani478 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ghatus"None compares a port with an industrial corridor." Except all the articles posted here which state something along the lines of Chabahar is "India's answer to CPEC." There are several different Indian websites which make similar claims, so clearly not everyone agrees that you can't compare the two. And also read up on India's investment because it's not just about a port. It's India's "mini corridor" that includes a railroad to Zahedan and onwards to Masshad, as well as the Zaranj Dilaram road that India specifically built for this project.Willard84 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Poor sourcingEdit

@Willard84: Among the edits reverted by Ghatus this morning [1], I find material sourced to an "IDSA Comment," which is essentially a blog site. This is not a reliable source. It will be fine to factual information from such sources if they look like reasonably well-informed, but not opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ghatus the vandal also removed comments of the Iranian leader which were sourced from reliable sources. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:5D14:164B:83AE:526F (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Article length...some thoughtsEdit

We are probably reaching the point where we should be discussing the article's length, as it is quite long. Consider spinning out sub-articles in the future to better organise information and using summary form here. Some sections may also need to be shortened, such as the Chabahar section which in my opinion is longer than necessary. Anyone who wants to know the specifics of Chabahar should just be able to navigate to the Chabahar Port article, really. We have not seen the governments of Pakistan or Iran speculate much on the supposed comparison. It is mostly confined to forum talk, newspaper editorials or talk shows (some of it sensationalised IMO). WP:WEIGHT should be a key factor. Mar4d (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for topic/info inclusionEdit

Considering the size of this project, I suggest that info centered on potential debt issues for Pakistan should be included, as well as counter-arguments for this risk.

Return to "China–Pakistan Economic Corridor" page.