Talk:String of Pearls (Indian Ocean)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title violates NPOV[edit]

SOP is an Indian concept. In order to be balanced we must use the PRC term Maritime Silk Road. So please move the article. Hcobb (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support keeping the Maritime Silk Road separate from the String of Pearls. The String of Pearls is a theory promoted by American and Indian think tanks and media, while the Maritime Silk Road is an actual project by the Chinese government. I have added a merge template so hopefully we'll get some other opinions as well. Yi Ding (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to String of Pearls (Indian Ocean)[edit]

Since there have been multiple people who have supported a move away from the String of Pearls (China) title, I've moved the article to the more NPOV String of Pearls (Indian Ocean) to reflect the fact that it's not a Chinese strategy but rather a strategy speculated by both the US thinktank community and the Indian media. Yi Ding (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did Walvis Bay move to the Indian Ocean? http://www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php?id=20409&page_type=story_detail&category_id=1 Hcobb (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting link. Strictly speaking I don't think the Namibian base is part of the "String of Pearls" as espoused by Indian and American sources. Also, the report may be unfounded: http://en.people.cn/n/2014/1127/c90883-8815148.html In general, I think the Indian media that talks about the string of pearls is primarily worried about Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean... That said, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the name again or merging the page with some kind of "Chinese overseas military bases and relationships" or something like that. Yi Ding (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]