Talk:Dzungarian Gate

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

[Untitled][edit]

Created this page to refer to the Kazakh/Chinese geographical feature as distinct from the Chinese border town of Alashankou.μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template map for Kazakhstan[edit]

The Dzungarian Gate in Kazakhstan.
The Dzungarian Gate in Kazakhstan.
Dzungarian Gate
class=notpageimage|
The Dzungarian Gate in Kazakhstan.

Hyperborea[edit]

Obviously, this section is currently very much a work in progress. μηδείς (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand here is that I'd expect Hyperborea to be the most northward (boreal) place possible. But on the map, you are actually going southeast if you follow this valley from the west into Eastern lands. Some clarification is needed... Wnt (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The valley itself is only 43 miles long. Its overall location is to the north of and far to the east of Greece. So the fact that the valley itself runs south east for 43 miles if you enter it from the west has little to do with its being the home of the north wind, Boreas.

The name Boreas itself is of unknown origin. (J P Mallory speculates that the name may come from a PIE root for mountain - I'll add that to the srticle.) But the connotation of it meaning north comes from the fact that the winter wind, Boreas, was seen as living in the north, and not the other way around. That is, the name Boreas of the cold winter wind, who lived in the north, became the name of the north itself. And the usage of the term Boreal to mean northern is a modern one, not an ancient greek one.

I first read about the Dzungarian Gate in a source (which, unfortunately, I cannot recall) which said that if, during winter time, you set out from Greece facing into the north wind, and kept walking with your face always in the wind, you would eventually find yourself walking into the Dzungarian Gate between its mountain walls. The wind is produced by a high pressure zone stationary over Mongolia in the winter. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This whole hypothesis sounds nonsensical on several fronts. The most obvious is that the location isn't to the north, but there is no need to stop there. "With legend describing the people who live on the other side of this home of the North Wind as a peaceful civilized people who eat grain and live by the sea, the Hyperboreans have been identified by some as the Chinese". The Chinese are not on the other side of the Gate - they lived far, far away. While they did eventually conquer Xinjiang, that only happened in the Tang dynasty, some thirteen centuries after the days of Aristeas. Nor is there any reason to think the sea referred to is the Pacific. The gate is close to the Eurasian pole of inaccessibility and thus by definition far away from ANY ocean. The Pacific is extremely far away - both the Indian Ocean and the Arctic Sea are closer. Even a cursory look at that period in Chinese history shows that the Chinese culture was fractured at the time, de facto consisting of many smaller states, many of whom had no sea access whatsoever. Moreover, these states fought several wars amongst each other, putting the statement of the Chinese of the time being "peaceful" into question. But mostly the Chinese have never been a "sea people". Like many other ancient cultures, China thrived and centred in an area of river plains, not on the seafront. The major cities were on rivers, not by the sea. The whole idea that ancient Chinese lived by the sea is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.37.67.186 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's nonsensical. It's a mass of original research, synthesis, and cherrypicking. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lake alakol[edit]

The picture of lake Alakol is a much, much smaller lake in a different country. Replacement by a picture of the correct lake would be useful.67.171.19.182 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. The lake pictured is properly identified. I do believe there are several lakes by this name. In any case, see the main article, Lake Alakol.μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought you meant in the main picture. You are correct, the pictured alakol was from kyrgyzstan, and will be removed. Thanks!μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits - yes, I mean you[edit]

My thanks for everyone for the universally positive recent edits, which have added much value to this page.μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation map[edit]

One of the biggest problems of this article has been the difficulty of finding a free image to serve as a map of the area of the Dzungarian Gate. Maps large enough to indictae to a general reader where in Eurasia the valley lies will omit details as small as lake Alakol. Finding a map of any size that labels the valley has been difficult enough, not to mention the need to find one not under copyright protection. Currently the plain line-drawn map of Kazakhstan serves - one hopes - to orient the reader to the Caspian sea at least. The satellite image familiarizes the reader with the outline of Lake Alakol which he can then recognize on the elevation map. Yes, the descrpition of how to find the valley on the elevation map is beyond awkward, but given the lack of relevant labelling one does one's best. I struggled at least a half hour with the language, and inserted and deleted the terms "just" and "directly" to qualify "left of the D in Dsungarei." That another editor has just restored and then reverted the phrasing "just left of the D in Dsungarei" makes me laugh and reassure myself that my thought processes are not too alien. I believe it is best to leave out the qualification "just" since we wouldn't describe the letter n, which is the same distance in the other direction, as "just right of the letter D

Given the necessarily awkward nature of the directions to the reader, we must forgo trying to pack in as much information in the comment as possible, cramming things as full as possible with tidbits and links being a practice of which I am otherwise greatly in favor.μηδείς (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my2c:

metric measures[edit]

I already added conversions for all actual measurements and estimates not within quotes. The verbatim quotes, which are narratives, not measurements of actual distances in any case, do not need conversions, and since they are verbatims they should not be altered. Linkifying the terms feet and mile is sufficient for those unfamiliar with the terms.μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EAR request[edit]

Members of the ERA team have commented on editor requests concerning this article and have made their recommendations at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Inclusion of SI Units in Dzungarian Gate. --Kudpung (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead[edit]

According to WP:Lead the first paragraph should introduce the subject and its most interesting/controversial aspects. The lead should convince the reader why they should be interested in reading more.

From WP:Lead:

The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time context. Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article.

That is, the first paragraph should mention the broadest points, not the specific details of one part of the article.

The original structure of the lead was

  • (1st pgph) define as geographically (only gate in 300 miles) and historically (association with hyperboreans) significant
  • (2nd pgph) detail on geography
  • (3rd pgph) detail on hyperborea

This style is somewhat fractal, since the first paragraph introduces what is mentioned again in the 2nd and third. But the purpose is to be punchy. In the original, by the third sentence, the reader knows only gate in whole central asia, and hyperboreans. He may be interested enough to read more. The new lead written by Wnt divides the three paragraphs into logically coherent topics, but this has the detrimental effect of leaving the reader to the third paragraph before he ever hears of the hyperboreans - if he bothers reading that far. Having read the first paragraph he won't even have read Carruther's dramatic "only gate" statement. He will only have read of a ho-hum pass in the mountains and already have been hit with the detail of the exact name of the sub-sub-province in China where the pass is located.

If this article were being written for a captive audience who were required to read it from beginning to end, a purely logical division structure would be excellent, and the dramatically interesting bits could be left to the end. But our readers are not captive. They should be sold the idea of reading the entire article by being given the dramatic points in general up front, and then have the details explained afterwards.

With the motive of emphasizing reader interest, and in accord with the policy of WP:Lead I am going to revert to the original version.

Within that structure I welcome suggestions for improvement.μηδείς (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I try to read WP:Lead as little as possible, but I would contend that the advice for the first paragraph to "unambiguously define the topic" and "give the location and time context" means that it should say that the pass is on the border of Kazakhstan and the People's Republic of China. The way you have it, you load people up with [historical?] China, Central Asia, Manchuria, Afghanistan, Hyperborea, and the technically correct but rather little-known Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and because the map doesn't show the international border either the readers have to do a lot of mental sorting to try to put the place in its place.
I would further suggest that the language of WP:Lead quoted also suggests that you might say that it is a fault line, a rift valley, and a former strait from the West Siberian Glacial Lake in the lead, perhaps even in the first paragraph.
As for the "dramatic points", well, I think this is a matter of opinion. The role of the area in some kind of migrations along the northern branch of the Silk Road sounds a lot more interesting to me than what seems like a fairly unproven theory about the site of a lost epic poem. For that matter, considering the sort of juicy politics Xinjiang is known for, I suspect there's quite a bit of modern drama also.
Anyway, I'm not greatly drawn to make a debate of this - I'll leave it to you to redo some of my editing or not. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There had been a mention of the strike-slip fault in the second paragraph. It could be restored. Here is what the body of the text says:

Geologically, the valley of Dzungarian Gate was created by the active strike-slip Dzungar fault system.[16] In strike-slip faults the blocks slide past each other laterally, and in this case they do so in a counter-clockwise direction or dextrally,[17] similar to the famous San Andreas Fault.

Remarking on it as a geological and physical phenomenon, Carruthers continues:"[T]he Dzungarian Gate is as unusual as that of the Jordan depression. They are both examples of a rift-valley caused by the movement of the earth's crust, not by the action of water. This valley once formed the connecting link between the drainage of Dzungaria and that of Southern Siberia. The chain of lakes at either end of the valley (Balkash, Ala Kul, Ebi Nor, etc.), are the remains of the great Asiatic Mediterranean Sea; if their waters were to rise a few hundred feet they would break through the Gate, flooding the plains to the north and south.[18]" Myself, I would add something like it is a strike-slip valley, similar in ways to the Jordan Valley and the San Andreas Fault.μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is this the same as the Wushao Ling Pass?[edit]

Or not? — LlywelynII 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wushaoling is on the way between present-day central China and present-day northwest China. The pass in the article is between northwest China and Kazakhstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.37.67.186 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The outside source link is no longer valid. Does anyone know how to work that site to get the new link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.253.193 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dzungarian_Gate&oldid=1204801552"