Talk:Charding Nullah

Big revert

MarkH21, I am sorry I hadn't noticed that you were editing this page. And when I did notice it, I had to revert all of it.

It looks like you are overly dependent on Lamb, and filling in stuff that he doesn't cover or doesn't know about. For instance, does he say that the 1684 treaty was with the Dzungar Khanate? Does he say that it was lost?

Lamb's limitations are well-recognized. See the Alastair Lamb page. What we would have liked to see from him is a decent explanation of why the British changed the border between between 1846 and 1868. It is quite inexplicable other than by a presumption of racism. His claims that the British surveyors were next to perfect and the Maharaja was expansionist etc. point to his own racism.

The fact is that whatever border the British on their maps made little difference to the Maharaja. The border was known to him based on customary practices, and those borders were followed.

There are plenty of other scholars who have covered the subject, even though I admit that Demchok often doesn't get the attention it deserves. I would particularly recommend the book by Fisher, Rose and Huttenback, which is the most thorough in examining the historical evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of minor organizational edits (and one removal of unreferenced content) that were also reverted, and most of the statements referenced to Lamb that aren’t already WP:INTEXT attributed to him can be so. Would restoring the edits with attribution be fine? It’s a major paper on this subject by one of the major academics on this subject.

I’ll also take a look at the other references, and add attributed statements.

Yes, Lamb says directly in the paper that the text was lost, with modern interpretations based on a few surviving references to it that only preserve some mention of the stream.
Page 38:

There can be no doubt that the 1684 (or 1683) agreement between Ladakh and the authorities then controlling Tibet did in fact take place. Unfortunately, no original text of it has survived and its terms can only be deduced. In its surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.

Page 37:

No text of this agreement between Tibet and Ladakh survives, but there are references to it in chronicles which are discussed in [...]

Page 40:

The treaty that could have given this information, that of 1684, has not survived in the form of its full text, and we have no means of determining exactly what line of frontier was contemplated in 1684. The chronicles which refer to this treaty are singularly deficient in precise geographical details.

Page 41:

The 1684 Treaty may have made a reference to “the Lhari stream at Demchok”; but as its text no longer survives, we cannot be sure that this is in fact the case.

I’ll find the quote for the Dzungars is a bit, I think it uses an alternate spelling of Zungar or something similar (one can also use a source from Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War). — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That is kind of what I mean by Lamb's limitations. He is described as a "diplomat historian" on his books. In reality, he just started as a librarian of British archives of the India Office, and started writing books about Indian affairs. His knowledge is basically limited to those archives.

Better learned historians tell us that boundaries are a European invention. The traditional border arrangements in Asia didn't use boundaries but rather depended on frontiers. Certain landmarks that mattered were mentioned in agreements. Demchok was one such. Demchok was listed as part of Ladakh way back in the 10th century. In 1684, Tibet grabbed as much territory as it could, but the Ladakhis would have insisted that they couldn't cede Demchok. So the border was placed at the "Lhari stream". This border was still being enforced by the Tibetans in the 19th century, as the 1846 boundary commission discovered.

Actually, I think the real Demchok village is probably the one on the Tibetan side. After the Lhari stream border came about, a new Demchok village probably sprang up on the Ladakhi side in order to service the pilgrims who would visit the Lhari peak on their way to Kailas-Manasarovar. A report by a Dogra official mentions that only two families were living there, in one building.

So the precise text of the 1684 treaty is quite irrelevant to settling this particular question. Lamb is probably looking for information about Aksai Chin or Pangong Lake or something, about which I can freely admit that the 1684 treaty doesn't say anything. But this doesn't have any bearing on the Demchok issue, which is specifically mentioned in the treaty. The fact that Lamb doesn't quite know what he is talking about is clear from his statements like:

The intention of the 1684 agreement was clear enough. Ladakh had attempted to annex Tibetan territory but had been repulsed. The status quo ante was now being restored. But what, exactly, was the status quo?

Ladakh didn't attempt to annex "Tibetan territory". Tibet annexed Ladakhi territory. Prior to 1684, Tibet ended at the Mayum La.

The treaty is widely referred to in dozens of sources. Possibly the Tibetan version of it is printed in McKay. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The Edward Weller map I added today, as well as the French Army map of 1911, show the Demchok village to the south of the Lhari stream. These prove my point that the "real Demchok" village is the southern one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This doesn’t prove that one is right and one is wrong, it just demonstrates that there are possibly conflicting sources and your opinion that Lamb is wrong (and the maps that also show Demchok on the stream / a boundary west of Demchok). In any case, the RSes should be presented WP:INTEXT attribution rather than with some omitted, particularly since Lamb’s work is lauded, cited, criticized, and discussed by many scholars and so represents a major viewpoint. Isn’t an attributed statement with opposing/alternative sources exactly what is due, rather than favoring certain ones?

Also, even if European-imposed borders are artificial, they’re relevant to the modern claims and (silly) conflict, and so should absolutely be mentioned in detail. The text can clearly say that this is what the British said the borders were, it’s not WP voice asserting that they are the borders. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Where "views" are DUE, we can add his views with attribution, which I already did in one instance. We are certainly not going to include every caustic remark that he throws up out of ignorance or prejudice. Scholars say he is engaged in "special pleading" (which is their term for what we call POV-pushing). Please keep in mind that his authority is limited to British records (in London). His views on Ladakhi history are of no consequence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that the European borders are "artificial". Rather, the point is that one shouldn't look for European-style borders in a 1684 treaty. Real historians know how to interpret the old documents. Lamb doesn't. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

One person called one of his works special pleading, while another calls him "a professional historian of great academic distinction". Either way, his peer-reviewed works are a part of the academic literature and represent a major viewpoint that is WP:DUE. This sounds more like you just don't like his research or qualifications personally, and/or are personally favoring some works over others. If you still disagree, we can open an RfC on whether we can include parts of Lamb's paper (which is largely a review of British maps in the region anyways), or whether they are undue caustic remarks.

But also, you haven't identified which individual remarks you object to, having only removed all of them. For example, do you object to:

Since the 1950s, Indian maps do not agree entirely with either the 1846–1847 survey or the 1868 Kashmir Atlas; the Indian claims lie 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Demchok whereas the British maps showed the border to be 10 miles (16 km) west of Demchok. The Chinese claims coincide with British surveys that placed the border 10 miles (16 km) west of Demchok

Or other specific parts that you object to, even if they were attributed? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You lambast Lamb as knowing nothing, and aren’t okay with including some of his comments here with in-text attribution, but it’s fine to include his other comments unattributed?

You’ve pointed out the objections you had below and haven’t gone further, so I’ll assume that the additions/changes not already mentioned are fine to add back. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that Lamb knows "nothing". I have been clear from the beginning that his expertise is limited to the British archives in London. Second, I didn't add any comments of Lamb in that edit. I added the instructions that Agnew and Cunningham were given by their boss: the British Resident in Lahore, Sir Henry Lawrence.

As regards the other issues, let us go through them one at a time (or two, if I can manage it). Can't do them all at once. They are tricky issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The "nothing" comment was hyperbole, but it's in reference to you saying Lamb is presumed racist, doesn't quite know what he is talking about, is not a real historian, and has knowledge limited to the British archives. It's your opinion that his expertise is solely on the British archives. But even so, you've added plenty of unattributed content from Lamb here about the general history, but objected to attributed statements from Lamb about British maps from the 19th century.

My question is: are there any more issues that you contest? For instance, the statement (quoted above) about the Indian claimed border lying 3 miles east of Demchok, and the British surveys and Chinese claims placing the border 10 miles west of Demchok. Normal practice would dictate that uncontested content remains, and edits that you haven't identified are assumed to be uncontested. If you're unsure, then just remove it once you figure out which content you want to discuss. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Other issues

Here are my comments on other changes made in your edits:

1. Weakened "frontier ... was fixed at Lhari" to "treaty, whose text no longer survives, is assumed to have placed the frontier at... Lhari". Obviously, I don't agree, and I don't accept the authority of Alastair Lamb to override genuine scholars. Y
2. Dates in section headings. I don't have a huge objection to it, but I generally want to avoid cluttering up section headings with detail. Y
3. Shortened "Kashmir Atlas: new border alignment" to "Kashmir Atlas". I suppose I can live with that. Y
4. The unsourced paragraph is verifiable from the maps, especially the high resolution Frech Army map. I think this description is important because the readers won't know where the claim line is otherwise. Y
5. The "compromise border" offered in 1899 is in Aksai Chin. It has nothing to do with Demchok or Khurnak Fort. Y
6. Most of what you have added in the "Modern claims" section is off-topic. The 1899 proposal didn't say anything about Demchok. For the 1950s Indian claim line, it should have been clear to Lamb that it is mostly replicating the 1840s boundary (of which Lamb is adulatory: "A very good idea of its alignment was derived by Strachey and Cunningham in 1846-1848" but he never bothers to explain why this good idea was discarded in 1860). Y
7. You removed my comment saying that during the world wars, China adopted the British-designated border, which is shown in the maps collected by Government of India. (The older maps don't show this.)
8. A section on "Modern claims" is certainly necessary, and I was in the process of writing it when I got sidetracked to something else. I will add what I have now, but it certainly won't be Lamb-centric. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed earlier this footnote in Lamb's book for the Kashmir Atlas discussion:

The Kashmir Atlas location of the boundary near Demchok, which is confirmed in such recent sources as Foreign Office (1920), p. 4, is not easy to explain.

So, our supreme authority on the British records has no idea why the border was changed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I numbered your previously bulleted points for ease of responding, if you don't mind.

1. Lamb isn't overriding any historical works, he's just pointing out that the original text doesn't survive and that the previous works use what surviving references to the text there are. I don't see any sources that contradict this. For instance, this paper only refers to the treaty via the Chronicle of Ladakh. The specific source cited for in the sentence you quoted says explicitly:

   Francke's edition of La dvags rgyal rabs is a patchwork with respect to the agreements made in the peace treaty

   and that the subsequent text is a very brief survey of Franke's text.
2. I agree that we don't want to clutter the sections much in general, but the years here help one organize & delineate which periods are being discussed in each subsection as is common in other History articles. Since you don't have a big objection to it, I take it you won't mind if I add them back?
3. Okay, so I'll re-implement that.
4. I don't see how you can determine the exact coordinate 32.5565°N 79.2755°E so precisely by looking at the 19th century maps. Such a description also needs to come from a source actually stating it (which plausibly exists), rather than your reading of the map. I don't think the paragraph should stay while it's only based on you reading the 19th century maps.
5. Regarding the 1899 line, Lamb says on page 39 that

   South of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown on British maps as being in Tibet

   Here, the two British lines (part of lines A + B + C) refers to line A: Advanced border as shown on the majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947 and line B: Border offered by the British to China in 1899 and marked on a number of British and other maps.
6. This point is tied directly to the 1899 line's relevance to Demchok in point 4 5. If the 1899 border is relevant to Demchok, then this point is relevant. Similarly, if the 1899 isn't relevant to Demchok, then this point isn't relevant in this article and may be better suited in another article. (I also just realized that I miscited the statement to page 39 instead of page 42)
7. Yes, because I figured that statements from an Indian government document shouldn't be stated in WP voice on an issue about Indian border disputes. However, it seems okay to include it with in-text attribution to an Indian government document. If a source from an academic source can be found to support the same claim, then even better.
8. Great, so we agree.

I'm not appraising Lamb as a supreme authority. It's just one that I read through carefully and one that has statements that should be included, attributed. I'd like other sources to be included too. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC); fixed point number 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Treaty of Tingmosgang

From the above subsection:

Weakened "frontier ... was fixed at Lhari" to "treaty, whose text no longer survives, is assumed to have placed the frontier at... Lhari". Obviously, I don't agree, and I don't accept the authority of Alastair Lamb to override genuine scholars.

— Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lamb isn't overriding any historical works, he's just pointing out that the original text doesn't survive and that the previous works use what surviving references to the text there are. I don't see any sources that contradict this. For instance, this paper only refers to the treaty via the Chronicle of Ladakh. The specific source cited for in the sentence you quoted says explicitly:

Francke's edition of La dvags rgyal rabs is a patchwork with respect to the agreements made in the peace treaty

and that the subsequent text is a very brief survey of Franke's text.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Breaking this off to enact your reorganization here, without changing the context of the above. Is this (and the points raised in the "Other issues" section below) the only part of the edits above that you contest? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC); added quotes 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't deal with 10 issues at each go. You will have to break them up into sections. Anyway, here is my response to the bullet point 1.

Lamb may or may not be overriding other scholarly works, but you are overriding them. Putting his comments in lead makes it appear as if this is the scholarly consensus.

I will have to check why this source says "patchwork". But the phrasing "fixed at Lhari stream" is clearly there. Another source for which I have notes is:

• Bray, John (Winter 1990), "The Lapchak Mission From Ladakh to Lhasa in British Indian Foreign Policy", The Tibet Journal, 15 (4): 75–96, JSTOR 43300375

On page 77, the paper gives the text of the treaty. There is no indication from Bray that this was a patchwork or an abridged version or anything of that sort. The relevant portion for our purposes is:

The boundary between Ladakh and Tibet was to be established at the Lha-ri stream in Demchog (Bde-mchog) except that the King of Ladakh would retain control of an enclave inside Tibetan territory at Minsar (Men-ser), near Lake Manasarowar. The revenue from Minsar was to finance offerings at the sacred lamps at the annual Monlam (Smon-lam) festival in Lhasa.

Counting in Fisher et al. who use a similar phrasing, we have now three sources that specialise in Ladakhi history or history in general, who are clear about, and one source who specialises in British archives who is doubtful. What would WP:NPOV be in this situation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's supported by the wording from Emmer though, and Bray does mention the source of the text in his historiography overview (page 77):

Missionary Dr. Karl Marx began studying the Ladakh chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs), in some detail [...] The first published version of the treaty appeared as an appendix to a book by the then British Joint Commissioner, Captain H. Ramsay. The text and Marx's translation of the La dvags rgyal rabs were published posthumously in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal between 1891 and 1902, and Marx's successor August Hermann Francké published a revised version as well as the first detailed history of Ladakh. Since then the Italian scholar Luciano Petech and his pupil Zahiruddin Ahmad have conducted further research into the Ladakh chronicles, including the Ladakh-Tibet-Mongol war and the 1864 treaty which concluded it

The surviving form of the text can only be traced to the Ladakh chronicles, which makes references to the text of the original treaty, and they were only ever aware of the treaty because of the Ladakh chronicles.

I understand your point that inserting which has been lost in the middle of the sentence appears to weaken the statement. It's worth noting what all of the analyses are based on though, if anything to give background. What about a short mention immediately after the sentence in the article that begins The chronicles of Ladakh mention that, at the conclusion of the Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War in 1684, Tibet and Ladakh agreed on the Treaty of Tingmosgang? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Chronicles do not simply "mention" it. They quote it. Whether they quote it in full or have abridged it is an open question. I have always assumed that it was a full quotation based on what I have read. But if Petech or Ahmed say that it is not, we can say it. Not Lamb. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is something attested by both Lamb and Emmer, and there is no evidence to the contrary at all. That means that there is no RS reason against including it, only that your initial assumption was against it. It’s an arbitrary restriction to say that this can be included only if two particular sources say it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Another academic paper:

The main Ladakhi documentary source consists of only a few words in the Ladakh royal chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs, in Francke 1926:115) [...] Unfortunately, as with the rest of these chronicles, it is impossible to know when, by whom, and for what purpose that passage was written

— MarkH₂₁^talk 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And finally, after reading Petech's The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. (1977), I found this passage about the sources:

The main source for Ladakhi history is, and always will be, the La-dvags rgyal-rabs, compiled probably in the 17th century, but continued later till the end of the kingdom and beyond.
Seven manuscripts of this work are known to exist, or to have existed.
1. - Ms.S. Bodleian Library in Oxford, Ms.Tibet, C.7. Copied in 1856 from an original belonging to the former king of Ladakh. It was published by Emil von Schlagintveit more than a century ago l. The original has disappeared, as it is not found in the library of the former royal family in the sTog palace.
2. - Ms.A. Stops with the reign of Sen-ge-rnam-rgyal. It was partly published and translated by K. Marx 2. No longer available.
3. - Ms.B. Consisting of four leafs only and dealing with the second dynasty down to the Dogra conquest. No longer available.
4. - Ms.C. Compiled at the end of the 19th century by Munshi dPal-rgyas, who added to it three appendixes dealing with the Dogra conquest. No longer available.
5. - Ms.L. British Museum, Oriental Collection 6683. It carries the tale to the reign of bDe-ldan-rnam-rgyal, with the addition of a bare list of the later kings down to the Dogra conquest.
All these manuscripts were utilized by A. H. Francke in preparing his standard edition (LDGR), revised by F. W. Thomas. [...]
6. - Ms. Cunningham. During his stay in Ladakh in 1847, Alexander Cunningham caused a manuscript of the Chronicle to be translated for him into Urdu; a partial English version of it was incorporated in his work [...] Neither the manuscript nor its Urdu version are available now.
7. - Ms.Sonam. In the private possession of dGe-rgan bSod- nams, a 'Bri-guh-pa monk from Lamayuru monastery.
— https://books.google.com/books/about/The_kingdom_of_Ladakh.html?id=4oduAAAAMAAJ The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. by L. Petech (1977)], page 1

and:

The only other literary source from Ladakh is the biography of sTag-ts'ah-ras-pa (TTRP), compiled in 1663.
— The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. by L. Petech (1977), page 3

This establishes that, those two being the only Ladakhi literary sources, the original treaty did not survive.

I then looked at the original Francke translation of the Ladakh chronicles and they do not quote it in full. There is a summary of it, which I won't paste here in full, but the most relevant parts are (my bolding):

Upon this the Sde-pa-g‘zun (Lhasa government),' apprehending that the King of La-dvags might once more come and bring succour, and that thus another war might ensue, desired the Hbrug-pa-Mi-pham-dban-po to go and negotiate for peace. [...] The Tibetans have come to consider that, since Tibet is a Buddhist, and Kha-chul (Kashmir) is a. non-Buddhist country, and since Buddhist and non-Buddhist religions have nothing in common and are hostile to each other, if at the frontier the King of La-dvags does not prosper, Bod (Tibet) also cannot enjoy prosperity [...] As to privileges of Kha-chul (Kashmir) [the following agreement was come to] :— The fine wool of goats of Mnah-ris-skor-gsum shall not be sold to any other country [...] Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect :— It shall be set apart to meet the expenses of sacred lamps and prayers [offered] at Lha-sa; but at Men-ser (0 MS. Smon-tsher) he king shall be his own master, so that the kings of La-dvags may have wherewithal to pay for lamps and other sacrifices at the Gans-mtsho [lake] ; it shall be his private domain. With this exception the boundary shall be fixed at the Lha-ri stream at Bde-mchog.
— Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part (Volume) II, by A. H. Francke and edited by F. W. Thomas, (1926), pages 115-116.

The key point here is the several comments like Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect. With all of these sources, the article can say that the only surviving form of the treaty was the summary given in the Ladakh chronicles (tangential: this should probably get its own article). — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you are going a bit too far with this. A. H. Francke has not been cited in the article (which would be a WP:PRIMARY source anyway), but only recent scholarly works. I don't know if Emmer originated the criticism that it is "something of a patchwork", but Ahmed says:

Although it must be admitted that Francke's edition of the Ladakh-Tibet treaty, which must be dated to the autumn of 1684, is something of a patchwork document, nevertheless, as will be seen from the Roman numerals inserted in the translation above, six main clauses or articles are discernible.

The form contained in Alex McKay, Volume 2, (produced in 1962, probably by Tibetan expatriates in India) is also similar. It lists 8 clauses. The differences are not significant.

This was not a border treaty. The Lhari stream was mentioned by name, but no other border points were, because Ladakh was being made to cede "real Demchok" and Tashigang. Sengge Namgyal had built a monastery in Tashigang, but it had now become the encampment of Tibetan-Mangolian forces. So, without this clause in the treaty, the Ladakhis might have been tempted to reacquire Tashigang. So the Lhari stream border was, from that time, rigidly enforced by Tibet even up to the time the British arrived on the scene.

The article body already states that the treaty was mentioned in the Ladakh Chronicles. I don't think anything needs to be said about it in the lead, because the treaty has not been contested by any one, not even Lamb. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The Francke source is the translation of the Ladakh Chronicles used by the subsequent authors, and shows that the Ladakh Chrinicles only summarizes the treaty (something that you challenged above). Noting that the Ladakhi summary of the treaty is the only surviving text about the treaty is relevant background for describing that the treaty prescribed the stream as the border in the article.

The precise statement that is actually factual here is that the Ladakhi summary of the treaty said the Lhari stream was the border in 1684, historians don’t know for sure if the treaty itself said that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The long footnote I added here settles the issue from my point of view. If you are not satisfied, we will have to go to WP:DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It mostly settles it, although it obfuscates that the cited sources state that their analysis is based solely on the Ladakhi chronicles, presenting a false balance that Lamb is alone in noting the limitations of the historiography. It’s a historiography aspect that is unanimously represented by all of these sources.

I presume you mean some form of WP:DR? Or are you specifically referring to WP:DRN? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lamb alone claims that the historiography is limited. The other scholars don't think so. So Lamb counts as WP:FRINGE and we don't give him undue WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lamb is not alone; Petech dedicates an entire section of his book to talking about how the Ladakhi Chronicles and the 1663 biography are the only sources that are available and the only sources on which all academic studies are based. This is further supported by Emmer and Bray. All of these sources mention in their books that their study is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles/1663 bio or a work that is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles/1663 bio. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Petech is writing a book on the entire history of Ladakh. The comments he makes in that context are not necessarily applicable to the limited issues of 1684 treaty and its implications for Demchok. If Petech has expressed doubts about the 1684 treaty's implications for Demchok, please feel free to raise them. The same goes for other scholars. The quotes I have included in the footnote state what they say about the specific issue at hand, viz., Demchok. Lamb stands out as the only who is expressing doubts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a matter of doubt; it's the uncontroversial factual statement supported by all of the scholars that: the Ladakhi Chronicles summary of the treaty gives the border as being at the Lhari stream. Their statements are all qualified as such when they discuss their own historiography and source basis. If a book says something along the lines of "the following is based on the Ladakhi Chronicles account of the events / treaty" and then later states "the border is at the Lhari stream", then you can't assert that the book is saying that "the treaty says the border is a the Lhari stream". That's a misrepresentation of the source. If you still disagree on this basic historiographical fact, then let's open DR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1899 line

Regarding points 5 and 6, the map in Lamb-1965 is utterly confusing. See Map 3 in

• Lamb, Alastair (1973), The Sino-Indian Border in Ladakh (PDF), Australian National University Press

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That map caption only describes it in the western sector, and Demchok is further south/east of the shown area. It doesn’t contradict the 1965 Lamb claim. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a what claim there is in Lamb 1965. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote in my response to point 5 about the Indian claim being largely similar to the British lines A and B, except for its claim of possession of Demchok and Khurnak. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. But, what is the claim regarding the "1899 line" in Lamb-1965? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That the 1899 line (Line B) had Demchok and Khurnak as being in Tibet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Line B is terminating near Lanak La. It is not going to Demchok or Khurnak. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Line B is included in Line ABC, which runs towards Demchok and Khurnak, and Lamb’s caption literally says

South of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown on British maps as being in Tibet

— MarkH₂₁^talk 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

He probably confused himself with that complicated map. The Map 8 (p. 86-87) in the ANU report shows the "terminus of the 1899 line" near Lanak La. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. We can say something along the lines of A 1965 paper by Lamb says that [previous content about 1899 line & maps showing Demchok in Tibet], although sources XYZ state that the 1899 line terminated at ___ This seems reasonable and represents what the sources say. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You are joking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s clearly stated by Lamb. Whether he was confused or not, we don’t know. Speculation isn’t enough to reject a peer-reviewed academic paper, even if it’s partially contradicted by other sources.

The statement from my original edit:

The majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947, as well as a compromise border offered in a British note to the Chinese government in 1899, showed both Demchok and Khurnak as being in Tibet.

was about a variety of maps, including the 1899 line, which is what the 1965 Lamb paper directly says. Providing the counter point from other sources is more than enough to demonstrate to the reader the WP:BALANCE of claims. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Let us focus on the 1899 line right now. You have been here long enough to know WP:NPOV and WP:VNOTSUFF. So, you need to make the effort to find enough sources that back up the claim that the 1899 line went to Demchok. One confused line in one source (which is contradicted by the same author elsewhere) is dubious, and doesn't cross the bar for inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You're basing an exclusion of an in-text attributed (we can even quote it) statement from a peer-reviewed academic paper on you believing that he is confused based on circumstantial evidence, not on RSes directly saying that he is wrong. There isn't a burden of finding multiple RSes to support the statement that a particular source said something (in particular, about something which you claim is his sole domain of knowledge - British archive maps). — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Remaining issues

@Kautilya3: It seems that the only remaining issues from the revert are:

1. Mentioning that the original text of the Treaty of Tismosgang no longer exists
2. Lamb stating that the British "1899 line" maps also includes Demchok & Khurnak in Tibet
   • The additional point of the relevance of the 1899 line in modern claims is dependent on the resolution of point 2.

Our prolonged discussion on these points does not seem to be coming towards a resolution, so shall we just open an RfC on them? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The first issue is certainly ripe for an RfC or DRN, as you wish. The second one is not. If you do an RfC for it at this stage, without even looking for any sources, I think you will start building up a reputation as a POV pusher. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What? It's a WP:INTEXT attributed statement that Lamb said that "the 1899 line includes ____" on the basis of Lamb's peer-reviewed paper. It's not an assertion that the 1899 line actually includes ___. Requiring that there are other RSes that say "Lamb said that the 1899 line includes ___" isn't the typical standard. One doesn't need a source that says Lamb interprets this as a "compromise" to support that phrase – you added it the article because Lamb's paper itself says "compromise".

I'm not trying to push any POV, I'm just trying to reflect what published peer-reviewed sources precisely say. That's pretty different from claiming that a historian's writings are inexplicable other than by a presumption of racism.

It seems we also disagree on this being verifiable. It's not directly cited, and based on your reading of the 19th century maps. Remember that WP:CHALLENGE says (bolding mine):

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Plus, can you really tell from the map that there is a spur at the exact coordinates 32.5565°N 79.2755°E / 32.5565; 79.2755 from that map? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do RfC's please go ahead. You don't need my agreement for them.

But can you split this discussion into multiple sections please? It has become huge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is only four or so comments long? Also, do we really need an RfC for requiring that that paragraph is inline cited? That's verbatim policy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the nonexistence of the Treaty of Tingmosgang

To what extent should the article mention that the 1684 Treaty of Tingmosgang might no longer exist? 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: State that the original text of the treaty no longer exists and that the current historiography of the treaty can only be traced to the summary given in the Ladakhi Chronicles (La-dvags rgyal-rabs).
• Option 2: State that the original text of the treaty might no longer exist and that the current historiography of the treaty can only be traced to the summary given in the Ladakhi Chronicles (La-dvags rgyal-rabs).
• Option 3: State that the current historiography of the treaty can only be traced to the summary given in the Ladakhi Chronicles (La-dvags rgyal-rabs).
• Option 4: State in a footnote that Alastair Lamb expresses doubt (current status quo)
• Option 5: None at all.

Survey

• Option 1 (otherwise 2, 3, 4, then 5): The only surviving primary documents of the period are the Ladakh Chronicles and a 1663 biography that predates the treaty. This is attested to by Historian Luciano Petech and John Bray (bolding mine):

  The main source for Ladakhi history is, and always will be, the La-dvags rgyal-rabs, compiled probably in the 17th century, but continued later till the end of the kingdom and beyond. [...] The only other literary source from Ladakh is the biography of sTag-ts'ah-ras-pa (TTRP), compiled in 1663.
  — Petech, Luciano (1977). The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. p. 1,3.

  The prime source for this period is the La-dvags-rgyal-rabs a royal chronicle which was first compiled in the 17th century and updated into the 19th century.
  — Bray, John (2005). "Introduction: Locating Ladakhi History". In Bray, John (ed.). Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. Vol. 9. Brill Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9789004145511.

This is further seen when historian Gerhard Emmer, in 2007, describes the historiography of the body of academic literature on this subject as being based on the Ladakh Chronicles and its translaitons:

Missionary Dr. Karl Marx began studying the Ladakh chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs), in some detail [...] The first published version of the treaty appeared as an appendix to a book by the then British Joint Commissioner, Captain H. Ramsay. The text and Marx's translation of the La dvags rgyal rabs were published posthumously in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal between 1891 and 1902, and Marx's successor August Hermann Francké published a revised version as well as the first detailed history of Ladakh. Since then the Italian scholar Luciano Petech and his pupil Zahiruddin Ahmad have conducted further research into the Ladakh chronicles, including the Ladakh-Tibet-Mongol war and the 1864 treaty which concluded it
— Emmer, Gerhard (2007), "Dga' Ldan Tshe Dbang Dpal Bzang Po and the Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal War of 1679-84", Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, 2003. Volume 9: The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Terrains in Inner Asia, BRILL, pp. 81–108, ISBN 978-90-474-2171-9

There is no reason to suppose that the treaty actually still exists somewhere, if the historians agree that all of their analyses were solely based on Ladakh Chronicles' account of the treaty. Furthermore, the text of the treaty is not preserved in the Ladakh Chronicles; it is only given in a summary (bolding mine):

Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect :— [...] With this exception the boundary shall be fixed at the Lha-ri stream at Bde-mchog.
— Francke, August Hermann (1926). Thomas, F. W. (ed.). Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part (Volume) II. pp. 115–116.

Historian Alastair Lamb clearly states that the original treaty does not exist, while the reliability of the Ladakh Chronicles is also questioned by Bray (bolding mine):

There can be no doubt that the 1684 (or 1683) agreement between Ladakh and the authorities then controlling Tibet did in fact take place. Unfortunately, no original text of it has survived and its terms can only be deduced. In its surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Lamb, Alastair (1965), "Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute" (PDF), The Australian Year Book of International Law: 37–52, p. 38.

No text of this agreement between Tibet and Ladakh survives, but there are references to it in chronicles which are discussed in [...]
— p. 37

The treaty that could have given this information, that of 1684, has not survived in the form of its full text, and we have no means of determining exactly what line of frontier was contemplated in 1684. The chronicles which refer to this treaty are singularly deficient in precise geographical details.
— p. 41.

However, the rGyal-rabs is full of gaps and inconsistencies, particularly for the period before the 17th century.
— Bray, John (2005). "Introduction: Locating Ladakhi History". In Bray, John (ed.). Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. Vol. 9. Brill Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9789004145511.

TLDR: The entire body of academic literature on the Treaty of Tingmosgang is based on the summary given in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Petech wrote that the Ladakhi Chronicles and a 1663 biography are the only surviving texts from the period, and Lamb additionally asserts that the original treaty no longer exists. This historiographical fact is important background since the text of the summary of the treaty is presented in the history of the border dispute and as a basis for the modern Indian claims. Its inclusion is necessary for the "Lhari stream" statement to be factually accurate, and omission of the source of the wording would be WP:UNDUE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC); update w/ Bray quotes 07:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - Given that the topic of this article is Charding Nullah (called "Lhari stream" in the historical sources), the pertinent information here is what the scholars say about the topic, which is summarised in the footnote 19. Scholars may have other concerns with the surviving form of the 1684 treaty, but they are not the concern of this page. The article is very clear that the information comes from the Ladakh Chronicles. So I don't see why there is any issue here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per MarkH₂₁ Idealigic (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Why not describe the history in detail? Nobody claims that this is false so there is no issue with it. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The first option looks to be more suitable for that, as some other users mentioned, too. In the meanwhile, it is a true matter as AnomalousAtom said "Why not describe the history in detail?"... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: This RfC was spun-off from the "Treaty of Tingmosgang" section above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Re The article is very clear that the information comes from the Ladakh Chronicles. So I don't see why there is any issue here.: The article currently omits, without substantial reason, the historical context of how the modern body of knowledge on the treaty is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles. The article also currently omits, without substantial reason, how the Ladakhi Chronicles only summarizes the treaty from a Ladakhi source.
  It also presents a false dichotomy between Lamb and the other sources in a long footnote, when there is no contradiction between them: sources say that the Ladakh Chronicles summarizes the treaty border as being at the Lhari stream, while Lamb and Petech both say that the treaty text no longer exists but that the Ladakh Chronicles summarizes the treaty border as being at the Lhari stream. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kashmir Atlas boundary

Boundary shown in the French Army Map of 1911

Boundary shown in a US Army map of 1954, based on Survey of India map of 1945

Here is a blow-up of the French Army map around Demchok. It is clearly visible that the border is a water-shed, one one side of which waters flow into the Koyul Lungpa river and the other side of which flow into the Indus river. One can go to any terrain map and find the highest points on the ridges to find the coordinates.

What is not easy to figure out the lower end of the boundary, where it leaves the ridge line to go down to the Indus Valley. The present Chinese claim line, which can also be seen in Google and OSM, mostly agrees with this line, except that it doesn't leave the ridge line before reaching the end. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:OR combining your analysis of a 1911 French Army map and other terrain maps to draw a conclusion about the 1847–1864 Kashmir Survey conducted by the British surveyors. Furthermore, it does not have a inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution that is explicitly required by WP:V when challenged. It has to be removed, and can be replaced when you find a source that supports your OR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)o

Ok, I accept that I need to do some more work to establish the link between the Kashmir Atlas and the French Army map shown here. But otherwise, the text is describing the map, and then map itself serves as the citation for the description. It is a published source. (I can remove the coordinates if you wish. They are not needed any more since we have a blow-up of the map that can be easily seen.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The map is a published source, but the analysis of it is still your analysis of the source; the claims aren’t directly supported. The wording from WP:V is very clear on the need for an inline-citable text. I’m going to remove it until you can find a source that directly supports the claims (for just a statement about the lone French Army map) and supports the connection to the Kashmir Atlas (for a statement about the British survey). — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not analysis, but rather description. As per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.. I have copied below the text you removed. Please highlight whatever you are unable to verify, and we can discuss it.

The alignment chosen by the surveyors is the western watershed of the Indus river near Demchok, instead of the eastern watershed as used by the earlier boundary commission. This is the crest of the mountain ridge between the Koyul Lungpa river valley and the Indus river valley and forms a water-parting line. It leaves the Indus–Sutlej dividing spur at coordinates 32.5565°N 79.2755°E / 32.5565; 79.2755, and follows the crest of the watershed ridge with the Umling La peak in the centre. It joins the Indus a little ahead of the junction of Koyul Lungpa with the Indus (an area now called Fukche). It traverses along the Indus river till a place marked as 'Tagarna', and follows the crest of mountain ridge to the east of Indus towards the Spanggur Lake.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The US Army map that I have uploaded today should be easier to read. This map cites Survey of India map NI-44 from 1945 as its source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources still need to be inline cited. Furthermore, WP:PRIMARY not all of the description here can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge and WP:PRIMARY also says

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Notwithstanding the citation problem, the entire first sentence is unverifiable from this map. It is not possible for educated person with just this French Army map to know that the British survey uses a western watershed relative to a watershed used by the British boundary commission. Even limiting that description to be just a description of the French Army map:

• The map does not say Sutlej
• The coordinates 32.5565°N 79.2755°E / 32.5565; 79.2755 are not evident.
• The map does not mention the Umling La peak.
• The map does not say that Fukche is the modern name of this place (nor would I expect it to; it should be cited to another source)
• Tagarna is marked as the caret symbol ^ south of the Indus and just west of the Koyul Lungpa, and not as where the border stops following the Indus. The border appears to deviate from the Indus at the junction of a small tributary of the Indus coming from the northeast.

Regardless, we should look for a secondary description of the Kashmir Atlas boundary. That’s more useful than trying to use this 1911 French Army map as a primary source to say something about the mid-19th century British maps. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You are allowed to click on blue links, or to refer to the content stated elsewhere on the page, or to look up maps and images to verify information.

I am afraid there are no other sources for the Kashmir Atlas boundary. It looks we will have to struggle to get you to verify the paragraph. I will ping another editor who is knowledgeable about geographical matters.

You did mention one good point above, viz., Tagarna is actually the spot that is currently called Fukche (you can go to the page and follow the coordinates to see it. Here is a direct link.)

Voidvector, I wonder if you can do us a favour here. We need somebody to verify the quoted paragraph above (in green background) and check that it is an accurate description of the border depicted in the two maps above. This is the border of the Demchok sector in a Kashmir Atlas made under the British Raj in the 1860s. You can see it in context in this version of the article. I wonder if you are able to do it for us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You can include blue links, but statements still need inline citations. Here, the description includes several things not directly evident from the map.

Note: while digging around for the map, the survey was called the Survey of Kashmir, Ladakh, and Baltistan or Little Tibet. The widely circulated map is referred to as

Photozincographed Sections of part of the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet, Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, Dehra Dun, Oct. 1868; 20 sheets at a scale of 16miles to the inch (I.O. Map Room, cat. no. F/IV/16)

This was reproduced, much reduced, in Atlas (Lamb, The China-India border (1964) p.43). This should help with searching. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Source for elevations

@Kautilya3: Small question, but is there a reference for the elevations given in the infobox? — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

For the Demchok village, the elevation is available from sources, which I can add. For the source, it is read from the OSM map: [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Not sure where to put this but replying here. I am seeing a lot of ambiguous, unclear info in the lead regarding maps especially the whole of the second para. This ideally should be removed considering the discussion above that none of the past claims/treaties are clear, and is better served with context in the relevant sections. The focus should be on the geographic and hydrological aspects of the river rather than devoting political bulk to the lead as well as the article. Otherwise this article is just WP:COATRACKING a river article into a disputed area which would require rehauling and renaming the article. Gotitbro (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd support splitting off Demchok sector into its own article. There's an RfC here though on material pertaining to the disputed sector, so that would have to finish first. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro and MarkH21:, I support removing the mention of the British maps from the lead. It is too tricky to summarise in the lead, the present description is POV. I have this version on file, probably a mix of the old content and MarkH21's revisions:

The Lhari stream was mentioned by name in a treaty between Ladakh and Tibet in 1684 as forming the boundary between the two regions. After independence, the Republic of India has claimed the river as forming its boundary, up to 3 miles (4.8 km) southeast of Demchok. The boundary was contested by the People's Republic of China. The two countries fought a brief war in 1962, after which the Demchok region has remained divided between the two nations across a Line of Actual Control.

Is this acceptable? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead has to summarize the major points of the article and the current "History" section is more than half of the article, so the historical evolution of the boundary (i.e. treaty + surveys + current claims) should at least be summarized in brief. The existing second paragraph (with minor modification) can suitably summarize the points and be NPOV. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the contentious bits for now. We don't have agreement on what is relevant and what is not relevant. Neither India nor China have stated that they were following any British maps. They are independent countries that make their own decisions. So this does not belong in the lead in my view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s not contentious to note where the Chinese claims are. The British maps were described as being 10km west of Demchok, and the achinese claims were then described as roughly coinciding with those British lines 10km west of Demchok. That part of the lead didn’t say that the Chinese claims were based on the British maps.

Separately, mentioning the British maps is relevant to the lead because it describes how the Charding Nullah factored into what British India described as the boundary between British India and Tibet. This article isn’t purely about modern India and China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you find it contentious to say where the Chinese claim is? Or where the historical British claims were? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Spinning off Demchok sector

Regarding the proposal to spin off a separate article on the Demchok sector, it would be a good idea in principle, but it is hard to find reliable sources that even define "Demchok sector". I don't think spinning off solves any real problems and I see no no serious problem with the material remaining here. After all, there is no particular significance to the Charding Nullah except for forming the de facto boundary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Eitherway, Demchok needs to be disambiguated and the current article be moved to Demchok, Ladakh to avoid confusion between the village and the sector; and the village in Ngari. Gotitbro (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we just keep this discussion in one place? This is duplicating part of the other discussion. If we want to discuss that here, that's fine.

Many RSes clearly use the term "Demchok sector" or "Demchok district" to mean the disputed region between the modern Indian and Chinese claims; I don't think that definition is a major issue. I agree with Gotitbro on the point that it's reasonable to have a separate article on the geographic river and a separate article on the border dispute.

As for disambiguation / renaming the article on the village, the village that is split by the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream is denoted by "Demchok" / "bDe-mChog". The physical village is different from the physical village of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to the south, which is not on the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream (and has the "Ngari Prefecture" only to disambiguate with the other Dêmqog). Articles on disputed places are focused on the actual physical entities, not the claimed jurisdictions, as is done with most entries in List of territorial disputes#Ongoing disputes between UN member/observer states. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dêmqog

Is Dêmqog different from Demchok? How is it spelt in Tibetan? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Tibetan spelling is "ཌེམ་ཆོག"་, which is "Demchog" in Wylie transliteration, (introduced in 1959) "Dêmqog" in Tibetan pinyin (introduced in 1982). The "Demchok" spelling is used by the historical British sources, which predate both romanizations. It seems that China refers to both villages as "Demchok" (in the 1960s correspondences with India) as well as with "Dêmqog" (in official romanizations since Tibetan pinyin became the official Chinese romanization in 1982).

The Chinese administration claims both physical villages to collectively be Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. The articles may need to be modified somehow regarding this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The best way is probably still to have a combined disputed area article. Some possibilities:

1. Charding Nullah (on just the geographic waterway) + Demchok (on the physical village(s)) + Demchok dispute (on the disputed area); redirect Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok, redirect Demchok sector to Demchok dispute
2. Charding Nullah (on just the geographic waterway) + Demchok (on the physical village(s) and the disputed area); redirect Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok, redirect Demchok sector to Demchok

I think that the latter makes more sense, since both the village and surrounding area are part of the dispute, while the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short. Historically, the village is central to discussions about the disputed area around it. It would be consistent with other articles on rivers on WP to just leave Charding Nullah as an article focused on the geographic feature. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So what is your objection to my text:

There are villages on both sides of the mouth of the river, with the name "Demchok", even though the Chinese use the spelling "Dêmqog".

Notes

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the endnote because it doesn't say that the Chinese spelling is "Dêmqog", nor that there are two villages (the response about the vicinity of the Demchok village isn't saying that there's a second village and makes equal sense with one or two villages). I also modified the text itself to link to our current articles on Demchok and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, which should probably be mentioned/linked in the lead somewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you see that I was trying to say that both the villages are called by the same name, irrespective of how it is spelt? Your edit removed this fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I wasn't sure if that was what you were trying to emphasize and I wanted to link the current articles. What do you think of the subsequent change? With either of the proposals above in this section though, it would be much cleaner.

What are your thoughts on these two proposals? I can draft them in userspace, if it helps. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to refrain from stating meaningful information for the sake of links to insignificant pages which don't have any content anyway. That would be tail wagging the dog. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What? The subsequent change says

There are two villages on both sides of the river where it meets the Indus, both named "Demchok" (historical transliteration) or "Dêmqog" (Tibetan pinyin transliteration).

What meaningful information is withheld? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks + British maps in the lead

Re your follow-up It’s not the key purpose of the lead, but it’s a bit strange for the article lead to mention Demchok so much without linking to the namesake village(s). If course, this is all easier if there’s a consolidated Demchok article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the villages are particularly important. The entire area is called the Demchok region. It is named after the Demchok (deity). It has been so since the 10th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire dispute is centered on the villages though. But a more natural way to link the village is in the mention about the historical British India claim that you removed,

British surveys placed the border in 1847 between the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir on the stream, while British maps from 1868 onwards placed the border downstream and west of the village of Demchok.

See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't make up terms like "Demchok dispute" on our own and write articles about them. You can do so if you want to write for a magazine or a journal, but not Wikipedia.

There is a much larger border dispute, of which the border at Demchok is one. And this dispute is not particularly onerous either, compared to all other locations like Spanggur Lake, Pangong Lake, Changchenmo valley and the latest bugbear, the Galwan valley.

The green text you have put above is not correct. The 1847 thing was not a "survey". It was a border commission, with responsibility for defining the border. Tibet was invited to join it but it didn't show up. Nevertheless the commissioners stated that the border was well-known to the local people, confirming what the Chinese government itself said. It was even demarcated with piles of stones at many places.

The 1868 surveyors had no business defining borders or altering borders. We have no idea why they did so. Even Alastair Lamb is unable to explain it. But since they did a survey and produced maps, those maps got printed. There is no evidence that anything in real life changed as a result of that.

...the Chinese submitted no documents--official or unofficial--to substantiate this claim [that the border was where they claimed], nor were they able to produce records of any kind detailing revenues collected for the use of the disputed pasture lands, as the Indians did for several of these areas.

So, while the maps might have change, the borders did not change. So, we can't put UNDUE weight on maps. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Demchok dispute here is a descriptive title as mentioned by WP policy, for which there are countless examples, e.g. Senkaku Islands dispute, 2018 Cyprus gas dispute, Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, Ceará-Piauí border dispute, etc. The article can also be named Demchok sector, or whatever else, that’s not a major issue.

I used survey as the generic term of surveying is used (and RSes describe the boundary commission as a survey, e.g. here), but replacing it with the term boundary commission is fine too.

The boundary commission and Kashmir Survey say where the Company Raj / British Raj viewed the princely state’s borders to be, and are a major part of the modern dispute as well, so it’s absolutely WP:DUE. Most RS treatments of the subject mention the British boundary commission and Kashmir Survey in detail. It’s also significant part of the current History section, and so should be briefly summarized per MOS:INTRO.

On the slightly unrelated question about the motivation for the 1868 survey, it's partially motivated by borders and partially motivated by pure cartography/geography:

Mr Johnson had been deputed to survey the northern portions of the Maharaja of Kashmir. It was hoped that he might succeed in obtaining a view of some of the towns in Khotan [...] He has brought back a great deal of valuable geographical information of regions which have hitherto been a blank on our maps.
— book passage quoting James Walker (Surveyor General)

The boundary between Ladakh on the one side and Yarkund and Tibet on the other has in fact, never been authoritatively settled.
— same book quoting Thomas George Montgomerie

Lamb also mentions its partial value:

Johnson travelled across the Aksai Chin plateau in 1865. His map, though very rough, provided the British with their first reasonably clear ideas as to the topography of this region. Earlier maps are of no value for Aksai Chin.
— Lamb, 1965

— MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you start mixing up the "boundary commission" with "survey", you would be dangerously confusing the issue:

The Kashmir Survey which formally ended in 1864, while it could by no means be described as an official Boundary Commission, yet took careful note of boundary matters.

The above quotes you are providing for the survey are completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. (Shahidulla, Yarkand, Aksai Chin etc. etc. are at the other end of Ladakh.) I am stating my position clearly so that you don't go on and on with red herrings:

• There was a map produced by the Kashmir Suvey in 1868, which was widely reproduced in national and international maps. But the border shown on it had no official sanction, nor did it affect anything on the ground

If you have any sources that contradict this position, please provide them. Otherwise, you need to stop this badgering. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a red herring. The point was just that the general motivation for the entirety of the 1850s-1860s survey was for geographic knowledge and understanding the boundary, like the rest of the trigonometric survey. I didn’t say that it was official in any sense nor that it changed the situation on the ground.

The motivation is besides the point though (if anything, the question about the motivation was a red herring for whether the British maps should be mentioned in the lead). The British boundary commission and survey are central parts of the modern dispute, as well as relevant context for the historical situation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

East and west

Most sources state as if the Indus is flowing from east-to-west at Demchok. But the maps show clearly that it is flowing mostly north. So, please use north-south or northwest-southeast in the text. Since our discussion is map-centric, using faulty directions would be confusing to the readers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The two halves of Demchok separated by the Charding Nullah, not the Indus (assuming you’re talking about user:MarkH21/Demchok). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Following up on the discussions of #Lead, #Spinning off Demchok sector and #Dêmqog, I propose that part of the "Description" and "History" sections be split off into an article called Demchok dispute (or Demchok sector), as done in the drafts User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah and User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute.

The Charding Nullah itself is a river (i.e. a geographic feature), so its article should be focused on the geographic aspects of the geographic feature itself. More than half of the article is currently dedicated to the disputed area that is already bolded in the lead as the "Demchok sector". There's also plenty of precedent, with numerous other article pairs that separate (historical or current) disputes from geographic features, including:

• Piscataqua River – Piscataqua River border dispute
• San Juan River (Nicaragua) – Costa Rica–Nicaragua San Juan River border dispute
• Kaveri – Kaveri River water dispute
• Colorado River – Colorado river dispute
• Senkaku Islands – Senkaku Islands dispute
• Pedra Branca, Singapore – Pedra Branca dispute

The name "Demchok dispute" is just a descriptive title, similar to the examples above. Some RSes use the term "Demchok sector" to describe the disputed area, so that would be a reasonable alternative title. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Start with a section redirect – If there's a topic there, why isn't there a section with such a title at least? Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: It's essentially the "History" section, which discusses the history of both the historical disputes and the modern dispute. The only relevance of that section to the river itself is about the river's role in the dispute and the first descriptions of the river.

  One could say that "Demchok dispute" may only mean the "Modern claims" subsection and relevant background; if we use "Demchok sector" instead, then it would correspond to the entire "History" section (and the last few sentences of the "Description" section). — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• The redirect from 'Demchok Sector' to an article on a river certainly needs to be addressed as that is confusing to a reader. Splitting the long-winded history section off into a separate article on the Demchok Sector/Dispute, overwriting the redirect, would address that issue and also make the Charding Nullah article more concise. A concise summary highlighting the significance of the river as a boundary would suffice in the Charding Nullah article, with a link to the new article. That's my 2 cents. Cesdeva ^(talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Split per User:MarkH21 and User:Cesdeva. The article about the river is burdened by the extensive focus on the dispute. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord 0,0

Somewhere on this page, there is a coordinate 0,0. It shows up on the map of the Category:Rivers of India.

It shows up as a point near the coast of Africa.

-- Talk to G Moore 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)