View source for Talk:Demchok, Ladakh

{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=Mid|jandk=yes|jandk-importance=mid|assessdate=July 2020|geography=yes|geography-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject China|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Tibet|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Villages}}
{{WikiProject Cities}}
{{WikiProject Ladakh}}
}}

== Untitled ==
I have actually traveled to Demchok before. It is definitely under Chinese control. This article is soooooo pro-Indian, it was probably written by an Indian! Wikipedia is getting shittier by the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!![[Special:Contributions/71.146.145.81|71.146.145.81]] ([[User talk:71.146.145.81|talk]]) 05:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

== Incorrect map ==

{{archive top|Transcluded from [[Talk:Jammu and Kashmir]] -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)}}
{{#section-h:Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)/Archive 1 |Incorrect map}}
{{archive bottom}}

== Disputed physical village and alternative names ==

{{ping|Gotitbro}} Regarding your {{diff2|956798264|revert}}: the village of Demchok itself is disputed, with some RSes saying that it's administered by India and some RSes saying that it's administered by China. The village of Demchok (through which the [[Charding Nullah]] runs) is different from [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] (physically east of the Charding Nullah).

The aforementioned RSes:
*{{cite web |publisher=European Foundation for South Asian Studies |url=https://www.efsas.org/topics/jammu-and-kashmir.html |title=Jammu & Kashmir |accessdate=15 May 2020}}
*{{cite news |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/analysis-why-kashmir-matters/ |publisher=[[The Diplomat]] |title=Analysis: Why Kashmir Matters |last=Snow |first=Shawn |date=19 September 2016 |accessdate=15 May 2020}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Ruiz Estrada |first=Mario Arturo |last2=Koutronas |first2=Evangelos |last3=Khan |first3=Alam |last4=Angathevar |first4=Baskaran |year=2018 |title=Economic Dynamics of Territorial Military Conflicts: The Case of Kashmir |url=https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3102745 |journal=Journal of Strategic Studies |language=en |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3102745 |issn=1556-5068}}
*{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/india-pakistan-conflict/ |publisher=[[The Washington Post]] |title=The Trouble with Kashmir |last1=Tamkin |first1=Emily |last2=Karklis |first2=Laris |last3=Meko |first3=Tim |date=28 February 2019 |accessdate=15 May 2020}}

Also, it's just false that {{tq|other names aren't common for lead}}. See [[MOS:BOLDSYN]], which explicitly states that {{tqb|Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:
{{block indent|'''Mumbai''', also known as '''Bombay''', is the capital of the [[India]]n state of [[Maharashtra]]. ([[Mumbai]])}}}}, with prominent examples including [[Mumbai]] (GA), [[Delhi]] (GA), [[Mysore]] (FA), [[Beijing]], [[Guangzhou]], [[Nanjing]], [[Chongqing]], [[Dhaka]] (FA), [[Kyoto]], [[Tokyo]], [[The Catlins]] (FA). — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 11:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|MarkH21}} None of the names you added are common, all the examples you listed above have common contemporary sources for the names rather than a 1926 source but that is not the contention here and you may add the names but that won't be following MOS. The contention here is citing this village as having ambiguous admin with the above sources, all of which refer to the "Demchok district", i.e. [[Demchok sector]]/[[Charding Nullah]] area, not this village in Ladakh which is administrated by India similar to [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] (administrated by China). The confusion is created here by the naming of these articles, my proposal is to split [[Demchok sector]] into its own article from [[Charding Nullah]], move this page to [[Demchok, Ladakh]] and disambiguate [[Demchok]] to direct to the other three articles. Also pinging {{re|Kautilya3}}. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::The "Bde-mchog" spelling is also used by a large body of academic literature on the border dispute, including sources from the 21st century. I had only added the citation to one of the original works. I don't know about the prevalence of "Demjok" (but it seems to be used in both government sources ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160909100301/http://leh.nic.in/depts/villageamenitydirectory.pdf 1], [https://leh.nic.in/about-district/administrative-setup/village/ 2]) to which the first sentence statement of being in Ladakh is currently cited.{{pb}}Demchok is ''part'' of the "Demchok district", so sources that say that the entire area is administered by X are also saying that the village is administered by X.{{pb}}Your proposal makes sense for the most part, but it would necessitate creating a [[Demchok, Tibet]] article about this physical village being claimed by China. That article would be almost identical to the one here, and so such a split wouldn't make sense. I would do your proposal, ''except'' move this article to [[Demchok village]] instead of [[Demchok, Ladakh]].{{pb}}It's absolutely fine to have an article about the physical village, mentioning its claimed administration by both countries, as is done for numerous article about disputed places (e.g. [[Western Sahara]], [[Spratly Islands]], [[Senkaku Islands]], [[Banc du Geyser]]). The formatting of those examples is done well, and can be mimicked here. It doesn't make sense to create a [[Western Sahara, Morocco]] and [[Western Sahara, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic]] with nearly identical content except for the text on administration and governance, just as it doesn't make sense to do that here. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::That would require sources explicitly saying that this particular village (not the one in Ngari or the sector/district) is administered by China which none of them do, you sources might be apt for [[Demchok sector]] but not here since [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]]; you are adding [[WP:SYNTH]] content here which is clearly not done. The main feaure of this disputed area is that it is divided between the two countries including the villages in Ladakh and Ngari, for both of which we already have articles. The only thing to do here dismabiguate these pages, I don't have any further opinions on this. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 12:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That’s not SYNTH. Demchok is literally in the Demchok sector, no matter how you look at it, based on the RS definitions of the Demchok sector. So if an RS says that the Demchok sector is administered by India, then it is also directly supporting an assertion that Demchok is administered by India. If an RS says that the Demchok sector is administered by China, then it is also directly supporting an assertion that Demchok is administered by China.{{pb}}Do you really think that when those three sources say {{tq|China administers Demchok district}} that they are only saying “China administers the part of Demchok district that is administered by China”? That those statements are implicitly excluding the village that lies in the middle of the entire area?{{pb}}If there is a source saying that the 325-person village of [[Palisades, Texas|Palisades]] is in Texas and sources say that Texas is in the United States, would you deem them as not directly supporting the claim that the Palisades, Texas is in the United States? Would you require that an editor find a source that explicitly says {{tq|Palisades, Texas is in the United States}}? — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Yes, if that was a disputed area then definitely especially in such an ill-defined region as Kashmir. Not sure what you're tagging wikilawyering as but including sources for the whole region to dispute the administration of an unmentioned village in your sources is not done and clearly [[WP:SYNTH]]. Since sources also mention Demchok under Indian control should we go ahead and edit [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] (which is in the Demchok sector/district as well) as having ambiguous admin as well? Clearly not since none of the sources state that similar to the case here. Wikipedia priortizes de-facto administration of places before claims/counter-claims and if your sources can't "'''explicitly'''" challenge that for this particular village then its a no go. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 12:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::It’s ridiculous to demand a source saying that A is in C, when sources say that A is in B is in C. The article for [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] ''should'' clearly state its disputed nature, as it does now. We can add the statement about conflicting sources about administration as well.{{pb}}Whereas here, you’ve changed the article so that it unambiguously asserts that {{tq|Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India}}, supported solely by two Indian government websites. That’s absolutely not [[WP:NPOV]], and is not how disputed territories are treated here. Again, take a look at how the high-traffic articles on disputed territories handle this, like [[Western Sahara]], [[Spratly Islands]], and [[Senkaku Islands]].  — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' - I am not sure what is being debated here.
:* On the name issue, ''bDe-mChog'' is the transliteration of the Tibetan name. I believe that both the Indian and Tibetan villages were spelt the same in Tibetan. There is no harm in adding the Tibetan spelling here. 
:* On the issue of jurisdiction, there is no question that the Indian Demchok village (which is the topic of this article) is under Indian administration. We know it because there are contemporary news sources that describe the Indian and Chinese forces controling the two sides of the Charding Nullah. Not all sources understand this. Not all sources even know that there are two villages with the name Demchok.
:* The fact that the village (of this article) is the disputed [[Demchok sector]] should also be mentioned. MarkH21 did this a few days ago, which I agree with.
This article is on the Indian-administered village, and I recommend that the dispute issues should be kept out of it as far as possible. Does that help? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Kautilya3}} Thanks. The {{oldid2|956797897|previous version of the lead}} covers that perfectly well. It’s significantly more neutral than the first sentence only saying that {{tqb|Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India.}}As is done in the articles on other major disputed places, the first sentence should not just state that it is in one disputing party.{{pb}}I don’t mind replacing {{tq|Sources vary on whether it is administered by China or India}} with a statement describing the current state of control that is sourced to RSes. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::: That is ''not'' the previous version of the lead. The previous version is shown on the left hand side of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demchok&type=revision&diff=956797897&oldid=956061235 this diff]. You need to obtain [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for all the changes you would like to make from it. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::::By {{tq|previous}}, I meant before the edit at the top of this thread, and the one in my link. I didn’t mean to imply that it was long-standing. I’ll post at [[WP:NPOVN]] for the NPOV wording issue (it seems to be part of a broader question about disputed territory wording, so NPOVN seems appropriate). The alternative names doesn’t seem to be an issue anymore so I’ll place those back in. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

== Merge revert ==

{{ping|Kautilya3}} Why did you call the merge, which you not only did not contest at [[Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog]], but also offered a suggestion at [[Talk:Charding Nullah#East and west]], a {{diff2|959573031|"disruption"}}? At the very least, [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] for the merge and explain what you are contesting about it. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
: Please explain why you did this merge, if you care to. Otherwise, please go take a break for 24 hours and cool down. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::Reread the [[Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog|discussion wherein I directly proposed it]], in which you replied 7 times after the proposal was made (including [[Talk:Charding Nullah#Wikilinks + British maps in the lead|the related discussion]]. I also mentioned it ''again'' multiple times, including {{tqb|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)|source=<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span>23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)}}— <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::: I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I? So, once again, can you please explain why these two pages should be merged? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Or, better yet, please file a [[WP:RM|request for merge]], so that you get everybody's views. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: {{ec}} You never contested it after I mentioned it several times and you replied several times. Merges and edits [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR|don't require your permission]] and are encouraged [[WP:BOLD|to be bold in the absence of a challenge]].{{pb}}If you insist, I'll repeat the reasons again: {{tqb|It's absolutely fine to have an article about the physical village, mentioning its claimed administration by both countries, as is done for numerous article about disputed places (e.g. [[Western Sahara]], [[Spratly Islands]], [[Senkaku Islands]], [[Banc du Geyser]]). The formatting of those examples is done well, and can be mimicked here. It doesn't make sense to create a [[Western Sahara, Morocco]] and [[Western Sahara, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic]] with nearly identical content except for the text on administration and governance, just as it doesn't make sense to do that here. |source=MarkH21 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)}}{{tqb|The Chinese administration claims both physical villages to collectively be Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. The articles may need to be modified somehow regarding this.|source=MarkH21 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)}}{{tqb|the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short|source=MarkH21 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)}} To elaborate further now, since you actually contest it for an undisclosed reason, we have currently two articles: [[Demchok]] is about both the combined village (historically described as the village with the Lhari stream running through the middle) and the Indian-administered part on the western bank of the Charding Nullah. [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] is about the Chinese-administered part on the eastern bank of the Charding Nullah.
::::*The articles are confused in scope, it's not a natural division to have one article on a combined village and one part of it, with another article on the other part of it. This falls under both [[WP:OVERLAP]] and [[WP:PRECISE]].
::::*The western part is also claimed by China ''to be part of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture'', and the eastern part is also claimed by India ''to be part of Demchok, Ladakh''. This also falls under [[WP:OVERLAP]].
::::*On top of all of that, the treatment of the combined village is currently in the article about the Indian-administered western part because the name used by India is the same as the transliteration used historically while China switched transliterations in 1982. That's based entirely on a historical fact about the transliterations of Tibetan used, unrelated to the actual article subjects.
::::Is there even a reason that you have ''for'' keeping the articles separate? Using [[WP:PM|proposed merger process]] (not [[WP:RM]] which you linked) is fine, if you actually contest the merge on the basis of a guideline or policy. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

::::: I don't think it is a "one combined village". There are historical sources which write as if there was one village. But when you look at the details, it becomes clear that they were only talking about the Tibetan village. The Indian village has been witnessed only since 1903, and there is no evidence that it was ever administered by Tibet or combined with the Tibetan village in any way. (It might have been combined in Indian administration during the period prior to 1962, but there is no clear information about it. Except for Luv Puri's newspaper article, nobody even noticed the administration aspect of that period.)
::::: The claims made by governments don't affect what we write on Wikipedia. The actual administration is clearly separate and independent. It doesn't make sense to me to combine the two pages. 
::::: As for the size of the articles being small, it doesn't matter for anything. There are loads of articles on villages that have very little information. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::The 1846-1847 British boundary commission literally described the village as {{tqb|a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet|source=[[Henry Strachey (explorer)|Henry Strachey]] in 1847 (quoted in Lamb 1964, p. 68)}} If I'm not mistaken, this is the second-oldest extant description of Demchok after the nondescript mention in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Furthermore, the several reliable sources, e.g. Lamb (1965) and Richardson, that discuss the entity of "a single village of Demchok divided into two halves by the Charding Nullah" means that it is something that is notable and well-defined for WP.{{pb}}Also, how does it still make sense to describe the historical treatment of Demchok in the article on the Indian-administered village based on your claim that it may not have existed before 1903? The placement of historical discussions about "Demchok" is still a matter of poorly defined scope.{{pb}}Size is a consideration for [[WP:SIZESPLIT]]. The articles being small means that SIZESPLIT isn't a consideration. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

==Proposed merger==
{{Archive top |result = ''No merging of article(s) as per [[wp:Consensus|No Consensus]].  There needs to have some clarity here as to the confusing nature and relationship between the article subject(s).  While the existence of the historic settlement is somewhat well documented, the interpretation of just where the national border fell/falls is not clear.  It is also a case where the apparent border between Indian controlled territory and Tibetian controlled territory has changed over time.  That is, the border has moved, not the settlement  There is really no readily apparent policy or [[wp:MOS|MoS]] fix for this unique situation.  It would have to occur solely from content editing.  I would suggest that further development of articles along the [[Berlin]]-model ([[East Berlin]], [[West Berlin]]) may be the way through here.  In other words, three total articles.  Thanks all for your time and input.  Non-Administrative closure--'' [[User:GenQuest|<span style="color:Purple; text-shadow:brown 0.1em 0.2em 0.1em;">GenQuest</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:GenQuest|<span style="color:Purple; text-shadow:brown 0.1em 0.2em 0.1em;">"Talk to Me"</span>]]</sup></small> 03:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 
|status =  closed}}

I propose to merge [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] into [[Demchok]], as is done in the draft at [[User:MarkH21/Demchok]].{{br}}The ''three'' entities named "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" (combined village, northwestern half, and southeastern half) are currently split across ''two'' articles in an unnatural division of scope. They should be merged on the basis of both [[WP:OVERLAP]] and [[WP:PRECISE]].
{{collapse top|title=Current situation}}
*Currently, the combined village and northwestern half are covered in [[Demchok]] while the southeastern half is covered in [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]].
*The combined village was the predominant historical entity and is the most significant usage of the term.
**As early as the 1846-1847 British boundary commission (the second oldest mention of the village and the first to really describe it), Demchok has been described as a single village divided by the [[Charding Nullah]]: {{tqb|[Demchok] is a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet|source=[[Henry Strachey (explorer)|Henry Strachey]] in 1847 (quoted in Lamb 1964, p. 68)}}
**Other examples that explicitly describe Demchok as one village divided by the Charding Nullah: [[Hugh Edward Richardson]] (''[https://books.google.com/books/about/Tibet_and_Its_History.html?id=zINxAAAAMAAJ Tibet and its History]'', 1962) and [[Alastair Lamb]] (''[http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute]'', 1965). 
**Only a few modern articles mention that there even are halves.
**The current coverage on the combined village takes up most of the article, while there are very short administrative notes on the individual halves.
*China claims all three entities to collectively be [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]], and India claims all three entities to collectively be [[Demchok, Ladakh]].
{{collapse bottom}}
#'''Improper scope division''': It doesn't make sense to cover one half together with the whole in one article, while covering the other half in another article. It's like covering both Eastern Europe and the continent of Europe at [[Europe]] while only covering Western Europe at [[Western Europe]].
#'''Alternative names''': "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" are [[WP:OTHERNAMES|alternative names used to denote the same thing]]: "Demchok" is the 19th century transliteration of the Tibetan name still in use by India, "Dêmqog" is the [[Tibetan pinyin]] transliteration adopted by China adopted in 1982, and both names are used for all three entities. It's purely a difference in transliteration systems.
#'''Consistency''': The merger would bring WP's coverage of Demchok in line with other articles on disputed places, e.g. [[Western Sahara]], [[Spratly Islands]], [[Senkaku Islands]], [[Banc du Geyser]]. It would be inconsistent with the other articles, and it wouldn't make sense to create articles like [[Senkaku Islands, Japan]], [[Senkaku Islands, Republic of China]], and [[Senkaku Islands, People's Republic of China]].
#'''[[WP:SIZESPLIT]] does not apply''': The articles themselves are quite small (2103B and 750B). This isn't a consideration.
The only options that make sense are to have a combined article as proposed or to have three separate articles ([[Demchok]], [[Demchok, Ladakh]], and [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]]). The content here doesn't justify the latter option, while a combined article is both consistent with other articles and makes sense. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Support''' as proposed at [[User:MarkH21/Demchok]]. I would prefer there be a separate infobox for the PRC administrative claim, because the subdivisions between the PRC (province-level, etc) and India (state / union territory, etc) do not map and it would be a mess to correctly mesh them together. <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>[[User talk:CaradhrasAiguo|leave language]]</small>) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|CaradhrasAiguo}} The matter of infoboxes is something we can iterate on after consensus is achieved on whether to enact the merge proposal. I do wonder how that would look though: one could have only one infobox, two infoboxes (either as two at the top or one in each half), or three infoboxes (one combined at the top and one in each half). Since they both claim both halves, one in each half might not make much sense. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[[File:Demchok-sector-US-Army-map-1954.jpg|thumb|right|US Army map of the area, based on Survey of India, 1945, shows only one Demchok village to the southeast of the [[Charding Nullah]]]]
* '''Oppose''' - Despite the passing comments made by some observers, I do not see the two places as forming "one village". The border between the two places was established in 1684 [at [[Charding Nullah]] or Demchok River], albeit a soft border. All the travellers describe only one village, which was on the Tibetan side of the border.
:* [[William Moorcroft (explorer)|Moorcroft]] (1767-1825) {{tq|refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary}}.<ref>{{citation |last=Lamb |first=Alastair |title=The China-India border |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GfgNAQAAMAAJ |year=1964 |publisher=Oxford University Press |pp=61-62}}</ref>
:* [[Sven Hedin|Hedin]] (1865-1952) described it as "{{tq|the last village on the Tibetan side}}" (travelling towards Ladakh)<ref name=Lange>{{citation  |first=Diana |last=Lange |chapter=Decoding Mid-19th Century Maps of the Border Area between Western Tibet, Ladakh, and Spiti |title=Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines,The Spiti Valley Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present |date=2017 |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/34449052/Decoding_Mid-19th_Century_Maps_of_the_Border_Area_between_Western_Tibet_Ladakh_and_Spiti}}</ref>
:* Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of lopchak missions (biannual trade & diplomatic missions between Ladakh and Lhasa), described Demchok as "{{tq|the first location on the Tibetan side of the border}}" (travelling to Tibet).<ref name=Lange/>
:* The Buddhist traveller's map studied by Diana Lange shows only the Tibetan village.<ref name=Lange/>
: The growth of a village on the Ladakhi side is a recent phenomenon. As late as 1904, there were only two houses there.<ref>{{citation |title=Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, Indian Report, Part 3 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_3.pdf |pp=3-4}}}</ref> It was only after Indian independence that the Ladakhi village has grown, probably spurred by Indian military speding at this border area. So I see the two villages as ''independent villages'' that happen to have the same name (because the general area itself is known as "Demchok"). They are not "two halves" of some "single scope". There is nothing in common between them except their name. 
: What is worse, since these villages are going to be frequently referred to in the [[Sino-Indian border dispute]], mixing up the two villages will end up causing huge confusion as to what on earth we are talking about. It simply doesn't make sense. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:*The sources clearly describe Demchok as a village split by the Charding Nullah, whereas these two modern halves are on opposite sides of the Charding Nullah (bolding mine):{{tqb|[Demchok] is a hamlet [...] '''divided by a rivulet'''|source=[[Henry Strachey (explorer)|Henry Strachey]] in 1847, quoted in [[Alastair Lamb]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GfgNAQAAMAAJ ''The China-India border''] (1964), p. 68}}{{tqb|"the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and '''divide that village into two halves'''.|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], [http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute]'' (1965), p. 38}}{{tqb|Demchok [...] which is '''located on both banks of a stream''' at its junction with the Indus|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], [http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute]'' (1965), p. 48}}Even in the Lange source from which you quote Hedin, Demchok is clearly drawn with structures on both banks in Fig. 5. Is there even a single historical source that says that Demchok was only on one bank of the river?{{pb}}Your quotes say that it is a village on the ''Tibetan side of the border''. This is not the same as saying that it is a village on ''one side of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream'', particularly since maps in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century generally showed the border several miles ''west of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream'' and Demchok: {{tqb|British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have '''shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the ''west'' of Demchok'''|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], ''[http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute]'' (1965), p. 48}}{{tqb|the ''Kashmir Atlas'' (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about '''sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok'''.|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GfgNAQAAMAAJ ''The China-India border''] (1964), pp. 72–73}}{{pb}}The naming is ''significantly more obfuscating in the current situation''. Right now, the division of coverage across the articles suggests that the historical Demchok is precisely the northwestern bank settlement administered by India, but multiple historians write that it corresponds to settlements on both banks. If your claim that the historical Demchok was solely on the southeastern bank is correct, then the situation is even worse by covering it in the article on the northwestern bank! — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 02:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I have added a circa 1945 map, which shows the village and its orientation with respect to the river. Surely, if something is ''this controversial'', it is safe not to mess with the existing pages, but improve them if possible? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
**The map clearly has two settlements (black dots) at Demchok, one on each side of the Charding Nullah. Controversy doesn’t mean we stick to whatever the status quo organization is. A merger is an improvement. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*** The black dots represent ''camp sites'', not settlements. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
****[http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/ni-44-13.jpg The legend] says {{tq|Buildings or landmark features}} for the black dots. Furthermore, the name labels in the map only correspond to black dots.{{pb}}This is also another example of a map that shows both Demchok settlements being in Tibet, with the border several miles west. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 16:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
***** Ok, if this map is ambiguous, you can check the two other maps that are on the [[Charding Nullah]] page. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Geographic articles are not the same as disputes, these are clearly separate villages/settlements in different countries "now" merging would be disruptive. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 12:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It is confusing for the article on Demchok to now only focus on one of the two modern halves with the same name. Also, it does not make sense to include all of the history about the village from before 1950 in an article that is about one of the two modern halves. If we merge the two articles, the issues would be gone. [[User:AnomalousAtom|AnomalousAtom]] ([[User talk:AnomalousAtom|talk]]) 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' [[Demchok]] and [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] are de facto separate human settlements with different administrations. Merging them will only add to confusion. For example, what will be the population of that settlement be? Will Indian and Chinese data be added generating new data, or we ignore that altogether?--[[User:Ab207|Ab207]] ([[User talk:Ab207|talk]]) 13:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Ab207}} See the draft at [[User:MarkH21/Demchok]]. The population of each half is given in their sections, and the estimate for the total combined population is given appropriately as well.{{pb}}What’s more confusing is that historical treatment of the combined village from the 1600s to the 1950s uses the historical spelling [[Demchok]], with incoming links about that village pointing to the [[Demchok]] article (currently about only one half of the old village). The article and its description of the Indian-administered half (e.g. the infobox, Demographics section, saying that Demchok {{tq|is administered as part of the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh by India}}) misleadingly suggests that the Indian-administered half ''is'' the historical village referred to by historical sources and incoming wikilinks. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 03:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' as its common to have distinct articles on separate jurisdictions. For example [[Texarkana, Texas]] and [[Texarkana, Arkansas]] are right next to each other, but as one is in Arkansas and one is in Texas, each has a separate article. Also [[Kansas City, Missouri]] and [[Kansas City, Kansas]]. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|WhisperToMe}} It's not like most sources referred to both Kansas City's collectively as a single entity, with both claimed in whole by both Missouri and Kansas in the modern day. To both countries here, they aren’t separate jurisdictions either. The situation is more similar to [[Western Sahara]], [[Spratly Islands]], [[Senkaku Islands]], [[Banc du Geyser]], etc. than Texarkana and Kansas City. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 09:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

{{Archive bottom}}

== Undiscussed change of scope ==

{{U|MarkH21}}, this page was created as a page on the Indian village. You cannot unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kautilya3}} As stated in {{diff2|968409518|this edit summary}}, this was based on the close of [[Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger]] and the follow-up at [[User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok?]] with {{u|GenQuest}}. It was not unilateral.{{pb}} Do you actually oppose that development of the articles for any particular reason? — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

:: You have asked for a merge, which did not find enough support. But your change of scope essentially amounts to doing exactly ''the same thing'': changing this page to a "merged page", albeit a historical one. I don't see why you can't change the Tibetan Demchok page to the historical village. It is fairly clear that that is where it was. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
:::This plan was literally suggested by {{u|GenQuest}}, not me. It also does ''not'' do the same thing, since the {{oldid2|968439394|latest pre-revert version}} of [[Demchok]] contains the main details for ''neither'' modern village, while the proposed merge would have contained the main details for ''both'' modern villages. The only thing that they accomplish in common is clarify the historical situation regarding the village and its split.{{pb}}The [[WP:COMMONNAME]] for the historical pre-1962 village is overwhelmingly "Demchok" and not "Dêmqog" since the latter only even came into existence as a transliteration of "ཌེམ་ཆོག" [[Tibetan pinyin|in 1982]]. It doesn’t make any sense to place the article about the historical village at [[Dêmqog]] or anywhere else but [[Demchok]]. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
::::: You are free to rename the [[Dêmqog]] page to [[:Demchok, Tibet]] or something and put the historical stuff there. This page clearly started out as the Indian village with government and census data presented. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::That doesn’t make sense, since the official romanisation of the modern Chinese-administered village [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]] is "Dêmqog". It sounds like your only reason against {{u|GenQuest}}'s proposal is to preserve the ''status quo'' of this article being about the Indian-administered village. That frankly [[WP:SQS|isn’t a reason on its own]]. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::: That is exactly right. The scope of an article cannot be changed without CONSENSUS. I am surprised that I have to even tell you this! -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 14:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: If you contest it purely on the basis of ''status quo'' and are filibustering you prevent the development of an article agreed upon by multiple other editors, you are [[WP:SQS|disruptively ''status quo stonewalling'']] by definition. Stop. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 14:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: No, "status quo stonewalling" talks about people blocking the addition of legitimate content on the same topic. It says nothing about ''changing the topic itself''. Please do me a favour and read through the guidance on [[WP:SCOPE]] and [[WP:TOPIC]]. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 15:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: From the first paragraph of [[WP:SQS]]: {{tqb|Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a ''proposed change'' when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.}} There’s literally an example called [[WP:SQS#Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus|Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus]]. And another called [[WP:SQS#Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds|Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds]]. Sounds a lot like {{diff2|968443267|"Undiscussed"}}. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 15:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

===GenQuest's proposal===
*This looks like a reasonable proposal that two editors support, which I support. Both of you need to move on to more productive things. The proposal makes sense and is a clear improvement. &lt; [[User:AnomalousAtom|Atom]] ([[User talk:AnomalousAtom|<span style="color: #FF5733;">Anomalies</span>]]) 11:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
:: What is the proposal? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
::: The proposal by [[User:GenQuest]] that Mark implemented: "I would suggest that further development of articles along the Berlin-model (East Berlin, West Berlin) may be the way through here. In other words, three total articles." and "I would say to treat the historic town in one article (Demchok), and the now split town with articles for each division (Demchok, Ladakh; Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) each treated as any other separate entity would be. They would each have almost the same history up to a point, and the historic town article would be a "See Also" tag in the history section of both, thus: {{See also|Demchok}} placed under the "History" sub-header, with each having its own unique history following the divergent point explained." &lt; [[User:AnomalousAtom|Atom]] ([[User talk:AnomalousAtom|<span style="color: #FF5733;">Anomalies</span>]]) 12:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
:::: If we decide to implement that proposal, that is the end configuration of the various pages. How to get there needs a separate discussion. The easiest way to get there would be to create a new page for [[Demchok (historical village)]] and perhaps rename this page to [[Demchok, Ladakh]].
:::: Secondly, we also need to be sure that [[Demchok (historical village)]] is a viable page. All that we know about this supposed ''village that spanned both the sides of the border'' is a single off-hand comment from Henry Strachey, which has been repeated by a bunch of people. Neither Strachy nor these people have ever been to the Demchok village on the Tibetan side of the border. The people that did go to that village say that that was the ''only Demchok village'' there was. See the sources I have presented in the Request for Merge above. MarkH21 and you seem to pretend that this evidence doesn't exist. According to these sources, [[Demchok (historical village)]] is the same as [[Demchok, Tibet]]. No new page is necessary. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

{{od}}Let's break this down into its pieces:
#The historical sources of [[Henry Strachey (explorer)]] and [[Alastair Lamb]] clearly state that Demchok is a single village split both banks of a stream.
#The more recent articles by [[Claude Arpi]] in [[Indian Defence Review]] and Luv Puri in the ''[[The Hindu]]'' clearly state that Demchok was a single village that was divided between India and China during the [[1962 Sino-Indian War]].
#The assertion that Demchok was divided pre-1954 is solely contingent on the accounts by [[William Moorcroft (explorer)]] and Abdul Wahid Radhu that Demchok was in Tibet. These accounts don't say anything about the village being divided and are actually consistent with maps that showed the Ladakh-Tibet border to be several miles west of Demchok.

In more detail on each:
#We reflect what published reliable sources say. Both [[Alastair Lamb]] (in a different text without quoting Strachey) and [[Henry Strachey (explorer)]] (quoted by Lamb) clearly state that Demchok was a single village split by the stream. No amount of original research or hypothesizing negates that these RSes explicitly say that it was a single village split by the stream.
#*Lamb in his own voice: {{tqb|In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] 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'''.|source={{citation |last=Lamb |first=Alastair |title=Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute |journal=The Australian Year Book of International Law |year=1965 |page=38 |url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf }}}}
#*Strachey's description: {{tqb|[Demchok] is a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, '''divided by a rivulet''' (entering the left bank of the Indus) which constitutes the boundary of this quarter between Gnari ... [in Tibet] ... and Ladakh|source={{citation |last=Lamb |first=Alastair |title=The China-India border |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GfgNAQAAMAAJ |year=1964 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=68}}}}
#Both [[Claude Arpi]] and an article from ''[[The Hindu]]'' say that Demchok was a single village that was divided between China and India during the [[1962 Sino-Indian War]].
#*The article from ''The Hindu'': {{tqb|'''The village itself was divided into two parts''' one held by India and the other by China '''after the 1962 Sino-Indian war''', though there is not a single divided family.|source={{cite news |url= https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/ladakhis-await-re-opening-of-historic-tibet-route/article27440095.ece 
|title=Ladakhis await re-opening of historic Tibet route |first=Luv |last= Puri |publisher=[[The Hindu]] |date=2 August 2005 |archive-url= http://web.archive.org/web/20131224113353/http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/02/stories/2005080212731300.htm  |archive-date=24 December 2013 |accessdate=19 July 2020}}}}
#*Claude Arpi in [[Indian Defence Review]]: {{tqb|The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d’Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954.  [...] '''Kaul objected, Demchok was in India''', he told Chen who answered that India’s border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul’s insistence Chen said “'''There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot''' but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok”. [...] '''In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia.''' The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] '''The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.'''|source={{cite web |publisher=[[Indian Defence Review]] |url= http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-case-of-demchok/ |first=Claude |last=Arpi |authorlink=Claude Arpi |title=The Case of Demchok |date=19 May 2017 |accessdate=19 July 2020}}}}
#Your assertion that Demchok was divided before 1954 (without saying anything about whether it was divided in 1962) refers solely to the accounts by [[William Moorcroft (explorer)]] and Abdul Wahid Radhu (1918-2011) that Demchok was in Tibet.
#*Moorcroft: {{tqb|Finally, on the Indus, Moorcroft refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on ''the eastern side of the boundary''.|source={{citation |last=Lamb |first=Alastair |title=The China-India border |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GfgNAQAAMAAJ |year=1964 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=61-62}}}}
#*Radhu: {{tqb|Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of the Lopchak caravan, described Demchok in his travel account as “''the first location on the Tibetan side of the border''”.|source={{citation  |first=Diana |last=Lange |chapter=Decoding Mid-19th Century Maps of the Border Area between Western Tibet, Ladakh, and Spiti |title=Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines,The Spiti Valley Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present |date=2017 |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/34449052/Decoding_Mid-19th_Century_Maps_of_the_Border_Area_between_Western_Tibet_Ladakh_and_Spiti |page=353}}}}
::Not only do these not say anything about the two banks of Demchok being in the same or different jurisdiction, but they are entirely consistent with the fact that the 1847-1868 British survey and subsequent maps placed the Ladakh-Tibet border to be several miles west of the entirety of Demchok, so '''the single Demchok village that spanned both sides of the stream would be the first location on the Tibetan side of the boundary to anyone using those maps'''. {{tqb|British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have '''shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the ''west'' of Demchok'''|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], ''[http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute]'' (1965), p. 48}}{{tqb|the ''Kashmir Atlas'' (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about '''sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok'''.|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GfgNAQAAMAAJ ''The China-India border''] (1964), pp. 72–73}} — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 15:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
[[File:SoI-1874-txu-pclmaps-oclc-181831961-tashigong-52-P-1874.jpg|thumb|right|1874 Survey of India map]]
Unfortantely, [[WP:Walls of text]] do not get us any closer to resolution. So, please avoid them. I have told you what I think about Henry Strachey, Alastair Lamb, Luv Puri's assertions about the single village. I don't need to repeat them. Regarding Moorcroft and Radhu's testimony, I understand that your concern is that we don't know where the border was. In the RfM, I also mentioned Hedin, to which also I suppose you would raise the same objection.

The answer is that ''we know where the border was''. It was at the Charding Nullah/Lhari stream. That is where it was when Strachey went there as a boundary commissioner in 1847. The Tibetan border guards blocked him from going beyond. That is where it was in 1939, when the Wazir of Ladakh and the British Trade Agent went there. As Claude Arpi tells you (in the same article you cited), "{{tq|This stream forms a natural boundary between Tibet and Kashmir at Demchok.}}" So the Charding Nullah was the border throughout the British period. The  border was ''not'' where the Kashmir Survey and the Kashmir Atlas said it was. So it is entirely pointless to bring in the Kashmir Atlas. 

Now, the Indian government encroached upon the Tibetan territory south of the Charding Nullah some time after 1954, and forcibly occupied it by sending troops. When the Chinese troops arrived, they took it back. This seems entirely normal, irrespective of all their respective protestations. All these things happened due to the same misconception that you have, viz., that there was a "single Demchok village" that had to belong to one side or the other. There wasn't. There were two separate villages under separate administrations, as the sources make it clear. The Ladakhi Demchok village didn't have any permanent inhabitants till about 1921.<ref>{{harvp|Report of the Officials, Indian Report, Part 3|1962|pp=3-4}}</ref> So the passing travellers wouldn't have known that there was a "village" there. But the surveyors apparently knew that there was something. There was a certainly campground there all throughout the period, and perhaps some seasonal farming as well. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
:It's not {{tq|entirely pointless to bring in the Kashmir Atlas}}; you brought up three [[WP:PRIMARY]] accounts (Moorcroft, Radhu, and Hedin) that remarked that Demchok was in Tibet whereas a plethora of maps at the time (e.g. {{tq|British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards}}) placed the Ladakh-Tibet border several miles west of Demchok. Anyone using such a map would have remarked that Demchok was the first settlement on the Tibetan side of the border.
:Your use of these three ''primary'' accounts relies on
:#Those maps not being used by each of the three primary sources
:#[[WP:OR]]/[[WP:SYNTH]] to connect ''primary'' accounts that "Demchok was in Tibet" to "only the southeast bank of Demchok was in Tibet while the northwest bank was in Ladakh".
:So far, there is yet to be a single RS that explicitly says that {{tq|there were were two separate villages under separate administrations}}. You haven't even provided a single RS that describes Demchok in the plural. Every single source that talks about pre-1962 Demchok (including the Treaty of Tingmosgang in the 17th century, Moorcroft in the 18th century, the British commissions & surveys in the 19th century, Alastair Lamb & the Indian and Chinese documents in the 20th century, and Luv Puri & Claude Arpi & Diana Lange in the 21st century) mentions it as a single village. You are single-handedly asserting that all of these sources have the {{tq|same misconception that [I] have}}. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

:: Or they could have used a map like the one shown above, with no border, but two villages marked. Or, they could have just seen the border marked on the ground, like this witness saw:
:: {{talkquote|In between at the mouth of the nullah stands a big minaret of stones. In it is fixed a wood which looks like a flag. This is the boundary line.{{sfnp|Report of the Officials, Indian Report, Part 3|1962|pp=3-4}}}}
:: -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 21:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
:::If there are no sources that say that there were two Demchoks before 1962, then this looks like a non-issue to me. Have the two articles about the two Demchoks after 1962, the first time that reliable sources say that there were two Demchoks, and one article covering the history of Demchok before then. &lt; [[User:AnomalousAtom|Atom]] ([[User talk:AnomalousAtom|<span style="color: #FF5733;">Anomalies</span>]]) 07:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

:::: Ok, I am willing for a new page called [[:Demchok (historical village)]] to be created. "Demchok" itself should become a disambiguation page, as first proposed by {{U|Gotitbro}} on 15 May 2020 above. 
:::: Whether this new page will remain independent or gets merged into one or other of the pages will depend on how the content develops and what evidence becomes available. If people insist that any talk of maps is [[WP:OR]], I would also expect them to stand by that principle. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
:::: I would also insist that each page stands on its own. No veto'ing on the grounds that some content that is relevant to the page should go somewhere else based on some POV or other. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::If I understand your comment correctly, that means:
:::::*[[Demchok]] becomes a disambiguation
:::::*[[:Demchok (historical village)]] becomes {{oldid2|968439394|this version of this article}} (the history of pre-1962 Demchok)
:::::* [[:Demchok, Ladakh]] becomes what is now at [[Draft:Demchok, Ladakh]] (post-1962 Indian-administered Demchok)
:::::* [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture]]  as it currently is (post-1962 Chinese-administered Demchok)
:::::That seems fine.{{pb}}I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph beginning with {{tq|each page stands on its own}}. Wouldn’t these articles be subject to the same editing procedures and guidelines/policies as all other articles? E.g. concerns about excessive overlap or content being out-of-scope being subject to discussions like they would be at [[East Berlin]] vs [[West Berlin]] vs [[Berlin]] vs [[History of Berlin]] vs [[Germany]] vs etc. One can naturally edit the articles, add background/context related to the main subject (in parentheses above), and make other changes as usual. Any future merges, further splits, scope changes, etc. based on new information/sources (or otherwise) would be new discussions. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::Looks good to me. &lt; [[User:AnomalousAtom|Atom]] ([[User talk:AnomalousAtom|<span style="color: #FF5733;">Anomalies</span>]]) 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
My proposal is exactly what {{U|Gotitbro}} recommended:
* This page gets renamed to '''Demchok, Ladakh'''.
* '''Demchok''' becomes a disambiguation page.
In addition, [[Demchok (historical village)]] gets created and developed. No other changes are made to any other pages. We will revisit the issue perhaps a few months down the road after the shape of the new page becomes clearer. 

I think the comparison between [[Berlin]], the capital of Germany and one of the greatest cities of Europe, and this place, a hamlet of half-a-dozen huts about which practically nothing is known, is implausibly far-fetched. I suggest we drop any such imaginations. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
: Let us also keep in mind that "Demchok" is the English transliteration of a Tibetan name. So whatever that Tibetan name refers to, will be listed in the disambiguation page. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
::That's almost identical to what I outlined above. The only difference is the few content additions, revised lead, and copyediting at [[Demchok, Ladakh]] from [[Draft:Demchok, Ladakh]], and a starting point for [[Demchok (historical village)]] from {{oldid2|968439394|this version of this article}}.{{pb}}The Berlin comparison is purely about article organization, not content. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 09:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
::: I don't know if it is "identical". My proposal does not involve any content changes anywhere. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
:::: The organization would be the same. Just treat the content changes at [[Demchok, Ladakh]] as post-move normal editing. Treat {{oldid2|968439394|this}} as a starting point for [[Demchok (historical village)]]. We seem to all agree on the organization so I'll get that started.{{pb}}If you contest a particular content change, then please let me know. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 10:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

=== Sources ===
{{reflist-talk}}
* {{citation |editor=India, Ministry of External Affairs |title=Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AP4ruQEACAAJ |year=1962 |publisher=Government of India Press}}
** Indian Report: {{citation |title=Part 1 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_1.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Indian Report, Part 1|1962}}}}; {{citation |title=Part 2 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_2.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Indian Report, Part 2|1962}}}}; {{citation |title=Part 3 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_3.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Indian Report, Part 3|1962}}}}; {{citation |title=Part 4 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_4.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Indian Report, Part 4|1962}}}}
** Chinese report: {{citation |title=Part 1 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/ORC_01-32_Part1.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Chinese Report, Part 1|1962}}}}; {{citation |title=Part 2 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/ORC_01-32_Part2.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Chinese Report, Part 2|1962}}}}; {{citation |title=Part 3 |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/ORC_01-32_Part3.pdf |ref={{sfnref|Chinese Report, Part 3|1962}}}}

== Parigas ==

{{archive top|Transcluded from [[Talk:Demchok sector]]}}
{{#section-h:Talk:Demchok sector|Parigas}}
{{archive bottom}}

== Change Indian administered Ladakh /LAC map slightly as area east of Demchok is under administration of China since 1962 war ==


Change Indian administered Ladakh /LAC map slightly as area east of [[Demchok, Ladakh|Demchok]] is under administration of China since 1962 war. Please greyed out that area east of [[Demchok, Ladakh|Demchok]]  .<br/>
Sources: <br/>
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53174887    <br/>
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/nov/26/intelligence-agencies-warn-of-chinese-build-up-in-south-ladakhs-zeo-la-region-1903203.html  <br/>  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ritabharidevi|Ritabharidevi]] ([[User talk:Ritabharidevi#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ritabharidevi|contribs]]) 11:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20200608-standing-up-to-a-stand-off-1683231-2020-05-30  <br/>
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-tensions-in-eastern-ladakh-spike-briefly-after-locals-celebrate-dalai-lamas-bday/articleshow/70200054.cms  <br/>
https://twitter.com/indopac_info/status/1267489461568335873  <br/>
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/diplomacy/story/20130506-intrusion-by-china-india-border-dispute-763323-1999-11-30   <br/>
http://ntdin.tv/en/article/english/indian-army-build-surveillance-capabilities-6-7-areas-along-lac  <br/>
--[[User:Ritabharidevi|Ritabharidevi]] ([[User talk:Ritabharidevi|talk]]) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

: I don't fully understand what you are saying. The [https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=32.7038&mlon=79.4467&zoom=12#map=15/32.7038/79.4467 coordinates as given on the page] are correct.
: As for the Indian-administered and Chinese-administered areas are concerned, the newspapers don't really know the state of affairs. They only show two claim lines. The OpenStreetMap is the only one that shows the LAC correctly. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

== Contested content ==

{{U|MarkH21}}'s contest for this content:
{{quotebox|align=left|text=Thus the Demchok Lhari Karpo and the main Demchok village got divided, the former falling on the Ladakh side of the border and the latter on the Tibetan side. A secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side. When [[Henry Strachey (explorer)|Henry Strachey]] visited the area in 1847, he found Demchok settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream, and the stream was still the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet.<ref>{{harvp|Lamb, The China-India border|1964|p=68}}. Strachey however regarded the two settlements as forming a single hamlet, but divided into two parts by the Lhari stream.</ref>{{reflist-talk}}}}
{{clear left}}
[[File:1851 Map of Demchok area by Strachey.jpg|thumb|right|280px|Two Demchok settlements in Strachey's map of 1851]]
[[File:1874 map of Demchok area by Frederic Drew.jpg|thumb|right|280px|Only the southern Demchok village shown in Drew's map of 1874]]
Edit summary: {{tq| rm part not in the cited ref}}

My comments:
* It is clearly apparent on the maps that the Lhari Karpo and the "main Demchok village" are on two sides of the Lhari stream. Yes?
* The "main Demchok village" is the southern one, as apparent from many maps, and the census data.
* Prior to the boundary being set at the Lhari stream in the 17th century, certainly there would have been no need for two Demchok settlements. All evidence we have evidence for the prior period is the phrase "Lhari stream at Demchok".
* I don't know why the Strachey comment in the footnote was deleted. 
-- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 10:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:I'm not disputing which side the Lhari Karpo was on, nor anything about pre-17th century. I'm just pointing out that one needs to cite a source for:
:#That there was a "main Demchok village" and that it was on the southeast bank. At the very least the maps that show this need to be cited, but there are also maps that place dots on both banks (e.g. [[:File:1851 Map of Demchok area by Strachey.jpg|1851 Strachey map]], [[:File:Demchok-Survey-of-India-1874.jpg|1874 Survey of India map]], [[:File:Demchok-sector-US-Army-map-1954.jpg|1954 US Army map]]) or even just a dot on the northwestern bank (e.g. [[:File:Cashmere 1903.jpg|1903 traveller's map]]).
:#*There's also the issue of time period here, since the placement of these two sentences means that it seems to be talking about pre-1847 Demchok. Were there any maps or censuses suggesting that there was a "main Demchok village" on the southeast bank ''before 1847''? 
:#That {{tq|a secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side.}} This seems like synthesis between the premise that Demchok consisted solely of settlements on the southeast bank pre-1847 (which is an even stronger assertion than point 1 above, since there would have to be no settlement on the northwest bank in addition to the southeast bank being a "main" one) and the post-1847 observations of settlements on both banks.
:The Strachey comment was revised because the cited reference most directly supports {{tq|he described Demchok as a single hamlet with settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream and the stream as the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet.}} So the part in the footnote was removed as it was then reflected in the article wording itself; this wasn't a significant change. The other part of the change was that Strachey also didn't say that it was {{tq|still}} the prevailing border; just that it was the border (i.e. {{tq|still}} gives an implication about the past that Strachey didn't make himself). — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:: Actually the only source we have for two Demchok settlements is Strachey. The Survey of India maps bascially reproduced his testimony. Drew, who worked in Kashmir for 10 years  knows the local situation better. He was a geologist and also worked as the governor of Ladakh for part of his tenure.
:: If we disregard Strachey, all the other evidence only mentions one Demchok village on the Tibetan side of the border. So the phrase "main Demchok village" is a concession to Strachey. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Do you mean the only 19th century primary source for Demchok having settlements on both banks? Because the secondary source of Lamb described it in his own voice (without attribution to Strachey): {{tqb|In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to How into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves|source=[[Alastair Lamb]], [http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1965/4.pdf ''Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute''] (1965), p. 38}} And of course 20th century primary sources describe settlements on both banks. But again, we don't have any sources whatsoever that say anything about Demchok between the 17th century and 1847.{{pb}}The footnote that you just added {{diff2|972322841|here}}, for instance, is a 1900-1901 primary source description of Demchok being on the Tibetan side of the border, which doesn't say anything about pre-1847 Demchok. There is also the same issue from before about these sources saying that it was in Tibet is not the same as saying that Demchok was on the southeast bank, given that contemporaneous maps showed the border running 10 miles west of Demchok.{{pb}}In other words, the current wording says that pre-1847 Demchok had a main village on the southeast bank. This is cited to late 19th century and early 20th century maps and primary sources that describe Demchok during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:::: What conclusion do you draw from Lamb? Since he says it in how own voice, he knows the situation the 17th century? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::I'm not drawing a conclusion from Lamb, but secondary sources are preferred over our own analyses of primary sources. But again, my point is that your addition is making a statement about Demchok between the 17th century and 1847, based on primary sources from the late 19th and early 20th centuries about Demchok well after 1847. These sources simply do not say that Demchok had a "main village" on the southeast bank before 1847. They don't say anything about that time period at all. This point is independent of Lamb or Strachey. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
::::::: The general expectation is that villages, once they come into being, persist. So if the early 20th century evidence says there was one village to the southeast, the that is, at the least, the ''main village'', if not the only village. I don't see what there to argue here. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{od|:::::}} We have:
:*Strachey: An 1847 primary source that said that Demchok had settlements on both banks in 1847.
:*Lamb: A 1965 academic secondary source that says that there were settlements on both banks when describing Demchok in the 17th century.
:*Radhu & Hedin: Two late 19th/early 20th century primary sources that says that Demchok was in Tibet in the late 19th/early 20th century (a time when a large proportion of maps showed the Ladakh-Tibet border 10 miles west of Demchok)
:*Maps: Various maps from the 1850s onwards showing Demchok from the 1850s onwards with one dot on the northwest bank, one dot on the southeast bank, or one dot on each bank
:There isn't any direct support for the statement that Demchok was on the southeast bank before 1847 nor for {{tq|a secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side}}. We can say that X and Y said that Demchok was in Tibet in year Z, but it is OR/SYNTH to use them to say that Demchok was primarily on the southeast bank between the 17th century and 1847. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:: [[Sven Hedin]] is a top explorer. Please don't assume that he will state tidbits read out from maps without verifying on his own.
:: {{talkquote|A short distance N. W. of Demchok, the road passes a partly frozen brook coming from ''Demchok-pu'', a tributary valley from the left. A miserable stone bridge is built across the watercourse. At the left side of the mouth of this little valley, are the ruins of two or three houses, which were said to have belonged to ''Hemi-gompa''. A pyramidal peak at the same, or left side of the valley, is called La-ri and said to be sacred. ''The valley, Demchok-pu, itself is regarded as the boundary between Tibet and Ladak''.<ref>{{citation |last=Hedin |first=Sven |title=Southern Tibet: Discoveries in Former Times Compared with My Own Researches in 1906–1908: Vol. IV – Kara-korum and Chang-Tang |location=Stockholm |publisher=Lithographic Insitute of the General Staff of the Swedish Army |year=1922 |url=https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.2214 |p=194}}</ref>}}
:: -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:::And he is describing Demchok in the early 1900s. The added content is about pre-1847 Demchok. Since they're describing Demchok at a later point, it should come after the Strachey sentence in the text. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 16:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
It looks like we are back to square-A. To rehash my argument, if there was indeed a Ladakhi Demchok village (or settlement) prior to the 17th century partition, it wouldn't have disappeared. So the fact that it didn't exist in the 20th century means that it didn't exist to begin with. Even your favourite scholar agrees with that: "{{tq|[Demchok]... which except for a few rude houses was really a camping ground seasonally occupied}}".{{sfnp|Lamb, Tibet, China & India|1989|pp=392-393, note 805}}

Even Strachey, in the map included in his book,<ref>[http://pahar.in/?wpfb_dl=793 Physical Geography of Western Tibet], pahar.in</ref> shows only one Demchok village to the southeast of the Lhari stream. So, he knew the reality even though for some odd reason, he generated a pointless controversy. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:This is still synthesis and you picking which primary source descriptions to extend backwards by two hundred years while dismissing a primary source. As [[WP:SYNTH]] verbatim states: {{tq|Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.}} We can only state what the accounts said in the years that they visited. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:: It can't be helped when the quality of the sources is so poor and the knowledge of the remote border areas is so sketchy. We still need to present the facts in a coherent fashion. 
:: Lamb could have done a better job. But he didn't. For example, he summarises Hedin in footnote 806 on the same pages as cited earlier. His summary completely misses what Hedin actually reported. Had he read his sources more thoroughly, he could have given us better information. I am also keenly aware that we only know what Strachey wrote through Lamb. Nobody else has seen his report. 
:: Knowing that the real Demchok village was on the Tibetan side also helps us to understand why the British changed the border in the Kashmir Survey (which Lamb admits ''he can't explain''). If there was no village on the Ladakhi side, it would have been thought of as a no-cost cession of territory by the British. (Of course, they didn't understand that Demchok Karpo was of religious significance to the Ladakhis. Nor did they know enough about the ''Ladakh Chronicles''.)
:: Give me a couple of days and I will see if I can come up with some other way of saying it. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 22:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Link in the further reading section ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demchok,_Ladakh&diff=1006914195&oldid=1006278982 This link added] to the 'Further reading' section seems to be more than an opinion piece than a news article and I don't think that it is suitable to be added to a Wikipedia article. Moreover, it is 7 years old now, and the picture painted may not accurately represent the present-day situation. [[User:The Discoverer|The Discoverer]] ([[User talk:The Discoverer|talk]]) 04:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
: I have generally found very little information available about the situation in the Demchok sector. And what is available is still quite vague. If you know better sources please feel free to add them. This one seemed to me a better informed than others I have seen (though the presentation is still vague, probably by intent). -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
:: The author R. N. Ravi, was apparently a special director of the [[Intelligence Bureau (India)|Intelligence Bureau]] and he also served as the Governor of Nagalnd.[https://theprint.in/defence/why-depsang-plains-eyed-by-china-is-crucial-for-indias-defence-in-ladakh/505373/] -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 15:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)