Talk:Demchok, 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!71.146.145.81 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed physical village and alternative names
Regarding your : 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:

Also, it's just false that other names aren't common for lead. See MOS:BOLDSYN, which explicitly states that, with prominent examples including Mumbai (GA), Delhi (GA), Mysore (FA), Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chongqing, Dhaka (FA), Kyoto, Tokyo, The Catlins (FA). — MarkH21talk 11:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 . 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 (1, 2) to which the first sentence statement of being in Ladakh is currently cited.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.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.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. — MarkH21talk 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. 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.Do you really think that when those three sources say 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?If there is a source saying that the 325-person village of 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 Palisades, Texas is in the United States? — MarkH21talk 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. 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.Whereas here, you’ve changed the article so that it unambiguously asserts that 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. — MarkH21talk 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? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The covers that perfectly well. It’s significantly more neutral than the first sentence only saying that 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.I don’t mind replacing 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. — MarkH21talk 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 this diff. You need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for all the changes you would like to make from it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By 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. — MarkH21talk 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge revert
Why did you call the merge, which you not only did not contest at Talk:Charding Nullah, but also offered a suggestion at Talk:Charding Nullah, a ? At the very least, assume good faith for the merge and explain what you are contesting about it. — MarkH21talk 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reread the discussion wherein I directly proposed it, in which you replied 7 times after the proposal was made (including the related discussion. I also mentioned it again multiple times, including — MarkH21talk 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? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, better yet, please file a request for merge, so that you get everybody's views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You never contested it after I mentioned it several times and you replied several times. Merges and edits don't require your permission and are encouraged to be bold in the absence of a challenge.If you insist, I'll repeat the reasons again: 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 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. — MarkH21talk 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1846-1847 British boundary commission literally described the village as 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.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.Size is a consideration for WP:SIZESPLIT. The articles being small means that SIZESPLIT isn't a consideration. — MarkH21talk 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I propose to merge Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture into Demchok, as is done in the draft at User:MarkH21/Demchok.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.


 * 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:
 * Other examples that explicitly describe Demchok as one village divided by the Charding Nullah: Hugh Edward Richardson (Tibet and its History, 1962) and Alastair Lamb (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.

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. — MarkH21talk 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Alternative names: "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" are 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) WP:SIZESPLIT does not apply: The articles themselves are quite small (2103B and 750B). This isn't a consideration.


 * 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. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * Moorcroft (1767-1825) refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary.
 * Hedin (1865-1952) described it as "the last village on the Tibetan side" (travelling towards Ladakh)
 * Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of lopchak missions (biannual trade & diplomatic missions between Ladakh and Lhasa), described Demchok as "the first location on the Tibetan side of the border" (travelling to Tibet).
 * The Buddhist traveller's map studied by Diana Lange shows only the Tibetan village.
 * The growth of a village on the Ladakhi side is a recent phenomenon. As late as 1904, there were only two houses there. 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. -- 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):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?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: 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! — MarkH21talk 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? -- 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. — MarkH21talk 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The black dots represent camp sites, not settlements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The legend says Buildings or landmark features for the black dots. Furthermore, the name labels in the map only correspond to black dots.This is also another example of a map that shows both Demchok settlements being in Tibet, with the border several miles west. — MarkH21talk 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. -- 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. 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. 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?--Ab207 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.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 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. — MarkH21talk 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. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 09:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed change of scope
, 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated in, this was based on the close of Talk:Demchok and the follow-up at User talk:GenQuest with . It was not unilateral. Do you actually oppose that development of the articles for any particular reason? — MarkH21talk 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This plan was literally suggested by, not me. It also does not do the same thing, since the 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.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" in 1982. It doesn’t make any sense to place the article about the historical village at Dêmqog or anywhere else but Demchok. — MarkH21talk 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. -- 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 's proposal is to preserve the status quo of this article being about the Indian-administered village. That frankly isn’t a reason on its own. — MarkH21talk 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! -- 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 disruptively status quo stonewalling by definition. Stop. — MarkH21talk 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From the first paragraph of WP:SQS: There’s literally an example called Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus. And another called Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds. Sounds a lot like . — MarkH21talk 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; Atom ( Anomalies ) 11:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the proposal? -- 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: placed under the "History" sub-header, with each having its own unique history following the divergent point explained." &lt; Atom ( Anomalies ) 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's break this down into its pieces:
 * 1) The historical sources of Henry Strachey (explorer) and Alastair Lamb clearly state that Demchok is a single village split both banks of a stream.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) *Lamb in his own voice:
 * 3) *Strachey's description:
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) *The article from The Hindu:
 * 6) *Claude Arpi in Indian Defence Review:
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) *Moorcroft:
 * 9) *Radhu:
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 15:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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), "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. 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not 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. 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 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 same misconception that [I] have. — MarkH21talk 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:
 * -- 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; Atom ( Anomalies ) 07:43, 22 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; Atom ( Anomalies ) 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 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. -- 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand your comment correctly, that means:
 * Demchok becomes a disambiguation
 * Demchok (historical village) becomes (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.I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph beginning with 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. — MarkH21talk 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. &lt; Atom ( Anomalies ) 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is exactly what recommended: 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.
 * This page gets renamed to Demchok, Ladakh.
 * Demchok becomes a disambiguation page.

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. -- 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. -- 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 .The Berlin comparison is purely about article organization, not content. — MarkH21talk 09:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is "identical". My proposal does not involve any content changes anywhere. -- 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 as a starting point for Demchok (historical village). We seem to all agree on the organization so I'll get that started.If you contest a particular content change, then please let me know. — MarkH21talk 10:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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 is under administration of China since 1962 war. Please greyed out that area east of Demchok. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53174887 https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/nov/26/intelligence-agencies-warn-of-chinese-build-up-in-south-ladakhs-zeo-la-region-1903203.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritabharidevi (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC) https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20200608-standing-up-to-a-stand-off-1683231-2020-05-30 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-tensions-in-eastern-ladakh-spike-briefly-after-locals-celebrate-dalai-lamas-bday/articleshow/70200054.cms https://twitter.com/indopac_info/status/1267489461568335873 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/diplomacy/story/20130506-intrusion-by-china-india-border-dispute-763323-1999-11-30 http://ntdin.tv/en/article/english/indian-army-build-surveillance-capabilities-6-7-areas-along-lac --Ritabharidevi (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't fully understand what you are saying. The 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Contested content
's contest for this content:

Edit summary: rm part not in the cited ref

My comments: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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. 1851 Strachey map, 1874 Survey of India map, 1954 US Army map) or even just a dot on the northwestern bank (e.g. 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 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 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 still the prevailing border; just that it was the border (i.e. still gives an implication about the past that Strachey didn't make himself). — MarkH21talk 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. -- 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): 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.The footnote that you just added, 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.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. — MarkH21talk 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? -- 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. — MarkH21talk 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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. — MarkH21talk 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.
 * -- 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. — MarkH21talk 16:18, 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. — MarkH21talk 16:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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: "[Demchok]... which except for a few rude houses was really a camping ground seasonally occupied".

Even Strachey, in the map included in his book, 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. -- 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: 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. — MarkH21talk 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Link in the further reading section
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. 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). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The author R. N. Ravi, was apparently a special director of the Intelligence Bureau and he also served as the Governor of Nagalnd. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)