Talk:Demchok sector

Luv Puri passage
I am contesting this passage:

This is just a newspaper op-ed column, not peer-reviewed or even editorially reviewed. Even though the author has written books on the Kashmir dispute, he did not write anything about Ladakh. He seems to have travelled to Demchok in 2005 and described what he saw. There is no telling what he knows about the history of the place. Does he even know that the southern Demchok village was under the Tibetan control throughout the British colonial period?

So, I recommend removing this page as being dubious and half-baked. We have much better information available elsewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You, when what is written is supported by both Puri's article and Claude Arpi:
 * So you’re claiming that some RS says that Demchok was under Chinese control sometime between 1954 and September 1962 but lost it by October? Or that there is a multitude of RSes directly contradicting both Puri and Arpi? You haven’t given any RS suggesting that the split did not occur during the 1962 war (and you still claim that the Puri article is an op-ed despite it not saying that anywhere). — MarkH21talk 15:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I was talking about British colonial period. You know that that period ended in 1947.
 * From 1684 till 1954, the southern Demchok village (which was the only Demchok village that mattered) was under Tibetan control. During this time, a couple of houses and a camp site cropped up on the northern side of the river. Nobody has demonstrated any connection between these couple of houses and the southern Demchok village.
 * Most Indian commentators don't know this. They all seem to believe that the real Demchok village was on the northern one and that it gave rise to an offshoot on the southern side. I too was under this impression until I started investigating recently, when I discovered that map after map showed only the southern Demchok village.
 * What happened in 1954 is not known. While India included the southern Demchok village in its territorial map, there is no evidence that it extended its administration to it. If it did, there would have been complaints from the Tibetans which would have been escalated to diplomatic level. Similar disputes in the Assam Himalaya did get escalated.
 * So, this idea that there was a "single village" that got split across is pure mythology as far as I am concerned. I am not willing to buy it unless there is a WP:HISTRS that has studied the actual happenings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is wholly based on your personal research which contradicts those two modern statements and contradicts the statements by Lamb (bolding mine): and the British boundary commission of 1846-1847 that (bolding mine):, sources that describe this Demchok as being a singular village on both banks of the Charding Nullah in the British colonial era. On top of that, the Treaty of Tingmosgang does not mention whatsoever that Demchok (or any part of Demchok) was under the control of the Tibet. So it’s based on your interpretation of maps. — MarkH21talk 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is wholly based on your personal research which contradicts those two modern statements and contradicts the statements by Lamb (bolding mine): and the British boundary commission of 1846-1847 that (bolding mine):, sources that describe this Demchok as being a singular village on both banks of the Charding Nullah in the British colonial era. On top of that, the Treaty of Tingmosgang does not mention whatsoever that Demchok (or any part of Demchok) was under the control of the Tibet. So it’s based on your interpretation of maps. — MarkH21talk 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And also look at all the evidence with first hand knowledge that you have brushed under the carpet:

And for Strachey himeslf:

So, Strachey didn't actually go to the southern Demchok village and ask anybody whether they deemed themselves to belong to the same village as the northern one. What was written was just a manner of speaking. You are hanging on to tenterhooks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You argument is still based on your personal interpretation of maps and two pre-20th century circumstantial statements that Demchok (stated as a whole) were on the Tibetan side of the Ladakh-Tibet border. These don’t demonstrate the strong claim that the southeastern part was controlled by Tibet and China from 1684 to 1962, and even match the 1847-1868 British survey from the Great Trigonometrical Survey and Chinese government claim that both place the Ladakh-Tibet border a few miles west of the entirety of Demchok. Plus:
 * The Lange source literally includes a map depicting Demchok with structures on both sides of the a Charding Nullah
 * Guards prevented Strachey from traveling up the Indus doesn’t invalidate his observation that Demchok was on both banks of the Charding Nullah
 * Not only is your interpretation of these sources in contradiction with two other authors' descriptions of colonial-era Demchok, but none of these sources contradict Puri nor Arpi who explicitly state that Demchok was a village that was split during the 1962 war. — MarkH21talk 00:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is also something that  was pretty clear. — MarkH21talk 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * was merely summarising the views people expressed in the Request for Merge. Neither he nor the people that expressed the views are responsible for developing content for the new page. Only you would be, since you are intent on creating such a page. So the WP:ONUS for this content rests on you.
 * The question we are discussing is whether there was a single Demchok village that spanned both the Ladakhi and Tibetan side before the modern contestations that started in 1954.
 * I have given you two solid sources that say that there wasn't such a combined village. There was only a village on the Tibetan side. The "Tibetan side" means southeast of the Charding Nullah/Lhari stream, where the border lay between 1684 and 1954.
 * So, what is your view on these two sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What we're discussing is whether After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the village of Demchok was divided in two parts, since that’s the passage you are contesting.You contest that it wasn't divided in two parts during the 1962 war because:
 * You believe that Luv Puri and Claude Arpi are wrong about 1962
 * You believe that Henry Strachey and Alastair Lamb are wrong for describing Demchok as a single village divided by the Charding Nullah during the British colonial era
 * You believe that Radhu and Moorcroft finding Demchok to be the first village on the Tibetan side of the border means that the village on southeastern bank was controlled by Tibet but the northwestern bank was controlled by Ladakh
 * You believe that Demchok would have remained split across the Ladakh-Tibet border all the way through 1962
 * The third point alone requires WP:OR to link them finding Demchok to be the first village on the Tibetan side to mean that the village was divided. Plus, Radhu's account is accompanied by a map showing Demchok to span both banks of the river and the 1847-1868 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:
 * Your rejection that Demchok was not split in 1962 is based on a wild hypothetical that Puri, Arpi, Lamb, and Strachey are all wrong while the account of Demchok being across the Ladakh-Tibet border somehow means that the village was divided across the border. Not a single source says that Demchok was divided across the Ladakh-Tibet border, this is your own hypothesis. — MarkH21talk 14:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There still isn't any RS that contradicts the statements by Luv Puri and Claude Arpi that the village was divided in the course of the 1962 Sino-Indian War. If you find sources that say that Demchok was divided during the British colonial era or earlier (and of enough WP:WEIGHT to stand alongside the sources describing it as a single village during those time periods), that could be added at an earlier point in the article, but it wouldn't affect whether the village was divided after 1962 and undivided in 1961. The Puri source only concerns the status of Demchok immediately before and after the 1962 war, and the Arpi source only concerns the status of Demchok in 1953 to immediately after the 1962 war. — MarkH21talk 05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strachey said they were divided in 1847 itself. For them to get divided again in 1962, they needed to have gotten unified again sometime in between. Now that you have a whole page for this village, you can describe its full history and show when it got unified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, more details can be added about the pre-1962 situation, e.g. something like "By December 1953, India physically controlled the settlements on both banks of the Charding Nullah". That doesn't mean that one has to remove the passage After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the village of Demchok was divided in two parts, with Demchok, Ladakh administered by India and Dêmqog, Tibet Autonomous Region administered by China cited to Puri and Arpi talking about the village being administratively divided during the 1962 Sino-Indian war. — MarkH21talk 06:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, I find that statement inconsistent with the known facts. How about if we focus on developing decent content, instead of arguing over what we can or cannot do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed the statement, so I am arguing that it should not have been removed and that it should be reinstated (with modification). There are no sources contradicting the statement directly supported by the Puri and Arpi articles that: Would you be fine with the (re-)insertion of the quoted three sentences in? This doesn't preclude adding more details later. — MarkH21talk 08:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have opened an RfC since you have removed the modified statement:, , . — MarkH21talk 14:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Parigas
The Chinese sources literally describe "Parigas district" as the 450 sqkm area surrounding / to the west of Demchok village that is "illegally occupied by India". They doesn’t use it to refer to the village at all. — MarkH21talk 23:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But the term Demchok sector is not being used for the entire disputed territory, including both the Indian-controlled and Chinese-controlled parts. So you can't equate "Parigas" with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Added missing "not". Sorry for the typing omission.
 * The Chinese certainly don't use "Parigas" to refer to either Demchok village as . For instance, It's more than just the Indian-controlled disputed territory since the sources say that India controls 450 sqkm of the southwest corner of Parigas. — MarkH21talk 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will double check the English sources. But I have never seen the Chinese call the Indian village "Demchok". It is always Parigas. So, we will have to mention that somewhere in some form.
 * Is there a name for the area east of the Shequan river? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese name for the Indian village is "碟木绰克" (pinyin: Diémùchuòkè). A quick Google search turns up some sources using that, with The New York Times being the best example: I’m not sure if there's a specific name for the part of Parigas east of the Shiquan/Indus river. But Parigas seems to encompass a larger area, the southwest corner of which is the Indian-controlled part of the Demchok sector.For English-language Chinese sources, the Chinese report from the 1960 meeting uses "Demchok" (e.g. Part 1). The China Daily/People's Daily uses "Demchok" in English for the Indian-administered village: — MarkH21talk 21:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, there is some contradiction between other sources and the above Chinese usage. In Part 1 of the Indian report on the 1960 meeting, it says that the Chinese delegation responded to a question that West of Demchok, after crossing the Chopu river, one arrived at Parigas. There’s also an Indian news article in The Wire that says that Demchok, which is in Ladakh and claimed by China, was named Parigas.This is a strange one. It's possible that Chinese sources used "Parigas" for the Indian-administered village in the past, but so far there aren't really any Chinese-published sources that I can find using it that way. Certainly, modern Chinese sources do not use "Parigas" for either village and only use it for the larger area. — MarkH21talk 22:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking the Officials' Report. I suggest that we stick to the official sources. The Chinese answer to the Question 36 of the Indian side was pretty specific. This is important because the readers have to be able to relate what we write with the official terminology. You can add a footnote about the other varied meanings of "Parigas" in the news media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to include "Parigas" in Demchok, Ladakh as you said, as well as "Parigas district" in Demchok sector, since modern Chinese sources only ever refer to the disputed area by "Parigas", "Parigas area", or (most commonly) "Parigas district".By the way, I found another Chinese source explicitly placing the English "Parigas" alongside the Chinese "巴里加斯": — MarkH21talk 08:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I will add it back then. On the "Parigas district", it is clear that it is only the Indian-administered portion that gets to be called by that name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not always, as evidenced by the earlier quoted If India controls the southwest corner of Parigas, then Parigas cannot be solely the Indian-controlled part... — MarkH21talk 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC) An source that clearly defines Parigas: I don't know what "基古纳鲁河" (Jigunalu River) and "果洛" (Guoluo) refer to, but at least there are more data points and locations. Whether the boundary includes the Indian-claimed region under Chinese administration is still unclear, so I agree that we cannot yet say that "Parigas district" is an alternative name for "Demchok sector". Given that it is always described as disputed though, I think we could say that the "Parigas district" is at least part of the Demchok sector. — MarkH21talk 12:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Jigunalu" is Jamlung and Umlung is well-known. These two rivers are marked on Tianditu. The only other river marked on the western bank of Indus is "Suigaer Long", which I called Sikar, extrapolating from a campsite name called Sikarle (Xikaerlie). "Guoluo" could be "Cuoduobo" on the eastern bank. It is a bit far away.
 * Incidentally, the river that joins the Indus from the east where the Chinese claim line leaves the Indus, is marked on Tianditu as "Xingong Longba". There is a village called Chibra on it, which is frequently referred to by British explorers. But they didn't give a name to the river. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I notice that Xingong Longba is made by the joining of two streams, called "Cuolongjian" and "Quzailong" respectively. The first of these could be the "Guoluo". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know that 基古纳鲁河 (Jigunalu River) is Jamlung? Jamlung is writen as 佐木隆 (Zuomulong) in Chinese, which is very different. Similarly, 果洛 (Guoluo) is quite different from Cuolongjian. — MarkH21talk 02:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that Tianditu has a point called 下果洛 (Lower Guoluo) just southeast of Demchok (roughly 1/4 of the way to Zhaxigang) on the southwest bank of the Indus, with 果洛 (Guoluo) a bit further south of that. — MarkH21talk 02:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Guoluo reference. I agree on its identification.
 * As for "Jigunalu", I expect that a news reporter might hear a name mentioned by local people and transcribe it in his/her own way, without knowing what the official name is. (For example, witness the difference between "Dianjiao" and "Diemochouku".) Jamlung (as the British spelt it) is the river that is in the vicinity of Umlung and Demchok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Jigunalu/Kigunaru
jī gǔ nà lǔ hé is now translated by Google translate as "Kigunaru river", a familiar name to the Indian readers. Kigunaru (or Kegunaro) is a grazing ground at the Chang La.

Guoluo is roughly where the Indian claim line crosses the Indus river (marked based on map.tianditu.gov.cn). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * To add to the confusion, one of the headwaters of the Kigunaru river is also being labelled as "Gegu Naruo" on Tianditu. Circled on the map here.
 * Below the Chang La pass, the combined river is being labelled "Xingong Longba". This could be the name of the valley rather than the river (Longba/Lungpa meaning valley in Tibetan). We have no idea what was the Tibetan name corresponding to "Xingong". I have also seen some other map where Chang La itself was labelled as "Xinlong La". So, both of these terms could have been mis-transcriptions of "Chang" meaning "northern". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on 1953-1962 control and administrative split of Demchok
Should the related articles Demchok sector, Demchok, Ladakh, Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, and Demchok (historical village) mention that both banks of Demchok were physically controlled by India from 1953 until its effective split in 1962, as in the following passage? 14:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (pre-war Demchok)

 * Yes (nominator): The cited sources from Claude Arpi (link) and The Hindu (link) clearly say that that the Indian and Chinese officials agreed from December 1953 to April 1954 that India had actual physical possession of Demchok, that Demchok was held by the Indian military in October 1962, that the PLA seized the entire area during the 1962 Sino-Indian War and withdrew from all but the southern part of Demchok, and that the village itself was divided into two parts one held by India and the other by China after the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Even Chinese sources (article from Headline Daily) support this: . The sources directly support that:
 * Demchok was physically controlled by India from the mid-1950s to 1962;
 * The northwestern part of Demchok (Demchok, Ladakh) was controlled by India after the 1962 war;
 * The southeastern part of Demchok (Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) was controlled by China after the 1962 war.
 * At worst, the statement could be included with WP:INTEXT attribution (e.g. to Claude Arpi and The Hindu) but there aren't even any reliable sources that contradict them.The passage was removed on the basis of Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, citing an essay on history RSes that does not that exclude news articles from being RSes, just as WP:NEWSORG does not exclude news articles.Update: The following academic source also says that both India and China agreed that Demchok was controlled by India, only differing on control of the remaining area: — MarkH21talk 14:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC); add Chinese source and tweak 16:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC); fix minor mistranslation 01:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC); update 21:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to subsection below


 * no As it is only ma claim made by India, its is not a fact supported by anyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The Chinese government was unequivocal in declaring that there was no such occupation:
 * India seems to have set up border posts beyond the present day LAC in late 1961 and early 1962 (as part of its ill-fated "forward policy"):
 * There was no occupation in the "mid-1950s" as claimed here. Even in 1961–62, setting up border posts does not in itself imply that the administration of the area was disturbed in any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no occupation in the "mid-1950s" as claimed here. Even in 1961–62, setting up border posts does not in itself imply that the administration of the area was disturbed in any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no occupation in the "mid-1950s" as claimed here. Even in 1961–62, setting up border posts does not in itself imply that the administration of the area was disturbed in any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No due to lack of support by anyone other than India. Idealigic (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I see the Indian newspaper of record in The Hindu, an India-based French Tibetologist in Claude Arpi, and a Hong Kong newspaper in Headline Daily supporting the claim. I did not find any references that suggest that the claim is inaccurate. &lt; Atom ( Anomalies ) 05:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No - It's a pretty significant claim that would require better sources. (If you're even considering WP:INTEXT attribution, it would have to be balanced out with what K3 pointed out about China's denial, to maintain WP:DUE. But that source is much better, so I don't think that will work.) SerChevalerie (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (pre-war Demchok)

 * This is a claim made by both China and India. They actually agree on this. — MarkH21talk 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion at RSN over sourceing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The first quote you provide says that the Parigas area (the area around Demchok) is the only place that India occupied, right? That only seems to support the claim made by Puri in The Hindu, Arpi in Indian Defence Review, and the Headline Daily.Also how do the Indian posts at Jara La (east of Demchok) and Chang La show that India did not control Demchok? — MarkH21talk 18:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh? If there are posts in two areas, situated either side of a third area, that does not mean the third area was under the same control as the posts. Ever heard of a salient, for example? It is pure WP:OR to make that assumption, if I have understood correctly what you are trying to say. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am asking Kautilya3 how the posts are relevant to the claim made by the articles by Puri, Arpi, and Headline Daily. He's the one bringing up any mention about these posts. — MarkH21talk 18:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How are Puri, Arpi and Headline Daily relevant to anything? The Chinese Prime Minister has said at the end of 1959 that all the areas marked on the 1956 map were under Chinese administration except for Ladakhi Demchok. So, Demqog was under Chinese administration. You need to dump all those sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote from the Chinese Prime Minister that you provided literally says that the Parigas area was occupied by India. The Parigas area does not exclusively refer to what is now Demchok, Ladakh. — MarkH21talk 19:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment: India seems to have set up border posts beyond the present day LAC in late 1961 and early 1962 (as part of its ill-fated "forward policy"). Ladakhi Demchok has always been under Indian control, and it continues to be so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but how is that related to whether India had control of what is now Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture from the mid-1950s to 1962?And again, your quote shows the exact opposite of declaring that there was no such occupation. — MarkH21talk 18:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If India did set up posts in Demqog or its vicinity, it would have been around this time frame: late 1961 and early 1962. Even if it did set up a post there, we can only say that it set up a post there, and not extrapolate to something called "took physical control". That would be WP:SYNTHESIS again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anything about the border posts and I never tried to use the posts to support any argument? I just asked why you mentioned the border posts in your !vote. I don't know what straw man you're attacking now, because you're the one who first mentioned them here, in your !vote. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please can you not rehash the same arguments, this is an RFC, lets others have a say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * China didn’t deny it, the given quote only confirms it: Except for the Parigas area by the Shangatsangpu River, India has not occupied any Chinese territory east of this section of the traditional boundary. Parigas area is the area around Demchok. This is also what the academic source that I just added says. — MarkH21talk 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Moved from under MarkH21's !vote in the subsection above
 * I am hard put to figure out how a "disagreement", as per scholars, becomes an agreement in your book? (Note that the Chinese position is the same as what I quoted below, modulo the change of nomenclature of "Parigas" to "Demchok".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of that source was just that China and India disagreed on the several things except the control of Demchok: the exception of Demchok, which remained under Indian control (Indian position) and Chinese units had maintained effective control over the entire area with the exception of Demchok (Chinese position). They both agree that Demchok was under Indian control until the start of the war. Just as your quote says that the Chinese position in 1959 was that India had occupied the Parigas area. — MarkH21talk 18:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the source, it says that India claimed to have sent "periodic reconnaisance parties". That is a far cry from "taking physical control", which is what you want to claim. Since Demchok is a populated place, unlike the other disputed areas, a lot more than periodic reconnaisance would be need to take physical possession. One would have needed to declare those people Indian citizens and collect taxes from them. India didn't claim anything like that. The Chinese rightly said that, whatever India did, didn't mean a thing. Those areas remained Tibetan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the academic authors say that the two countries' positions were that Demchok was under Indian control and not under the effective control of China, then your personal idea of what constitutes "physical control" is not of the same weight regarding what the two governments claimed. — MarkH21talk 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which Demchok though? The Chinese did not say that "Demchok" was under Indian control. They said "Parigas" was under Indian control. And they defined precisely what they meant by Parigas. It was to the west (northwest) of the "Chopu river" (Charding Nullah). The Chinese definitely did not agree with your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "The Chinese did not say that "Demchok" was under Indian control", the 1960 Chinese officials' report clearly uses "Demchok" and not "Parigas": The other Chinese source (Headline Daily) already mentioned even more specifically uses "Dêmqog" (典角村) instead of "Parigas" or even "Demchok": . — MarkH21talk 23:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they said "Parigas" specifically: Newspapers are not reliable sources for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you to Demchok, Ladakh:  So you now agree with the claim of the RfC? Also  that is another source showing that the Chinese government also made this claim. — MarkH21talk 21:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I obiously don't agree with your WP:SYNTHESIS. The actual state of affairs was already described by me: "India seems to have set up border posts beyond the present day LAC in late 1961 and early 1962 (as part of its ill-fated "forward policy")". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's not really much between your words During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the Chinese forces reclaimed the areas southeast of the Lhari stream to something of the form "China did not control the southeast bank of the Lhari stream immediately before the 1962 war and China controlled the southeast bank of the Lhari stream after the 1962 war". At the very least, it seems that you agree with this latter statement? — MarkH21talk 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. You can't say "China did not control..." unless there is a WP:RS that says it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You used the word reclaim, which means to gain something that was previously lost... — MarkH21talk 22:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it does. But that is not positive information. When you need information, you need to go look for it. You can't simply imagine it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Independent India's border definition
The maps published by Government of India in the early 1950s showed the Ladakh border as "undefined".

In 1952, India's ambassador to China was asked to raise the subject of border definition with Premier Zhou En-lai, but the ambassador found Zhou reluctant to discuss it. He stated that they had been in Tibet for a short duration and had not yet thoroughly studied the problem. Instead, Zhou sought facilities to transport food supplies to Tibet via India.

It was only in mid-1954, after signing the Panchsheel agreement, that India published a defined boundary for the entire Indo-Tibetan border. The negotiations that Claude Arpi mentions happened in the run up to the Panchsheel agreement. They do not have implications for the "physical possession" of any territory. They only imply that the two sides had contending claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Those details don’t really change that the following quote is clearly about "physical possession" of Demchok... — MarkH21talk 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Kashmir Survey
, in a series of edits at Charding Nullah, you had changed the section title and references to "Kashmir Survey" and "Kashmir Atlas", which are the terms used by Alastair Lamb to refer to these things. Your terminology has now been copied to this page. Can you explain what you have against Lamb's terminology? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On page 43 of Lamb's 1964 work, he writes: Immediately afterwards and for the remainder of the book, Lamb uses the term 1868 Kashmir Atlas/Kashmir Atlas to refer to the Atlas which is directly cited to Photozincographed Sections of part of the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet.The full name Photozincographed Sections of part of, the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak, and Baltistan or Little Tibet is also used by other sources, such as Lamb's 1965 work and . — MarkH21talk 13:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read your own quotation, it prominently says "Kashmir Survey", capitalised. But that is exactly the phrase you have removed and replaced it by the title of a document in the archives. I can't see any reason why you are trying to second guess your own source! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he cites its publication to Photozincographed Sections of part of the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet. There’s no second-guessing here, that’s what Lamb cites it to himself. You believe that the Photozincographed Sections of part of the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet isn’t about the "Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet"?— MarkH21talk 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are being disingenuous again. We are talking about language and presentation, about the WP:COMMONNAMEs by which things are referred to. Please don't tell me that you don't understand this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What? COMMONNAME is about article titles, which is not about. Your accusation of bad faith is pretty appalling. I'm just pointing out what the actual name of the survey was.If you feel so strongly about using "Kashmir survey", then we should still note the name Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet. — MarkH21talk 23:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Parigas district
Copying below the newly contributed subsection on "Parigas district"

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re, I don't see how a short subsection would be inappropriate. You removed it from the lead earlier, and it's a bit strange to just place it directly in the "Boundaries" section without separating it from the rest of the section. A short subsection seems the cleanest, but an alternative would be a "Terminology" section or similar. — MarkH21talk 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the previous "Boundaries" section only had one sentence actually about boundaries, whereas the remainder is about the geography of the disputed area, so I renamed it "Geography". — MarkH21talk 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is fairly certain that the Ladakhi Demchok village is called "Parigas". It is labelled as such by tianditu even now. The "Pargias district" with unknown boundaries and an astronomical amount of area, only some part of which is supposedly under Indian control, is too vague to be worthy of inclusion. Neither is it clear how it relates to the Demchok sector. Recall that Demchok sector includes both the Chinese- and Indian-administered areas under dispute. I need to see evidence for the Chinese-administered part of the Demchok sector being included under "Parigas district" for it to be included here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Replying to the three different points made:
 * Re an astronomical amount of area, only some part of which is supposedly under Indian control: The Demchok sector is also approximately 1900 sqkm (just roughly using Google Maps/OSM distance measurements). They are very roughly a similar size (at least the same order of magnitude), and both are partially Indian-controlled west of the Indus & Dêmqog.
 * Re Neither is it clear how it relates to the Demchok sector.: The Demchok sector is a disputed area centered around Demchok. "Parigas district" is the Chinese name for a disputed territory centered around Demchok. The Indian-administered part of Parigas district also coincides with the Indian-administered part of the Demchok sector. This mention also adds the information that Chinese sources put the amount of Indian-administered territory in the Demchok sector at 450sqkm, which is certainly worth including.
 * Re I need to see evidence for the Chinese-administered part of the Demchok sector being included under "Parigas district" for it to be included here.: The "Parigas district" was called a disputed territory on the western border between China and India that includes Jigunalu River, Umlung, Demchok, Guoluo, and other areas. The Hunan Daily article, which notes that the entire area is 1900sqkm of which 450sqkm is Indian-administered, also says It explicitly includes Dêmqog, which is Chinese-administered. Outside of the 450sqkm Indian-administered portion and Dêmqog, the remainder of the Parigas district is east of the Indus and Chinese-administered.
 * — MarkH21talk 00:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can verify that the total Demchok sector is around 1900 sq.km., though it is a bit of an overestimate. So, I will remove the dubious tag. I would however prefer it to be called the "Parigas district", because Parigas by itself has well-defined official meaning as the Ladkhi Demchok village. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of the modern Chinese sources unfortunately refer to the entire area in Chinese as "巴里加斯" (Parigas) without the "地区" (district) in Chinese and in English parentheticals as just "Parigas". The endnote describes the 1960s official usage, so I don't think it should be a major issue.The Parigas district explicitly includes both the Ladakhi Demchok and Dêmqog, so it's not really only around the Ladakhi Demchok as . — MarkH21talk 00:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia entry
The Chinese Wikipedia entry parallel to this one seems to be this. They call it "Barrigas" (understandably). I couldn't figure out most of their description of the area. But what interested me was the history:

No sources provided, but I have some sources that I gathered. Does anybody know what happened in May 1955 that qualifies as "occupying Barrigas"?

In 1954, India and China signed a trade agreement, by which Demchok was the only route allowed for trade between Ladakh and Tibet. So China knew officially that India was claiming "Demchok", whatever it was supposed to mean. Later that year, India defined its border, which was, as we know, 5 km southeast of the Charding Nullah ("Dianjiao Qu"). So, the "Chinese Border Working Group" (border defence detachment?) arrived to ensure that the Indians don't cross Charding Nullah. So far, everything seems normal.

But what I don't get is the bit about India "occyping Barrigas". An Indian border security post was set up as early as 1950. India also decided that Tibetans won't be allowed into Ladakh, presumably because it would cause political problems. (But Tibetans were allowed into India through other routes, without needing visas). What exactly happened in 1955?

(By the way, the border security post is likely to have been a J&K state government thing. We have a precise description of the post available from Kylel Gardner.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

POV Tag
Where can I read the explanation of the tag? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What tag?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Neutrality disputed. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It means someone things this violates WP:NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that? I am enquiring for the precise concerns that led to this tag. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It was placed originally at the Charding Nullah page here, and was copied over here. The Talk:Charding Nullah page is a huge mess. So I can't tell where the issue was described. But the problem is the Alastair Lamb POV that India's border was different from any of the older maps, whereas China's border supposedly agreed with something or the other. In reality, both the borders were expansive.

India's claim should have been to the Lhari stream (as documented by Strachey), but it went further south. China's border should have been to Lagankhel (as in the 1868 Kashmir Atlas). But it went further north. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lamb's statement quoted in the Kashmir Atlas section that the boundary was 16 miles downstream from Demchok is correct. But all the statements made in the Modern claims section are wrong. We should probably just delete all the references to Lamb 1965 because it has loads of bogus claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I will add a scan of Stratchey's map to the article, is it out of copyright? I am not yet into the modern section and currently trying to dig into the prim. sources of Kashmir Survey.
 * I remain very curious about the Demchok village and was looking out for any anthropologist who made it to the place, ever. I thought southern Demchok (that is, Indian Demchok) to be a relatively recent settlement but Cunningham's report messes up my theories. It is quite weird that in the premodern era, a single village was being ruled by two royal powers just because the agreed frontier passed through it. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. I think Strachey was a bit loose in his description. The Demchok Karpo (Lhari Karpo) was on the Indian side and some farmlands near it were given to the Hemis monastery. But Hemis had problems getting it cultivated, probably because it was remote and nobody lived there except Changpa nomads. But apparently there was a village at the Hot Spring, which the French Army map marks as "Chaude" or something (probably derived from "Charding").
 * Strachey's maps are all on the Commons . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, I have a cut-out of the Demchok sector. The border is harder to make out as it is faintly marked with a red shading. But the Edward Weller map on the main page shows the same border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of anthropologists, this book by Janet Rizvi and Monisha Ahmed should be useful. I don't have access to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of anthropologists, this book by Janet Rizvi and Monisha Ahmed should be useful. I don't have access to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am getting around to this problem now. Reading the Alastair Lamb's paper, I find historically illiterate statements like this:

Ladakh didn't "attempt" to annex "Tibetan territory". It had annexed Ngari territory, of which Ladakh was itself the strongest kingdom. After 900 AD, Tibet was to the east of Mayum Pass, and to the west was Ngari. That was the status quo ante. Tibet was the Tsangpo basin and Ngari was Indus–Sutlej basin. Strachey saw that clearly.

Prior to 900 AD, Lhasa controlled Ngari for only about 200 years, and the nobility families of the former Zhangzhung empire were still around when Kyide Nyimagon arrived, and he married into one of them. And the Zhangzhung language was probably still alive too. It was only after 900 AD that Ngari got "Tibetanised" through the influence of Nyimagon's descendants and their use of the Tibetan language for Buddhism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)