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)

Incorrect map

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The locator map (File:IN-JK.svg) used for Jammu and Kashmir in this article is incorrect. It shows part of Aksai Chin (bottom right) as controlled by India and the Trans-Karakoram tract as part of Pakistan. I have already notified the uploader User:Filpro on Commons of this error so that he can upload a new version. The best locator map for JK was this File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg but it is now outdated and does not demarcate Telangana.

The error in Filpro's map for JK is replicated over other locator maps by him as well which are currently used in articles for all Indian states. We cannot keep using these maps and they should be replaced by the correct ones. It would be great if Filpro can upload correct versions shortly but the current incorrect maps shouldn't stay there for long; we can use {{mapframe}} and display OpenStreetMap in the meantime. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to notify User:Abhijitsathe if he can help, he has uploaded some excellent maps for the districts of JK (e.g. File:Jammu and Kashmir Shopian district.svg). Gotitbro (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Should also notify @TUBS: (upldr. of the de-facto file) to see if he can help with new locator maps for India. Gotitbro (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to update my locator maps for India. Can't tell when I'm in the mood to do it, but it will most probably take some time. Any volunteers, that may update the maps by incorporating Telangana based on File:India location map.svg? Go ahead! For the Jammu and Kashmir region in particular, I freely admit that I - sitting far away in Europe - don't possess much intimate knowledge about the minutia of the situation on the ground over there. As far as I understand, the situation is a mess. On the one hand de-facto borders may move over time, are obfuscated for strategic reasons or contested in a way that makes any border line hard to determine, on the other hand drawing de-jure borders is supposed to take at least two jurisdictions into account (India's view, Pakistan's view, maybe even the UN's or China's view). This may easily lead to fervid debates. In this case - from an impartial map drawer's point of view - I always recommend to draw maps that depict the situation from the different angles rather to find common ground. I tried to do this, plz check the category commons:Category:SVG_locator_maps_of_states_in_India_(red_location_map_scheme) to see what I mean. Thus the different Wikipedia language versions can chose whatever version they like best. --TUBS (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the omission of Telangana is the lesser evil. So I replaced the map by one of yours. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• @TUBS: Your locator maps scheme was the best one for Indian states (shown with surrounding countries, correct international borders, de facto/de jure etc.) the only thing they'd require is a simple boundary for the new state of Telangana. I'd be waiting for your new uploads so that we can again incorporate them on the wiki.
• @Kautilya3: I think this would be the better one to use in the article File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg (without claims). De-facto ones were the ones being used in Indian states before the creation of Telangana. Gotitbro (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you will need to worry about people claiming it is illegal in India and such like. I think hatching is a good compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @TUBS:, @Filpro: Looks like cartographers are as confused as everyone else. The bottom-right part of Kashmir is indeed controlled by India (e.g. look at villageinfo.in/jammu-&-kashmir/leh/leh/manser.html in Ladakh which is beyond the intl. line in both Google Maps and OpenStreet) see this map on India's border disputes File:India disputed areas map.svg and this one by the CIA File:中国与印度边界地图.png (2017) both of which present the correct current status of the borders.

I was confused by the fact that Google Maps only shows claimed boundaries not de-facto ones and the incorrect boundary on OpenStreet. Further what confused me was this map File:China India western border 88.jpg which shows "claims/disputes" in red but I incorrectly assumed Chinese control (my mistake here); then there is this CIA map File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg (2004) [should be superseded by the 2017 CIA map] which, a bit unclearly, shows the bottom right as controlled by China. All this confused me to believe that the bottom right is indeed controlled by China (in fact confused TUBS as well File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg).

After looking into this, suffice to say, the bottom-right part of Kashmir isn't controlled by China and the current map by Filpro is fine (the Karakoram tract is fine as well as nothing is demarcated beyond India). Apologize for creating this confusion. Also after seeing this, the File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg CIA map should be replaced by this CIA one File:Kashmir map big.jpg (2002) in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotitbro, Filpro, I have been looking into the issues of the Demchok sector lately, and convinced myself that the OpenStreetMap version of the border (along the Indus river) is the correct one. Please see Demchok#External links that links to the relevant OSM relations.

• The "Manser" village that Gotitbro found on Google Maps seems to be a mythical one. It doesn't show on any other map and the Census spreadsheet doesn't list it either. (There is a Manser close to Leh, but that is not the one being referred to here.) It seems that there is no authentic information on where the LAC is in the Demchok sector, but it is safe to assume that the Indus river serves as the de facto boundary. All the roads on the eastern bank of Indus seem to connect to Chinese locations, e.g., in this segment or here with Indian and Chinese posts facing eacha other on the two sides of the Indus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• The "two posts" I mentioned are 2 km away from the Fukche landing strip, confirmed in this news report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just this year, the Chinese troops drove into Koyul in SUV trucks to complain about "Chinese refugees". The place is "close to the LAC" [1]. the map location. They don't say whether the Chinese troops drove all the way from Demchok on the Indian road, or just crossed the Indus river in their SUV's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Claude Arpi [2] (with maps) says:

The Chinese narrative mentions that on October 28: “the Chinese troops had achieved their objectives and had occupied the Kailash Range that dominated the eastern bank of the Indus Valley. All the seven Indian strongholds in this sub-sector were removed and New Demchok itself was captured.”

The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.

The "Kailash Range" is the one on the eastern bank of the Indus River. It is the continuation of the Ladakh Range. So, "the PLA eventually withdrew". Does that mean they gave it up or not? Arpi doesn't want to say. But the situation on the ground (video) seems very clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Here is a surreal situation. At the end of the Demchok sector, the LAC leaves the Indus river and heads to the hills. You can see the track used by the Indian troops for patrolling up to the line. On the other side of the line, there is a "village" called Dumchele, along with a Chinese border post. It has been reported that this village is used for off-the-record trade (i.e., "smuggling"). "Several crores of rupees" worth of goods were apparently traded in the run-up to the Olympics (so that the Tibetans wouldn't run out of supplies). [3]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Somebody covered the construction activity. The Sarpanch of Koyul-Demchok gives her reaction. Worth listening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• In this Frontline article, you will find a picture of the Dumchele "shopping mall". An impressive place. I guess one has to say kudos to the Chinese, because India can't even be bothered to give them a post office. The incongruity of building the "world's highest motorable road" (no kidding!) to a place that does not even have a primary school is mind-boggling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Border dispute: the inside story

French military map of Kashmir from 1913

After studying things a bit, I find that the Indian feelings of self-righteous indignation are not quite valid. The Chinese claim line is the same as the boundary published by British India in its Kashmir Atlas of 1867. This map is curiously missing from the Indian government's collection [4]. But the Qing Chinese map in the collection shows the same border. So does the high-resolution French military map of World War I times, displayed on the side here. (Use the map viewer to narrow down to the area.) The British moved the border up from Demchok to Fukche (the junction with the Koyul River). Why they did so is unclear. Alastair Lamb says it was a "balancing act". They claimed extra territory near the Spanggur Lake and gave up some territory in the Demchok sector. I can't find any discussion of this anywhere. If somebody has Parshotam Mehra's Negotiating with the Chinese, there might be some discussion there.

But these British map-making exercises don't seem to have made any difference on the ground. Both the Ladakhis and the Tibetans still regarded Demchok as the border, as pointed out by Claude Arpi's article mentioned above. The 1959 Indian government's border definition is essentially this, except that it took the liberty to move it to the watersheds (crests of the mountain ridges) surrounding the area. This is not unreasonable. But many scholars point out that it had to be negotiated with the Chinese. India couldn't just put up border posts in the territory that was clearly marked as Tibetan territory in all the maps of the time, except India's own self-declared maps.

There wasn't really much fighting in the area in the 1962 war. The border posts were manned by J&K Militia (Ladakh Scouts). India tactically withdrew them, expecting that the Chinese would attack with overwhelming force as they were doing elsewhere. The Chinese forces came up to the Indus river in their claimed area, but not beyond. Romesh Bhattacharji says that the LAC is the right bank of the Indus river and that the Chinese maps show it as the "IB" (international border). I can't verify this. All the maps I have seen show the Chinese claim line. (google.cn isn't accessible to me, if it still exists.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

An interpretation

CIA map of Kashmir, 2004

Looking at the CIA map that we take to be authentic, here is an interpretation of the state of affairs that is consistent with everything I know. The war histories of 1962 say that the Indian troops withdrew to Koyul and Dungti, which are outside the Chinese claim line. So, the Chinese deem themselves to have advanced to their claim line (which is now the "Line of Actual Control" in their view, as confirmed by the CIA). But withdrew to the other side of the Indus as a mark of their large-heartedness (don't laugh). So, they let the Indians use this side of the Indus, but do not allow any permanent constructions there. They also deem fit to enter it at any time they please in order to block or threaten people. Indians have been playing along with this interpretation of the LAC but explain it to their citizens as a "difference in perceptions of the LAC".

Here are some tidbits from a BJP study group headed by Nitin Gadkari in 2010:

• "The scripting of Chinese signs on our side of boundary at Mangyur and T-Point, is a part of this strategy".
• "After 1981, China in order to put claim on these pasture lands, encouraged their grazers to enter these lands before Riboos from India reach these areas during winter."
• "But, in 2008 the Chinese captured the animals of Indian Riboos from these areas without any reaction from our side. Now these areas have also become disputed territory."
• "The Indian Army surprisingly expresses their displeasure that in the recent past, the people residing on LAC celebrated Dalai Lama's birth day which provoked the Chinese."
• "As the Chinese army personnel forced the local people at gun point to stop the work [of building a road using NREGA funds], no objection was raised from the Indian government."
• "... in 2004-05, [when] the Chinese constructed similar road on their side (within our Claim Line), there was no protest from our side."
• "There are virtually no roads on our border and more distinctly in those areas which are under dispute."
• "It is in common knowledge that China has constructed metalled roads up to LAC."
• "A senior IAS officer who has served this area has been the real whistle blower to the real issue on incursion in the Ladakh region causing a great discomfort to the Union Government."

So, it seems that officially the Chinese claim line is the LAC. Indians can't object to the incursions because they know this.

You wonder why this Chinese largesse? I think the reason is that the Chinese know their claim line in Demchok is bogus. Yeah, the British drew stupid maps, but nobody ever took any account of them. All the historical documents say clearly that "Demchok Lhari Karpo" is the border. So, I think the Chinese will be quite willing to withdraw from there, but only after India settles the big ticket items, viz., Aksai Chin and Tawang. Until then, we will only have smoke and mirrors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

• Bhattacharji, Romesh (2012), Ladakh: Changing, yet Unchanged, Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd., ISBN 978-81-291-2238-4 – via academia.edu
• Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed physical village and alternative names

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

The aforementioned RSes:

• "Jammu & Kashmir". European Foundation for South Asian Studies. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
• Snow, Shawn (19 September 2016). "Analysis: Why Kashmir Matters". The Diplomat. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
• Ruiz Estrada, Mario Arturo; Koutronas, Evangelos; Khan, Alam; Angathevar, Baskaran (2018). "Economic Dynamics of Territorial Military Conflicts: The Case of Kashmir". Journal of Strategic Studies. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3102745. ISSN 1556-5068.
• Tamkin, Emily; Karklis, Laris; Meko, Tim (28 February 2019). "The Trouble with Kashmir". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 May 2020.

Also, it's just false that other names aren't common for lead. See MOS:BOLDSYN, which explicitly states that

Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:

Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)

, with prominent examples including Mumbai (GA), Delhi (GA), Mysore (FA), Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chongqing, Dhaka (FA), Kyoto, Tokyo, The Catlins (FA). — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: None of the names you added are common, all the examples you listed above have common contemporary sources for the names rather than a 1926 source but that is not the contention here and you may add the names but that won't be following MOS. The contention here is citing this village as having ambiguous admin with the above sources, all of which refer to the "Demchok district", i.e. Demchok sector/Charding Nullah area, not this village in Ladakh which is administrated by India similar to Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture (administrated by China). The confusion is created here by the naming of these articles, my proposal is to split Demchok sector into its own article from Charding Nullah, move this page to Demchok, Ladakh and disambiguate Demchok to direct to the other three articles. Also pinging @Kautilya3:. 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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? — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. The previous version of the lead covers that perfectly well. It’s significantly more neutral than the first sentence only saying that

Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India.

As is done in the articles on other major disputed places, the first sentence should not just state that it is in one disputing party.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge revert

@Kautilya3: Why did you call the merge, which you not only did not contest at Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog, but also offered a suggestion at Talk:Charding Nullah#East and west, a "disruption"? At the very least, assume good faith for the merge and explain what you are contesting about it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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

See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts)
— MarkH₂₁^talk23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

— MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

(edit conflict) 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:

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.
— MarkH21 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short
— MarkH21 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate further now, since you actually contest it for an undisclosed reason, we have currently two articles: Demchok is about both the combined village (historically described as the village with the Lhari stream running through the middle) and the Indian-administered part on the western bank of the Charding Nullah. Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture is about the Chinese-administered part on the eastern bank of the Charding Nullah.

• The articles are confused in scope, it's not a natural division to have one article on a combined village and one part of it, with another article on the other part of it. This falls under both WP:OVERLAP and WP:PRECISE.
• The western part is also claimed by China to be part of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, and the eastern part is also claimed by India to be part of Demchok, Ladakh. This also falls under WP:OVERLAP.
• On top of all of that, the treatment of the combined village is currently in the article about the Indian-administered western part because the name used by India is the same as the transliteration used historically while China switched transliterations in 1982. That's based entirely on a historical fact about the transliterations of Tibetan used, unrelated to the actual article subjects.

Is there even a reason that you have for keeping the articles separate? Using 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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

a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet
— Henry Strachey in 1847 (quoted in Lamb 1964, p. 68)

If I'm not mistaken, this is the second-oldest extant description of Demchok after the nondescript mention in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Furthermore, the several reliable sources, e.g. Lamb (1965) and Richardson, that discuss the entity of "a single village of Demchok divided into two halves by the Charding Nullah" means that it is something that is notable and well-defined for WP.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.

Current situation

Currently, the combined village and northwestern half are covered in Demchok while the southeastern half is covered in Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture. The combined village was the predominant historical entity and is the most significant usage of the term. As early as the 1846-1847 British boundary commission (the second oldest mention of the village and the first to really describe it), Demchok has been described as a single village divided by the Charding Nullah: [Demchok] is a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet — Henry Strachey in 1847 (quoted in Lamb 1964, p. 68) Other examples that explicitly describe Demchok as one village divided by the Charding Nullah: Hugh Edward Richardson (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.

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.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposed at User:MarkH21/Demchok. I would prefer there be a separate infobox for the PRC administrative claim, because the subdivisions between the PRC (province-level, etc) and India (state / union territory, etc) do not map and it would be a mess to correctly mesh them together. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  @CaradhrasAiguo: The matter of infoboxes is something we can iterate on after consensus is achieved on whether to enact the merge proposal. I do wonder how that would look though: one could have only one infobox, two infoboxes (either as two at the top or one in each half), or three infoboxes (one combined at the top and one in each half). Since they both claim both halves, one in each half might not make much sense. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

US Army map of the area, based on Survey of India, 1945, shows only one Demchok village to the southeast of the Charding Nullah

• Oppose - Despite the passing comments made by some observers, I do not see the two places as forming "one village". The border between the two places was established in 1684 [at Charding Nullah or Demchok River], albeit a soft border. All the travellers describe only one village, which was on the Tibetan side of the border.

• 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):

  [Demchok] is a hamlet [...] divided by a rivulet
  — Henry Strachey in 1847, quoted in Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), p. 68

  "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
  — Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 38

  Demchok [...] which is located on both banks of a stream at its junction with the Indus
  — Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48

  Even in the Lange source from which you quote Hedin, Demchok is clearly drawn with structures on both banks in Fig. 5. Is there even a single historical source that says that Demchok was only on one bank of the river?
  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:

  British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the west of Demchok
  — Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48

  the Kashmir Atlas (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok.
  — Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), pp. 72–73

  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! — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

  @Ab207: See the draft at User:MarkH21/Demchok. The population of each half is given in their sections, and the estimate for the total combined population is given appropriately as well.

  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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

  @WhisperToMe: It's not like most sources referred to both Kansas City's collectively as a single entity, with both claimed in whole by both Missouri and Kansas in the modern day. To both countries here, they aren’t separate jurisdictions either. The situation is more similar to Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, Banc du Geyser, etc. than Texarkana and Kansas City. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undiscussed change of scope

MarkH21, this page was created as a page on the Indian village. You cannot unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As stated in this edit summary, this was based on the close of Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger and the follow-up at User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok? with GenQuest. It was not unilateral.

Do you actually oppose that development of the articles for any particular reason? — MarkH₂₁^talk 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 GenQuest, not me. It also does not do the same thing, since the latest pre-revert version of Demchok contains the main details for neither modern village, while the proposed merge would have contained the main details for both modern villages. The only thing that they accomplish in common is clarify the historical situation regarding the village and its split.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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 GenQuest'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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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:

Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.

There’s literally an example called 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 "Undiscussed". — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. < 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:

See also: Demchok

placed under the "History" sub-header, with each having its own unique history following the divergent point explained." < 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.
   • Lamb in his own voice:

     In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at 'the Lhari stream at Demchok', a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
     — Lamb, Alastair (1965), "Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute" (PDF), The Australian Year Book of International Law: 38

   • Strachey's description:

     [Demchok] is a hamlet of half a dozen huts and tents, not permanently inhabited, divided by a rivulet (entering the left bank of the Indus) which constitutes the boundary of this quarter between Gnari ... [in Tibet] ... and Ladakh
     — Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, p. 68

2. Both Claude Arpi and an article from The Hindu say that Demchok was a single village that was divided between China and India during the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
   • The article from The Hindu:

     The village itself was divided into two parts one held by India and the other by China after the 1962 Sino-Indian war, though there is not a single divided family.
     — Puri, Luv (2 August 2005). "Ladakhis await re-opening of historic Tibet route". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2020.

   • Claude Arpi in Indian Defence Review:

     The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d’Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India’s border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul’s insistence Chen said “There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok”. [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
     — Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. Retrieved 19 July 2020.

3. Your assertion that Demchok was divided before 1954 (without saying anything about whether it was divided in 1962) refers solely to the accounts by William Moorcroft (explorer) and Abdul Wahid Radhu (1918-2011) that Demchok was in Tibet.
   • Moorcroft:

     Finally, on the Indus, Moorcroft refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary.
     — Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, p. 61-62

   • Radhu:

     Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of the Lopchak caravan, described Demchok in his travel account as “the first location on the Tibetan side of the border”.
     — Lange, Diana (2017), "Decoding Mid-19th Century Maps of the Border Area between Western Tibet, Ladakh, and Spiti", Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines,The Spiti Valley Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present, p. 353

Not only do these not say anything about the two banks of Demchok being in the same or different jurisdiction, but they are entirely consistent with the fact that the 1847-1868 British survey and subsequent maps placed the Ladakh-Tibet border to be several miles west of the entirety of Demchok, so the single Demchok village that spanned both sides of the stream would be the first location on the Tibetan side of the boundary to anyone using those maps.

British maps from the time of the Kashmir Survey of the 1860s onwards have shown the border to lie some ten miles or so to the west of Demchok
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 48

the Kashmir Atlas (Sheet 17) put [the boundary] about sixteen miles downstream on the Indus from Demchok.
— Alastair Lamb, The China-India border (1964), pp. 72–73

— MarkH₂₁^talk 15:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

1874 Survey of India map

Unfortantely, WP:Walls of text do not get us any closer to resolution. So, please avoid them. I have told you what I think about Henry Strachey, Alastair Lamb, Luv Puri's assertions about the single village. I don't need to repeat them. Regarding Moorcroft and Radhu's testimony, I understand that your concern is that we don't know where the border was. In the RfM, I also mentioned Hedin, to which also I suppose you would raise the same objection.

The answer is that we know where the border was. It was at the Charding Nullah/Lhari stream. That is where it was when Strachey went there as a boundary commissioner in 1847. The Tibetan border guards blocked him from going beyond. That is where it was in 1939, when the Wazir of Ladakh and the British Trade Agent went there. As Claude Arpi tells you (in the same article you cited), "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

1. Those maps not being used by each of the three primary sources
2. 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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:

In between at the mouth of the nullah stands a big minaret of stones. In it is fixed a wood which looks like a flag. This is the boundary line.

-- 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. < 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 Gotitbro on 15 May 2020 above.

Whether this new page will remain independent or gets merged into one or other of the pages will depend on how the content develops and what evidence becomes available. If people insist that any talk of maps is WP:OR, I would also expect them to stand by that principle. -- 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 this version of this article (the history of pre-1962 Demchok)
• Demchok, Ladakh becomes what is now at Draft:Demchok, Ladakh (post-1962 Indian-administered Demchok)
• Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture as it currently is (post-1962 Chinese-administered Demchok)

That seems fine.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. < Atom (Anomalies) 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is exactly what Gotitbro recommended:

• This page gets renamed to Demchok, Ladakh.
• Demchok becomes a disambiguation page.

In addition, Demchok (historical village) gets created and developed. No other changes are made to any other pages. We will revisit the issue perhaps a few months down the road after the shape of the new page becomes clearer.

I think the comparison between Berlin, the capital of Germany and one of the greatest cities of Europe, and this place, a hamlet of half-a-dozen huts about which practically nothing is known, is implausibly far-fetched. I suggest we drop any such imaginations. -- 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 this version of this article.

The Berlin comparison is purely about article organization, not content. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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 this 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources

References

• India, Ministry of External Affairs, ed. (1962), Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, Government of India Press
  • Indian Report: Part 1 (PDF); Part 2 (PDF); Part 3 (PDF); Part 4 (PDF)
  • Chinese report: Part 1 (PDF); Part 2 (PDF); Part 3 (PDF)

Parigas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Kautilya3: 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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 your edit suggested. For instance,

西线巴里加斯印度控制450平方公里（我军曾对部分地区前出巡逻设防），主要位于狮泉河、典角村以西和班公湖西段。
[West of the line, India controls 450 square kilometers of Parigas (our army used to patrol and defend some areas), mainly located in Shiquan River, west of Dêmqog Village and west of Pangong Lake.]
— "中国对印战略：装甲集团沿三线突击两日可抵新德里" (in Chinese). Sina News. 25 August 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2020.

在中印边界西段，“1959年控制线”倒是有点学问，因为这条线就是中印传统边界线，但不包括巴里加斯地区(约450平方公里)
[In the western section of the Sino-Indian border, the "1959 Line of Control" is a bit clearer, because this line is the traditional Sino-Indian border, but it does not include the Parigas district (about 450 square kilometers)]
— 163 News

1955年，進一步蠶食巴里加斯地區，如今，印度控制巴里加斯西南角即獅泉河（森格藏布）與卓普河（典角曲）以西大約450平方公里
[In 1955, the Indian army further encroached on the Parigas district. Today, India controls about 450 square kilometers west of the Shiquan River (Seng Zangbo) and the Zhuopu River (Dêmqog Village) in the southwest corner of Parigas.
— "典角村，固有領土的見證，如今，600米外駐紮印軍" (in Chinese). Headline Daily. 11 June 2020. Retrieved 19 July 2020.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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:

拉达克人说，在碟木绰克和班公...
[Ladakhis say that in "Diémùchuòkè" and Pangong ...]
— NYT article

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:

Indian media said yesterday that work on the road to link Demchok village, which is 300 kilometers southeast of Leh, beyond India's last post in the Ladakh region, was stopped in October after objections by China.
The 8-km road was being built in the remote Demchok area of the Buddhist-dominated Ladakh area near the Line of Actual Control (LAC), a military line that divides Indian Kashmir and the part held by China.
— People's Daily article

— MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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":

其中除了一块很小的巴里加斯（Parigas）地区在本世纪50年代中期被印度侵占以外，其余地区始终在我控制之下，由西藏的日土县（1960年前为宗）管辖。
[Except for the small 巴里加斯 (Parigas) area which was invaded by India in the mid-1950s, the rest of the area was always under China's control and under the jurisdiction of Tibet's (pre-1960) Rutog County.]
— Article by Fang Jianchang from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

— MarkH₂₁^talk 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

今，印度控制巴里加斯西南角即獅泉河（森格藏布）與卓普河（典角曲）以西大約450平方公里
[Today, India controls about 450 square kilometers west of the Shiquan River (Seng Zangbo) and the Zhuopu River (Dêmqog Village) in the southwest corner of Parigas.]

If India controls the southwest corner of Parigas, then Parigas cannot be solely the Indian-controlled part... — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC) An source that clearly defines Parigas:

巴里加斯(Parigas)，是中国和印度西部边境中的一块争议领土，面积约1900平方公里，包括基古纳鲁河、乌木隆、碟木绰克(Demchok), 果洛等地区。[...] 巴里加斯中国固有领土，位于西藏阿里噶尔县西北
[巴里加斯 (Parigas) is a disputed territory on the western border between China and India. It covers an area of ​​approximately 1,900 square kilometers, including areas such as the Jigunalu River, Umlung, 碟木绰克 (Demchok), Guoluo, and other areas. [...] Parigas, China's inherent territory, is located in the northwest of Gar County in Tibet.
— Article from Hunan Daily (the official newspaper of the Hunan Provincial Party Standing Committee)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

MarkH21's contest for this content:

Thus the Demchok Lhari Karpo and the main Demchok village got divided, the former falling on the Ladakh side of the border and the latter on the Tibetan side. A secondary Demchok settlement apparently grew up on the Ladakhi side. When Henry Strachey visited the area in 1847, he found Demchok settlements on both the sides of the Lhari stream, and the stream was still the prevailing border between Ladakh and Tibet.

References

Two Demchok settlements in Strachey's map of 1851

Only the southern Demchok village shown in Drew's map of 1874

Edit summary: rm part not in the cited ref

My comments:

• It is clearly apparent on the maps that the Lhari Karpo and the "main Demchok village" are on two sides of the Lhari stream. Yes?
• The "main Demchok village" is the southern one, as apparent from many maps, and the census data.
• Prior to the boundary being set at the Lhari stream in the 17th century, certainly there would have been no need for two Demchok settlements. All evidence we have evidence for the prior period is the phrase "Lhari stream at Demchok".
• I don't know why the Strachey comment in the footnote was deleted.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing which side the Lhari Karpo was on, nor anything about pre-17th century. I'm just pointing out that one needs to cite a source for:

1. 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?
2. 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). — MarkH₂₁^talk 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):

In [the Treaty of Tingmosgang's] surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to How into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves
— Alastair Lamb, Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute (1965), p. 38

And of course 20th century primary sources describe settlements on both banks. But again, we don't have any sources whatsoever that say anything about Demchok between the 17th century and 1847.

The footnote that you just added here, for instance, is a 1900-1901 primary source description of Demchok being on the Tibetan side of the border, which doesn't say anything about pre-1847 Demchok. There is also the same issue from before about these sources saying that it was in Tibet is not the same as saying that Demchok was on the southeast bank, given that contemporaneous maps showed the border running 10 miles west of Demchok.

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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.

A short distance N. W. of Demchok, the road passes a partly frozen brook coming from Demchok-pu, a tributary valley from the left. A miserable stone bridge is built across the watercourse. At the left side of the mouth of this little valley, are the ruins of two or three houses, which were said to have belonged to Hemi-gompa. A pyramidal peak at the same, or left side of the valley, is called La-ri and said to be sacred. The valley, Demchok-pu, itself is regarded as the boundary between Tibet and Ladak.

-- 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

References

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.[5] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)