![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Charding Nullah was copied or moved into Demchok sector with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
MarkH21, I am sorry I hadn't noticed that you were editing this page. And when I did notice it, I had to revert all of it.
It looks like you are overly dependent on Lamb, and filling in stuff that he doesn't cover or doesn't know about. For instance, does he say that the 1684 treaty was with the Dzungar Khanate? Does he say that it was lost?
Lamb's limitations are well-recognized. See the Alastair Lamb page. What we would have liked to see from him is a decent explanation of why the British changed the border between between 1846 and 1868. It is quite inexplicable other than by a presumption of racism. His claims that the British surveyors were next to perfect and the Maharaja was expansionist etc. point to his own racism.
The fact is that whatever border the British on their maps made little difference to the Maharaja. The border was known to him based on customary practices, and those borders were followed.
There are plenty of other scholars who have covered the subject, even though I admit that Demchok often doesn't get the attention it deserves. I would particularly recommend the book by Fisher, Rose and Huttenback, which is the most thorough in examining the historical evidence. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Page 37:There can be no doubt that the 1684 (or 1683) agreement between Ladakh and the authorities then controlling Tibet did in fact take place. Unfortunately, no original text of it has survived and its terms can only be deduced. In its surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
Page 40:No text of this agreement between Tibet and Ladakh survives, but there are references to it in chronicles which are discussed in [...]
Page 41:The treaty that could have given this information, that of 1684, has not survived in the form of its full text, and we have no means of determining exactly what line of frontier was contemplated in 1684. The chronicles which refer to this treaty are singularly deficient in precise geographical details.
I’ll find the quote for the Dzungars is a bit, I think it uses an alternate spelling ofThe 1684 Treaty may have made a reference to “the Lhari stream at Demchok”; but as its text no longer survives, we cannot be sure that this is in fact the case.
Zungaror something similar (one can also use a source from Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War). — MarkH21 talk 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The intention of the 1684 agreement was clear enough. Ladakh had attempted to annex Tibetan territory but had been repulsed. The status quo ante was now being restored. But what, exactly, was the status quo?
References
caustic remarks.But also, you haven't identified which individual remarks you object to, having only removed all of them. For example, do you object to:
Or other specific parts that you object to, even if they were attributed? — MarkH21 talk 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Since the 1950s, Indian maps do not agree entirely with either the 1846–1847 survey or the 1868 Kashmir Atlas; the Indian claims lie 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Demchok whereas the British maps showed the border to be 10 miles (16 km) west of Demchok. The Chinese claims coincide with British surveys that placed the border 10 miles (16 km) west of Demchok
doesn't quite know what he is talking about, is not a
real historian, and has knowledge limited to the British archives. It's your opinion that his expertise is solely on the British archives. But even so, you've added plenty of unattributed content from Lamb here about the general history, but objected to attributed statements from Lamb about British maps from the 19th century.My question is: are there any more issues that you contest? For instance, the statement (quoted above) about the Indian claimed border lying 3 miles east of Demchok, and the British surveys and Chinese claims placing the border 10 miles west of Demchok. Normal practice would dictate that uncontested content remains, and edits that you haven't identified are assumed to be uncontested. If you're unsure, then just remove it once you figure out which content you want to discuss. — MarkH21 talk 23:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are my comments on other changes made in your edits:
A very good idea of its alignment was derived by Strachey and Cunningham in 1846-1848" but he never bothers to explain why this good idea was discarded in 1860).
The Kashmir Atlas location of the boundary near Demchok, which is confirmed in such recent sources as Foreign Office (1920), p. 4, is not easy to explain. [1]
References
Chronicle of Ladakh. The specific source cited for in the sentence you quoted says explicitly:
and that the subsequent text isFrancke's edition of La dvags rgyal rabs is a patchwork with respect to the agreements made in the peace treaty
a very brief surveyof Franke's text.
32.5565°N 79.2755°Eso precisely by looking at the 19th century maps. Such a description also needs to come from a source actually stating it (which plausibly exists), rather than your reading of the map. I don't think the paragraph should stay while it's only based on you reading the 19th century maps.
Here, theSouth of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown on British maps as being in Tibet
two British lines(part of lines A + B + C) refers to line A:
Advanced border as shown on the majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947and line B:
Border offered by the British to China in 1899 and marked on a number of British and other maps.
supreme authority. It's just one that I read through carefully and one that has statements that should be included, attributed. I'd like other sources to be included too. — MarkH21 talk 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC); fixed point number 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
From the above subsection:
Weakened "frontier ... was fixed at Lhari" to "treaty, whose text no longer survives, is assumed to have placed the frontier at... Lhari". Obviously, I don't agree, and I don't accept the authority of Alastair Lamb to override genuine scholars.
Lamb isn't overriding any historical works, he's just pointing out that the original text doesn't survive and that the previous works use what surviving references to the text there are. I don't see any sources that contradict this. For instance, this paper only refers to the treaty via the
Chronicle of Ladakh. The specific source cited for in the sentence you quoted says explicitly:Francke's edition of La dvags rgyal rabs is a patchwork with respect to the agreements made in the peace treaty
and that the subsequent text is
a very brief surveyof Franke's text.
Breaking this off to enact your reorganization here, without changing the context of the above. Is this (and the points raised in the "Other issues" section below) the only part of the edits above that you contest? — MarkH21 talk 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC); added quotes 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The boundary between Ladakh and Tibet was to be established at the Lha-ri stream in Demchog (Bde-mchog) except that the King of Ladakh would retain control of an enclave inside Tibetan territory at Minsar (Men-ser), near Lake Manasarowar. The revenue from Minsar was to finance offerings at the sacred lamps at the annual Monlam (Smon-lam) festival in Lhasa.
The surviving form of the text can only be traced to the Ladakh chronicles, which makes references to the text of the original treaty, and they were only ever aware of the treaty because of the Ladakh chronicles.I understand your point that insertingMissionary Dr. Karl Marx began studying the Ladakh chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs), in some detail [...] The first published version of the treaty appeared as an appendix to a book by the then British Joint Commissioner, Captain H. Ramsay. The text and Marx's translation of the La dvags rgyal rabs were published posthumously in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal between 1891 and 1902, and Marx's successor August Hermann Francké published a revised version as well as the first detailed history of Ladakh. Since then the Italian scholar Luciano Petech and his pupil Zahiruddin Ahmad have conducted further research into the Ladakh chronicles, including the Ladakh-Tibet-Mongol war and the 1864 treaty which concluded it
which has been lostin the middle of the sentence appears to weaken the statement. It's worth noting what all of the analyses are based on though, if anything to give background. What about a short mention immediately after the sentence in the article that begins
The chronicles of Ladakh mention that, at the conclusion of the Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War in 1684, Tibet and Ladakh agreed on the Treaty of Tingmosgang? — MarkH21 talk 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)The main Ladakhi documentary source consists of only a few words in the Ladakh royal chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs, in Francke 1926:115) [...] Unfortunately, as with the rest of these chronicles, it is impossible to know when, by whom, and for what purpose that passage was written
And finally, after reading Petech's The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. (1977), I found this passage about the sources:
The main source for Ladakhi history is, and always will be, the La-dvags rgyal-rabs, compiled probably in the 17th century, but continued later till the end of the kingdom and beyond.
Seven manuscripts of this work are known to exist, or to have existed.
1. - Ms.S. Bodleian Library in Oxford, Ms.Tibet, C.7. Copied in 1856 from an original belonging to the former king of Ladakh. It was published by Emil von Schlagintveit more than a century ago l. The original has disappeared, as it is not found in the library of the former royal family in the sTog palace.
2. - Ms.A. Stops with the reign of Sen-ge-rnam-rgyal. It was partly published and translated by K. Marx 2. No longer available.
3. - Ms.B. Consisting of four leafs only and dealing with the second dynasty down to the Dogra conquest. No longer available.
4. - Ms.C. Compiled at the end of the 19th century by Munshi dPal-rgyas, who added to it three appendixes dealing with the Dogra conquest. No longer available.
5. - Ms.L. British Museum, Oriental Collection 6683. It carries the tale to the reign of bDe-ldan-rnam-rgyal, with the addition of a bare list of the later kings down to the Dogra conquest.
All these manuscripts were utilized by A. H. Francke in preparing his standard edition (LDGR), revised by F. W. Thomas. [...]
6. - Ms. Cunningham. During his stay in Ladakh in 1847, Alexander Cunningham caused a manuscript of the Chronicle to be translated for him into Urdu; a partial English version of it was incorporated in his work [...] Neither the manuscript nor its Urdu version are available now.
7. - Ms.Sonam. In the private possession of dGe-rgan bSod- nams, a 'Bri-guh-pa monk from Lamayuru monastery.
— https://books.google.com/books/about/The_kingdom_of_Ladakh.html?id=4oduAAAAMAAJ The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. by L. Petech (1977)], page 1
and:
The only other literary source from Ladakh is the biography of sTag-ts'ah-ras-pa (TTRP), compiled in 1663.
— The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. by L. Petech (1977), page 3
This establishes that, those two being the only Ladakhi literary sources, the original treaty did not survive.
I then looked at the original Francke translation of the Ladakh chronicles and they do not quote it in full. There is a summary of it, which I won't paste here in full, but the most relevant parts are (my bolding):
Upon this the Sde-pa-g‘zun (Lhasa government),' apprehending that the King of La-dvags might once more come and bring succour, and that thus another war might ensue, desired the Hbrug-pa-Mi-pham-dban-po to go and negotiate for peace. [...] The Tibetans have come to consider that, since Tibet is a Buddhist, and Kha-chul (Kashmir) is a. non-Buddhist country, and since Buddhist and non-Buddhist religions have nothing in common and are hostile to each other, if at the frontier the King of La-dvags does not prosper, Bod (Tibet) also cannot enjoy prosperity [...] As to privileges of Kha-chul (Kashmir) [the following agreement was come to] :— The fine wool of goats of Mnah-ris-skor-gsum shall not be sold to any other country [...] Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect :— It shall be set apart to meet the expenses of sacred lamps and prayers [offered] at Lha-sa; but at Men-ser (0 MS. Smon-tsher) he king shall be his own master, so that the kings of La-dvags may have wherewithal to pay for lamps and other sacrifices at the Gans-mtsho [lake] ; it shall be his private domain. With this exception the boundary shall be fixed at the Lha-ri stream at Bde-mchog.
— Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part (Volume) II, by A. H. Francke and edited by F. W. Thomas, (1926), pages 115-116.
The key point here is the several comments like Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect
. With all of these sources, the article can say that the only surviving form of the treaty was the summary given in the
Ladakh chronicles (tangential: this should probably get its own article). —
MarkH21
talk
02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Although it must be admitted that Francke's edition of the Ladakh-Tibet treaty, which must be dated to the autumn of 1684, is something of a patchwork document, nevertheless, as will be seen from the Roman numerals inserted in the translation above, six main clauses or articles are discernible. [1]
Regarding points 5 and 6, the map in Lamb-1965 is utterly confusing. See Map 3 in
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
the western sector, and Demchok is further south/east of the shown area. It doesn’t contradict the 1965 Lamb claim. — MarkH21 talk 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)South of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown on British maps as being in Tibet
He probably confused himself with that complicated map. The Map 8 (p. 86-87) in the ANU report shows the "terminus of the 1899 line" near Lanak La. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A 1965 paper by Lamb says that [previous content about 1899 line & maps showing Demchok in Tibet], although sources XYZ state that the 1899 line terminated at ___This seems reasonable and represents what the sources say. — MarkH21 talk 02:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
was about a variety of maps, including the 1899 line, which is what the 1965 Lamb paper directly says. Providing the counter point from other sources is more than enough to demonstrate to the reader the WP:BALANCE of claims. — MarkH21 talk 02:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)The majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947, as well as a compromise border offered in a British note to the Chinese government in 1899, showed both Demchok and Khurnak as being in Tibet.
Let us focus on the 1899 line right now. You have been here long enough to know WP:NPOV and WP:VNOTSUFF. So, you need to make the effort to find enough sources that back up the claim that the 1899 line went to Demchok. One confused line in one source (which is contradicted by the same author elsewhere) is dubious, and doesn't cross the bar for inclusion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: It seems that the only remaining issues from the revert are:
Our prolonged discussion on these points does not seem to be coming towards a resolution, so shall we just open an RfC on them? — MarkH21 talk 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Lamb said that "the 1899 line includes ____"on the basis of Lamb's peer-reviewed paper. It's not an assertion that the 1899 line actually includes ___. Requiring that there are other RSes that say "Lamb said that the 1899 line includes ___" isn't the typical standard. One doesn't need a source that says
Lamb interprets this as a "compromise"to support that phrase – you added it the article because Lamb's paper itself says "compromise".I'm not trying to push any POV, I'm just trying to reflect what published peer-reviewed sources precisely say. That's pretty different from claiming that a historian's writings are
inexplicable other than by a presumption of racism.It seems we also disagree on this being verifiable. It's not directly cited, and based on your reading of the 19th century maps. Remember that WP:CHALLENGE says (bolding mine):
Plus, can you really tell from the map that there is a spur at the exact coordinates 32°33′23″N 79°16′32″E / 32.5565°N 79.2755°E from that map? — MarkH21 talk 22:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
To what extent should the article mention that the 1684 Treaty of Tingmosgang might no longer exist? 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The main source for Ladakhi history is, and always will be, the La-dvags rgyal-rabs, compiled probably in the 17th century, but continued later till the end of the kingdom and beyond. [...] The only other literary source from Ladakh is the biography of sTag-ts'ah-ras-pa (TTRP), compiled in 1663.
— Petech, Luciano (1977). The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. p. 1,3.
The prime source for this period is the La-dvags-rgyal-rabs a royal chronicle which was first compiled in the 17th century and updated into the 19th century.
— Bray, John (2005). "Introduction: Locating Ladakhi History". In Bray, John (ed.). Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. Vol. 9. Brill Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9789004145511.
Missionary Dr. Karl Marx began studying the Ladakh chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs), in some detail [...] The first published version of the treaty appeared as an appendix to a book by the then British Joint Commissioner, Captain H. Ramsay. The text and Marx's translation of the La dvags rgyal rabs were published posthumously in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal between 1891 and 1902, and Marx's successor August Hermann Francké published a revised version as well as the first detailed history of Ladakh. Since then the Italian scholar Luciano Petech and his pupil Zahiruddin Ahmad have conducted further research into the Ladakh chronicles, including the Ladakh-Tibet-Mongol war and the 1864 treaty which concluded it
— Emmer, Gerhard (2007), "Dga' Ldan Tshe Dbang Dpal Bzang Po and the Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal War of 1679-84", Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, 2003. Volume 9: The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Terrains in Inner Asia, BRILL, pp. 81–108, ISBN 978-90-474-2171-9
Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect :— [...] With this exception the boundary shall be fixed at the Lha-ri stream at Bde-mchog.
— Francke, August Hermann (1926). Thomas, F. W. (ed.). Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part (Volume) II. pp. 115–116.
There can be no doubt that the 1684 (or 1683) agreement between Ladakh and the authorities then controlling Tibet did in fact take place. Unfortunately, no original text of it has survived and its terms can only be deduced. In its surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Lamb, Alastair (1965), "Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute" (PDF), The Australian Year Book of International Law: 37–52, p. 38.
No text of this agreement between Tibet and Ladakh survives, but there are references to it in chronicles which are discussed in [...]
— p. 37
The treaty that could have given this information, that of 1684, has not survived in the form of its full text, and we have no means of determining exactly what line of frontier was contemplated in 1684. The chronicles which refer to this treaty are singularly deficient in precise geographical details.
— p. 41.
However, the rGyal-rabs is full of gaps and inconsistencies, particularly for the period before the 17th century.
— Bray, John (2005). "Introduction: Locating Ladakhi History". In Bray, John (ed.). Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. Vol. 9. Brill Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9789004145511.
The article is very clear that the information comes from the Ladakh Chronicles. So I don't see why there is any issue here.: The article currently omits, without substantial reason, the historical context of how the modern body of knowledge on the treaty is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles. The article also currently omits, without substantial reason, how the Ladakhi Chronicles only summarizes the treaty from a Ladakhi source.It also presents a false dichotomy between Lamb and the other sources in a long footnote, when there is no contradiction between them: sources say that the Ladakh Chronicles summarizes the treaty border as being at the Lhari stream, while Lamb and Petech both say that the treaty text no longer exists but that the Ladakh Chronicles summarizes the treaty border as being at the Lhari stream. — MarkH21 talk 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is a blow-up of the French Army map around Demchok. It is clearly visible that the border is a water-shed, one one side of which waters flow into the Koyul Lungpa river and the other side of which flow into the Indus river. One can go to any terrain map and find the highest points on the ridges to find the coordinates.
What is not easy to figure out the lower end of the boundary, where it leaves the ridge line to go down to the Indus Valley. The present Chinese claim line, which can also be seen in Google and OSM, mostly agrees with this line, except that it doesn't leave the ridge line before reaching the end. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contributionthat is explicitly required by WP:V when challenged. It has to be removed, and can be replaced when you find a source that supports your OR. — MarkH21 talk 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)o
It is not analysis, but rather description. As per
WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
. I have copied below the text you removed. Please highlight whatever you are unable to verify, and we can discuss it.
The alignment chosen by the surveyors is the western watershed of the Indus river near Demchok, instead of the eastern watershed as used by the earlier boundary commission. This is the crest of the mountain ridge between the Koyul Lungpa river valley and the Indus river valley and forms a water-parting line. It leaves the Indus–Sutlej dividing spur at coordinates 32°33′23″N 79°16′32″E / 32.5565°N 79.2755°E, and follows the crest of the watershed ridge with the Umling La peak in the centre. It joins the Indus a little ahead of the junction of Koyul Lungpa with the Indus (an area now called Fukche). It traverses along the Indus river till a place marked as 'Tagarna', and follows the crest of mountain ridge to the east of Indus towards the Spanggur Lake.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The US Army map that I have uploaded today should be easier to read. This map cites Survey of India map NI-44 from 1945 as its source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledgeand WP:PRIMARY also says
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Sutlej
Umling La peak.
Fukcheis the modern name of this place (nor would I expect it to; it should be cited to another source)
Tagarnais marked as the caret symbol
^south of the Indus and just west of the Koyul Lungpa, and not as where the border stops following the Indus. The border appears to deviate from the Indus at the junction of a small tributary of the Indus coming from the northeast.
This wasPhotozincographed Sections of part of the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet, Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, Dehra Dun, Oct. 1868; 20 sheets at a scale of 16miles to the inch (I.O. Map Room, cat. no. F/IV/16)
reproduced, much reduced, in Atlas(Lamb, The China-India border (1964) p.43). This should help with searching. — MarkH21 talk 07:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Small question, but is there a reference for the elevations given in the infobox? — MarkH21 talk 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this but replying here. I am seeing a lot of ambiguous, unclear info in the lead regarding maps especially the whole of the second para. This ideally should be removed considering the discussion above that none of the past claims/treaties are clear, and is better served with context in the relevant sections. The focus should be on the geographic and hydrological aspects of the river rather than devoting political bulk to the lead as well as the article. Otherwise this article is just WP:COATRACKING a river article into a disputed area which would require rehauling and renaming the article. Gotitbro ( talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Gotitbro and MarkH21:, I support removing the mention of the British maps from the lead. It is too tricky to summarise in the lead, the present description is POV. I have this version on file, probably a mix of the old content and MarkH21's revisions:
The Lhari stream was mentioned by name in a treaty between Ladakh and Tibet in 1684 as forming the boundary between the two regions. After independence, the Republic of India has claimed the river as forming its boundary, up to 3 miles (4.8 km) southeast of Demchok. The boundary was contested by the People's Republic of China. The two countries fought a brief war in 1962, after which the Demchok region has remained divided between the two nations across a Line of Actual Control.
Is this acceptable? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you find it contentious to say where the Chinese claim is? Or where the historical British claims were? — MarkH21 talk 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the proposal to spin off a separate article on the Demchok sector, it would be a good idea in principle, but it is hard to find reliable sources that even define "Demchok sector". I don't think spinning off solves any real problems and I see no no serious problem with the material remaining here. After all, there is no particular significance to the Charding Nullah except for forming the de facto boundary. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Is Dêmqog different from Demchok? How is it spelt in Tibetan? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
So what is your objection to my text:
There are villages on both sides of the mouth of the river, with the name "Demchok", even though the Chinese use the spelling "Dêmqog". [a]
Notes
- ^ On 21 September 1965, the Indian Government wrote to the Chinese Government, complaining of Chinese troops who were said to have "moved forward in strength right up to the Charding Nullah and have assumed a threatening posture at the Indian civilian post on the western [northwestern] side of the Nullah on the Indian side of the 'line of actual control'." The Chinese Government responded on 24 September stating, "In fact, it was Indian troops who on September 18, intruded into the vicinity of the Demchok village on the Chinese side of the 'line of actual control' after crossing the Demchok River from Parigas (in Tibet, China)..." [1]
References
- ^ India. Ministry of External Affairs, ed. (1966), Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged and Agreements Signed Between the Governments of India and China: January 1965 - February 1966, White Paper No. XII (PDF), Ministry of External Affairs – via claudearpi.net
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
the vicinity of the Demchok villageisn't saying that there's a second village and makes equal sense with one or two villages). I also modified the text itself to link to our current articles on Demchok and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, which should probably be mentioned/linked in the lead somewhere. — MarkH21 talk 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
What meaningful information is withheld? — MarkH21 talk 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)There are two villages on both sides of the river where it meets the Indus, both named "Demchok" (historical transliteration) or "Dêmqog" ( Tibetan pinyin transliteration).
Demchokso much without linking to the namesake village(s). If course, this is all easier if there’s a consolidated Demchok article. — MarkH21 talk 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts). — MarkH21 talk 23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)British surveys placed the border in 1847 between the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir on the stream, while British maps from 1868 onwards placed the border downstream and west of the village of Demchok.
We can't make up terms like "Demchok dispute" on our own and write articles about them. You can do so if you want to write for a magazine or a journal, but not Wikipedia.
There is a much larger border dispute, of which the border at Demchok is one. And this dispute is not particularly onerous either, compared to all other locations like Spanggur Lake, Pangong Lake, Changchenmo valley and the latest bugbear, the Galwan valley.
The green text you have put above is not correct. The 1847 thing was not a "survey". It was a border commission, with responsibility for defining the border. Tibet was invited to join it but it didn't show up. Nevertheless the commissioners stated that the border was well-known to the local people, confirming what the Chinese government itself said. It was even demarcated with piles of stones at many places.
The 1868 surveyors had no business defining borders or altering borders. We have no idea why they did so. Even Alastair Lamb is unable to explain it. But since they did a survey and produced maps, those maps got printed. There is no evidence that anything in real life changed as a result of that.
...the Chinese submitted no documents--official or unofficial--to substantiate this claim [that the border was where they claimed], nor were they able to produce records of any kind detailing revenues collected for the use of the disputed pasture lands, as the Indians did for several of these areas. [1]
So, while the maps might have change, the borders did not change. So, we can't put UNDUE weight on maps. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Demchok disputehere is a descriptive title as mentioned by WP policy, for which there are countless examples, e.g. Senkaku Islands dispute, 2018 Cyprus gas dispute, Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, Ceará-Piauí border dispute, etc. The article can also be named Demchok sector, or whatever else, that’s not a major issue.I used
surveyas the generic term of surveying is used (and RSes describe the boundary commission as a survey, e.g. here), but replacing it with the term
boundary commissionis fine too.The boundary commission and Kashmir Survey say where the Company Raj / British Raj viewed the princely state’s borders to be, and are a major part of the modern dispute as well, so it’s absolutely WP:DUE. Most RS treatments of the subject mention the British boundary commission and Kashmir Survey in detail. It’s also significant part of the current History section, and so should be briefly summarized per MOS:INTRO.On the slightly unrelated question about the motivation for the 1868 survey, it's partially motivated by borders and partially motivated by pure cartography/geography:
Mr Johnson had been deputed to survey the northern portions of the Maharaja of Kashmir. It was hoped that he might succeed in obtaining a view of some of the towns in Khotan [...] He has brought back a great deal of valuable geographical information of regions which have hitherto been a blank on our maps.
— book passage quoting James Walker (Surveyor General)
Lamb also mentions its partial value:The boundary between Ladakh on the one side and Yarkund and Tibet on the other has in fact, never been authoritatively settled.
— same book quoting Thomas George Montgomerie
— MarkH21 talk 01:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Johnson travelled across the Aksai Chin plateau in 1865. His map, though very rough, provided the British with their first reasonably clear ideas as to the topography of this region. Earlier maps are of no value for Aksai Chin.
— Lamb, 1965
The Kashmir Survey which formally ended in 1864, while it could by no means be described as an official Boundary Commission, yet took careful note of boundary matters. [2]
References
Most sources state as if the Indus is flowing from east-to-west at Demchok. But the maps show clearly that it is flowing mostly north. So, please use north-south or northwest-southeast in the text. Since our discussion is map-centric, using faulty directions would be confusing to the readers. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Following up on the discussions of #Lead, #Spinning off Demchok sector and #Dêmqog, I propose that part of the " Description" and " History" sections be split off into an article called Demchok dispute (or Demchok sector), as done in the drafts User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah and User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute.
The Charding Nullah itself is a river (i.e. a geographic feature), so its article should be focused on the geographic aspects of the geographic feature itself. More than half of the article is currently dedicated to the disputed area that is already bolded in the lead as the "Demchok sector". There's also plenty of precedent, with numerous other article pairs that separate (historical or current) disputes from geographic features, including:
The name "Demchok dispute" is just a descriptive title, similar to the examples above. Some RSes use the term "Demchok sector" to describe the disputed area, so that would be a reasonable alternative title. — MarkH21 talk 16:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Somewhere on this page, there is a coordinate 0,0. It shows up on the map of the Category:Rivers of India.
It shows up as a point near the coast of Africa.
-- Talk to G Moore 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Charding Nullah was copied or moved into Demchok sector with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
MarkH21, I am sorry I hadn't noticed that you were editing this page. And when I did notice it, I had to revert all of it.
It looks like you are overly dependent on Lamb, and filling in stuff that he doesn't cover or doesn't know about. For instance, does he say that the 1684 treaty was with the Dzungar Khanate? Does he say that it was lost?
Lamb's limitations are well-recognized. See the Alastair Lamb page. What we would have liked to see from him is a decent explanation of why the British changed the border between between 1846 and 1868. It is quite inexplicable other than by a presumption of racism. His claims that the British surveyors were next to perfect and the Maharaja was expansionist etc. point to his own racism.
The fact is that whatever border the British on their maps made little difference to the Maharaja. The border was known to him based on customary practices, and those borders were followed.
There are plenty of other scholars who have covered the subject, even though I admit that Demchok often doesn't get the attention it deserves. I would particularly recommend the book by Fisher, Rose and Huttenback, which is the most thorough in examining the historical evidence. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Page 37:There can be no doubt that the 1684 (or 1683) agreement between Ladakh and the authorities then controlling Tibet did in fact take place. Unfortunately, no original text of it has survived and its terms can only be deduced. In its surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
Page 40:No text of this agreement between Tibet and Ladakh survives, but there are references to it in chronicles which are discussed in [...]
Page 41:The treaty that could have given this information, that of 1684, has not survived in the form of its full text, and we have no means of determining exactly what line of frontier was contemplated in 1684. The chronicles which refer to this treaty are singularly deficient in precise geographical details.
I’ll find the quote for the Dzungars is a bit, I think it uses an alternate spelling ofThe 1684 Treaty may have made a reference to “the Lhari stream at Demchok”; but as its text no longer survives, we cannot be sure that this is in fact the case.
Zungaror something similar (one can also use a source from Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War). — MarkH21 talk 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The intention of the 1684 agreement was clear enough. Ladakh had attempted to annex Tibetan territory but had been repulsed. The status quo ante was now being restored. But what, exactly, was the status quo?
References
caustic remarks.But also, you haven't identified which individual remarks you object to, having only removed all of them. For example, do you object to:
Or other specific parts that you object to, even if they were attributed? — MarkH21 talk 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Since the 1950s, Indian maps do not agree entirely with either the 1846–1847 survey or the 1868 Kashmir Atlas; the Indian claims lie 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Demchok whereas the British maps showed the border to be 10 miles (16 km) west of Demchok. The Chinese claims coincide with British surveys that placed the border 10 miles (16 km) west of Demchok
doesn't quite know what he is talking about, is not a
real historian, and has knowledge limited to the British archives. It's your opinion that his expertise is solely on the British archives. But even so, you've added plenty of unattributed content from Lamb here about the general history, but objected to attributed statements from Lamb about British maps from the 19th century.My question is: are there any more issues that you contest? For instance, the statement (quoted above) about the Indian claimed border lying 3 miles east of Demchok, and the British surveys and Chinese claims placing the border 10 miles west of Demchok. Normal practice would dictate that uncontested content remains, and edits that you haven't identified are assumed to be uncontested. If you're unsure, then just remove it once you figure out which content you want to discuss. — MarkH21 talk 23:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are my comments on other changes made in your edits:
A very good idea of its alignment was derived by Strachey and Cunningham in 1846-1848" but he never bothers to explain why this good idea was discarded in 1860).
The Kashmir Atlas location of the boundary near Demchok, which is confirmed in such recent sources as Foreign Office (1920), p. 4, is not easy to explain. [1]
References
Chronicle of Ladakh. The specific source cited for in the sentence you quoted says explicitly:
and that the subsequent text isFrancke's edition of La dvags rgyal rabs is a patchwork with respect to the agreements made in the peace treaty
a very brief surveyof Franke's text.
32.5565°N 79.2755°Eso precisely by looking at the 19th century maps. Such a description also needs to come from a source actually stating it (which plausibly exists), rather than your reading of the map. I don't think the paragraph should stay while it's only based on you reading the 19th century maps.
Here, theSouth of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown on British maps as being in Tibet
two British lines(part of lines A + B + C) refers to line A:
Advanced border as shown on the majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947and line B:
Border offered by the British to China in 1899 and marked on a number of British and other maps.
supreme authority. It's just one that I read through carefully and one that has statements that should be included, attributed. I'd like other sources to be included too. — MarkH21 talk 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC); fixed point number 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
From the above subsection:
Weakened "frontier ... was fixed at Lhari" to "treaty, whose text no longer survives, is assumed to have placed the frontier at... Lhari". Obviously, I don't agree, and I don't accept the authority of Alastair Lamb to override genuine scholars.
Lamb isn't overriding any historical works, he's just pointing out that the original text doesn't survive and that the previous works use what surviving references to the text there are. I don't see any sources that contradict this. For instance, this paper only refers to the treaty via the
Chronicle of Ladakh. The specific source cited for in the sentence you quoted says explicitly:Francke's edition of La dvags rgyal rabs is a patchwork with respect to the agreements made in the peace treaty
and that the subsequent text is
a very brief surveyof Franke's text.
Breaking this off to enact your reorganization here, without changing the context of the above. Is this (and the points raised in the "Other issues" section below) the only part of the edits above that you contest? — MarkH21 talk 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC); added quotes 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The boundary between Ladakh and Tibet was to be established at the Lha-ri stream in Demchog (Bde-mchog) except that the King of Ladakh would retain control of an enclave inside Tibetan territory at Minsar (Men-ser), near Lake Manasarowar. The revenue from Minsar was to finance offerings at the sacred lamps at the annual Monlam (Smon-lam) festival in Lhasa.
The surviving form of the text can only be traced to the Ladakh chronicles, which makes references to the text of the original treaty, and they were only ever aware of the treaty because of the Ladakh chronicles.I understand your point that insertingMissionary Dr. Karl Marx began studying the Ladakh chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs), in some detail [...] The first published version of the treaty appeared as an appendix to a book by the then British Joint Commissioner, Captain H. Ramsay. The text and Marx's translation of the La dvags rgyal rabs were published posthumously in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal between 1891 and 1902, and Marx's successor August Hermann Francké published a revised version as well as the first detailed history of Ladakh. Since then the Italian scholar Luciano Petech and his pupil Zahiruddin Ahmad have conducted further research into the Ladakh chronicles, including the Ladakh-Tibet-Mongol war and the 1864 treaty which concluded it
which has been lostin the middle of the sentence appears to weaken the statement. It's worth noting what all of the analyses are based on though, if anything to give background. What about a short mention immediately after the sentence in the article that begins
The chronicles of Ladakh mention that, at the conclusion of the Tibet–Ladakh–Mughal War in 1684, Tibet and Ladakh agreed on the Treaty of Tingmosgang? — MarkH21 talk 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)The main Ladakhi documentary source consists of only a few words in the Ladakh royal chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs, in Francke 1926:115) [...] Unfortunately, as with the rest of these chronicles, it is impossible to know when, by whom, and for what purpose that passage was written
And finally, after reading Petech's The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. (1977), I found this passage about the sources:
The main source for Ladakhi history is, and always will be, the La-dvags rgyal-rabs, compiled probably in the 17th century, but continued later till the end of the kingdom and beyond.
Seven manuscripts of this work are known to exist, or to have existed.
1. - Ms.S. Bodleian Library in Oxford, Ms.Tibet, C.7. Copied in 1856 from an original belonging to the former king of Ladakh. It was published by Emil von Schlagintveit more than a century ago l. The original has disappeared, as it is not found in the library of the former royal family in the sTog palace.
2. - Ms.A. Stops with the reign of Sen-ge-rnam-rgyal. It was partly published and translated by K. Marx 2. No longer available.
3. - Ms.B. Consisting of four leafs only and dealing with the second dynasty down to the Dogra conquest. No longer available.
4. - Ms.C. Compiled at the end of the 19th century by Munshi dPal-rgyas, who added to it three appendixes dealing with the Dogra conquest. No longer available.
5. - Ms.L. British Museum, Oriental Collection 6683. It carries the tale to the reign of bDe-ldan-rnam-rgyal, with the addition of a bare list of the later kings down to the Dogra conquest.
All these manuscripts were utilized by A. H. Francke in preparing his standard edition (LDGR), revised by F. W. Thomas. [...]
6. - Ms. Cunningham. During his stay in Ladakh in 1847, Alexander Cunningham caused a manuscript of the Chronicle to be translated for him into Urdu; a partial English version of it was incorporated in his work [...] Neither the manuscript nor its Urdu version are available now.
7. - Ms.Sonam. In the private possession of dGe-rgan bSod- nams, a 'Bri-guh-pa monk from Lamayuru monastery.
— https://books.google.com/books/about/The_kingdom_of_Ladakh.html?id=4oduAAAAMAAJ The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. by L. Petech (1977)], page 1
and:
The only other literary source from Ladakh is the biography of sTag-ts'ah-ras-pa (TTRP), compiled in 1663.
— The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. by L. Petech (1977), page 3
This establishes that, those two being the only Ladakhi literary sources, the original treaty did not survive.
I then looked at the original Francke translation of the Ladakh chronicles and they do not quote it in full. There is a summary of it, which I won't paste here in full, but the most relevant parts are (my bolding):
Upon this the Sde-pa-g‘zun (Lhasa government),' apprehending that the King of La-dvags might once more come and bring succour, and that thus another war might ensue, desired the Hbrug-pa-Mi-pham-dban-po to go and negotiate for peace. [...] The Tibetans have come to consider that, since Tibet is a Buddhist, and Kha-chul (Kashmir) is a. non-Buddhist country, and since Buddhist and non-Buddhist religions have nothing in common and are hostile to each other, if at the frontier the King of La-dvags does not prosper, Bod (Tibet) also cannot enjoy prosperity [...] As to privileges of Kha-chul (Kashmir) [the following agreement was come to] :— The fine wool of goats of Mnah-ris-skor-gsum shall not be sold to any other country [...] Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect :— It shall be set apart to meet the expenses of sacred lamps and prayers [offered] at Lha-sa; but at Men-ser (0 MS. Smon-tsher) he king shall be his own master, so that the kings of La-dvags may have wherewithal to pay for lamps and other sacrifices at the Gans-mtsho [lake] ; it shall be his private domain. With this exception the boundary shall be fixed at the Lha-ri stream at Bde-mchog.
— Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part (Volume) II, by A. H. Francke and edited by F. W. Thomas, (1926), pages 115-116.
The key point here is the several comments like Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect
. With all of these sources, the article can say that the only surviving form of the treaty was the summary given in the
Ladakh chronicles (tangential: this should probably get its own article). —
MarkH21
talk
02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Although it must be admitted that Francke's edition of the Ladakh-Tibet treaty, which must be dated to the autumn of 1684, is something of a patchwork document, nevertheless, as will be seen from the Roman numerals inserted in the translation above, six main clauses or articles are discernible. [1]
Regarding points 5 and 6, the map in Lamb-1965 is utterly confusing. See Map 3 in
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
the western sector, and Demchok is further south/east of the shown area. It doesn’t contradict the 1965 Lamb claim. — MarkH21 talk 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
— MarkH21 talk 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)South of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown on British maps as being in Tibet
He probably confused himself with that complicated map. The Map 8 (p. 86-87) in the ANU report shows the "terminus of the 1899 line" near Lanak La. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A 1965 paper by Lamb says that [previous content about 1899 line & maps showing Demchok in Tibet], although sources XYZ state that the 1899 line terminated at ___This seems reasonable and represents what the sources say. — MarkH21 talk 02:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
was about a variety of maps, including the 1899 line, which is what the 1965 Lamb paper directly says. Providing the counter point from other sources is more than enough to demonstrate to the reader the WP:BALANCE of claims. — MarkH21 talk 02:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)The majority of British maps published between 1918 and 1947, as well as a compromise border offered in a British note to the Chinese government in 1899, showed both Demchok and Khurnak as being in Tibet.
Let us focus on the 1899 line right now. You have been here long enough to know WP:NPOV and WP:VNOTSUFF. So, you need to make the effort to find enough sources that back up the claim that the 1899 line went to Demchok. One confused line in one source (which is contradicted by the same author elsewhere) is dubious, and doesn't cross the bar for inclusion. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: It seems that the only remaining issues from the revert are:
Our prolonged discussion on these points does not seem to be coming towards a resolution, so shall we just open an RfC on them? — MarkH21 talk 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Lamb said that "the 1899 line includes ____"on the basis of Lamb's peer-reviewed paper. It's not an assertion that the 1899 line actually includes ___. Requiring that there are other RSes that say "Lamb said that the 1899 line includes ___" isn't the typical standard. One doesn't need a source that says
Lamb interprets this as a "compromise"to support that phrase – you added it the article because Lamb's paper itself says "compromise".I'm not trying to push any POV, I'm just trying to reflect what published peer-reviewed sources precisely say. That's pretty different from claiming that a historian's writings are
inexplicable other than by a presumption of racism.It seems we also disagree on this being verifiable. It's not directly cited, and based on your reading of the 19th century maps. Remember that WP:CHALLENGE says (bolding mine):
Plus, can you really tell from the map that there is a spur at the exact coordinates 32°33′23″N 79°16′32″E / 32.5565°N 79.2755°E from that map? — MarkH21 talk 22:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
To what extent should the article mention that the 1684 Treaty of Tingmosgang might no longer exist? 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The main source for Ladakhi history is, and always will be, the La-dvags rgyal-rabs, compiled probably in the 17th century, but continued later till the end of the kingdom and beyond. [...] The only other literary source from Ladakh is the biography of sTag-ts'ah-ras-pa (TTRP), compiled in 1663.
— Petech, Luciano (1977). The Kingdom of Ladakh: C. 950-1842 A.D. Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. p. 1,3.
The prime source for this period is the La-dvags-rgyal-rabs a royal chronicle which was first compiled in the 17th century and updated into the 19th century.
— Bray, John (2005). "Introduction: Locating Ladakhi History". In Bray, John (ed.). Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. Vol. 9. Brill Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9789004145511.
Missionary Dr. Karl Marx began studying the Ladakh chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs), in some detail [...] The first published version of the treaty appeared as an appendix to a book by the then British Joint Commissioner, Captain H. Ramsay. The text and Marx's translation of the La dvags rgyal rabs were published posthumously in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal between 1891 and 1902, and Marx's successor August Hermann Francké published a revised version as well as the first detailed history of Ladakh. Since then the Italian scholar Luciano Petech and his pupil Zahiruddin Ahmad have conducted further research into the Ladakh chronicles, including the Ladakh-Tibet-Mongol war and the 1864 treaty which concluded it
— Emmer, Gerhard (2007), "Dga' Ldan Tshe Dbang Dpal Bzang Po and the Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal War of 1679-84", Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, 2003. Volume 9: The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Terrains in Inner Asia, BRILL, pp. 81–108, ISBN 978-90-474-2171-9
Regarding Mnah-ris-skor-gsum Mi-pham-dban-po’s stipulations were to this effect :— [...] With this exception the boundary shall be fixed at the Lha-ri stream at Bde-mchog.
— Francke, August Hermann (1926). Thomas, F. W. (ed.). Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Part (Volume) II. pp. 115–116.
There can be no doubt that the 1684 (or 1683) agreement between Ladakh and the authorities then controlling Tibet did in fact take place. Unfortunately, no original text of it has survived and its terms can only be deduced. In its surviving form there seems to be a reference to a boundary point at "the Lhari stream at Demchok", a stream which would appear to flow into the Indus at Demchok and divide that village into two halves.
— Lamb, Alastair (1965), "Treaties, Maps and the Western Sector of the Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute" (PDF), The Australian Year Book of International Law: 37–52, p. 38.
No text of this agreement between Tibet and Ladakh survives, but there are references to it in chronicles which are discussed in [...]
— p. 37
The treaty that could have given this information, that of 1684, has not survived in the form of its full text, and we have no means of determining exactly what line of frontier was contemplated in 1684. The chronicles which refer to this treaty are singularly deficient in precise geographical details.
— p. 41.
However, the rGyal-rabs is full of gaps and inconsistencies, particularly for the period before the 17th century.
— Bray, John (2005). "Introduction: Locating Ladakhi History". In Bray, John (ed.). Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. Vol. 9. Brill Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9789004145511.
The article is very clear that the information comes from the Ladakh Chronicles. So I don't see why there is any issue here.: The article currently omits, without substantial reason, the historical context of how the modern body of knowledge on the treaty is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles. The article also currently omits, without substantial reason, how the Ladakhi Chronicles only summarizes the treaty from a Ladakhi source.It also presents a false dichotomy between Lamb and the other sources in a long footnote, when there is no contradiction between them: sources say that the Ladakh Chronicles summarizes the treaty border as being at the Lhari stream, while Lamb and Petech both say that the treaty text no longer exists but that the Ladakh Chronicles summarizes the treaty border as being at the Lhari stream. — MarkH21 talk 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is a blow-up of the French Army map around Demchok. It is clearly visible that the border is a water-shed, one one side of which waters flow into the Koyul Lungpa river and the other side of which flow into the Indus river. One can go to any terrain map and find the highest points on the ridges to find the coordinates.
What is not easy to figure out the lower end of the boundary, where it leaves the ridge line to go down to the Indus Valley. The present Chinese claim line, which can also be seen in Google and OSM, mostly agrees with this line, except that it doesn't leave the ridge line before reaching the end. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contributionthat is explicitly required by WP:V when challenged. It has to be removed, and can be replaced when you find a source that supports your OR. — MarkH21 talk 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)o
It is not analysis, but rather description. As per
WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
. I have copied below the text you removed. Please highlight whatever you are unable to verify, and we can discuss it.
The alignment chosen by the surveyors is the western watershed of the Indus river near Demchok, instead of the eastern watershed as used by the earlier boundary commission. This is the crest of the mountain ridge between the Koyul Lungpa river valley and the Indus river valley and forms a water-parting line. It leaves the Indus–Sutlej dividing spur at coordinates 32°33′23″N 79°16′32″E / 32.5565°N 79.2755°E, and follows the crest of the watershed ridge with the Umling La peak in the centre. It joins the Indus a little ahead of the junction of Koyul Lungpa with the Indus (an area now called Fukche). It traverses along the Indus river till a place marked as 'Tagarna', and follows the crest of mountain ridge to the east of Indus towards the Spanggur Lake.
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The US Army map that I have uploaded today should be easier to read. This map cites Survey of India map NI-44 from 1945 as its source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledgeand WP:PRIMARY also says
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Sutlej
Umling La peak.
Fukcheis the modern name of this place (nor would I expect it to; it should be cited to another source)
Tagarnais marked as the caret symbol
^south of the Indus and just west of the Koyul Lungpa, and not as where the border stops following the Indus. The border appears to deviate from the Indus at the junction of a small tributary of the Indus coming from the northeast.
This wasPhotozincographed Sections of part of the Survey of Kashmir, Ladak and Baltistan or Little Tibet, Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, Dehra Dun, Oct. 1868; 20 sheets at a scale of 16miles to the inch (I.O. Map Room, cat. no. F/IV/16)
reproduced, much reduced, in Atlas(Lamb, The China-India border (1964) p.43). This should help with searching. — MarkH21 talk 07:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Small question, but is there a reference for the elevations given in the infobox? — MarkH21 talk 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this but replying here. I am seeing a lot of ambiguous, unclear info in the lead regarding maps especially the whole of the second para. This ideally should be removed considering the discussion above that none of the past claims/treaties are clear, and is better served with context in the relevant sections. The focus should be on the geographic and hydrological aspects of the river rather than devoting political bulk to the lead as well as the article. Otherwise this article is just WP:COATRACKING a river article into a disputed area which would require rehauling and renaming the article. Gotitbro ( talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Gotitbro and MarkH21:, I support removing the mention of the British maps from the lead. It is too tricky to summarise in the lead, the present description is POV. I have this version on file, probably a mix of the old content and MarkH21's revisions:
The Lhari stream was mentioned by name in a treaty between Ladakh and Tibet in 1684 as forming the boundary between the two regions. After independence, the Republic of India has claimed the river as forming its boundary, up to 3 miles (4.8 km) southeast of Demchok. The boundary was contested by the People's Republic of China. The two countries fought a brief war in 1962, after which the Demchok region has remained divided between the two nations across a Line of Actual Control.
Is this acceptable? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you find it contentious to say where the Chinese claim is? Or where the historical British claims were? — MarkH21 talk 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the proposal to spin off a separate article on the Demchok sector, it would be a good idea in principle, but it is hard to find reliable sources that even define "Demchok sector". I don't think spinning off solves any real problems and I see no no serious problem with the material remaining here. After all, there is no particular significance to the Charding Nullah except for forming the de facto boundary. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Is Dêmqog different from Demchok? How is it spelt in Tibetan? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
So what is your objection to my text:
There are villages on both sides of the mouth of the river, with the name "Demchok", even though the Chinese use the spelling "Dêmqog". [a]
Notes
- ^ On 21 September 1965, the Indian Government wrote to the Chinese Government, complaining of Chinese troops who were said to have "moved forward in strength right up to the Charding Nullah and have assumed a threatening posture at the Indian civilian post on the western [northwestern] side of the Nullah on the Indian side of the 'line of actual control'." The Chinese Government responded on 24 September stating, "In fact, it was Indian troops who on September 18, intruded into the vicinity of the Demchok village on the Chinese side of the 'line of actual control' after crossing the Demchok River from Parigas (in Tibet, China)..." [1]
References
- ^ India. Ministry of External Affairs, ed. (1966), Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged and Agreements Signed Between the Governments of India and China: January 1965 - February 1966, White Paper No. XII (PDF), Ministry of External Affairs – via claudearpi.net
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
the vicinity of the Demchok villageisn't saying that there's a second village and makes equal sense with one or two villages). I also modified the text itself to link to our current articles on Demchok and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, which should probably be mentioned/linked in the lead somewhere. — MarkH21 talk 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
What meaningful information is withheld? — MarkH21 talk 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)There are two villages on both sides of the river where it meets the Indus, both named "Demchok" (historical transliteration) or "Dêmqog" ( Tibetan pinyin transliteration).
Demchokso much without linking to the namesake village(s). If course, this is all easier if there’s a consolidated Demchok article. — MarkH21 talk 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts). — MarkH21 talk 23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)British surveys placed the border in 1847 between the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir on the stream, while British maps from 1868 onwards placed the border downstream and west of the village of Demchok.
We can't make up terms like "Demchok dispute" on our own and write articles about them. You can do so if you want to write for a magazine or a journal, but not Wikipedia.
There is a much larger border dispute, of which the border at Demchok is one. And this dispute is not particularly onerous either, compared to all other locations like Spanggur Lake, Pangong Lake, Changchenmo valley and the latest bugbear, the Galwan valley.
The green text you have put above is not correct. The 1847 thing was not a "survey". It was a border commission, with responsibility for defining the border. Tibet was invited to join it but it didn't show up. Nevertheless the commissioners stated that the border was well-known to the local people, confirming what the Chinese government itself said. It was even demarcated with piles of stones at many places.
The 1868 surveyors had no business defining borders or altering borders. We have no idea why they did so. Even Alastair Lamb is unable to explain it. But since they did a survey and produced maps, those maps got printed. There is no evidence that anything in real life changed as a result of that.
...the Chinese submitted no documents--official or unofficial--to substantiate this claim [that the border was where they claimed], nor were they able to produce records of any kind detailing revenues collected for the use of the disputed pasture lands, as the Indians did for several of these areas. [1]
So, while the maps might have change, the borders did not change. So, we can't put UNDUE weight on maps. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Demchok disputehere is a descriptive title as mentioned by WP policy, for which there are countless examples, e.g. Senkaku Islands dispute, 2018 Cyprus gas dispute, Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, Ceará-Piauí border dispute, etc. The article can also be named Demchok sector, or whatever else, that’s not a major issue.I used
surveyas the generic term of surveying is used (and RSes describe the boundary commission as a survey, e.g. here), but replacing it with the term
boundary commissionis fine too.The boundary commission and Kashmir Survey say where the Company Raj / British Raj viewed the princely state’s borders to be, and are a major part of the modern dispute as well, so it’s absolutely WP:DUE. Most RS treatments of the subject mention the British boundary commission and Kashmir Survey in detail. It’s also significant part of the current History section, and so should be briefly summarized per MOS:INTRO.On the slightly unrelated question about the motivation for the 1868 survey, it's partially motivated by borders and partially motivated by pure cartography/geography:
Mr Johnson had been deputed to survey the northern portions of the Maharaja of Kashmir. It was hoped that he might succeed in obtaining a view of some of the towns in Khotan [...] He has brought back a great deal of valuable geographical information of regions which have hitherto been a blank on our maps.
— book passage quoting James Walker (Surveyor General)
Lamb also mentions its partial value:The boundary between Ladakh on the one side and Yarkund and Tibet on the other has in fact, never been authoritatively settled.
— same book quoting Thomas George Montgomerie
— MarkH21 talk 01:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Johnson travelled across the Aksai Chin plateau in 1865. His map, though very rough, provided the British with their first reasonably clear ideas as to the topography of this region. Earlier maps are of no value for Aksai Chin.
— Lamb, 1965
The Kashmir Survey which formally ended in 1864, while it could by no means be described as an official Boundary Commission, yet took careful note of boundary matters. [2]
References
Most sources state as if the Indus is flowing from east-to-west at Demchok. But the maps show clearly that it is flowing mostly north. So, please use north-south or northwest-southeast in the text. Since our discussion is map-centric, using faulty directions would be confusing to the readers. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Following up on the discussions of #Lead, #Spinning off Demchok sector and #Dêmqog, I propose that part of the " Description" and " History" sections be split off into an article called Demchok dispute (or Demchok sector), as done in the drafts User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah and User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute.
The Charding Nullah itself is a river (i.e. a geographic feature), so its article should be focused on the geographic aspects of the geographic feature itself. More than half of the article is currently dedicated to the disputed area that is already bolded in the lead as the "Demchok sector". There's also plenty of precedent, with numerous other article pairs that separate (historical or current) disputes from geographic features, including:
The name "Demchok dispute" is just a descriptive title, similar to the examples above. Some RSes use the term "Demchok sector" to describe the disputed area, so that would be a reasonable alternative title. — MarkH21 talk 16:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Somewhere on this page, there is a coordinate 0,0. It shows up on the map of the Category:Rivers of India.
It shows up as a point near the coast of Africa.
-- Talk to G Moore 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)