Talk:Charding Nullah

Other issues

Here are my comments on other changes made in your edits:

1. 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. Y
2. Dates in section headings. I don't have a huge objection to it, but I generally want to avoid cluttering up section headings with detail. Y
3. Shortened "Kashmir Atlas: new border alignment" to "Kashmir Atlas". I suppose I can live with that. Y
4. The unsourced paragraph is verifiable from the maps, especially the high resolution Frech Army map. I think this description is important because the readers won't know where the claim line is otherwise. Y
5. The "compromise border" offered in 1899 is in Aksai Chin. It has nothing to do with Demchok or Khurnak Fort. Y
6. Most of what you have added in the "Modern claims" section is off-topic. The 1899 proposal didn't say anything about Demchok. For the 1950s Indian claim line, it should have been clear to Lamb that it is mostly replicating the 1840s boundary (of which Lamb is adulatory: "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). Y
7. You removed my comment saying that during the world wars, China adopted the British-designated border, which is shown in the maps collected by Government of India. (The older maps don't show this.)
8. A section on "Modern claims" is certainly necessary, and I was in the process of writing it when I got sidetracked to something else. I will add what I have now, but it certainly won't be Lamb-centric. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed earlier this footnote in Lamb's book for the Kashmir Atlas discussion:

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]

So, our supreme authority on the British records has no idea why the border was changed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I numbered your previously bulleted points for ease of responding, if you don't mind.

1. 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 survey of Franke's text.
2. I agree that we don't want to clutter the sections much in general, but the years here help one organize & delineate which periods are being discussed in each subsection as is common in other History articles. Since you don't have a big objection to it, I take it you won't mind if I add them back?
3. Okay, so I'll re-implement that.
4. I don't see how you can determine the exact coordinate 32.5565°N 79.2755°E so 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.
5. Regarding the 1899 line, Lamb says on page 39 that

   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

   Here, the 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 1947 and line B: Border offered by the British to China in 1899 and marked on a number of British and other maps.
6. This point is tied directly to the 1899 line's relevance to Demchok in point 4 5. If the 1899 border is relevant to Demchok, then this point is relevant. Similarly, if the 1899 isn't relevant to Demchok, then this point isn't relevant in this article and may be better suited in another article. (I also just realized that I miscited the statement to page 39 instead of page 42)
7. Yes, because I figured that statements from an Indian government document shouldn't be stated in WP voice on an issue about Indian border disputes. However, it seems okay to include it with in-text attribution to an Indian government document. If a source from an academic source can be found to support the same claim, then even better.
8. Great, so we agree.

I'm not appraising Lamb as a 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)

Treaty of Tingmosgang

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 survey of 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)

Yes, but I can't deal with 10 issues at each go. You will have to break them up into sections. Anyway, here is my response to the bullet point 1.

Lamb may or may not be overriding other scholarly works, but you are overriding them. Putting his comments in lead makes it appear as if this is the scholarly consensus.

I will have to check why this source says "patchwork". But the phrasing "fixed at Lhari stream" is clearly there. Another source for which I have notes is:

• Bray, John (Winter 1990), "The Lapchak Mission From Ladakh to Lhasa in British Indian Foreign Policy", The Tibet Journal, 15 (4): 75–96, JSTOR 43300375

On page 77, the paper gives the text of the treaty. There is no indication from Bray that this was a patchwork or an abridged version or anything of that sort. The relevant portion for our purposes is:

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.

Counting in Fisher et al. who use a similar phrasing, we have now three sources that specialise in Ladakhi history or history in general, who are clear about, and one source who specialises in British archives who is doubtful. What would WP:NPOV be in this situation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's supported by the wording from Emmer though, and Bray does mention the source of the text in his historiography overview (page 77):

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

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 inserting which has been lost in 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)

The Chronicles do not simply "mention" it. They quote it. Whether they quote it in full or have abridged it is an open question. I have always assumed that it was a full quotation based on what I have read. But if Petech or Ahmed say that it is not, we can say it. Not Lamb. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is something attested by both Lamb and Emmer, and there is no evidence to the contrary at all. That means that there is no RS reason against including it, only that your initial assumption was against it. It’s an arbitrary restriction to say that this can be included only if two particular sources say it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Another academic paper:

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

— MarkH₂₁^talk 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

I think you are going a bit too far with this. A. H. Francke has not been cited in the article (which would be a WP:PRIMARY source anyway), but only recent scholarly works. I don't know if Emmer originated the criticism that it is "something of a patchwork", but Ahmed says:

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]

The form contained in Alex McKay, Volume 2, (produced in 1962, probably by Tibetan expatriates in India) is also similar. It lists 8 clauses. The differences are not significant.

This was not a border treaty. The Lhari stream was mentioned by name, but no other border points were, because Ladakh was being made to cede "real Demchok" and Tashigang. Sengge Namgyal had built a monastery in Tashigang, but it had now become the encampment of Tibetan-Mangolian forces. So, without this clause in the treaty, the Ladakhis might have been tempted to reacquire Tashigang. So the Lhari stream border was, from that time, rigidly enforced by Tibet even up to the time the British arrived on the scene.

The article body already states that the treaty was mentioned in the Ladakh Chronicles. I don't think anything needs to be said about it in the lead, because the treaty has not been contested by any one, not even Lamb. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Francke source is the translation of the Ladakh Chronicles used by the subsequent authors, and shows that the Ladakh Chrinicles only summarizes the treaty (something that you challenged above). Noting that the Ladakhi summary of the treaty is the only surviving text about the treaty is relevant background for describing that the treaty prescribed the stream as the border in the article.

The precise statement that is actually factual here is that the Ladakhi summary of the treaty said the Lhari stream was the border in 1684, historians don’t know for sure if the treaty itself said that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The long footnote I added here settles the issue from my point of view. If you are not satisfied, we will have to go to WP:DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It mostly settles it, although it obfuscates that the cited sources state that their analysis is based solely on the Ladakhi chronicles, presenting a false balance that Lamb is alone in noting the limitations of the historiography. It’s a historiography aspect that is unanimously represented by all of these sources.

I presume you mean some form of WP:DR? Or are you specifically referring to WP:DRN? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lamb alone claims that the historiography is limited. The other scholars don't think so. So Lamb counts as WP:FRINGE and we don't give him undue WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lamb is not alone; Petech dedicates an entire section of his book to talking about how the Ladakhi Chronicles and the 1663 biography are the only sources that are available and the only sources on which all academic studies are based. This is further supported by Emmer and Bray. All of these sources mention in their books that their study is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles/1663 bio or a work that is based solely on the Ladakh Chronicles/1663 bio. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Petech is writing a book on the entire history of Ladakh. The comments he makes in that context are not necessarily applicable to the limited issues of 1684 treaty and its implications for Demchok. If Petech has expressed doubts about the 1684 treaty's implications for Demchok, please feel free to raise them. The same goes for other scholars. The quotes I have included in the footnote state what they say about the specific issue at hand, viz., Demchok. Lamb stands out as the only who is expressing doubts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a matter of doubt; it's the uncontroversial factual statement supported by all of the scholars that: the Ladakhi Chronicles summary of the treaty gives the border as being at the Lhari stream. Their statements are all qualified as such when they discuss their own historiography and source basis. If a book says something along the lines of "the following is based on the Ladakhi Chronicles account of the events / treaty" and then later states "the border is at the Lhari stream", then you can't assert that the book is saying that "the treaty says the border is a the Lhari stream". That's a misrepresentation of the source. If you still disagree on this basic historiographical fact, then let's open DR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1899 line

Regarding points 5 and 6, the map in Lamb-1965 is utterly confusing. See Map 3 in

• Lamb, Alastair (1973), The Sino-Indian Border in Ladakh (PDF), Australian National University Press

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That map caption only describes it in 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)

I don't see a what claim there is in Lamb 1965. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote in my response to point 5 about the Indian claim being largely similar to the British lines A and B, except for its claim of possession of Demchok and Khurnak. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. But, what is the claim regarding the "1899 line" in Lamb-1965? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That the 1899 line (Line B) had Demchok and Khurnak as being in Tibet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Line B is terminating near Lanak La. It is not going to Demchok or Khurnak. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Line B is included in Line ABC, which runs towards Demchok and Khurnak, and Lamb’s caption literally says

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

— MarkH₂₁^talk 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Maybe, maybe not. We can say something along the lines of 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)

You are joking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s clearly stated by Lamb. Whether he was confused or not, we don’t know. Speculation isn’t enough to reject a peer-reviewed academic paper, even if it’s partially contradicted by other sources.

The statement from my original edit:

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.

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)

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)

You're basing an exclusion of an in-text attributed (we can even quote it) statement from a peer-reviewed academic paper on you believing that he is confused based on circumstantial evidence, not on RSes directly saying that he is wrong. There isn't a burden of finding multiple RSes to support the statement that a particular source said something (in particular, about something which you claim is his sole domain of knowledge - British archive maps). — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Remaining issues

@Kautilya3: It seems that the only remaining issues from the revert are:

1. Mentioning that the original text of the Treaty of Tismosgang no longer exists
2. Lamb stating that the British "1899 line" maps also includes Demchok & Khurnak in Tibet
   • The additional point of the relevance of the 1899 line in modern claims is dependent on the resolution of point 2.

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)

The first issue is certainly ripe for an RfC or DRN, as you wish. The second one is not. If you do an RfC for it at this stage, without even looking for any sources, I think you will start building up a reputation as a POV pusher. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What? It's a WP:INTEXT attributed statement that 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):

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.

Plus, can you really tell from the map that there is a spur at the exact coordinates 32.5565°N 79.2755°E / 32.5565; 79.2755 from that map? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do RfC's please go ahead. You don't need my agreement for them.

But can you split this discussion into multiple sections please? It has become huge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is only four or so comments long? Also, do we really need an RfC for requiring that that paragraph is inline cited? That's verbatim policy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 (otherwise 2, 3, 4, then 5): The only surviving primary documents of the period are the Ladakh Chronicles and a 1663 biography that predates the treaty. This is attested to by Historian Luciano Petech and John Bray (bolding mine):

  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.

This is further seen when historian Gerhard Emmer, in 2007, describes the historiography of the body of academic literature on this subject as being based on the Ladakh Chronicles and its translaitons:

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

There is no reason to suppose that the treaty actually still exists somewhere, if the historians agree that all of their analyses were solely based on Ladakh Chronicles' account of the treaty. Furthermore, the text of the treaty is not preserved in the Ladakh Chronicles; it is only given in a summary (bolding mine):

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.

Historian Alastair Lamb clearly states that the original treaty does not exist, while the reliability of the Ladakh Chronicles is also questioned by Bray (bolding mine):

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.

TLDR: The entire body of academic literature on the Treaty of Tingmosgang is based on the summary given in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Petech wrote that the Ladakhi Chronicles and a 1663 biography are the only surviving texts from the period, and Lamb additionally asserts that the original treaty no longer exists. This historiographical fact is important background since the text of the summary of the treaty is presented in the history of the border dispute and as a basis for the modern Indian claims. Its inclusion is necessary for the "Lhari stream" statement to be factually accurate, and omission of the source of the wording would be WP:UNDUE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC); update w/ Bray quotes 07:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - Given that the topic of this article is Charding Nullah (called "Lhari stream" in the historical sources), the pertinent information here is what the scholars say about the topic, which is summarised in the footnote 19. Scholars may have other concerns with the surviving form of the 1684 treaty, but they are not the concern of this page. The article is very clear that the information comes from the Ladakh Chronicles. So I don't see why there is any issue here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per MarkH₂₁ Idealigic (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Why not describe the history in detail? Nobody claims that this is false so there is no issue with it. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The first option looks to be more suitable for that, as some other users mentioned, too. In the meanwhile, it is a true matter as AnomalousAtom said "Why not describe the history in detail?"... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: This RfC was spun-off from the "Treaty of Tingmosgang" section above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Re 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)

Spinning off Demchok sector

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)

Eitherway, Demchok needs to be disambiguated and the current article be moved to Demchok, Ladakh to avoid confusion between the village and the sector; and the village in Ngari. Gotitbro (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we just keep this discussion in one place? This is duplicating part of the other discussion. If we want to discuss that here, that's fine.

Many RSes clearly use the term "Demchok sector" or "Demchok district" to mean the disputed region between the modern Indian and Chinese claims; I don't think that definition is a major issue. I agree with Gotitbro on the point that it's reasonable to have a separate article on the geographic river and a separate article on the border dispute.

As for disambiguation / renaming the article on the village, the village that is split by the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream is denoted by "Demchok" / "bDe-mChog". The physical village is different from the physical village of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to the south, which is not on the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream (and has the "Ngari Prefecture" only to disambiguate with the other Dêmqog). Articles on disputed places are focused on the actual physical entities, not the claimed jurisdictions, as is done with most entries in List of territorial disputes#Ongoing disputes between UN member/observer states. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dêmqog

Is Dêmqog different from Demchok? How is it spelt in Tibetan? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Tibetan spelling is "ཌེམ་ཆོག"་, which is "Demchog" in Wylie transliteration, (introduced in 1959) "Dêmqog" in Tibetan pinyin (introduced in 1982). The "Demchok" spelling is used by the historical British sources, which predate both romanizations. It seems that China refers to both villages as "Demchok" (in the 1960s correspondences with India) as well as with "Dêmqog" (in official romanizations since Tibetan pinyin became the official Chinese romanization in 1982).

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

The best way is probably still to have a combined disputed area article. Some possibilities:

1. Charding Nullah (on just the geographic waterway) + Demchok (on the physical village(s)) + Demchok dispute (on the disputed area); redirect Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok, redirect Demchok sector to Demchok dispute
2. Charding Nullah (on just the geographic waterway) + Demchok (on the physical village(s) and the disputed area); redirect Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok, redirect Demchok sector to Demchok

I think that the latter makes more sense, since both the village and surrounding area are part of the dispute, while the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short. Historically, the village is central to discussions about the disputed area around it. It would be consistent with other articles on rivers on WP to just leave Charding Nullah as an article focused on the geographic feature. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 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

1. [a]

   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

1. [1]

   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)

I removed the endnote because it doesn't say that the Chinese spelling is "Dêmqog", nor that there are two villages (the response about the vicinity of the Demchok village isn'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)

Do you see that I was trying to say that both the villages are called by the same name, irrespective of how it is spelt? Your edit removed this fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I wasn't sure if that was what you were trying to emphasize and I wanted to link the current articles. What do you think of the subsequent change? With either of the proposals above in this section though, it would be much cleaner.

What are your thoughts on these two proposals? I can draft them in userspace, if it helps. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to refrain from stating meaningful information for the sake of links to insignificant pages which don't have any content anyway. That would be tail wagging the dog. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What? The subsequent change says

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).

What meaningful information is withheld? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks + British maps in the lead

Re your follow-up It’s not the key purpose of the lead, but it’s a bit strange for the article lead to mention Demchok so 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)

I don't think the villages are particularly important. The entire area is called the Demchok region. It is named after the Demchok (deity). It has been so since the 10th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire dispute is centered on the villages though. But a more natural way to link the village is in the mention about the historical British India claim that you removed,

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.

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)

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 dispute here 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 survey as 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 commission is 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)

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

Lamb also mentions its partial value:

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

— MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you start mixing up the "boundary commission" with "survey", you would be dangerously confusing the issue:

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]

The above quotes you are providing for the survey are completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. (Shahidulla, Yarkand, Aksai Chin etc. etc. are at the other end of Ladakh.) I am stating my position clearly so that you don't go on and on with red herrings:

• There was a map produced by the Kashmir Suvey in 1868, which was widely reproduced in national and international maps. But the border shown on it had no official sanction, nor did it affect anything on the ground

If you have any sources that contradict this position, please provide them. Otherwise, you need to stop this badgering. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a red herring. The point was just that the general motivation for the entirety of the 1850s-1860s survey was for geographic knowledge and understanding the boundary, like the rest of the trigonometric survey. I didn’t say that it was official in any sense nor that it changed the situation on the ground.

The motivation is besides the point though (if anything, the question about the motivation was a red herring for whether the British maps should be mentioned in the lead). The British boundary commission and survey are central parts of the modern dispute, as well as relevant context for the historical situation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)