Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 19 July 2020

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Misplaced Pages requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Misplaced Pages requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Jammu and Kashmir Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2020. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tibet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Untitled

I have actually traveled to Demchok before. It is definitely under Chinese control. This article is soooooo pro-Indian, it was probably written by an Indian! Misplaced Pages is getting shittier by the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!71.146.145.81 (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect map

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

Disputed physical village and alternative names

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

The aforementioned RSes:

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

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

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

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

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

@MarkH21: None of the names you added are common, all the examples you listed above have common contemporary sources for the names rather than a 1926 source but that is not the contention here and you may add the names but that won't be following MOS. The contention here is citing this village as having ambiguous admin with the above sources, all of which refer to the "Demchok district", i.e. Demchok sector/Charding Nullah area, not this village in Ladakh which is administrated by India similar to Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture (administrated by China). The confusion is created here by the naming of these articles, my proposal is to split Demchok sector into its own article from Charding Nullah, move this page to Demchok, Ladakh and disambiguate Demchok to direct to the other three articles. Also pinging @Kautilya3:. Gotitbro (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Bde-mchog" spelling is also used by a large body of academic literature on the border dispute, including sources from the 21st century. I had only added the citation to one of the original works. I don't know about the prevalence of "Demjok" (but it seems to be used in both government sources (1, 2) to which the first sentence statement of being in Ladakh is currently cited.Demchok is part of the "Demchok district", so sources that say that the entire area is administered by X are also saying that the village is administered by X.Your proposal makes sense for the most part, but it would necessitate creating a Demchok, Tibet article about this physical village being claimed by China. That article would be almost identical to the one here, and so such a split wouldn't make sense. I would do your proposal, except move this article to Demchok village instead of Demchok, Ladakh.It's absolutely fine to have an article about the physical village, mentioning its claimed administration by both countries, as is done for numerous article about disputed places (e.g. Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, Banc du Geyser). The formatting of those examples is done well, and can be mimicked here. It doesn't make sense to create a Western Sahara, Morocco and Western Sahara, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with nearly identical content except for the text on administration and governance, just as it doesn't make sense to do that here. — MarkH₂₁ 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That would require sources explicitly saying that this particular village (not the one in Ngari or the sector/district) is administered by China which none of them do, you sources might be apt for Demchok sector but not here since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; you are adding WP:SYNTH content here which is clearly not done. The main feaure of this disputed area is that it is divided between the two countries including the villages in Ladakh and Ngari, for both of which we already have articles. The only thing to do here dismabiguate these pages, I don't have any further opinions on this. Gotitbro (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s not SYNTH. Demchok is literally in the Demchok sector, no matter how you look at it, based on the RS definitions of the Demchok sector. So if an RS says that the Demchok sector is administered by India, then it is also directly supporting an assertion that Demchok is administered by India. If an RS says that the Demchok sector is administered by China, then it is also directly supporting an assertion that Demchok is administered by China.Do you really think that when those three sources say China administers Demchok district that they are only saying “China administers the part of Demchok district that is administered by China”? That those statements are implicitly excluding the village that lies in the middle of the entire area?If there is a source saying that the 325-person village of Palisades is in Texas and sources say that Texas is in the United States, would you deem them as not directly supporting the claim that the Palisades, Texas is in the United States? Would you require that an editor find a source that explicitly says Palisades, Texas is in the United States? — MarkH₂₁ 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if that was a disputed area then definitely especially in such an ill-defined region as Kashmir. Not sure what you're tagging wikilawyering as but including sources for the whole region to dispute the administration of an unmentioned village in your sources is not done and clearly WP:SYNTH. Since sources also mention Demchok under Indian control should we go ahead and edit Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture (which is in the Demchok sector/district as well) as having ambiguous admin as well? Clearly not since none of the sources state that similar to the case here. Misplaced Pages priortizes de-facto administration of places before claims/counter-claims and if your sources can't "explicitly" challenge that for this particular village then its a no go. Gotitbro (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s ridiculous to demand a source saying that A is in C, when sources say that A is in B is in C. The article for Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture should clearly state its disputed nature, as it does now. We can add the statement about conflicting sources about administration as well.Whereas here, you’ve changed the article so that it unambiguously asserts that Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India, supported solely by two Indian government websites. That’s absolutely not WP:NPOV, and is not how disputed territories are treated here. Again, take a look at how the high-traffic articles on disputed territories handle this, like Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, and Senkaku Islands. — MarkH₂₁ 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not sure what is being debated here.

• On the name issue, bDe-mChog is the transliteration of the Tibetan name. I believe that both the Indian and Tibetan villages were spelt the same in Tibetan. There is no harm in adding the Tibetan spelling here.
• On the issue of jurisdiction, there is no question that the Indian Demchok village (which is the topic of this article) is under Indian administration. We know it because there are contemporary news sources that describe the Indian and Chinese forces controling the two sides of the Charding Nullah. Not all sources understand this. Not all sources even know that there are two villages with the name Demchok.
• The fact that the village (of this article) is the disputed Demchok sector should also be mentioned. MarkH21 did this a few days ago, which I agree with.

This article is on the Indian-administered village, and I recommend that the dispute issues should be kept out of it as far as possible. Does that help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

As is done in the articles on other major disputed places, the first sentence should not just state that it is in one disputing party.I don’t mind replacing Sources vary on whether it is administered by China or India with a statement describing the current state of control that is sourced to RSes. — MarkH₂₁ 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not the previous version of the lead. The previous version is shown on the left hand side of this diff. You need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for all the changes you would like to make from it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

By previous, I meant before the edit at the top of this thread, and the one in my link. I didn’t mean to imply that it was long-standing. I’ll post at WP:NPOVN for the NPOV wording issue (it seems to be part of a broader question about disputed territory wording, so NPOVN seems appropriate). The alternative names doesn’t seem to be an issue anymore so I’ll place those back in. — MarkH₂₁ 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge revert

@Kautilya3: Why did you call the merge, which you not only did not contest at Talk:Charding Nullah#Dêmqog, but also offered a suggestion at Talk:Charding Nullah#East and west, a "disruption"? At the very least, assume good faith for the merge and explain what you are contesting about it. — MarkH₂₁ 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you did this merge, if you care to. Otherwise, please go take a break for 24 hours and cool down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Reread the discussion wherein I directly proposed it, in which you replied 7 times after the proposal was made (including the related discussion. I also mentioned it again multiple times, including

See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts)
— MarkH₂₁23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

— MarkH₂₁ 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I? So, once again, can you please explain why these two pages should be merged? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Or, better yet, please file a request for merge, so that you get everybody's views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You never contested it after I mentioned it several times and you replied several times. Merges and edits don't require your permission and are encouraged to be bold in the absence of a challenge.If you insist, I'll repeat the reasons again:

It's absolutely fine to have an article about the physical village, mentioning its claimed administration by both countries, as is done for numerous article about disputed places (e.g. Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, Banc du Geyser). The formatting of those examples is done well, and can be mimicked here. It doesn't make sense to create a Western Sahara, Morocco and Western Sahara, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with nearly identical content except for the text on administration and governance, just as it doesn't make sense to do that here.
— MarkH21 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is there even a reason that you have for keeping the articles separate? Using proposed merger process (not WP:RM which you linked) is fine, if you actually contest the merge on the basis of a guideline or policy. — MarkH₂₁ 13:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is a "one combined village". There are historical sources which write as if there was one village. But when you look at the details, it becomes clear that they were only talking about the Tibetan village. The Indian village has been witnessed only since 1903, and there is no evidence that it was ever administered by Tibet or combined with the Tibetan village in any way. (It might have been combined in Indian administration during the period prior to 1962, but there is no clear information about it. Except for Luv Puri's newspaper article, nobody even noticed the administration aspect of that period.)

The claims made by governments don't affect what we write on Misplaced Pages. The actual administration is clearly separate and independent. It doesn't make sense to me to combine the two pages.

As for the size of the articles being small, it doesn't matter for anything. There are loads of articles on villages that have very little information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1846-1847 British boundary commission literally described the village as

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

If I'm not mistaken, this is the second-oldest extant description of Demchok after the nondescript mention in the Ladakhi Chronicles. Furthermore, the several reliable sources, e.g. Lamb (1965) and Richardson, that discuss the entity of "a single village of Demchok divided into two halves by the Charding Nullah" means that it is something that is notable and well-defined for WP.Also, how does it still make sense to describe the historical treatment of Demchok in the article on the Indian-administered village based on your claim that it may not have existed before 1903? The placement of historical discussions about "Demchok" is still a matter of poorly defined scope.Size is a consideration for WP:SIZESPLIT. The articles being small means that SIZESPLIT isn't a consideration. — MarkH₂₁ 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger

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

I propose to merge Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture into Demchok, as is done in the draft at User:MarkH21/Demchok.
The three entities named "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" (combined village, northwestern half, and southeastern half) are currently split across two articles in an unnatural division of scope. They should be merged on the basis of both WP:OVERLAP and WP:PRECISE.

1. Improper scope division: It doesn't make sense to cover one half together with the whole in one article, while covering the other half in another article. It's like covering both Eastern Europe and the continent of Europe at Europe while only covering Western Europe at Western Europe.
2. Alternative names: "Demchok" and "Dêmqog" are alternative names used to denote the same thing: "Demchok" is the 19th century transliteration of the Tibetan name still in use by India, "Dêmqog" is the Tibetan pinyin transliteration adopted by China adopted in 1982, and both names are used for all three entities. It's purely a difference in transliteration systems.
3. Consistency: The merger would bring WP's coverage of Demchok in line with other articles on disputed places, e.g. Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, Banc du Geyser. It would be inconsistent with the other articles, and it wouldn't make sense to create articles like Senkaku Islands, Japan, Senkaku Islands, Republic of China, and Senkaku Islands, People's Republic of China.
4. WP:SIZESPLIT does not apply: The articles themselves are quite small (2103B and 750B). This isn't a consideration.

The only options that make sense are to have a combined article as proposed or to have three separate articles (Demchok, Demchok, Ladakh, and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture). The content here doesn't justify the latter option, while a combined article is both consistent with other articles and makes sense. — MarkH₂₁ 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Moorcroft (1767-1825) refers to the village of Demchok, which, he says, belongs to Gartok in Tibet and is thus on the eastern side of the boundary.
• Hedin (1865-1952) described it as "the last village on the Tibetan side" (travelling towards Ladakh)
• Abdul Wahid Radhu, a former representative of lopchak missions (biannual trade & diplomatic missions between Ladakh and Lhasa), described Demchok as "the first location on the Tibetan side of the border" (travelling to Tibet).
• The Buddhist traveller's map studied by Diana Lange shows only the Tibetan village.

The growth of a village on the Ladakhi side is a recent phenomenon. As late as 1904, there were only two houses there. It was only after Indian independence that the Ladakhi village has grown, probably spurred by Indian military speding at this border area. So I see the two villages as independent villages that happen to have the same name (because the general area itself is known as "Demchok"). They are not "two halves" of some "single scope". There is nothing in common between them except their name.

What is worse, since these villages are going to be frequently referred to in the Sino-Indian border dispute, mixing up the two villages will end up causing huge confusion as to what on earth we are talking about. It simply doesn't make sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• The sources clearly describe Demchok as a village split by the Charding Nullah, whereas these two modern halves are on opposite sides of the Charding Nullah (bolding mine):

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

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

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

  Even in the Lange source from which you quote Hedin, Demchok is clearly drawn with structures on both banks in Fig. 5. Is there even a single historical source that says that Demchok was only on one bank of the river?Your quotes say that it is a village on the Tibetan side of the border. This is not the same as saying that it is a village on one side of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream, particularly since maps in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century generally showed the border several miles west of the Charding Nullah / Lhari stream and Demchok:

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

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

  The naming is significantly more obfuscating in the current situation. Right now, the division of coverage across the articles suggests that the historical Demchok is precisely the northwestern bank settlement administered by India, but multiple historians write that it corresponds to settlements on both banks. If your claim that the historical Demchok was solely on the southeastern bank is correct, then the situation is even worse by covering it in the article on the northwestern bank! — MarkH₂₁ 02:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have added a circa 1945 map, which shows the village and its orientation with respect to the river. Surely, if something is this controversial, it is safe not to mess with the existing pages, but improve them if possible? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The map clearly has two settlements (black dots) at Demchok, one on each side of the Charding Nullah. Controversy doesn’t mean we stick to whatever the status quo organization is. A merger is an improvement. — MarkH₂₁ 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The black dots represent camp sites, not settlements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The legend says Buildings or landmark features for the black dots. Furthermore, the name labels in the map only correspond to black dots.This is also another example of a map that shows both Demchok settlements being in Tibet, with the border several miles west. — MarkH₂₁ 16:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Ok, if this map is ambiguous, you can check the two other maps that are on the Charding Nullah page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Geographic articles are not the same as disputes, these are clearly separate villages/settlements in different countries "now" merging would be disruptive. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is confusing for the article on Demchok to now only focus on one of the two modern halves with the same name. Also, it does not make sense to include all of the history about the village from before 1950 in an article that is about one of the two modern halves. If we merge the two articles, the issues would be gone. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Demchok and Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture are de facto separate human settlements with different administrations. Merging them will only add to confusion. For example, what will be the population of that settlement be? Will Indian and Chinese data be added generating new data, or we ignore that altogether?--Ab207 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Ab207: See the draft at User:MarkH21/Demchok. The population of each half is given in their sections, and the estimate for the total combined population is given appropriately as well.What’s more confusing is that historical treatment of the combined village from the 1600s to the 1950s uses the historical spelling Demchok, with incoming links about that village pointing to the Demchok article (currently about only one half of the old village). The article and its description of the Indian-administered half (e.g. the infobox, Demographics section, saying that Demchok is administered as part of the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh by India) misleadingly suggests that the Indian-administered half is the historical village referred to by historical sources and incoming wikilinks. — MarkH₂₁ 03:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment as its common to have distinct articles on separate jurisdictions. For example Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas are right next to each other, but as one is in Arkansas and one is in Texas, each has a separate article. Also Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

References

1. Lamb, Alastair (1964), The China-India border, Oxford University Press, pp. 61–62
2. ^ Lange, Diana (2017), "Decoding Mid-19th Century Maps of the Border Area between Western Tibet, Ladakh, and Spiti", Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines,The Spiti Valley Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present
3. Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, Indian Report, Part 3 (PDF), pp. 3–4}

Undiscussed change of scope

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

@Kautilya3: As stated in this edit summary, this was based on the close of Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger and the follow-up at User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok? with GenQuest. It was not unilateral. Do you actually oppose that development of the articles for any particular reason? — MarkH₂₁ 12:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You have asked for a merge, which did not find enough support. But your change of scope essentially amounts to doing exactly the same thing: changing this page to a "merged page", albeit a historical one. I don't see why you can't change the Tibetan Demchok page to the historical village. It is fairly clear that that is where it was. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This plan was literally suggested by GenQuest, not me. It also does not do the same thing, since the latest pre-revert version of Demchok contains the main details for neither modern village, while the proposed merge would have contained the main details for both modern villages. The only thing that they accomplish in common is clarify the historical situation regarding the village and its split.The WP:COMMONNAME for the historical pre-1962 village is overwhelmingly "Demchok" and not "Dêmqog" since the latter only even came into existence as a transliteration of "ཌེམ་ཆོག" in 1982. It doesn’t make any sense to place the article about the historical village at Dêmqog or anywhere else but Demchok. — MarkH₂₁ 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You are free to rename the Dêmqog page to Demchok, Tibet or something and put the historical stuff there. This page clearly started out as the Indian village with government and census data presented. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class geography articles
• Low-importance geography articles
• WikiProject Geography articles
• Start-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Mid-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Tibet articles
• Mid-importance Tibet articles
• WikiProject Tibet articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages