Talk:Himalayas

Adding hindi name of himalaya next to the Himalayas.

According to Wikipedia's guideline WP:NOINDICSCRIPT , for Hinduism-related articles, the use of Indic languages is permitted. Therefore, for topics such as the Himalayas, which is related to Hinduism, the use of Indic languages is acceptable. So, I propose to add this information. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

No. This is an article about a mountain range. Topics 'related to Hinduism' are articles directly about religion. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is directly related to Hinduism. Go the subheading of this article of "Religion". I can also show you multiple sources available on internet to prove this claim. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thehansindia.com/amp/featured/sunday-hans/the-spiritual-significance-of-the-himalayas-745531 This source is enough to end this discussion and further arguments. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You have to actually convince people to support your changes somehow, and simply declaring that discussion is at an end will not do so. MrOllie (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I proved it that it's related to Hinduism. Now, if you hv further doubts, go on. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The article would have to be directly about Hinduism to qualify for the exception. A tenuous relationship is not sufficient. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is directly related. I literally attached a source to prove this claim. If you don't have knowledge about this topic, please refrain yourself from such topics. Thank you! TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ipse dixit. Also, making personal attacks about other people's level of knowledge will not cause others to support your proposals. Since we are duplicating comments here and at Talk:Ganges I do not plan on responding to this talk page again until something unique is brought here. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, good. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You started this debate by removing replacing Urdu (which was only added yesterday) with Hindi, with an edit summary of "This mountains ranges has nothing to do with urdu[sic]".
I deleted the Hindi with an edit summary of "Lets avoid multiple languages" because the Himalayas are in five countries Nepal, China, Pakistan, Bhutan and India, some of which use multiple languages. There is already a detailed section on the name, which makes such inclusion in the lead unnecessary, and it would become unnecessarily cluttered if they were all included, and we would not choose one language for inclusion over the others. - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That's basically my thought on this as well. An article that would be fall into the exception would be one that is primarily focused on Hinduism. It's not intended to be a broad exception, and this would be pushing it to way beyond where it was intended.

And the OP has been blocked as a sock, so fairly moot discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect, poorly written, en masse edits

I have reverted a large number of edits made by user:Magentic Manifestations, "MM" hereafter. The reasons are not hard to explain. MM have consistently misinterpreted the sources. As a result, their sentences have incorrect information, sometimes very obviously so. Their prose is poor and nonstandard. Here are just three examples from the lead.

1. >>>"the Himalayan mountain range runs west-northwest to east-southeast in an arc 2,400 km (1,500 mi) long" has been changed to:

>>>The mountain range runs for 2,400 km (1,500 mi) as an arc from west-northwest to east-southeast at the northern end of the Indian subcontinent.

The word "run" in the original sentence above is used with the transitive meaning of "To cause to extend in a specified direction or take a specified course. OED" MM have turned it into an intransitive verb. Moreover, they have employed "west-northwest" and "east-southeast" to be prepositional complements for "from" and "to," thereby giving them the sense of locations in space rather than directions. To these, they have added "at the northern end of the Indian subcontinent" What is the northern end of the Indian subcontinent. The Indian subcontinent is not a line.

2. >>>The Himalayan range is one of the youngest mountain ranges on Earth and is made up of uplifted sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. It was formed more than 10 mya due to the subduction of the Indian tectonic plate with the Eurasian Plate along the convergent boundary

Subduction "with?" It usually is subduction "into" or "under"

See OED: Of a crustal plate, or section of the earth's crust: to move downwards and at an angle into the mantle beneath an adjacent plate or body of crust; to undergo subduction (subduction n. 6). OED Examples

• 1970 Our reconstruction shows this as an embayment of ancient Tethys that, owing to the late detachment of Australia from Antarctica, has not yet been subducted into the Java trench.R. S. Dietz & J. C. Holden in Journal of Geophysical Research vol. 75 4955
• 2010 As oceanic crust subducts back into the mantle, it carries carbon-rich sediment with it. Scientific American (U.K. edition) August 30/3

"Along a convergent boundary?" Subduction, by definition, cannot take place along a divergent boundary. Have they (MM) understood the principles here. We can't afford to have Wikipedia make such elementary mistakes in the lead of a vital article.

3. >>>The mountains consist of large glaciers, which are remnants of the last ice age, and give rise to some of the world's major rivers such as the Indus, Ganges, and Tsangpo–Brahmaputra.

The mountains do not consist of large glaciers. Glaciers lie well below the peaks. Glaciers are not remnants of the last ice age, they were significantly advanced during the ice age. The Indus does not rise from snow melt; it does from mountain springs north of Mt Kailas, which in any case is not in the Himalayas, but the Tibet Trans-Himalayas.

You get the idea. When an overseeing editor of 16 years comes across line after line with such errors or inadequacies, not to mention large-scale paraphrasing of Britannica, they have no option but to revert to the last clean version (with all its inadequacies, which is nonetheless not quite as flagrant). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In other words, these are not edits that can be selectively fixed. WP:ONUS, which is WP policy, states very clearly, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

If a very large number of edits are made to an article a couple of months earlier, and the major editors of a page are away for various reasons (which in my instance is a major family health emergency), the added text does not become the "precedent" or the consensus version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:MM has just now added "sources," almost none of which are the major introductory textbooks in the field or surveys of the field. See WP:TERTIARY, for the role of these in matters of due weight. Pinging administrators: Vanamonde, Drmies, RegentsPark, Bbb23. Also, other old WP South Asia hands: UnpetitproleX, Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Johnbod, TrangaBellam, Remsense.

This after all is a vital article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I see these as issues of imprecision in language rather than source misuse, but nonetheless, Magentic Manifestations, when an editor raises good faith concerns with your edits you are obligated to discuss them in good faith without edit-warring. And when specific concerns are raised, it is up to you to reinstate the non-controversial pieces, rather than expecting other editors to pick through your work. The improvement to referencing is a good thing, the many errors in language are not. Please self-revert and discuss piecemeal, or expect to get blanket reverted again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler and @Vanamonde93, Will address the points here. I agree that there were concerns on the edits. However, it was neither clear on the comments when the wholesale revert was done, nor was it addressed when reaching out for a conversation. The older version of the article (here) largely relies on the same Britannica as the source for a portion of the article + there are whole uncited sections (Geography!), hence my intention was to expand and add reliable sources. While I had added a whole lot of additions with the appropriate sources, do agree that there were a few sections sources from tertiary sources. However, there was a lot of effort that had gone into this and the entire thing was lost when it was wholesale reverted.

  To proceed forward, from the status quo, I have made changes to a few sections in steps with proper comments and citations as suggested in the second revert comments (before I went through the comments). Now that I have made sample changes to a few sections, any of the editors can go through them and flag if there are grammatical or interpretation errors/issues if any. I would address the concerns already raised.

  If even this seems inappropriate, I would be happy to revert it to status quo, make changes in the sandbox and get it peer checked before publishing. Do let me know the comments on how do you want me to proceed. Thanks! M² (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for this Vanamonde. Please see my post below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest the following: revert to the status quo, then reinstate only those changes which do not involve changes to language or terminology, and do the rest in a sandbox, section by section so as to not slow it down tremendously. The lack of sources in many areas are a serious problem, but we don't help the article by introducing errors, even if unintended. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Vanamonde:

  From 05:17 (UTC) 11 November 2024 (diff) to 10:21 15 November 2024 (UTC) (diff), over nearly 100 edits by MM, the article went from word count 5,752 to 7,393, not counting large parts of the article that were removed with nary an edit summary.

  You know my editing style by now; I make such interventions only in egregious violations of the letter (and not just the spirit) of Wikipedia. It is not like other editors did not notice. user:Amakuru, for instance, from whose inputs I have benefitted at WP:TFA, changed "Himalayas is a mountain range in ..." in the lead sentence to "Himalayas are a mountain range ...," only to be instantly reverted by MM with an edit summary remark about "range" being singular, without waiting to consider the "Himalayas" is plural.

  Among the sources added by MM is "Concept Publishers" of the infamous Delhi back alley, which user:Sitush blacklisted on WP years ago. Another is Ken Pletcher, of the editing staff of Britannica, who appears as the author of an independent book, and not editor of the book version of Britannica's chapters written by Joseph Schwartzberg and others. MM has (very poorly) paraphrased a number of Britannica articles. For these reasons, in my view, MM should propose all edits here, even those with alleged source backup, for they have not understood the basic principles.

  To give just one example (and there are many), MM says in their lead: "Due to the continuous movement of the Indian plate, the Himalayas keep rising every year, making them geologically and seismically active." Friction, however, renders plate movement somewhat episodic, even if the convection in the mantle below is sometimes described as continuous, not to mention it is not just subduction but also crustal thickening that is at play in the uplifting of the mountain range. To get an idea, please take a look at the geography chapter Darjeeling#Geography_and_geology, which user:Dwaipayanc and I wrote some years ago during an FAR, in particular the paragraphs beginning, "The Darjeeling hills have been formed ..." and "The continual tectonic activity of Darjeeling's ancient past ..." How then can the flagship article, i.e. Himalayas, be so poor? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object to sandboxing the entire revision, but I lack the capacity to check every citation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler, Please do understand that no experienced editor would put in days of effort to undermine the existing page/report contrary to the sources. I do not see the addition of large volume of text as a problem if it is properly cited, and is relevant. I definitely appreciate the specific points you have made with respect to syntax, and sources. On the points:

  • The source cited is not listed as blacklisted or unreliable on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Hence, I am not sure how an editor is supposed to be aware of this. Even here, you had not pointed out to the discussion or consensus, where this was agreed. I do believe that frivolous citations are not to be used, as that was the point which made me edit the article in the first place. If you point this source out as an issue, I would be happy to keep this in mind going forward.
  • Definitely agree on the point on tectonics. While in the body it is "The Indian plate continues to be driven horizontally at the Tibetan Plateau at about 67 mm (2.6 in) per year, forcing it to continue to move upwards", the summary in the lede should mirror it.

  Nobody can be perfect when adding quite an amount of text, and I have been open to discussion/suggestions/changes. Having said this, I do definitely get your concern that multiple edits were made in a single instance. I also do understand that I should have been more prudent about checking citations, and correctness when such a volume of text was added to a critical article.

  The article in its older state uses the same tertiary sources and barely cites any references for swathes of text. There are some sections which are/were too focused (parts of Hydrology, and Ecology) on one region rather than the entire Himalayas. I believe these are issues that needed addressing. If you are indeed concerned about the quality of the article as you have mentioned multiple times, I am willing to make a copy in the sandbox. If you are willing to spend time and help on this, it will be great. I will work on the comments if any, and it can be taken to the main page if appropriate. Hope we can agree on this. Thanks!

  PS: I will be unavailable for the next few days. So it might take a while for me to revert in case of any further comments/discussion.

M² (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that you hold off for some time, perhaps a week, and give me time to look at the state of the article. Thanks and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be running through articles, frenetically going through the motions, grabbing any source that fits the sentence, the sources showing disparities of scale that match the Himalayas own. A major vital topic such as Himalayas can't be written or rewritten in four days of 100 edits. It requires many days of reading. From your writing, it doesn't seem at all that you've done any reading. There's a disconnect between your version of the geology section and the Wikipedia article Geology of the Himalayas that is very well written, hearkening to the days, when experts wrote and didn't feel the need to add sources. I'm sorry you can't tell us to selectively fix only what needs to be fixed, as it is much simpler to rewrite the section than to fix your final product. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Rewriting two sections

I have examined the article. For the most part, user:Magentic Manifestations has added sources. Their sources seem random; very narrow-scale (i.e., specialized) articles have often been cited for broad-scale statements. This diff shows how the article has changed since early November 2024. But that is not how a vital article such as this is written, for issues of due weight are not tackled. I will rewrite the Geology and Geography sections to improve the article and demonstrate how this should be done. Narrow-level tweaks should be added only to a firm foundation of broad-level sources. I have restricted myself to college and graduate school introductory textbooks. Please read WP:TERTIARY for their role in matters of due weight. This is Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, I fear, what is here will acquire the status of the "last best version," and it will be much harder to improve the article. I will therefore revert the article to its early November 2024 version, and proceed from there. Pinging Vanamonde and RegentsPark. I will list a short bibliography below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For Geology, I will use three sources, the first two of which were already in the article when user:UnpetitproleX and I were working on the article some years ago. These are:

1. Zurick, David; Pacheco, Julsun (2006). Illustrated Atlas of the Himalayas. Basanta Shrestha and Birendra Bajracharya. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-813-12388-2. OCLC 1102237054.
2. Frisch, Wolfgang; Meschede, Martin; Blakey, Ronald (2011). Plate Tectonics: Continental Drift and Mountain Building. Heidelberg: Springer Science. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76504-2. ISBN 978-3-540-76503-5.
3. Molnar, Peter (2015). Plate Tectonics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198728269.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For Geography, I will use:

1. Zurick, David; Pacheco, Julsun (2006). Illustrated Atlas of the Himalayas. Basanta Shrestha and Birendra Bajracharya. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-813-12388-2. OCLC 1102237054.
2. Price, Martin F.; Byers, Alton C.; Friend, Donald A.; Kohler, Thomas; Price, Larry W., eds. (2013). Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254312. OCLC 841227048.
3. Gerrard, John (1990). Mountain environments: an examination of the physical geography of mountains. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-07128-4. OCLC 20637538.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Argument to Reinstate: "The Himalayas extend into or touch six countries"

Hello everyone,

I would like to propose reinstating the sentence "The Himalayas extend into or touch six countries" as it offers a clearer and more precise explanation compared to the current phrasing, "The Himalayas abut or cross six countries."

1) Clarity: The words "extend into" and "touch" are more commonly understood and provide a clearer description of how the Himalayas interact with these countries. "Abut" is less commonly used and might not be immediately clear to all readers, while "cross" implies that the Himalayas traverse the entirety of the countries, which is not accurate.

2) Precision: "Extend into" accurately describes that the mountain range reaches or has a presence in the countries without suggesting full coverage or borders. "Touch" implies a lighter, but still significant, connection. This phrasing avoids any misconceptions about the geographical extent of the Himalayas within these countries.

3) Consistency: Using straightforward and widely understood language helps maintain consistency throughout the article and ensures that the information is accessible to a broader audience.

By reinstating the sentence "The Himalayas extend into or touch six countries," we enhance the readability and accuracy of the information presented.

Thank you for considering this suggestion.

Best regards, Jebany89 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You have a very good point about the Himalayas not crossing the entirety of some of these countries, e.g. India.

The OED's meaning is: Abut (verb, trans. and intrans.) "Of an estate, country, piece of land, etc.: to end at, border on (adjacent land, a neighbouring country, etc.).

I'm happy to change the wording to, "abut on or cross the territories of six countries." Note: abut is now intransitive.

This is more precise than your proposed wording. The Himalayas neither touch Nepal nor extend into Nepal. They extend across Nepal. The same is true of Bhutan. But they do both abut on and cross territory of Nepal. They certainly do not extend into Afghanistan, but they do end at the Hindu Kush, which are in Afghanistan.

One of the things I don't like doing on WP is to cater to the least common denominator. The "abut" has been in the lead of the article for quite some time. I can't say for sure, but very likely three or four years. The page gets over a million views a year. I believe this is the first time that I can remember someone has objected to the wording.

Ultimately, phrasing is not an exact science. If it is getting the message across, and no one is objecting strenuously, it is good enough. We let that sleeping dog lie.

Also, I'm trying to rewrite this article, so who knows what the article might look like in a few months, or its summary, the lead.

But your point about crossing is an excellent one and I'm happy to change the phrasing to "abut on or cross territories of six countries."

I'll wait a few days. Perhaps others might have something to say. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Improving the Description of the Himalayas' Geographic Extent

Current Sentence:

"The Himalayas abut on or cross territories of six countries: Nepal, China, Pakistan, Bhutan, India and Afghanistan."

Proposed Sentence:

"The Himalayas extend across the territories of China, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan, and end near the Hindu Kush, which are in Afghanistan."

Reasons for Improvement:

1. Clarity: The proposed sentence provides a clearer and more precise description of the Himalayas' geographic extent. It avoids potential confusion caused by the phrase "abut on," which may be less familiar to some readers.

2. Accuracy: The revised sentence accurately reflects that the Himalayas do not extend into Afghanistan but end near the Hindu Kush, which are located in Afghanistan. This distinction is important for maintaining geographical accuracy.

3. Readability: Using simpler and more commonly understood language, such as "extend across," makes the sentence more readable and accessible to a wider audience. It avoids redundancy and ensures the information is conveyed concisely.

4. Common Usage: Phrases like "extend across" are commonly used in geographical descriptions and are familiar to most readers. "Abut on" might sound less familiar and could confuse some readers.

5. Contextual Relevance: Listing the countries from east to west (China, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan) provides a logical geographical flow, helping readers visualize the mountain range's extent more effectively.

6. Consistency: Given the high number of views over the past four years, it is essential to maintain consistency in the information provided. The proposed sentence enhances clarity and precision without changing the core message, thus maintaining the consistency valued by long-time readers.

While it is true that phrasing is not an exact science, and the current sentence has served well, updating the phrasing ensures that the information remains as accurate, clear, and reader-friendly as possible. The proposed revision achieves these goals while respecting the integrity of the original message.

Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, and best regards. Jebany89 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that what you have offered is an improvement. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I understand that not everyone may agree with the proposed changes. It's valuable to have different perspectives. I would appreciate hearing more opinions from other contributors on this matter to reach a consensus. Constructive feedback helps us improve the article for all readers. Best regards Jebany89 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

All constructions are not equal. Yours is misleading as it unnecessarily brings in the Hindu Kush, when it doesn't the more notable Karakorams which press up against the Himalayas Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Clarifying the Geographic Extent of the Himalayas

Dear readers,

Current Sentence:

"The Himalayas abut on or cross territories of six countries: Nepal, China, Pakistan, Bhutan, India and Afghanistan."

Feedback:

The current sentence is not entirely accurate. The Himalayas do not extend into Afghanistan. They primarily stretch across the territories of Nepal, China (specifically the Tibet Autonomous Region), Pakistan (including the Pakistani-administered territories of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir), Bhutan, and India (including the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh). The Hindu Kush mountain range, not the Himalayas, extends into Afghanistan.

Proposed Sentence:

"The Himalayas stretch across the territories of China (specifically the Tibet Autonomous Region), Bhutan, Nepal, India (including the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh), and the Pakistani-administered territories of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. They are bordered to the northwest by the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan and the Karakoram range in the Pakistani-administered region of Gilgit-Baltistan."

Reasons for Improvement:

The proposed sentence provides a clearer and more precise description of the geographic extent of the Himalayas, avoiding potential confusion about the territories they cross. It accurately reflects that the Himalayas do not extend into Afghanistan but are bordered by the Hindu Kush and Karakoram ranges. Using simpler language makes the sentence more readable and accessible, while mentioning specific territories and distinguishing between the mountain ranges offers a more detailed and contextually relevant description. This enhances clarity and precision without changing the core message, thereby maintaining consistency valued by readers.

References:

1. ScienceDirect - Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/himalayas

2. Britannica - Himalayas: https://www.britannica.com/place/Himalayas

Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, and best regards. Jebany89 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please consider that to others, the prospect of an editor with no history on the page continually holding forth about the lead, politely but not entirely constructively, might begin to look like Sealioning.

RegentsPark, Vanamonde, please take a look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Jebany89: Are you using AI to write your talk page posts?RegentsPark (comment) 17:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it was from Brittanica but i have done research. 2A02:6B67:D109:3A00:6C6A:D4A4:81E9:42CB (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please see WP:LLM. Particularly this sentence "Using LLMs to write one's talk page comments or edit summaries, in a non-transparent way, is strongly discouraged."RegentsPark (comment) 18:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Jebany89 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)