Talk:Himalayas/Archive 2

Largest mountains
how are the largest mountains formed?

See new section in the article Lumos3 23:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Himilayan Cultivation
Request for information on Himilaya Cultivation.

Why 2 pictures
I think having 2 identical pictures, one labelled and one not is a little quirky. I removed the unlabelled one but User:MPF restored it saying restore pic as it is a very nice pic that people may want to download)  I still think only one is needed any one else got an opinion.  Lumos3 23:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notable individual Peaks
Janderk has removed the comments against the worlds 2 highest peaks in this list. I think this is a mistake. Every entry should have a comment to say what is notable about it. I would like to see every entry in this section contain a sentence to say why it has been included. It is not just a list of the highest peaks. Economy of description is not needed because Wikipedia is not paper. Lumos3 17:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name of the Himalayas and the Sub-ranges
By etymology, the name "Himalaya" originates from sanskrit (Hima - Snow, Alaya - Temple or Abode) as described in the article. The pahari group of languages which include Nepali are derivatives or Hindi (which is derived from sanskrit.) The origin of the word "Himal" (in Nepali) to mean range may have happened as a result of semantic drift. It would be interesting to include information on the nomenclature of the sub-ranges of the Himalayas. --Beta 05:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

POV map
The map captioned "The southern part of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China lie on the Himalayas" is China centric. It only shows Chinese borders and implies the Himalaya are an internal part of China so is rather POV. We need a map which shows all international borders. Lumos3 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The map has been removed, but a new one has not been put up yet.Idraax (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Idraax


 * I don't have any problem with it. The annotated pic is useful, to see what's what, and the untouched pic makes a beautiful computer wallpaper, and there's not many such good ones around which people can downloaded legally. I still say keep both. - MPF 23:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am trying this: unannotated picture as thumbnail (as the annotations are not legible in a thumbnail anyway) with a link to the annotated one. Also, I'm adding a satellite image. dab 10:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am trying this: unannotated picture as thumbnail (as the annotations are not legible in a thumbnail anyway) with a link to the annotated one. Also, I'm adding a satellite image. dab 10:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent solution from dab - and another stunning pic, too - MPF 17:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree the current solution combines 2 great pictures with the option to see an annotation, nice work. Lumos3 22:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sub-ranges are important
Besides the main (and particularly glamorous) Himalaya range, other parallel ranges are important from geological, zoological/botanical, hydrographic and cultural-political standpoints. Traveling north from the Gangeatic Plain, one would first encounter the alluvial Terai and Bhabhar belts at the foot of the Siwalak Range with an elevation of 600 to 1,200 meters.

Immediately north of the Siwalik Range there are large Dun or Inner Terai valleys in many locations. Examples in Nepal would be Dang-Deukhuri and Chitwan, but I understand there are similar valleys in India. Like the Terai and Bhhabhar belts south of the Siwalis, these valleys were subject to endemic malaria before control by spraying DDT. The Terai-Siwalik-Dun region is culturally influenced by Hindus moving up from the plains, but also has indigenous peoples such as the Tharu who have lived there long enough to have developed some genetic resistance to malaria.

North of the Siwaliks (and dun valleys) the Mahabharat Range – also known as the Middle Himalaya – rises to 2,000 or even 3,000 meters. The steeper southern slope of this range is almost uninhabited, so this no man's land separates the Hindus and indigenous peoples of the plains, Siwaliks and Dun Valleys from Paharis and Tibeto-Burman peoples inhabiting the "hills" from the Mahabharat crest northward. The Mahabharat range is also an important hydrographic barrier, collecting multiple tributaries descending from the Himalaya into candelabra-shaped river systems with relatively few gorges cutting through to the south. Likewise the Mahabharat Range has a cool enough climate to set in motion the transition from the tropical and sub-tropical flora and fauna of India to the temperate flora and fauna of Eurasia. For example pine trees become increasingly common above 1,000 meters.

Generally the high Himalaya lie 50-100 km. north of the Mahabharat Range, with the intervening area occupied by valleys as low as 700 meters immediately north of the Mahabharat Range, increasing in elevation northward, and by "hills" that also increase in elevation, with summits reaching into the alpine zone at 3,500 meters halfway between the Mahabharat and main Himalayan range.

The high Himalaya typically have several parallel ranges in excess of 6,000 meters with the higher ranges usually reaching 7,000 meters and occasionally exceeding 8,000 meters. These ranges are often separated by semi-arid valleys at elevations of 3,000 meters or higher inhabited by ethnic Tibetans who rely more on trade and herding than horticulture. Lower ranges north of the main Himalayas but often still above 6,000 meters are known as the Trans-Himalaya.

The himalayan complex may be said to end at the Brahmaputra and Indus Rivers. The Brahmaputra drains the Himalayan northern slopes while flowing eastward and then south into the Bay of Bengal. The Indus also drains the northern himalayan slopes but flows westward, then south into the Arabian Sea. Both rivers have their sources near Mt. Kailas in western Tibet, which became the axis of the universe according to traditional Hindu and Buddhist cosmology.

Reference to Jammu and Kashmir
The reference to Jammu and Kashmir as Pakistani state is incorrect. We need to add a map here which show the correct present borders here i.e. along the Line of Actual Control.

Plural
This article starts out "The Himalaya is...." If the article is titled "Himalaya" because that is already plural, wouldn't the correct phrase be "The Himalaya are..."? – Renesis13 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Highest lake
I have deleted the claim that Gurudogmar is the world's highest lake. There is a good webpage on this subject and there is no need for me to reproduce any of it here. Viewfinder 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Explorers
I deleted this: 'Harish Kapadia is one of the most distinguished Himalayan Mountaineers in the world. He has been awared the Patron's Medal of the Royal Geographic Society, UK and the Life Time Acheivement Award for Adventure by the President of India. He has written numerous books and articles on the Indian Himalaya.'

This was posted by someone called "Sonamkapadia", which appeared to me to be a relative of Harish Kapadia. Whatever his (unsourced btw) achievements, POV glorification is not appropriate Wikipedia language. I have retained the link to the Harish Kapadia page, that will do. Viewfinder 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you identify these?
Please take a look at these unidentified peaks at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Karakoram_peaks. If you recognize any of these, please update their description and category and notify me. Thanks! Waqas.usman 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hima vs. Himal
In the beginning of the article, it says that Hima means "snow" while toward the end it says that Himal means "range." Can this be true? I find it a bit confusing. Does this make Himalaya the "Himilayan Himal?" Dslawe 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Sanskrit, "him(a)" means "snow" and "alaya" means "house" or "abode," hence "himalaya" means the "abode of snow." The Nepalese, or rather Nepali, "himal" does mean "mountain range," but it is likely just a shortened version of the Sanskrit, "himalaya," which is a much older term.  Sanskrit, incidentally, is an ancestral language of Nepali (which belongs to the Indian branch of the Indo-European language group). Stiwari 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. I guess the Nepalese, when looking for a good word for "mountain range" simply took the word they used to discribe that giant range of mountains right over yonder. Dslawe 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In Nepali "Himal" can mean a snowy range, e.g. Annapurna Himal as seen from Pokhara, but it can also mean a snowy peak seen in isolation, as happens from certain viewpoints. For example from Ghorapani, Dhaulagiri I blocks the rest of the Dhaulagiri range from view. The ambiguity is resolved in context.

Ordinary Nepali is a colloquial language – like Hindi. Although it has Sanskrit loan words and even seems to grade imperceptibly into Sanskrit when speakers have advanced classical education, the majority of Nepali speakers have never studied Sanskrit or didn't pay very close attention in class. Colloquial usage of Sanskrit loan words is seldom anchored by precise understanding. 76.80.26.121 23:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Explorers
When talking about notable Explorers you should not forget George Leigh Mallory and Sandy Irvine! They are among the best known mountain pioneers.

Grammar in K2 description
"Widely considered the most challenging mountains in the world to climb." - Should be "most challenging mountain" (singular) or "one of the most challenging mountains". No idea which. Someone with more knowledge than me should make a call.


 * K2 MOUNTAIN IS A BIGGEST MOUNTAIN IN THE WORLD.IT HAVE  8611KM.THE K2 MOUNTAIN IS IN INDIA HIGHEST MOUNTAIN.THE BIGGEST MOUNTAIN IS EVEREST MOUNTAIN AFTER THE K2 MOUNTAIN BIGGEST IN THE WORLD.EVEREST IS 8848 KM .K2 MOUNTAIN IS IN KARACORA'S MOUNTAIIN'S.


 * Now who can argue with that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Formation of the Himalayas Question
Did the Himalayas form during the Late Eocene or the Early Oligocene?--Mr Fink 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Incostistent...
In the first part of the article it is said, "...They (the Himalayas) are the source of three of the world's major river systems, the Indus basin, the Ganga-Brahmaputra basin and the Yangtze basin...". Meanwhile, in the glaciers and river systems section of the article, it is said that "...the Yangtze and the Huang He (Yellow River) all originate from parts of the Tibetan plateau that are geologically distinct from the Himalaya mountains, and are therefore not considered true Himalayan rivers..." What is this not true there? It automatically means that it (Yangtze) is not a Himalayan river. I would support it with the preceding phrase, "...the Yangtze...originate from parts of the Tibetan plateau that are geologically distinct from the Himalaya mountains...". Thus, don't put the word true there. Offended??? Sorry and post your complaints on my talk page. -Pika ten10 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
undid the vandalism by 199.227.113.5 vcpk (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aconcagua not highest mountain outside Himalayan system
There are peaks in the Kunlun Shan over 7,000 meters. The Kunlun Shan are not part of the Himlayan system and are not cited as such in this article. Most correctly, Aconcagua is the highest outside Asia. "Central Asia" might also be used, but this term remains unclear at best when applied to the Himalayan system, which extends into geographic regions in Myanmar, India and Yunnan, China. Eleutherosmartin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
It went something like this-

"Also, Theese [sic] mountains have a sevier [sic] infestation of Morbidly Obease [sic] people"

I think it is, to many misspellings and grammar issues to be real...right?

☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Height of Himalayas
height is 8848 m or 8850 m someone edited my input of 8848 to 8850, is that latest official figure??? --Manik (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this analogy appropriate?
The sentence, 'As words, the expression "Himalaya Range" is similar to the expression Sierra Nevada.' seems out of place. Why this strange analogy; I've never heard of the expression "Sierra Nevada" and I'm sure a major part of Wikipedia readers haven't either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinaths9 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tintin Cover - Tintin in Tibet.JPG
The image Image:Tintin Cover - Tintin in Tibet.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian POV Pushers alert
recently indian editors are deluding themselves with assumption that k2 lies with IOK or indian occupied kashmir it lies with azad kashmir or free kashmir admins need to block these indians unless they want to see a increase in reliation from editors from pakistan 86.151.123.172 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

William
this editor is adding his biased POV terms such as POK to the article i urge editors to remove all his edits so far and try and get him banned from editing anything related to kashmir as he has blatantly abused his powers as a admin and disregards the rules 86.156.211.67 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Himalayas
In the Himalayas there are many other differnet types of mountains. There is one i know already and that is Mount Everest. I definatley know that Mount Everest is in the Himalayas because i checked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.177.233 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Imaus
same name? Böri (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Deglaciation by "2035" is apparently incorrect
"According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!"

See http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf and http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.211.253 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the BBC citation sourced in the relevant wiki text, the IPCC authors didn't simply misread anything. Read Texas State climatology professor John Nielsen-Gammon's investigation into this topic on Houston Chronicle's Commons Blog cite (see http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3aa2b394cc-5b5f-47ad-8bb5-c1aec91409ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest).

As stated in the BBC article, the IPCC authors violated their own mandate and used unrefereed sources ("a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist") to support the year 2035. However, the BBC article is actually not totally accurate either, as the only course cited for this year by the IPCC report is the 2005 World Wildlife Fund report ("An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China WWF Nepal Program; March, 2005"). And it turns out that the 2005 WWF report bases its estimate on a non-peer reviewed 1999 article from the "New Scientist," in which the Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, Syed Hasnain, was quoted as saying "'most of the glaciers in the Himalayan Region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming'" (WWF, 2005). In fact, the New Scientist article cites a 1999 WGHG/ISCI report, which fails to mention a date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. Thus, the 2005 WWF report is a tertiary citation that has no basis in fact on this particular issue. The actual estimate for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers actually comes from the 1996 UNESCO report ‘Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale’ as edited by V.M. Kotlyakov, in which 80% of the earth’s extrapolar glaciers are predicted to disappear by 2350. Note that the estimate in this report is inclusive of, but not specific to, Himalayan glaciers.

In light of this, the current wiki entry text on this issue is inaccurate and misleading:

"It was later revealed that the source used by the UN climate report actually stated 2350, not 2035."

I suggest the above statement be replaced with something along these lines:

"It was later revealed that the IPCC’s 2035 estimate for the disappearance for Himalayan glaciers was incorrect and based on an unreliable, tertiary, non-peer reviewed 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The actual estimate of significant glacier disappearance is 2350 as stated in the 1996 UNESCO report ‘Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale.’ However, the estimate in this report inclusive of, but not specific to, Himalayan glaciers."Jurban48 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurban48 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

annotated image
This edit seems to have caused a minor formatting problem. Wasn't sure how it should be fixed so I hid it for now as the link to the annotated image looks odd in the opening sentence. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationalistic nomenclature
Most of the highest mountains are on the borders between two countries. Nationalist editors have, in the past, created mischief, by removing the name of one country, or by subtly replacing the country name with a region name. In the case of the People's Republic of China, the modern Tibet Autonomous Region has often been replaced by the historical Tibet. I understand that many of these country assignments are controversial, that many passions are aroused by them, but they have been agreed upon by the powers that be (at least for now), and, more importantly, they are repeated in the sources, including other encyclopedias. Until such time as the consensus of sources changes these assignments, we are helpless, no matter how strongly we feel that injustice has been done. Wikipedia is not the place to correct perceived historical wrongs. I have now corrected the country assignments in the photo captions and tables. Please don't mess with them. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

conflict in height of aconcagua
as the page is protected i couldnt edit it but it seems that the height of aconcagua as listed is wrong. the wiki pages for aconcagua lists the height as 6962 meters (22841 feet). someone with authority should look into this, huh? strange discrepancy... Arigoldx (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected by South Bay. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deglaciation information is still inaccurate
I see that the year 2035 was removed and replaced with 2350, but the following statement is still inaccurate:

"According to a UN climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia's biggest rivers could disappear by 2350[6][7]..."

This is false, and should be corrected by whatever wiki administrator is overseeing this page (since apparently it has been locked). As stated in the Discussion section Deglaciation by "2035" is apparently incorrect above (as well as the BBC report cited on the main page), the actual 1996 UNESCO report DOES NOT use the year 2350 as an estimate of when the Himalayan glaciers could disappear, but claims:

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350."

This is referring to glaciers on a global scale (excluding polar glaciers), and is not specific to the Himalayan glaciers. Furthermore, as is plainly seen from this text, there is no mention of any glaciers "disappear[ing]."

Another point: where is the reference to the UN climate report that purportedly makes this statement?! As far as I can tell, so far the UN IPCC has only recently acknowledged that they erred in using the date 2035, but have not officially amended the report itself yet. (See link to report below):

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html

If the wiki administrator is going to use a news reference while awaiting a reference to the official UNIPCC amendment, then it should be a more recent account:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Which raises another point. Considering the attention that this error has brought to the UNIPCC's report on glaciers and climate change, shouldn't this story get a section of its own within this page? Or is it more appropriate to include on the IPCC's page?Jurban48 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right; there is enough doubt about this 2350 date, and what supports it, that it should be out for the moment. I've removed it. As for the story, no, not here. It is at Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Glaciers and river systems
 * In recent years, scientists have monitored a notable increase in the rate of glacier retreat across the region as a result of global climate change.[4]
 * 4. ^ "Vanishing Himalayan Glaciers Threaten a Billion". Planet Ark. June 5, 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
 * Which says "If the temperature continues to rise as it is, there will be no snow and ice in the Himalayas in 50 years"
 * is this accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.63.22 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is clearly not accurate...even the estimate that the most of the Himalayan glaciers will have melted in 340 years is under suspicion (as Mr. Connolley indicated above). Given this, Planet Ark is not an appropriate reference. And as I discuss in the discussion section below (Disaster claim at end of "Glaciers and River Systems"), the last couple sentences of this section are inaccurate and in need of serious revision. Any administrator with access to this page's edits up to the task of correcting this?Jurban48 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disaster claim at end of "Glaciers and River Systems"
The reference for the final sentence does not support the claim:

"Although the effect of this will not be known for many years, it potentially could mean disaster for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on the glaciers to feed the rivers of northern India during the dry seasons.[5]"

Reference 5 = "Glaciers melting at alarming speed". People's Daily Online. July 24, 2007. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html. Retrieved 2009-04-17.

This reference makes no mention of India nor its population, nor is there any reference to "hundreds of millions of people" being affected. Rather, this article focuses on a particular Chinese population estimated to be 130 million people:

"The most drastic melting was at the origin of the Yellow River in the Mount Anemaqen on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. About 17 percent of the glaciers have gone in the past four decades and their shrinkage will have major impact on the Yellow River, the "mother river of China", which feeds 130 million people in its reaches, or one-10th of the population."

An administrator should either provide an accurate reference or correct the statement to reflect what's actually in the People's Daily Online article.Jurban48 (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

it is Wikipedia, they may melt in 2035. [5] 93.97.63.22 (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable Himalayan Mountaineers
The list mention Casey Mackins without any reference. Google news archieve search for 'Casey Mackins Everest' do not yeild any result. Web search displays just copy paragraph in this article. Please confirm whether such mountaineer really exists. Thanks! -neo. (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest scrapping this list from the article and merge it with List of climbers. It doesn't add to the quality of this article and there are several minor errors in it.  Having this centralised some place else would make it easier to watch and update, if need be.  Qwrk (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.162.98.49, 27 June 2010
Dear Sir or Madam,

In the first paragraph you establish that the Himalayan Range should be called "the Himalaya" for short, but from then on you call it "the Himalayas." That is poor something, and I for one vote for poor logic and poor English.

Yours, Paul Zebe paulzebe@yahoo.com

71.162.98.49 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would remove the request myself except for the fact of my previous votes to keep the article currently named so I leave it up to a more unbiased editor in this matter. It is called Himalayas because that is the most commonly used name by English speakers (or at least this appears to be the case from past consensus). Perhaps not technically or semantically correct but this Himalaya vs Himalayas naming issue has gone through at least 3 move requests and the result has been to use Himalayas. So I oppose your edit request. RedWolf (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: editsemiprotected is for uncontroversial requests, or when a consensus has already been formed. A glance through this talk page and its archives shows that is not the case here.  You are welcome to discuss this issue on this talk page, but please familiarise yourself with past discussions first.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Himalayas is a neatly fitting umbrella for the subject we're covering here. It suits the subject well, for if we'd go into a more detailed classification we'd be more or less forced to have separate articles on Punjab Himalaya, Karakoram, Kumaun Himalaya, Nepal Himalaya, Sikkim Himalaya and Assam Himalaya. (Summary as per "Abode of Snow", Kenneth Mason)  Qwrk (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Chapter lakes
As I am a newly registered user and the article is semi-protected, I am not able to make a few edits to the chapter "lakes"

1) Tilicho lake in Nepal in the Annapurna massif, a large lake in an area that was closed to tourists until recently. The area around Tilicho lake has been open to tourism since very long (at least two decades), so the last part of the sentence should be removed.

2) "The largest lake is the Pangong Tso". Three comments: first, even though some publications reports an area of about 700km2, it has probably been slightly overestimated. I couldn't find any reliable data on the precise surface of Pangong Tso. Yamdrok Tso (638km2) would be close, if not bigger than Pangong Tso. Second, if lakes located on the Tibetan plateau do qualify as being part of the Himalayan region (as currently written), then there wold be at least four lakes larger than Pangong Tso, the largest being Namtso (1920 km2). Third, Pangong Tso is not located at 4,600m as stated in the article, but at 4,241m.

Would it be possible to rephrase like this:

Current version: ''The Himalaya region is dotted with hundreds of lakes. Most lakes are found at altitudes of less than 5,000 m, with the size of the lakes diminishing with altitude. The largest lake is the Pangong Tso, which is spread across the border between India and China. It is situated at an altitude of 4,600 m, and is 8 km wide and nearly 134 km long. A notable high (but not the highest) lake is the Gurudogmar in North Sikkim, at an altitude of 5,148 m (17,100 ft) (altitude source: SRTM). Other major lakes include the Tsongmo lake, near the Indo-China border in Sikkim, and Tilicho lake in Nepal in the Annapurna massif, a large lake in an area that was closed to tourists until recently.''

Proposed change: ''The Himalaya region is dotted with hundreds of lakes. Most lakes are found at altitudes of less than 5,000 m, with the size of the lakes diminishing with altitude. Pangong Tso, which is spread across the border betwee India and China, and Yamdrok Tso, located in central Tibet, are amongst the largest with a surface area of 700km2, respectively 638km2. Other famous lakes are Gurudogmar lake in North Sikkim at an altitude of 5,148 m (17,100 ft) (altitude source: SRTM), Tsongmo lake near the Indo-China border in Sikkim, and Tilicho lake in Nepal in the Annapurna massif.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Highlight Hindi in first sentence please then
Highlight Hindi in first sentence please then 71.105.87.54 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

need urgent attention
the article is in really bad shape.it is disorganized and confusing. there is no information about actual geography of Himalaya,there isn't even a map of the mountain range.it would really help if article is unlocked.people here seem more concerned with a single letter in its name. {Himalayas vs Himalaya} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.4.71 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The very moment you start editing with proper Capitals, links and valuable contributions, there's a ton of helpful hands awaiting you to help out. As to the sources of your dismay, please specify what should be improved.  No one is keeping you from contributing.  Qwrk (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

map
This article needs a map. It was extremely surprising that it doesn't have one. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Uttamch, 15 October 2010
Please include the Kangte Mountain Range in West Kameng (Arunachal Pradesh)in the Himalayas Mountain ranges. It is 7090 Mts above sea level

Uttamch (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Duplicate of request below. Celestra (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Uttamch, 15 October 2010
Please include Kangte Mountain Peak 7090 meters above sea level, its in the Himalayas ranges of Arunachal Pradesh.

Regarding it i am providing few informations-

http://www.whereincity.com/india/arunachal-pradesh/west-kameng.php Kangte (7090 mts. MSL) West Kameng District (Arunachal Pradesh, India)

Hope it will be accepted and included in the Himalayas range list.

Uttamch (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of this peak in the Himalayas? The peaks currently listed are either well known or have some notable significance. On the page you mentioned, it says Kangte is the highest peak in the district/state but while that's important I'm not sure its inclusion on this page is warranted without further details. Adding every peak above 7,000 metres to the page would not add any real value (although a separate list page of such peaks would be fine). RedWolf (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Celestra (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Uttamch, 22 October 2010
Hi, Please add the Kangte mountain range in your highest peaks in the Himalayas list its details are given below- Kangte Peak (7090 mts. MSL) West Kameng DIstrict (Arunachal Pradesh, India)

http://www.whereincity.com/india/arunachal-pradesh/west-kameng.php

I hope you will accept my request and will add Kangte Peak in the list of Himalayas highest peaks table.

Best Regards, Uttam Chowdhury New Delhi, India

Uttamch (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I reiterate my last response to a similar request. Other than it being the highest point in the state, why is it significant to be listed on this page? It would be more appropriate to list it on List of mountains in India. RedWolf (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: As above, there does not seem to be consensus for adding this. Wikipedia operates by consensus. When you add something you have an implied consensus until someone removes or disputes it, at which time you need to form a more explicit consensus. You should discuss the change further here on the talk page rather than simply repeating the request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Map
I was honestly a bit shocked to discover that this page didn't have a map. Well, I made one. Please feel more than welcome to follow my method and make a better one. The method is in the description page. This article deserves more than my meager skills can provide. Sven Manguard Talk  04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)