Talk:Himalayas/Archive 4

New estimate of age
An article from Nature from 2003 says the Himalayas are actually 450 million years old while this Wikipedia article says the mountains are 50 million years old. I do not know how credible this data is. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030929/full/news030929-6.html Ibnsina786 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nature article does not make that statement so positively ("actually"). It is laced with "may" and may be" and states "the hypothesis fits the data and is certainly plausible, but is very difficult to test."  IMO the Nature article is not supportive enough of Gehrels' primary source to qualify as a secondary source.  Apuldram (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If they're raising the date in that way, most likely those writers are theorizing that there's an earlier orogeny "buried" under the current mountain range, but then there would have been massive new folding and uplift within the last 30 million years. It's obvious that no mountain range that's hundreds of million years old could be several km high today unless it's been "rejuvenated" in much  more recent times. 83.251.164.50 (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where the Himalayas are
I tried to edit this page without logging in and it was undone. I edited where the Himalayas are. I added the countries Afghanistan and Myanmar. Shortly, it was undone. I got angry. I am positive the Himalayas are also in Afghanistan and Myanmar, because on a globe, you can see bumps  that are close to the size of the bumps on China, Bhutan, Nepal, India, and Pakistan. The bumps are on Afghanistan and Myanmar, countries that border the countries that were mentioned in the Wikipedia page. That should mean the Himalayas are also in Afghanistan and Myanmar. HealthyGavin108 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello HealthyGavin. "I am positive" is not the way Wikipedia works.  You need to find a verifable reliable source that directly supports your edit.  The "bumps" in Afghanistan and Myanmar are probably mountains, but not necessarily the Himalayas. Afghanistan has the Hindu Kush and Pamir Mountains and Myanmar has the Rakhine Yoma, the Bago Yoma, the Shan Hills and the Tenasserim Hills. Apuldram (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by a reliable source? A website? If it is an entry about a cartoon, would the source be an episode? If it is a geographical place, do you look at a photo? HealthyGavin108 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow the link to reliable source, which answers your question. The three examples you mention may not be reliable sources. You need to find a scholarly article that states clearly that some of the mountains in Afghanistan and Myanmar are the Himalayas. Apuldram (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Improving article
This article (to me) appears well below the quality that might be expected for such an important subject with some 3000 visits/day. I am therefore looking to improve it in various ways: I have already made a few changes. Bear with me on references (help here particularly valuable!). Any comments/assistance welcome. Marqaz (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A section on general geography (probably with a summary list of mountains
 * A section on climate
 * A section on people / population / transport etc
 * Improvements to the ecology section
 * Improvements to the culture/religion section

Definition of Himalayas
I have tried to establish that the core definition of the Himalayas is as described, (i.e. does not include the Karakorum or Hindu Kush etc.), and to make this article (and others) consistent with this (e.g. so only ten of the 14 8000m summits are in the Himalaya). This definition accords with Britannica and other sources. Others have been making selective changes based on a wider definition creating inconsistencies. If others wish to change the definition I would respectfully ask it is properly discussed here first. If there is a consensus for change it should be done consistently in this article and elsewhere. One outstanding issue is the infobox map which is inconsistent and it would be good to find a better one. Marqaz (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rishabhdev Tirthankara.jpg

Rishabhanatha image
I'm removing this because there is no direct connection between the content of the image and the mountain range. If there are good reasons for its inclusion, please use this thread to get consensus for its inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 22:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected
I've temporarily protected the page since there are a couple of independent streams of edit warring in progress. Please use the talk page to get consensus in the meantime. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 October 2021
There is a mistake on the start of second paragraph. Requested change : "The Himalayas abut or crosses" -> "The Himalayas crosses with" 2401:4900:4E07:FB43:A975:D79:4A4B:1B4A (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I see no mistake in this sentence. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention of dispute in dropbox irrelevant to the number and names of the countries.
The mention of the dispute regarding the administration over Kashmir in the dropbox is irrelevant because: 1.) India, Pakistan and China, all three control areas outside of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, AJK, Sakshgam, Aksai Chin and Gilgit Baltistan (ie the whole “Kashmir region”) which is part of Himalayas. India: HP, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh) Pakistan: Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Islamabad China: Tibet These are the territories that the three countries control where there is no “Kashmir region” dispute. Hence the dispute has no change on number or names of countries. All three countries have claim to the Himalayas independent of Kashmir dispute. Thus mentioning the dispute in dropbox is irrelevant, the dispute should be mentioned within the article and not in the names of country section of the dropbox.

HOWEVER, mentioning the dispute in the dropbox presents following problems:


 * If dispute over sovereignty over “Kashmir region” is mentioned then dispute over the sovereignty in the Tibetan border regions of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh (between India and China), dispute over the sovereignty in Kalapani territory (between India and Nepal), dispute over the sovereignty in Doklam and northern extremes of Bhutan (between China and Bhutan) MUST also be mentioned in the dropbox country names section since they are also disputes regarding territory in the Himalayas.
 * If Kashmir’s insurgency is to be treated as part of the dispute as suggested by the person reverting the edit, then as per the same logic, Tibetan separatist movement also has to be mentioned in the dropbox country names section, as does the Naga insurgency’s extension into Arunachal (both of these are also Himalayan territories, or have portions of Himalayas). Pankykh (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, India, Pakistan, and China only administer regions of Kashmir. Their sovereignty of the regions they administer is not recognized either by the UN or the major western powers (including the US, UK, Germany, France, Australia, Mexico, Canada, ...).  All major first level Kashmir regions Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Aksai Chin, and Azad Kashmir state that uniformly in their respective leads.  It has nothing to do with insurgencies. Note also: WP:BRD does not mean: "Make a post on the talk page and revert to your favorite version." It means, "Achieve consensus for your edit on the talk page or for another version and then introduce it into the article." Please self-revert and please stand warned.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you with great patience (on your user talk page) and asked that you discuss the minor disputes such as Doklam only in the geography section, perhaps only as a footnote there. Yet you have continued to disregard my suggestion moving the mention first from the lead to the infobox, and then back to the lead. F&f 1 Please note that among books published by internationally recognized scholarly publishers with a limited preview on Google Books,  the Kashmir dispute brings up 28,900 links.  Doklam brings up 194. That is a ratio of 150 to one.  The other disputes are not notable for mention in either the lead or the infobox.  I request again that you move your text into the Geography section.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you with great patience (on your user talk page) and asked that you discuss the minor disputes such as Doklam only in the geography section, perhaps only as a footnote there. Yet you have continued to disregard my suggestion moving the mention first from the lead to the infobox, and then back to the lead. F&f 1 Please note that among books published by internationally recognized scholarly publishers with a limited preview on Google Books,  the Kashmir dispute brings up 28,900 links.  Doklam brings up 194. That is a ratio of 150 to one.  The other disputes are not notable for mention in either the lead or the infobox.  I request again that you move your text into the Geography section.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

How many links does Arunachal, South Tibet, and McMahon line bring? Pankykh (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * F&f 2 Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet dispute brings up 1010 links (ratio 29 to one); McMahon 1,180 links. (24 to one) Those are not the same disputes, by the way, but they pale in significance to Kashmir. Please note, per WP:BRD it is you who made the bold edit, I reverted it, you need to garner consensus on this talk page for your edit before reinserting it.  As you seem to be a new editor I am  assuming good faith.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Pinging.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Searching the keywords “Kashmir dispute” is not comparable to searching “Arunachal dispute”, “South Tibet dispute”, “McMahon” etc because these are part of the larger Indo-Chinese border disputes, Sino-Bhutanese border disputes, Chinese expansion into Tibet and its borders, etc. The disputes go back as far as the British Raj in India. Besides, “Ladakh dispute” brings back similar number of hits. It is also a part of the larger Indo-Chinese border dispute, more so than the Kashmir dispute (this is how India, China, and the UN view the dispute over Ladakh’s eastern border between India and China). Pankykh (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again per WP:BRD "bold," "revert," "discuss," you made the bold edit on 26 September 2021, I reverted it, thus you need to garner consensus here for your edit before reinserting it. Not doing so is considered an aspect of edit warring]. Achieving consensus takes time, weeks sometimes.  Until you have done so, again please self-revert.  [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler| Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * F&f 3 On Wikipedia, Kashmir includes Ladakh and Aksai Chin.  It is the same with Britannica's Kashmir page, which states in its lead paragraph: "The region, with a total area of some 85,800 square miles (222,200 square km), has been the subject of dispute between India and Pakistan since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The northern and western portions are administered by Pakistan and comprise three areas: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan, the last two being part of a single administrative unit called Gilgit-Baltistan (formerly Northern Areas). Administered by India are the southern and southeastern portions, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The Indian- and Pakistani-administered portions are divided by a “line of control” agreed to in 1972, although neither country recognizes it as an international boundary. In addition, China became active in the eastern area of Kashmir in the 1950s and has controlled the northeastern part of Ladakh (the easternmost portion of the region) since 1962."
 * The statement in the lead is: F&f 4 Sovereignty in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan and China. Good point about Ladakh not being included in Kashmir in some references. When you include it explicitly in the dispute the google books links rise up to 44,700  So, the statement is even more reliable.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * F&f 5 As for India-China (or Sino-Indian, but not Indo-China as it means something else) border dispute, there are 2,160 links. 44,700 to 2,160 is 21 to one.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you asked me to achieve consensus for the removal of “Kashmir dispute” from the infobox and its inclusion into the geography section of the article only. That is the edit I am seeking consensus for here, look at the title. That is the “bold” edit I made, which you yourself had reverted, and for which I am now seeking consensus. I have not made that edit again and am waiting for consensus. Pankykh (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What I asked for is in the history. I'll let others be the judge of it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m trying to shorten the summary further and include the particulars only as a footnote. But it includes many references, and I don’t know how to compile them in the note. I’m a new editor as you know. I can’t seem to fix the note, if you know how please do. Thanks. Pankykh (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, F&f 6 the fact of being a new editor does not grant a license to flout WP rules, especially not after I've explained the issues so patiently to you here and on your user talk page. The last clean version was this.  You need to revert the lead and the infobox (not the article) to that version.  Then you can discuss your proposed edits here.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS ... only (i.e. however) change "disputed by" to "disputed among" (grammatical error pointed out later by someone).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not flouted any rules. I have only added more information. I’ve added the disputes in the lead clubbed together, but separately from Kashmir, as a footnote now. You had demanded I remove them altogether from the lead.

My suggestion is to move all territorial disputes out of the infobox into either the lead or the geography section or both (“the dispute should be mentioned within the article and not in the names of country section of the dropbox.”) because, as mentioned in the very starting of this discussion, the territorial disputes have no bearing on the names and number of the countries mentioned in the dropbox. (“the dispute has no change on number or names of countries. All three countries have claim to the Himalayas independent of Kashmir dispute.”) and that is what I’m seeking consensus for. The quotes are from the very first message by me in this discussion. I hope now you (and anyone else) have clarity about what I’m seeking consensus for. Pankykh (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please before you make any suggestion, revert the article to the last clean version.
 * We are talking about the sovereignty in the Himalayan range. F&f 7 The article says in the lead: "the Himalayan mountain range runs west-northwest to east-southeast in an arc 2,400 km (1,500 mi) long.[12] Its western anchor, Nanga Parbat, lies just south of the northernmost bend of the Indus river. Its eastern anchor, Namcha Barwa, lies immediately west of the great bend of the Yarlung Tsangpo River. The range varies in width from 350 km (220 mi) in the west to 150 km (93 mi) in the east." The arc of the Himalayas lying in Kashmir (from the border with Himachal Pradesh to its western anchor Nanga Parbat) is 310 miles long (you can measure it in the infobox map in Kashmir); its width as the article says is 220 miles;  that is a total of 68,200 square miles.  Are you seriously comparing Doklam which is 34 square miles to it? We are talking a ratio of one to 2,000!  The Kalapani territory is even smaller, a mere 14 square miles (a ratio of one to 4,871.  Are they the same in significance?  Are they even worthy of a footnote in the lead, let alone an independent clause?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Ping  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally, F&f 8 the Kashmir dispute is recognized in international maps; Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet is generally not (See the CIA (i.e. the US Government) "Country Maps" at the UT-Austin site). Whether they are the India "Country maps" or the China "Country maps", they show only the Kashmir region to be disputed (its borders marked with dashed lines); Arunachal Pradesh is shown to be firmly in India. See also the US Library of Congress Indian Ocean area map. Again, only Kashmir is shown to be disputed, not Arunachal Pradesh.  It is the same with maps in the BBC country profiles: both the India profile and the China profile, only Kashmir is shown to be disputed not Arunachal Pradesh which is (firmly) in India.
 * For the final time: please self-revert to the last clean version.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The maps China and India, China-India border, China-India border and Bhutan, published by the CIA (ie the US government) available at the US Library of Congress and also at the UT-Austin site, show both the Kashmir and other disputes (including Arunachal Pradesh) between India and China, and Bhutan and China. The entirety of this territory lies in the Himalayas, and is about 30,000 sq miles in area. And precisely, we are talking about sovereignty in the Himalayan range. Of the about 98,000 sq miles (according to your calculation of Himalayan territory under dispute in Kashmir), just under 1/3rd lies in these several disputes, most of it in Arunachal. According to you, that deserves not even a single, half-line mention in the lead. And for the last time: you are not the authority on what is the clean version. The current edit includes none of the original edits that were deemed bold by you (removing the mention of the kashmir dispute from infobox). Pankykh (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also these UN maps for SOUTH ASIA, Southeast Asia and China show the dispute in Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet. Pankykh (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, Please read due weight.  I gave you general maps of India and China; in reply, you are offering maps about the dispute or conflict.  Of course there are  maps about the disputes, but they don't appear in general country maps. I have now boldfaced the chain of my argument.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted the lead to the status quo as reflected in the edit of Vsmith (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 20 September 2021. I have also added your proposed edit in a subsection below.  We can discuss it here.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of the new edits
user:Pankykh has added the following edit to the version of the lead that existed on 20 September 2021 and referred to above: "and in several other border areas is disputed among all countries of the region." I will propose an edit below. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The CIA map for Bhutan and the UN maps for SOUTH ASIA, Southeast Asia and China are all general maps of the countries of the region, including India, China and Bhutan. I don’t know if it was intentional on your part, but your claim about the map’s offered by me being maps about the dispute or conflict specifically and not general maps, is false. Pankykh (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the chain of my argument: Kashmir in the scholarly sources is the major dispute by an overwhelming margin. Kashmir is the largest of the disputed areas of the Himalayas; Doklam and the sliver of land in Nepal pale in comparison (so they are out for any mention in the lead, even in a footnote).  Arunachal Pradesh is not only given much less weight by a majority of the scholarly sources referred to above, but in general country maps of India or China by the US or Britain, it is not even marked as disputed. Besides, most sources consider it (then NEFA) to be a case of a feint by China to secure Aksai Chin.  It is not the primary dispute, though the Chinese for obvious reasons keep bringing it up as a reminder that in the last conflict there India was decisively defeated. It is mainly propaganda; there have been no military engagements there since.  I can find a source for that as well.  Hold on.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * F&f 9 Many scholars consider the Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet dispute to be a secondary dispute that China keeps bringing up for propaganda reasons, that the initial military confrontation in 1962 was in the nature of a feint to secure Aksai Chin in the disputed Kashmir region. See:  "In 1960, Delhi rejected an unofficial offer by Beijing to renounce its claim to NEFA, in exchange for India recognising PRC sovereignty over the Aksai Chin. This was the last time China and India tried to discuss their dispute before the outbreak of war between them, and it would take decades for border talks to resume. Many scholars think the PRC’s offer was genuine, betraying its need to compromise at a time of domestic and international uncertainty.’ This would make the territorial dispute over NEFA a secondary one, a bargaining ploy, even. ... In October 1962, the PLA invaded NEFA and Ladakh, magisterially defeating Indian forces over the course of a month-long war. Interpretations of the conflict variously focus on the Cold War, the boundary dispute, or China and India’s rival power ambitions. Yet, the war should also be seen in the light of the fraught — and, at that time, increasingly impossible — coexistence between the two neighbours. If the immediate cause for Beijing’s decision was to secure the Aksai Chin by teaching Delhi a lesson, war also presented a chance to end the other, older security dilemma in China’s favour. Invading and occupying NEFA was an attempt to control the terms of the PRC’s hearts-and-minds competition with India through a definitive demonstration of state superiority, in a display not just of military prowess but also of the ability to deliver the goods and opportunities local inhabitants demanded. War was a state-making performance, and its audience was as much Himalayan people as Indian authorities or Chinese domestic audiences."  Though she says that the victory in NEFA in respect of the latter motive (i.e. winning hearts and minds) may have been a pyrrhic one, as Tibet has continually seen rebellion since, but Arunachal Pradesh has not.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, the US (CIA) general country map of Bhutan acknowledges the border dispute very clearly (btw Doklam is a small portion of the dispute, not all of it). The UN maps of regions SOUTH ASIA and Southeast Asia also show the dispute, and the UN general country maps of China and India also show the dispute.

Kashmir is the largest disputed area but 1/3rd of the disputed areas lie outside Kashmir. That is a very large portion.

More scholarly weight alone does not warrant exclusive mention. Pankykh (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will propose something below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

F&f's proposal

 * Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." we can only summarize the main issues, not give undue attention (in Wiki language "undue weight") to the less important controversies. For reasons detailed in my boldfaced points 1 through 9 above, Kashmir is far and away the major dispute.  The others, especially Doklam and the sliver in Nepal are not. The article from Britannica cited in the current version of the lead says: "Though India, Nepal, and Bhutan have sovereignty over most of the Himalayas, Pakistan and China also occupy parts of them. In the disputed Kashmir region, Pakistan has administrative control of some 32,400 square miles (83,900 square km) of the range lying north and west of the “line of control” established between India and Pakistan in 1972. China administers some 14,000 square miles (36,000 square km) in the Ladakh region and has claimed territory at the eastern end of the Himalayas within the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh." The map that accompanies the Britannica Himalayas article shows only Kashmir to be disputed (marked with a dashed line), not Arunachal Pradesh.  It also shows the central axis of the Himalayas to be veering off northward of Arunachal Pradesh after Kangto, the peak at AP's western end; the axis ends in Namche Barwa which is in Tibet. In contrast, the western end of the Britannica map shows many peaks in Kashmir to be in the region of perpetual snow, the range ending in the western anchor of the Himalayas Nanga Parbat, which is in Kashmir.  Therefore, in terms of sovereignty in the Himalayas, it is Kashmir that is the "prominent" controversy.  But I am happy for AP/South Tibet to be in a footnote.  The main thing though is that all this needs to be in the article body.  There the topic of sovereignty in the Himalayas, including Doklam, Nepal, AP/Tibet and of course Kashmir needs to be described in a neutral fashion giving due weight to the disputes (in the Himalayas, not the general ones).  Please note WP:Lead fixation, and I include myself in the audience for its advice.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal "The Himalayas abut or cross five countries: Bhutan, India, Nepal, China, and Pakistan. The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan, and China."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal "The Himalayas abut or cross five countries: Bhutan, India, Nepal, China, and Pakistan. The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan, and China."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. However, per WP:LEAD, “prominent controversies” may be mentioned. It does not say mention the most prominent single controversy and add other prominent controversies as a footnote. You’ve yourself admitted to Kashmir (including all its constituent regions) and Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet being the two most prominent of the territorial disputes regarding sovereignty in the region. It’s also worth noting that your main source, the Britannica Himalayas article mentions both the territorial disputes in its lead. The maps you provided earlier to establish Kashmir dispute’s prominency don’t stand because the same sources (and additional sources, including international organisations such as the UN) also display both the disputes, not just one of them. Further, the figures for area that you’ve mention from the article, include not just the Himalayas, but also the Karakoram range and the Tibetan Plateau. While in case of Arunachal, you’ve mentioned that the “central arc” of the Himalayas, i.e. the Great Himalaya range lies in the north of it. But the Himalayas include the Lesser and Outer Himalayas in addition to the great Himalaya range, and these form the bulk of Arunachal.

And thanks for mentioning WP:Lead fixation, because my original proposal of adding all territorial disputes in the article body, rather than the lead can be well substantiated with WP:Lead fixation, since the territorial dispute would be better suited in the geography section and perhaps a territorial disputes sub-section within the article, or in the main articles of Himalayan territorial disputes among these countries (at least four such articles exist). My original proposal, now per wiki policy, should be reconsidered.

As for your proposal, I propose that instead of delegating Arunachal to the footnote, it be mentioned in a brief manner alongside Kashmir. “The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan, and China, and China also claims territory in Arunachal Pradesh.” Or “…China, and in Arunachal Pradesh between India and China.” Or in some similar manner, to give due weight to the prominent territorial disputes, as also given in the main source referenced.Pankykh (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The statement is about sovereignty in the Himalayas. That means it is specific to the Himalayas, not a larger region a part of which might lie in the Himalayas, and it is about sovereignty today and not its much-evolved history.  Ten years being a good window for "today," a search on Google Books: "sovereignty in the Himalayas" "Kashmir" OR "Ladakh,"  yields 262 books published in the last ten years.  A search: "sovereignty in the Himalayas" "Arunachal Pradesh" OR "South Tibet" over the same period yields 9 books.  We can't use "NEFA" in the search argument, as no author in their right mind uses NEFA without using Arunachal Pradesh when discussing contemporary issues of sovereignty. The name NEFA was changed to Arunachal Pradesh in February 1987.
 * Moreover, as I've already indicated, the Britannica map does not show Arunachal P. to be disputed; it does only Kashmir.
 * Also, the central axis of the eastern Himalayas veers off away from ArunP, ending at the eastern anchor, the Namche Barwa in Tibet. On the other hand, the central axis of the western Himalayas lies firmly within the Kashmir region and ends at the western anchor Nanga Parbat in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.  If you are not convinced, you may view the topographic map of AP and Southern Tibet and gradually move the map northwestward to Kashmir with your mouse.  The eastern Himalayas are, moreover, only half as wide as the western.  We say all that in the lead.  Summing up: a  mention of Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet cannot reasonably be made in the lead; it can only be in a footnote.  There is no reason to create a territorial dispute subsection and in any case, creating it will not gain AP admission to the lead.  However, as I've been saying, the dispute should be discussed in a few sentences in the Geography section but in a manner specific to the Himalayas today not a larger region over a longer period of time.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You still haven’t mentioned why the dispute should be mentioned in the infobox specifically in the countries section. The countries section of the infobox is for the countries that control areas of the Himalayas. Regardless of the dispute, the number and names of the countries remain the same: Pakistan, India, China, Nepal and Bhutan. Pankykh (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit: Hindu Kush Himalaya
I made an addition of the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region in a section called Ecosystem (see this revision). My edit was swiftly reverted by User:Fowler&fowler but I don't see why? This is an mountain ecosystem of the Himalayas and is the region that provides water within the Himalayan area and beyond. I also had several reliable sources including an academic article about the HKH. Any thoughts regarding this? -- WR   13:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look and agree with fowler that the material does not belong here. First, of course, the amount of material you put in was excessive and off-topic, and, at best, deserves a mention in this article. The caveat is that none of your references define Hindu Kush Himalaya as a specific term. Of the three, two don't even qualify as reliable sources. It is entirely possible that the term is a neologism created by climate activists to highlight the importance of this entire mountainous region as an ecosystem. My suggestion, if you have definitional sources, go ahead and create an article on this ecosystem. If you don't, think about adding a sentence or two here that refer to the importance of the region without explicitly assigning it a name (for example, "the himalayas, along with the hindu kush mountains, are considered an important ecosystem...."). --RegentsPark (comment) 15:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark has anticipated most of the things I was thinking of when I made the revert. Let me present them anyway.
 * Apologies for the revert, but:
 * your text, which was added as a sub-section to the Hydrology section, began with, "The water and ecological system of the Himalayas are defined as the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region."  What does that mean? There is no Wikipedia page on the HKH region. In other words, this is not the most appropriate article for the first mention of HKH.  You need to develop an article on the HKH first.
 * It goes on to say, The region includes 10 major river basins and covers eight countries." There is no explanation in your text of which portions of which lands constitute this region, and what are these ten river basins. Does it include the Karakorams? Does it include the Kunlun Mountains? And the Tibetan Trans-Himalayas?
 * Other questions arise. An ecosystem is a biological system consisting of all the organisms found in a particular physical environment, which interact with it and with each other. How do the organisms in the Indus interact with those in the Ganges? The Ganges, for example, flows into Bangladesh, and after meeting the Brahmaputra-Meghna, it flows into the Bay of Bengal forming the Ganges Delta. There are shrimp in its estuary there that carry the cholera bacterium harmlessly, but every now and then create local epidemics; in past centuries the major cholera pandemics began in the Ganges.  Why then is only 1% of Bangladesh in the HKH system.
 * What is the scale of this ecosystem? In one sense the whole world is an ecosystem. But we don't add a section on the world in the article. For example, the IUCN seems to think that there are already two large ecosystems (viz. The Himalayas and "Northeast") in India and are biodiversity hotspots.  (See India).
 * Taking something from a website is not enough. You need to show why it is relevant to the Himalayas.   Those are some of the reasons why I reverted your edit. Summing up: it is too opaque and it belongs to an article of its own.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll need some assistance. There is no doubt that it is relevant to the Himalayas as, and its name alone suggests, it plays a part in feeding the rivers in a wide region. But you are probably correct saying that the language used has been a bit vague. I am not an expert in the topic though, so maybe someone else could clear this up like whether it is exactly an "ecosystem"? I agree with User:RegentsPark that at best it deserves a mention here. The question is how, as you give solid points about what exactly HKH represents. -- WR   10:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll need some assistance. There is no doubt that it is relevant to the Himalayas as, and its name alone suggests, it plays a part in feeding the rivers in a wide region. But you are probably correct saying that the language used has been a bit vague. I am not an expert in the topic though, so maybe someone else could clear this up like whether it is exactly an "ecosystem"? I agree with User:RegentsPark that at best it deserves a mention here. The question is how, as you give solid points about what exactly HKH represents. -- WR   10:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)