Talk:Himalayas/Archive 5

Repeated removal of cited content by Fowler&fowler
User:Fowler&fowler has mass reverted several of my edits (which included sourced and cited content, addition of better quality image, and expansion of already existing citations) thrice now: 1, 2 (also implied the edits were "trash" here), 3; all without explaining why. Here are my edits, each containing a detailed explanation in the edit summary. -- UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

These are the edits they keep mass reverting: UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Replacing overproccessed image with a better Quality (QI) image of the same subject.
 * Modification of content to reflect what the already cited source says—which was contrary to what was claimed here in the article, and addition of a better example with a reliable tertiary source (Britannica).
 * Removal of unsubstantiated and demonstrably false claim.
 * Addition of reliably sourced content per due weight.
 * Expansion of citation that was already present in the article, to include authors, name of journal, quote etc.
 * the edits are above if any of you wish to evaluate them (because apparently that needs to be done for edits that are cited to reliable tertiary sources, and are minor image replacements or fixes involving bare citations etc). Regards, UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In this day and age, there are all sorts of WP imperatives, a claim to having cited something to something is not the be-all and end-all. You made one long edit, involving many small edits in many sections.  You violated several general principles of encyclopedic writing.
 * In the middle of the sentences, It restricts tourism – the trekking and mountaineering season is limited to either before the monsoon in April/May or after the monsoon in October/November (autumn). In Nepal and Sikkim, there are often considered to be five seasons: summer, monsoon, autumn, (or post-monsoon), winter, and spring. you have plonked down the incoherent addition, Additionally, the western disturbance brings winter precipitation, causing high rainfall and heavy snow in the west. What does it have to do with either sentence? We are talking about a lack of narrative coherence.  What am I supposed to do with it, when I come to examine your edits?
 * Consider another sentence:

At some point, the edits are not worth salvaging as it is not clear how they should be salvaged. As this is a vital article in which there is a reasonable text in place, not perfect but reasonable, and coherent, your edits cannot stay with unsightly inline stages querying this or that. Further, I don't have to time to do that. I have no option but to revert. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The intensity of the monsoon generally recedes from the east to the west.
 * To "recede" in most instances is to draw back or away; in some instances, of memory or knowledge, it has the meaning of "diminish," but usually with "from" before or "into" after, e.g. receded from memory, etc. This is confusing to an average reader.
 * Which monsoon is being referenced, the southwest or northeast?
 * Why the "generally?"


 * Firstly, no one is asking you to evaluate my edits, especially if you “don’t have the time to do that.” If you wish to revert the edits, you should be able to explain why you are doing so. Other editors, if they wish to evaluate my additions, and have the time, can do that. Pinging some admins (off the top of my head), and editors who may evaluate/“salvage” my edits since you clearly state that do not have the time to do so, but reverted them regardless. Also if they have any queries about any edit of mine I will be happy to explain each edit individually in detail, with support for every word that I include. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Also pinging  who added the original uncited text which I have improved upon using references so they can also evaluate if my edits were productive or not. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I did not have the time to evaluate; I already did. I do not have the time to remedy narrative incoherence or assertions of undue weight, in part because it is not clear how that should be done.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not have time to remedy, nor to explain or clearly state your objections, but you do think they were WP:BOLD enough to warrant three reverts. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also please substantiate “you violated several general principles of encyclopedic writing” with specific diffs and stating which guidelines were violated. The part about western disturbance was added because the para is talking about the general climate. The second point is taken, and the sentence can be changed to “The intensity of the monsoon diminishes from the east to the west.” The northeast monsoon doesn’t affect the Himalayas, so it obviously doesn’t need to be mentioned (the text you keep reverting it to doesn't mention it either, btw). UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I have time tomorrow I will deconstruct the whole kit and kaboodle of your many edits which masquerade as one edit. Until then, I request that you propose your various revisions here. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They do not masquerade as anything; have I even once claimed them to be a single edit? Please re-read the first sentence above. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Noting that this is not an admin comment since I've been pinged as one . I'd go easy on citing Britannica. As a general rule, it is better to find reliable secondary sources than it is to use a tertiary source.  --RegentsPark (comment) 14:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a source already cited in the article even before my recent edits—a cite which contains only the title & url and was properly filled-in by me, a change that was then reverted thrice by F&f—which states in its abstract:
 * The regional climate of the Himalayas is predominated by the southwest monsoons and the western disturbances. The uplift of the Pir Panjal to its present height is believed to restrict the southwest monsoons from entering into the Kashmir Valley in the western Himalayas.
 * It further states on page 2: The uplift of the Pir Panjal mountain range (3–4 Ma ago) to its present height has blocked south-west monsoons from entering into the valley and cites it further to two sources. This assertion is further repeated several times in the source. It is also present (but not cited to this particular source) in the climate section of the Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir articles.
 * On page 10, it says: Higher intercept signifies the dominant contribution of precipitation from western disturbances (70 % of precipitation to the valley) than the south-west monsoon (30%).
 * The text in the article that this citation is used as reference for says, “In the furthest west of the Himalayas, in the west of the Kashmir valley and the Indus valley, the South Asian monsoon is no longer a dominant factor and most precipitation falls in the spring. Srinagar receives around 723 mm (28 in) around half the rainfall of locations such as Shimla and Kathmandu, with the wettest months being March and April.” This doesn’t reflect what the source itself says. The claim that it is the westerly location of Kashmir valley and Srinagar that is responsible for the diminished monsoon and not the Pir Panjal’s rain shadow effect, is wholly unfounded.
 * I changed the text to “the Pir Panjal range acts as a barrier to the monsoon winds reaching the Kashmir valley, resulting in the monsoon no longer being a dominant factor there, and the monsoon season accounts for less than one-third of Srinagar's total annual precipitation” reflecting what the source actually says. I moved the text to the paragraph about local topography overriding monsoons, since this is clearly an example of that.
 * Was this edit WP:BOLD in your opinion? UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * F&f states an objection to only this edit in their edit summary of the first mass revert, btw, completely disregarding what the source says. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here’s an unsourced claim that the article makes (contentious claim in italics): “For much of the Himalayas – that on the south side of the high mountains, except in the furthest west, the most characteristic feature of the climate is the monsoon”. But Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered AJK, receives around 70% of its precipitation due to the monsoon (and over 45% of it in just the two months of July and August), Murree—the westernmost British-era Himalayan hill station—receives 60% (40% in just July and August), Rawalakot gets 66% (50% in July and August), Balakot about 55% (40% in July-August). These are all located in the furthest west of the Himalayas, on the south side. They are all located at a location that is more westerly than the Kashmir valley, btw, and a great example of how the Pir Panjal block the monsoons from lashing the Kashmir valley (these towns are all located on the windward side of the range, unlike the valley which is on the leeward side). So how is the monsoon not the most dominant climatic feature on the south side in the furthest west? This was removed by me with an edit summary that is as condensed a form of this paragraph as it could possibly be. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Himalayas end at the Nanga Parbat, their western anchor. The lead states that.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nanga Parbat is part of the great Himalayas. The Pir Panjal are part of the Middle Himalayas. Murree, Muzaffarabad, Balakot and Rawalakot are all located in the Middle Himalayas. This is not disputed, but if you wish to dispute it, show some reliable sources that do. UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's explanation
I apologize,, you had not originally made one long edit comprising many small edits in different sections. I erroneously assumed that when I was looking at the diff between two reverts, in which all your edits appeared at once. Again, I apologize. . Now to the issues at hand. When tertiary sources, such as textbooks, suggest that the primary determinants of climate in the Himalayas are latitude, longitude, and the monsoon, they are talking about the vicinity of the backbone of the range, the Great Himalayas, which determines the speed with which the monsoon moves along the Himalayas and up them. That Tibet, or Mustang, lies leeward of the moisture-laden monsoon winds, or in their rain shadow, is a reference to the backbone, the very highest. In addition, there are also local weather changes in the Himalayas. What was in place before you made your edits, summarized the above with reasonable generality and eloquence, The vast size, huge altitude range, and complex topography of the Himalayas mean they experience a wide range of climates, from humid subtropical in the foothills to cold and dry desert conditions on the Tibetan side of the range.

The text went on to say, For much of the Himalayas – that on the south side of the high mountains, except in the furthest west, the most characteristic feature of the climate is the monsoon. Heavy rain arrives during the southwest monsoon in June and persists until September.

This, in my view, you attempted to qualify with exceptions of undue weight. In fact, I won't be surprised most WP:TERTIARY sources, eg textbooks state that the monsoon decreases in intensity as one proceeds west below the Himalayas, and in addition it the rain associated with it increases with height up to 6,000 feet, after which it drops off. (There are other factors as well. I will have to look for a textbook but I'm sure I'll find one.)

The pre-existing text subsequently went from the general to the particular by adding some vignette-like sentences: The monsoon can seriously impact transport and cause major landslides. It restricts tourism – the trekking and mountaineering season is limited to either before the monsoon in April/May or after the monsoon in October/November (autumn). In Nepal and Sikkim, there are often considered to be five seasons: summer, monsoon, autumn, (or post-monsoon), winter, and spring. Even these were quite general; at least the first sentence was. As I've explained before, between the last two sentences, you added the sentence, "Additionally, the western disturbance brings winter precipitation, causing high rainfall and heavy snow in the west," which you then cited to Britannica, which is winter disturbances bringing snow to the high mountains.

Later, after the article discusses the rain-shadow regions of the Great Himalayas&mdash;not dissimilar to my second paragraph above&mdash;you add the sentences, Similarly, the Pir Panjal range acts as a barrier to the monsoon winds reaching the Kashmir valley, resulting in the monsoon no longer being a dominant factor there, and the monsoon season accounts for less than one-third of Srinagar's total annual precipitation. . This may be true in some specialist sense, factoring in some local weather anomalies, but it will be a mystery to most people, as the Pir Panjal range lies to the southwest of Srinagar, which you may observe in the high-res map of Kashmir I recently uploaded on WP, File:Kashmir region. LOC 2003626427 - showing sub-regions administered by different countries.jpg. We also know that the southwest monsoon paradoxically (for its name) moves along the Himalayas from the southeast to the northwest. What moisture-laden monsoon winds blowing in the Himalayan latitudes from the southeast will be stopped by the Pir Panjal from reaching Srinagar? Srinagar lies to the northwest of the Pir Panjal.

On the other hand, if the monsoon winds approach the valley from the southwest or the south, then you need to explain why that might be the case. If it is the case, then it is not a surprise that it sheds most of its moisture before it reaches 6,000 feet, the end of the height gradient after which the rain diminishes with further height. I have no idea how reliable your source is, what context and with what nuance it stated what it did, but its paraphrased inclusion, in the manner in which you have attempted to do, serves no encyclopedic purpose unless you are able to explain in simple language in the article why the monsoon winds in Kashmir blow from the southwest or the south, and not the southeast or east. Without a clearly understood proviso, written in simple prose, the text does not promote easily comprehensible knowledge. It is recondite content in the midst of the widely known and accepted. These sorts of errors are not easily sorted, let alone corrected. I have already pointed out errors of coherence and usage earlier.

In the past, I have suggested in all sincerity and good faith to others who make similar errors of coherence and cohesion, not to mention inadequately summarized source content, on vital Wikipedia articles to cut their teeth first on simple, small articles, where the scales of description are narrower and less tiered. It takes a long time to master this.

All the best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * “What moisture-laden monsoon winds blowing in the Himalayan latitudes from the southeast will be stopped by the Pir Panjal from reaching Srinagar?”
 * Take another example: the Dhauladhar range—the highest and longest middle Himalayan range after the Pir Panjal, which runs the same direction as the Pir Panjal (southeast-northwest)—causes such large amounts of monsoonal rain in the windward Kangra valley that Dharamsala actually gets more precipitation annually than Darjeeling. Chamba lies in the Dhauladhar’s rain shadow and Manali is also similarly shielded from the monsoon, and both Chamba and Manali get half the precipitation that the westward Murree in Pakistan gets from the monsoon. These, like Kashmir valley, are all local anomalies to the “diminishing east-west monsoon” rule that are exist due to local topography (in this case, the towering Dhauladhar).
 * Further, Muzaffarabad (which lies to the north-west of Srinagar, but unlike Srinagar it lies on the windward side of the Pir Panjal) gets so much precipitation from the monsoon that its monsoon precipitation (80 centimetres) is actually more than the total annual rainfall of Srinagar (around 70). If it is not the Pir Panjal that are responsible for this anomaly, then what is, according to you? The sources (and not just the one cited) all point to the Pir Panjal. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

F&f's textbook
And here is an extended quote from a textbook that I just ordered on Kindle. First the quote, and then I'll cite it.

One of the most influential factors affecting the Himalayan climate is the Asian monsoon. The monsoon is not a rain but a wind that carries rain in the summer months. The wind is triggered by enormous air pressure differences between Central and South Asia, which occur as a result of the differential heating and cooling of the inner continent and the surrounding oceans. In the winter, a high-pressure system hovers above Central Asia, forcing air to flow southward across the Himalaya. Because there is no significant source of moisture, the winter winds are dry. In the summer, however, a low-pressure system forms over Central Asia and pulls moisture-laden air northward. The wet summer winds cause precipitation in India and along the tiered, southern slopes of the Himalaya. The water-laden monsoon air flowing north over the Himalaya is forced to ascend the mountains, where it cools, condensing and releasing its moisture as rain. This forced lifting of air over the mountains is called the orographic effect, and it creates a concentrated pattern of precipitation in the Himalaya.

The monsoon begins in the eastern sector of the range, in Arunachal Pradesh and Bhutan, at around the end of May. It then slowly moves westward, reaching Kashmir in the western Himalaya by late June or early July. As it moves westward, the monsoon also becomes drier. In the eastern region, the famous weather station at Cherrapunji in Assam records an annual rainfall of 10,871 millimeters, with a single-day record of 1,041 millimeters. This spot is the second-wettest place in the world, following Mount Waialeale in Hawaii, which receives an average annual rainfall of 12,344 millimeters. But whereas the rainfall on Mount Waialeale occurs throughout the year, Cherrapunji receives almost all its annual precipitation during the few monsoon months.

The monsoon precipitation drops progressively as one proceeds west, with annual receipts in Darjeeling of 3,122 millimeters; Kathmandu, 1,688 millimeters; and Jammu, 1,096 millimeters. There is a vertical gradient in rainfall amounts in addition to the longitudinal shift. An increase in rainfall occurs with altitude up to a maximum precipitation zone, which in the Himalaya occurs around 2,000 meters, after which it begins to drop again. The precise measurement of this gradient is difficult, in part because of the absence of recording stations at high elevations, but also because so many other factors, such as wind and solar direction, play critical roles in local temperature and precipitation accounts. In certain circumstances, however, the elevation factor actually supersedes the east to west longitudinal gradient.

When the wet wind from the south is carried over the High Himalaya, it has already lost much of its moisture, and the amount that remains is locked up as vapor when the air subtly warms as it descends onto the Tibetan Plateau. Consequently, the trans-Himalayan zone, in the lee of the high peaks, is dry. This is the so-called rain shadow effect. The barrier of the Himalaya results in startling contrasts. Precipitation in Nepal, for example, diminishes from 5,202 millimeters in Lumle, located on the southern side of Annapurna in central Nepal, to 174 millimeters on the north side of the same mountain. In Leh in Ladakh, which is located north of the main central thrust of the western Himalaya, annual precipitation is only 76 millimeters. In the eastern and central regions, it is possible to walk in only a few days from lush, wet forests to stark, cold, high deserts. Such transects make it clear that regional patterns of climate are often less important than local ones, which can vary in extreme ways over short distances.

It is from Illustrated Atlas of the Himalya by David Zurick & Julsun Pacheco With Basanta Shrestha & Birendra Bajracharya, University Press of Kentucky Lexington, 2006. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this quote, excellent source that backs up the content I added. “As it moves westward, the monsoon also becomes drier” and “The monsoon precipitation drops progressively as one proceeds west, with annual receipts in Darjeeling of 3,122 millimeters; Kathmandu, 1,688 millimeters; and Jammu, 1,096 millimeters”, both of which is to say that the monsoon diminishes in its intensity as it moves westward. Also note that Jammu, which lies on the windward side of the Pir Panjal, is used as an example, not Srinagar. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A note
As you will see from the book, what I was stating from memory is pretty much the case, including the vertical gradients of 2000 m = 6000 feet. I have to run now to buy some medicine for our last cat whose litter-mate of 16 years died recently. His gentle spirit for which she is mourning keeps me from speaking my mind about this shameful waste of my time. Utterly shameful. Utterly, utterly, shameful. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Text added by me is far better cited and much closer to what reliable sources say than the dubious unsubstantiated claims and half-truths with zero cites that existed before I intervened (and thanks to your reverts, exist currently in the article). It is not lost on me that you have repeated, several times on several talk pages and even FPC that I have some agenda and that I edit with a pov, so forgive me for not assuming your reverts were all in good faith. Why would you revert the addition of an image, of the same subject from the same angle as the existing image except in far better quality? You keep asserting that my edits deteriorated the article, but I fail to see how. You give sources that do not contest my additions. You make claims which then you apologise for making. And you revert, not once or twice, but thrice, without good reason. It would be greatly appreciated if you could be a bit less generous with the revert button when it comes to my contributions, because it’s starting to become a pattern. UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not add: "Similarly, the Pir Panjal range acts as a barrier to the monsoon winds reaching the Kashmir valley, resulting in the monsoon no longer being a dominant factor there, and the monsoon season accounts for less than one-third of Srinagar's total annual precipitation.[45]" Until you explain in lucid encyclopedic language why the Pir Panjal, which lies to the southwest of the Kashmir Valley acts as a barrier to the monsoon entering the valley, which is to say, why the monsoon winds blow from the southwest into the valley and not the southeast or east as they move progressively northwestward in the shadow of the Great Himalayas, this conversation will not proceed. I need a clear statement cited to a widely used textbook (per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY such as the one I produced). This is a vital article, not something to which we can add some obscure details that without ancillary explanations strain the intuition. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, you cannot play gotcha by adding something undue to a discussion which is being conducted at a certain level of generality and against whose grain the logic of your undue addition goes. You could add it as a footnote, but even that will need a clear citation to a tertiary source or a widely cited secondary source which explains this anomaly.  You certainly have a source, but the source offers no explanation.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, you’re saying that the Pir Panjal range does not stop the advance of the monsoon into the Kashmir Valley? And if it doesn’t, then are you saying that the westerly location of Kashmir valley is why the monsoon doesn’t affect it as much as Shimla and Kathmandu, like the article in it’s current form states? Is that why you keep reverting to that version? Please state in very clear words if this is what you believe and are asserting. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As for vignettes, it is also not clear that the Valley offers the illustrative vignette here and not the Fairy Meadows National Park below Nanga Parbat, the western anchor of the Great Himalayas, or the Deosai plains below Skardu.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see the Kashmir valley example gone completely, actually, since the Pokhara-Mustang example already exists. I only reason I include it is because it was already present in the article, and unlike you, I try to incorporate other people's contributions instead of completely throwing them out. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the Kashmir valley offers an example of the Middle Himalayas acting as a monsoon barrier (and the most significant example of this type), whereas at most places it is the Great Himalayas which provide such effect, which are already included in the Pokhara-Mustang example, so you will only be repeating the same with the Deosai plains example. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As for the MO that I have seen of your edits, the promotion of the Indian Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh, the Indian Western Himalayas, and the subtle denigration of Islam (as in this edit, with little connection to the preexisting or accompanying text, that an IP reverted recently), is what I have noticed. It is evident in your edits here, though obviously not the Islam bit. All your examples are of India whose claim on the Great Himalayas is not the predominant one.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the Women in India article, the IP edit is more a denigration of Islam than my addition ever could be. If you think it is unrelated to the text (which it definitely isn't), take to the talk page there. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, an editor with a long history of writing broad scale articles has to worry not only about the undue or out-of-context appearance of the narrow scale, but also even-handedness and equity in all aspects of the narrative, even the illustrations. From west to east, the Himalayas are shared by India, Pakistan, China, Nepal, and Bhutan. I haven't looked but I can bet my bottom dollar that there are many more pictures of India in this article than of the other countries.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Had you not disrupted the progress of this article with your incessant reverting, I was going to add two pictures of Nepal, one from Mustang and another from Pokhara, in the climate section to illustrate the what the text about local topography means. Nepal is by far the most underrepresented country in terms of images here, given that Nepal is the primary Himalayan nation, with most of the range’s highest peaks. Bhutan, for its much smaller size already has an image sufficiently representing it. China has the main infobox image. Was also going to swap the Yumthang Valley image with one from Pakistan, since Sikkim already has the Gurudongmar Lake image. You’re not the only person trying to improve the article, nor does the article belong to you. But all that is secondary right now, first the climate section needs straightening. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, then let the article remain locked for seven days. Today is the 21.  On the 28, you and I can present our different versions and the community can decide which article or what combination of the two is better.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, that is what I will be doing instead of wasting time with nonsensical Wikilawyering, I will do something productive. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

F&f's Speculation
I have read your explanation of Pir Panjal in the section somewhere above. Here is my sense of what is happening (i.e. my understanding and speculation):

The monsoon does decrease from the west to the east, but as I've explained before it is dependent both on longitude and elevation. The rain increases up to 2,000 m (6,000 ft) after which it decreases. If Dharmsala receives more SW monsoon rain than Darjeeling, then I bet, and I haven't checked, it is quite a bit lower than Darjeeling (nearly 7,000 ft), which I know from the FAR. So it is not a counter-example to the general proposition that the monsoon decreases in strength from east to west. That is because:

There is a general principle here. Central Asia has a low-pressure system in the summer. It pulls moisture-laden air from the Indian ocean below. This air current is the definition of the monsoon. The Indian summer monsoon splits into two branches—the first moves across the Western Ghats. The second does over the Bay of Bengal. This second branch encounters the Himalayas and is simultaneously lifted to release its moisture and deflected northwestwards. The segment that gets over the Himalayas has shed practically all its moisture and what is there is locked up as vapor, as the textbook says, and there is no rain in Tibet, the rain shadow.

The moisture is limited. The monsoon does not pick up any further moisture over India. Therefore the segment that is deflected northwestward has less moisture as it has already shed some.

It continues to press against the Himalayas, albeit at smaller angles of inclination. The component of the force that draws it over the mountains consequently is smaller (it being the cosine of the complementary angle; as the latter becomes progressively larger, its cosine progressively smaller).

Regardless, the monsoon soldiers on. When it reaches the Indian western Himalayas, i.e. the Kumaon Himalayas, say the Pithoragarh region, the mountain range itself begins to turn northwestward, i.e. WNW to NW. The component of the northern monsoon which rises (i.e. encounters the Himalayas head-on) is smaller. Again this is because less monsoon wind is being forced up and it has less moisture. The rain it creates will be less.

The Himalayas moreover spilt into several ranges in Kashmir, the Ladakh range, the Central Range, and the Lesser Himalayas on the west. Each one creates a rain shadow effect. Aksai Chin is in the rain shadow of the Ladakh range; Leh is in the rain shadow of the Central range, and ??? is in the rain shadow of the Lesser Himalayas, of which Pir Panjal is a part. Your edit suggested that it was all of the Kashmir Valley. That is the part I do not understand.

Speculating now: it can be if the monsoon winds are blowing from the southwest, encountering the range at right angles, which I asked above; or it can simply be if there is no gap between the Central Range and the Pir Panjal in the south, i.e. in this intermontane valley, and the monsoon keeps being deflected westward as it has been by the Ladakh and Central ranges, and indeed by all the earlier ranges of the Great Himalayas. If the latter is the case, it needs to be stated with clarity and all three examples need to be given: the valley, Leh, and Aksai Chin. That is the way to do it. I will now check if there is a gap between the PP and the Central Himalayas in Kashmir. I will also check the Dharamsala bit. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no significant gap, there is the Banihal pass which does let some of the winds to enter Kashmir valley, but not much. Which is why south Kashmir receives more rain than north Kashmir. If you read the source, it does mention this. In fact there is another massif, the Kailash Kund massif of Jammu region, that blocks monsoon winds from reaching Bhaderwah and Kishtwar valley. This results in large differences of monsoonal rainfall between Udhampur (lying on the windward side) and Bhaderwah. Also note that when I say “block” that doesn’t mean no winds pierce through, it means that the rain shadow effect is notable, so much that the monsoon brings several times less rain in the rain-shadow region than it does to the windward slopes. In any case, what is abundantly clear is that the westerly location is not the reason for diminished monsoon in Kashmir valley, otherwise you wouldn’t have high monsoon precipitation in Muzaffarabad and Hazara, both lying to the west of Kashmir. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The monsoon winds lose moisture as they move west. How will they produce more rain? It does not mean that at every location in the west there will be less rain than every location in the east.  Darjeeling which is 7,000 feet, i.e. quite a bit greater than the 6,000 ft cut off, might receive less rain than Dharamsala which is 4,600 ft.  You have not digested the concepts of the monsoon.  It is dependent on longitudinal position, but that is because it constantly loses moisture; it is dependent on the angle at which the winds encounter a range.  And it is dependent on elevation. Your counter examples are useless. The monsoon winds encounter the Pir Pinjal at an acute angle.  The component of their force in the normal direction is small to begin with. I doubt very much that the valley is a rain shadow region.
 * Rain shadow regions typically have shrub vegetations, e.g. the rain shadow of the western ghats. OK.  I've had it with you.  I was trying to help with material you don't understand, and you are continuing to lecture me.
 * Let's not waste more time. You write your version, and I'll write, and we'll meet here on the 28th.  Goodbye until then and good luck.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not lecturing you, you asked if there is a gap. I’m providing you with more examples of how the middle Himalayas in the west keep the winds from penetrating into the valleys that lie behind them. Also, the rainshadow is for the monsoon, not for the westerlies which do bring significant precipitation. 70% in case of Kashmir valley, 40-50% in the case of Kishtwar, Chamba and Kullu valleys. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am well aware, which is why I changed the example to Shimla-Darjeeling, which have similar altitudes (2,000-2,200 metres). The current example, which you reverted mine to, of Srinagar(~1,500m)-Shimla(~2,200m)-Kathmandu(~1,400m), is the one comparing towns at vastly different altitudes, affected by vastly different local topography. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This version is somehow better, according to you, than mine. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The_South_Asian_Monsoon.gif
 * Also adding this gif here, a good visualisation of both the monsoon’s diminishing east-west gradient and the fact that monsoon does remain a dominant climatic feature in the western Himalaya to the south side of the high mountains. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Contention about the Pir Panjal
I've asked this twice above, both times to no reply, so I'm making this subsection specifically for this. Are you saying, and please state clearly without ambiguity, that the Pir Panjal is not responsible for the diminished monsoon in Kashmir valley? Is that your assertion? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Since it appears F&f might ignore this question a third time, I’m going to add the instances where they indeed have objected to the Pir Panjal playing the main role in the low monsoon rainfall of Kashmir valley:
 * In the edit summary of the first revert they state “how can the southwest monsoon which moves across the himalayas from the southeast be stopped by the pir panjal?”
 * In a section above they state “What moisture-laden monsoon winds blowing in the Himalayan latitudes from the southeast will be stopped by the Pir Panjal from reaching Srinagar? Srinagar lies to the northwest of the Pir Panjal.”
 * And then again “Until you explain . . . why the Pir Panjal, which lies to the southwest of the Kashmir Valley acts as a barrier to the monsoon entering the valley, . . . this conversation will not proceed” (full text in the “A note” subsection above). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And finally, I am stating this here clearly that I will not be participating in their "you write your version I write mine" game, since I don't think we need to throw away the whole climate section amd begin from scratch, but only that it needs to be fixed. I will, however, be reinstating every edit that they have not individually objected to with statement of which WP policy such objection stems from. They have mass reverted several edits, but so far only objected to the Pir Panjal bit, the wording of the "east-west" gradient bit and the placement (not content) of the western disturbance bit. For these I will either open new talk page discussions or take to dispute resolution. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If you edit the climate section with your old edits which are undue, not found with that emphasis in textbooks which discusses climate in the Himalayas (see WP:TERTIARY), I will revert those edits and we will be back on square one. You are attempting to play gotcha in an old article, which while not perfect, is nonetheless written with perspective.
 * Who ever said anything about writing the entire climate section from scratch? We are talking about improving what is there with reliable sources, or improved sources, and complementing it if needed in a due manner.
 * Dispute resolution requires the consent of both parties. I have long experience in writing broad scale articles; my editing history over nearly 16 years is proof of that&mdash;it includes the FA India, and in particular, its Geography section, which also you attempted dicker with boldly (disregarding WP:OWN) and unduely, and whose disputed sentence I rewrote, but hardly in the manner in which you had wanted. You attempted to dicker with Kashmir, another page I have edited for 15 years, by promoting its Hindu period of nebulous imaginings.  That too did not lead to what you were attempting as the Hindu period disappeared altogether, for we know that "Kashmir" in current usage was off-handedly created by the British when they sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu for discretely collaborating with them in the Anglo-Sikh war. You have recently attempted to readd a picture that subtly denigrates Islam on the Women in India page, another page I have edited for a long time, and I have just reverted it. You are only the most recent in a long line of editors who have played this game with me.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your jibes about my editing on India, Kashmir, Women in India and what have you, are quite unrelated here, not to mention just your own perspective that other editors disagree with. That’s alright, if you refuse to resolve the dispute, I have the right to WP:RfC. Besides, you keep forgetting, despite my repeated attempts at reminding you, that you reverted multiple edits of mine, and have objected to only three. And I state very clearly above that I do not play games on wikipedia. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

F&f's current state of knowledge


In addition to Zurick and Pecheco's Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya mentioned above, I have now examined a dozen other broad scale books on the Monsoon, Mountain Climate, and General Climate. Among them are the classics: Roger G. Barry and Richard Chorley's Atmosphere, Weather, and Climate, 9th edition, Routledge, 2010; Peter Clift and R. Alan Plumb's The Asian Monsoon: Causes, History and Effects, Cambridge, and Barry's Mountain Weather and Climate, Cambridge. None of these four books nor the ten others had any mention of Pir Panjal in the context of the summer monsoon.

Several however did mention Ladakh being in the rain shadow of the NW Great Himalayas, in addition to Tibet of the Central Himalayas (the whole range really). All this gave me pause. I then examined the journal articles (i.e. the specialist literature). Some journal articles published by Indian meteorologists (quite a few from Kashmir) did make that claim but without any real explanation. There was one article that did use "orographic effect" which is what I was looking for, but it was about flora and fauna (or some similar topic) and this fact was mentioned in the commonplace verities of the introduction. Barry and others have said several times that the gradient of the orographic rainfall depends not only on monsoon airflow and altitude but also on slope orientation.

I went back to Zurick and Pecheco's atlas and found the accompanying map of the SW monsoon rainfall in centimeters. It has equipotential lines, i.e. lines of equal display strength, in this instance summer rain. They run right through the bottom right of the valley, an intermontane valley between the Pir Panjal to the bottom left and the Great Himalayas to the top right. I then checked the altitude of the Pir Panjal range at the bottom right. It was in the range of 6500 ft = little above 2000 m where the orographic rainfall stops increasing but certainly does not die out. This explains why the lines run through. There is a more well-defined break and that is between the red and yellow lines between which I suspect the Great Himalayas run, ending at their western anchor the Nanga Parbat. This is mentioned in the map caption above the map on page 52: "Precipitation (shown in centimeters) in the form of summer rain and winter snow has a pronounced seasonal and regional distribution, corresponding to the northward penetration of the summer monsoon and the rain shadow effect produced by the High Himalayas.

There are two maps there, one for the summer rain, the other for the winter snow. It doesn't mean that there are no pockets of decreased rain in the valley caused by the Pir Panjal, but because of a number of factors (a. the monsoon current is weak by then and unable to proceed up a mountain with the same force; b. the orientation of the PP in the west is roughly in the same direction as the SW monsoon airflow; c. the PPs are not that high in the south where they more transversally intersect the monsoon airflow, to have the optimum orographic effect needed for a rain shadow (as stated, they are approx 2500 m in the south, which is the point at which the orographic rainfall stops increasing but does not cease entirely) and finally d. because the PPs and the valley would need to be much better and more thickly instrumented (than the scattered measuring stations in the map on page 2 of the paper cited below) to record similar but more subtle claims of some rain-shadow-like effects in the Kashmir valley), a statement about PP in this article in the context of the summer monsoon in the Himalayas would be undue. This is my considered view at this point and this state of my knowledge. Had the valley been a rain shadow, the equipotential lines would not have run through so decisively into the lower Ladakh and upper Indian regions. I will continue to try to understand the problem and will keep writing a version of the climate section beginning after I am done with the Darjeeling FAR. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You’ve studied the map well, but maybe not quite enough, judging from the version presented here. The 20 cm line ends south of Anantnag, known locally also as Islamabad, and doesn’t progress into the valley. The 20 cm line in fact doesn’t seem to progress any further north than the Banihal pass. The 15 cm line and 10 cm lines cover most of the valley. But also note that the lines do not follow the mountain ranges in Ladakh either. Infact, according to that map, Kibber in Spiti valley, a cold desert region lying in the rain shadow of the Great Himalaya much like Ladakh, receives 20 cm of rainfall. The equipotential lines run right through the Spiti valley, closer to each other than Kashmir, so what does this say about the Great Himalaya? Do even the Great Himalaya not present a barrier to the monsoon? My guess is that the map is supposed to a general map, to get a general idea, not as a detailed map of the monsoon.
 * The second thing I am in agreement with. A statement about the PP and Kashmir wrt the sw monsoon in a general article about the Himalayas is undue. As I state above already, the only reason I included it was because it was already present in the article when I stated editing it, and instead of removing it I only corrected it and included it in the paragraph where it would be relevant. In any case, the sources that do mention the PP and monsoon together, all say the same thing, that the PP act as a barrier to the sw monsoon—not one as impossible to pierce as the Great Himalaya, but a barrier nonetheless. Maybe the current source I am reading will present a more detailed explanation for this than the general reasoning given everywhere. UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also adding that according to the map, Muzaffarabad and Mansehra which lie at the western edge of the lower Himalayas, receive 5 cm of monsoon rainfall, lower than Srinagar (which in reality is much drier than these two towns) and even Spiti (a cold desert). Both Muzaffarabad and Mansehra in reality get much more rain from monsoon, which is also the main source of precipitation for these towns. So the map should be read along with other sources and data, not act as the source of data itself. UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what is written in Himalaya to the Sea: Geology, Geomorphology and the Quaternary, edited by John F. Shroder Jr., Routledge, 2002, on pages 48 and 49:“The Pir Panjal range prevents much of the summer rainfall associated with the southwest monsoon from reaching Kashmir. The mean annual precipitation at Srinagar, in Kashmir basin, is 659 mm, of which 24 per cent falls during summer. This compares with Jammu, to the south of the Pir Panjal, where 67 per cent of the mean annual precipitation (1116 mm) falls during the summer monsoon (July–September). Abundant meteorological data, mainly from basin-floor stations, show that annual precipitation in Kashmir ranges from 584 to 1229 mm, although there is no clear spatial pattern.” UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Holmes is a serious geographer, but not a meteorologist, and the above is from a chapter he wrote about glaciation in a 1993 book. Those remarks are by of an introduction. Holmes also says: "The mountain flanks are cooler and wetter than the basin floor, although few data are available to quantify the differences," which speaks to my point that they have is data from the floors, but nothing that shows the effect of orographic rainfall, intensifying with altitude and thereafter decreasing, and eventually losing most of its moisture to create a rain shadow region. If the PP were instrumented in the south and data showed increasing rainfall along their slopes, it would be another matter, but they are not. Using words such as "barrier" which have not been defined, is not helpful in an encyclopedia.  Your excuse that the source had been there in the article but incomplete, is only good for correcting the paragraph where it was being used, but not for the entirely undue and incorrect use of "similarly" in a later paragraph about Mustang being in the rain shadow, "Similarly, the Pir Panjal range acts as a barrier to the monsoon winds reaching the Kashmir valley, resulting in the monsoon no longer being a dominant factor there, and Srinagar receives less than one-third of its annual precipitation during the monsoon season." It is not only undue as already explained, but also incorrect, for the reader does not know (for argument's sake) that Srinagar does not receive 1000 cm in the winter.  Now to Zurick and Pecheco's book.


 * David Zurick is also a geographer, not a meteorologist, who later opted for a wide-ranging career. Zurick and Pecheco collaborated with scientists (two of which, Basanta Shrestha and Birendra Bajracharya, are co-autors) at the Earth Observation Science Division, ICIMOD, Nepal, the major organization for geographical research and instrumentation in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya region, and funded by UNESCO.  The book was reviewed in six journals within a year of its publication.  Some reviews were made the criticism that it was based on incomplete data, but added that this is the best we can do at this point; others were more positive. The Indian government does not have enough money or trust in foreign agencies to fund the Great Northwestern Himalayas. As I stated above, they cannot even instrument the Pir Panjals, or fund authors to do it. The Zurick-Pechak book has a large number of maps. While they are not entirely accurate they capture the broad trends and issues.  For an article such Himalayas, a broad-scale article, those maps are good enough. The map I have roughly drawn above makes the general point that the broad-scale equipotential lines drawn at increments of 5 cm of rainfall do not show the Valley to be a significant rain shadow region. They do show Ladakh to be a rain shadow region. Of the six reviews of the book I looked at, the most laudatory was: The Journal of Asian Studies review by David Holmberg, Cornell University and the most critical was:Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, by William Tuladhar-Douglas University of Aberdeen, but they all make the point that it is best such book we have, and have had.  This is as far as can I go until I return to editing the article after gaining more complete knowledge of the article's content and after completing some pressing work.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Holmberg ending with, "The volume provides a new benchmark based on data generated over the last four decades. The book is as good an introduction to the natural and demographic features of the Himalayas as we have—simultaneously a good place to start for those introducing themselves to the region and a good place for old hands to return." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a correction, when Holmes says “The mountain flanks are cooler and wetter than the basin floor, although few data are available to quantify the differences,” he’s talking about the spatial differences within (or inside) the Kashmir valley, not about orographic rainfall on the southern slopes of the Pir Panjal. He is not doubting the barrier effect of the Pir Panjal range, which he states almost as a fact. The Pir Panjal are simply too tall for significant infiltration of rain-carrying monsoon winds into the Kashmir valley. Some does still pierce through the small gaps in the south and monsoon brings enough rain for the monsoon season to be called “Vuhraat” (rainy season) in the Kashmiri language. Regardless, spring remains the wettest season in Kashmir, more than twice as wet as monsoon. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry we can't do that sort of original research, especially not when using an old source. If the Pir Panjal were instrumented along their outer slopes, would not there have been an article on orographic rainfall on them by now? The reason that the rain gets through is not that there is a gap, but, I suspect, that they, or whatever mountains there are in the south, are simply not tall enough; they are barely over 6500 feet. And your own interpretation begs the question, "Why would the inner southern and western slopes of the Pir Panjal (which form the western and southern flanks of the valley) be wetter in the summer monsoon than the valley floor, if not for considerable spillover, making less of a case for a real rain shadow?" (See Britannica, "As the air rises and cools, orographic clouds form and serve as the source of the precipitation, most of which falls upwind of the mountain ridge. Some also falls a short distance downwind of the ridge and is sometimes called spillover.")
 * This is the main problem with using sources that are not tertiary, by which I don't mean encyclopedias, but textbooks, broad scale books, review articles, introductions to collections that sum up the research. It is a big problem on WP. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By “gap” I mean that the height of the mountains is lower around Banihal. I am still not able to understand your confusion. All sources say that the Pir Panjal are responsible for low monsoon rainfall in the Kashmir valley.
 * And what is the original research? The full quote is “Abundant meteorological data, mainly from basin-floor stations, show that annual precipitation in Kashmir ranges from 584 to 1229 mm, although there is no clear spatial pattern. Temperature is measured at few sites. At Srinagar, mean monthly maximum ranges from 9.7 °C (January) to 35.5 °C (July); mean monthly minimum ranges from –6.7 °C (January) to 14.5 °C (July). The mountain flanks are cooler and wetter than the basin floor, although few data are available to quantify the differences.” He is most definitely talking about differences within (or inside) Kashmir valley. It is not my interpretation, it is what the source says. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Listen, you can stake your all in these cherry-picked paragraphs until kingdom come, but this is not to add reliable information to Wikipedia. You've found an article, a somewhat speculative one by a geomorphologist on glaciation thresholds (GTs) in the NW Himalayas (GT=average of lowest glaciated peak and highest unglaciated peak). I've scanned the whole paper.  Here is a more leisurely quote which uses both "rain shadow" and talks about the unreliability of the data and the speculative nature of his work and previous work
 * Listen, you can stake your all in these cherry-picked paragraphs until kingdom come, but this is not to add reliable information to Wikipedia. You've found an article, a somewhat speculative one by a geomorphologist on glaciation thresholds (GTs) in the NW Himalayas (GT=average of lowest glaciated peak and highest unglaciated peak). I've scanned the whole paper.  Here is a more leisurely quote which uses both "rain shadow" and talks about the unreliability of the data and the speculative nature of his work and previous work

Modern glaciers were investigated using information from Survey of India 1:63,360 scale maps produced before independence in 1947. These maps depict relief, drainage and glacier cover with acceptable accuracy. Although all altitudes and distances on the maps are in imperial units, these have been converted to metric units for this study. GTs were determined for each 5′ east × 5′ north quadrangle using the method of Østrem (1961). The value for the GT was plotted at the quadrangle centre and isoglacihypses (lines of equal GT) were drawn. A height method was used to determine the ELA for each glacier, since the area of each glacier as depicted on the maps is quite generalized. Toe and headwall altitudes are shown clearly for many glaciers. Previous work on the glaciers of Kashmir has not provided sufficient detail for a value of the THAR to be calculated, so a value of 0.4 (Meierding, 1982) was employed. Mean values of ELAs for north�facing (N ± 30 °) glaciers in each 5′×5′ quadrangle were calculated and isoglacihypses of equal ELA drawn. Calculations of the GT yielded 40 data points. There is a clear distinction in the height of the GT between the Pir Panjal range and the Great Himalayan range. Broadly, the GT rises from 4100–4500 m in the Pir Panjal range to 4600– 4700 m in the Great Himalayan range. The GT was also determined for several quadrangles further to the east, beyond the Kashmir watershed, where it is generally higher than 4700 m (Figure 3.2). This general pattern is best explained by the existence of a precipitation gradient. There are two major sources of precipitation received in Kashmir: one from the south and southeast, associated with summer monsoon disturbances; the other from the west, associated with winter westerly depressions. In either case, the glacierized part of the Pir Panjal range would receive more precipitation than the Great Himalayan range. The aridity of Ladakh, for example, is well shown by the abrupt change in vegetation seen when crossing the watershed from Kashmir. The pattern of isoglacihypses also shows topographic control. The glacierized part of Kashmir runs broadly in a southwest�northeast direction and this follows the axis of high mountains. Thus, although other parts of Kashmir may have the climatic potential to support glaciers, the mountains are too low. Therefore, the apparent rise in GTs from southwest to northeast reflects control by both precipitation and topography. The gradient of the GTs is indicated by the spacing of the isoglacihypses. The gradient of the GT is consistently high on the Pir Panjal flank, ranging from 20 to 68 m km−1. On the Himalayan flank, the gradient varies from 5 to 68 m km−1. Whereas the lower values of the GT gradient are well within the range of figures quoted for other areas, the higher gradients exceed published values by a factor of two (e.g. Porter, 1977). It is possible that the values for Kashmir are incorrect, owing to errors in the topographic information on the maps. However, the highest gradients are, in most cases, constrained by several data points and are a feature of both mountain flanks, Therefore, some reason other than data error is required to explain the large GT gradient. The gradients quoted by Porter (1977) refer to mid- to high latitude, maritime mountain ranges. The highest gradient, ~25 m km−1, occurs in mid-latitude ranges, in areas of high precipitation. In these maritime regions, precipitation is high on the coast and declines inland, leading to a sharp GT gradient. Locally, precipitation often interacts with topography. For example, low GT gradients are frequently found in association with cols in maritime ranges which are oriented broadly perpendicular to the direction of airflow. This is because the cols allow greater inland penetration of moist, maritime air masses (e.g. Porter, 1977). The effect of this is to produce bulges in the isoglacihypses. On the Pir Panjal flank, the isoglacihypses follow the topography quite closely, although they show two quite pronounced bulges which are associated with two cols in the headwater regions of the Rembiara and Vishav valleys (Figure 3.2). ''These cols presumably allow greater penetration of moist air over the Pir Panjal crest. However, the steepness of the GT gradient indicates a marked decrease in precipitation north and northeastward, suggesting that the rainshadow effect of the Pir Panjal range must be very strong.'' The pattern of isoglacihypses on the Himalayan flank is more difficult to explain. The presence of pronounced bulges suggests that precipitation and topography may be controlling the GT, especially since the bulges coincide partially with the two major valleys that drain the Himalayan flank. The steepest GT gradient occurs close to the watershed with Ladakh. This is to be expected, since the watershed marks a very narrow zone of pronounced precipitation decline. In summary, the rainshadow effect of the Pir Panjal range and the location of the high altitude mountains appear to have produced a southwest-northeast rise in the GT, with local variations, including very high GT gradients in some areas. Although this may in part be a product of poor-quality data, topographic variations appear to produce local, steep, precipitation gradients which, in turn, affect the GT. (Final paragraph, Discussion) The results show, overall, that glacierization was extremely active in parts of the northwest Himalaya during the last glaciation, except where the advance of glaciers was topographically constrained. Limited dating control of glacial advances, which is available for the Hunza valley (Derbyshire et al., 1984), for the northern side of Nanga Parbat (Owen, 1988a) and for Kashmir (Holmes, 1988) shows that the last advance was out of phase with the last maximum global ice volume. Rather limited glacierization in Kashmir is more difficult to explain. For the Pir Panjal range, the depression of the equilibrium line was clearly modified by tectonic uplift during the late Quaternary. However, in the Great Himalayan flank, which was tectonically inactive during the late Quaternary, some other explanation is required. Possibly, the Pir Panjal acted as a major barrier to incoming moisture, which may have come from westerly disturbances. However, this is impossible to substantiate in the absence of further independent palaeoclimatic data. (First and last paragraph conclusion: . In the Pir Panjal range of Kashmir, late Quaternary uplift has clearly reduced the observed ELA depression compared to actual amounts. Limited ELA depression in the Great Himalayan range of Kashmir is more difficult to explain: it may be the result of changes in the location and intensity of precipitation sources. Glaciation of Swat Kohistan involved substantial depressions of the ELA. However, in the absence of tectonic uplift in this area, these figures are likely to approach actual values. Particularly large ELA depressions occurred in the Hunza valley and on the northern flank of the Nanga Parbat massif. These figures are also minimum values, because both of these areas have undergone rapid and substantial late Quaternary uplift. The reasons for such active glacierization remain speculative: however, it may be the result of the extremely high gradients in both of these regions, which are also cited in explanation of the highly active glacierization in these areas today. Limited chronological data suggest that the maximum depressions of the ELA in some parts of the northwest Himalaya were out of phase with global ice-volume changes. They may have occurred during the middle part of the late Quaternary, rather than toward the end. Long-term precipitation changes associated with fluctuations in the South Asian monsoon have been cited as a control on the timing of glacial advances in the northwest Himalaya during the late Quaternary. However, further work on the chronology of glaciation in this region is required for a clearer relationship to emerge.


 * It is a paper about ELAs (roughly correlated to GTs). It was written long ago. It has not been reliably reproduced in the major tertiary sources on Mountain Climate or the Monsoon, such as the works of Roger G. Barry and Richard Chorley's Atmosphere, Weather, and Climate, 9th edition, Routledge, 2010; Peter Clift and R. Alan Plumb's The Asian Monsoon: Causes, History and Effects, Cambridge, and Barry's Mountain Weather and Climate, Cambridge. Neither you nor I are experts in glaciation in the Quaternary.  That is obvious from the quality of the discussion above.  So why are we wasting each other's time? You are a relatively new editor, or at least that is my general impression.  You have already done stalwart work in finding great images.  I had pretty good discussions with you on the India page and the Delhi page. I am trying to suggest that you not go down the path of cherry-picking sentences or short paragraphs from any source and then staking your all on arguing their validity.  You will end up doing little reliable on Wikipedia.  I might be brusque sometimes, but I have a pretty good idea of what WP is about.  I mean look at the two sets of sources lined up in Talk: Kashmir already in the time I have spent there this morning, one cherry-picked from anything anywhere, the other broad discussions by modern sources. Night and day difference. There is nothing complex about this.  One doesn't need knowledge of WP rules, MOS, or the lord forbid, AN/I, to know this.   I'm sure my late friend, user: SlimVirgin who had written many rules and regulations and essays on reliable sourcing on Wikipedia will broadly agree.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not cherry-picking sources. All sources that talk about the monsoon, Kashmir valley and Pir Panjals together, state that the Pir Panjal range act as a barrier. If the argument is that this is an undue addition to the article on Himalayas, then I agree, and anyway I’m not the one who added Kashmir valley’s local climate to the article to begin with. In fact, quite the opposite, I support removing it (and already have), lest we be forced to list all such local differences.
 * But to dispute the Pir Panjal’s barrier effect when it comes to the SW monsoon reaching Kashmir, you must produce sources that state otherwise. So far I’ve found none. This has direct consequences on the Climate section of the Kashmir article. In any case, as far as this article (Himalayas) is concerned, the discussion has concluded for me. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
I do not wish to keep going around in circles, and the need and pattern of your reverts can be discussed later, so here's a proposal:
 * I can remove the “In the furthest west . . . March and April.” portion. It clearly does not serve the intended purpose of illustrating the east-west monsoon gradient, since it ignores the other, more important factors when comparing Srinagar and Shimla/Kathmandu (such as the Pir Panjal). And as you said, if we explain the other factors, it becomes an undue addition, so we can delete it altogether. This will however need to be replaced by a short paragraph that actually illustrates the general east-west gradient.
 * This can be something along the lines of “The intensity of the southwest monsoon diminishes east to west, with as much as of rainfall in the monsoon season in in the Eastern Himalayas, compared to only in in the Western Himalayas.” This can be modified to include an additional Central Himalayan town. All towns must be such that other differentials (such as topography) are minimal. For this I propose Darjeeling in the east, and Shimla or Murree in the west. They all have similar altitudes, and are all located at similar distances from the plains-facing ridges (in crude terms, one is not located deeper in the range than the others). This paragraph can be cited to The Illustrated Atlas and Britannica.
 * The “For much of the . . . is the monsoon.” sentence has to be modified, and the winter precipitation needs to appear somewhere in the first paragraph. This can be done together, something like, “For much of the Himalayas, in the areas to the south of the hight mountains, the southwest monsoon brings most of the precipitation, while the western disturbance brings winter precipitation, especially in the west.” Perhaps you can propose something better for this sentence. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is OK for now. I'll return to the article after completing other WP work. Please do not make any further undue changes to the article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will disregard your comment, "the need and pattern of your reverts can be discussed later." When you have written one broad-scale article (let alone dozens) and have taken the responsibility of monitoring a 100 others (many of whose leads you have written, as I have this article's), and when drivebys come 13 to a dozen&mdash;having boned-up on WP rules, but not WP responsibilities; on the rules of AN/I but not the conventions of narrative prose&mdash;wanting to dicker with this or that, you can discuss my "need."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * More time spent editing WP doesn’t give someone a free pass to overlook WP rules and policies. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just time "editing," for there are many people who amass edits doing routine maintenance work, but writing a large number of broad scale articles. I wasn't twiddling my thumbs. No one is overlooking WP rules. I can smell out edits of undue weight from a mile away.  That is what yours was, one you yourself have acknowledged. Let's end it right there.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've made the above edits, and out of courtesy I'm also pinging you (though I surely don't need to) about the images that I've added to the climate section. You can see them here on the right side, with the captions that I've added them with. Have dug the depths of commons for these images (because apparently people simply do not properly categorise pictures). Both are QIs, both taken roughly the same time of the year (Sep-Oct). I think the rainshadow effect of the great Himalayan range is beautifully conveyed through these, let me know if you think otherwise. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Beautiful pictures. Congrats on finding them. There is a slight issue though as far as illustrating the text is concerned.
 * Upper Mustang Lomanthang.jpg
 * Either this is about showing the Himalayas towering behind or this is about the monsoon.
 * We can't do both as the Great Himalayas can't be really seen during the monsoon proper.
 * The Pokhara picture, taken in early September, is very much still about the monsoon, for its mists are beautifully visible.
 * But the Annapurna picture is taken in late October, the time when tourists begin to trickle into the Himalaya region, and the peaks become visible, with the moisture in the form of cloud cover around them gone.
 * I would prefer to have a picture of the Upper Mustang region during the monsoon. There is one available on WP. It was taken in early July.  It shows some clouds and some green most likely from being in the Gandaki river valley, but the slopes are like the Sahara or the Gobi, a marked contrast from the Pokahara slopes. Not a big deal, but my two cents.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ll look for a better monsoon image (this one is very noisy and has fringing). Currently looking for a replacement for the Yumthang one, which has insufficient resolution and severe visual artefacts (which wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t used as the representative example for a Himalayan river valley). UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)