Talk:Himalayas/Archive 6

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Emblem of Nepal (2020).svg

June 2022
Here's what the cited source says, in the lead: "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. Those disputes accentuate the boundary problems faced by India and its neighbours in the Himalayan region." Given the lengthy but inconclusive discussion above, I have zero hope for any new constructive discussion here. Since the discussion method has already been exhausted, will devise an RfC as soon as I have time on my hands. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The source is cited to support a statement. The statement has not been added to support one source.
 * Th Himalayas in the Kashmir region are not only wider at 350 miles but also lie entirely within Kashmir. They end with Nanga Parbat the western anchor which is smack in the middle of Kashmir. The Himalayas in the east are not only narrower, but their backbone, the Great Himalaya veers off northward, beginning at the western end of Arunachal Pradesh. The eastern anchor, Namcha Barwa is nowhere near India or in disputed territory. Only some foothills in India are claimed by China. I’m wise to the India-POV here: make the disputed territory list long so that Kashmir seems minuscule by comparison. Pretty transparent. You’ll be wasting community time as seems to have become your wont on this page, all resulting from a lack of appreciation of
 * WP:UNDUE. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain why an RfC is needed; in other words why in a highly compressed lead a major dispute such as Kashmir, the oldest before the United Nations, deserves the same emphasis as Arunachal Pradesh that no one except China does, and even that when it wants to rile India over some perceived misdemeanors elsewhere. The number of scholarly sources that consider Kashmir disputed are an order of magnitude greater than those for AP. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That the dispute is not internationally acknowledged is not true. Some maps on the right. Even google maps outside of India show both Kashmir and Arunachal to be disputed.
 * This article is about the Himalayas. Of the part of the Himalayan region (ie excluding the Hindu Kush, Karakorum, Ladakh and Kangri Karpo ranges as well as the Tibetan plateau) that is disputed, some 78-85,000 sqaure kilometres lies in Kashmir, and some 45-50,000 square kilometres lies in Arunachal Pradesh. That is a big chunk.
 * Show me sources talking about territory in the Himalayan mountains that talk only of the Kashmir dispute. I've already shown above that the given source, talking about the Himalayas, mentions the two disputes both in the lead. tertiary sources determine due weight, and so far my addition appears to be completely due.
 * That Arunachal is given the same emphasis as Kashmir by my edit is also not true, the emphasis is still on Kashmir, which is mentioned first, in more words and is named unlike Arunachal which is not.
 * The RfC is needed because a certain editor is adamant on hiding the dispute in South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh, despite sources—even the one they themselves have provided—mentioning it prominently. The community can decide what is and isn't a waste of community time, you don't have to pass judgements on the community's behalf.
 * PS: Please be warned that unsubstantiated accusations of misbehaviour, especially when done routinely like you have done to me, are a form of personal attacks.
 * --UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note 1: Google ngrams If Arunachal Pradesh is a dispute then it should appear in Google ngrams, but whoopsie daisy... it can't be found.
 * So what is the deal here, just like your run around above about the Kashmir valley being in the rain shadow of the Pir Pinjals, are you going to say when all is said and done, "But I agree it doesn't belong to the lead?"  Sovereignty of the Himalayas in Kashmir very much belongs to the lead.  It is DUE. Sovereignty in Arunachal Pradesh does not; it belongs to one sentence in the geography section, if that, no more. Google ngram would not come out empty. Its mention in the lead is UNDUE.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note 2: Scholarly publication This is mirrored in the binary search "Kashmir" (OR Ladakh OR Aksai Chin) AND "dispute" and "Arunachal Pradesh" (OR South Tibet) AND "dispute" to be appearing in the ratio: 40 to one in the scholarly publications.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note 3: Narrative incoherence The article's lead has a total of two sentences that address the location of the Himalayas in different countries: "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."
 * You would like to change it to: 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 and China also claims Indian territory at the eastern end of the range. The Himalayan range is bordered on the northwest by the Karakoram and Hindu Kush ranges, on the north by the Tibetan Plateau, and on the south by the Indo-Gangetic Plain. ... Lifted by the subduction of the Indian tectonic plate under the Eurasian Plate, the Himalayan mountain range runs west-northwest to east-southeast in an arc 2,400 km (1,500 mi) long. 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.
 * You would like to add that sentence in a place considerably before we define how the orientation of the range proceeds. How is the reader supposed to know that the Himalayas are not like the Andes proceeding from north to south? Do you see the sheer narrative incoherence?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: In case you are looking to view "incoherence" as a personal attack, I mean it in the sense of a lack of Coherence (linguistics) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note 4: Textually UNDUE Let us consider your CIA map. The CIA Factbook has this about Kashmir: "(under India) Kashmir remains the site of the world's largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas); (under Pakistan): UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan has maintained a small group of peacekeepers since 1949; India and Pakistan have maintained their 2004 cease-fire in Kashmir and initiated discussions on defusing the armed standoff in the Siachen glacier region; Pakistan protests India's fencing the highly militarized Line of Control and construction of the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River in Jammu and Kashmir, which is part of the larger dispute on water sharing of the Indus River and its tributaries; and (under China): India does not recognize Pakistan's 1964 ceding to China of the Aksai Chin, a territory designated as part of the princely state of Kashmir by the British Survey of India in 1865; China claims most of the Indian state Arunachal Pradesh to the base of the Himalayas, but the US recognizes the state of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory"
 * And you want to summarize the paragraph DUEly into the sentence, "The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan, and China and China also claims Indian territory at the eastern end of the range. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note 5: Pictorially UNDUE: There is a difference between general "country maps" produced by the CIA and "local" or "detailed" maps produced by them. The 10 CIA country maps of China at UT-Austin website and the 8 general CIA India country maps, show only Kashmir to be disputed.
 * Note 6: Distortion of the UN dispute: The Kashmir dispute is the oldest territorial dispute before the United Nations.  Before 1971 alone, Kashmir was the subject of 18 UN Security Council Resolutions, most early ones unanimous in which the Soviet Union abstained to show support for the Indian position on Kashmir.  Arunachal Pradesh has not elicited one resolution.    Indian human rights violations in Kashmir have elicited a special report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, the  vast majority of whose violations are those by the Indian state.  (Violations by the Indian State, page 11 to 37 = 27 pages; violations by armed groups: 38 to 40 = 3 pages; violations by the Pakistani-state = 41 to 46 = 6 pages). Arunachal Pradesh, on the other hand, has not had one resolution. is not consequential&mdash;neither of weight nor moment&mdash;in the disputes before the United Nations.
 * So, are you serious, or are you looking to be disruptive, to bait me, to provoke me with silliness, and when I am amply provoked to run crying to the WP body of your choice claiming personal attacks and what not about which you have sanctimoniously warned me above? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally let me warn you. I don't take people to ANI, but if you play this silly game one more time: of insouciantly traipsing into a high-level article I have edited for years, making an UNDUE edit, then first edit-warring in banner edit summaries, and then starting a long song and dance on the talk page, and waste my precious time in such a disruptive fashion, I will take you to ANI and ask for a topic ban for you from high-level India-related articles broadly construed. So, sick and tired I am of your games. So sick and tired.  Be amply warned.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, this is the Himalayas page. Not the Kashmir page. Other than the Britannica Himalaya article's lead, here's what Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya says in the first paragraph of its Introduction section:
 * “The political geography of the Himalaya is contested in many places, with China asserting its claim over territory occupied by India and Bhutan, and India asserting its claim over territory occupied by Pakistan and vice versa. The boundary lines that appear on the maps in this atlas represent the most widely accepted designations of country borders; in some cases, again by convention, they appear as something other than a recognized boundary line (for example, the disputed boundary between Pakistan and India in Kashmir is depicted as a “line of control”). Such disagreements about boundary placements suggest the somewhat fluid nature of Himalayan geopolitics, which historically includes diverse relations among the neighboring mountain countries.”
 * The full page maps on pages 6 and 7 of the book show both the disputes with red dotted lines. And this is repeated in most maps in the book.
 * Also, these CIA maps of China do not show Taiwan to be disputed either. Should the Taiwan page not mention the disputed political status of Taiwan? That's your logic. What I'm hearing is you have no tertiary sources on the Himalayas that mention only the Kashmir dispute. Just like you couldn't provide a single source above that backed your claims about the Pir Panjals not being a barrier to the monsoon reaching Kashmir valley. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also the current wording, which I am guessing was probably added by you, suggests that Kashmir is the sole dispute in the Himalayas. That is certainly a claim unique only to the wikipedia article, thanks to whoever added it. UnpetitproleX (talk) Indeed added by you and rather recently. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not going anywhere, it is amply clear you want your addition to remain as it is, and not be modified in accordance with the source that you yourself have cited. First I'm requesting a third party opinion from anyone who may want to contribute one here. Then I will move on to the RfC. In the meantime I will go back to writing the tourism section for this article, which I've been trying to do for a couple weeks now. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's more of what Zurick and Pacheco's Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya says about territorial disputes:
 * On pages 8 and 11 in "Part One: The Regional Setting": "In modern times, the peoples of the Himalaya have been forced to accommodate the needs of much larger societies, which conventionally view the mountains as sovereign territory and important resource frontiers. The Asian countries bordering the Himalaya have carved the mountainous territory into respective political possessions, albeit with great uncertainty in some places. Kashmir, for example, is contested by India and Pakistan, whereas many Kashmiri people would prefer an independent state. India and China differ over the ownership of an inhospitable stretch of cold desert north of Ladakh known as the Aksai Chin. India initially claimed the land and put it on its maps but discovered in 1958 that China had already built roads through the region. . . . Chinese maps include about 300 square kilometers of territory that belongs to Bhutan, but the matter is not pursued because China wishes to maintain cordial relations with Bhutan. Much of the eastern region of the Himalaya, now occupied by the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, is claimed by China."
 * In the same part, the caption of map titled "Himalaya: Western Sector" says The Indus River marks the western boundary of the Himalayan region, separating that range from the adjoining Karakoram. The Indus first flows northwest from its source near Mount Kailas through the high desert of Ladakh before veering south through the High Himalaya near Nanga Parbat and then emptying onto the plains of Pakistan. Within the bends of the Indus is a small sliver of land belonging to Pakistan, as well as the contested region of Kashmir. To the east, the western Himalaya encompasses the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal, up to the border of Nepal. An enormous change of landscape oc- curs when crossing the high passes from south to the north; the greenery and rugged terrain of the Low and High Himalaya give way to the rocky plateaus of the trans-Himalayan zone in Ladakh and Spiti. Emphasis mine, to highlight the part about the dispute.
 * Similarly, the caption of map titled "Himalaya: Eastern Sector", appearing in the same part, says The eastern stretch of the Himalaya covers the kingdom of Bhutan and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. The international boundaries are contested in this region, with China claiming much of the area now occupied by India, as well as a small part of northeastern Bhutan. This region receives the greatest amount of rainfall, and there is good forest cover throughout the eastern Himalaya. Population densities are lowest in Arunachal Pradesh, where mountain towns are off-limits to foreigners, and the almost constant cloud cover hides the landscape from even high-tech global satellite systems. Emphasis mine, to highlight the part about the dispute.


 * Having read a dozen more sources (for the tourism and people sections), I can say with much confidence that most sources, when discussing the Himalaya, do not mention the Kashmir dispute as the only notable territorial dispute in the region. I will propose something below. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have warned you. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You have warned me against quoting what sources on the Himalaya say? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps pointing that your assertions of WP:UNDUE fail the test of what WP:RS say? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
Let me begin by apologising for posting this proposal so late. I have been very busy, and still am. The current sentence reads “The sovereignty of the range is disputed in Kashmir among India, Pakistan and China.”

First, this implies that there are no other disputes. Not a single WP:RS on the Himalayas that I’ve read so far uses a wording that implies any such thing. If this is an “India-POV” as claimed above, which it most certainly is not, then it has the backing of reliable sources, two of which are quoted above.

Second, the logic that numerically more sources exist on the Kashmir dispute than on the other disputes and thus we must only mention Kashmir (that too in a way which is suggesting there are no other disputes) is flawed. How many of these sources are sources focused on the Himalayas? How many of these are tertiary sources on the Himalayas? That should decide weight, not a comparison between the number of hits for a google books search. This is the article on the Himalayas. The mountain range.

So, my proposal is to replace the sentence with:

“The sovereignty of the range is contested in many places in the frontiers of the constituent countries, most notably in the Kashmir region.”

Cited to the Illustrated Atlas and the Britannica article, preferably with quotations. If anyone has any input on how to improve this proposal, please do contribute. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We see this all the time on the major Kashmir-related pages such as Ladakh or Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). People will attempt to split the lead sentence to give the dispute a secondary emphasis.  Your proposed version above has the same kind of reordering.  In the encyclopedic style, we don't mention every little caveat in the most distilled summary, which is the lead.  When we say, "The sovereignty of the Himalayas in the Kashmir region is disputed," we are not saying that it is the only dispute, but it is the only dispute worth mentioning in the lead. Similarly when in the lead of the FA Darjeeling, we say something like, "Schools were founded in the second half of the 19th century for the children of the domiciled British," we don't mean that there weren't some Anglo-Indians (of mixed British and Indian parentage) or one or two Indians, but that until the inter-war period, the Indian presence, especially, was negligible. Coming back to your proposal, the operative word here is negligible.  The other disputes are negligible in comparison to Kashmir.
 * We can't have a lead in which every exception is highlighted in some fashion. This seems to be your MO. It's as if you have combed through an article's lead, found some sentence that might have an exception and then you stake your all on the exception, not considering that it might be of negligible value.  I am warning you: keep doing this and you risk becoming disruptive.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to skin the gotcha cat. One is: "The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region has a seven-decade history of dispute among India, Pakistan and China.” Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Or even "The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region has a seven-decade history of dispute between India and Pakistan." as there are no Himalayas in Chinese-administered Kashmir, only the Karakorums Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it’s not about including “negligible exceptions” in the lead, it is about reflecting what WP:RS say. The two sources quoted above, one Britannica—a much cited (and especially so by you) tertiary source, and two the Illustrated Atlas, which you yourself have added to the list of general sources on the Himalayas to the page. Both mention the other disputes, and not as “negligible exceptions”. The first states it in the lead, the second in the introduction. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fowler that expanding this sentence makes it both unnecessarily complicated and less clear. For example, the dispute appears to be in two places and "many" is therefore both an unnecessary obfuscation as well as a trifle weasly. Second, as Fowler correctly points out, this article is not about the disputes so only the major dispute (the big kahuna so to speak) needs to be mentioned in the lead. The Arunachal dispute is no where near as significant as the Kashmir one (if, for example, we had an article on Territorial disputes in the Himalayas, 95% of the article would discuss Kashmir, the dispute with the long and illustrious history). Finally, I note the irony above where you accuse Fowler "a certain editor is adamant on hiding the dispute in South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh" and immediately follow up with a warning to Fowler about personal attacks. Not exactly the perfect juxtapositioning that. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “Many” is used in the first sentence of the introduction section of Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya. In case you missed the quote above, this is what it says: “The political geography of the Himalaya is contested in many places, with China asserting its claim over territory occupied by India and Bhutan, and India asserting its claim over territory occupied by Pakistan and vice versa." (boldface added by me). Also, the warning about personal attacks is due to a history of repetitive, unsubstantiated “POV-pusher” accusations. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also disagree with your comment about 95% of the hypothetical article on “Territorial disputes in the Himalayas” being about Kashmir, because the Himalay-specific sources when discussing territorial disputes in the range DO NOT give 95% of the space to Kashmir. So that’s certainly an assertion not based in what reliable sources have to say. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See, for example, the entirety of what the Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya says about the territorial disputes, which I have quoted above. 95% of it is definitely not focused on the Kashmir dispute. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't quote from the Atlas whose existence I made known to you. It is written with the help of ICIMOD Kathmandu, using their excellent data for the Central Himalayas.  Its speciality is the human geography of the Central Himalayas. As David Holmberg (Cornell) stated above in the reviews I transcribed painstakingly for our edification, "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."  He doesn't say it is a benchmark for the political history of the Himalayas. (See my posts of 27 May).  I'm really sorry, but you have not understood Zurick and Pacheco's book. Not one bit. I have other things to do than to keep engaging you to no avail.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler Do you have any reliable tertiary source on the Himalayas that counters it? No? Then you have nothing, no sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "I have other things to do than to keep engaging you to no avail." Assuming good faith on WP does not mean endlessly catering to talk page lobbying for additions of undue weight.
 * Please don't ping me here in the future. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * UnpetitproleX: You have been less than comprehensive in describing the coverage of boundary disputes in the Illustrated Atlas of the Himalayas. It is true they say what you have quoted on page xv, but that is not their complete assertion.  They state more fully, "The political geography of the Himalaya is contested in many places, with China asserting its claim over territory occupied by India and Bhutan, and India asserting its claim over territory occupied by Pakistan and vice versa. The boundary lines that appear on the maps in this atlas represent the most widely accepted designations of country borders; in some cases, again by convention, they appear as something other than a recognized boundary line (for example, the disputed boundary between Pakistan and India in Kashmir is depicted as a “line of control”)."  Just before that they have two maps
 * On page x, the main map of the Himalayas, "Reference Grid," which has four categories: physical features, urban areas, political boundary, and elevation. in overall map of the Himalayas. The only political boundary that is marked "disputed" is the line of control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir.  Arunachal Pradesh (or South Tibet) is not marked to be disputed (either its northern border claimed by India nor its southern claimed by China).
 * On page xi there is a detailed map of the 149 administrative districts in the Himalayas. The accompanying "Legend" has "International Boundary (in black), Line of Control (black and white), Claim by China (green), Claim by India (blue)), District Boundary (orange)."  It is only in the second more detailed map, betokening a level of detail appropriate for Wikipedia's article body, not its lead, do they mark the southern borders of seven districts of Arunachal Pradesh (i.e. the ones that have a border with India) in green, but the displayed international border is still the northern borders of Arunachal Pradesh's districts.  In contrast, Kashmir has all the categories of boundaries: especially the Line of Control between India and Pakistan which is not only in black and white, but much thicker. The line of control is the only boundary between two administering states that is not marked by an "International boundary."  The rest are international boundaries.
 * Finally after the book officially begins (and the page numbers are marked by Indian numerals not Latin), the main overall physical map of South Asia appears on page 2 (page 1 being a picture). It shows only one political boundary in red.  It is the line of control in Kashmir.  After that the book's text officially begins with, "The slow, inexorable drift northward of the South Asian continent, beginning about 130 million years ago in the Cretaceous period and continuing into the present day, resulted in the collision of the Indian and Asian continental plates, uplifting huge sections of old, compressed sea floor and creating an extraordinary range of mountains—the Himalaya, which today stands high above all other places on earth." If at that level perspective, when an author waxes eloquent about primordial times, the accompanying map shows the India-Pakistan line of control in Kashmir to be the only disputed border, then it is disputed at all levels of description, including the highest, and thus constitutes the "most widely accepted designations of country borders," mentioned at the top of my post.
 * Pinging FYI  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you leave out what the author does say about the disputes in the exact same part of the book, right after what you have highlighted above?
 * Once the book officially begins, then the first instance of the author talking about territorial disputes is on pages 8 and 11, continuing btw from the same text that starts on page 3 and states
 * In modern times, the peoples of the Himalaya have been forced to accommodate the needs of much larger societies, which conventionally view the mountains as sovereign territory and important resource frontiers. The Asian countries bordering the Himalaya have carved the mountainous territory into respective political possessions, albeit with great uncertainty in some places. Kashmir, for example, is contested by India and Pakistan, whereas many Kashmiri people would prefer an independent state. India and China differ over the ownership of an inhospitable stretch of cold desert north of Ladakh known as the Aksai Chin. India initially claimed the land and put it on its maps but discovered in 1958 that China had already built roads through the region. . . . Chinese maps include about 300 square kilometers of territory that belongs to Bhutan, but the matter is not pursued because China wishes to maintain cordial relations with Bhutan. Much of the eastern region of the Himalaya, now occupied by the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, is claimed by China.
 * This part of the book is akin to the “lead” of wikipedia articles.
 * Coming to maps, this text I quoted above follows one huge map of the Himalaya that takes up two pages, on pages 6 and 7; showing both disputes; titled “HIMALAYA RANGE” with the caption: The Himalaya extends northwest to southeast in a 2,600-kilometer crescent of highlands between the Indus and Brahmaputra rivers. The mountain range contains the world’s highest peaks and has over 47 million inhabitants.
 * This is then followed by three maps of the three regions of the Himalaya—western, central and eastern, in the same section, with the Kashmir dispute marked in the map for the western Himalaya map, and Arunachal marked as disputed in the eastern Himalaya map. These two maps are captioned:
 * ”HIMALAYA: WESTERN SECTOR”:The Indus River marks the western boundary of the Himalayan region, separating that range from the adjoining Karakoram. The Indus first flows northwest from its source near Mount Kailas through the high desert of Ladakh before veering south through the High Himalaya near Nanga Parbat and then emptying onto the plains of Pakistan. Within the bends of the Indus is a small sliver of land belonging to Pakistan, as well as the contested region of Kashmir. To the east, the western Himalaya encompasses the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal, up to the border of Nepal. An enormous change of landscape oc- curs when crossing the high passes from south to the north; the greenery and rugged terrain of the Low and High Himalaya give way to the rocky plateaus of the trans-Himalayan zone in Ladakh and Spiti.
 * ”HIMALAYA: EASTERN SECTOR”:The eastern stretch of the Himalaya covers the kingdom of Bhutan and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. The international boundaries are contested in this region, with China claiming much of the area now occupied by India, as well as a small part of northeastern Bhutan. This region receives the greatest amount of rainfall, and there is good forest cover throughout the eastern Himalaya. Population densities are lowest in Arunachal Pradesh, where mountain towns are off-limits to foreigners, and the almost constant cloud cover hides the landscape from even high-tech global satellite systems.
 * Pinging FYI UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See also the Territorial disputes of China and Disputed territories of India articles. Perhaps you should edit these articles, especially the India one since all of India’s disputed territories are in the Himalayas, so that 95% of it discusses Kashmir, before suggesting the same here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links to those articles, though I don't see the relevance to this discussion since both are essentially summarized list articles of all disputes and no one is denying here that there are territorial disputes involving India and/or China beyond Kashmir. It would be helpful if you would stick to the topic at hand and avoid snarkiness. For example, what is the "it" in the reliable tertiary source you're asking Fowler to provide? --RegentsPark (comment) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The “it” that I would like them to provide in reliable, preferably tertiary, sources about the Himalayas are examples that talk about only or mostly Kashmir when talking about territorial disputes. So far they have not provided a single example of that. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the relevance, which I thought was easily understandable, is that if an article about territorial disputes of India—all of the active ones among which are in the Himalayas—does not dedicate 95% of its body to Kashmir then why should an article about territorial disputes in the Himalaya do so (since you state above that this is what you believe such an article should do). Sticking to the topic at hand, and if the comment came across as “snarky” then I apologise, it was most definitely not intended as such. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

ISS image
Fowler&fowler, you said in the edit summary that doesn't give any sense to a viewer of what is where, but I think that the current image is really hard to see and dense. I think it would be better that a different image should be replaced, one that is a realistic image of the Himalayas. The old image is fine though when placed inside a section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. I have another NASA picture in mind.  I'll add it tomorrow and you can tell me what you think. If you don't like it, we'll find another.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:CactiStaccingCrane I've swapped the image of range for a bigger one and moved it up. It is annotated with some features described in the lead. I will add the Karakorams and Hindu Kush later. I hope this is better. Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on lead sentence about territorial disputes
What should the sentence about territorial disputes in the lead of the article say? UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nominator It is the due and neutral summary of what reliable tertiary sources say. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support what? Be clearer please! Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed version, ofcourse. Sorry for not being clearer. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current version is clearer. The scale of dispute around Kashmir is larger than other localized disputes. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, good thing the proposed sentence says “most notably in the Kashmir region” then. The current “clearer” version is also inaccurate. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not inaccurate, it just doesn't mention minor border disputes that do not significantly change the lines on the map at the zoom level on this map in the article you wouldn't see the minor border disagreements. With Kashmir, you have a very large block of territory, 200,000 square kms, about the size of the United Kingdom, which is in dispute between three countries. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Lilach5. The majority of scholarly sources give very little emphasis to the other little disputes. The US recognizes India's sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh, which it does not over Kashmir. The Zurick and Pacheco's reference cited below, shows only Kashmir to be disputed in its major maps.  Kashmir's borders are dotted red; others are normal. India does not have three-quarters of its army in Arunachal Pradesh; so you can figure out which disputes it thinks is the significant one.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the new proposed version, as more accurate, & perfectly clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A statement of no weight unless supported by sources. Hydrogen is heavier. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can find two in the proposal itself. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and more accurate wording in the new proposal.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Question - What would be the advantage of removing the name of the contesting countries from the sentence? PraiseVivec (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PraiseVivec raises a good point: how about "The sovereignty of the parts of the range is disputed between India, Pakistan, and China, most notably in the Kashmir region. " — hike395 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Would require including Nepal and Bhutan (the former has a dispute with India, the latter with China). And also regarding Kashmir Himalaya and China, see my reply below. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support that version too as a poor substitute. The POV behind this RfC is that they do not want "Kashmir" (the region where India has 3/4 of its army (some 500,000 soldiers, one for every five Kashmiris); where India has committed human rights violations 13 to a dozen; the oldest dispute before the United Nations) to appear with such prominence.  The statement of the RfC is trying desperately to sweep it under the rug. What better way to do it that to list a dozen other piddling disputes involving a dozen other countries  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The “dozen other disputes involving a dozen other countries”, in a mountain range that is controlled only by five countries which btw are listed right before this sentence. The “dozen other disputes” not one of which is named in my proposal, whereas Kashmir is. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The advantage would be that while India, Pakistan and China are all party to the Kashmir dispute, they do not all claim the Himalayan regions. The “Kashmir region” has a diverse geography, and includes not just the Himalayas, but also the Karakorum Range, the Ladakh and Zanskar ranges, the Hindu Kush range, and portions of the Tibetan plateau. The Chinese claim does not extend into the Himalaya range, it is limited only to the areas lying mostly on the Tibetan Plateau (Aksai Chin, some areas near the Pangong Tso) and some minor portions of the Karakorum Range (Shaksgam tract). So, the original text is already inaccurate in stating that “The sovereignty of the range if disputed in Kashmir among India, Pakistan, and China.” Because China doesn’t claim the Himalayas in Kashmir region. OTOH, China claims all of the Himalayan range in Arunachal Pradesh, and some minor portions in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. China also claims portions of the range in Bhutan, which, though small on their own, are significant portions of the tiny country of Bhutan. There's also a recent (in comparison to the others) dispute between India and Nepal.
 * So I chose to not mention the countries to keep it short. If you go through the discussion in the section above, you can see that my original proposal there was “. . .contested in many places in the frontiers of the constituent countries, most notably. . .” UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

F&f has said above that "The Zurick and Pacheco's reference cited below, shows only Kashmir to be disputed in its major maps. Kashmir's borders are dotted red; others are normal." This is not true. The book shows the Chinese claim over Arunachal Pradesh several times in its major maps: beginning with pages 6 & 7 (large, single map on both pages in the "Introduction" section). --UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A baldfaced lie if there ever was one. In their main maps, the ones they show when the show the Himalayas in their entirety, in the maps of the whole range, the ones they show first, they show only Kashmir to be disputed.  it is only in district level maps of the eastern Himalayas do they show Arunachal Pradesh to be disputed.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The main map "Reference Grid" is on page x, well before you get to page 6 or 7. Below the map, it lists Political Boundaries: Disputed boundary, International boundary, and Line of Control.
 * Only Kashmir has the Disputed boundary. Only Kashmir has the Line of Control. (And, of course Kashmir also has the international boundary)  The other so-called disputes: Arunachal Pradesh, Doklam (the few square miles in Bhutan that even the Bhutanese had not heard of until a couple of years ago) or any other inconsequential "disputes"  have only the unremarkable international boundary.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)  Added later: The main physical map, showing all the countries of the region is on page 2.  Only Kashmir's boundaries are dotted in red; the others are unremarkable.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On the very next page, right across this page, i.e. on page xi, in the exact same “Reference Grid” is another main map. It lists the following “Legend: International boundary, Line of control, Claim by China, Claim by India, District boundary.
 * Kashmir has the International boundary, the Line of Control, and the Indian claim, and Arunachal has the International boundary and the Chinese claim. Both are shown disputed. And you are also pretty poorly informed about the Bhutanese dispute. Doklam is the small section near Sikkim. The larger area of dispute lies in the extreme north of Bhutan, which maybe “the Bhutanese hadn’t heard of” but the CIA certainly had, and put on all their Bhutan maps. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I said earlier, District level maps Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the whole Himalaya region, that appear in the exact same section and on the very next page. Yes. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those maps do not show the whole range. Page 6 has the districts in the western sector and page 7 has the districts in the eastern sector.  On page 7 you see the first evidence of a dispute in the lower boundaries of three districts in Arunachal Pradesh.  By then Kashmir has been shown to be disputed three times.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true. By then Arunachal has also already been shown to be disputed once. And they are not two maps. This is what the caption says, for the both, because they are a single, large map occupying two pages: “ HIMALAYA RANGE: The Himalaya extends northwest to southeast in a 2,600-kilometer crescent of highlands between the Indus and Brahmaputra rivers. The mountain range contains the world’s highest peaks and has over 47 million inhabitants.” UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On pages 6 & 7, there is a large map occupying both the pages. This map appears in the “Introduction” section, the very first section of the book and is overall the second map to appear in the book. It is captioned “HIMALAYA RANGE: The Himalaya extends northwest to southeast in a 2,600-kilometer crescent of highlands between the Indus and Brahmaputra rivers. The mountain range contains the world’s highest peaks and has over 47 million inhabitants.”
 * The map shows both the disputes. And is the first of several maps in the book that show the Chinese claims in Arunachal. What exactly are you calling a “bold-faced lie”? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The physical main map is on page 2. It shows the whole region: Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and Thailand.  Only in Kashmir do they have a dotted red line marked Line of Control.  Everywhere else it is the unremarkable international border.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not bold faced, but bald faced. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * “An” baldfaced. Yeah. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read my History of English grammars before you attempt to take me on in another topic you have given no evidence of knowing anything about. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And please don't misquote what I had written to make some silly high school debate point. Read it again. I had used "An" incorrectly in my reply to Johnbod, but it was corrected right away.
 * It wasn't about the baldfaced lie. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your typos are of little interest to me, that was only a reminder that even those who pride themselves on writing History of English grammars can commit typos and maybe shouldn’t be shaming others for the same. Have a good day. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not make a typo. It is a common mistake  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Withdrawing all my comments.  A common trick by proposers is to endlessly argue with opposers and distract the ordinary readers from the main point of the argument.  The proposer did not even know about Zurick and Pacheco's book (see the earlier discussions on this page) and now they are boldly carrying coals to Newcastle. Have they read the whole book as I have?  Of course, they have not.  Have they written the vaunted "Climate" section they had so boldly proclaimed? Of course they have not.  I meanwhile have rewritten Darjeeling and it will appear on WP's main page on India's independence day August 15.  Sorry for having wasted my time here. Good luck. I shall now be rewriting this article and taking it to FAC.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Since it appears above to be a point of contention, I noticed that the article mentions only the Kashmir dispute in the Geography and key features section: "'Further west, the Himalayas form much of the disputed Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir where lies the renowned Kashmir Valley and the town and lakes of Srinagar. The Himalayas form most of the south-west portion of the disputed Indian-administered union territory of Ladakh.'" Both mentioned territories are part of the same dispute. Will there be any changes to the description of the range to highlight the other disputes like the above quote?  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, once this RfC has concluded, the reference section below should be boxed in with it to clean up the Talk Page.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of rewriting this article with solid scholarly sources. All the comments made here will soon become useless and the text will change drastically.  I have written the FAs India and a large part of Darjeeling.  Compare their sources and the pathetic ones of this article.  Compare their text and the pathetic one of this article.  What then is the point of wasting time on something that will change radically in the next few weeks and months?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole RfC exists because the proposer was reverted and a time-cohort of theirs Panky-someoneorother was also. Both barking up the same tree. Someone with a sore ego is wasting community time, hoping to salvage the pieces.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HKH-Glacier-Mass-Change.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HKH-Glacier-Mass-Change.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ..Uttarakhand Flag(INDIA).png