Revision as of 08:57, 27 June 2023 editFowler&fowler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,079 edits →Expired RFC: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:10, 17 July 2024 edit undoRublamb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers110,311 edits OneClickArchived "Requested move" to Talk:Himalayas/Archive 7 |
(39 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|topic=Geography|level=3|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Geography|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mountains|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mountains|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Nepal|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Nepal|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=top|geography=yes|geography-importance=high|assess-date=March 2019}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|class=B|importance=top|geography=yes|geography-importance=high|assess-date=March 2019}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject South Asia|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bhutan|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bhutan|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|class=B|category=category|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
Line 17: |
Line 15: |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
Line 23: |
Line 21: |
|
|archive = Talk:Himalayas/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Himalayas/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Archive of past discussions on page naming == |
|
|
] have previously taken place regarding the name of this page. Please review ] for finding out why the current name is being used. ] (]) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- ] 05:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
{{polltop}} no consensus to move. --] (]) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{noredirect|1=Himalaya}} — The term Himalaya is used throughout the article: "The Himalaya Range", "Lesser Himalaya", and "Greater Himalaya"; as well as on other pages ].] (]) 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose''' The plural "Himalayas" is far more common in English. Just like the ], the ], the ] and the ]. I would suggest that articles such as ] are moved in line with this article, rather than the other way round. ] (]) 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' This has already been discussed twice. See ]. ] (]) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* |
|
|
* '''Note''' ] is given in the singular, even though many call it the "Sierra Nevadas", which is actually incorrect Spanish, but that's another story. There's some inconsistency here. But "Himalayas" is likely the common name in English, even though it's not technically correct. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. As ] notes, Plurals like the ], the ], and the ] are usually used for ranges. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 03:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' it is commonly used with the "s". ] (]) 11:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{pollbottom}} |
|
|
<!-- ] 05:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-01-13T06:38:23.498994 | ..Uttarakhand Flag(INDIA).png --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Expired RFC == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has made some changes to the lead of ]. In and made to the page, they have claimed in the edit summaries that the consensus for a change was achieved in [[Talk:Himalayas/Archive_6#RfC_on_lead_sentence_about_territorial_disputes|an |
|
|
RfC]] which was , and after . |
|
|
In the survey that followed the RfC statement two editors {{re|Johnbod|Sturmgewehr88}} supported the proposed change, in addition to the nominator {{re|UnpetitproleX}}, and two Fowler&fowler and {{re|לילך5}} opposed the change. Although admin {{re|RegentsPark}} (who might be away on vacation right now) did not take part in the RFC, in the days leading up to it, they had . {{re|Fayninja}} had not taken part in the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am asking both Johnbod and Sturmgewehr88 if they consider the survey in this RFC to have constituted the consensus for a change. Pinging admins {{re|Abecedare|Doug Weller|El_C}} who are likely to know the rules much better than I, in addition. ]] 21:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not really - at best a weak consunsus. ] (]) 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with {{re|Johnbod}} that the archived RfC constituted a weak consensus. That is what I told {{u|Fayninja}} while responding to on my talk page, that the RfC gained {{tq|''rough'' consensus}}. ] (]) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Here’s as it was after the last comment was made in it, before it was archived. ] (]) 10:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{re|UnpetitproleX}} A ''rough'' consensus (i.e. , subscription required).: "broad, loose, or approximate; preliminary, provisional" one) is not the same thing as a ''close'' consensus which is (i.e. ) "said of a contest of any kind in which the two sides are very nearly equal in numbers or strength" Please note that Johnbod begins with, "Not really" and qualifies the rest of their post with "at best." Their |
|
|
:::In in your other (and current) RFC on ], you had replied in answer to my question about the fate of the August 2022 RFC in this way: "Well, if you had only bothered to check, you would have seen that two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it." That hardly betokens agreement with Johnbod's assessment. ]] 12:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So Johnbod actually said a "weak" consensus, its meaning hovering somewhere between , "Of words or expressions: Wanting in force, inadequate; implying relatively little fullness of meaning." and ( "b. Of evidence, argument, etc.: Not convincing. |
|
|
::::Either way it is not a "rough" consensus. ]] 12:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, I said {{tq| two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it.}} That ''is'' what happened. ] (]) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::But that is not evidence for a rough, i.e. "broad, loose, or approximate; preliminary, or provisional" consensus. ]] 13:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well perhaps {{u|Johnbod}} can clarify what exactly they meant and whether they disagree with what I’ve said. ] (]) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I doubt they are interested. They said "no" in the edit summary. That is far from what you are prepared to say in any edit summary. ]] 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Pinging {{re|Johnbod}} and perhaps they can also let us know which of the versions they prefer now, given that they supported my proposal then. ] (]) 13:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You are again attempting to reopen the RFC. For the final time, you can discuss what the sum of votes constituted in the manner and language in which they were cast, not ask the voters to elaborate on their vote. ]] 13:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Well, “reopening the RfC” implies it was ever formally closed. It wasn’t. ] clearly distinguishes between a closed RfC (where discussion is discouraged) and a summarising it. ] (]) 13:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Ten months later? Nine months after anyone made a comment? ]] 14:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::And noting that the proposal reflected what is there in reliable sources. In addition to the two cited there ( and ), we also have ] by historian ] which in its maps section (pages 10, 11, 12, six maps in total) shows all the territorial disputes. Clearly, there are multiple disputes, of which the Kashmir one is most notable. That’s exactly what the proposal said. ] (]) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::John Keay is a popular historian, an author of trade books, not ]. ]] 12:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That RFC died a natural death for lack of attention. It was dead in the water in early September 2022. We cannot reopen it and make new arguments. You can argue about what the votes constituted, but not what the evidence in the literature constitutes, for that would amount to reopening the RFC. ]] 12:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Keay. He's great fun to read. I enjoyed his , but Matthew Edney's , though not precisely overlapping, constitutes scholarship ]] 13:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I doubt there exist any scholarly book on the Himalayas that claim that there aren’t several territorial disputes. ] (]) 13:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I was merely reminiscing fondly about Keay and Edney. |
|
|
:::::Again: You can argue about what the votes constituted, but not what the evidence in the literature constitutes, for that would amount to reopening the RFC. ]] 13:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The consensus reached was highly valid, considering that the struggle for sovereignty extends beyond the confines of the Kashmir region. This is evident in various conflicts such as the ], ], ], ], and the . @] was against not assigning due significance to the Kashmir region. However, the nominator of the RfC, @], had resolved this concern by appending "most notably in the Kashmir region" to the end of the sentence. They also addressed the other objection by presenting a shorter version in the final proposal. ] (]) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes. {{u|RegentsPark}} made their comment in reference to the pre-RfC proposal, they did not participate in the RfC. ] (]) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The spirit of the law, not the letter. , <blockquote> ... 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 nowhere 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</blockquote> Please don't attempt to declare that opinion invalid just because it was offered before the RFC began. It is not a "sitting on the fence" opinion. ]] 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Weren’t you ''just'' telling me "{{tq|for the final time, you can discuss what the sum of votes constituted in the manner and language in which they were cast, not ask the voters to elaborate on their vote}}" when I pinged an editor who did participate in the RfC, and then offer these comments from an editor who didn’t participate in the RfC? ] (]) 14:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So which one is it, is the RfC open for votes by non-participating editors to be added to it now, or it is closed? ] (]) 14:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It is not open. Again, they had cast a vote then, expressed a clear and unambiguous opinion ''before'' the RfC began. They are not offering an opinion ''now''. ]] 14:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nor are they elaborating now on what they said. Their post then was clear as day. ]] 14:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We have diffs. , to which they made neither a vote nor a comment in the RfC. They made the comment before it began. You are now claiming that counts as participating in the RfC. ] (]) 16:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* The above meta-discussion about ], which didn't reach a clear consensus, is a waste of all your time and is creating further animosity among the involved editors. If you wish, start a new discussion/RFC so that any further time spent on the topic is at least ''on the actual topic''. ] (]) 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{re|Abecedare}} UnpetitproleX has another similar RFC currently running on ] on Kashmir, , also indirectly related to issues of sovereignty, in which two people comprising the nominator and Fayninja have voted yes to a certain version; and two including myself have voted to close the discussion. To open an RFC ''here'' before the other has closed will smack of forum shopping. |
|
|
*:In my humble view, to inveigle editors by a nominator in this manner will run counter to the otherwise democratic principles of WP, for it is not clear that a critical mass of uninvolved people will vote when they look at same old, same-old, with glazed eyes. In the current RFC, only one participating editor of four is uninvolved; Unp*X, Fayninja, and I are not.]] 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: I agree that another RFC, in parallel with the one already running at ] on a related topic (which has garnered minimal participation), would be inadvisable. But IMO just continuing the discussion among the already involved editors is unlikely to get us anywhere either. Not really sure of the way forward. Perhaps {{u|Johnbod}} has some ideas, or we can ask Vanadmonde93 or RegentsPark for ideas when they are active again. ] (]) 15:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::In my view, it is best to declare the RFC of August 2022 closed without consensus, to let the current RFC in ] die a natural death, and to then allow me to offer a RFC of my own on WT:IN, the continuation of the consensus of August 2019, which was well attended by both WikiProjects India and Pakistan. I am confident that my RFC will not lack quorum ]] 15:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::But I do not want to make a proposal ''within'' UnpetitproleX's current RFC, for it is well beyond the stage of vigorous participation. ]] 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I had a read of ]. Perhaps we can salvage the RfC and continue the discussion, keeping it open for comments until a month or so before formally closing it." ] (]) 04:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Wow there's a lot of bickering about an RfC that happened 9 months ago. I cast my !vote after analyzing the situation and developing an opinion; it has not changed. If there are disagreements about the outcome of the RfC, then start a new one and request more involvement. ''']''' (]) 06:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{re|Sturmgewehr88}} Hello. Thanks for your reply. I didn't ask you if you still stood by your vote, but whether—as a participant in that RfC in which five votes were cast, two for preserving the existing version and three (!v) for changing it (the latter including the nominator's)—''you'' thought a consensus had been reached. Johnbod's answer was, "Not really. At best a weak consensus" Their edit summary was "no." Some of us had forgotten about the RfC until its result or lack thereof was cited to make an edit, and the bickering began. ]] 08:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Status quo == |
|
== Status quo == |
Line 123: |
Line 47: |
|
:::::Wouldn't their greater jaggedness suggest a lengthier period of uninterrupted erosion, indicating that they predate the Himalayas? |
|
:::::Wouldn't their greater jaggedness suggest a lengthier period of uninterrupted erosion, indicating that they predate the Himalayas? |
|
:::::To make such an assertion, we must assume a uniform erosion rate throughout the entire area. ] (]) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::::To make such an assertion, we must assume a uniform erosion rate throughout the entire area. ] (]) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was talking about wind erosion, not glacial erosion. ]] 09:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::See, for example, Mike Searle's ''Colliding Continents'', OUP, 2013, Chapter 3, |
|
|
::::::Dreaming Spires of the Karakoram, <blockquote>The geology of the Karakoram Range is similar to that beneath the Tibetan Plateau to the east, but whereas Tibet is high and flat with an extremely arid climate and very little erosion, the Karakoram has a similar average elevation of about 5 kilometres, but has enormously high relief, deep glacial erosion and exposes mainly metamorphic and granitic rocks that were formed at great depth and subsequently uplifted during the India–Asia collision. Whereas the geology of Kashmir, Ladakh, and Zanskar revealed the fate of the Indian side of the great collision, the Karakoram would show the geological results of the collision along the Asian margin.</blockquote> |
|
|
::::::Combine this with the fact that the India-Asia collision took place in the Central Himalayas, along what is today the India-Nepal order, it is not clear at all that the Himalayas are younger than the Karakorams in terms of uplift. Dating the rocks is not helpful, as you can have old rocks that may have been uplifted at a later date. |
|
|
::::::"Spires" is a good word. The Karakorams are a surreal landscape of steep tower-like mountains, all clustered together. Best, ]] 10:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::While examining the separate chapter publications on ScienceDirect, I regarded them as independent research articles. However, I discovered that these chapters were actually extracted from a published book by , making it a tertiary source. Sorry for the oversight. Despite my search, I have not come across any other tertiary sources that oppose the claim made in this book, stating that they are not the youngest. Nevertheless, I understand if you prefer not to include the term "youngest" in the introduction, taking into account varying collision theories. |
|
|
:::::::Btw, did you find any elevation data that they could have used to make this statement in the Britanica: "" |
|
|
:::::::NASA's estimate is much lower: "" |
|
|
:::::::"" |
|
|
:::::::If you prefer the over NASA, I am fine with that too. ] (]) 15:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Please leave it as is. The Youngest statement has been confirmed by multiple sources and is the most widely accepted theory. It won't look good if the Misplaced Pages contradicts most other sources of information about a very much searched about topic. ] (]) 14:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding hindi name of himalaya next to the Himalayas. == |
|
|
According to Misplaced Pages's guideline ] , for Hinduism-related articles, the use of Indic languages is permitted. Therefore, for topics such as the Himalayas, which is related to Hinduism, the use of Indic languages is acceptable. So, I propose to add this information. ] (]) 01:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No. This is an article about a mountain range. Topics 'related to Hinduism' are articles directly about religion. ] (]) 01:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is directly related to Hinduism. Go the subheading of this article of "Religion". I can also show you multiple sources available on internet to prove this claim. ] (]) 01:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::https://www.thehansindia.com/amp/featured/sunday-hans/the-spiritual-significance-of-the-himalayas-745531 This source is enough to end this discussion and further arguments. ] (]) 01:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have to actually convince people to support your changes somehow, and simply declaring that discussion is at an end will not do so. ] (]) 01:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I proved it that it's related to Hinduism. Now, if you hv further doubts, go on. ] (]) 02:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The article would have to be directly about Hinduism to qualify for the exception. A tenuous relationship is not sufficient. ] (]) 02:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is directly related. I literally attached a source to prove this claim. If you don't have knowledge about this topic, please refrain yourself from such topics. Thank you! ] (]) 02:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::]. Also, making personal attacks about other people's level of knowledge will not cause others to support your proposals. Since we are duplicating comments here and at ] I do not plan on responding to this talk page again until something unique is brought here. ] (]) 02:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Ok, good. ] (]) 02:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent|8}} |
|
|
You started this debate by removing replacing Urdu (which was only added yesterday) with Hindi, with an edit summary of "This mountains ranges has nothing to do with urdu".<br>I deleted the Hindi with an edit summary of "Lets avoid multiple languages" because the Himalayas are in five countries Nepal, China, Pakistan, Bhutan and India, some of which use multiple languages. There is already a detailed section on the name, which makes such inclusion in the lead unnecessary, and it would become unnecessarily cluttered if they were all included, and we would not choose one language for inclusion over the others. - ] (]) 10:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's basically my thought on this as well. An article that would be fall into the exception would be one that is primarily focused on Hinduism. It's not intended to be a broad exception, and this would be pushing it to way beyond where it was intended. |
|
|
:And the OP has been blocked as a sock, so fairly moot discussion. ''']''' (]) 00:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
You started this debate by removing replacing Urdu (which was only added yesterday) with Hindi, with an edit summary of "This mountains ranges has nothing to do with urdu".
I deleted the Hindi with an edit summary of "Lets avoid multiple languages" because the Himalayas are in five countries Nepal, China, Pakistan, Bhutan and India, some of which use multiple languages. There is already a detailed section on the name, which makes such inclusion in the lead unnecessary, and it would become unnecessarily cluttered if they were all included, and we would not choose one language for inclusion over the others. - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)