Jump to content

Talk:Indus River

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sovereignty of India over Kashmir

[edit]

India shouldn't be listed along with China and Pakistan in the countries section of the infobox. The river doesn't run through India proper as it runs through China and Pakistan - it runs through the disputed territory of Kashmir, and by listing India in the countries section the article is pushing the POV that Kashmir is an integral part of India. You could replace India with "Indian administered Kashmir," or simply "Kashmir."

If India is to remain in the countries section, it should be italicized or a cross/star should be added to note that the river flows through a region where India's sovereignty is disputed. Joooshhh (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox already says, directly below the names of the three countries, "Sovereignty in the Kashmir region is disputed". This strikes me as sufficient Furius (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is there's a false equivilance here. The river runs through internationally recognised parts of China and Pakistan but for India it only runs through a disputed territory, over which India's sovereignty is not recognised outside of India. Solblaze (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Solblaze Literally? Tell me map which doesn't show JK in India and Loc,Shimla agreement are all joke? POV push is by you I am readding it. Edasf«Talk» 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf: Instead of being confrontational you should read up on the history of Kashmir, not only on WP, but also on the article in Britannica this page is modeled on: Kashmir, region of the Indian subcontinent As a result of a longstanding RfC conducted during the monitoring of administrators, Kashmir, all its major subregions, their capitals, divisions and their capitals, districts and their capitals, all refer to the Kashmir dispute in their lead sentences. See for example: Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Aksai Chin. They all begin with the same uniform sentence structure. All are cited to the same major sources, including reliable WP:TERTIARY sources. See also the lead paragraph of Himalayas. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Perhaps I was too rude here apologies for that.Maybe adding a bracket with saying disputed region? Edasf«Talk» 09:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

map frame map

[edit]

@Fowler&fowler there should be no difference in the mapframe content after my edit, just the call method which modifies the default placement.

In either case, it is resolved via the attached Wikidata item wikidata:Q7348, which contains a link to OpenStreetMap relation ID 1159233

It seem that that relation starts at this confluence, of Sengge Zangbo (1159538) and Gar basin (Indus) (1159539).

Does the latter one need to be combined with the rest of Indus? Do sources distinguish this Gar basin? --Joy (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Joy: Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the Gar basin, but what I remember from the sources is that after rising in the vicinity of Lake Mansarovar, though not flowing out it, and near Mount Kailas in the Tibet-Trans-Himalayas, the river flows some 160 miles before it meets the Gar river (see here). On a map its source(s) is(are) in Tibet, but in the vicinity of the northwest "corner" of Nepal. In your map, the river seems to begin much later in its course. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS The orographical map of the British Raj (from the Imperial Gazetteer of India) in the infobox shows its rising in the more traditional manner. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this issue is documented in Gar Zangbo. This was basically discussed at #Length before.
The map on OpenStreetMap isn't particularly controversial, it's just seems conservative - it doesn't choose either of these rivers as the "true" source of Indus. Our Wikimedia Maps overview of that allows the readers to zoom into the starting point, where they can click the Show nearby articles button and see the two options to read about, so it's not really that bad. --Joy (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, especially the one in which I had taken part.  :) Can you not show both headstreams in your map, i.e. highlight them, as the IGI orographical map does, albeit in a different color. People can decide if the want to crown the longest headstream to be the source stream or not. I did click on that map. Part of the problem is that it very soon devolves into straight line segments, unlike hand drawn maps. (See for example File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg of a different but nearby river.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the syntax to do this right now, but I can try to ask someone else for help. --Joy (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would normally show all three waterways:
{{mapframe|frame=yes|type1=line|id1=Q7348|type2=line|id2=Q10924325|type3=line|id3=Q7666170}}
Since the type parameter in OSM on the last two aren't supported by the Wiki map software, the lines aren't copied over and so are not available.
Either the type parameter on them is changed to one of the four supported (so set the same as Q7348 - 'waterway'), the above code would then work; or a new relation merging all three is created at OSM using the instructions as here:
mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer/OSM#How to get a single object from multiple lines
And either the Indus wikidata # is added to it (and removed from the old shorter relation), or a new Wikidata entry made, added to the new OSM relation and that alone referenced in the code.
Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: I just remembered that I had uploaded a high-res map of the British Raj on another page. See Talk:British_Raj/Archive_12#/media/File:British_Indian_Empire_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India_1908_High_Resolution.jpg The map shows the Indus in greater detail than do the maps on this page. Please note also that at the very beginning of the river, the longer headstream which rises to the northeast of Mt Kailas is labeled R. Indus. Even if this is not directly relevant to the issue at hand, I thought you might be interested. Also pinging @The Equalizer: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indus river and Hindi

[edit]

@Fowler&fowler Hi Fowler. You reverted my edit in this article. The source I provided is a Hindi Shabdsagar dictionary entry for “Sindh”, with Indus river as one of the meanings. It seems you misinterpreted the entry as “Sindhu”. Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated in reply to your similar post on my user talk page: Sindh is not a meaning in any of the languages that are encyclopedically relevant to the river; otherwise there are hundreds of languages, dozens in South Asia alone. Indus does not flow through India for India's official language (Hindi) to apply. It flows through China, Kashmir (a disputed territory in Wikipedia's articles) and Pakistan. The Urdu name Darya-e-Sindh is already acknowledged as are the Tibetan and Sanskrit names ("Sindhu"). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the disputed region of Kashmir that’s administered by India, Hindi is one of the official languages, so it seems relevant to mention the Hindi names for the river, don’t you think? If the Hindi names should not be included, then the Hindi name “Sindhu” should also be removed in the last paragraph of the etymology section. Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the disputed region of Kashmir does not have an official language. See the Kashmir#Etymology page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This the WP:STATUSQUO here. You are welcome to garner a consensus for your POV, if you'd like. But it is unlikely to happen, given that it has remained in its current state for half a dozen years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and names

[edit]

The recent deletion is imho not an improvement.

  • A as far as the formed is concerned: There is no need to list bulleted sources within text rather using footnotes, this looks rather nonstandard and makes it less readable.
  • As far as the content is concerned: There is nothing wrong with explaining the etymology of a name in an etymology section. There is also nothing wrong with naming other prominent names being used in the past. Such information (assuming it is correct and properly sourced) is exactly what belongs in such a section.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources but too recondite to betoken due weight in the literature, and easily misused to promote linguistic irredentism. I've replaced the secondary sources for etymology with reliable WP:TERTIARY sources that are typically used to determine due weight (policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that addresses what I've stated above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: However the latest revision has already addressed, what I had raised above and which referred to this version.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting "Sovereignty" thread from 26 November 2024

[edit]
  • Also, WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy, user:Lorstaking. You have changed the phrasing used in the article for many years. Editors on this page have spent much time improving the phrasing, clarifying ambiguities, examining the best scholarly sources, and discussing the best options. Do you seriously think that rude reverts with the meagerest of edit summaries and posting in an outdated thread from November 2024 are the best way forward? This is very frustrating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now met all the objections above and cited to Britannica. Please see the version last edited by admin Dianaa here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing this article for years. Not once did I see if there was any consensus to put Kashmir, but not India. There is nothing to get "frustrated" over that. Lorstaking (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not. You made a a little over a dozen edits over three days in October 2017 and half a dozen edits thereafter in 2018 and 2025 including two just today after a gap of seven years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you create a new section for this discussion? We were better off when we were continuing on the thread above. Lorstaking (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that thread is old, over three months old. We want maximum attention and administrator vigilance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources name China, India and Pakistan with regards to Indus river. They don't use the term "Kashmir", let alone "Kashmir disputed territory". Have a look at some of these:

  • Chakraborty, S.K. (2021). Riverine Ecology Volume 1: Eco-functionality of the Physical Environment of Rivers. Springer International Publishing. p. 343. ISBN 978-3-030-53897-2. Indus river having its origin from the Tibetan Plateau, flows through China, India and Pakistan
  • Fleming, S.W. (2019). Where the River Flows: Scientific Reflections on Earth's Waterways. Princeton University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-691-19182-9. Consider the Indus River. With headwaters in the soaring peaks of the border region between China, India, and Pakistan, it runs across the semiarid plains of Pakistan to drain into the Arabian Sea.
  • Tanzi, A.; McIntyre, O.; Kolliopoulos, A.; Rieu-Clarke, A.; Kinna, R. (2015). The UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes: Its Contribution to International Water Cooperation. International Water Law Series. Brill. p. 458. ISBN 978-90-04-29158-4. Indus River ( China , India and Pakistan )
  • Slate, N. (2019). Lord Cornwallis Is Dead: The Struggle for Democracy in the United States and India. Harvard University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-674-98344-1. Indus River sweeps across what is today China , India , and Pakistan
  • Mehlhorn, H.; Klimpel, S. (2019). Parasite and Disease Spread by Major Rivers on Earth: Past and Future Perspectives. Parasitology Research Monographs. Springer International Publishing. p. 32. ISBN 978-3-030-29061-0. The river has a length of 3610 km ( 2240 miles ) and flows through regions of China , India , and Pakistan

Noting that, the parameter should maintain the word "India" instead of "Kashmir" as it has until recently. Another alternative is that we can remove the parameter altogether. As per infobox guidance, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Infobox is not capable of reflecting nuance, it can only summarise key facts. The question is also whether the inclusion of Kashmir in parameter meant for countries is appropriate. NXcrypto Message 12:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the tertiary sources from the WikiProjects India Pakistan China Consensus of August 2019, which are cited uniformly in the lead sentences of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Gilgit Baltistan, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Aksai Chin. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful. Those sources have to be relevant to the Indus river, just like the ones I cited above are. NXcrypto Message 10:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_River&oldid=1279919300"