Jump to content

Talk:Himalayas

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheDarkKnight433 (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 8 April 2024 (→‎Adding hindi name of himalaya next to the Himalayas.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive of past discussions on page naming

Several discussions have previously taken place regarding the name of this page. Please review the archive for finding out why the current name is being used. RedWolf (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayas → Himalaya — The term Himalaya is used throughout the article: "The Himalaya Range", "Lesser Himalaya", and "Greater Himalaya"; as well as on other pages Geology of the Himalaya.IceBlade710 (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expired RFC

user:Fayninja has made some changes to the lead of Himalayas. In edit A and edit B made to the page, they have claimed in the edit summaries that the consensus for a change was achieved in an RfC which was posted on this page on 5 August 2022, and archived by a bot after its template expired on 3 September 2022. In the survey that followed the RfC statement two editors @Johnbod and Sturmgewehr88: supported the proposed change, in addition to the nominator @UnpetitproleX:, and two Fowler&fowler and @לילך5: opposed the change. Although admin @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 posted this clear opposition to a change. @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 @Abecedare, Doug Weller, and El C: who are likely to know the rules much better than I, in addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - at best a weak consunsus. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Johnbod: that the archived RfC constituted a weak consensus. That is what I told Fayninja while responding to their post on my talk page, that the RfC gained rough consensus. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s the RfC as it was after the last comment was made in it, before it was archived. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UnpetitproleX: A rough consensus (i.e. OED "rough, adj, II, 6, b, subscription required).: "broad, loose, or approximate; preliminary, provisional" one) is not the same thing as a close consensus which is (i.e. OED close, adj, 20) "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 edit summary is "no."
In a post in your other (and current) RFC on WT:INDIA, 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Johnbod actually said a "weak" consensus, its meaning hovering somewhere between OED weak, adj, 12, b, "Of words or expressions: Wanting in force, inadequate; implying relatively little fullness of meaning." and (OED weak, adj, 13, b "b. Of evidence, argument, etc.: Not convincing.
Either way it is not a "rough" consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it. That is what happened. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not evidence for a rough, i.e. "broad, loose, or approximate; preliminary, or provisional" consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps Johnbod can clarify what exactly they meant and whether they disagree with what I’ve said. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Johnbod: and perhaps they can also let us know which of the versions they prefer now, given that they supported my proposal then. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, “reopening the RfC” implies it was ever formally closed. It wasn’t. WP:RFCCLOSE clearly distinguishes between a closed RfC (where discussion is discouraged) and a summarising it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ten months later? Nine months after anyone made a comment? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And noting that the proposal reflected what is there in reliable sources. In addition to the two cited there (this and this), we also have this 2022 book by historian John Keay 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. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Keay is a popular historian, an author of trade books, not WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Keay. He's great fun to read. I enjoyed his The Great Arc: The Dramatic Tale of how India was Mapped and Everest was named, but Matthew Edney's Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765-1843, though not precisely overlapping, constitutes scholarship Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there exist any scholarly book on the Himalayas that claim that there aren’t several territorial disputes. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sino-Indian war, Second Sino-Indian war, Doklam standoff, Sumdorong Chu standoff, and the hydropower rush. @RegentsPark was against not assigning due significance to the Kashmir region. However, the nominator of the RfC, @UnpetitproleX, 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. Fayninja (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. RegentsPark made their comment in reference to the pre-RfC proposal, they did not participate in the RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of the law, not the letter. RegentsPark said,

... 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

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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weren’t you just telling me "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? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor are they elaborating now on what they said. Their post then was clear as day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have diffs. This is the RfC, 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. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above meta-discussion about a year-old RFC, 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. Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: UnpetitproleX has another similar RFC currently running on WT:IN on Kashmir, posted 12 June 2023, 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.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that another RFC, in parallel with the one already running at WT:INB 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 Johnbod has some ideas, or we can ask Vanadmonde93 or RegentsPark for ideas when they are active again. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, it is best to declare the RFC of August 2022 closed without consensus, to let the current RFC in WT: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 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But I do not want to make a proposal within UnpetitproleX's current RFC, for it is well beyond the stage of vigorous participation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a read of WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE. Perhaps we can salvage the RfC and continue the discussion, keeping it open for comments until a month or so before formally closing it." Fayninja (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS Admin Abecedare who dropped by to calm the waters, thought it "didn't reach a clear consensus." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I would say that the fact the supported stance was implemented and unchallenged for 9 months constitutes consensus. But, consensus can always be reevaluated. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But @Sturmgewehr88: it was not implemented until the week before last, i.e. more than 9 months later, by someone who hadn't arrived on WP at the time of the RfC's archiving in early September 2022. Said implementation was immediately reverted, which is why we are here. Had the RfC half a chance of being deemed a consensus, the RfC's nominator would have implemented it long ago. In other words, it had been ailing for so long that I and very likely others assumed there was no consensus, and we forgot about it. In my 16 years on WP, I have not seen a survey of 2 to 1 of the uninvolved, which has been closed by someone experienced to be a consensus.
Please read uninvolved administrator Abecedare's comment above: "... a year-old RFC, which didn't reach a clear consensus, ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo

I have reverted user:Fayninja’s last edit. The text they have proposed to add, "It is the highest, youngest and most active continental mountain range on Earth," (with "continental" linked to Continental plate) is ambiguous. What is the most active range? As the Himalayas are not volcanic, does it mean the rate of subduction is the highest, or the speed of uplifting or the rate of compression of the tectonic plates or do they mean it has more active faults than other ranges? If the last, then how are active faults summed across a range? How will an average reader understand this if subduction is introduced much later in the lead? There are similar issues of ambiguity with pretty much everything they have added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the complexity, even in a small section of the Himalayas, please read the geology section of the WP:FA Darjeeling, for example:

The Darjeeling hills have been formed by accumulations of folds, faults and tangential thrusts caused by a compression in the north–south direction as the Indian tectonic plate has subducted under the Eurasian plate.[72] Their physical composition varies from unaltered sedimentary rocks in the southern regions to several types of metamorphic rock and some intrusive rocks in the middle and northern, suggesting upward intrusion of the earth's mantle.[72] The collective process has sheared, folded, crushed together, fractured and jointed the rocks, reducing their strength and making them vulnerable to water percolating down their crevices and causing pore water pressure to build up.[72] Phyllites and schists are found in the hills around Kalimpong, which lies to the east, and gneiss predominates the western regions in which Darjeeling lies.[72]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, @Fayninja:, how can we say that when two relatively porous continental plates collide, the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate, the complicated crumpling and stacking produced (as demonstrated, for example, in one small section of the range above) is somehow more active than when the denser oceanic Nazca plate more cleanly subducts under the continental South American plate to uplift the Andes—that are nonetheless full of volcanic activity? Also, is it clear that the Himalayas are more active than the Karakorams, or necessarily younger? I feel hazarding these large-scale judgments, cited to a chapter of a speciality secondary source, serves little encyclopedic purpose.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Himalayas are labelled as the "most active" continental mountain range by experts due to their geological and tectonic characteristics, including ongoing processes of continental under thrusting, rotational movements, and rapid uplift. Nevertheless, using the term "active" can be misleading for readers since it typically pertains to volcanic activity, unlike the case with the Himalayas, which are not associated with volcanoes.
As to why the Himalayas are younger, the experts state this: The Karakoram-Kohistan-Afghan terrains in the northwest Himalayas witnessed the initial collision between the Indian and the Eurasian Plates. According to Treloar et al. (1989), the first phase of collision resulted in unobtrusive docking of the Indian Plate along the southern part of the Eurasian Plate between 72 and 65Ma. A ‘land-bridge’-type link was formed between the two Plates that allowed large variety of animals and amphibians including frogs (which were the normal residents of the present-day central Asia) to enter for the first time in the Indian Territory. Sahni (1984) estimated the time of migration of the central Asian animals and amphibians as the Maastrichtian (72–66Ma).
The duration of collision was, however, long extended. It had initiated in the northwest and ended up in the northeast Himalayas denoting anticlockwise rotation of the Indian Plate. Gibbons et al. (2015) elucidated a multistaged collision history between the Indian and Eurasian Plates: The collision of the Greater India with the Tethyan intraoceanic Arc in Paleocene-Eocene time that led to the final closing of the Tethyan seaway during the middle to late Eocene time. Geological evidence from the collision zone indicates an age of initial Arc-Continent collision at ~52Ma. Fayninja (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are copying text. Please communicate by summarizing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they are young. But to make a blanket claim of youngest in the second or third sentence of the lead does not add encyclopedic information in a digestible form, for it lacks WP:COHERENCE. To venture into a fine-honed lead of many years and to add bits and pieces of information here and there is to risk tampering with coherence and cohesion. Leads of high-level articles are not easily written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I wanted to change the lead was because of the unverifiable claim of their being over 100 peaks above 7200 metres. If you read my edit, you will come to know that there are actually not that many which hold that distinction. Fayninja (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Wikipedia tables. The Britannica article "Himalayas" written by Shiba P. Chatterjee and Barry Bishop states in its second sentence,"The Himalayas include the highest mountains in the world, with more than 110 peaks rising to elevations of 24,000 feet (7,300 metres) or more above sea level." Not sure how mountains are being counted:Britannica is certainly not including the Karakorams and Hindu Kush in the Himalayas, but for what is in place it provides a well-worn source. To say that there are 61 or 58 peaks above 7200 would be tricky, as a tertiary source will be needed to ascertain its content.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had read that but could not find any primary sources from which they could have retrieved such data. So, I had to trust and go along with NASA. Fayninja (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the collision went from the West (Karakoram and Northwestern Himalayas) to the East (Central and Eastern Himalayas) through a pivoting motion of the Indian plate. The first impact occurred between 72 and 65Ma in the Karakoram region and the collision to the rest of the Eurasian plate (following the present-day Himalayan arc) was completed at ~52Ma. Fayninja (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think things were that clear cut, nor for that matter how the age of mountains is decided. Subduction can take place in different and distinct spurts. Essentially the age of a mountain is decided by whether it is growing or whether erosion has begun to set in. The main impact of the Indian plate, from what I remember from my undergraduate geology book, was along the India-Nepal border and it experienced a westward torque. The theories of the mechanism keep changing. This is the problem with editing the lead of an article with specialized sources each of which is competing with other specialized sources to have their say. It is best to stick to tertiary sources. I've flown over the Karakorams. They are certainly more jagged than the Himalayas, signifying continued growth. Wikipedia must have an article that speaks to this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology of the Himalayas#Making of the Himalayas says: "In the Late Cretaceous (84 Ma), the Indian plate began its very rapid northward drift covering a distance of about 6000 km, with the oceanic-oceanic subduction continuing until the final closure of the oceanic basin and the obduction of oceanic ophiolite onto India and the beginning of continent-continent tectonic interaction starting at about 65 Ma in the Central Himalaya. The change of the relative speed between the Indian and Asian plates from very fast (18-19.5 cm/yr) to fast (4.5 cm/yr) at about 55 Ma is circumstantial support for collision then. Since then there has been about 2500 km of crustal shortening and rotating of India by 45° counterclockwise in the Northwestern Himalaya to 10°-15° counterclockwise in North Central Nepal relative to Asia (Fig. 4)" Anyway, I don't think much purpose is served by declaring the Himalayas the youngest mountain chain and not some very high mountains in their midst, the youngest mountains. But that does not belong to the lead either. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, academic textbooks are the go to source for adding anything to Wikipedia articles. Fayninja (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly my preference especially for high level or broad scale articles. More tomorrow. Sleep beckons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep well! Fayninja (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fayninja (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about wind erosion, not glacial erosion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Mike Searle's Colliding Continents, OUP, 2013, Chapter 3,
Dreaming Spires of the Karakoram,

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.

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, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Elsevier, 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: "The Himalayas include the highest mountains in the world, with more than 110 peaks rising to elevations of 24,000 feet (7,300 metres) or more above sea level."
NASA's estimate is much lower: "The Himalayas, home to the tallest mountains on Earth, include more than 110 peaks and stretch 2,500 kilometres (1,550 miles)."
"The snowcapped Himalayas trend in a southeast-northwest arc with more than 30 peaks rising to heights of more than 24 000 feet (7300 meters)."
If you prefer the many Britannica contributors over NASA, I am fine with that too. Fayninja (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia contradicts most other sources of information about a very much searched about topic. 117.197.254.209 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding hindi name of himalaya next to the Himalayas.

According to Wikipedia's guideline WP:NOINDICSCRIPT , 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. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an article about a mountain range. Topics 'related to Hinduism' are articles directly about religion. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himalayas&oldid=1217815645"