Talk:Siachen Glacier

Possible bias

The section regarding the boundary dispute appears potentially biased, as it stresses a supposed injustice to India without really explaining the other side of things. 82.35.13.34 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the exact lines and I'll see what can be done to tone down the "supposed injustice", if any. --Idleguy 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WHy is there a pic of paks praying?--D-Boy 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

rm plagiarism

The roots of the conflict over Siachen lie in the non-demarcation of the cease-fire line on the map beyond a map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1949 Karachi Agreement and the 1972 Simla Agreement presumed that it was not feasible for human habitation to survive north of NJ9842,

from [1]. Stevage 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Idleguy 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pak side of things

I'll tell you what the Pak side of things must be. It will be that because Siachen is in Jammu and Kashmir and since Jammu and Kashmir is predominantly Muslim, hence Pakistan has claims over it. It doesn't matter that Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir in 1948 claiming such rights and since then has been trying to further its gains inch by inch. Not being bigoted here but just stating a stark observation. Muslim policy even till today is occupy a piece of land, convert its inhabitants to Islam, and lay claims to it forever on grounds of religion. This is how Pakistan lays claims to Jammu and Kashmir, an erstwhile Hindu and Buddhist land, after much of its population was converted to Islam.

59.178.16.22 06:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ladhakh and Nubra Valley(on the same side of the watershed as the Glacier) where the snout of the Glacier is located is Budhist anyway so what is the basis of the claim??? just because Jammu and Kashmir was a political entity in 1947 that was predominatly muslim doesnot mean that the whole state could be forked over by Pakistan, Jammu and Ladakh regions would have been considered seperate entities, as were the non-muslim majority areas of Punjab and Bengal that were transferred to India. 2 April, 2006

all of the article is based on Indian media reports please refer to the neutral source to confirm that India controls the heights where as the Indian soldiers have to rely on helicopter transport while Pakistan has control of Gyong La pass that overlooks the Shyok and Nubra river Valley and India's access to Leh district. The battle zone comprised an inverted triangle resting on NJ 9842 with Indira Col and the Karakoram Pass as the other two extremities.

The article is completely biased.Faraz 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you read footnote 6?: (^ See http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-1/Siachen.html for perhaps the most detailed treatment of the geography of the conflict, including its early days, and under section "3." the current status of control of Gyong La, contrary to the oft-copied misstatement in the old error-plagued summary at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/siachen.htm ) The well-known global security expert John Pike actually wrote to say that his piece at that site had "post-publication review" needs when I pointed out the errors there. Discouting sites that have copied from his site, all reputable sources including the Pakistanis themselves agree (though the Pakistanis I'm sure wish it were not true) that India, legitimately or otherwise, current controls 100% of the Siachen Glacier and all three of those major high passes named on the Saltoro Ridge. Try Googling "Actual Ground Position Line" if you want further reassurance. DLinth 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Seriously, is Bharat-rahshak a neutral source? almost all of the refrences listed in the article are of the Indian media/organisations/thinktanks. Regarding the Global security article I have not been able to find any evidence on that regard to say it's a fabricated article (It's global security why would it be fabricated?), by the way Global Security is not a Pakistani website. Even Time magazine wrote an article in the magazine about the was which clearly states and I quote "Recently, TIME was able to visit both sides on the glacier and talk to soldiers involved in something that, if not the world's most insane war" please refer to TIME-War at the Top of the World to say that India occupies the glacier completed is biased and is not based on ground realities. Faraz 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's make sure that we're talking about the same thing.....that all of the glacier itself (not all of the "Siachen region") is controlled by India. Maybe it's just a matter of geography. It is now well established by anyone close to the situation that India controls the Saltoro Ridge west of the Siachen Glacier and all of the Siachen Glacier itself, notwithstanding all the old copy and pastes from Pike's old, error-filled (ask him) Global Security article. Please refer to the excellent, accurate map at http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2304/stories/20060310001704400.htm or any of the other sources more recent than the Global Security article/copies.....even Pakistani newspapers describe the Saltoro Ridge passes and Siachen Glacier itself as occupied by India....They are not happy about it, since the old treaty says "north to the glaciers", India is occupying an area well onto the Pak. side of a line due "north to the glaciers." But where the occupying troops are sitting on the ground, legal or otherwise, is now well established.DLinth 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of your claims are not cited or sourced, all of the sources you have mentioned are of Indian media, think tanks or public opinion which conflict with Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Regarding Pakistani media; No, Pakistani media by no means says that India occupies Siachen completely (Being a Pakistani I should know better)Source 1, I have already given you two neutral sources to verify my claims Global Security and Time Magazine they are the most valuable and balanced sources. Claiming that India occupies it completely is baseless and are not based on ground realities therefore; the article conflicts Wikipedia:NPOV. Faraz 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're dreaming if you actually believe that the Pak. military has controlled one inch of the Siachen Glacier in recent times....and since the 2005 cease fire, nothing has shifted. I'm sorry to hear that you believe that, just because a source is from India, that is automatically unreliable. I was in Pak. last year, and many Pakistanis do not agree with you....many common people realize that their neighbors are not "automatically wrong."....I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Every accurate Indian, European, American, etc. source agrees on the geographical fact that India currently has its military controlling ("legally or illegally") all the the 70 km Siachen Glacier and the three named passes on the Saltoro RIdge to the west. DLinth

Quote from India Times (an indian magazine):

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Services/Travel/Peace_can_wait_tourism_gets_a_chance_in_Siachen/articleshow/2116337.cms "Though Pakistan seems to have taken the first step in this direction —sources say the Pakistani side of Siachen is already an adventure hub— India too is marching along, albeit cautiously." (this article repeats a similar idea, at least 5 times)

So that's TIME magazine, global security, and India Times (2 American and 1 Indian source) all agreeing that there are two "sides" of siachen, controlled by India and Pakistan respectively.

Why has this issue never been addressed. This article is dominated by Indian points of view. The article unequivocally states that "India controls all of the glacier" and it quotes "Bharat-rashak" as its source. Come on. 203.81.212.204 08:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see 7 paragraphs up (above).....Time magazine, as you quote them, is talking about the region, not the glacier. This WP article is titled "Siachen Glacier"; Every inch of the Siachen Glacier and even every inch of all of its tributary glaciers is controlled, legally or illegally, like it or not, by the Indian military. I just got back from the region and from talking with Indian military officers, in case the numerous correct portrayals in the media of the Actual Ground Postion Line are not already enough evidence. Even Pakistani newspapers describe the Saltoro Ridge passes and Siachen Glacier itself as occupied by India; WP should describe the status of these two geographically well-defined features (and shy away from trying to describe vague regions like Time magazine's Siachen region.) DLinth 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

TIME magazine is actually talking about the glacier, not the region, quote "Recently, TIME was able to visit both sides on the glacier and talk to soldiers involved in something that, if not the world's most insane war". DLinth, you are so concerned with imposing your POV, you don't even notice obvious wording. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My contributions have been limited to correcting the geography. Every source and each and everybody at all familiar with this area knows that India currently controls the entire glacier and the named passes on the Saltoro Ridge. That's not POV, that's "facts on the ground" The area is even open to tourists now (lower Siachen), so tht old inaccurate Global Security reports and sites like WP that copied it from time to time are all the more exposed now as flawed.DLinth (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight given to India

I have noticed the undue weight give to India in many articles, perhaps due to the preponderance of Indian-related editors on the en Wikipedia. Please try to find sources that are other than Indian and American publications. Although I did much editing on Indian articles, I no longer do so because of this bias that, IMHO, is becoming evidence as is also the ownership attitude of many Indian editors. Please give other countries with less resources a chance. Especially in the use of categories I have noticed the addition of an India-related category is always insisted upon, even though India's role is a minor element of the article. I am just pleading for a less dominating attitude on the part of India-related editors, please, in favor of a more global and less nationalistic attitude. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you completely. However, sometimes India-related categories are added with uses of the term other than Republic of India in mind. Unfortunately, however, templates with Indian flags have proliferated to many places where they shouldn't be present. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/Archive_25#Indian_flags_on_irrelevant_articles. deeptrivia (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I read the link you referred to above. Is there a way that this issue of Indian dominance can be approached constructively? Wikipedia and Wikipedia portals hopefully are not to be used to aggressively dominate Wikipedia with the national presence of a country. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it looks like undue weight is given to India, but the fact of the matter is Pakistan with the connivance of cold war era US establishment tried to claim an undemarcated portion of the boundary. Pakistan started it, like Kargil. It looks biased towards India but it is just stating what actually happened. Also, its unbelievable that some in the Pakistani military are still saying they control a part of Siachen glacier when the entire Saltoro ridge and the three passes including gyong la even according to the Pakistani media are controlled by India. Pakistan controls all the glaciers to the west of siachen and saltoro ridge including gyong glacier, but these glaciers are not tributaries of Siachen itself they are separated from siachen by saltoro ridge which is under Indian control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the Siachen War was cleverly started by the Indian armed forces. The Pakistanis thought the Siachen glacier was a disputed area and was part of the Simla Agreement. Interestingly, India made no mention of the Siachen Glacier in the Simla Agreement and moved its troops up to the Siachen glacier. The Pakistanis were caught in surprise and scrambled troops for Siachen. Their several attempts failed due to the altitude advantage gained by the Indians after capturing Siachen. The glacier is completely controlled by India after the ceasefire of 2005174.3.214.24 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg

Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strategic value

Does the glacier have any strategic value (fresh water, mountain passes, things like that), or are the two sides fighting over it only because they hate each other? Please advise. 96.248.235.84 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say it has some strategic value (you can view activities of the other from the posts at high altitude) but its primarily because each country wants to prove it better than the other. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Glacier receding

From the article

Global warming has had one of its worst impacts here in the Himalayas with the glaciers melting at an unprecedented rate and monsoon rains now appearing north of the mountains. The volume of the glacier has been reduced by 35 percent over the last twenty years and military activity since 1984 has also been blamed for much of the degradation of the glacier.[2]

The note points to http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=345084&sid=ENV&ssid=26 which says the study showed military activity contributes to most of the recession.

Islamabad, Dec 30: Siachen glacier has been melting alarmingly more due to military activity of India and Pakistan than global warming, a new study has said.

Should this be corrected? Traumatic (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The author of the linked article, Arshad H. Abbasi, has never set foot on the Siachen Glacier and has published no scientific papers on the topic. He is an Islamabad-based prolific and web-savy writer claiming to be with the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in that city, but is not listed among their 50 or 75 personnel, researchers, or affiliates. He has written on water issues for years, but offers no evidence for reports in articles that the military activity on this 70 mile long glacier is causing more ice melting than the 0.2 degree annual temperature increase that he himself cites, and such a claim is implausible. Most everyone would agree with his call for a World Peace Park there and the evidence that the military dumping and destruction is terribly damaging....I sure would. But he offers no evidence that the military activity is somehow causing more melting than climatic conditions. (*The SDPI's mission is not glaciology, but "to catalyse the transition towards sustainable development, defined as the enhancement of peace, social justice and well-being, within and across generations....with representation from Pakistan" ( www.sdpi.org.))DLinth (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unquestionably, it is the Siachen conflict due to which the glaciers of Himalayan region are receding faster than in any other part of the world."....Really? That WP:Fringe, non-WP:V, clearly WP:POV statement and others like it from Abbasi, the sole source for this "military is melting the Siachen, not global climate factors" agenda, discredit his amateurish old blog on the web (not in any established publication, nor supported by any evidence nor by others.) See above.

This is not the WP article for a debate on global warming. That belongs elsewhere. In addition, the Siachen has fewer available studies on glacial receding than most, for obvious reasons...Again, this is not the place for a global warming debate or discussions of melting on other glaciers.

The fact that Indian controls the entire glacier, fair or not, legitimately or not, is a fact, and has been in this article for years, and belongs in as a relevant fact. Road to here is not the highest road in the world....see Khardung La.DLinth (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps

Google Maps shows that the Siachen Glacier is a part of Pakistan. But, before people jump into conclusions saying that Pakistan controls Siachen Glacier... It is an error by Google or a deliberate fault which they are not ready to fix, even though Indian troops are at Siachen Glacier even now. Shall there be a topic about this on the page about the conflict with google maps? 96.52.161.123 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not any more. Fixed in Google Earth too. DLinth (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose merging of article Environmental issues in Siachen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

---

a new article has been created at Environmental issues in Siachen, I propose merging it to the main article Siachen Glacier-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator) all 4 Reasons for merger mentioned at WP:MERGE satisfy the merger of the new article.

1. Duplicate: These two pages on exactly the same subject about a Glacier and having the same scope.
2. Overlap: both have a large overlap. namely the location, history, physical features, flora fauna, melting.
3. Text: both pages are short cannot be expanded to a large extent independently and if expanded will overlap even more. so it makes sense to merge it with the Siachen Glacier which is on a broader topic. The subject is in news due to the recent 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche
4. Context: The Environmental issues in Siachen requires the background material or context from a broader article Siachen Glacier for readers to completely understand it. Theres no point in cherry-picking lines from the main article to leave the reader feeling unsatisfied.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The subject of the article (Environment issues in Siachen) has gained considerable importance (in media, academic publications, books, etc.) after decades old conflict still continues, which deserves a separate article. Merging will mean undermining the issue that has gained much public attention and has significant importance with respect to preserving the nature and saving the humanity. And I can't see any of the four conventional reasons for merger applicable here in any way. Apart from this I think there should be small sections in Siachen Glacier and Siachen Conflict, with link to main article. --SMS ^Talk 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Merging clearly does not mean undermining the issue as you say above, you are completely wrong in saying so. And if this is the sole reason for you starting the new article then you are following wp:POVFORK, as your article gives the impression that it is heavily biased against India.It has gained recent atention only due to "natural avalanche" where 135 Pakistani died. The Siachen Military conflict has a different article Siachen conflict because it is mainly about the historical background and the related battle on this area. the above articles should be merged due the the above wiki policies.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:

1. POVFORK The article is not a WP:POVFORK. POVFORK says "... POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. ..."
2. Recent attention There are 19 sources in the article out of which only 1 was published after the 2012 Ghyari avalanche (Btw it was Bilafond glacier avalanche not Siachen), so no weight in in this point. What I meant by recent was a decade or so.
3. Bias As far as concerns of bias, (please identify the exact content which you find biased) I really don't find it, I have tried my maximum to keep it neutral, with academic published sources. (Remember whole of the Siachen glacier is controlled by India.)
4. Duplicate The two pages are on different subject. Siachen Glacier is about the physical glacier whereas the Environmental issues in Siachen is about the Environmental problems of the glacier.
5. Overlap Except the first 3 lines of the Environmental issues in Siachen there is no overlap. According to a text similarity checking tool both articles have only 5.33% similar text.
6. Text Well both the pages are not that short neither the Environmental issues in Siachen is dependent on Siachen Glacier to be merged
7. Context The context required in the environment is article is no more than siachen glacier's location which is provided well there. For understanding of the environmental issues nothing more is required.

• That said I wonder why Siachen Conflict and Siachen Glacier are not merged both have about 10.36% text similar, and all the four Merge conditions are more applied to them. --SMS ^Talk 08:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• The avalanche article is still named as Siachen not Ghyari, the article Siachen Conflict as explained above is different as its a military history article while Siachen Glacier and Environmental issues in Siachen are geographical article. your other points are redundant. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

First Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Well Siachen Conflict is also a geographical issue and in that case it also needs to be merged here. And kindly don't move my comments I know better where to place my comments. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 12:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the reasons clearly outlined by the nominator. It is a notable issue ("important" as stated by User:Smsarmad) but not as important as Environmental issues with war, Environmental issues in Pakistan and Environmental issues in India. At present there is no mention of the environmental issues in the Siachen Glacier or Siachen conflict articles (nor is there any links to this article although that is easily rectified). If the two articles that I have just mentioned were expanded significantly there may be justification for splitting out this topic. The topic in question should be spread amongst all of the articles that I have mentioned at this stage of article development. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is good in length and has good, reliable references. It also perfectly complies with WP:N. I don't comprehend the logic behind merging it. Mar4d (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two redundant sections

Note that there are two sections on the international conflict: Dispute and Border conflict. The first seems tilted towards the India POV. I don't know enough about the conflict to try to reconcile these sections: would anyone else like to attempt a merge? —hike395 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Location in the infobox should be the current Ground position

Please don't make such edits without consensus. In your edit-summary, you said it was "disputed", then how it became part of India completely? It is also divided between Indian and Pakistan like other cases. There is no 100% Indian control in Siachin. Faizan (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit is done in the pattern of other glaciers like Baltoro Glacier which are shown as pakistan even the as entire Gilgit Baltistan is also disputed as part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Entire Siachen glacier from NJ9842 to Indra Col is under India's control.Pakistan is west on Saltoro ridge. See the AGPL. --Koodfaand (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So that will (officially) make Siachen, which infact is a disputed territory part of India? If it were part of India, India would not be required to station a Corps size force there. Start a RfC if you are so angry with facts. You say, see AGPL, I say see the history - Siachen shown and accepted as Pakistan's part. So, where does the WP:NPOV go now? Stop the POV-Pushing. A disputed territory is to be written and shown as a dispute or else there shouldn't been a page on Siachen Conflict —TripWire ^talk 18:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As per you logic , then Baltoro Glacier and Gilgit Baltistan should also be shown as disputed and currently under control of Pakistan!!! First make it clear, what is the dispute?? - is the dispute on entire formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir or just the Kashmir valley( which is entirely under India?? Siachen is also part of the formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. showing the current Location and Conflict issue are two different matters --Koodfaand (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you miss simple explanations? How does my explanation makes Baltoro Glacier and Gilgit Baltistan disputed? Care to explain? Stop putting your words in my mouth. GB is not disputed as per the UN, just because India calls something disputed does not make it disputed. Either say, Siachen is not a disputed territory and tag the Siachen Conflict page for deletion or else accept that Siachen is disputed and we have to mention is at such. An area which is an active War-Zone cannot be claimed by one side as per sheer commonsense and more importantly WP:POV—TripWire ^talk 19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking!! even UN resolutions for plebscite was for entire formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, not just a small Kashmir valley. That dispute include Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Why Pakistan is not making these two areas as official provinces ? Why people of these two regions can't vote in Pakistan General elections? Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range. Today, it denotes a larger area that includes the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (which consists of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh), the Pakistan-administered autonomous territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract. only Pakistan POV cannot be thought as UN POV?--Koodfaand (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If Siachin Glacier is controlled by India then it should be written in that way, if Pakistan claims it then we can't write "Siachin, Pakistan or Siachin,(Disputed)" in infobox, if we write it here in that way in we should also write it in Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir. "This region is disputed between India and Pakistan but yellow one is Azad Kashmir controlled by Pakistan", we can't write in this way on Azad Kashmir article. Territory is disputed is another issue, there is lead and body of article to add dispute. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, You can write about the dispute in the body part of the article, but the Location will reflect only the current Ground position, under whose control that area is . this rule applies to both Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and same as Aksai Chin , Trans-Karakoram Tract --Koodfaand (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, Gilgit Baltistan is also disputed and its not just claim of India but also claim of Paksitan. See map on official government website of Pakistan [2], you can see this map on all Pakistani government sites. So this entire Kashmir region is disputed, but no need to add one long sentence in infobox, if we add that sentense here then we should add it to all territory related articles on Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

One, GB is not disputed, the map does not say or display this, GB is an administrative unit of Pakistan and is accepted as such the world over, read Gilgit Baltistan for further understanding. Whereas Siachen is where the war is still going on. How can a war zone he awarded to one side? Someone said that we can include the disputed status inside the text but the 'location' should be written as 'India', this is illogical to say the least. The map in the infobx does not simple shows the 'location' but also the status of the area and hence it must include the disputed status. Moreover, how can a disputed area (which you would mention inside the text) can be shonw as part of India in the same age? It's self-contradictory ro say the least. Lastly, when the UN will recognize GB as a disputed territory, we'll talk about it again then, till then it is useless to talk about something which des not exist, and the day the UN will recognize Siachen as a legal territory of India, we can also remove the disputed status of Saichen, till that happens, let's keep the POVs aside and see the official and internationally recognized status of Siachen and mention it as such. —TripWire ^talk 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you see properly the official government map of Pakistan, Siachen is not included. it only shows upto Ghanche district upto the west of Saltoro ridge--Koodfaand (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not true. I have dozens of Surveyor of Pakistan maps, and all clearly show Siachen as part of what is now Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan's 1963 boundary treaty, signed and ratified, with China (objected to by India) included as Pak. territory Siachen and eastward to the Karakoram Pass.DLinth (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is logical because it is a disputed territory. Unlike india, Pakistan is not in the habit of claiming entire areas just by making colorful maps and declaring them (laughably inside its Parliament which only has say within India and the world doesnt give a tosh what happens there) 'as part of India'. Pakistan recognize the UN rulings which are internationally recognized, and accepted . What you, me or India or some e-warrior thinks is immaterial, what matters is what the world accepts. If the world legally and officlay accepts that Siachn is not an occupied Indian territory but a legal part of India, no one would bother to say it as such, untill that happens, I am sory, but the fact remains that Siachen is a disputed territory where two armies are involved in a fight and cannot be 'gifted' to some country at Wikipedia. Sory, wont happen. —TripWire ^talk 20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

then I am also sorry . then world also doesn't accept the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan either. These are part of the entire dispute on princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Its laughable because official government map of Pakistan is not showing siachen Glacier either.Its only upto Ghanche district. by the way. UN resolution on entire Kashmir princely state was passed under chapter VI, which makes it non-binding and subject to pre-conditions to be full-filled by Pakistan which Pakistan failed in 1948. Can Pakistan (who makes noise on any future action of government of India to abrogate article 370) relpy why it abrogated State subject rule in Gilgit Baltistan in 1974 and brought demographic changes in G-B by settling non-natives there, even though G-B is part of disputed region? --Koodfaand (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matters if siachen is there in Pakistan's official map or not, main concern here it what to write in infobox, entire Kashmir's region controlled by India and Pakistan are considered as "disputed" but is there any specific need to add that one big sentense in infobox of particular article that "its disputed between India and Pakistan" when all other related "disputed" articles don't have it. And TripWire plz be a neutral editor, don't enforce your views, GB is clear cut disputed region which is accepted by Pakistan too. If you can't believe in Pakistan's official map then I can't do anything for that. [3], [4] you can read this too. You don't have to project your national agenda here, but strangely your national agenda itself claims that Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are disputed regions. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

AJK and J&K including Siachen are disputed. GB is ONLY, i repeat ONLY claimed as disputed by India, not Pakistan not by the world. The maps show it as a separate administrative division of Pakistan just as FATA, tomorrow some may say that FATA too is disputed?! As far you question is concerned that should we include the entire sentence, well whether a sentence or not, it should clearly state that ut is a disputed area and not part of India. —TripWire ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, the dispute including G-B is between India and Pakistan. UN and other world countries will try to act as meditator. India claims Pakistan-controlled regions and Pakistan claims India-controlled regions. You can write about these claims and disputes in the body part of these pages, but NOT in the Infobox, which reflects ONLY the CURRENT Ground Position.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Extreme POV Pushing, Disrupting Editing to the extent of Vandalism

Please aviod such edits. Since when the entire Karakoram Range/Area became part of India? Have a heart, please!—TripWire ^talk 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please try be neutral on Wikipedia or else you will be reported to Adminsitrators to block you for further editing for projecting your biased agenda.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not me who is doing editing at the article, but you who have the cheeks to make the entire Karakoram Range as part of India! What next? MOM is likely to land soon at Mars, would that make Mars as part of Indian territory too? If you lack knowledge, there's no harm in going through the relevant page at wiki atleast. You can visit Karakoram and see where it actually falls and which all countries it spreads into. You are being warned for this kind of edit, next time you are going straight to ANI. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 20:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit is for Siachen Glacier Location as part of current control of India, not for Karakoram Range. --Koodfaand (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, please stop this pure nationalist attitude, users like you don't lasts long, you should discuss this issue here properly without any bias. We are not discussing siachen is disputed or not, it is obviously disputed, question is should we add it to infobox with that "long statement"? Answer is "No" because no other related article don't mention it in infobox. You can add it to lead. If you keep on adding that sentense to infobox then if tomorrow someone adds same sentense to infobox of Azad Kashmir then you should not delete it. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist? How come you dont say the same for Koodfaand who is constantly pushing POV without any logic but dare accuse me of it? Please stop it! I have given you every logic to support my argument, but then it is you who is unable to accept the simple fact that where as AJK is a disputed territory, GB is not. You cant prove this by posting maps which shows it as an adminsrative territory of Pakistan. Had it been disputed, it should have been shown as such. Please come up with a source like the UN that says that as of today GB is a disputed territory? My argument is simple, write Siachen as a Disputed area, I have never objected on the words used to discribe this fact, it is only you who are pushing this onto me. —TripWire ^talk 20:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire , if you can see properly, Siachen Glacier Location is mentioned as part of current control of India, not for Karakoram Range.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Its laughable that while TripWire concedes Azad Kashmir disputed disputed territory, but not Gilgit Baltisatan, even though both are part of former princley state of Jammu Kashmir. He is just putting biased POV, while UN resolutions on Kashmir clearly says entire princley state of Jammu Kashmir including G-B is disputed --Koodfaand (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol..prove it.—TripWire ^talk 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I was going to make some changes to achieve neutrality but page got protected at the same moment. Anyway, it was me who requested protection. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised how did Koodfaand very easily not only did hand over the entire Siachen area to India, but also the entire KarakoramRange to India in two simple steps: 1 and 2—TripWire ^talk 20:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

its laughable because TripWire is NOT able to understand that Siachen Glacier Location is ONLY shown as part of current control of India, NOT for Karakoram Range. --Koodfaand (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir, it would not have been laughable if you atleast had not removed the word Kashmir from the edit like you did here, The only logical conclusion that can be drawn by your edit is that, the Location of Siachen had just moved from Kashmir to the Karakoram Range, which miraculously NOW ONLY falls inside India and not in China or Pakistan —TripWire ^talk 21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway TW, I restored word "Kashmir" again and also removed Indian flagicon. Hope dispute is resolved now. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, Karakoram Range is NOT entirely in India and I have nowhere mentioned it like that. See this 'version and its mentioned as part of Karakoram Range.--Koodfaand (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, Plese be logical, read infobox of article Baltoro Glacier, this glacier is in Baltistan also reads like "Karakoram range, Baltistan, Pakistan". So is it means entire "Karakoram range" belongs to "Baltistan"?--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, please be rational. The infobox that you referred says "Karakoram range, Baltistan, Pakistan". Hence, it is understood that the portion of Karakoram Range in Baltistan is being referred too, unlike what Koodfaand did, by saying 'Karakoran Range, India'. There's a diif b/w two and you know it, but wont accept it for the reason which is beyond my comprehension. —TripWire ^talk 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, this article is about "Geography", this article is not related to conflict. You can add conflict related material in Siachen conflict article. You same people (Faizan and TripWire) said on adding "human rights violations" in "Balochistan" article that "This article is about place not about human rights" and you reverted it, and respecting your views me too self reverted my edit. And here you people completely changed. This is pure article on "Geography", this article is not on war zone or conflict. Please try to be neutral editor. You can add conflict in Siachen conflict. Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but discussing the geography of the area, unlike in the case of Balochistan, does not and must not change the location or ownership of the entire area. Be logical, sir. —TripWire ^talk 21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TW, Why can't you read current version saying "Karakoram range, Kashmir, India"? Anyway, even if it is "Karakoram, India" then why it can't be portion of karakoram range resides in India?--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was regarding the edit made earlier, not the one you made now. And for the second part of your question, why cant be "Nile, Egypt, Africa" and "Nile, Egypt" be the same? Enough of this discussion. Prove Siachen as a geographical region belong to India legally and and is accepted as such by neutral sources, and we'll move ahead, —TripWire ^talk 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't talk about legality, in legal way Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are not part of Pakistan because you never signed legal "Instrument of Accession" with Maharaja of Kashmir which India signed. Anyway, its not issue here, question is what should be there in infobox, and infobox should not contain "that long sentense" because this article is about geography, and currently Siachen glacier is controlled by India(same way like Azad Kashmir is controlled by Pakistan), so don't ask for legality, its about who controls it. Thats all. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Still stuck in the past? The same IoA which was never produced? Anywaz, Lahore is not disputed, so is Amristar, whay because an International Border runs between them. As per the Treaty of Versailles nor India or Pakistan can go and takeover Lahore or Amristar, but that is not the case with Siachen. A post here can be taken and claimed to be ors and a post there can be taken by India and claimed as theirs, but this wont mean that post will become part of India or Pakistan, because the matter is still disputed. That's whay there are armies fighting at Saichen and not at AJK or GB, so stop equating them with Siachen. You cannot equate settled areas with War zones. Pakistan's or Indians claim ALONE does not matter, what matter is the saying of indep bodies like UN or the international community, UN does not say Siachen is part of India, so there is no question that wikipedia will say so either. Simple.—TripWire ^talk 19:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is rough consensus that in some way the infobox should recognise the region is disputed. What form this will take showed no consensus. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the infobox say that the region is disputed between India and Pakistan? Faizan (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Strong Oppose as per my above comments on this talk page. If survey ends up with "Support" then same kind of RfCs maybe taken for Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Or we can add term "disputed between India and Pakista" in Azad Kashmir infobox giving reference to this RfC. Moreover, this is article about Geography and not about conflict, there is separate article for Siachen conflict, no need of adding such things in infobox of geography article. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong Support As per my comments on this talk page. There is no fighting going on in Azad Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan as is the case with Siachen albeit a ceasefire. By the same logic by which Jammu and Kashmir is shown as "State of India', Gb and AJK also has its own status which is accepted by the international community. If Human3015 is so fond of relating it with Siachen, then he must understand that no international body has declared J&K as an Indian state, but only India itself. So if an argument has to be made, it can be that J&K too should be written as disputed. As regards Saichen:

• It is an active War-Zone. Wars/battles are fought for ownership, how can ownership be ascertained when the war is still ongoing? It's a historical page,not a new service where day to day updates regarding the status can be updated upon occurrence.
• The boundary that separate the Indian and Pakistani controlled portion of Siachen is not recognized in same terms as is the case with the LoC which demarcates AJK and Indian Administered Kashmir.
• Editors should understand the difference between:

• An International Border
• Line of Control
• Line of Actual Contact
• AGPL
• Working Boundary

• Once these are known, no one with a little understanding can give Siachen to India.
• How can the LAC which is subject to change everyday due to action by either armies be termed permanent and thus Siachen shown as part of India? It's illogical.
• As per Treaty of Versailles no state can occupy land/territory which is sovereign, this does not apply to Siachen, where every inch is fought over and space can change hands on daily basis if the either side launches and operation and succeeds.
• The logic that this is page is about the Geography of Siachen does not mean that while discussion geography, one should negate the status of that geographical area. It will be self contradictory if this page says that Siachen is part of India and the Siachen Conflict page says that Siachen is disputed. This is illogical.—TripWire ^talk 20:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - According to what I have researched not all of the glacier is under Indian occuption. The dispute is ongoing. The nature of the conflict is also different. Xtremedood (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your research is incorrect. No part of the Siachen Glacier, nor any tribuatary glaciers flowing into the Siachen, are under Pakistani (or Chinese) control...just India....since 1987.DLinth (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You have to give link for your claim. No part is under Pakistan's occupation. And if its true then what makes it to write in infobox that you have not explained, moreover, not entire Kashmir is administered by India but some part is under Pakistan known as Azad Kashmir, so with same logic we have write "dispute" in infobox of Azad Kashmir. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 15:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - It is in the text. That should be enough. Taketa (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Taketa, As you said that "it was in the text" (that it was disputed), then don't you think that the same info should also be in the infobox? Or do you think that infobox should contradict the text? Please reconsider your comment. Faizan (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is alot of explaining, don't put it in the infobox. There should be no long texts in the infobox. The proposal as such is not preferable to me over the current text in the infobox. The area shown in the image is obviously the Indian area. And the text beneath the image is as such a correct description of the image. If you have another proposal, be welcome. But that was not the question. The question was this proposal, and I oppose. Taketa (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on "obviously the Indian area"? Was it a logic or a POV?—TripWire ^talk 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The image shows areas occupied by India in a different colour. That is what the image shows. That is what the caption should say. Describe what the image shows. Not what you think the image should show. If you think the image is wrong, use a different image. If you want to have a different image, that is fine. But this image is clearly intended to show the areas held by India. Whether that is correctly represented is open for discussion, but the intend of the image is as I said obvious. Btw, I prefer leaving out the "India", over adding an entire sentence about India-Pakistan disputes. It is too much text for an infobox, and the need for 3 references shows all the more it is too much. Moreover, the link to Kashmir can be explanation enough for people who want to know what is in the image. They can simply click it. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

First, what's with India this and India that? The way you are using 'India' sparsely does not indicate that you are following an WP:NPOV approach.

Second, the image does not show 'area occupied by India', instead the caption of the image says: 'Map showing the location of Siachen Glacier'. Moreover, if the image indented to show that Siachen is an Indian part, it would not have shown a line extending towards North-East towards the Chinese border which challenges the Indian claim of Siachen being its part. The image is absolutely clear, and clearly shows that the Siachen area is DISPUTED, or else why would it show two borders (both the AGPL and CFL as per Karachi Agreement) while defining Siachen?

Third, the above was a reply to your misunderstanding of the map. Now this does not mean that anyone at wikipeida could just edit the map and remove the CFL, because boundaries are not changed or edited by someone on the internet. I hope you understand. Thanks—TripWire ^talk 16:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I say India this and India that because that is the part of the text which is up for change. I was asked to participate in this discussion by an input system on my talkpage and have no conflict of interest in this topic. The dot on the map is the glacier, the map shows the Indian occupied areas of Kashmir in color. I do not claim some areas are not disputed. The map shows disputed areas, yes. I do not suggest making changes to the map, I suggest taking another map, that does not show India in light color and the rest of the world in another color. The current map is biased towards India. It does not show Pakistan or China in their own color. There is more then 1 map of Kashmir. Maybe use another map. And as I said, the text suggested in the edit history of the page is very long and should not be in the infobox. If you insist on that change, than I oppose. If you have another suggestion I will obviously consider it. Taketa (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose If Disputed is given in infobox of Siachen Glacier, same logic should apply to Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Both should be given disputed in their respective infoxbox.Pakistan government official position is :
Gilgit Baltistan, whose legal status remains in limbo, and Azad Kashmir are part of the larger dispute that has been pending with the UN.
Source: http://www.dawn.com/news/1190430/ill-informed-remarks
Infobox represents the actual Ground position at present. India controls entire Siachen Glacier and all passes from NJ9842 to Indra Col. Pakistan is west of Saltoro ridge. PAkistan Government map also showns Gilgit and Azad Kashmir disputed but it does not shows Siachen in its map.--Koodfaand (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

First three sentences above are correct. Last one is not.... all Surveyor General of Pakistan maps that I've seen (a lot) including a number on line (just Image search of "Surveyor General of Pakistan" in quotes) show Siachen as within Pakistani Gilgit-Baltistan.DLinth (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral via WP:PAK: I'm not sure if the infobox should state the dispute or not but the second map in the infobox can be replaced with a better map that shows India and Pakistan in different colours, all disputed regions (Kashmir on both sides etc) in a shaded colour and the rest of the word in a light colour so as to represent which countries dispute the region. This is will enforce WP:NPOV and will also emphasize the importance of the glacier which is the first reason of the dispute. India and Pakistan's perspectives should be put aside for this case and it should be viewed from the perspective of why both countries are fighting over this specific part of Kashmir inspite of such harsh conditions. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support per TripWire's comments. Also, I think it would be helpful for a casual reader like myself to see that information in the infobox. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Unless the two countries have agreed on its ownership control, it should be considered disputed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, neither Pakistan agrees on ownership of India on Jammu and Kashmir nor India agrees on ownership of Pakistan on Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. So should we write same in infoboxes of those articles? This article is about Geography, there is separate article for Siachen conflict. Moreover entire Kashmir is disputed, but in infoboxes we write who controls that region, like in Jammu and Kashmir we write India and in Azad Kashmir we write Pakistan. If this RfC ends up in "Support" then tomorrow people will add same line in infoboxes of Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Maybe also in infoboxes of cities like Srinagar, Mirpur, Mujjafarabad, Jammu, Anantnag, Amarnath etc. This RfC is not about to show how one is Pro-Pakistani, Pro-Indian or Neutral, its all about logic. Moreover we can write about dispute in lead of the article. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, "ownership" is too strong. I have changed it to "control." India and Pakistan have agreed, in the Simla Agreement, their respective areas of control for the former princely state separated by the LoC. The two sides have also agreed not to attempt alter the LoC unilaterally. This principle was applied by the international community during the Kargil conflict. So, there is no scope for this "disputed" status polluting other regions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you are indirectly saying that Jammu and Kashmir is not disputed, only Siachen glacier is disputed. No one will agree on this issue. See Pakistan map on official government website of Pakistan, they have shown entire Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan as disputed region. We are talking about phrase "disputed between India and Pakistan" should be written in infobox or not, then see that map from Government website of Pakistan, and you know India's official maps in which India shows Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan as parts of India. So obviously entire region is disputed and we can write about this in infoboxes of respective articles. If we can't write then we should not write it in Siachen glacier article too. You just answer one question, does Jammu and Kashmir is "disputed" between India and Pakistan? --Human3015 knock knock • 23:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: If this area is disputed why does it say "India" in the info-box? Shouldn't we at least remove that? Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape, because it is controlled by India. See Kashmir conflict. Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is also disputed, Pakistan's states Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are also disputed, but as these regions are controlled or administered by either India or Pakistan thats why infobox of respective region mentions name of respective nation. Same way Siachen glacier is controlled by India, thats why name of India is there. If you think that name of India should be removed or word "disputed" should be added, then same should happen with entire region. Name of Pakistan from Azad Kashmir, name of India from Jammu and Kashmir should be removed. Moreover, Siachen glacier is one of part of entire disputed region of Kashmir, it is not special or autonomous administrative entity. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the answer and forgive my ignorance.:) I would then suggest adding a disputed notification to info boxes in all the articles that are currently disputed. I don't have a horse in this race and I'm simply suggesting it because it's practical to see the this information in the info-box. But obviously it should be consistent. Darwinian Ape ^talk 11:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape, there are degrees of limboness that Human3015 ignores in his black-and-white view of the world to suit his POV. (For example, the entire regions that we call "China" and "Taiwan" are disputed by two States called PROC and ROC. They are thus "disputed." But nobody regards them as such.) The Indian and Pakistan controlled parts of Jammu and Kashmir are separated by a "Line of Control" agreed by the two countries and internationally recognized. Nobody expects this situation to change in any foreseeable future. However, the Siachen Glacier is in a region where the Line of Control is not defined or is ill-defined. Hence it is disputed. This is a different level of disputedness than that of the clearly demarcated regions where the issue of "control" is well-established. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, no personal attack please. You are comparing Taiwan-China with India-Pakistan is itself shows your world view to support your POV. Is there any UN resolution for plebiscite on Taiwan-China? Does any Chinese premier gone to UN to resolve "dispute" like Indian PM Nehru was gone and every Pakistani PM urges same in every UN general assembly speech each year? You are denying that entire Kashmir is disputed. And are you clamming that "Line of Control" is very well defined and well established? --Human3015 knock knock • 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 Please try to get to the point. India renewed the Kashmir conflict when it attacked and occupied the Siachen glacier, a previously non-demarcated region, by initiating the Siachen conflict. The Siachen glacier is simply not defined by the LOC. Agreed with Kautilya3, no mutual agreement between India and Pakistan, (like the Karachi Agreement) elucidated the Siachen conflict. Faizan (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support placing notification that the area is disputed in the info box, maybe to the effect of "Controlled by India, claimed by India and Pakistan." That would fully disclose the situation to readers without supporting either claim, should theoretically appease all neutral editing parties, and wouldn't take up too much space. -Darouet (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 26 June 2015

Please replace "watershed" with "drainage divide" in the second paragraph. This usage of "watershed" is confusing in some versions of English, but "drainage divide" is unambiguous everywhere. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, please add a space in the same paragraph. 1000 cm(35 ft) needs to have a space before the first parenthesis. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - Remove Invalid Image

Hi, File:The Trekker's Guide to the Himalaya and Karakoram 02.jpg was deleted from commons 30 June 2015 reason "No permission since 21 June 2015", Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 July 2015

Two of the red linked images in this article have been deleted. They are File:The Trekker's Guide to the Himalaya and Karakoram 01.jpg and File:The fourth round, Indo-Pak war, 1984.jpg. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, the redlinked images have been removed. Nakon 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Infobox location field to say "Controlled by India, disputed by Pakistan". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The last RfC was closed with this result. Keeping in view that result, how should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed? Faizan (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - I think it is a bit too early to do an RfC. We should first pool some possible alternatives so that people have a clear idea what to comment on. My suggestion would be to use something like Controlled by India, disputed by Pakistan. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment -Kautilya3 The article on Siachin conflict says about the location "Siachen Glacier, in a disputed and undemarcated region of Kashmir". I would go with that one in this article too? Any thoughts? Faizan (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. I would personally be fine with calling it just "disputed territory." But you did an RfC, and there was no consensus to say something plain like that. So we have to make compromises. The wording I suggested is based on what I have seen in some book or other, not in the context of Siachen, but regarding other major areas of Kashmir. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am ready to compromise. Can we go with Controlled by India, disputed territory claimed by Pakistan. Faizan (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

From User talk:Kautilya3

I am waiting for your reply there. Let's discuss the issue so that it may be resolved through the survey. Faizan (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC) @Faizan: Sorry, that article fell off my watch list accidentally. In any case, I can't do much to help there, because even the result of the previous RfC is being questioned. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest that you ask an admin for help, perhaps NeilN. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- Above closure of RfC says there is "rough consensus" not "clear consesus" to add this issue in infobox, then why you even started this new RfC? We don't proceed on such controversial issues unless there is "clear consensus". I think we should leave this matter now. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  20:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes pop back in to articles I have closed, to see whats going on. Your statement is wrong,[5] and does not reflect the close. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, I appreciate your concern regardin this topic, but non-admin closure do need "clear consensus", specially this topic is under discretionary sanctions, one can't decide major change in geographic topic on opinion of few people, specially some of above people who supported to add this in infobox have been topic banned for their overall nationalistic attitude. This is article not about any normal topic of "life and style or spirits, sports" to write something on the basis of "rough consensus", this topic is under strict discretionary sanctions and we should respect it. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The only concern is that I like to see what happens when a RFC is closed out of curiosity. Please provide a link to the policy/guideline/DS instruction that says that clear consensus is needed. Also please provide a link to the policy or guideline that states there is a difference closing, depending on who does it. AlbinoFerret 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfCs are done to resolve the dispute. If we add controversial info without "clear consensus" then if tomorrow someone removes that info from infobox again then we can't say him that "don't remove this info, there is clear consensus to keep it". Instead we have to tell him that, "Please don't remove it, there is rough consensus to keep it". Then he will reply, "So it is a rough consensus, not clear, so I will delete it. Rough consensus is may not be useful for topics under discretionary sanctions." At least as of now we can write about disputed issue in body, and as per WikiProject Geography there is no need to add territorial conflicts in infobox, specially when there is separate article on Siachen conflict. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Again I ask you for the links to policy/guidelines/DS instructions that back up your statements. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Don't make it issue of prestige regarding who will "win" this discussion. I have already told you about WikiProject Geography. Moreover you can see Template:Infobox glacier, there is no place for "territorial conflicts" in infobox. I will copy paste the guidelines written for location section, The location of the glacier. Don't be too precise. Mountain, county, state and country are good in the USA. If the glacier is in multiple counties just list the state and country. For areas in other countries adjust accordingly.. Guidelines say, if the glacier is in multiple countries then juse list the countries, and in this case glacier is in one country "India". Do you want to ignore project guidelines for "rough consensus" that too for topic under discretionary sanctions. I think best resolution to this issue will be to follow project guidelines for Glaciers. Now please don't oppose my views just because we are on opposite side of the debate, please accept it if you think it is right. You can resolve this issue. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked for the links specifically because I close RFC's. To my knowledge, none support what you have claimed, that clear consensus is required anywhere, or that there is a difference in closing depending on if its an experienced uninvolved editor, or an admin. Again, you have made a claim that rough consensus can be ignored for a topic under DS. Please provide the requested links to back up your claims. AlbinoFerret 19:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Again you are ignoring project guidelines and not said anything on that. It seems that you only want to "win" this debate. See, Admin closure is important because we can't debate "neutrality" of admin because he gets consensus of community that "he is able as admin and he has NPOV", he gets vote of some 100-200 people from different background to become admin and neutrality of admin can't be debated. What ground you have that you are "neutral", why you can't have pro-India or Pro-Pakistani POV? Your neutrality or my neutrality is debated because we don't have consensus of community. Anyone with Pro-Pakistani or Pro-Indian POV can come here and can close this discussion in their favour. Thats why "clear and undoubtful" consensus needed for "non-admin" closure. You can't claim on any grounds that you are a neutral editor (neither I can claim). We should follow project guidelines thats what I want to say. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I am aware of this discussion, there is no need to ping me. If you think there is a problem with the close, I suggest you contest it on the appropriate boards. Since there is some confusion on your part, I will clarify the close again. There is consensus, its not a matter of just counting heads, There is sufficient consensus to move forward with changing the article in the direction of that consensus. AlbinoFerret 19:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Non-admin closure" is just routine procedure to help admins for decreasing backlog of closure. You can close any discussion, but users like us should close only those discussions in which we see there is "clear consensus" to add or remove particular thing. If result of discussion is "rough consensus" or "non-clear consensus" then it will better to not close that because our neutrality is doubtful and we don't have mandate of community that we are "neutral" editors. But surely we can close other discussions where we can decide result clearly. This comment will help you for future closures. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  20:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You and I must have different definitions of clarity and the readings of the closing guidelines. It was easy to determine consensus, there was no question if there was or wasnt consensus. It wasnt perfect consensus, but rough consensus. Rough consensus meaning the majority of the editors who responded agreed that some addition was preferable. It was close to 2/3rds. There was no question if consensus existed. The form of the addition was the only unclear part.AlbinoFerret 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If you want to give disputed location for Siachen then this rule applies to both Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and same as Aksai Chin , Trans-Karakoram Tract, as these all are disputed. Infobox Location is only for Current Ground situation which is reflecting correctly as entire Siachen Glacier is under India's control.--Koodfaand (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I think we should start such kind of RfC at K2 too, though that is purely geographic article still it is in Pakistan administered region which is claimed or disputed by India. This Siachen glacier is also purely geographic article, if it deserves mention of "disputed" then K2 too deserves that. Also there are some more glaciers in Pakistan administered region. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we should follow guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier which states how an ideal infobox of the Wikipedia article on glaciers should be. You can read guidelines regarding location. And no one can claim here that there is "clear consensus" to add controversial line in infobox of geography article where closing editor himself stated there is no clear consensus in above discussion. If some editors continue to add controversial line in infobox then I will knock door of WP:DRN which is my right as an editor. My strong points are

1. Guidelines given at Template:Infobox glacier.
2. There is no "clear consensus"
3. Topic is under discretionary sanctions and possibility of pushing national agenda is high here
4. closing editor of RfC who said "rough consensus for adding disputed" was a "non-admin" and we can always question neutrality of editors who don't have mandate of community
5. There is separate article called Siachen conflict
6. If someone claims that number of "supporters" are little bit higher than "Opposers" then read WP:Democracy. Wikipedia is not democracy and decisions here are made on policy basis and not on vote basis. And here policy is Template:Infobox glacier. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  22:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:I dont get what kind of Writing the Indian side wants here. I added "Controlled by India since 1984, claimed by Pakistan" using a "status" field in the infobox. My edit seems to have been reverted. Can someone point out what is lacking in this edit. Is it not neutral enough? What does it lack? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Read my above comment, also read guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier, read section 'Status' in it. It is about "geographical status" it is geographical phenonmena. Read Retreat of glaciers since 1850 for more details. Also read Status and decadal glacier change. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Read status section in "good article" Crater Glacier. We don't want to make this Siachen glacier a "bad article". please follow guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier and WikiProject Glaciers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I smell a high amount of POV from you and a great degree of WP:Truth. To be frank we dont need to source the suns brightness but even then I have added sources to my new edit. Revert only if you dispute sources.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Don't add something on which RfC is going on. No decision on that issue has been made so far. Moreoevr, section "status" in infobox is not for "political status", kindly read my above explanation. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015:As I said before, revert only if you disagree with sourcing. As to the status feild. Please do quote the "exact" sentence on wikipedia which says that "it cannot be used for political status".Till you do so , there is no grounds for reverting. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Why you are adding that controversial line when RfC on same issue is going on? Can't you read Template:Infobox glacier, read section "status" in it. I have once saved you from block from Edit war, next time I will not save you. This is not good conduct, when RfC is going on you can't add your desired text whatever source you give. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015:I see consensus between myself, faizan, albino and Kautilya. This consensus makes the addition of this text "non-controversial". Feel free to revert me three times and get blocked.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: RfC is not closed, this is the serious conduct issue. There is no final decision on how "final text" in infobox should be. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015:If you don't think that the text is accurate then wait for another editor to revert. I'm sure if you are right someone else will agree and revert this. Until then it remains as 4 out of six editors agree on it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: This is not how Wikipedia works, everyone is not edit warrior like you. Kindly self revert your self, it is serious conduct issue to do controversial edit with RfC being in progress. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015:I'd rather take my chances with the ANI. Lets see what an admin has to say about your condust here. Gaming the system is never good. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 18 August 2015

Hello, please remove line "Controlled by India since 1984, claimed by Pakistan" from infobox written in front of "Status" section. According to Template:Infobox Glacier "status" is for geographical condition according to Climate change. You can read "good article" Crater Glacier where they wrote "status" as "expanding". So it is not place for "political issues".

Most important thing is that above RfC is going on whether we should include or not-include this statement in Infobox, if include then how it should be written, no final decision has been made on that issue and one editor added that line without respecting RfC process. Thank you. Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  06:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a Blatant misrepresentation of the said consensus. An admin Swarm ♠ has already admonished you about this kind of misrepresentation. The said admin called your view of things "Simply Wrong". The infobox text should stay as is until some sort of consensus is established "against it" as for the present there are four editors agreeing on it. I'm not sure now WHAT has to be done in order to put this text in this article. There is consensus, there are sources, there is NPOV, there is adequate weight to both parties. Just Please tell me WHAT needs to be changed? To be frank this is really infuriating, you just say , "NO" to everything, how about telling me what I am doing wrong? Are the sources not good enough? Is there POV somewhere? Dude just try to work with me here for a bit at least. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Location in the infobox is the current Geographical Ground position. For conflict, see the Siachen conflict--Koodfaand (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Karakoram Range

People, please avoid adding India after Karakoram range [6] because it suggest that the entire Karakoram range is in India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have been reverted again. Please revert him, as his edits are contrary to the RfC result. Faizan (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don know, how you both reached that conclusion. Even in Baltoro Glacier page, the same format is used for Location .Karakoram range is spread across countries. It just depicts that the glacier is in the range .--Koodfaand (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear both, I prefer this version [7], which leaves Karakoram Range without any affiliation, and the status of Siachen reflecting the result of the RfC. Koodfaand, Baltoro Glacier is not comparable to this because Baltoro is on the other side of the Line of Control, which has been recognized as "sacrosanct" internationally. Siachen area is not demarcated by Line of Control. So, we can't mark it as belonging to either country. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with your preferred version, Koodfand should stop edit-warring now. @Kautilya3:, you can make your preferred change if you want. Faizan (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sept. 25-26 "end-around" attempt

Anyone else notice the Sept. 25-26 disingenuous "end-around" attempt by an IP editor to change a dozen or so WP articles on a dozen or so features (peaks, mtn. ranges) within the Siachen-Saltoro area from "disputed" to simply "Pakistan"??? For his part, and going in the other direction, Koodfaand on those days changed the three main passes in the Saltoro Range (all controlled for two decades by India, claimed by Pak.) to "India" rather than "disputed." I've changed back to the status quo all the articles that I could find. Come on, folks... It's a "disputed area, controlled by India"....the WP status quo for many years, and backed by the recent RFC. This is simply one of the "hottest" disputed areas in the world, shown as "disputed" by virtually all non-Indian, non-Pak. cartographic authorities (National Geographic, Google Maps, Times Atlas of London, US govt. (CIA maps)), etc., etc. at a level ABOVE other disputes: Use (infobox, article, everywhere) of the term "disputed" for the Siachen area should be universal, and is a level above the conflicting claims elsewhere in the region (incl. much of Kashmir) with, unlike Siachen, "settled" in part by their internationally-recognized and universally depicted cease-fire or agreement lines such as the India-Pakistan Line of Control (south of Siachen...south of NJ9842), or the China-India Line of Actual Control. The Siachen region is a major step up from those insofar as appropriateness for using the term "disputed." DLinth (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:

old version

Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block. A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block. A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors. Pinging @Bishonen, EdJohnston, SpacemanSpiff, Doug Weller, and Floquenbeam: to take a look and see if anyone needs to be cautioned/blocked right now and to help keep an eye on things. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Well ... I just reverted an anon's pov change, then I looked here and see this ... so now what? I would say such a restriction would need a bit of warning - maybe a pop-up on the edit window? Perhaps semi or pending changes thingy ... Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC) You are ok. The editing restriction has been amended. I will try to find the updated restriction and place it here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks - tho I wasn't really worried :) Seems when restrictions change the affected talk page should be modified immediately to reflect such. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016#India-Pakistan

• A 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
• A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
• A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

--regentspark (comment) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Content

@Capitals00 first removed a petty mention of 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche saying it was was unsourced [8] although the incident had its own article and was hyperlinked in the sentence. When the content was restored and references were added, he again removed it. The 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche was a major incident and was widely covered by local, Indian and international media and ought to be included in the article as it took place in the region, albeit without giving large details. Although as mentioned by Capitals00, the content

"On 7 April 2012, an avalanche hit a Pakistani military camp situated at Giyari Sector in the Siachen region, 30 km west of the Siachen Glacier terminus, burying 129 Pakistani soldiers and 11 civilians.

may not fit the Border conflict section, but can surely be added to Environmental issues section. @RegentsPark:, didn't Capitals00 violate your editing restrictions placed on this article by doing two reverts without a discussion?—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

1st was removal, 2nd was a revert. We both are at 1rr now. No need of any more irrelevant descriptions of this incident when "Pakistan lost 353 soldiers in various operations recorded between 2003 and 2010 near Siachen, including 140 Pakistani personnel killed in 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche" has been mentioned on Siachen Glacier#Dispute. Capitals00 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is a dispute about this. The sentence displayed above seems entirely non-controversial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no issue with it being controversial or not but relevance, that the text has been already mentioned in one section, and repeating same information in unrelated section is redundant. — MapSGV (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to duplicate the content when it is already present in another section. However, I am going to add its entry to "See Also" - 2016 Siachen Glacier avalanche (article on the avalanche that hit an Indian military base in Siachen) is already mentioned there.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• GyongLaNJ9842.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Importance of Historical English-language Maps

There are not many well-done historical English language maps of this area. If our readers are reading books about the history of this area, they are going to need Cold War era English language historical maps to look at. Having these maps puts the historical understanding of the minor geography of this area in the English-speaking world into context. If you want to see a similar argument I have made about maps like these, see China-North Korea border. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

These maps were made by elite cartographers for the US Army Map Service and represent a window on the historical (Cold War period) understanding of the minor geography of the Siachen Glacier area that is invaluable. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like the large-scale map, I recommend at least keeping the smaller-scale one. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative why are you talking to yourself ? see WP:INDENT. thanks for the pics. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I see- I will stop doing that kind of indentation. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

"The entire Siachen Glacier, with all major passes, is currently under the administration of India (currently as part of the union territory of Ladakh) since 1984."

Please change "is currently under" to "has been under". The core of the sentence (without the parentheses) currently reads "is currently under the administration of India since 1984." "Is currently" doesn't really work with "since". 208.95.49.53 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

Please add/remove some links:

• Introduction: "Third Pole" should link to the Third Pole article.
• Dispute: "Operation Meghdoot" is linked twice, so the second one should be removed.
• Dispute: "Warshi" should be redlinked.
• Dispute: "Line of Control" appears twice but is linked on the second appearance, at the very end of the last sentence. Please shift the link to the first appearance, in the second sentence.
• Dispute: "Saltoro Ridge" is linked twice, so the second one should be removed.

2601:5C6:8081:35C0:D535:30D0:7E8B:7890 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

This article uses both "meter" and "metre" in a few places. Please change "meter" to "metre" because neither India nor Pakistan uses the American spelling of this word. 2600:1003:B841:5B06:99F1:4BF5:6F34:D9EC (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Siachen glacier

Si 122.176.244.241 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Biased narrative by Indian Authors

Such a biased narrative looks like Google is dominated by Indian Authors or indian management at least counter check it from Pakistan or any independent organization 101.50.121.70 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture

The glacier features in Line of Control by Jeff Rovin in Tom Clancy's Op-Center series. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:CD47:88BA:9E8F:80F5 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand or Norway?

The cited source for the sentence about where Mission: Impossible – Fallout (2018) was filmed says '“We would have loved to come to India to shoot the film. We couldn’t shoot the aerial sequence (helicopter chase sequence) in India. It was a little too crazy. So, we ended up in New Zealand. But I scouted India extensively and I would love to come to India and shoot a film,” McQuarrie had previously told IANS.' The question then is whether the edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_Glacier&diff=prev&oldid=1208602031 by @Ashwin18 improved the article. The article Mission: Impossible – Fallout says "The helicopter chase was filmed in Norway and New Zealand" which sounds like parts were filmed both places, although I don't know about "aerial sequence" in particular. Sorry to bring this up in such an inconclusive way but I'm afraid I don't know what the article should say. Kingdon (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like "most of the helicopter chase (and camp area?) is filmed in NZ, and the final fight scene after the helicopter crash is in Norway." (per https://ruby.social/@willhbr/113308326386938270 and https://www.movie-locations.com/movies/m/Mission-Impossible-Fallout-2.php ). I suppose the citation to use is probably the sources already in Mission: Impossible – Fallout although I'm hardly an expert on how best to source movie articles, as I usually edit on other topics. Kingdon (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)