Talk:Siachen Glacier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Glaciers WikiProject, a collaborative WikiProject related to glaciers and glaciology worldwide. It may include the Glacier infobox. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Possible bias 2 rm plagiarism 3 Pak side of things 4 Undue weight given to India 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg 6 Strategic value

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)