Talk:Indus River

I am trying to find information ON the Indus river valley and i cant so we need a better internet source

Indus river civilization made irrigation?

I inserted a "citation needed" under the claim that the Indus river civilization had used irrigation. as far as I know there is no evidence for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guykom (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides a starting point to find such information. Indus Valley Civilization says "An extensive canal network, used for irrigation, has however also been discovered by H.-P. Francfort.". Lothal has a citation that a "dock" was perhaps an irrigation tank. A google search turns up Francfort, Henri-Paul "Evidence for Harappan irrigation system in Haryana and Rajasthan" The Eastern Anthropologist 1992 45, page 91. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Factual Errors Re. 'Modern Issues and Indus Waters Treaty'

In the section 'Modern Issues' the claim was made "India had gained control of the mouth of the river after the first Kashmir war" ! Well, India never had control of the mouth to start with - it has always been in Pakistan - the Indus delta. I am not sure if the author understands what the 'mouth' of a river implies. Another claim that was made in this section was that the Pakistan government was allowing Hindu temples on its banks. Now talk about living in a cloud cuckoo land! In the section 'Indus Waters Treaty' reference was made to the Baghlighar hydroelectric project. The implication was that this was on the Indus - which it is not case, it is projected to be on the Chenab in the Jammu region, and does not involve diversion of water for irrigation. It is my understanding that the Indus Waters Treaty allows for this kind of usage. As anybody who has been to the upper reaches of Ladakh and Zanskar (the regions through which the Indus flow in India) can tell you, India has a snowball's chance in hell of being able to make use of the Indus' water.

Sindhu(river indus) After Kala Bag Dam

Ur pics show good Image of Sindu in World ,But Truth is that If you see current Delta of Sindhu, u would not find Drop of Water,i will Get Picture and Uploaded it here,that Might Help U,u will find dust just dust.i live there i am part of it.So please Add topic ,Sindh with no water Left,i do not agree me ,just read on websites u will find good links and hits about it.

khalidkhoso

Sindhu (River indus)

Hello dear USer,sindhu(you call it Indus river) is part of Pakistan sindh,so it is in Scope of Pakistan Wikipedia too,so i will add tag of pakistan here so do not mind . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalidkhoso (talk • contribs) 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Modern issues

Modern are not disscued here,Those are Major for sindhi living in Pakistan Sindh,those are matter death\living to Us.I will add some more issue on it ,if any one any arge he/she can it,i will wait for one day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalidkhoso (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Indus River

I thought this article was okay...it wasn't the best thought, it could have included the dissolved oxygen (DO) and the Nitrates, and the Alkalinity. Other wise I thought the article was very informative, very historical, and very well organized. Keep up the good work!! 216.228.51.246 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Added infobox

I have added an infobox to the top of the article, it contains important data about the river from the article, if you have any extra info then add it to the relevant fields in the infobox, the infobox template will add/format the information automatically. I used Template:Geobox River for the template. Supaluminal 03:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Shendu

In Shendu, is said that Shendu is also the Chinese name for this river. Why isn't it added? -WarthogDemon 22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan Historically is part of the Indus river

I dont see afghanistan being named as part of the countries who are tied to the river. One Must remember on the grounds, that before pakistan, afghanistan formed the west side of the river and thus the Indus river being the NATURAL boundry between Afghanistan and India. Somebody must take some actions on this.Pashtun786 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well geographically speaking the Kabul river belongs to the Indus watershed at least.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Avestan?

The Avestan, as mentioned Vendidad, Fargard 1:18, is indeed Hindu (or more properly, hiṇdu), but the Avestan looks like this (third line of definition, directly preceding "Vd. …"), not 'حندو'. If anything, هِندُ might come closer in transliteration, but is still an anachronistic script for the ancient Iranians to have used. Roman transliteration is probably preferable in lieu of an image file utilizing an Avestan font. Khirad (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tributaries

The list appears wrong to me at least in the usual use of the term tributary. Tthe list contains some rivers which are just tributaries to the tributaries of the Indus (like Beas or Jhelum)---Kmhkmh (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i removed now all rivers which are not direct tributaries to the Indus. In particular the 5 rivers (Jhelum,Chenab,Sutlej,Ravi,Beas) have been replaced by the Panjnad.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "India"

The article mentions that the term "India" was used only for what is now Pakistan till the arrival of the British:

The word "India" is a reference to the Indus River. In ancient times, "India" referred to the region of modern-day Pakistan along the Indus river which traded extensively with the ancient world. It was only after the arrival of the British in the sixteenth century that name began to be applied to the entire region.

The above is incorrect. The word "India" has been used for most of what is now the Indian Subcontinent, since 300 BC. Megasthenes describes India as the land beyond the Indus, the Indus forming its western boundary.

B.C. c. 300. -- "India then (H( TOI/NUN *)INDIKH\) being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of Hēmōdus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile." -- Megasthenes, in Diodorus, ii. 35. (From Müller's Fragm. Hist. Graec., ii. 402.)

and

c. 590. -- "As for the land of the Hind it is bounded on the East by the Persian Sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean), on the W. and S. by the countries of Islām, and on the N. by the Chinese Empire. . . . The length of the land of the Hind from the government of Mokrān, the country of Manṣūra and Bodha and the rest of Sind, till thou comest to Ḳannūj and thence passest on to Tobbat (see TIBET), is about 4 months, and its breadth from the Indian Ocean to the country of Ḳannūj about three months."-<-> Istakhri, pp. 6 and 11.

and

" "Hind is surrounded on the East by Chín and Máchín, on the West by Sind and Kábul, and on the South by the Sea."-<-> Ibid. in Elliot, i. 45.

source

Junoon53 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

problem with 1 tributaire

Is Shingo River a tributaire of the Indus river? Its article says that it merges with Suru River (Indus), which in turn merges with Dras River, but the article is not clear on where the merged river ends. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to various Himalaya guides that i checked via Google Books neither Shingo nor Suru are direct tributaries to the Indus, but the Dras is. The somewhat confusing entries that exists here and sometimes elsewhere are due to the fact that some sources (and at one point this article) simply listed tributaries to the Indus rivers system (=any major river whose water at some point reaches the Indus) rather than the actual tributaries to the Indus river itself. I attempted to fix that a while ago, but apparently I missed some or they were falsely introduced later on.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Indus River Day

This section might be somewhat inappropriate in its current form, feel free to improve and shorten it or even to remove it altogether. However don't just blank the section without removing title. I reverted the blanking, may the next editor decide whether it is worth to fix the section or remove it completely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Majority opposed; necessity of move not established. -- Hadal (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Indus River → Indus – In line with WP:Rivers, River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. A quick search shows that Indus is the most common name in practice and is the primary usage. Indus currently redirects to this article. Imc (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm very curious what "quick search" parameters you used, because it seems like it would be very difficult to distinguish the two forms. I do note that Britannica uses "Indus River", as does the New World Encyclopedia, though the Columbia encyclopedia uses just "Indus". Powers ^T 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I composed the text of my first post some days previously when I proposed another rename, at Talk:Kaveri. I did not post it then, and cannot remember my reasoning or recreate the searches now, since originally these searches were mixed with that for 'Kaveri'. I've therefore struck it out. Imc (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose -- Googling "Indus" brings up a few possibilities, like the Indus Valley and a software project. The river is obviously the primary topic, but leaving "River" in the name will make it clear what's being referred to. "Indus (river)" might be even better though, allowing for the pipe trick. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: According to the GEOnet Names Server (GNS), other place names that start with Indus include Indus Basin, Indus Valley, Indus Plain, Indus Kohistān (region), Indus Branch (stream), Indus Branch (irrigation canal), Indus Minor (stream), Indus Highway, Indus Fan (undersea), and Indus Astor (mountain). As for the river itself, GNS lists names: Indus River (Conventional); Indus (Short); Indus River (Approved - PK, IN); Yin-tu Ho (Approved - CH); Sindhu (Variant). Thought this list of Indus names might be useful here. Pfly (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The current name is in line with guidelines and the suggested move doesn't seem to provide any real improvement. The Indus Redirect however could be changed into a disambiguation page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The improvement comes because it is already accepted that the river is the primary meaning, as shown by the existing Indus redirect. Imc (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Again I see no improvement there and the fact that the redirect should be a disambiguation page is separate from the name of this article and isn't really showing anything. Yes Indus (alone) is a valid name for the river too and in line with guidelines but so is Indus River, hence I see no reason to move it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Indus River seems the more natural form, more encyclopedic and better English. The Proffesor (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If the term river is to included, then 'River Indus' seems to be the more natural form and better English to me. I suspect that this is another British / US English thing. Imc (talk)

That not simply not correct, in standard English usually/often River is added after the "real" name and not before. That fact is something you can look up in almost any English map or dictionary. In short Indus or Indus River are acceptable forms, but River Indus though possible too less so (see Britannica's spelling :[1] and compare 845,000 Google Hits for "Indus River" versus 220,000 Google Hits for "River Indus").--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with regard to the positioning of 'river'. In British English, 'river' is almost always added before the river name; it is the 'river Thames' (or the Thames) and not the 'Thames River'. It is different in US usage. You can see many discussions of it on the web such as at [2]. The Indus, flowing through countries originally using British English, can be expected to follow this pattern. The web, by its nature, will be dominated by US English, and US encyclopaedias, which you have quoted. It is sometimes possible to see this in searches, such as when the standard form of the name has changed from the original English form. The names of the river with the modern name Kaveri, compared with its original (unphonetic) British English spelling Cauvery, shows this clearly.

“Kaveri River” - 124,000

“River Kaveri” - 33,000

“Cauvery River” - 74,000

“River Cauvery” - 130,000

Cheers. Imc (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I was not making about a distinction US english and British English, but I was talking about English in general. Whether the whole is primarily a difference between US and British English I didn't investigate. However the claim that in British English the addon River is always leading rather than trailing (at least within the empire's domain) is simply not correct. You can see by looking at the 1911 edition of the Britannica , which is as British as it gets. While it uses Indus rather than River Indus or Indus River it list one of its major tributaries as Kabul River and not River Kabul, in other words the trailing version exists in British English as well (another example Godavari River ([3])). Also if I restrict my Google search from above to the .uk domain I still get roughly 3 times as much for Indus River (2200 vers 600 Hits). Moreover arguing former British colonies implicate British spelling is a bit condescending. Nevermind that the US was a British colony as well anyhow, more correctly you would need to argue based on the local spelling, i.e. what do most Pakistani English speaking publishers use. Here is an example of recent academic Pakistani-British publication on the Indus using Indus River: [4].

Be all of that as it may, I'm not really arguing that Indus River is more correct (in British English) than Indus or River Indus anyhow. I'm merely arguing Indus River is correct and in line with guidelines, hence there is no good reason to change it. I oppose moving articles around essentially based on personal taste and (at least for me) you have yet to present a convincing reason, why we would need such a move.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Translations

The first paragraph is swamped with translations in multiple languages - is this really necessary given that Wikipedia has different language sections? 87.112.37.51 (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just done a quick count - sixteen alternate names in thirteen languages, with nine transliterations, and four more literal meanings. It could definitely do with being pared down, or having almost all the variant names moved into a "Naming" section, keeping two or three in the lead along with the English. The question is which ones to keep in the lead - any suggestions? Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

about indus river geography

initial point of indus river ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.101.242 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good question. Tibetans traditionally say a spring named "Sengge Khabab" (Lion's Mouth), and explorer Sven Hedin accepted this. Does anyone know the latitude/longitude coordinates? Chinese scientists using modern satellite imagery have identified a more distal source higher in elevationa and further south [5]. Is this the place identified here on Wikimapia? [6] LADave (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is Senge Khabab at 31.4282N, 81.6146E [7] ? LADave (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Orienting Maps

Do you know what would be nice? If the editors of wikipedia would use maps that actually demonstrate where a geographic entity is located in relation to the rest of the world. This page and every other one like it is useless without orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.157.53 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indus Valley needs it's own article

The Indus Valley is the region that the Indus river flows through, it's not a synonym for the Indus river.--Boxman88 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. Khestwol (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible. @Boxman88: Are you volunteering to write it? 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you @Boxman88:, "Valley" is a separate geographic entity and it deserves article. If you are interested then you start the article, I will later help you to improve that article. --Human3015 knock knock • 07:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, but unfortunately I don't have the sources to create an independent article and am slowly progressing with other projects. If you have enough neutral and reliable sources, then we can start an article and I'll contribute when I can.--Boxman88 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indus River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120424194621/http://www.pakmet.com.pk:80/Latest-News/Latest-News.html to http://www.pakmet.com.pk/Latest-News/Latest-News.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Social structure

The upper classes were treated very well and didn't have to work usually. The more lower classes had to work and pay their taxes. Farmers were the lowest class and they had to grow enough crops for their community and to stock up in stores. Farmers also had to pay their taxes in food. 99.177.216.75 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Brahmaputra is masculine as well

I don't think the Sindh River is the only one which has a masculine form. Brahmaputra (son of Brahma) is masculine as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonsunder (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indus River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511194625/http://www.northernareas.org.pk/ to http://www.northernareas.org.pk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190239/http://www.macp-pk.org/home.asp to http://www.macp-pk.org/home.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indus River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007180042/http://worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/g200/g156.html to http://www.redtailcanyon.com/items/3755.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723050437/http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=106 to http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=106

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

New edits

Why the unsourced paragraph that is tagged since 2012 was restored? I restored the version I observed last time,[8] which was stable for years and even the version until this May[9] was not really problematic. No sources could support such assertion, that's why I restored what could be sourced and have added sources now, also tagged infobox percentage claims for now. Lorstaking (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You have not explained the substantive changes you have made to the lead and the body.

As for the so-called unsourced content, do you not know that Soanian culture is paleolithic? Why was that removed? As for the Mardan reference, googling for "Mardan paleolithic" takes you to Sanghao Cave as the very first hit! What efforts have you made to source the information? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have explained that I restored the version I observed last time. But you are now edit warring over the content that is largely sourced. Responding to your discussion that you attempted to initiate on my talk page, This source mentions Rahkigiri while discussing Indus river. There is no WP:STATUSQUO like you are misrepresenting, because we have years old stable version compared to changes that were overlooked. If your source mentions Indus River with Pothohar and also mentioned that WP:OR that you are restoring without sources, then you can add it. But since it is unsourced for 5 years it should be removed, and I did made a search, but such original research doesn't exist anywhere.[10] Indus River doesn't even originates from Pakistan but you are nationalizing Indus River without getting consensus or showing reliable sources, against longstanding version and also removing reliable sources on both lead and body, though the lead information can be also backed by the source I just provided. As for "merge into the Arabian Sea near the port city of Karachi in Sindh," it is supported by sources like [11] while yours is simply unsourced WP:OR. Lorstaking (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you had to include the additional reliable sources that you have provided here, otherwise I agree with nearly all of your edits over the new undiscussed controversial edit of lead. I have problem with only History section, where Mohenjo-daro, Rakhigiri are claimed to date 3300 BCE, though they don't. Harrappa's 3300 BCE is date for stone tablets, not the building of the city. I would support removing the names of all 3 cities. Capitals00 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also in the same paragraph of history, all major cities have been named, so why we need repetition? Capitals00 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The percentages on infobox should be removed. When you see map[12] you find estimations from both versions to be made up. Capitals00 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: I don't disagree with all of your edits, only some of them. The revision of the lead was bad, because it is artificially inserting India and China to remove the significance of Pakistan, but doing it backwards and duplicating the information of the next sentence. If you want to revert to older and stabler versions, please feel free. But please don't mix them up with contentious, unexplained edits.

As for Rakhigarhi, I think it should be omitted because it has no relation to the Indus river. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indus River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GsC7TTei?url=http://www.unwater.org/downloads/worldstop10riversatriskfinalmarch13_1.pdf to http://www.unwater.org/downloads/worldstop10riversatriskfinalmarch13_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220042511/http://wrmin.nic.in/international/industreaty.htm to http://wrmin.nic.in/international/industreaty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

This Article claims in its etymology/naming section that Sindh... means "ocean". In the article "hindustan" though you may find this sentence: "Hence, the Rigvedic sapta sindhava (the land of seven rivers) became hapta hindu in the Avesta." which seems to imply that Sindh... can also mean "river" and that seems to be more logical in the name of a ... river. Any Sanskrit speakers around that could clarify it and/or put the correct version in the regarding article? --176.199.184.48 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Ladakh"

Introduction says that river flows through India (Jammu and Kashmir) and Ladakh region of Jammu Kashmir. Now that Ladakh is a Union terriority of its own, independent from Jammu Kashmir, We should change it to "Ladakh" wherever required. Abhijithn207 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The only mention of Jammu and Kashmir left is the 'See also' link to Rivers of Jammu and Kashmir. I will leave it to you to work on that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Hindh river" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hindh river. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 24#Hindh river until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of the Indigenous Pakistani name

The Indus river is known as the Sindh Darya, Darya e Sindh and Mehran in Pakistan where it flows. Putting Sindhu at the head without Darya e Sindh is wrong since Darya e Sindh is a much more popular name in it's own land than Sindhu, which basically isn't even used anywhere except Sindh province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtar10 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, and the terms used in English language sources are our main concern. Please feel free to expand the Etymology and names section if you need to, while providing WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And "Sindhu" is of high historical importance, as it gave rise to various terms such as "Hindu", "Hindustan", "India" and most of all the name of "Sindh" itself! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

31.305823,81.519635 —2401:4900:4BD0:31CF:1:0:B89C:759B (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I assume that you're referring to the coordinates of the river's source. The coordinates you suggest (which appear to be for one of the headwaters of the Sengge Zangbo) contradict the article's statement that the Indus "begins at the confluence of the Sengge Zangbo and Gar Tsangpo rivers". Without a source stating that the Sengge Zangbo is part of, rather than a tributary of, the Indus, changing the coordinates seems to be inadvisable. Deor (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Yìndù" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yìndù. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Yìndù until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Hindhu river" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hindhu river. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Hindhu river until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph and infobox images made identical to other South Asian rivers

I'm noting that I have made the lead paragraph and the infobox image and map identical to other major South Asian river, the Ganges. I have rewritten the lead paragraph in the language of geography. I have removed the disputed present-day national boundaries from the map of the Indus river course and basin. I've added an iconic image that defines both the Indus and the Himalayas. It is essential for a standard NPOV format. I know admins don't like to be pinged about commonplace things, so I'm asking only that you keep an eye. RegentsPark Doug Weller, Vanamonde93, Bishonen, Johnuniq, and Drmies now and then. Also noting this for Kautilya3 and Johnbod Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

PS I knew I was forgetting someone: Austronesier Probably others too, so apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

map without disputed regions

I don't understand the rationale here. What's the problem with showing the current borders (as they are shown by most/almost all maps of the area anyhow)?

And even if for some reason "disputed" border should not be displayed, then why using a map with (partial) borders at all. The main point of the of the current map is illustrate the river's watershed with all its tributaries, the borders and the coastline were only added to provide better general orientation/recognition when you want to compare it or place it in standard geographic maps (because those maps usually carry borders).--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way there is also a minor techinal issue here as well. The original graphic was a svg file (WP preferred format for such drawings). So if you create a derivative, it would be better to stick to the original format rather than switching to less preferred format for such drawings.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting @Kmhkmh: and apologies for not copying you in my post yesterday. Well, in all Kashmir-related maps we bend over backward to point out that the regions are disputed regions. The sovereignty of any present-day nation over Kashmir is not recognized by the UN, nor by any Western powers and Japan (Russia supports India and China supports Pakistan). See the first-order sub-regions: Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan; they have the same careful wording in the lead sentence and the same format in the infobox per a long and hard-fought consensus.

Upon rethinking this, the map in the infobox is meant to illustrate the lead for an ordinary reader. Following the example of the other South Asian Himalayan rivers: Ganges, Jhelum, Chenab, ... I have now used a British era orographical map. For a Himalayan river descending from sheer heights, it gives a better idea of the altitudes involved and also the distances. The map has the notable landmarks, the Mansarovar lake, near which the Indus rises; the Nanga Parbat massif, the western anchor of the Himalayas, after which the Great Bend of the Indus begins, and the Salt Range past which the Indus debouches onto the plains of Punjab (literally: "the land of five rivers"). It also shows Karachi at the mouth. I apologize I did not understand the intent of the map; perhaps it can be used in a later section (but again only without the disputed borders; otherwise every other day someone will change it. The Indus Gorge, one of the deepest in the world, shows that the Indus is a very old river, likely predating the collision of the Indian tectonic place with Eurasia and the uplifting of the Himalayas. As the Himalayas rose, the gorge became deeper, the silt from the Himalayas filling the trough created by the subduction, now called the Indo-Gangetic plain. This is as far as my rudimentary knowledge of South Asian plate tectonics goes. :) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no issue with descrbing those (de facto) borders as disputed, I only have an issue with artificially leaving them out or just displaying them partially, which is in contradiction to standard maps. That is, if borders are displayed they should be displayed completely and according to standard maps, but you can of course use special colors to mark disputed regions.

That said, the current map showing no borders but just geographical features is a good solution. It has less details on the watershed then the other map, but it illustrates the river nicely enough and a more detailed watershed isn't really needed in the infobox.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I definitely like the orographical map much better. One gets a feel what Indus "Valley" means. The previous map clearly teaches us that NPOV is not "no POV". The abruptly ending borders looked very distracting: so you can travel from Delhi to Islamabad without crossing a border? ;) Ususally, we create NPOV by means of broken/dotted lines and an explanatory legend (and page protection). The perfect (but more vulnerable) map would be a blend of both maps. –Austronesier (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are both right. The map in place was too simple. I looked for another and found Kmhkmh's on the Simple Wikipedia (a strange irony: the Simple Wikipedia had the complex; the Complex Wikipedia had the simple.) I wish I had the time to fix it in the proper NPOV manner you have suggested or the skills for that matter. We certainly have NPOV maps of the Kashmir region, but what we need has Tibet, Kashmir, and Pakistan. As for "Indus Valley," yes, you can certainly see the Himalayan valley wonderfully in the map. Once it is in Punjab, the valley widens. On the map, it is called the Indus Plain. The "Indus Valley Civilization" flowered really in the Plain and not the narrow Himalayan valley, but I suspect the naming hearkens to a time before major urbanization when the lay of the land was more clearly visible, the gentle slope leading to the river bank more easily discerned. (Similar to Manhattan before the Native Americans sold it.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of the current modification, in fact imho it is rather irritating to readers. The primary reason for using the "de facto" borders is simply because (many/most) standard sources do so (standard cartographical work) and it simply provides recognition/orientation value for readers and informs them which country currently (and for decades) control which rivers and regions. All that is lost now.

There is nothing wrong with adding some info pointing out that parts of the border are disputed or augment the map by drawing in the disputed areas, but simply removing the borders and creating some weird neverland area is worst of all approaches. It just destroys information rather than providing it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

"Nilab River" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nilab River and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Nilab River until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Length

"3,180 km (1,980 mi) as Mapped. 3,249 km (2,019 mi) actual as mentioned in History Books."

Confused by this. Does this mean it used to be 3,249 km? When? What history books? Why "actual"? Is it not fully mapped? -- Mocha2007 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• 3180 is the correct number. I can't find 3,249 in any source. The vagueness and use of the word "actual" suggest that someone was pushing a fringe claim of some kind. Furius (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  3180 seems to be the established answer, but there's been a recent change to 2880 based on this Indian Government source ("a length of 2880 Km, of which 709Km lies in India"). 3180 is still in the infobox. We don't seem to have an explicit source for 3180 - the ref in the infobox is seemingly only for drainage basin size, and for some reason we have two values there anyway...

  A cursory poke through Google Scholar suggests both values get widely quoted in the secondary literature ("indus river" 2880 and "indus river" 3180 get similar numbers of hits), presumably just depending which reference source they checked, and I suspect it would be very hard to find the original source which gave each value to figure out how it was defined. My suspicion is that it is something to do with where the starting point is counted from. Sengge Zangbo has an intriguing note:

  About 300 km from its sources, in the mountain springs north of the Manasarovar lake, the river merges with Gar Tsangpo near the village of Tashigang to form the Indus River. The Tibetans continue to regard the combined river as Sênggê Zangbo as it flows into Ladakh.

  And on the corresponding Gar Tsangpo:

  It merges with other headwater, Sênggê Zangbo, near the village of Tashigang to form the Indus River. The combined river flows in the same valley and in the same direction as Gar Tsangpo. Thus by physical geography, Gar Tsangpo is the "Indus River". The Tibetans however regard Sênggê Zangbo as the main Indus River, and treat Gar Tsangpo as a tributary.

  Note the "about 300 km..." - I suspect this may be the original source of the discrepancy, whether the Indus is treated as starting at the Tsangpo-Zangbo confluence or whether it is traced back to the headwaters of Sengge Zangbo. The infobox seems to list both as sources. I don't know how we can say which is "correct", but I guess the CWC definition is as good as any. Either way, it might be worth mentioning both the two widely quoted measurements in the article (similar to that at Rhine#Geography)? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't set great store by Indian government sources. It is in their interest to reduce the river's length, so India's share in the longstanding Indus waters dispute is maximized. Besides we tread cautiously in all Kashmir related topics on Wikipedia. Kashmir is a disputed region. The river does not really flow through India, only the Indian-administered region of Kashmir.

  I haven't really looked into where Indus officially begins, but it might be problematic as the river is not called Indus in Tibet and has two or three headstreams. My impression from the orographic map from British times is that the river rises in the vicinity of a small lake to the east of Mount Kailas in Tibet, not in the Lake Mansarovar and related lakes which lie to the south. If the source stream is the longest headstream, the common definition in hydrology, then that would be where the river begins. Unlike, the Ganges, all of whose headwaters lie in India, the Indus is more complicated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  "The Tibetans however regard Sênggê Zangbo as the main Indus River, and treat Gar Tsangpo as a tributary."

  In hydrology as well, the Sênggê Zangbo, would be the source stream, as it is the longer. A similar situation exists with the Ganges. It officially begins at the confluence of its two headwaters, the Bhagirathi River and the Alaknanda River, at a small town, Devprayag; the Bhagirathi is the shorter but flows in the same direction and is described in mythology. The Alaknanda is the longer and turns left at the confluence. It is the source stream in hydrology.

  I'd go with the Sênggê Zangbo, i.e. 2880+300. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS Good work, btw, @Andrew Gray: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Or maybe mention both as you say, but would prefer to mention 3180 first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! Short answer I agree that 3180 is probably best, the long answer...

  I did out of curiosity check the 1960 agreement, but tragically while it has a lot of flow numbers, it does not mention a consensus on the length! I was able to find a different report co-authored by the same Indian government department that avoids giving a total length, but reports "1114km in India", a good 50% longer than the website figure (report). From the Pakistan side, I can find the comparable government department using the short measurement (report). So there may not be a national divide on the preferred figure.

  The pre-independence Imperial Gazetteer (1909) gives "a little over 1800 miles" which more or less aligns with the shorter 2880, as does the 1886 edition. The modern Gazetteer of India (1965) does not give a specific measurement. The Himalayan Climate and Water Atlas (2015) has 3180. Britannica currently uses the long measurement ("some 2,000 miles (3,200 km)") but changed in 2015 - it used to give the shorter measurement.

  Overall, I think I agree that I'd be inclined to go with 3180 as the "main" modern measurement (lead + infobox), citing the Climate and Water Atlas as a reputable international source, but mention the 2880 one in text and also discuss the ambiguity of where the headwaters are. Britannica having consciously made this change a few years ago is a good steer. I'll try and draft something up.

  (Bonus challenge: work out why List of rivers systems by length, and occasionally past edits to this page, say 3610...) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  And updated. Although this has raised another weirdness about the source - Britannica has "near Lake Mapam", which seems to be another name for Lake Manasarovar, but note "near" not "in". The Water Atlas says "Lake Ngangla Rinco". I think that is the same as what we have described as Ang Laren Lake, way off to the NE, which seems a bit unlikely? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And a final note - I have tracked down the probable source of the 3610 figure as this 2011 announcement https://www.dawn.com/news/656472/earthly-matters-origins-of-the-indus (though it rounds to 3600). However, while this team published their results from an earlier run in 2007, I can't find any formal publication of this figure other than the press release / news stories!

It probably lines up with the source being off to the NE as in the Water Atlas, but it's a bit unclear. This figure probably also represents a full-scale remeasuring, not just tacking on a bit extra to the source - the older figures had been around quite a while and there seems to have been a bit of river movement since then, including the big changes in the south which the article mentions. Will have a think about how to incorporate this. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty of India over Kashmir

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

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

The infobox already says, directly below the names of the three countries, "Sovereignty in the Kashmir region is disputed". This strikes me as sufficient Furius (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is there's a false equivilance here. The river runs through internationally recognised parts of China and Pakistan but for India it only runs through a disputed territory, over which India's sovereignty is not recognised outside of India. Solblaze (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Solblaze Literally? Tell me map which doesn't show JK in India and Loc,Shimla agreement are all joke? POV push is by you I am readding it. Edasf«Talk» 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Edasf: Instead of being confrontational you should read up on the history of Kashmir, not only on WP, but also on the article in Britannica this page is modeled on: Kashmir, region of the Indian subcontinent As a result of a longstanding RfC conducted during the monitoring of administrators, Kashmir, all its major subregions, their capitals, divisions and their capitals, districts and their capitals, all refer to the Kashmir dispute in their lead sentences. See for example: Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Aksai Chin. They all begin with the same uniform sentence structure. All are cited to the same major sources, including reliable WP:TERTIARY sources. See also the lead paragraph of Himalayas. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Perhaps I was too rude here apologies for that.Maybe adding a bracket with saying disputed region? Edasf«Talk» 09:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about Indus Valley

Hello. Is there another page going more into detail about geography like the Indus Valley and other places? Because I think it could use more elaborating on. GoutComplex (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Indic script

@Remsense: – First of all, please note that my edit contained more than merely scripts. Please don't just revert it, discuss it. Secondly, WP:INDICSCRIPT#Scope does not cover Urdu:

• The following languages are of Indic origin, but will usually be written in non-Indic scripts, usually derived from Arabic (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic)): Urdu, Kashmiri, Punjabi (western), and Sindhi. This convention will normally apply to them only when transliterating from writings in an Indic script. نعم البدل (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCIN is pretty clear: This applies to any articles related to Indic subjects, or words derived from languages written in an Indic script. [...] Urdu, Kashmiri, Punjabi (western), and Sindhi are languages that are Indic in origin, but are generally written in non-Indic scripts—usually one derived from the Perso-Arabic script. This convention will normally apply to them only when transliterating writings in an Indic script. Remsense ‥ 论 00:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: – Not sure what your point is. If you're classing Urdu as an Indic script, then you might need a couple of bots to remove the Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi labels from all Pakistani-related articles, and the Urdu-related articles, which has been the norm for quite some years now. This article is no different. نعم البدل (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

map frame map

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

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

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

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

Hello @Joy: Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the Gar basin, but what I remember from the sources is that after rising in the vicinity of Lake Mansarovar, though not flowing out it, and near Mount Kailas in the Tibet-Trans-Himalayas, the river flows some 160 miles before it meets the Gar river (see here). On a map its source(s) is(are) in Tibet, but in the vicinity of the northwest "corner" of Nepal. In your map, the river seems to begin much later in its course. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

PS The orographical map of the British Raj (from the Imperial Gazetteer of India) in the infobox shows its rising in the more traditional manner. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this issue is documented in Gar Zangbo. This was basically discussed at #Length before.

The map on OpenStreetMap isn't particularly controversial, it's just seems conservative - it doesn't choose either of these rivers as the "true" source of Indus. Our Wikimedia Maps overview of that allows the readers to zoom into the starting point, where they can click the Show nearby articles button and see the two options to read about, so it's not really that bad. --Joy (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, especially the one in which I had taken part.  :) Can you not show both headstreams in your map, i.e. highlight them, as the IGI orographical map does, albeit in a different color. People can decide if the want to crown the longest headstream to be the source stream or not. I did click on that map. Part of the problem is that it very soon devolves into straight line segments, unlike hand drawn maps. (See for example File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg of a different but nearby river.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Indus river and Hindi

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

As I've stated in reply to your similar post on my user talk page: Sindh is not a meaning in any of the languages that are encyclopedically relevant to the river; otherwise there are hundreds of languages, dozens in South Asia alone. Indus does not flow through India for India's official language (Hindi) to apply. It flows through China, Kashmir (a disputed territory in Wikipedia's articles) and Pakistan. The Urdu name Darya-e-Sindh is already acknowledged as are the Tibetan and Sanskrit names ("Sindhu"). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In the disputed region of Kashmir that’s administered by India, Hindi is one of the official languages, so it seems relevant to mention the Hindi names for the river, don’t you think? If the Hindi names should not be included, then the Hindi name “Sindhu” should also be removed in the last paragraph of the etymology section. Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the disputed region of Kashmir does not have an official language. See the Kashmir#Etymology page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This the WP:STATUSQUO here. You are welcome to garner a consensus for your POV, if you'd like. But it is unlikely to happen, given that it has remained in its current state for half a dozen years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Etymology and names

The recent deletion is imho not an improvement.

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

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

They are reliable sources but too recondite to betoken due weight in the literature, and easily misused to promote linguistic irredentism. I've replaced the secondary sources for etymology with reliable WP:TERTIARY sources that are typically used to determine due weight (policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that addresses what I've stated above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S.: However the latest revision has already addressed, what I had raised above and which referred to this version.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)