Talk:2012 Gayari Sector avalanche

Ranks

My bad, I counter checked and was reverting but you made it first. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos

ISPR has a number of good photos here of Gen. Kayani overseeing the operations, as well as an image of the site here. There was also a map of the situation from the agency at VOA, but it seems to have been removed. Does anyone know of the copyright status of these images and if they could be used here? They'd be of much help in illustrating the disaster. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some can be used under fair use regardless of their copyright status as they duely represent the article context. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

landslide, no avalanche

Technical sites are insisting this was a landslide, not an avalache:

• AGU - Dave Petley
• dawn.com

Gaianauta (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Inconclusive. Wait a while for things to become clear. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cause of avalanche

An explanation is added by User:DLinth in response to the accusation by a newspaper that constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. The sources cited are "Google Earth" and "Orographic Sketch Map: Karakoram: Sheet 2 (Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research, Zurich)" and on the basis of these maps a result is concluded which is clearly synthesis which should be avoided. An {{Or}} tag placed by me was also removed by the editor. I encourage DLinth and any other editor to find reliable sources that explicitly state what you have written in the article, rather than adding content based on original research and engaging in edit war. --SMS ^Talk 20:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added measurements and place names such as in this article to, uh, hundreds of WP articles without a charge of WP:OR. Admitedly, I added a few more than normal here. But am I the only one tempted to entirely remove the Pak. newspaper article (sole source) on WP:Fringe grounds....rather WP:dubious that this incident was caused by some drums in crevasses and general pollution that is mostly on the Siachen Glacier proper (30 km away at the closest.) Really?.... the "primary cause" here, on a different glacier, not connected, separated by a 7000 meter mtn. range, and undergoing avalanche-triggering record rainfall and snowfall (as the other source says.) With potential Pak. vs. India WP:POV to boot?

BTW, "40 km north of Paris" or "not in the Amazon basin" or "west of the Coast Range" or any other data easily confirmed by any virtual globe (Google Earth, Bing) or map or atlas is not WP:OR. In addition, the Swiss map source is perhaps the most reliable geographic source published by a well-respected, neutral authority in this area, and has been cited by other editors for years (see last source under Karakoram.DLinth (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me coordinates of Indian camps and other establishments' position in the Siachen area? So I can also look at it. Will help in understanding the counter statement you added. --SMS ^Talk 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

With your considerable background and experience (and then some) with the sub-continent, you know that these two countries, who generally don't release detailed border-area maps to the public, are of course even less likely to release maps with military locations. Having said that, a hand drawn (not pretty) map at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-1/Siachen.html is remarkably accurate, the best I've seen out in the open, consistent with the vast majority of text reports confirming that since the '80's some small Indian units have been scattered along the Saltoro heights on what the map calls the "..SL-SK1-BL-K-12-GL-NJ9842 line (see legend for what that means!)

I find it easy to match the map's "K-12" and "Saltoro Kangri" and other mountains and the glacial valleys with those same features named and/or visible on Google Earth/Maps. The light blue color for the whole Siachen Glacier system, in the Indian-occupied area entirely, is easy to see, with the vast majority of their units and their main base (marked on the map near the Siachen Glacier terminus) over on the main stem of the Siachen Glacier.

The avalanche site is called a "major Pakistani base" at "Ghyari" on the map (where there's a "G" next to a gray square topped by a flag) on the Bilafond Glacier system (green), a largely or totally Pakistani-occupied glacial valley like the others named on that map and shown in red, blue, tan, orange, and yellow (all west of the Saltoro Ridge and AGPL.)

Do you have an opinion on a name change for this article to "2012 Siachen Region Avalanche" or "2012 Siachen Avalanche"?DLinth (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that image, actually while studying this issue I also saw it before along with this. Now please tell me by looking at the maps, is Bilafond glacier an off shoot of main Siachen glacier? if not how? (sorry for this question, just trying to understand) Secondly do you know Indian army has a fortified base at Bilafond La? I think this fact will sum up the story by the newspaper.

Nice find! The name of the article is definitely not correct, if Bilafond is no way connected to Siachen. So, both of your suggestions are good but I am more inclined to change it to "2012 Siachen region avalanche". Do take a look at WP:AT for more information on Article titles. --SMS ^Talk 20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks muchly....interesting! Wikimapia often has useful tip-offs! As much as I follow Siachen all the time, I hadn't seen that "Thin Air" book!..Thanks again. I've seen lots of other sources confirming India from the '80's to the present has some forces (as you'd expect, small posts, not large bases) at the three named passes on the Saltoro Ridge including Bilafond La.....Yes, correct, that one spot at Bilafond La is relevant, but that's only about 1% (2, 3 tops) of their total forces and ~1% of their pollution and waste barrels, etc., with the other ~99% not connected to or flowing toward the Bilafond valley avalanche area. The Siachen Glacier itself has probably 3/4 or more of all the impact and equipment and forces as you'd expect. All that is why, to try to provide balance regarding the newspaper article, I added the distances and connectivity. BTW, there are other small posts up there on the Saltoro not near Bilafond La too, exact locations along the ridge not openly known. But since it's harder to keep the locations of any place with a common name a secret(!), those three pass locations are "out there" in the open.

Yes, the Bilafond Glacier (terminus near the avalanche site) flows southwest as you know, away from the vast Siachen complex of glaciers. None of the ice in the whole Siachen complex (or water, when melted) makes it to the Bilafond valley....Anything getting over to the Bilafond area would have to not only be airborne, but be blown by east to west winds going over the 3500 meter+ ridge! The uppermost head (source) of the Bilafond Glacier and the uppermost head (source) of one (or two?) Siachen tributary glaciers are at Bilafond La, just like the uppermost head river source of some Missouri River tributaries are at the same ridge or pass as the head of some Columbia River tributaries, or Nile-Congo, or many others....But no water (or ice or snow) from one system (basin) in any way winds up across the watershed divide in the neighboring system (basin.)

From all reports, I cringe at the terrible impact and pollution from Indian forces in the lower Siachen valley, once one of the most pristine spots outside of the polar areas. Depressing. DLinth (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories on Indian Involvement in avalanche

Lets accept it with every notable incident Newspaper sites from Pakistan are flooded with conspiracy theories of all sorts, we have seen it in laden incident, CIA contractor incident and many more. Wikipedia article is not a place to harbour such theories, so I have removed the claims and conspiracy theories of Indian involvement. Avalanche in this region is not a recent phenomena as is claimed by the newpaper report. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added the content back, see the above section. And the news story just points to an old survey that was done before this incident. --SMS ^Talk 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If conspiracy theories are published by reliable sources, they become notable. Here they are attributed as accusations which is just enough for NPOV... but we can not exclude them, that would be censorship. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Candle record

There was a news about a 12 year old going for a world record by burning the world's longest burning candle in memory of those who died. That would be notable enough to get a mention if some one can find that source. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Free Image-Own Work

Volunteer Marek, Your revert here was in WP:ABF. WP:IUP states: Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use. How does the Google Earth watermark hamper the free use of the images added? The images are not being used for commercial purpose. GE itself allows for copying the images. The watermark indeed is used by GE to allow attribution to the image thus copied/used. I am sure you understand English. What WP:IUP means is that if an image has been watermarked by the original source so that it SHOULD NOT be used elsewhere or is not altered or redistributed as someone else's work, then that image should not be used. Please refrain from TWISTING Wikipedia's policies.!!!—TripWire ^talk 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's restrictions on use of images are more strident then that. They must be free. The fact that they may be used for non-commercial purposes isn't sufficient. As to the watermark, WP:IUP states:

"Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use"

Google Earth images are not free, and they certainly are not "Own Work". You could try using the WP:FAIRUSE rationale, but I don't think it applies. AFAIK, the only place where Google Earth images can be used under fairuse is in the Google Earth article itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Like as said, stop twisting the policies of Wikipedia. GE policy says:

Use of images

This article explains that:

You can use Google Earth imagery for personal use, but cannot sell it to others.

We're flattered to hear that you're further incorporating Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google.

Sir, I hope you that Wikipeida is a non-commercial project, right?—TripWire ^talk 20:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the policy of Google Earth. We follow the policy of Wikipedia. If it has to contain the Google logo, for our purposes it's not free and cannot be used. Restoring non-free images is a pretty good way to get blocked fast as that's one thing that Wikipedia takes seriously. Trust me on this. At the very least, before restoring "potentially" non-free content you ask somebody about this if you're unwilling to take my word for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The policy of GE states that its images can be used if they are properly attributed, which is in consonance with Wikipedia's policy. As regards the watermark, I have explained you earlier that the GE watermark does not hamper the free use of images because the images are NOT watermarked to PREVENT their use!! Rather to give attribution to he source. I know you wont get it, but I will repeat it for the record that STOP TWISTING WIKI POLICES.—TripWire ^talk 20:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• The images were deleted from commons as copyright violations. -- GB fan 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Re "Sir, I hope you that Wikipeida is a non-commercial project, right?". Yes, Wikipedia is non-commercial, but a requirement is that its content be onwards usable in commercial projects. Thus to use in Wikipedia, the Google images would have to be licensed for commercial use too, which they are not. Mr Potto (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I think posting their maps here does violate Google’s terms, on at least one point, anyway: “personal use“, because this is a public and collective site, not a private publication. I’m less sure about “cannot provide as part of a service” but that’s arguably what inclusion in an article here entails (and note that they don’t say “paid” or “subscription“, so providing the service for free would seem irrelevant).—Odysseus1479 07:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, you don't have to debate so much on controversial images, you just have to report it on Wikimedia Commons admin board, rest of work will be done by admins. --Human3015 knock knock • 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Clear copyright violations should just be templated for SD (easiest with the Quick Delete Gadget), with a brief reason. Borderline or dubious cases should be nominated for discussion at DR (again, there’s a Gadget for that). There’s no need for a noticeboard posting unless there are such conduct issues involved as edit-warring over tags, or repeated uploading of copyvios after warnings.—Odysseus1479 05:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really go to Commons much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for the heads up Odysseus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Gayari sector avalanche

It was widely reported in 2012 as Gayari sector avalanche. Gayari sector is 30 kms from the Siacen terminus. The avalanche was no where near the Siachen . before that there is Saltoro ridge and Pakistan is holding positions on the west of Saltoro ridge, while India is holding position on the east of Saltoro ridge, with entire Siachen glacier and all the major passes under its control.--Koodfaand (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Some news reportings that time in 2012 in Pakistani media and other media:

Gayari calamity: Rescuers still hard at work a year after tragedy
http://tribune.com.pk/story/532622/gayari-calamity-rescuers-still-hard-at-work-a-year-after-tragedy/
Search operation resumed in Gayari sector: ISPR
http://www.dawn.com/news/803450/search-operation-resumed-in-gayari-sector-ispr
PM, DG ISPR pay tributes to Gayari Sector martyrs on third anniversary of tragedy
http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/272478-PM-DG-ISPR-pay-tributes-to-Gayari-Sector-martyrs-
Rescue operations at Gayari Sector after Pakistan avalanche
http://www.ndtv.com/photos/news/rescue-operations-at-gayari-sector-after-pakistan-avalanche-12822
--Koodfaand (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the move, the avalanche was not related to Siachen glacier. It was triggered from Bilafond glacier. I remember something similar was earlier suggested by DLinth. -- SMS ^Talk 18:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche. 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/20141011175924/http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Siachen-Pakistan-declares-buried-troops-dead-after-52-days/Article1-862824.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Siachen-Pakistan-declares-buried-troops-dead-after-52-days/Article1-862824.aspx

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) 21:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)