Jump to content

Talk:Himalayas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Untitled

This is an archive of past discussions on the naming of this page. Any NEW discussions should be posted on the current talk page.


Request move Himalayas to Himalaya

moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

See Talk:Himalayas#Requested_move_to_Himalaya below and vote there. Lumos3 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


The Himalayas article should be moved to Himalaya, which is the correct spelling. I tried a cut and paste move but lost the page history as a result. I undid the changes but can now not use the Move function because my mistake created multiple history entries in Himalaya requiring admin rights to move. Could an admin please move Himalayas to Himalaya. Thanks. Janderk 23:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct according to whom? - SimonP 23:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
While both are often used and linguistically correct according to Merriam Webster [1] it is explained in the article that Himalaya is already a plural term. Searching Google for Himalaya [2] results in 706,000 hits, while Himalayas [3] shows 461,000 hits. So the world uses Himalaya more often too. Janderk 00:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The proper name for the range is Himalaya - how on Earth can a mountain range have a "proper name"? Surely its name is just whatever people call it? (And the OED calls it "the Himalayas" alone.) Proteus (Talk) 22:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We couldn't agree more about naming it what people call it. Most of the world, as indicated by the Google links above, use Himalaya to indicate the mountain range. The reason for this being that Himalaya is already plural. It means abode of snow. Saying Himalayas is like saying the Rocky Mountainses in the United stateses. My impression was that Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible and use the most often used name, but if Wikipedia is meant to be United Stateses or Great Britains centric than we should just leave the misspelling there ;) It is not a big thing for me, I just was trying to help by pointing out that Himalayas comes over kind of weird for 90% of the world's population. The Oxford Dictionary not mentioning Himalaya is a good argument to leave it as it is. Janderk 20:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You'll catch more flies with honey - some of us are tired of the constant accusations of being US/UK-centric. If you want assistance, please don't accuse us of such. That said, I agree with your analysis. --Golbez 20:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
You are totally right. I was exagerating and possibly trolling a bit (note the smilie), while still being serious about 1) Himalaya being gramatically more correct and 2) The world using Himalaya more often. Janderk 06:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Illustrates one of the limitations of relying too much on Google. Searching for only "Himalaya" includes all the cases of "Himalayas". Try searching for "Himalaya -Himalayas". I get 540,000 hits [4] while "Himalayas" alone gets 462,000 [5]. older≠wiser 20:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Not really. Searching Google for Himalaya -Himalayas leaves out the pages using both words, not pages using Himalayas only. If you do so you should search for Himalayas -Himalaya (pages using Himalayas, but not Himalaya) too which results in 230,000 hits [6]. So there is still a ratio of 2 to 1 when using Himalaya vs Himalayas. The fact that there are so many pages using both version indicates that both names are pretty common though. I think this discussion should be copied to the Himalaya (oh, sorry Himalayas;) talk page so others can think about it. Janderk 06:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your explanation of the Google searches. Searching for "Himalaya -Himalayas" should show pages what only have himalaya and not himalayas, which is precisely what is wanted--pages that exclusively use "himalaya". A page using both himalaya and himalayas, at the least, indicates that the term "himalayas" is also used and that "himalaya" is not considered to be exclusively correct on such pages. However, interestingly, I get very different results depending on whether I use the Google search function in Firefox or directly from the Google search page (which as far as I am concerned is simply more evidence as to the unreliability of Wikipedia:Google Test for definitively proving anything). In any case, I agree with your conclusion that the difference in hits between the two terms is not strong enough to conclude one is overwhelmingly more common that the other. older≠wiser 14:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
no--Jiang 00:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Consulting my handy dandy dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary in case it matters), I find "Himalayas also Himalaya Mountains". —Mike 02:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Why not move it to Himalaya Mountains? RickK 08:30, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Because this is an English dictionary. In English its "the Himalayas" regardless of whether that's a doubling of the plural. It might sound strange to 90% of the world -I doubt it but if it does, so what? German-speakers living in Cologne might say "Cologne" sounds strange to the German ear. Italians who (in Italian) say they live in Firenze might think "Florence" sounds strange. Tough. They're the English names. Wikipedia really must stop this supine mangling of English to avoid offence when none is intended and none should be taken. Avalon 08:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Ja well no fine.....90% of the English mangle the English language - they talk about medias and candelabras and excape from prison and anaethetist, and say convince when they should be using persuade - what is this? grammar by majority vote? If most of us say that 1+1=3 then surely that must be right - what utter drivel! Paul venter 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Himalaya?

See voting below

How did this end up at Himalaya rather than Himalayas, the most common name in English? The earlier proposed move from a couple of years ago seems to have met with only opposition. I'm going to move it back. john k 01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have done so. If someone wants to move it back, they should do it properly through WP:RM. john k 01:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really on any side in this dispute, but it seems that the trend in science is towards increased use of "Himalaya." I did a search on the Geological Society of America website (http://www.gsajournals.org/ ). There were 61 articles published in various journals (published by the society) with "Himalaya" in their titles and more than half of those were published since the year 2000; whereas there were only 14 with "Himalayas" in their titles, and all but two were pre-2000. I also did a search on IngentaConnect (a web service my institution--an oceanographic institution--subscribes to). There, the results were not quite so lopsided: in its search of over 30,000 journals (and titles, abstracts and keywords of articles published since 2001), it turned up 534 "Himalaya" (but NOT "Himalayas") and 381 "Himalayas." I will also note that Michael Palin's recent TV series and book were both simply titled, "Himalaya," and he uses only "Himalaya" throughout.

As for myself, someone who was born in that region, I use both terms: I say, "My home town is in the Himalayas," but, increasingly, also, "My home town is in the foothills of the Himalaya."

Stiwari 22:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Much like the Ande, the Rockie, the Caucusu, and the Alp. ;) Kafziel 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:). Actually, the Caucasus are a good example. They used to be called the Caucasuses (and still are infrequently). Stiwari 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some more searching around on the web. Here is a unscientific survey:

  • National Geographic [7] seems to have switched to Himalaya. There were 1060 articles with Himalaya, and only 296 with Himalayas (usually the older ones).
  • Peakware (The World Mountain Encylopedia)[8]. Himalaya
  • The Digital Himalaya Project[9] based at the University of Cambridge and Cornell. Himalaya
  • PBS: Nova[10] Himalaya
  • Biodiversity Hotspots [11] Himalaya.
  • Concise Oxford Dictionary (the self described authority on "current modern English") is now using Himalaya, but the good old OED (and its child the Shorter OED) both still use Himalayas (in describing the entry Himalayan.)
  • Encarta (Himalayas also Himalaya)
  • Britannica (Himalayas)
  • BBC (Himalayas)

I also looked at some book titles:

  • Himalaya, by Eric Valli and Anne de Sales (Nov. 2004)
  • Inside Himalaya by Michael Palin and Basil Pao (March 2005)
  • Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya by David Zurick et al (July 2006)
  • Lonely Planet: Trekking in the Nepal Himalaya (Dec 2001)
  • Lonely Planet: Trekking in the Indian Himalaya (Sept. 2002)
  • Homage to the Himalayas, by the Dalai Lama and Olivier Follmi (July 2006).

Here also are some general observations. In Sanskrit, the word "Himalaya" is not so much a plural form, as a combination of collective noun, material noun, and abstract noun. It is often translated as the "abode of snow," but I think the meaning is closer to: "environment of snow" or "ambiance of snow." I think the proper comparison (with regards usage) should be to the Sierra Nevada, which used to be called the Sierra Nevadas (and sometimes still are); similarly, the Caucasus Mountains used to be called the Caucasuses. I agree that English usage shouldn't necessarily be influenced by original meanings in other languages, but English usage does change over time, and it seems that an increasing number of tastemakers are using the term Himalaya in English. If I were a betting man, I'd go with Himalaya. That is probably going to be the 21st century term. In any case, the issue of usage is not cut and dried, and Wikipedia, if it wants to be a cutting-edge resource, should consider it carefully and not simply revert an earlier edit.

Stiwari 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am incredibly dubious as to "Caucasus" having been correctly called "Caucasuses". The term doesn't appear in the 1911 Britannica article, as far as I can tell. "Himalayas" is still standard usage in English. It may be moving towards "Himalaya" but it isn't there yet. The original move was made without any discussion. If a move is to be considered now, it should be done with a proper request moves. john k 08:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough (about changing it through the proper channels). Also, you are probably right about the Caucasus (most likely, people use(d) the plural colloquially). However, you should not have directed me to the 1911 Britannica, because, to my surprise I found the entry there for the great mountain chain of Asia to be "Himalaya!"[12] They use that spelling throughout; for example: "The Himalaya have been formed by violent crumpling of the earth's crust along ..." Since the current version of the Britannica has the entry, "Himalayas," it must have changed somewhere along the way ... Anyway, thanks for replying. Stiwari 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Himalaya

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Side note: I see the "movers'" arguments as far more persuasive and at least willing to research, but I won't go against the votecount this time (even if I find some "non-movers'" arguments entirely unacceptable; while the burden of proof is on the one who wants the make the change, I feel they did far better job). Duja 12:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article has swung back and forth between the two names for the asian mountain chain. A definitive decision is needed. Lumos3 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ .

  • Support The Wikipedia article name should align with the term used in serious study and reportage and not just what most people call it. So Himalaya not Himalayas. Lumos3 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There is NO plural of Himalaya it is spelled without the S, so . I quote from and eminent mountaineer & writer Harish Kapadia, it (Himalaya) is always HIMALAYA (not with an "S"), Hima-snow and laya-place, so "snow Place" to to the people who live there who have a very different interpretation of where they live and how they use words to describe it. English grammer is useless in this case, is does no one any good. So in their own language it is a PLACE and not a range of mountain(s). We have to understand why that is, the locals never had maps, they looked and saw what was in front of them and so named it. I would much prefer to to use the local usage rather than a bas*ardised one that does not translate to the local language of the country of origin. HIMALAYA IS CORRECT, for obvious reasons. (Gowron 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC))(UTC))
Auto=self + mobile=move = automobile, plural automobiles. No need for Greek or Latin grammar rules. –  AjaxSmack  06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"SHEEP" or do you have "SHEEPs" in America?. This will get us nowhere, but I would read why the word Himalaya exists. (Gowron 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Oppose Himalaya may be the correct term but Wikipedia must remain user friendly and as most people use the term Himalayas this should be the page name. It's not difficult to insert a notice at the top of the page advising of the correct name. Why are some people on Wiki so bloody fussy? If it ain't broke then don't try to fix it! Xania 19:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
By "you" saying that wikipedia should be "user friendly" (software can do that) is actually making Wikipedia worthless and inconsistent, Wikipedia will become a place of useless uncorroborated information, in effect you will have "Walt Disney", it might be what people want but remember in the end the real story of Pinochio is not the film. It name "is broke", wikipedia should not bend too low to Westernisation because it makes it easy for us, but to reflect the people who it is supposedly representing in other countries, which maybe harder. Incorrect information does nobody any good. QED (Gowron 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
Actually, Himalaya is more often used than Himalayas. See:
Google search for Himalaya: 9.8 million pages found
Google search for Himalayas: 4.8 million pages found
Janderk 08:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, because:
    • Wikipedia guidelines tell us to use the correct translation: "when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage". Note that Himalaya is also the most frequently used term (see below).
That page is not policy, it is a guideline. Please learn the difference: Guidelines are suggestions on how best to implement policy; and they have exceptions. This is one. Septentrionalis 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to guidlines. Thanks for your correction. Janderk 19:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most people already use Himalaya. Google "Himalaya": 9.8 million hits. Google "Himalayas": 4.8 million hits.
    • Modern literature and experts are moving towards using Himalaya instead of Himalayas.
    • Like Gowron says Himalaya is just one place "ālaya" and not multiple. Using the correct term "Himalaya" is therefor more respectful towards the local people that came up with the name in the first place.
The only thing for Himalayas is that it is the first entry in some English dictionaries (with Himalaya usually as second option), but for me that does not counter the other points. Janderk 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per Lumos3, and Stiwari's research above. The shift to Himalaya by the sources mentioned above in addition to the previous existence of Himalaya in the Britannica is what convinced me. I think "Himalayas" may have developed as a parallel to "Alps" (plural), "Rockies" (plural), "Andes" (perhaps not plural? can you climb an Ande?). BTW, I personally say "Himalayas"; meh, wadjagonadu? --SigPig 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Where usage is split, go for the more academically correct alternative. --Stemonitis 15:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: After taking a closer look at those Google results it seems that a lot of those pages use "Himalayan" (the adjective), not specifically "Himalaya" on its own. That certainly inflates the hit count. While National Geographic does seem to be switching over to the s-less usage, I'm no longer convinced that it's the most common. Particularly considering that most major encyclopedias are still using "Himalayas". When they don't, they seem to push "Himalayan Mountains", which is not mutually exclusive (just like the Rocky Mountains and the Rockies). Kafziel Talk 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Support per my comments below. Kafziel Talk 16:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
About the Google results you can refine them to exclude the other words:
Google search for pages with Himalaya but without Himalayan or Himalayas: 9.8 million pages found
Google search for pages with Himalayas but without Himalayan or Himalaya: 4.4 million pages found
Janderk 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work Janderk, possibly time to change your mind again Kafziel (I'm only jesting). (Gowron 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
You guys might want to take a look at WP:GOOGLE. Google results are by no means the ultimate evidence of common English usage. It was only a tiny part of my initial decision (you'll notice that it was primarily based on the grammatical usage in National Geographic, as I have already said) and ultimately means nothing when deciding what to name articles at Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As an illustration of that, none of the Google results for "Himalaya" refer to the Asian region; there's a data mining company, a foreign film, two herbal retailers, a dance school, a movie theatre, and an American tourist attraction. Even after removing all those other things from the search, I can see no scholarly sites on the mountain range itself. This is why Google is not useful in cases like this. Kafziel Talk 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not to hard to weed out the pages about schools, companies, etc. Just add an additional term like everest. This provides:
Google search for pages with Himalaya and Everest, but without Himalayan and Himalayas: 503,000 pages found
Google search for pages with Himalayas and Everest, but without Himalayan or Himalaya: 258,000 pages found.
I am not trying to proof that one is more used than another. The only thing I am trying to point out is that both are much used. Wikipedia guidelines say that in these cases the correctness of the translation is the most important factor. Janderk 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) But Google is not adequate evidence of that, no matter how far we narrow it down. Google is not adequate evidence for anything at all, really. Kafziel Talk 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How about another irrelevant search result. A search on Amazon for books with Himalayas? The first 4 most relevant books all use Himalaya, not Himalayas. Again I am just saying that both are often used, not that one is more often used than the other. Janderk 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, the 3rd one down uses "Himalayas". But I agree, it's irrelevant. An Amazon search certainly isn't going to make me forget the last three decades of my own personal experience in the English-speaking world. Amazon searches are even less reliable than Google searches, as they are directly driven by marketing rather than relevance or accuracy. But we can just agree to disagree at this point; that's what the survey is for. Kafziel Talk 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
"Sounds like" your satisfied with anybody's point of view, not satisfied with Google, not satisfied with Amazon, not satisfied with books or journals on the subject, not satisfied with information from academic access, i.e "news paper archives"/libraries/periodical archives/"white papers" these are not obscure databases Universities/Colleges/places of learning use them (Internet search engines can't go i nto these). You've not established common usage, not offered anything on correct usage or why the word Himalaya even exists. Come on you do some leg work, get out from under your computer. (Gowron 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
Why? I don't have to prove anything to maintain the status quo. The burden is on you. Kafziel Talk 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done Google searches in the past and would not use it to prove this kind of point (however you guys are happy with it), one Edition of a news paper can desimate Scholary work that has taken years. Scholary work (see comment bellow which you started I put a lot more data there) nearly always from the very begining books used "Himalaya", or Eastern Himalaya, etc. I own a library of early books, many of which are exploration and mountaineering in the Himalaya. I don't think proof is going to help get the article named correctly though. (Gowron 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
You are correct; newspapers and other widely submitted periodicals demonstrate common usage much more reliably than scholarly works that are intended for a narrow audience. That's the very definition of common usage. Specialists in the veterinary field might call a dog Canis lupus familiaris, but the most common name is still "dog". That doesn't make the specialists less right, but it does make their wording unsuitable for the title of a Wikipedia article. Kafziel Talk 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No thats not what I mean't, one Edition of a newspaper that uses a term incorrectly swamp the scholarly work of which there is a huge amount (as I've said and stated bellow), there a a number on this site. One incorrect usage by a newpaper or magazine (particularly American ones) obliterates the truth (again for want of a better word). Correct usage has been established, even Google hits seem to suggest common usage, and is vital otherwise these articles go down incorrectly into history, it upto us to get the story right. You've not established common usage by your own admission or correct usage. As stated it looks as though "data" is ignored in deference to the "soap" variety. (Gowron 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
Your whole argument is based on the idea that "Himalayas" is incorrect; if I don't accept that (which I don't) then nothing else you're saying means anything. I don't care what they say in Nepal. I don't care how it's written in sanskrit. I care what is most common in English, and the extremely low-profile books you've listed below can't begin to compete with the sources that use the plural form.
Since you're still stuck on the Google thing, it's clear you didn't read (or didn't understand) what I told you about the hits. If anything, the Google test actually disproves your position; a search for "Himalaya" comes up with all sorts of commercial sites that have nothing to do with the mountain range, while "Himalayas" comes up with entries from Nova, USGS, mountain climbers, atlases, and encyclopedias. Kafziel Talk 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Your sounding very desparate, as said I've not used Google in this case and wouldn't but you did?, what I have done, which you have not, is read the BOOKS from 1800 - 2005s. I've not read em all obviously as there are hundreds, but I did get through about 8 to 10 today. I presented a shortlist in the comment section (which you started) I also gave a newpaper article. So since when is presenting actual evidence a problem. All I've done is present how the people in the country of origin use it and why, its not my view just the fact being passed onto me by Harish Kapadia who knowledge is beyond ours. You state "I care what is most common in English", which country's English? I've also taken a look in databases which Google can't search! (a huge amount) ones you have to pay for and there is a reason for that, because its got facts in it as well as scanned newspaper articles. You need a rest, I'm havng one. (Gowron 17:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
I'm sorry, you lost me. None of what you just said made any sense to me at all. Kafziel Talk 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised? (Gowron 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
I just don't get what books from the 1800s, obscure database entries, and an Indian mountain climber have to do with determining the most common English usage. This isn't a discussion about what the locals or experts think; it's a discussion about what people are most likely to search for (and link to) on Wikipedia. You can insult me all you want, but that won't make you right. Kafziel Talk 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry Boyo, Kafziel is crackers about his argument and not a lot else. I got threatened yesterday with a notice in my account saying I would be blocked. I'd only used the place once and didn't understand. All I did was remove the comments section, it didn't at that time contain anything but his comments, as he was going on so much, however he doesn't seem to read it. This place doesn't seem the place for me, seems "poith bach" (little hot or heated) and not upto scratch. Bye Wikipedia. (PaidyMaly 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
Bye. Kafziel Talk 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A (Welsh) Celt whos fed up with being both being miss-pronounced (that can't be helped) but in the main misspelled (which can), and as a caveate that Wales is NOT part of England!. If even these bits & pieces are not kept properly, then foregin countries will not be represented properly. (PaidyMaly 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
User's first contribution to Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What does this mean? Are you voting on Himalayas or Wales? (I've never heard of Wale or Waleses). –  AjaxSmack  06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If you type "Wales" in the Wikipedia search box at the top of the page, on the left hand side, Wikipedia will solve your knowledge challenge. I've only been at this a few hours and even I can use it. (PaidyMaly)
He didn't say he's never heard of Wales; what he's saying is that he's never heard of "Wale" (without the "s") and therefore can't see what your comment has to do with this discussion (in which we are deciding whethere to keep or lose the "s" in "Himalayas"). Kafziel Talk 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sarchasm old boy! Some countries just don't get it. But you will have to watch the corruption of real words to make it easier for yourself. (PaidyMaly 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC))
Well there is just one Himalayan mountain range. Or are there others on Antarctica and Mars? ;) Janderk 07:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to use the most common name you have to change your vote to support ;) Janderk 07:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Google search for Himalaya: 9.8 million pages found
Google search for Himalayas: 4.8 million pages found
Only if I'm willing to accept Google as the ultimate arbiter of English usage. Proteus (Talk) 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You've negated your reasoning for Opposition??. So why Oppose? I agree with Janderk not sure of your logic. (Gowron 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
Then it's a good thing only I need to be sure of my logic, isn't it? Proteus (Talk) 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Both Himalayas and Himalaya are often used in the English language. In fact, Himalaya is used more often as shown by Google. If you click the link on the page you are referring to you will get to more detailed information on the Wikipedia policy. The English naming conventions page says: "when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage". The full quote is in the discussions section below. With Himalaya being both more often used and the more correct translation, it is the clearly the one to use if you want to stick to Wikipedia guidelines.Janderk 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion started in section Himalaya? above

  • Comment. Can someone clarify the usage of "Himalaya"? English usage for "the Himalayas" is fairly obvious, as it conforms to the usage for various other inclusive regions like the Alps or the Great Plains. Would one say, "We crossed the Himalaya" or simply "We crossed Himalaya"? The area isn't a geopolitical entity in its own right; we don't say "we crossed Atlantic" or "we crossed Sahara". I don't really see what local names for it have to do with anything; other languages change English place names to suit their needs, so why is it suddenly anglo-centric to simply add an "s" at the end of this? My stance is undecided as of yet; I'd like to see more on the suggested usage first. Kafziel Talk 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Answered my own question; from the articles at National Geographic, it looks like it's treated similar to "the Amazon". Makes sense, I suppose. I'm not crazy about it, and I still disagree that local preference has any significance, but I can support now that the usage is clear. Kafziel Talk 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.
At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive)." Janderk 07:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. (1) "Himalaya" is NOT English it's Sanscrit [13] and with no "S". (2) There is lots of history? Apart from the people who live there which predates this site and Google we have, here are just a few older ones:
  • Joseph Dalton Hooker "Himalayan Journals" 1855. Assistant-director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In the body of the book Himalaya is used.
  • Douglas Freshfield "Round Kangchenjunga - A Narrative of Mountain Travel and Exploration", published by Edward Arnold 1903 (Publisher to the H.M. India Office). Uses Himalaya.
  • The Scotsman - Tuesday, 17th August 1875, page 3. [14]
  • Eric Shipton "Upon that Mountains", member of the 1933 Everest attempt lead by Shipton. NEVER user Himalayas, Always Himalaya or Himalayan. Shipton never got himself into a potion where he needed a plural, he pluralised the adjectives, i.e. "Himalayan Mountains".
  • Hugh Ruttledgs "Everest 1933", member of the 1933 Everest attempt lead by Shipton.
  • John Hunt "Ascent of Everest", Hodder & Stoughton. 1953 leader of the first sucessfull ascent of Everest in 1953. Seemd to always uses Himalaya.
  • John Angelo Jackson "More than Mountains" 1955. Always used Himalaya.
  • Charles Evans "Kangchenjunga The Untrodden Peak", Hodder & Stoughton, Leader of the 1955 expedition. Principal of the UCNW, Bangor. Foreword by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, K.G.
  • John Angelo Jackson Adventure Travels in the Himalaya Indus Publishing 2005, Forword by Harish Kapadia, recounts 50 yeasrs plus of expeditions and treking in the Himalaya.

So there's plenty of history, different sources are the H.M.S Himalaya (1891) and "The Penninsular and Oriental Company" also had a steamship "Himalaya". There is one another problem, mentioned in other articles, in dispatches sent back concerning attempts on mountains in the Himalaya to the 'Times' in the UK would get translated into American (no offense) which has different spellings, something to be aware of. (Gowron 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Himalayas vs. Himalaya

It is not correct to say that there is no such English word as "Himalayas". It's certainly in my dictionary. And if "Himalaya" means "abode of the snow", that does not sound like a plural word. "Himalayas" is merely an abbreviation for "Himalaya Range", just as "Rockies" is short for "Rocky Mountains" and "Cascades" for "Cascade Range". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Himalaya"; Himalayas is completely incorrect

The Wikipedia is an authoritative encyclopaedia. One of its important obligations to mankind is to correct/modify/rectify incorrect usage and non factual information.

The name Himalaya, originates from Sanskrit and refers to the range of mountains, thus tne english name "The Himalaya".

The inadvertent Himalayas should be moved to "The Himalaya" instead of the other way around.

Let us preserve the ancient culture, rather than rewrite it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.31.179.203 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mountain ranges are typically referred to this way: the Rockies, the Cascades, the Alps, etc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himalayas/Archive_1&oldid=1091622615"