Talk:Yamuna/Archive 1

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

Untitled

Shri Om Prakash Chautala in National Develeopment Council meet laid claim on sharing waters of all non riparian north Indian rivers namely Ravi, Beas, Satlej, Sharda and Ganga in para 13 & 14 of his speech [--completion of Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal in Punjab territory. This canal would carry the share of Haryana in Ravi-Beas waters to Haryana.--] and also admitted no storage dam is built on Yamuna so far [--Till such time the river are interlinked, construction of proposed projects like Kishau Dam, Renuka Dam and Lakhwar Vyasi Project on river Yamuna should be given priority so that natural calamities like floods and droughts can be better managed.--]

Indian capital city New Delhi has only 4.6% share in Yamuna river waters and most of Yamuna waters is intercepted at Tajewala Barrage (now replaced by Hathnikund Barrage) 260 km upstream of Delhi by riparian states Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Most of the water released for New Delhi is lost in the riverbed. Water releases for New Delhi in post monsoon period are not sufficient to keep adequate flows in Yamuna river to flush out and digest sewage and industrial waste of the capital city. [1]

That last paragraph is a real mystery. Does the lower Yamuna flow through the Shivalik hills? Seems strange. After calling the Y. the frontier, it should (or could) go on to compare the environmental conditions (the forests) on both sides. Now it only describes one side. Prater 09:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Ancient History

The section on Seleucus is irrelevant to the article. It is like adding a caption by every discussion of Mathematics noting that the decimal system was created by the Hindus. How was Seleucus' crossing of the Indus relevant to the Yamuna? His understanding of Indian geography was expanded through his interaction with and embassies to Chandragupta. Moreover, the line insinuates that Seleucus campaigned as far as the Yamuna, which is false. This appears to be an attempt to stretch any greek relationship with an Indian topic.

Regards,

Devanampriya 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"The section on Seleucus is irrelevant to the article. It is like adding a caption by every discussion of Mathematics noting that the decimal system was created by the Hindus."

Well check Decimal#History, it seems he probably did not get there by campaigns as I can not find any information on the internet regarding specific battles that were fought, all I can find is that he crossed the Indus. I will look into this and post anything I can find. As for the mention, I deem it appropriate as many other high quality articles (such as the one I just mentioned) list miscellaneous information. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC))


Ummm yeah, I would think that "decimal history" would be relevant to decimal system, so your argument doesn't really pass muster. The equivalent of your post would be me posting about the Hindu decimal system on the Pythagoras page. Your deeming it appropriate does not make it relevant to the article. The Hindu discovery of the Island of Java is not noted on the Java article, even though it is far more important and relevant. Seleucus crossing the Indus and getting defeated by Chandragupta has nothing to do with the Yamuna. Please try to see past your own interests for once and concentrate on developing the relevance and readability of these articles.

Devanampriya 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds so narrow-minded. Isn't having ancient Greek sources on the Yamuna quite interesting in an article on the Yamuna? Especially with primary sources by Pliny the Elder. This is fully relevant and fully encyclopedic. In the other direction, Ashoka never went to the Mediteranean, but we are more than pleased to mention his claim (Edict 13) that Hellenistic rulers Antiochus II Theos, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Antigonus Gonatas, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander II of Epirus were conquered by the dharma. Since Pliny the Elder did write that "The other parts of the country [beyond the Hydaspes, the farthest extent of Alexander's conquests] were discovered & surveyed by Seleucus Nicator", trying to erase it systematically is akin to Book burning. You could simply add a mention that "generally Seleucus is thought not to have gone much beyond the Indus, and that the surveys were made by his ambassadors such as Megasthenes" instead of erasing or mis-interpreting the ancient quote you consider offensive. PHG 08:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Narrow minded? Try eurocentric on your part. We're talking about relevance. You might find it interesting, but where is the relevance to this article? By referring to greek discovery, are we then to include every single western adventurer that "discovered" the Yamuna? Do we need to have separate entries then for the British, the French, the Portuguese? What about the first Americans who set foot on the banks of the Yamuna? Oh wait, since we're not eurocentric we would then have to talk about all the Muslim chroniclers that "discovered" the Yamuna. We also can't leave out the other Indian river systems--let's add those as well!

Nothing of significance pertaining to Seleucus occurred on the Yamuna. I don't insist on mentions of individuals everywhere simply because they are Indian. This is why I don't go about pasting information regarding the Pandya embassy to Augustus on the Rome page, in order to discuss how India "discovered" Rome. You reorienting this page towards Eurocentrism. It's something to do with european history, so it must be relevant and important to this article...oh wait, it has nothing to do with it at all. Let it go in the interest of improving this article instead of advancing your own conceits.

Devanampriya 18:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my contributions (like the list of articles I created), you will easily see that I am anything but Eurocentric. Basically most of the comments you make (such as the the Pandya embassy to Augustus) deserve mention in encyclopedic articles (as an example check something like Sino-Roman relations), there no reason to be specially touchy about Indian content.PHG 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


PHG,

This is not about how you perceive your track record; this is about relevance. I think you missed the point of the Pandya Embassy example. The Pandya Embassy deserves mention on the Augustus page, or to stretch a bit, perhaps the Roman Empire page; it does not, however, belong on the main Rome Article, which discusses the city at length and in general geographic/cultural/political terms. In fact, considering how diluted the relationship is here, an even better comparison would be the Tiber river and the Pandyan embassy. Mentioning the Pandyas there would be misplaced and lacking in relevance. Similarly, the mention of Seleucus and his crossing of the Indus would be relevant on the Chandragupta page and the Mauryan Empire page. But to repeatedly stretch this one topic to even geographic entities that have nothing to do with, such as the Yamuna, is ridiculous. As I said before, do we have to mention every single adventurer then for every single geographic entity of India? The material you have posted is irrelevant and not in line with wikipedia standards. This is not about you, this is not about me, this about the relevance of the content, which in this case, is sorely lacking. Do the right thing.

Devanampriya 04:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant it is. Very simply, suppose I am reading an article on the Hellenistic world, and mention of the Yamuna turns up (something like "Alexander never reached the Yamuna"). Then I would click "Yamuna" to know more about it. Knowing how it was discovered by the Greeks, later, following the expeditions of Seleucus, is most interesting and relevant (we are in an encyclopedia, not a touristic guide, where these things indeed would have no place). PHG 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know how much further you can stretch it. You can make the same logic-free argument for british, portuguese, and french explorers, heck, let's add the chinese in there while you're at it--where do you draw the line? Wait, Alexander never reached the Ganges, let's add a section there. Now when you click on Ganges you can read about it and find out how it was discovered by the Greeks. Oh I know, let's add another greek section in the Himalayas article, now we'll also figure out how they discovered them. Oh, let's add another greek section in the Andhra article, then we can read about them there as well!

It seems to me that the only information that matters to you is that dealing with greek history. You are crafting the narrative of all these articles in the context of Greek agency and relevance. You're just looking for a reason to post this information. This not relevant at all. Just let it go, PHG.

Devanampriya 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia" means "all knowledge", and that's precisely the beauty of Wikipedia that we can add and cross-link this kind of information. Your dislike of mentions of cultural interaction does not seem very compatible with this endeavour. PHG 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, perhaps we should discuss art history in the biology articles and the catapult in the fruit pages since "Encyclopedia means all knowledge"--apparently without respect to organization or relevance. Please spare me the lecture. Your track record of dubious references, agenda pushing, and poor scholarship is not in line with wikipedia standards. Moreover, your unwillingness to consider possibilities outside the realm of your paradigms is truly unfortunate for the stated aims of this website.

I have nothing against discussing cultural interaction. However, I am against cultural imperialism be it Indian, or in your case, European. You are simply continuing the tradition of early British historians and their attempts to portray India as merely a field for Western Agency--be it military or cultural. I would dramatize this discussion a bit further, but apparently, the greeks gave india the dramatic artform as well...

Devanampriya 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are being quite unfair. I have been adding a lot of material on the influence of India on the West (Edicts of Ashoka, History of Buddhism etc...), just as I have added a lot of material on Western influence in India. You might have a look at my work on exchanges between Japan and the West also (Hasekura Tsunenaga, Boshin war etc...). It's always been two-way really, and quite balanced, and it has nothing to do with cultural imperialism, quite the contrary. On the other hand your only activity on Wikipedia seems to be about deleting references to ancient Western influences in India, without contributing any significant material in turn. As long as you keep this kind of agenda, and keep deleting referenced material (Greek script legends on Gupta coins), you are acting against the quality of Wikipedia. This is bias vandalism, and does not reflect well on the cause you seem to defend. PHG 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You gotta admit this was pretty funny "Your track record of dubious references, agenda pushing, and poor scholarship is not in line with wikipedia standards" and "Moreover, your unwillingness to consider possibilities outside the realm of your paradigms is truly unfortunate for the stated aims of this website." ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 19:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually G, the only thing that is really funny is how you don't really have any facts to back up your emotional defenses of outdated practices. I suggest you find a better use of your time since your scholarship in this department is rather lacking.

Devanampriya 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironic indeed. Wild rethorics of a sectarian mind, who will not refrain from unfounded personal attacks, including those most fitting to himself, or even deletion of historical and scholarly references, to defend his narrow dreams of racial and cultural purity... PHG 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, quite ironic considering your untempered use of a european-supremacist and cultural imperialist like Tarn. It is a shame that your prolixity in contributing is not balanced by accuracy of scholarship. Instead of attempting to attack me in order to defend your eurocentrism, cultural imperialism, and misguided fantasies, perhaps you should broaden your reading list.

Devanampriya 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yamunadevi.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

images from greatestbattles.iblogger.org

iblogger.org is on the blacklist[2] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[3]

Graeme374 (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The BOD Levels

I have strong doubts about the BOD levels mentioned in the main article - 14 to 28 mg/l. Although considering the volume of water, this is quite a huge number in terms of overall pollution level, I feel the actual levels of pollutants is far too bigger than which will give BOD of 14 to 28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Push desh (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Inject realism and NPOV

For true NPOV on this river, and a bit of realism, we should see if we can find a way to discuss its pollution and add a few pictures to back that up, such as this one. (I know it's the Yamuna because of this article.) As it is, by comparison, the article looks a bit like a travelogue. — CoyneT talk 23:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rename

I've proposed renaming this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers § Rivers of India naming. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) kennethaw88 • talk 02:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yamuna → Yamuna River – Most of the rivers have a suffix "River" to their names. Refer the list of major rivers of India. And so shall Yamuna? SrihariThalla (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: WP:NCRIVER says "River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage." So what exactly is the problem here? Also read the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers/Archive_3#Rivers_of_India_naming. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A look at google ngrams shows that in books 'river Yamuna' is more common than 'Yamuna river', but that 'the Yamuna', without 'river' in either position, is by far the most common usage. e.g. see [4] and compare this with 'the yamuna' replaced with 'the yamuna river'. Most of the other articles should in fact have the 'river' suffix removed, in accordance with general and book usage. Imc (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per the Ngram results...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Yamuna. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yamuna. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yamuna. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yamuna/Archive_1&oldid=1137336378"