Talk:Jammu and Kashmir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Jammu and Kashmir / States (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indian states (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject Pakistan / Provinces and territories / Azad Kashmir  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani provinces and territories.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Azad Kashmir.
 
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Jammu and Kashmir is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South Asia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Indian administered Kashmir removed as reference link is broken[edit]

I've removed the sentence ', whereas some international agencies such as the United Nations call it Indian-administered Kashmir.[4]' as the link itself is broken and no one calls it so. It is mostly referred all over the world as Jammu and Kashmir. jinishans ([[User talk:jinishanstalk]])Jinishans (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

added categories of states of india, kashmir and india[edit]

existing categories/sub categories of the article did not articulate Jammu and Kashmir (Indian) was related to categories of [Category:States and territories of India]], Category:India, Category:Kashmir. There appear to be no objection to the content itself, just the assignment of additional categories and not using existing category - is that correct? --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's take Ms.A as an example, you will add "Women", "Human" as a category? You can't. If other specific categories have included the very common categories, then they have to be removed. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thank you for the analogy - it makes sense.--Sdmarathe (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indicscripts[edit]

I got this reviewed by many uninvolved editors so I am going to completely disregard WP:INDICSCRIPTS consensus as this article is not only managed by a single project being a disputed territory and being related to international projects regardless of which nation is right / wrong or holds any direct influence in the actual Kashmir conflict. Being under the scope of multiple projects, it conforms to general wikipedia standards and wider norms such as those followed at other projects in addition to the fact that Urdu is not even an Indicscript, rather persio-arabic. I didn't get what you meant by the state having other scripts as well because I am not against adding the other scripts as well. Is there any argument other than indicscripts that is behind that revert? Including all scripts is a constructive move IMO, but its no big deal and silly to re-revert over it so let's discuss here. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: Russia lays claims to the Artic - should all Artic-related articles thus follow WP:RUSSIA guidelines? If you read the discussion again, the consensus was not about a particular project but about "India-related articles". Since currently Jammu and Kashmir lies in India, and Azad Kashmir in Pakistan, geographies of these territories follow the guidelines set by the two projects. I understand you would like to have Nastaliq script in anything with even most remote interest for WP:PAKISTAN - but please, for all practical reasons Kargil is on Indian-controlled territory, and "Jammu and Kashmir" designates the part controlled by India. For the entire area, see Kashmir and Jammu; you can have Nastaliq there. Besides, WP:PAKISTAN even doesn't have a section that would deal with geography of regions outside of current Pakistan. kashmiri TALK 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, you got it "reviewed" by 3 (THREE) editors. Not that "many". Could have asked at WT:INDIA and not on your Talk page. kashmiri TALK 02:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You can read the clarifications that I got from multiple editors in my first link above. Territory or control has nothing to do with which topic interests which wikiproject by default. The consensus was achieved at a wikiproject page, for the wikiproject and for indicscripts... so it can only be applied to articles managed normally by that project only. It has nothing to do with India, rather WP:India. I don't know why you think I would push Nastaliq script in anything with remote interest for Pakistan, I also favour regional languages though usually Urdu seems to be the way to go in Pakistan only articles. I am fine by adding all three languages. I did not need to ask for matters not related to just WT:India at that page plus that I was not the one who started the clarification discussion. Anyway, I think you do get the point that any editor is going to come to the same conclusion. Wikiprojects do deal with articles of claims, diaspora and wars etc and these articles mostly have more than one wikiproject dealing with them. My question here was if there's another argument except for Indic scripts? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. Jammu and Kashmir is India controlled as stated above. Azad Kashmir is Pakistan occupied/controlled. Apply whatever policies you want to apply there. Since you have openly stated that you are going to 'disregard' a decision that was made by a group of people, I don't think it will be a great issue to disregard your opinion as well. As for your 'review', hats off for doing it on your talk page. The lease you could have done was notify WP:INB about it, but you chose not to, which is not surprising given that you started a proposal to ban that and stifle such discussion. I'm going to ping the India noticeboard about this discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Article is much about India, decision of indicscripts would apply here with the lead. నిజానికి (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be about India related topics, and the guideline seems to be there because of the number of languages involved. A priori it looks like both the legal and the logical condition apply here; there are multiple scripts one could use, and the topic is very obviously India related, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to ignore the guideline. I would add that the problem of multiple scripts exists even if this were Pakistani territory; people in the state regularly use at least three different scripts, according to the sources I have read. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Populations of major cities[edit]

An IP has recently updated the population figures for the major cities [1]. Can somebody double check them please? Can we also have the source where these figures come from? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing lead section?[edit]

Formerly a part of the erstwhile Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu, which governed the larger historic region of Kashmir, the region is the subject of a territorial conflict...

I am not sure if it's only me but I find lede slightly confusing for an uninitiated leader. As early as in the second paragraph of the lead we get a plethora of terms containing the word "Kashmir", and as as result the reader must be getting lost as to what specifically this article is all about. (This seems to be not clear even to many editors, judging from the text!).

In my understanding, the intention is that "Jammu and Kashmir" should relate strictly to the current administrative entity in India, i.e., only to the territories under actual Indian control. A mirror article about Pakistani-controlled territories is Azad Jammu and Kashmir (and, partly, Gilgit-Baltistan) which, similarly, should deal only with the administrative entity within the Pakistani structures. So, in my view this article should only marginally touch upon the broader Kashmir conflict, and definitely it should steer clear from confusing the geographic reach of Jammu & Kashmir with the reach of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir and Jammu.

In its current form, the lead section is way too overloaded with references to the conflict and to territories outside J&K, including naming disputes for a Pakistani administrative entity.

I suggest that the second para is rewritten.

Similarly, much of the content in the History section below is overladen with references to the conflict, even though the territorial dispute does not relate specifically to J&K but to the entire Kashmir region, and the analysis unnecessarily duplicates Kashmir conflict.

I suggest this article is left to describe the land controlled by India; AJK article to talk about Pakistani-administered land; and all discussion about the conflict (except brief mentions) is relegated to Kashmir conflict. Regards, kashmiri TALK 12:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did a minor copy edit of the confusing sentence you pointed out. This doesn't address all other problems you point out, however. As you know, the subject is a minefield, and making larger changes is likely to be very contentious. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)