Talk:Kashmir

Unconstructive edits...

Would Somebody please explain to me that why some editors are vandalizing this topic with poorly sourced Unconstructive edits...for example...It is calimed by some editors without reference that Pashtun Tribals RAPED Kashmirir women....Now when in God's name did the Pashtuns came in Kashmir....It was the Local tribes of Kashmir who fought in 1947 not people from NWFP....And Weren't Kasmiri's the one who called the Pakistani Army for help....Then why the hell would Pakistani Army and tribals rape Kashmiri women....They were the one's DEFENDING them....I have given a proper reference but somebody keeps removing it....This issue is getting out of hand....We need to come to a common understanding to create Neutral topic...Adil your (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The responsibility lies with you to provide reliable sources for major edits to this page and any other page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to substantiate your edits by reliable refs instead of your "logic". Doorvery far (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Adil your you are the one vandalizing this article. it is a well established fact that Pashtuns invaded Kashmir in 1947 and ILLEGALY occupied kashmir. you might want to start reading some reputable journals like TIME, Death in the Vale maybe they dont teach these things in a Madrasah--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is rife with obvious Indian propaganda, and completely overlooks the horrendous human rights violations, murder, rape, disappearances, and other attacks against the majority Muslim population. An entire portion of this is dedicated to the Kashmiri pundit Hindu minority, whereas one might never learn that India has been cited numerous times for its abuses against the Muslim civilians, and in fact Indian-occupied Kashmir was been described, at one time, as the largest concentration camp in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If truth doesn't suit you, it becomes propaganda.Great! Get over it, champ. (20:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

External Link pertaining to the Letter of Baroness Nicholson

What was the territorial Extent of Kashmir when she acceded to the Republic of India on 26 October 1947? I have added an external link viz. the Letter of [Baroness Nicholson] [1]to Ambassador, Embassy of the Islamic republic of Pakistan dated 22, May 2007 which inter alia refers to the 1909 “Official” map of Kashmir which inter alia depicts parts of the Taghdumbash Pamir , Raskam and the Aksai Chin area as integral part of Kashmir. The said map was referred by Baroness Nicholson to prove that the so called Northern Areas are also an integral Part of Kashmir and the said Northern Areas also became part of India when the State of Kashmir acceded to India. While the depiction of the external Border of Kashmir in the 1909 map is admittedly not authentic since inter alia there were different versions of official depictions pertaining to the pre-1947 period and while the survey of India also in some of its Official maps did not at all depict the northern border of Kashmir but simply used the legend “Border Undefined”, there were other Survey of India maps of Kashmir which unequivocally depicted the northern border on the Kuen Lun Range depicting the Taghdumbash Pamir and Raskam up to the crest of the Kuen Lun range and the Survey of India map pertaining to the Survey of W.H. Johnson also depicted the northeastern border on the Kuen Lun range at Hindutash[[2]] pass in Kashmir. The aforesaid letter also refers to the Correspondence of the Maharaja of Kashmir dated October 26, 1947 to Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, where in It is observed that Kashmir inter alia shares a border with the “Soviet Republic”. When the State of Kashmir acceded to India, the territorial extent of Kashmir was enumerated in the Constitution of India in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”. The Statement in the aforesaid Entry 15 thus without and iota of doubt includes the areas that were part of Kashmir when she acceded to India, including inter alia the Taghdumbash Pamir, Raskam, Hindutash[[3]] and the rest of the Aksai Chin area. It is because the Taghdumbash Pamir area of Dafdar is an integral part of Kashmir, that the Maharaja of Kashmir in his Correspondence dated October 26 , 1947 to Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India, observed that Kashmir inter alia shares a border with the “Soviet Republic”. Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India has never been amended. However, in 1954, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who happened to hold the office of the Prime Minister of India had, out of the blue stealthily and surreptitiously published for the first time , a new map of Kashmir depicting these areas like the Taghdumbash Pamir which became an integral part of India with the accession of the State “in its entirety to the new dominion of India”[4], as not part of India with out any legal sanction and by not adhering to the due process of law. So the issue is since the Government of India illegally publishes a wrong map of Kashmir defying the Constitution of India, and not depicting inter alia the Taghdumbash Pamir as part of Kashmir, these areas like inter alia the Taghdumbash Pamir, Raskam, Hindutash[[5]] Pass and the Crests of the Kuen Lun range and beyond does not ipso facto cease to remain part of Kashmir because in India the Constitution of India is Supreme and sacrosanct is what I have stated in the Hindutash Talk page.Hindutashravi (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The "territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" would, in all probability, be described in the Instrument of Accession. So, please look for the details there and if possible, post a link to the same. Regards,SBC-YPR (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not even read my previous message properly or understood the meaning. I repeat again the Maharaja of Kashmir in his Correspondence dated October 26 , 1947 to Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India, observed that Kashmir inter alia shares a border with the “Soviet Republic”. This was during the time of the accession of the State of Kashmir to the rest of India. The said correspondence is also provided in the external link[6] viz. the Letter of Baroness Nicholson. For your kind information it was not just the Maharaja who said it, Pandit Nehru also said the same. To quote Nehru himself from his telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, he says, "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and `China' "[7]. This is only possible only because inter alia Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut is part of Kashmir. Look how the present maps of Kashmir are being illegally depicted. What happened of the border of Kashmir with the “Soviet Union” or its successor State? The border is depicted illegally on the Khunjerab and Mintaka pass and there is no border at all with the “Soviet Union” because the Taghdumbash Pamir wherein is Dafdar, the northernmost part of India is situate, is illegally not depicted as part of India from 1954 onwards. Just study the map of Kashmir. Most Indians are oblivious of map reading. If you are ignorant about an issue please do not interfere. Regards. Hindutashravi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Edit: iqbal lone Bandipora J&K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.116.19 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And Miss/ Mr. Doorvery far , Allegedly the maps are unreliable , The aforesaid statements of none other than the Maharaja of Kashmir and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru also must surely be equally “unreliable”. Right! Hindutashravi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You should give a proper inline citation for the challenged sentence, not random external link. Hunza you are inserting is now part of northern areas, and I have added Trans Karakoram tract. Please work towards consensus, Regards. Doorvery far (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page protected due to recent edit warring. Tan | 39 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

== Short history ==

The history of Kashmir Valley is more than clear upto 1148 A.D. Read the Rajatarignini. There is no mention of any Kamboj people in this region. The area is and remainms purely Aryan.

Surely the history of this region is longer? Faro0485 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave link to the main article. Now interested can trim the history section. Doorvery far (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is the name of the whole region

Jammu and Kashmir is not only the name of the Indian state, but of the whole region as well. The UN uses this denomination: http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc20jan48.htm . I'm renaming both this and the Indian state pages in order to disambiguate. Ladril (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please go through WP:MOVE , WP:PLACE and WP:CON before moving a page. Oniongas (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Kashmir valley is known as Kashmir only. Jammu region is known as Jammu not Jammu and Kashmir. Ladakh is known as Ladakh. and all the three as a state is known as Jammu and Kashmir. Oniongas (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to step on your toes, but in order to avoid a revert war I suggest we seek third party mediation. I'm willing to hear your extended argument first, and if I'm still not satisfied I'll make counter-arguments. Deal? Ladril (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is not the name of the entire region. It was used by the UN only because it was the name of the princely state. But the princely state itself was not that old. The Dogras bought the Kashmir valley from the British in 1848, and didn't conquer major regions of Ladakh, Baltistan, Nagar, Hunza until much later. In the Imperial Gazetteer of India, it was called "Kashmir and Jammu," the Dogras, however, who before 1848, were only Rajas of Jammu, changed it themselves to "Jammu and Kashmir." The other tertiary sources, such as Britannica, simply call it Kashmir. This page is modeled on the Britannica version, and used to be called "Kashmir region" until 2008. Please don't waste time by reviving old discussions. Please see talk archives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that, regardless of the precise historical detail, Jammu and Kashmir is a common use name used to refer to the entire region (lots of serious non-UN sources use it). Wikipedia is meant to be adapted for the general user, not the specialist, and because of that common names should be included in the pages even if they are incorrect (one example: many people incorrectly refer to the USA as "America". if you do a Wikipedia search for "America" you are led to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America which, among other things, leads to the USA page). Same should be for us who did not know it is incorrect to use "Jammu and Kashmir" to refer to the entire region. All this in the interest to improve the encyclopedia, not to waste time, remember?. Ladril (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 'official' name of this area is 'Jammu and Kashmir' and the name Kashmir is used as it is easier to say for non natives (kind of like a nickname). Encarta [8]and Encyclopedia Brittanica[9] use Jammu and Kashmir for the article describing this area. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the official name is "J&K", but rather that the search for Jammu & Kashmir should lead to the disambiguation page, and that an explanation should be added that this is not the correct name for the region, if that is indeed the case. Otherwise the uninitiated like myself end up confused when searching for info on the encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the hatnotes on both this and the Jammu and Kashmir pages already address my concern. I won't be insisting on any further changes for now. Ladril (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that Jammu and Kashmir is the official name of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh regions but Kashmir is also correct name for the valley which is in the J&K State and article is about that particular region or valley and not for the whole Jammu & Kashmir. There is a separate article for whole Jammu and Kashmir state. ALSO Its clearly mentioned in article that Kashmir valley is a part of Jammu and Kashmir state. Oniongas (talk)

Am I wrong? As I understand it, this is the article that comprises the entire area consisting of Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Baltistan. As far as I know the whole area is under dispute mostly by Pakistan and India. There is no separate article for the Kashmir Valley if that's what you mean. Sorry if I seem slow but I don't grasp your point. Ladril (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article for Jammu region similarly, and maybe Ladakh too. Doorvery far (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article for each of Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Baltistan, but not for the Kashmir valley itself. It seems there was one in the past but it was merged with this article. Ladril (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Kashmir valley deserved to be merged with Kashmir article. That's why a separate section there. Though Muzaffarabad is not in the valley, they say it belongs to "Kashmir". But Jhelum flows to Muzaffarabad after Srinagar. Doorvery far (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Some biased links

In the links part of the page, there is a link to "in depth coverage" of kashmir. i went there looking for news and dsicovered it was a pro-muslim anti west site, with articles calling to bomb israel etc. why is it included in the links? please remove it or add a warning

Lior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.225.144 (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be deleted. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be something in this article about the Led Zeppelin song "Kashmir"

The song is amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, it's irrelivent.Brando26000 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Uighur spelling

Bad wiki-syntax repaired in this chapter. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} For the Uighur(/Uyghur) spelling of the name, the language used is not Uighur. The correct spelling for Uighur should be as given here: كەشمىر

Kashmir as a country!!!!!

I am shocked to see Kashmir listed as country with its own flag in a reputed site like Wikipedia!!! My son came across this when he was trying to do some research on countries and their national animals! Talk about free enterprise on the internet!!. If creating new countries was this easy on Wikipedia, I guess each of us can have our own Kingdoms!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.118.206 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is this mentioned? Actually that might be vandalism which was overlooked. Harsh

Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk) 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

both parts of kashmir have their own flag and constitution.indian kashmir flag is red in color,with white stripes and a plough mark on it.It is compulsory to have this flag side by side with indian flag.Also indian kashmir has its own constitution.And all this has been guaranteed under article 370 of indian constitution. While on the other hand Pakistani Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) is Yellow Sheet on left and Crescent Moon with Star inside Green sheet on Right and on downward White and Green coloured lines are shown. It is compulsory to have this flag side by side with Pakistani Flag. Also Pakistani Azad Kashmir has its own constitution.

Edit request from Zapages, 26 July 2010

Bad wiki-syntax repaired in this chapter. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars." However, Pakistan has a different view. The "Pathan agitators" were not from Peshawar. Rather, they were local Kashmiris who did not want to be part of India. Furthermore, the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler. He was merely a British appointee. There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Finally, the agreement was that any areas more than 70% Muslim would go to Pakistan.

Thanks for the edit request. Unfortunately, http://www.anusha.com/kashmir.htm does not constitute a reliable source and you'll need to get consensus for this text before the edit can be made. Also, the text itself is copied verbatim from the website and, with no clear copyright information available, this is likely a copyright infringement. Regards.

There is talk about prosecution of kashmiri pandits,during sultan sikander rule,but why isnt there any mention of atrocities committed by sikhs,dogras and indian rulers,on muslims.Thousands of muslims were killed during sikh and dogra rule.The grand mosque,jamia masjid,was locked for 25 years during sikh rule,muslims were taken for forced labour(begar)hindu dogra rule.Two lakh muslims were killed in jammu region during 1947 ethinic cleansing and lakhs migrated to Pakistan.Thousands have been killed during the hindu indian rule.Please make mention of this also.Otherwise this whole article would be considered to be biased and prejudiced.

Kashmir Pakistan ka hay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.0.89 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Pls remove the sentence "Kashmir described as Aryan homeland by many famous scholars". It is total nonsense. No place has been till date authoritatively describled as Aryan homeland. Certain hypothesis point to Anatolia and other parts of the Mediterranean; but none of them to Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.82.53 (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems, my edit (see below) already resolved this request. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Due to unchecked bad wiki-syntax in chapter Edit request from Zapages, 26 July 2010 small amount of editing of the previous sections was necessary. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Kashmir Hindus - Brahmins - Kashmiri Pandits - Arya Hindus - Aryan homeland

There was some stuff in section Demographics, nearly unreadable and not belonging there:

Kashmir Hindus or Brahmins, also called Kashmiri Pandits since Kashmiri Hindus has no caste system as Vedic Arya Hindus (Kashmir described as Aryan homeland by many famous scholars<ref> http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8VnAk14pODsC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=kashmir+is+aryan+homeland&source=bl&ots=AHbcaP7ixW&sig=TFzyL0AClsBU8WjEokR-N1yk9Uw&hl=en&ei=lXAGTLPrFYK7rAeFrqjnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCQ </ref>)

-- Tomdo08 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reference, wrongly placed

The following reference was placed in article chapter Year 1947 and 1948. It is interesting, but it does not account for the statement it was placed after:

"INDIA-PAKISTAN: Death in the Vale". Time. 1947-11-10. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,793895,00.html. 

-- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Raahulworld2004, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Tourism The Amarnath caves are one of the most famous shrines in Hinduism, dedicated to the god Shiva, located in the Indian administered Kashmir. The shrine is claimed to be over 5,000 years old and forms an important part of Hindu mythology.It is a popular pilgrimage destination for Hindus - about 400,000 people visit during the 45-day season around the festival of Shravani Mela in July-August, coinciding with the Hindu holy month of Shraavana

^ "New shrine on Amarnath route". The Hindu. 2005-05-30.

^ a b "Amarnathji Yatra - a journey into faith". Official If you need more references,its there in the end of the wikipedia article 'Amarnath Cave or Amarnath Temple'..Please note,above lines are same as the starting text of the wikipedia article i mentioned above.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rpatil 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As mentioned below, please provide a [[[WP:RS|reliable source]] to verify these claims; after you have such a source, please make another Edit semi-protected request. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Raahulworld2004, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I dont see any reference to Tourism in kashmir..Kashmir is known throughout its history for its beautiful landscapes and natural beauty..Please mention it in kashmir section without which this article seems incomplete..Thank you

Let me specify what i wabt with this article,1-The article of 'kashmir' needs a section 'tourism' as it is a famous tourist destination.The regions of kashmir valley,ladakh,Jammu are visited by tourists.please see below the reference 2)references -The pilgrimage to Amarnath,[10]

  Peace brings Kashmir tourists back,[11]
  Hope to see changes in this regard because kashmir is a tourist destination as proved by the above references

Rpatil 15:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Several things--one, you need to more specifically state what you wish added. Second, please take a look at WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles should never contain statements like "it is known for its beautiful landscapes." Such a statement could only be included if it were both highly notable and clearly attributed; for example, if there were some major international review, you could say something like "Travel Magazine X ranked Kashmir as the 5th most beautiful place in the world," assuming that "Travel Magazine X's" opinion was considered important enough. Alternatively, if you have data about how many/how much much is spent on tourism to Kashmir (again, sited to reliable sources), that could be included. Overall, the point is that we cannot make original statements; all information must be verified by reliable sources. If you do have something more specific that you would like to include, please post another edit semi-protected request. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this page is controlled by Indian POV pushers. An entire discussion in this section with regard to whether the existence of tourism in Indian Occupied Kashmir can be attributed to any reliable sources has been erased by certain editors.

Some of these POV pushers retaliate by dragging in irrelevant political issues "How dare you say that there is no tourism in Indian Kashmir?? Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, and what about all the poor Hindoo Hindu refugees??" and others with more authority simply censor it all by wiping it off the face of this discussion!Harvardoxford (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out sources that back these claims that "tourism is not allowed in Kashmir since..." or that "Tourism is affected by Indian Army" please. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the text "Kashmirs primary source of income was tourism. the tourism industry has been devastated by the civil war. A war is being fought in Kashmir between an alliance of Islamic Militants and Kasmiri Independence groups against 400,000 Indian troops who have conducted a brutal occupation that has resulted in the death of over 80,000 Kashmiris." on the webpage http://www.viiphoto.com/detailStory.php?news_id=276 .... The article and photo essay clearly shows how, after losing the war in Bangladesh, and losing that province, India struggles to keep its hold over the province of Kashmir.

I think the discussion on tourism in Indian Kashmir ends here, your censor happy editor friends not withstanding. Good night.Harvardoxford (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid the given link, with a picture of a beggar, does not provide proof of your claims and unrelated assertions. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not here to convince you of anything. I'm sure you'll give your stoic reaction even if i showed you UN reports. Go cry over how you lost the war in 1971 somewhere else. Please leave Wikipedia alone. Harvardoxford (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to do something that would rile up against Indians in the name of a war with Pakistan when clearly you are not a Pakistani? This behavior is unusual. Where are those U.N. reports about tourism in Kashmir? How is it related to 1971 war, Mr. PhD? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well here are some links on tourism in Kashmir: [| from its chief minister]; [| delegations visits]; [| a book on impact of terrorism on tourism in J&K]; some sites on current information [hotels with contact info]; [tours]; [|more tourism]. The point is that tourism picked up slowly after 1996, it was ongoing till mid 1989s when when it collapsed due to militancy. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvardoxford: Please be warned that "Hindoo" is archaic spelling and considered offensive by many Indians. It has a history of being used as an ethnic or racial slur against them, as the link demonstrates. Accordingly, I have scratched all occurrences of that spelling above and and replaced them with the more common spelling "Hindu." I'll assume good faith on your part and chalk its use above to ignorance, but any repetition of the spelling "Hindoo," will now be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ethnic or racial slurs are not taken kindly on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in kashmir

I dont see any reference to ..Kashmir is known throughout its history for its beautiful landscapes and natural beauty..Please mention it in kashmir section without which this article seems incomplete..Thank you Let me specify what i wabt with this article,1-The article of 'kashmir' needs a section 'tourism' as it is a famous tourist destination.The regions of kashmir valley,ladakh,Jammu are visited by tourists.please see below the reference 2)references -The pilgrimage to Amarnath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with wikipedia's use of the term "reference." By that, we mean something that qualifies as a reliable source--details for which can be found in WP:RS. In short, reliable sources are things like major newspapers, some magazines, academic journals, print books published by reliable publishing companies, government documents, etc. What you wrote there isn't a reference, it's the name of an event. I, for one, have no objection to having a tourism section, but we can't add one in without a reference. Also, please do understand that it is unlikely that we will be able to state "Kashmir is known throughout its history for its beautiful landscapes and natural beauty" unless you can produce a quote from a reliable source saying exactly that. Wikipedia requires that all information in articles be neutral, not biased in either a positive or negative way. We can quote the opinions of others (e.g., "Travel Magazine X said that Kashmir is known for..."), but we can't express the opinion ourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I see that in the section above you did add a link to a source. That looks like it may help. Let me go take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and added a few sentences based on the 2 BBC articles. I believe that these sentences adequately summarize the info; the Amarnath Temple article has more details on the specific violence and tourist experience there. I still can't add the specific sentence you asked for, because we have no reference to site that states that it is widely recognized as beautiful, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

That opening paragraph is too long with way too much historical detail that belongs in other sections further down. Mdw0 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.53.17.160, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

173.53.17.160 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC) "Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range."

Please confirm the truth about the term "Kashmir" and its geographic extent - this does not appear to be correct because the geographic area of Kashmir has been in existence for far beyond that time - ruled by various Kings and conquerors. Please do a more detailed genuine non-biased work on finding and documenting the pre 19th century geographic extent of Kashmir - What area would be "Kashir" / "Kashmir". The term "Jammu and Kashmir" is a political game to segregate for political agenda by various countries / government entities in order to divide the area and there by extend their control on the resources of that geographic area - there is another under current by such political forces to further segregate Kashmir into Ladhak, Jammu and Kashmir. What a shame to segregate people for petty political dominance. The existence of that geographic area has been populated and administered over centuries - the history of Kashmir is not taught or brought to light by the countries / governments because it does not serve their political interest. "Jammu" should designate a city and not a region as falsely tossed into geographic description by certain country(ies) as a part of their malafied intentions to segregate and then finally divide that area if need be so that they can continue to dominate the political arena in the region. The funny part is that Himachal Pardesh is been projected to be a part of the great silk route or its tributary - which I am not sure because the art, craft znd the mix of population ethnicity or sub cultures are not seen in Himachal Pardesh. The truth is that if you really want to see a historic trading center in that area - it is Kashmir - you will see a place that is historically enriched by various people who belong to various ethnicities and subcultures - this area has incorporated arts, crafts and architecture from the influence of their trading practices - the most interesting part is that over the centuries people from all around the trading communities using those routes have settled in this geographic region - which is the modern day Kashmir (mis-termed as Jammu and Kashmir). Certain countries also have inappropriately and deliberately used the word Kashmir and Srinagar synonymously. The apparent fact is Kashmir is a historic name for the Nation / Country that has had various regions and provinces.

See below (duplicate request). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.53.17.160, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

173.53.17.160 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) "Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range."

Please confirm the truth about the term "Kashmir" and its geographic extent - this does not appear to be correct because the geographic area of Kashmir has been in existence for far beyond that time - ruled by various Kings and conquerors. Please do a more detailed genuine non-biased work on finding and documenting the pre 19th century geographic extent of Kashmir - What area would be "Kashir" / "Kashmir". The term "Jammu and Kashmir" is a political game to segregate for political agenda by various countries / government entities in order to divide the area and there by extend their control on the resources of that geographic area - there is another under current by such political forces to further segregate Kashmir into Ladhak, Jammu and Kashmir. What a shame to segregate people for petty political dominance. The existence of that geographic area has been populated and administered over centuries - the history of Kashmir is not taught or brought to light by the countries / governments because it does not serve their political interest. "Jammu" should designate a city and not a region as falsely tossed into geographic description by certain country(ies) as a part of their malafied intentions to segregate and then finally divide that area if need be so that they can continue to dominate the political arena in the region. The funny part is that Himachal Pardesh is been projected to be a part of the great silk route or its tributary - which I am not sure because the art, craft znd the mix of population ethnicity or sub cultures are not seen in Himachal Pardesh. The truth is that if you really want to see a historic trading center in that area - it is Kashmir - you will see a place that is historically enriched by various people who belong to various ethnicities and subcultures - this area has incorporated arts, crafts and architecture from the influence of their trading practices - the most interesting part is that over the centuries people from all around the trading communities using those routes have settled in this geographic region - which is the modern day Kashmir (mis-termed as Jammu and Kashmir). Certain countries also have inappropriately and deliberately used the word Kashmir and Srinagar synonymously. The Kashmiri people have en-mass changed their religion in the past on occasions and the last en-mass conversion was to Islam from Hinduism and have also practiced Buddhism as their dominant religion in the past. The apparent fact is Kashmir is a historic name for the Nation / Country that has had various regions, provinces and cities. I do not feel that the historic boundaries of "Kashmir" are denoted by the valley only - that appears to be incorrect. Please try to find the historic archives of Kashmir - unfortunately these have been systematically destroyed over the centuries by its occupying forces - even the last hope finding some tit-bits have been burnt down in the fire of S.P Museum in Srinagar. If you truly see the existence of Kashmir it has almost constantly been an enslaved and occupied Nation for a few centuries - sold, conquered and gifted to others over these past few centuries. What a human tragedy and a shame for the human existence which is carried on into this new age / era.

Done Despite the fact that most of what you write here is somewhere between personal opinion and original research, I actually agree with your main point. The statement you pointed to in the article has been unsourced since January 2009. Now, statements in the lead don't actually have to be sourced, as long as the rest of the article makes it clear where that information came from. However, I don't see anything in the History section that matches the claim that "Kashmir" originally only meant "Kashmir Valley." So I removed the statement. If anyone has a source for that statement, it could be re-added.

Additional note to the IP: In the future, I recommend that you stay focused on this actual article, and (when making an edit request) only on the point you need to make. When I first saw the long POV argument, I was tempted just to ignore it. Talk pages are the place to discuss specific changes to the article based on reliable sources. They're not the place for personal essays about the general topic. This is especially important on topics like this one that are extremely contentious and likely to have conflict between editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.53.17.160, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

173.53.17.160 (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Please verify and incorporate the following information:

1) About Burzahom area which is supposed to be a dwelling from the Neolithic Age / the New Stone Age Period. (This is a fact)

2) About Khokas and Nagas of kashmir. (There is lack of historic documents - there may be some at the University of Kashmir).

The following is about hear say and local belief in certain areas of Kashmir region: Unfortunately there has been lack of archeological work in Kashmir - you will be surprised to know that some of the mountains are named after some Christan / Jewish / Muslim Prophets as the local belief is that these Prophets had visited those area and worshiped / prayed there: Suleiman Teing (called Chankracharya) - Suleiman is the same as Solomon and Teing means the mountain / hill. Musa Phad (called Thatakuti) - Musa is the same as Moses and Phad means mountain. There are also stories that Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) also traveled through the geographic area of Kashmir.

It would be great if archeologist start some work in this area.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You are misunderstanding how edit requests work. You may not request that we "verify" something. If you want to add information, it is your responsibility to do the research, find the reliable sources, and provide them, along with the exact sentences you want added to the article and where you want it added. Basically, it's exactly the same as if you could edit the article yourself; the fact that you're using an edit request is just because we have the article semi-protected. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

antcient dwelling at Burzahom in Kashmir

Evidence of Surgery in Ancient India: Trepanation at Burzahom (Kashmir) over 4000 years ago. By Dr. Anek R. Sankhyan and George Weber. Printed in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:375-380, 2001 I am quoting this article to reflect the antcient dwelling at Burzahom in Kashmir (it is controversial to call Kashmir a part of any other regonal country). Never the less the main aim is to communicate that there is an ancient dwelling in Burzahom in Kashmir. The web link to the article is: http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/sankhyan/burzahom.htm The artocle abstrat is as follows: "The article describes a neolithic skeleton with multiple-trepanated skull found in Kashmir, the archaeological circumstances of the find, the dating, the background, the skeletal evidence, the details of the trepanation and possible affiliations to the Indus civilization. It speculates briefly about possible medical grounds for the surgery.

The surgical practice of trepanation (also known as or trephination or trephining) is the craniotomy or drilling/cutting through the skull vault of a living or recently deceased person. As a surgical operation it was widely established in many ancient societies of the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia (Brothwell, 1994). Squier (1863-65) and Broca (1867, 1876) were among the first to draw attention to the antiquity of this practice in Peru. Piggot (1940) thought that it had begun in Europe around 5000 BP. In Asia trepanation is evident around 4000 BP in the Bronze Age of Jericho in Palestine (Parry and Starkey, 1936; Giles, 1953). Brothwell (1994) stressed the need for reconsidering the origins and diffusion of this ancient practice which he thought had probably begun 4000 to 5000 years ago. He thought that the techniques of trepanation were similar across all continents and that they could throw new and useful light on the prehistoric movements of people and the transfer of surgical skills from one society to another.

The present article wants to draw attention to trepanation in prehistoric India in general and to a multi-trephined skull from the Neolithic pit-dwellers of Burzahom in the Kashmir Valley of the north-western Himalayas in particular.

Trepanation is known from the Bronze Age Harappan (ca. 4300 BP) people of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Sarkar (1972) attributed a squarish hole on the right temporal skull of a child of 9-10 years skull found at Lothal, a Harappan site. Roy Chowdhury (1973) also believed that evidence of trepanation was present in Harappan skull No. H 796/B and H 802/B, from Cemetery R37 and possibly in a Kalibangan skull (another Harappan site) in Western India. A megalithic skull (M30) from Maski (Karnataka) in South India also showed evidence of trepanation (Sarkar, 1972): it has two circular holes of 22 mm and 15 mm respectively on the either side of the sagittal suture of the vertex. However, the authors are of the opinion that the Burzahom skull presents a better, unequivocal case for multiple trepanation in India. It is this skull that we shall discuss below." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The following is a direct coat from "Burzahom and Origin of Kashmiris. Date Published: 14th January 2007. Bookmark and Share Republish this article. Author: M.Ashraf". Read more at http://www.articlealley.com/article_120033_22.html?ktrack=kcplink.

"The other places where these sites were discovered are Begagund, Gofkral, Hariparigom, Olchibag, Pampur, Panzgom, Sombur, Waztal and Brah............Subsequently the Neolithic Dwellers of Kashmir got mixed with a number of waves of Aryans, Scythians, and probably Israelites to evolve into present day Kashmiris. The external rule of Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, and Dogras has had its own influence upon the lives of local people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are recommending that the above go into the article, please propose what you think we should add, specifically. We cannot add a large block of quoted text. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gnugen, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The first sentence ("Currently, the name Kashmir is used for a the area that includes...") has an extra "a" and should read "Currently, the name Kashmir is used for the area that includes...".

Gnugen (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

{ESp|d}} Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please include the following paragraph - I have included references for review.

There are several Neolithic Age Pit-Dwellings which are about 3000 BC found in the Valley of Kashmir, the first was found at Burzahom which is 10 killometers northeast of Srinagar and the subsequent findings were at Begagund, Brah, Gofkral, Hariparigom, Jayadevi-udar, Olichibag, Pampur, Panzogom, Sombur, Thajiwor and Waztal. The skeletal findings of multi-trephined skull from Burzahom are consistent with the historic evidence of surgical intervention on living people. They were proficient in making tools and pottery in the earlier dwellings and latter on there is evidence of jewelry. The stone carvings indicate their astronomical insight, and it is proposed that it depicts the first every record of the ancient night sky which shows the moon and a supernova or it shows two suns indicating the duration of the hunt of a deer. It is thought that these dwellers of Kashmir intermixed with Aryans, Scythians and Israelites. In the recent few hundred years the original Kashmiri people have been subjected to foreign rulers which range from Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, and Dogras.

Refrences: 1) Evidence of Surgery in Ancient India: Trepanation at Burzahom (Kashmir) over 4000 years ago. By Dr. Anek R. Sankhyan and George Weber. Printed in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:375-380, 2001 2) Burzahom and Origin of Kashmiris. Date Published: 14th January 2007. Bookmark and Share Republish this article. Author: M.Ashraf 3) http://www.kashmirnetwork.com/today/burzahom.html 4) http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/bce_500back/cavepaintings/gandhictr/gandhictr.html 5) http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy103.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic Age Pit-Dwellings and people of Kashmir

There are several Neolithic Age Pit-Dwellings which are about 3000 BC found in the Valley of Kashmir, the first was found at Burzahom which is 10 killometers northeast of Srinagar and the subsequent findings were at Begagund, Brah, Gofkral, Hariparigom, Jayadevi-udar, Olichibag, Pampur, Panzogom, Sombur, Thajiwor and Waztal. The skeletal findings of multi-trephined skull from Burzahom are consistent with the historic evidence of surgical intervention on living people. They were proficient in making tools and pottery in the earlier dwellings and latter on there is evidence of jewelry. The stone carvings indicate their astronomical insight, and it is proposed that it depicts the first every record of the ancient night sky which shows the moon and a supernova or it shows two suns indicating the duration of the hunt of a deer. It is thought that these dwellers of Kashmir intermixed with Aryans, Scythians and Israelites. In the recent few hundred years the original Kashmiri people have been subjected to foreign rulers which range from Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, and Dogras.

Refrences: 1) Evidence of Surgery in Ancient India: Trepanation at Burzahom (Kashmir) over 4000 years ago. By Dr. Anek R. Sankhyan and George Weber. Printed in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:375-380, 2001 2) Burzahom and Origin of Kashmiris. Date Published: 14th January 2007. Bookmark and Share Republish this article. Author: M.Ashraf 3) http://www.kashmirnetwork.com/today/burzahom.html 4) http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/bce_500back/cavepaintings/gandhictr/gandhictr.html 5) http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy103.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk)

Wikileaks cable and "Systemic abuses"

My opinion is that the last sentence of the lead needs to be removed for several reasons. For one, it violates WP:LEAD, because it hints at information that is not described more fully in the article. But, more importantly, I believe the information is fundamentally unencyclopedic. First, the information in the story is based on Wikileaks; note that the Guardian never says that any of these things happened, only that they were reported on by leaked cables. Furthermore, note that the cables themselves also don't assert that there were "widespread systemic abuses by India"—rather, they say that U.S. diplomats were briefed about or were concerned about such abuses. There is no reliable evidence here that anything actually occurred other than some diplomats being briefed by some external groups about something that may be happening. That is not the standard of evidence we require at Wikipedia. So, if others insist upon including this, we need to 1) describe the information in more detail in the body of the article (possibly moving it out of the lead, anyway); and 2) need to be extremely careful that we do not assert any more certainty to the report than the Guardian itself does. Lastly, note one change I already made: the most recent cable is from 2007, so we cannot assert that the Guardian claims this issue is ongoing. Looking for the input of others... Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The wikileaks report is just one of the many recent ones. I agree with your change of language to the article. I do not agree that the cables do not assert widespread systemic abuses. In any case to further the argument, I have added a reference to a section in another article within wikipedia for further reading. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

there have been reports of HR violations in Kashmir both in India and Pakistani administered parts and Al-qaeda roams free under protection of ISI. HR abuses are much more widespread in Pakistan administered Kashmir where Shia minority has been brutally suppressed. Plenty of references are available at Kashmir conflict#Human rights abuse. UNHCR considers Indian Kashmir "partly free"[12] and Pakistani Kashmir "Not free"[13]--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Wikireader41. I do not understand the point of your argument. Just because Pak is accused of HR violations does not mean that India is not. By all means add this information to the article as well for the readers to get a complete picture. That is what Wikipedia is for. Why are you using this allegation to counter the facts that I have added to the article. One does not counter the other and both need to be provided to the reader. Qwyrxian's points were well taken. The language was corrected and I appreciate that in the spirit of Wikipedia. However, in your case it seems you want to push one point of view. I invite you to read the wikipedia guidelines for net neutrality.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

and while you are at it, please read [14] and Timeline of the Kashmir conflict why even mainstream politicians claim that the migration (as shameful and regretful it was) was a conspiracy in which Kashmiri (both muslims and pandits) were innocent victims.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

worse human rights abuses are done in Pak administered Kashmir and yet you chose only to link to problems on the Indian side. Why ??? you are the ones pushing POV here and are likely to see yourself blocked. And why did you not add info about Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits by violent Jihadi Muslims ???? also plenty of references exist of Al-qaeda involvement in Kashmir. any particular reason you think that should not be included in the lead ???? Kashmiri muslims shamefully failed to protect the Kashmiri Pandits and allowed their genocide. so they are not innocent victims as you claim. a prominent leader of the largest political party in Kashmir recently accepted responsibility and apologized.[15]--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not the one pushing any opinion. It is clear from your statements that you have and want to push one. I never said don't add the references that you are claiming, so why are you asking me why i think they should not be there? Cite a RS and add it. I will welcome it. On the other hand you seem to be clearly advocating one school of thought and misleading the readers. So, please beware and consider this a warning. In addition this discussions page is not for discussion on Kashmir as is clearly mentioned in the LEAD, so please stop filling your responses with statements and opinionsKillbillsbrowser (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

on another note, i came across an article in the source that you had cited that supports the claim of human rights abuse in both sides of Kashmir, so I added that. I would not do it, if I were pushing one opinion.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

you removed cited info for HR abuses in pakistan admin Kashmir[16]. try answering some of the questions I have raised otherwise everyone will know what you are upto.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at it yourself, you had not added the citation at the right place.[17] and so I removed that. Next time when you cited it correctly, I did not touch it at all. As for your claim that your POV is the majority view, that is a dubious statement in itself. I can answer many of your questions, but the preamble of this page clearly mentions that the page is not for discussion on Kashmir, so if you want to create a separate page for that, I can share some information there. As for this page, rest assured, I will not delete any NPOV and RS info, no matter what 'view' it supports and I expect the same from you and others. By the way I undid your most recent edit because exactly that information is present in the post 1948 section of this article. I see no reason to duplicate it. If you think otherwise, please post a comment here and we can then move the whole section there. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File_talk:India_location_map.svg

I was looking at the article for the 2011 Cricket world cup , when I noticed some discussion about the in use there. They were redirected to the file talk (see title of this new section) Someone had raised an issue to do with India and Kashmir that I didn't quite follow, that I noticed hadn't been followed up. I am, unfortunately, rather ignorant of such things, knowing nothing other than there are some geo-political sensitivities involved here. I just wonder if someone who has a working knowledge of the sensitivities of such things might have an interest in following this up? I'd also be interested in the resolution. This is the map in question-->.

Thanks, Comes.amanuensis (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article

Articles like this one post a huge question mark on the neutrality of wikipedia. When I first visited this page few years ago, it looked like many paras were written from only Pakistani point of view. Now it is clearly written from Indian point of view AND locked.

Locking this article for editing will not make it neutral. Someone from wikipedia should take time and clean the article of all biased references and statements and THEN lock it. Further changes should only take place through this talk page by wikipedia staff peoples requests with only authentic references. Otherwise whenever this article is open for editing for everyone, it will again become biased. This bias will keep changing sides until it is locked again. WikiHuda (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first, it's not actually locked from editing, it's only semi-protected (that just means new users can't edit it; and they can make edit suggestions here on this page). Second, you seem to misunderstand the purpose behind protection. Articles are semi-protected when they are the target of vandalism or POV pushing from anonymous sources, like this one was. Again, though, any autonfirmed edit (=have edited for 4 days and 10 edits on other articles) can edit this. There is a stronger thing called "full protection," but that is only ever done on articles that are, right at that moment, the victim of an edit war (where 2 or more people keep reversing each other's actions). Wikipedia never fully protects an article to keep it permanently in a certain state, because information changes all of the time. Finally, there are no "wikipedia staff people". All of the editors on Wikipedia are volunteers, who work collaboratively to improve articles. By definition, no one person or group of people have special authority to decide what does or doesn't go into articles.

Having said all of that, if you point out specifically what you think is a problem in the article, then we can certainly start to fix it. Alternatively, you can easily become autoconfirmed soon, at which point you'll be able to edit it directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rundown on Wikipedia :) And thank you for teaching me the use of colon :) From where can I learn the wikipedia syntax?

I'll follow up on this subject later sometimes with United Nations resolutions references. WikiHuda (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave a template on your personal talk page that has a bunch of links about editing on Wikipedia, from formatting, to sources, to core policies. Also, feel free to ask for help on my talk page at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the historical Kashmir region. It is not about the current conflict, the dispute, the "free and fair" elections, the "unfree and unfair" elections, the "freedom fighters," the "terrorists," the plight of the Muslim Kashmiris or that of the Kashmir Pandits. For all these gripes, go to other articles, such as those provided in the dab page, Kashmir (disambiguation). I have removed the major POV elements that have been added recently and restored the version of the article that was formed by consensus. See talk page archives. Some POV elements still remain in the pre-1846 history; those I will attend to later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No F&f, its about everything Kashmiri. The article is 'Kashmir' not 'Kashmir before 1947.' This article is most definitely the place for an outline of the current conflict. The existance of those other articles doenst mean you remove eveything from this, the 'base' article where readers come to gain an overview. Just because it is likely to contain controversial and contentious information, that doesnt mean you just give up and delete everything. It means you work with others to maintain balance. Dont forget, that in controversial articles it is impossible to maintain NPOV in every single sentence. NPOV is maintained in controversial article by ensuring appropriate balance, rigorously enforcing rules on referencing and strictly enforcing rules on tone, style and syntax. Mdw0 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the scope up, Mdw0. It was decided on this talk page a while ago with the help of an administrator. The article use to be the Kashmir region, just like its counterpart in Britannica, which too stops at 1947. The Kashmir conflict has its own page, Kashmir conflict. The various dab links, Kashmir (disambiguation), to other Kashmir-related pages are provided right at the top of the page. It is the first thing a reader sees. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it on this page or am I just blind? If not, any chance of a link to it? I'm fine with a decision that inflammatory details of this conflict are counter-productive, but you should say that, rather than saying the article is only about some 'historic region' because its not. I still think its a cop-out. Surely its possible to have a short paragraph saying there has been various intensifications of the ongoing dispute. Mdw0 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong. What was agreed to was a detailed history of the pre-1947 period and an overview of the post-1948 period. The link is in Talk:Kashmir/Archive_4#Redundancy_in_Kashmir-related_articles (see the proposal, which was actually mine). My memory is no longer what it once was! The admin was El_C. I think reinstating the post-1948 developments section is in order. Frankly, I don't have the time to keep monitoring the scores of people with various ideological monkeys on their backs who come through here. If you are up to the task, please be my guest. I believe NPOV and AGF are all fine in principle, but people with twisted outlooks take advantage of it, ignore it themselves, but wave it in your face if you confront them, and are driving the good editors away from Wikipedia. (That I believe is what happened early last year, when as the New York Times reported, a large proportions of Wikipedia editors left.) Anyway, I'll write a post-1948 section based on what was there and leave it on your talk page. You can then go over it and reinstate it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I appreciate the fatigue editors get in defending a controversial article from ideologues (monkeys is not a cool word to use, though, Harbajan) and reading over this one again, the article as it stands is more than servicable, but I'd be interested to see what you have.<small. Mdw0 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're being ironic ... the monkey was for the ideology, not the editors. And I'm blanking out on the "Harbajan" reference. Was he or she a notorious Wikipedia editor? Or is that an Indian name like "Mac?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, in an infamous cricket series in Australia, Harbhajan Singh was accused of calling an opponent a monkey, but he denied it. Yes, I was trying to be funny. Mdw0 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is funny, now that I understand it. Sadly, my cricket IQ (CQ?) is very low. Lower than a monkey's. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Very staunch and upright, Fowler! A legitimate discussion on tourism in Kashmir is blanked out by your highness since you think it is inflammatory, while plenty of time is devoted here to idle chat about Indian cricketeers. And I understand that if anyone tries to stop your POV pushing, he is dismissed as having an 'ideological monkey on his back', and edits/discussions censored and blanked out. Harvardoxford (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've scratched the sarcastic bit. Again, please refrain from using inflammatory language on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats box in Demographics section

After checking the cited BBC source, I have found that BBC states 99% muslim for Azad Kashmir, not 100% as currently listed. Then, doing the math, the total line should read "77% muslim, 20% hindu, 1% buddhist, 2% other". Currently it only adds up to 88% and all percentages but the ones for muslim are too low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.100.193 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How did you do the math, could you put down the numbers here please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)