Jump to content

Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Happy sage (talk | contribs)
256 edits
just an explaination about the violation of the essence wikipedia is found for
Line 88: Line 88:
* In this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir&diff=next&oldid=691086656], he deleted the reference to the 1951 elections as being "fixed". This wasn't ok. The source is not great, but it is generally agreed that the elections weren't free and fair. Better sources should be found.
* In this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir&diff=next&oldid=691086656], he deleted the reference to the 1951 elections as being "fixed". This wasn't ok. The source is not great, but it is generally agreed that the elections weren't free and fair. Better sources should be found.
On the whole, I think the edits were well-meaning and raised valid issues. I would urge all the editors to be more welcoming to newbies, and discuss the issues rather than blindly reverting edits. - [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
On the whole, I think the edits were well-meaning and raised valid issues. I would urge all the editors to be more welcoming to newbies, and discuss the issues rather than blindly reverting edits. - [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Kautilya3}} I think the information about Kashmir's demographics pre-1947 (which Nayak removed) is pretty key to understanding the roots of the conflict, and doesn't need much further explanation. Without going into detail, I agree with your assessment of most of the other edits listed above. The history section is a bit of a mess in general – it's not in chronological order, dot points are overused, and much of the content is already covered at [[Kashmir conflict]]. I'd be in favour of trimming the section down quite a bit, and perhaps also dividing it into subsections to aid reader navigation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:IgnorantArmies|<font color="crimson">IgnorantArmies</font>]] [[User talk:IgnorantArmies|<font color="crimson">(talk)</font>]]'''</small> 03:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Kautilya3}} {{U|Ranjan s nayak}} also twice removed information about Kashmir's demographics pre-1947 (which is pretty key to understanding the roots of the conflict), but I imagine there's a pretty strong consensus for that to remain. The history section is a bit of a mess in general – it's not in chronological order, dot points are overused, and much of the content is already covered at [[Kashmir conflict]]. I'd be in favour of trimming the section down quite a bit, and perhaps also dividing it into subsections to aid reader navigation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:IgnorantArmies|<font color="crimson">IgnorantArmies</font>]] [[User talk:IgnorantArmies|<font color="crimson">(talk)</font>]]'''</small> 03:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|IgnorantArmies}} please note that while it is easy to point on me,i definitely believe you misunderstood my intentions.Especially, my http://www.wikipedia.org AGF] was not was not understood .please note that it was my first day at major editing .I have given reasons later for the reasons i changed them ,atleast when i realised the importance of "comments" ,but i please scrutinize ur own reactions too .i dont even know to post that thread.(though i learnt a lots of things after one sleepless night trying to learn more abt wikipedia).checkk in "threads" of my account about the "demographic change",i declared the reason for removing it ,not because i wanted to hide it ,but because i felt the positioning of it ,gives a wrong justification as to the significance of religion alone as a binding factor for the formation pf country .It is also significant that u cannot count muslims as one "block",there are famous subtypes ,like 1.sunni and shiaz. 2.Jamindari muskimms vs peasant muslims 3.working class muslims had more in common with working class fellow workers of hindu religion ,than islamic elites 4.linguistic dic=visions ,India has very unique culture wherein,your identity is also defined not just by which religion you belong to , but your linguistic affinity(eg. a bengali muslim and a bengali hindu have more common cultural affinity than a urdu muslim and bengali muslim FYI this lead to civilwar between muslim population itself,because of the wrong intial assumption as 'religion as a binding factor for a nation" 5.A souhtern muslim speaking a common local sothern language has more cultural relations to a local hindu, sikh than an arab muslim. All these consistently highlight "assumin religion as the sole factor " for a nation which was done by [[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]].The shortcoming of the theory is highlighted in [[Bangladesh Civil War]].
:: Yes, but the fact that India followed a secular nationalism and the religious demographics didn't matter to it is also a relevant point. The fact that Kashmir's predominant political movement was secular is also a relevant point. These are equally "key to understanding the roots of the conflict." Now that the editor raised the issues, the imbalance in the article is clear to me. - [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor Robert G Wirsing, a renowned American Political Scientist in his recent book `Kashmir in the shadow of war: regional rivalries in a nuclear age` argues that `the multiple and conflicting religious identities of Indians, Pakistanis, and Kashmiris are deeply and unavoidably implicated in the Kashmir dispute.<ref>https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DGMEifkoxBEC&q=the+multiple+and+conflicting+religious+identities+of+Indians%2C+Pakistanis%2C+and+Kashmiris+are+deeply+and+unavoidably+implicated#v=snippet&q=the%20multiple%20and%20conflicting%20religious%20identities%20of%20Indians%2C%20Pakistanis%2C%20and%20Kashmiris%20are%20deeply%20and%20unavoidably%20implicated&f=false</ref>

Such is the complexity of Identity.So,'''being a muslim is only one of the many identities,presenting it provides only partial information about kashmir people's identity,so while the mention of the demograhic of 1941 is not wrong,it hides the other complex features of identity of kashmiri,and people of subcontinent at large''' '''such a mention in between the storyline hence is misleading,that was the reason i reverted''' '''but there is a feeling in me that your reverting back ,is hostile was not suitably addressed.i did not know how to initiate a talk page ,even you could have done it''' but finally i '''compromised''' and kept that point is one of my edits.but what you did was '''reverting the other points too wihout suffient reason(atleast according to me''' YOU CAN TAG "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" but ultimately you did not address my concerns properly ,but also resorted to [[Edit war]] yourself too .that contributed a lot in destroying the good will and reason that wikipedia is based on. even when you were writing a comment on me on editorial warring notice page stuff ,sir you were judgemental <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ranjan_s_nayak_reported_by_User:Thomas.W_.28Result:_.29</ref> ("i learnt posting thread did i ?".........you said this "udging by the user's belligerent edit summaries the chances of getting positive contributions are slim and none." please stop judging people(request) and plz dont always assume hostile intention ,if u feel so, you should have explained in detail over talk page(because u made many reverts without satisfactory explaining) thus destroying the goodwill and if you feel that being an experienced person knowing ins and outs of wikipedia gives you right to revert without explanation and using the [[Vulnerability]] of newbies to use talks like these as a way to block ,please cite this talk of myn as a reason and lobby for blocking me (which will ofcourse never serve the intention of wikipedia but only make wikipedia more conservative and bureaucratic at the whims of [[Template:Senior_Editor]] .i know my argument has many "loose languages' which you can use again to criticize me and again prove my 'hostile' intentions.but plz do remember the very essence of wikipedia and you can acknowledge the mistakes on your part too
thanks with [[Assume Good Faith]] from my side
[[User:Ranjan s nayak|Ranjan s nayak]] ([[User talk:Ranjan s nayak|talk]])

Revision as of 09:05, 18 November 2015

Template:Old India COTW

Jammu & Kashmir

it is controversial area & writers of Wikipedia should mention it controversial not the state of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.79.1 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's what I am trying to say Zaif1010 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unexplained edits and removal of sourced content from pixmos

Please take it to the talk page before performing unexplained removal of sourced content. Also please stop making vandalism edits. this page is about Indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir - not the entire princely state of Kashmir which now is divided in parts controlled by India, Pakistan and China. thank you --Sdmarathe (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Jammu and Kashmir. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Contents

Hi,

I have have checked all those Policies and found that scholarly sources are better for information about academic topics like specialized article on Science while Kashmir is an ongoing regional conflict between two countries so along with books, News sources will be reliable for these Articles and BBC is a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Moreover In this particlar source BBC is representing historical facts instead of Opinion. So i should restore my Sourced edits. HIAS (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other scholarly source for same claim? If that claim is true then we can easily get scholarly source for it. Controversial historic facts should be written by very reliable scholarly sources. If you are going by lone news article then we can get multiple news sources that any particular Indo-pak war was won by India, or 1965 war is won by Pakistan, but we don't write these things in article, because such things needs even better source. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  05:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the BBC web site used here is not a news article. It is not signed or dated. It is essentially a "history for the dummies" summary written as a context for some other news article. BBC is not a reliable source for history as per WP:HISTRS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being the part of discussion, in that case the scholarly source by Author of a particular country is also based on opinion which is representing widely in this article, but the case is different here the Source is not judgemental and does not state that who won the War and who was at upper hand, it just represent a fact that a promise of referendum was given. BBC is reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. According to WP:BIASED reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I will not WP:EDITWAR here but may be we should take WP:3. HIAS (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now BBC becomes unreliable? We should not try to manipulate the Wikipedia policies. BBC is a reliable source, and if someone thinks it is not for history purposes, I disagree. Anyhow, I have added some more sources, if more sources are needed, please ping me. Faizan (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is never regarded as WP:HISTRS. None of your scholarly sources support the claim either. So, I have tagged it as having failed verification. We will give you some more time to try and find sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Failed verification? None of your scholarly sources support the claim either. - You should clarify that it's the referendum about which you wrote in the template of failed verification. Faizan (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my latest edit, I have reworded the statement. Faizan (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1

Hello , Friends

The previous note was written about Azad kashmir and is still Present in Article Azad kashmir. Now i have created another note for Article Jammu and Kashmir and replaced it. Please reply here if have any problem with that. HIAS (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu Kashmir

Hi,

Jammu Kashmir is not just a land dispute between Indian & Pakistan but a problem of national freedom of Kashmiries. Wikipedia writers must not write Jammu Kashmir/Azad Kashmir as part of India or Pakistan. As per the ground reality and the struggle of Kashmiri people, this is obvious that kashmiries wants freedoom from both Indian and Pakistan. As UN has already described Jammu Kashmir as "disputed territory", so this must not be mentioned as India or Pakistani part.

Rizwan Ashraf 07:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwan ashraf khaksar (talk • contribs)

Today's edits

Ranjan s nayak made a series of edits today, all of which were apparently reverted. Having been the first to revert some of them, I am opening a discussion so that we can arrive at consensus:

  • In this edit [1], Nayak added the mention of two-nation theory and the fact that the Indian leaders didn't accept it. I reverted it because it was coming in the middle of Maharaja's accession decision, which was presumably not affected by the Indian/Pakistani leaders' views. However, we do mention the demographic composition of Kashmir, without leading to any conclusion. So some discussion of this issue is probably warranted. But reliable sources must be found.
  • In this edit [2], he mentioned the Constitution of J&K. But it jumped ahead in the timeline. So it wasn't appropriate here. But I am also not sure why Nyla Ali Khan's statement is here. That is not appropriate either.
  • In this edit [3], Nayak added that Kashmir signed "standstill agreement of peace" with India and Pakistan. I think this is relevant, but it needs to be corrected (no agreement was signed with India, and it wasn't a "peace" agreement), and properly discussed.
  • In this edit [4], Nayak tried to cover the asymmetry involved in the UN resolution. It is ok, but it can be worded better. The relevant discussion can be borrowed from the Kashmir conflict article.
  • In this edit [5], he deleted the reference to the 1951 elections as being "fixed". This wasn't ok. The source is not great, but it is generally agreed that the elections weren't free and fair. Better sources should be found.

On the whole, I think the edits were well-meaning and raised valid issues. I would urge all the editors to be more welcoming to newbies, and discuss the issues rather than blindly reverting edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Ranjan s nayak also twice removed information about Kashmir's demographics pre-1947 (which is pretty key to understanding the roots of the conflict), but I imagine there's a pretty strong consensus for that to remain. The history section is a bit of a mess in general – it's not in chronological order, dot points are overused, and much of the content is already covered at Kashmir conflict. I'd be in favour of trimming the section down quite a bit, and perhaps also dividing it into subsections to aid reader navigation. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IgnorantArmies: please note that while it is easy to point on me,i definitely believe you misunderstood my intentions.Especially, my http://www.wikipedia.org AGF] was not was not understood .please note that it was my first day at major editing .I have given reasons later for the reasons i changed them ,atleast when i realised the importance of "comments" ,but i please scrutinize ur own reactions too .i dont even know to post that thread.(though i learnt a lots of things after one sleepless night trying to learn more abt wikipedia).checkk in "threads" of my account about the "demographic change",i declared the reason for removing it ,not because i wanted to hide it ,but because i felt the positioning of it ,gives a wrong justification as to the significance of religion alone as a binding factor for the formation pf country .It is also significant that u cannot count muslims as one "block",there are famous subtypes ,like 1.sunni and shiaz. 2.Jamindari muskimms vs peasant muslims 3.working class muslims had more in common with working class fellow workers of hindu religion ,than islamic elites 4.linguistic dic=visions ,India has very unique culture wherein,your identity is also defined not just by which religion you belong to , but your linguistic affinity(eg. a bengali muslim and a bengali hindu have more common cultural affinity than a urdu muslim and bengali muslim FYI this lead to civilwar between muslim population itself,because of the wrong intial assumption as 'religion as a binding factor for a nation" 5.A souhtern muslim speaking a common local sothern language has more cultural relations to a local hindu, sikh than an arab muslim. All these consistently highlight "assumin religion as the sole factor " for a nation which was done by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.The shortcoming of the theory is highlighted in Bangladesh Civil War.

Professor Robert G Wirsing, a renowned American Political Scientist in his recent book `Kashmir in the shadow of war: regional rivalries in a nuclear age` argues that `the multiple and conflicting religious identities of Indians, Pakistanis, and Kashmiris are deeply and unavoidably implicated in the Kashmir dispute.[1]

Such is the complexity of Identity.So,being a muslim is only one of the many identities,presenting it provides only partial information about kashmir people's identity,so while the mention of the demograhic of 1941 is not wrong,it hides the other complex features of identity of kashmiri,and people of subcontinent at large such a mention in between the storyline hence is misleading,that was the reason i reverted but there is a feeling in me that your reverting back ,is hostile was not suitably addressed.i did not know how to initiate a talk page ,even you could have done it but finally i compromised and kept that point is one of my edits.but what you did was reverting the other points too wihout suffient reason(atleast according to me YOU CAN TAG "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" but ultimately you did not address my concerns properly ,but also resorted to Edit war yourself too .that contributed a lot in destroying the good will and reason that wikipedia is based on. even when you were writing a comment on me on editorial warring notice page stuff ,sir you were judgemental [2] ("i learnt posting thread did i ?".........you said this "udging by the user's belligerent edit summaries the chances of getting positive contributions are slim and none." please stop judging people(request) and plz dont always assume hostile intention ,if u feel so, you should have explained in detail over talk page(because u made many reverts without satisfactory explaining) thus destroying the goodwill and if you feel that being an experienced person knowing ins and outs of wikipedia gives you right to revert without explanation and using the Vulnerability of newbies to use talks like these as a way to block ,please cite this talk of myn as a reason and lobby for blocking me (which will ofcourse never serve the intention of wikipedia but only make wikipedia more conservative and bureaucratic at the whims of Template:Senior_Editor .i know my argument has many "loose languages' which you can use again to criticize me and again prove my 'hostile' intentions.but plz do remember the very essence of wikipedia and you can acknowledge the mistakes on your part too thanks with Assume Good Faith from my side Ranjan s nayak (talk)

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DGMEifkoxBEC&q=the+multiple+and+conflicting+religious+identities+of+Indians%2C+Pakistanis%2C+and+Kashmiris+are+deeply+and+unavoidably+implicated#v=snippet&q=the%20multiple%20and%20conflicting%20religious%20identities%20of%20Indians%2C%20Pakistanis%2C%20and%20Kashmiris%20are%20deeply%20and%20unavoidably%20implicated&f=false
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ranjan_s_nayak_reported_by_User:Thomas.W_.28Result:_.29
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(state)&oldid=691205863"