Jump to content

Talk:Kashmir

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YoshiroShin (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 19 August 2008 (→‎Arguemnts to add to the Indian point of view section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:1911 talk

Template:WP1.0

Previous discussions:

cleaning up the article

I noticed that the article says that the Kashmir region is so dangerous because India and Pakistan could concievably have a nuclear war over it- but the article doesn't mention the fact that the PRC also has nuclear weapons: all three claimants to parts (or all) of Kashmir have nuclear weapons. Obviously the biggest tension is between India and Pakistan, but I'm sure that both of those governments are resentful over the fact that the PRC has control over some of it. -Random Unregistered Guy

The article leaves out tons of reasons on why India feels it deserves Kashmir. I mean when I read this it sounds like the guy favors Kashmir to Pakistan, cuz he fails to mention tons of reasons on why India deserves Kashmir. He also fails to go into details regarding how India legally got Kashmir & he doesnt go into details regarding how Pakistan invaded Kashmir first. He doesnt go into details about the water dispute & how thats the real reason Pakistan wants Kashrmi. He also does not mention how Pakistan contraditcs itself when they calim to fight for peoples freedom struggles because there are 2 groups of people, one called the Balochis that wanna seperate from Pakistan, and the pathuns that also wanna seperate from Paksitan...I mean this article is leaves out a ton of facts & is to long. ARYAN818 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article, at its current state, is full of sentences like "India believes", which makes it look like an opinion-piece. I tried to convert those to "According to Indian views ...". The Section on Terrorism in Kashmir would probably be better off as merged with Terrorism in Kashmir, with a brief summary here. The history section is awefully long and full of meaningless details. Sometimes, being inclusive of the tiniest details defeats the purpose, and brevity is preferred. The information bloat now affecting the section can be moved to History of Kashmir. In any case, the article needs a good amount of trimming/editing, and the trolls who are quite interested into ranting (see above) can consider participating in the cleanup job. Thanks. --Ragib 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is ridiculous. The new section on the Indo-Pak war of 47 is so biased against Pakistan, it sounds like the Indian Army was posting this stuff. I prefered the old section where it was much more balanced. This new section is totally biased, it makes the Indians seem heroic and the Pakistanis barbaric. This new cleanup stuff is trash! The stuff about Pakistan's self-contradiction are not relevent to the topic of this page.69.183.72.142 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Article in its current state is much better and balanced. As i said before, the original was a much better article and it was far more objective than the new version which appeared later.69.183.73.34 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new section on Kashmir itself sounds like the history of Hindiusm. Kashmir is introduced in such a way that it appears to be more focused on the Hindiusm aspect. This needs to be changed so that Kashmir is introduced in a political and geographical context rather than a religious context. However, the religious aspect of Kashmir shouldn't be disregarded, rather, it should be placed somewhere else in the article in a seperate section for its religious importance for Hindiusm. I edited the page so that the part referring to the Hindu temples comes in the section with the tourist attractions.69.0.82.108 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now administered by three countries: India, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China. - should be changed to now occupied by three countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.179.33 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF we at Wikipedia can work together, with NPOV then we can try to do our best to make this a featured article. If that can be achieved then that would be the crowning glory since it's not any article that we are talking about here but the most controversial subject. It's easy to make featured articles out of uninteresting and relatively insignificant topics but to do something of this calibre requires some work.

The day a topic like this becomes a featured article is the day I would truly reckon Wikipedia has come of age. I'm already pushing for featured article status for Adolf Hitler despite any negative impressions on that man. Here's to my hope. Cheers. Idleguy 04:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article can be made a lot better, and possibly can get to FA status. However, that would require several things
  • NPOV, the article should not sound like a blog for any of Indian, Pakistani or Kashmiri nationalists, it should be balanced
  • References should be provided for all kind of statements
  • Speculation should be avoided. The article should only represent facts.
If these things can be maintained, the article can progress. Thanks. --Ragib 04:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We need some pics on Kashmir. I have plenty but unfortunately I took those pics some 5 yrs ago (before the age of digital cameras) and my scanner isn't working.
I've removed some crappy stuff but more effort is required. 75% of the article is on Kashmiri history. It just goes on and on. That section needs to be summarised and most of the material should go to History of Kashmir and Terrorism in Kashmir. Thanks --IncMan 14:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need to reduce the history section down to a summary, and add more to culture. For example, we can talk about the Cashmere wool in the economy section, have some nice images added etc. Also, more on Places of interest can be added. Thanks. --Ragib 18:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A featured article? Why not?

Anonymous Editor, IndBoy, Ragib, Idleguy and others _ I say if you guys (assume you are males) manage to get a mutually satisfactory discussion going, share your dialectical burdens (that certainly have their historical 'karmic' roots) and arrive at an enlightening resolution, you will have majored in three great subjects.

1) Wikipedian enlightenment

2) A quantum jump from a pre-lutherian ingrained religious semantic and a perception of the world and human beings as religious entities ONLY and not as market driven rationalizing egos or from media- and (unfortunately in Indian Sub-Continent and Islamic-Near East still extant ) from-well-fed-clergy-class–driven sociological Durkheim-Solidarity-Inducing historically-imprisoned economically-impoverished helplessly-manipulated in-ignorance-wallowing citizens of fictional nations carved by some adventurers from West on toilet walls, (from Western elite, who always knew the art of putting their religion on a standby when political expediency demanded it). Man you will be free! I am a Muslim from Kashmir _ and I wiped religion from my slate. I never saw a religious man or a woman so far, only people with ingrained convictions, opportunists and fanatics and lot and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of schools kids with their catechisms and national hymns and national football heroes, most of all in above locations! Grow up! Reform your convictions _ know them for what they are, accidents of birth and history that shows as much rationality and truth as the rich fat film actor depicting a malnourished ideal poor-man in Asian films, just replacing the old pantheon with new divinities, and cashing in on the poor man's hard earned cents. And to those who have argued here, forget not that you are at Wikipedia, talk Wikipedian, which is in the end actually a tribute to polytheism and syncretism and not to dogmatism, but a polytheism based not on mythology but logos! How long will you remain imprisoned in the clergy jargon of bygone centuries? Or use the modern languages in service of quixotic ideals? Recheck your convictions, may be they may show some acquired insanity of that shapeless collective intangible crowd! For that is what it appeared to me, as I went through some of your points of view! A waste of time. How well could you use the same energy for more constructive criticism to arrive at diverse ramifications of truth than expounding your inherited dogmas, catechisms and weird convictions! You are welcome to have your religion though, but don’t depicts those with other convictions as more evil than you. Your truth the only valid one? If you are really religious, you need neither convince others nor disparage other religions.

3) If you folks here don’t manage to resolve atleast in theory a historically inherited conflict, how do you expect the three Nations (India, Pakistan and China) to do it? Nations are crowds too, they become enlightened when individuals like you set the example. In that sense I wish you all a real Socratic enlightenment, which will pay tribute there where it is due, be it to Buddha, Gandhi Confucius, the old Testament Prophets of the Jews and Muslims or Jesus. For Socrates is the one who can formulate a question precisely. And Wikepedains (and one day maybe the Nations) will look here for answers. Get to work guys! I wish you success!

4)This subject has not only the potential to become a featured article, but could be a milestone for one of the great issues of our times, the bungling up of religion, politics and market-economy in the minds of opinion-consumers!

Sincerely, An old Kashmiri WishWell 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

<<< An option favoured by many Kashmiris is independence, but both Pakistan and India are against this. >>> This line be deleted. As it is a mere opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.251.0.55 (talk • contribs) . yo ragib its ure muslim bbrother that's giving bomb threats not jimshort —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.54.90 (talk • contribs) . <--- There is actually a MORI Poll which backs this "mere opinion." Also, a number of the organizations fighting against Indian Occupation also speak very strongly against Pakistan's claim to Kashmir on their web sites. Sure, some Kashmiris would like to be part of Pakistan. Some others would like to remain part of India. But non-Pakistani or Indian biased information points to a strong tendency toward wanting independence.

I feel that the above lines should be deleted. The question of "wanting indepenence has been inserted without reference to the source from where the opinion was taken. The topic is also debatable as it assumes that only those currently residing in Kashmir are entitled to an opinion. The Kashmiri Pandits who have been displaced from their homeland also have an opinion. The topic should be expanded to give a truer picture or else deleted. Ckshayin 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Ckshayin[reply]

More images on culture, economy etc.

The article could use pics on kashmiri women in their traditional dress doing a dance or a buddhist monk or any other image that is related to the culture etc. some images on the economic activity of the people here would be a welcome change from the political and historical emphasis this topic is placing. Idleguy 10:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Removed errors

The article mentions simla treaty included the UN plebiscite. This is not true. As a look into the simla treaty original will reveal, the treaty does not tread on the UN resolution on the plebiscite. It just uses the fairness of United Nations charter to resolve the dispute. So I've removed the statement linking simla agreement and the plebiscite. Simla treaty

Secondly there has been no official record by either india or pakistan of the PoWs being ill-treated or dealt with in any other inhuman manner as the Geneva convention stipulates. Infact 195 of these PoWs were to be put on war crimes trial by Bangladesh [1] but India decided against it. Mentioning these facts on PoW issue here, that are related to Bangladesh would also be out of context. I'll try to incorporate these facts on the pardon given to PoWs in the Bangladesh Liberation War if needed. tx Idleguy 10:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Other than the Simla treaty, the 1971 war has very little to do with Kashmir. --Ragib 18:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Simla treaty is from the Indian Embassy website, hardly a neutral source, and section (i) (i.e the beginning!) states 

"(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.  "

The UN charter includes UN resolutions, like the one asking for a plebiscite!

Dear anon, from now on, please leave a signature. As for your comments, well I am quite confused about what you exactly meant. A treaty's text is fixed, and no matter what the source is, the treaty's text would be the same, and the section 1 will state the same text. I checked out this site which is apparently a non-Indian site, and it also has the same text as what you quoted. I urge you to find all sites that has the treaty's text, and show the discrepancies between whatever you quoted and what the treaty states. I bet you'd NOT find any difference. Thanks. --Ragib 06:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity

Have you ever noticed that the places people are most willing to kill and die for are the places where life is so hard few people would want to live in, if it were not for history? Why is it that civilized, rational nations will threaten each other with nuclear weapons over arid, parched land and yet no-one would consider bombing each other over a tropical paradise? It defies logic. Dave 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I thought I was the only one who thought on these lines. If someone predicts that 100 years from now the whole world would nuke each other for Antarctica, I don't think i'll be surprised. Idleguy 03:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
You can have it! You can have it, our part of Antarctica. It's disappearing anyway ):- Moriori 03:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why take over the world when your home is all you need? -Prysorra


Well, given the global warming thing, Antarctica may very well becoem a tropical paradise soon.Dave 12:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It once was.....I consider this unseasonably cold weather anyway. "During the Cambrian period Gondwana had a mild climate." Antarctica:) Prysorra

massive edits/blanking by 202.165.255.17

There were several massive POV edits by anon 202.165.255.17 (talk · contribs). The anon completely rewrote sections of the article with POV content. I reverted the edits, and would like to invite the anon 202.165.255.17 to discuss the matter here before making such huge changes. Thanks. --Ragib 16:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian and Pakistani view

I don't feel the section is well written on the Pakistani view. To begin with, only the first paragrapgh of the Pakistani view actually deals with a point of view, while the rest deals with Pakistani government actions. A point of view is a thought, not an action.

Secondly, the Indian view successfully retorts everything put forward in the Pakistani view. Can nobody put forward a better argument for Pakistan's claim?

The article mentions that "An option favoured by many Kashmiris is independence", but why is this point of view not represented?

Comment

Huh, that's funny..

India is a secular hypocracy (not democracy) You know I've been reading in these pages on wikipedia the repeated claim that India is a secular democracy. And I couldn't understand that how can an illegal occupier of land in Kashmir ( as judged by the United Nations resolutions), can claim to be a democracy, until I bought the Indian Dictionary of Standard English to find out what the definition of democracy is in India. This is what it says in the Indian Dictionary of Standard English under the defintion of democracy:

Democracy: a system of government that publicly characterises its policies or actions in a manner contradictory to the actual purposes and/or effects of those policies or actions. (from Gr. Demo-: to pretend, put on a show + Gr. -cracy: strength, to govern), democracy (noun) An illegal of occupation of land that does not belong to a country. Also see: hypocracy (synonym). And then I said to myself, Oh I see, that's what they mean by democracy. Now it all makes sense.

So, from now on, whenver you read,

India is a secular democracy, substitute it with,

India is a secular hypocracy.


Regarding above--

The constitution of India says India is a secular, democratic republic and no amount of what you caricaturise democracy or India to be changes that.

Regarding the "illegal occupation" of J & K kindly refer to the tribals from Pakistan invading the independent princely state of J & K and the consequent extending of Indian military support to J & K after its signing the *legal* Instrument Of Accession, to determine whose actions constitute "illegal occupation". Also regarding the UN resolutions, kindly note that it asks for "demilitarization" and holding of a "free and impartial plebiscite" over the whole state of J & K, which includes the Pakistani held part of J & K and the Aksai Chin portion of J & K. How far is Pakistan willing to go in ensuring these requirements for a plebiscite?

Finally note the views of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000 on his visit to Islamabad when he said that after such a long period of time, the UN resolutions on J & K had become, in his words, "irrelevant". 13:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, From your rude interpretation above, I know its next to impossible to change your view on the secular fabric of India. I dont blame you for your thoughts because you have to come and live in India to understand how the system works here.

I am myself an Indian from Chennai (earlier called Madras) which is in Southern India and can be described as the heartland of dravidian culture. We, 'Madrasis' differ from our northern, western and eastern Indian bretheren in ALL aspects of life. We look different, our lifestyle is different, our language is different and in some cases even religion. Will you believe if I said that most people in my state can't understand the National language - Hindi? Yet, we consider ourselves Indian.

I do not say that India is perfect. We have our own problems. We have had to deal with Babri Masjid, Gujarat, Punjab (Sikh suppression), LTTE (tamil nadu and northern srilanka) and insurgency in our eastern states. But with all these issues, we have stood the test of time. Whenever you point out the negative aspects of secularism in India, the above mentioned incidents are the ones you mention. But inspite of all that, you will find that Sikhs are the ones who are most patriotic in India. Conduct a poll and you will find that almost all Indian Muslims will want to stay in India (even given a chance of moving to pakistan). If the right wing Hindu parties like the BJP tried to infuse communal tension, it was predominantly Hindu-yet-secular India that drove them off power.

A standing example of the secular fabric of this country is the fact that it has a Roman Catholic woman leading the party in power at the Indian Union with a Sikh Prime Minister and a Muslim President - all the the healm of affairs in Hindu majority India. We love Abdul Kalam, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi as much as we do Vajpayee (who you must know that most Indians feel is the 'right man in the wrong party').

So, hereafter when you talk of Kashmir, please dont invoke religion. Given the problems India has had from the Pakistan's policy of bleeding India to death followed by Bangladesh - a hotbed of terrorism, LTTE and its suicide bombers in the south all supplemented by an unstable monarchy in the only Hindu kingdom in the world and an aggresive dragon to the north of it, any person woth the right senses would certify it to be a secular. Again I say - it may not be perfect. But it is improving.

With your claims on religion, think for a second on how well Pakistan or Bangladesh have fared with an Islamic regime? It is often termed as a failed state that envies the development of its wealthy neighbor. If you need to talk about religion again, talk when your country is doing well and does not depend on America and China for money - all of which it throws in madrassas, weapons and terrorists anyway.68.193.247.155 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]





Hope this helps clear things up a bit. :) The Village Idiot 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir/Archive01"


"Kashmiri population isnt really happy with the Indian Governement"

That's not what the democratically elected Ministers have said in the past 50 years, not to mention the ex-Prime Minister of independent Kashmir...



How about a section on the nuclear arms race and testing between the two countries? I'd say that it's a pretty important aspect of the dispute.


All I can say is too bad for the Kashmiris. If they have a problem being apart of India, they should pick a different country to live in. They had the option of leaving for Pakistan, they REFUSED! Also, this may be opinion-based. But the Muslims have all the land in the world. Hindus hardly have any at all. Anyway, Indian solders are NOT terrorists. A terrorist is a person from an IRREGULAR force. By that definition, no goverment military can be considered a terrorist. Also, have you been to Kashmir? How do you know a majority of them want independence. When journalists go, they distort the picture. They may find 9 pro-Indians, 2 pro-Pakistanis, and 3 pro-independence. However, in their article, they would put all three arguments in. Making it seem as if most Kashmiris don't want to be apart of India. Also, this whole problem didn't start until 1989. Until then, Kashmir didn't have any problems.

Number of Hindus in Kashmir

The Democraphics section has the following statement fjhfgjfghjfghjfjgjhfjfgfjgjfgjhgjfgjgfhjghfgjhjgfjfgh

Not Wikipedia standard

I don't think we want this standard of material on Wikipedia. As a reader I am thoroughly disappointed. The controversy should be removed to a different page. The material that should be considered to be added:

  • Considered as heaven on Earth by Moghul emperors and the consequent gardens.
  • Myth of the Christ walking upto Kashmir as final resting place after resurrection (somebody needs to research this and the source).
  • The tectonic plates in that area.
  • I know for sure that the language of Kashmir, Kashmiri, doesn't have a script of its own. All Indian languages have their own scripts and most derived from the Devnagri script. This maybe exlpored and/or expanded.
  • Someone has already mentioned the rich folk art - carpets, textiles, pashmina (the process as well), cashmere. This folk art is pretty expensive and rates up there alongwith persian handicrafts.
  • The ethnic roots - since Kashmiris don't look like say people from Central or South India.

To re-emphasize, this is an effort to create an encyclopedia and not a playground for bickering. Yes, you all have been scolded.

earthquake appeals

Hey - there is so much activity going on to do with fundraising for the earthquake. Can we unite to put something up on main page? Maybe listing major 'Live Aid' type projects? Autumnleaf 15:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

Funny, why the wiki for Singapore and other geographical locations forewords with the origin of the geographical name, while Kashmir does not. Is it because Kashmir is derived from the Sankrut 'Kashyap-Mar' where Kashyap was a Hindu sage? If thats the case the entire argument about Kashmiri Independence falls on head. Independence of whom from what? A land of Converted Hindus becomes different from the land of Original Hindus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.81.15 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2005.

Human Rights Abuses

I really think this article is not balanced in the sense that is devoted quite a bit to terrorism, but very little muted criticim of Indian human rights abuses. That those abuses have been almost removed from discussion subtracts one of the largest sticking points between India and Pakistan. At the minimum, it should be said that in Pakistan, the perception is that there are mass human rights abuses going on and that they are backed up by both anecdotal and factual accounts.

Response... Human rights abuses cannot be demanded from people who believe that the punishment for a thief is that his hand be cut off. You have to move from the age of the Prophet to the modern age first.

That is not a proper response at all, let it be noted. In any case, I have a problem with the Human Rights Abuses Section. The last portion of it is irrelevant and completely misleading. It talks about human rights abuses such as rape and extra judicial killing in the first section, and then ends with the didactic that Pakistan-administered Kashmir is listed as "not free" and India-controlled Kashmir is "partly free" by the Freedom of the World 2006 report. It says "They are unable to determine whether they have decreased because of Indian administered controls. The report brushed aside claims of improvement in the scenario." This is in reference to an Amnesty International report, and it is referring to purported improvements in the number of rapes and extra-judicial killings. That's all fine. But then next sentance is completely irrelevant and misleading. It tries to say: Amnesty International won't recognize improvements in rape and extra-judicial killings, but India Kashmir is more free than Pakistan controlled. This is misleading, because all of Pakistan is listed as not free in that report, and Pakistan Kashmir is more incorporated into Pakistan than its Indian counterpart into India. The point is, that list of free countries has nothing to do with the Human Rights abuse problem that the section was talking about. So I will clean it up. 128.91.25.69 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)asr[reply]

Current event

Kashmir article doesnot deal with current event. May be Kashmir conflict or something like that may be current. Hence removing the current event tag --Vyzasatya 22:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

  • Moved the material regarding conflict to Kashmir Conflict. Everyone who wants to bicker and fight can do their in Kashmir conflict talk page
  • This article will be written balancedly and made into feature article

--Vyzasatya 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image is POV

Just noticed that this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_Kashmir_Standoff_2003.png seems to imply that Pakistan does not claim Jammu and Kashmir territory. Someone should change that. --Blacksun 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - May 2006

Someone just added significant text [2] that is completely unformatted, uncited, and needs work to see what (if any) can be incorporated into the article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir is mispelled in Urdu.

Kashmir is mispelled in Urdu. Can someone please fix it?

I have re-organised the external links into categories. I hope it helps people.

Wullar 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?????

I made considerable changes to the External Links section, putting in a lot of time and now someone has changed them back. I am new and don't know much about Wiki, so please help me out. Did I do something wrong?

Wullar

Modern History...

I am not sure as to the intent of the "Modern History". I appologize in advance seeing that there have been many religious statements made in the last discussion on the topic, but I am a bit offended by the content, or lack thereof, of that section of the article. As a Hindu, it was not easily read, but I understand that the barbarities committed against Muslims have occured. What I fail to understand is why this section was not juxtaposed to another that openly stated the gruesome attacks that were committed by Muslims against Hindus in the decades to follow.

I found it simply disheartning to see that a smaller section at the bottom of the article stated that "According to an estimate by Central Intelligence Agency, most of the 500,000 Kashmiris, internally displaced due to the ongoing violence, are Hindus. [2]."

Where is the unbiased nature of Wikipedia on this occassion? You openly recognize the past atrocities committed against Muslims, but hide the numerous crimes that were committed against Hindus?

I propose that the sittutation is handled a bit differently. Since the section is titled "Modern History" juxtapose the pre-existing statements to a newly edited version that discusses war crimes committed agianst Hindus.

Discuss Kashmir minus Jammu and Ladakh

As this is the page on Kashmir you should not bring in Jammu, Ladakh and other areas under Pakistani occupation to the discussion. It should be limited to Kashmir.

Since I belong to Jammu I am very offended by the generic use of "Kashmir" for the entire state and its people. The name of the state has always been J&K, even before partition. The use of the term Kashmir for the entire state allows the politicians of the valley to hog the limelight in international fora. dfgdfgdfgdfgdfdfgdfgdfgsdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgfgdfgdfgf

Who controls the contents of this page?

I am new to Wikipedia. I posted “The role of United Nations” and “Amnesty International’s Report 2006”. These are not my personal views. The role of United Nations and Amnesty International’s Report 2006 are verifiable.

I am wondering what is the editorial policy of Wikipedia. Who controls the contents? For the convenience of readers I am reproducing the posts.


The role of United Nations

United Nations passed a resolution demanding that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan to be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

India is consistently denying to organize a plebiscite according to United Nations’ resolution.


Amnesty International’s Report 2006

According to Amnesty International’s Report 2006 “In July, four juveniles aged between 11 and 15 were shot dead by [Indian] paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles in Kupwara district. Local people said that the boys had participated in a marriage party and gone for a stroll but ran away when ordered to stop. They said that the army had been informed of possible movements of people attending the party late at night.”

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. Here are some explanations of the questions you have raised. Hopefully they will be useful:

Pro-Indian Bias

Pro-Indian Bias

It seems that more space is given to pro-Indian views. There is a need to balance this article.

Here is an example:

Article labeld ‘Terrorism in Kashmir’ is biased and represents pro-Indian View.

For example “India says that over the last two years, a militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[6] Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller militant group, Al Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning.”

How much space are you going to provide to explain Pakistani point of view?

There is also a huge list of anti-Pakistani films and books in this article as well.

Maakhter 05:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Given the nature of the subject matter I agree with the above concerns. The page should be as balanced as possible.MarkStreet


  • I agree. And also, Kashimir is 'not' part of India or Pakistan.


It is stated in the article that "Pakistan launched a guerilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[13] for assistance" This also clearly not NPOV. So i changed it to "When he hesitated to do this, the muslims of Kashmir with help from the Pakistani government launched a war against their Maharaja". Hope that other will also point out and rectify the biased information from this article. Regards , Jawwad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joji pk (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the Kashmir Map Description

Hi Please Correct the description under the kashmir Map, you had MEntioned Pakistan Administered Kashmair, the same rule shoul apply to india, insted you pointed to Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Please Correct this, Wikipedia Should give unbaised information,

Thanks, Lakshmi Narayana

203.145.132.252 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

----

This is a valid suggestion. Given the very nature of Wiki such topics requires tight controls and fair balance. The word occupied should be removed,

MarkStreet

PUNJABI AND PATHAN SETTLERS

I am a Kashmiri and we dont have punjabi and pathan settlers, rather a lot of pathans are merchants in Azad Kashmir but they dont have any legal status


You are not a kashmiri, you are either a pahari or gujjar. Paharis and Gujjars differ from the kashmiris since they do not speak kashmiri language and do not follow kashmiri culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite untidy, sometimes reading like a tourist guide.

Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge of Kashmir to properly clean up this article, would anyone more knowledgeable be able to have a go? NJW494 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html I can't get this link to work. It is currently the second footnote. Mattisse(talk) 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html then. —Nightstallion (?) 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was clearly written by an Indian. It shows in some sections of the article. You mentioned about Ethnic cleansing of Hindus but you forget to point out the Ethnic cleansing of Muslims during the late 1800s and up till 1947. My family actually migrated from Kashmire because of this. Be more balanced when you write an article on a website like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.83.29 (talk)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Idleguy 06:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan

Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon. vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmir page offers an excellent opportunity to highlight the situation in that troubled region to the world. The main page is in need of some balanced revision. Perhaps a committee of interested parties can come together to improve the page.

MarkStreet

Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir

Hi Deepak please dont remove Karan Singh from Jammu & Kashmir, he is the would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir, please check history. His father was king he stepped down from throne and he acceded to India like so many Royals did from all the Princly States.

Thanks

08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Atulsnischal

Hi Deepak,

What politician are you talking about, he is the KING of all Jammu & Kashmir for gods sake. Please check the history of the state.

Atulsnischal 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir

So you mean to say Karan Singh is the would be Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir?! Nevermind, the very purpose of the See also section is to provide links to readers to articles on other topics related to the concerned topic. I just don't understand why would a person who would like to gain some information regarding J&K will go to an article on Karan Singh? Besides, so what if he belongs to a royal family? --Incman|वार्ता 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha.. KING of Jammu and Kashmir.. the last thing I want to know is that India is a monarchy. LOL! --Incman|वार्ता 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepak

Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.

Thats all, I was just thinking the best for the people of J&K, I am not here to fight with you, please rethink and revert

Best wishes

Atulsnischal 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that Mr. Karan Singh has a great personality and is a good man but you have to understand the rules of Wikipedia. Adding a link to Karan Singh defeats the very purpose of the See also section and would result in a decline of Wikipedia's overall credibility. I hope you understand the problem and I would like to express my apologies for my earlier argumentative tone. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at the same time you must realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not the right mean for all this. --Incman|वार्ता 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Atulsnischal, if you continue with your stubborn attitude, I will have to take up the matter to a Wikipedia administrator or Arbcom. --Incman|वार्ता 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepak

You seem to be obssed with the Jammu and Kashmir article on Wikipedia, anybody can make it out, you have got stuck and are going on and on about it, you dont respect other peoples viws too, as for me I think there should be a link to Dr Karan Singh's article here, which was just a stub, so I was trying to develop it, thats all, you are playing politics over the whole issue, please think with informational and historical point of view.....

I have also copyed this discussion with you in the Jammu and Kashmir as well as Dr Karan Singh's discussion page, just for the record that Dr Karan Singh article was discussed, as it is a legitimate discussion.

If you get time later please help in developing Dr Karan Singh's article on Wikipedia too.

Just for info only as you seem interested: Latest News on Kashmir topic today: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Thanks Cheers

Atulsnischal 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am obsessed with the article on J&K. As a matter of fact, a good chunk of that article is written by me (including the History section). And before calling me inconsiderate, look at yourself! Have you analyzed my arguments above in a logical way? You say: "Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state." Hello! This is an encyclopedia. Not a propaganda website. Anyways, I find this discussion a waste of time and unintellectual. So I won't take part in it anymore as I have better things to do. --Incman|वार्ता 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general plea to improve the quality of this article

I just corrected many grammatical errors and misspellings (e.g., emperor Aurangzeb was misspelled "Aurengzeb", which albeit may reflect pronunciation in the Subcontinent but is not how to look up this personage in reference works). Several portions were not very intelligently worded, in that they were clumsy or redundant. E.g., "grant sovereignty and self governance"; "sovereignty" by definition includes self governance.

In a very few instances, there were mild violations of NPOV, which simultaneously were inconsistent factually with the rest of the article. I am ignorant of the Kashmir question. Therefore, I do not mean to assert confirmation of any claims made by previous contributors. All I have done is remove the article's crudest internal contradictions (recognizing that most likely these contradictory statements were not made by the same contributor).

I find the quality of this article to be poor overall. There are few references offered. Many strong claims are not justified by any citations whatsoever. Others are justified by sources which on their face are to be considered unauthoritative and/or biased on the Kashmir issue, e.g., China Daily. I deleted a paragraph claiming that the Lost Tribes of Israel migrated to Kashmir and that Moses is buried there. Not only is this obvious nonsense, but the only citation was some blog at blogspot.com.

In several places, background information is withheld. For example, what great importance does the Viceroy of India have such that a statement by his press attache concerning the validity of India's territorial claim should be accepted as authoritative? Please explain to the non-Commonwealth readership what the officially assigned role of the United Kingdom is in the post 1948 political order in India. Another shabby thing about the "Viceroy's press attache" citation is that no *year* is given (1948? 1998?) and the Viceroy himself not named. Hurmata 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir not part of Pak - Pak Foreign Office

1. “For the past 60 years, we have never claimed Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan. What we have said is that Kashmiris should be able to decide their future and we hope that they would opt for Pakistan,” Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam told a weekly news briefing here.


2. When Ms Aslam was reminded that the slogan of the Pakistani nation for past 60 years had been: ‘Kashmir banay ga Pakistan’ her response was: “That is a slogan of Kashmiris not Pakistan.”

3. Asserting that Pakistan had never claimed that Azad Kashmir was part of Pakistan, the Spokesperson said: “Azad Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. If we were claiming it as integral part of Pakistan then we would have had a governor and a chief minister there.” The spokesperson urged the reporters to study Pakistan’s historical position on Kashmir.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/12/top3.htm

It's time to clean up all articles with the assertion that Pak claims Kashmir. Evidently it does not and never has all these decades. So much for every expert's well-researched understanding on matters Kashmir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. --- Skapur 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information that a foreign office spokesperson. Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle”

"The Kashmir puzzle"

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor


This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf. K.V. Seetharamaiah, Hassan


Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change. K.S. Thampi, Chennai


By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India. It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle. A. Paramesham, New Delhi


A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion) S.P. Sundaram, Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss


Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations. M.N. Srinivasan, Vellore


Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message. Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi, Dhenkanal, Orissa


Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now. Shashikant Singh, Roorkee

Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm

Atulsnischal 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Clarification on Kashmiri wars

I have modified the following section in "Political Divisions" because of factual errors and weak writing:

  • Old Version:

"The two countries have fought three wars over the territory: the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and the third Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (reference List of wars). More recently, in 1999, there was a limited border conflict (also referred to by some as the fourth Kashmir war) in the Kargil area of India-controlled Kashmir. In all these four wars, Pakistan was soundly beaten by India. In 1971, they lost half of their country and was forced to take 93,000 POW."

  • New Version:

"The two countries have fought several declared wars over the territory. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 established the rough boundaries of today, with Pakistan holding roughly one-third of Kashmir, and India two-thirds. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 began with a Pakistani attempt to sieze the rest of Kashmir, erroneously banking on support from then-ally the United States. Both resulted in stalemates and UN-negotiated ceasefires.
More recent conflicts have resulted in success for India; it gained control of the Siachen glacier after a low-intensity conflict that began in 1984, and Indian forces repulsed a Pakistani/Kashimir guerrilla attempt to sieze positions during the Kargil War of 1999. This defeat led to the coup d'etat of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, fought primarily over the independence of Bangladesh on the other side of India, peripherally involved Kashmir. Facing defeat in Bangladesh, Pakistan invaded Kashmir, but India repulsed the attempt and gained Pakistani territory (but returned it at the end of the war)."

Reading over the entries on specific conflicts, Pakistan was NOT 'soundly beaten' in 1947 and 1965. Also, as the 1971 war only involved Kashmir indirectly, I have limited its content by removing the non-Kashmiri outcomes, which seems unnecessary to an article about Kashmir.

I have also made the following change:

  • Old Version:

"Though these regions are in practice administered by their respective claimants, India has never formally recognised the accession of the areas claimed by Pakistan and China. India claims those areas, including the area "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963, are a part of its territory, while Pakistan claims the region, excluding Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract.
Pakistan views the entire Kashmir region as a disputed territory while India refuses to accept Kashmir as a disputed territory and claims Kashmir is an integral part of India according to the Indian constitution, since at the time of India's division Kashmir was given to India based upon the King's will."

to

  • New Version:

"Though these regions are in practice administered by their respective claimants, India has never formally recognised the accession of the areas claimed by Pakistan and China. India claims those areas, including the area "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963, are a part of its territory, while Pakistan claims the region, excluding Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract.
Pakistan argues that Kashmir is culturally and religiously aligned with Pakistan (Kashmir is a Muslim region), while India bases its claim to Kashmir off Maharaja Hari Singh's decision to give Kashmir to India during the India-Pakistan split. Kashmir is considered one of the world's most dangerous territorial disputes due to the nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan."

I have modified the second paragraph because it directly contradicts the first and is not very clear who the "King" is.

Beheim 19:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

From the section on Tourism:

"Nature has lavishly endowed Kashmir with certain distinctive favours which hardly find a parallel in any alpine land of the world."

That sounds far more like a tourism brochure than an encylopedic entry. The British spelling of 'favour' tends to make me a bit suspicious that it might actually *be* a plant from some Kashmiri tourism board.

We need to come to a resolution! (Lost tribes of Israel, Kashmiri Pandits)

First of, the section describing the Lost tribes of Israel is not nonsense.. The only reason I have included the reference as my blog is cause i cannot import the tables to Wikipedia. I have imported all the Information directly from www.tombofjesus.com. And BBC would not make a documentary about it if it was complete nonsese And secondly, Noble Eagle keeps deleting my edits to the Demographics section. I'm a Kashmiri who has lived in Kashmir and I'm quite aware that MOST Kashmiri's consider the exodus to be a planned event that was staged by Jagmohan. I've also said that the Hindu populace holds that the exodus was due to intimidation, but I don't think that what a small minority believes should be what Wikipedia should state. The fact is that this article is about Kashmir and so what the Kashmiri majority believes and knows should be given preference over the minority. And if you keep deleting my posts out of arrogance, I'll keep deleting yours. Two can play this game!

So lets reach a consensus. Wikipedia is not a Propoganda machine!

What consensus? Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus is a documented event. Wikipedia is not a place for Urban legends. Your edits would be revised unlessed sourced. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by documented you mean the "propaganda" that seems to be everywhere on the Internet, you need to find a better source. The majority of Kashmiri people believe that the exodus was organized by Jagmohan. Is that not documentation enough? The leader of the pro-Indian National Conference party which was in power for more that a decade stated this publicly and in a news interview. I think as an elected representative, his views reflect the views of the Kashmiri people. The exodus was an unfortunate event, however Wikipedia should not be used as another propoganda machine. What about the thousands and thousands who have died since the exodus. There is hardly much mention of them. However, the "misery" of 7-10 percent of Kashmiri population has been highlighted and occupies nearly half the demographics section. This is outrageous. I will looking for sources to everything that is edited now. I'm deleting the entire section. If there is anything there that is properly documented, it will stay. Otherwise its out.

And even you want to include your story, please make it shorter than a paragraph and give as much space to the opposing views since clearly Kashmiri's do not all agree to what really happened.

Unfortunately your views are not enough per Wikipedia's policies. I believe the majority of Earthlings can fly without any aid or support, that doesn't mean it's time for big changes to the human article. No, please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully. Wikipedia is certainly not the place to air one's personal views and grievances. If one can verify one's POV using Reliable Sources as Notable in any real way then ok. Otherwise go away. Incidentally, BBC demonstrates that such ridiculous fringe views are contrary to the reality [3].Rumpelstiltskin223 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7-10 % ever realize the majority of Indians are Hindu? They may be a minority in Kashmir, but just like jews were "cleansed" from Germany, so were Hindus from Kashmir. A "majority" probably think Afzal Guru is a saint as well, even though the facts are arrayed strongly against him.Bakaman 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone knows that India is a Hindu majority. But Kashmir is a Muslim majority. Unless and until the Kashmir dispute is resolved, Kashmir cannot be classified as "Indian", "Pakistani" or "Chinese". The international community classifies Kashmir as a disputed territory. I don't know what you meant to prove by informing me that India is a Hindu majority. I'm not trying to say that its the Pandits fault that they left Kashmir. Like I've said before, the exodus was an unfortunate event that should not have happened. However, the article that you keep posting over and over again is biased because it only reflects one side of the story, which is your side. The article seems like clear propoganda, the likes of which can be found on numerous websites. If the majority of Kashmiri population including democratically elected leaders believe that the exodus was instigated by Jagmohan, I think that the story has a lot of credibility. A lot more than a the numerous propaganda websites that are run by Pandits, who let me inform you again were less than 5 percent of the population during the Hindu rule in Kashmir. I know that you are completely unwilling to listen to what 95 percent of Kashmiri's have to say about what is going on because thats not the story you want the whole world to hear. The truth is that you are just jumping on the Islamic fundamentalism bandwagon and trying to use the negative image of Islam in your favor. I dislike fundamentalists and terrorists as much as you do, however the blame for the exodus does not lie with Kashmiri Muslims. I have been to Kashmir on numerous occasions and spoken to hundreds of people about the Pandit situation. They want the Pandits back as much as you want to go back (atleast most of them). It is totally wrong to try to make this look like an us versus the muslims situation. Whatever it is that you're trying to make it look like, its my duty to inform the wikipedia community of what a vast majority of Kashmiri's believe to be reality. The pandits represent a very small minority and their views cannot be considered to be divine truth. If you think the majority of Humans can just fly, you are entitled to your view but the fact is that the majority doesnt agree with you. You have a right to keep and display your opinion, but your opinion should not be in an encyclopedia unless you can convince the majority of Kashmiri's to believe what you think is true.

What is it that you are trying to achieve? Do you want the world community to take notice and make way for you to get back into Kashmir? Firstly, good luck! Look at how loud the Palestinian refugees have been crying? Do you see a solution? I know you are trying to get more publicity for your "cause" but unless you are willing to sit down and discuss the situation with the same Kashmiri muslims whom you falsely try to portray as the wrongdoers, do you think that you will ever be safe and secure in Kashmir. Kashmir is no longer under autocratic rule like you are used to. Even if you get to go back to Kashmir, you will have to live under the Muslim majority. So before you make derogatory comments about the gentle population of Kashmir, please think over the consequences.

And by the way, I cited everything this time over. The population of Hindus at the time of the Hindu rule was less than 5 percent and I've cited this. I have also said that the Pandits think its around 15%. However, if you want to edit that, you better have a good souce.

Cheers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worshipfulmaster (talk • contribs).

Please see Holocaust denial. Also, see The protocols of the elders of zion. FYI, majority of the worlds population thinks that Holocaust was a zionist conspiracy. Sighhhhhhhhh!!! -nids(♂) 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you provide sources for A) that the majority of Kashmiris believe Jagmohan instigated it and B) that the majority of Kashmiris want the Pandits back and C) write this in neutral terms along with the other arguments. Then your views can be incorporated. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please dont amuse yourself my equating your condition to that of the Jews during the Holocaust. The popular beliefs of the majority are rightly expressed by their elected representatives. Especially when the elected representatives were elected 3 terms in a row. So it should the citings of the Chief Minister and the current president of National Conference should be enough.

You can go ahead and keep deleting my edits indiscriminately. Like I said, two can play this game.

No, I'm being serious, you HAVE to provide sources for everything you say otherwise you are liable to be blocked in a case of revert warring. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides need to provide references. If the "Jagmohan ordered it" side limits itself to reporting the statements of elected Kashmiri leaders to that effect, then a sentence that says "elected Kashmiri politicians have maintained that..." can be included, with a link to the interview. The other side, that the movement was largely spontaneous and responding to intimidation, can link to news reports, preferably from Western newspapers.
The tribe stuff doesnt really need an answer, surely? This lost tribe thing is always vastly amusing. Hornplease 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Edit Wars

Guys, pls let us not use this page to spread propaganda. Let us not have an edit war here. A little restraint from all parties can go a long way in making this article a featured article.

- Devil (feb 16th 2007)

citation #6

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the end of this paragraph

"Recently, independent agencies have conducted opinion polls and drawn the conclusion that the majority indeed favors secession from both India and Pakistan. The pollsters also concluded that Kashmiri public opinion overall is relatively more pro-Indian than pro-Pakistani. [6]"

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/20/content_292117.htm

Upon reading the citation given I couldn't find any hard data or lines that confirmed that most Kasmiris are more Pro-Indian the Pro-Pakistani. Maybe I'm just being dense but would someone care to copy/paste the part of the document that supports the above statement onto the talk page? 71.235.41.187 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of Indian arguments are left out

There is no mention of India argueing that Paksitan just wants Kashmir for the water supply from the INdus river.....There is no mention of the fact that many Indians feel like Paksitan already got so much land from India so what right do they have to want Kashmir?.....There is no mention of the fact that Pakistan started the whole thing by invading Kashmir more then once, and stoled half of Kashmir illegally, so therefore they have no right to ask for the rest of Kashmir....There is no mention of the fact that Indians argue that if it is true that most Kashmiris want to side with Pakistan, then by that logic, the country of Pakistan should never have been created in the first place because most Indian people were against breaking up India for a seperate Pakistan homeland.....There is no mention of the fact that Paksitan contradicts itself by claiming they want to help "free" Kashmiris and yet they dont let the Balochis or Pashtuns that want to seperate from Paksitan & let them have there own seperate homeland.....There is no mention of the Sheik (last name i forgot but he was considered the voice of pakistan) who said Kashmir belongs to India.....There is no mention of the fact that Pakistan sends in Islamic terrorist groups to Kashmir, and these groups have systematically forced out HIndu & SIkh Kashmiris, while also scaring Muslim Kashmiris that may want to side with India, and so therefore it is unfair to ask for a vote from the Kashmiris.....And there is nothing written about the fact that if Pakistan really cared about the Kashmiri people then why would they give a piece of Kashmir to China in 1965.... Aryan100 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia goes only by what the reliable sources (internationally recognized academic journals and tertiary sources like Britannica) say on the matter, not by the popular sentiment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Will explain a little more later when I have time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its been over a year....any explanations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics Repeat

I would like to express my thanks to those who are working on improving the quality of this article. I recently noticed that the same Demographics statistics are given in the introduction and under the Demographics section of the article. As a result, I feel that the paragraph in the introduction is superfluous and that information regarding the population of the Kashmir region should be given only under the Demographics section. However, there may be a reason why it is repeated in the introduction that I may be unaware of. If this is the case, please kindly excuse my comment. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have condensed the demographics in the lead. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Women

The women in the picture in the Culture and Cuisine section are in fact Muslim. Here is the reason. The picture of the women was taken at 16:23, 11 September 2005. See the metadata here. Next, see another picture by the same photographer, taken at 16:14, 11 September 2005, here. Finally, see the same picture on Flickr (captioned, "Muslim town of Kargil, Ladhakh, nestled in the Himalayas"), here. Clearly, this means that the first picture which was taken 10 minutes after the first, was also taken in Kargil (a Muslim town). The women are therefore Muslim. QED. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kargil town is 95% Muslim. I guess that still doesn't prove 100% that the women are Muslim. So, I will change the caption to: "Women from the Muslim town of Kargil, northern Ladhakh". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


They are Brokpa women..you can tell by the headdress. They are not Muslim; Brokpas practice Buddhism and Bon. There is no logic in saying they are Muslim...being in a Muslim majority district does not automatically one Muslim. Thanks! Okaywhatever (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

language

what languages do kashmiris speak? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.13.85 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Starting in the northwest and proceeding clockwise (see map below right): in the Gilgit and surrounding regions the Shina language is spoken; to the east in the Baltistan region, Balti language is spoken; to its south in the Ladhakh region Ladakhi language is spoken; to its west in the heavily populated Kashmir valley Kashmiri language is spoken; to its south in the Kishtwar valley, the Kashtawari dialect of Kashmiri is spoken; to its south in Jammu, the Dogri language is spoken; and finally to its northwest in the Pir Panjal hills, the Punchhi and Chibhali languages are spoken. I will add a (more detailed) Languages section on the page later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name should be "Jammu and Kashmir"

I gave a source from the United Nations: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf

Also in atlases I have, the region is named Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian state is also named Jammu and Kashmir, the UN calls it Jammu and Kashmir Area. You don't change a name only to distinguish it from the state. So Fowler&fowler is totally wrong here and I suppose to move it back to "Jammu and Kashmir Area" or "Jammu and Kashmir area". --Jeroenvrp 10:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is simply following what the other pre-eminent tertiary source, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007), has chosen to do for the region. It has two pages:
  • Kashmir (2007), whose lead paragraph is:

It was decided a long time ago (in Wikipedia) to call the first page "Kashmir region" instead of "Kashmir" (to avoid confusion with "Kashmir valley"), but to have Kashmir redirect to Kashmir region. There is also a dab page Kashmir (disambiguation), which points out the different usages. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know next to nothing on this subject, so I can't really comment at which title it should be located, but in the case where two reliable sources disagree it is always a good idea to find what the most commonly used name is in academic literature. Few single reliable sources can be the final authority on such naming issues. On the other hand, why isn't Kashmir the disambiguation page? That would be the place where I, the not-so-informed-on-this subject-person, would expect it to be. —Ruud 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: So properly Britannica is also wrong here. Off course "Kashmir" is mostly used, I used it to, but properly because off the international tensions, the UN names it "Jammu and Kashmir". It is also a fact that the Jammu region occupies also a small area in Pakistan. If you look to the history it was also the name of the area during the British period. --Jeroenvrp 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1909 Map of the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu. The names of different regions, important cities, rivers, and mountains are underlined in red.
Yes, I know about the British period (having written much of the history section myself). The British actually called the princely state, "Kashmir and Jammu." I quote from my copy of the Imperial Gazeteer of India, vol 15, 1909, page 70, "The territories of the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu may be roughly described in the words of the treaty of March 16, 1846, as 'situated to the eastward of the river Indus and westward of the river Ravi,' This country, known to the English as Kashmir and to the Indians as Jammu, covers and area of 80,900 square miles ..." It was the Maharaja who called his princely state, "Jammu and Kashmir." And that happened because he was already the Raja of Jammu (territory given to him by the Sikhs for loyalty) at the time (1846) when he purchased the Kashmir valley from the British (also for loyalty), and so his state became "Jammu and Kashmir." After that Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit were added but the name wasn't changed to include them (see the history section). See also the British (Indian empire) map I uploaded in the history section (from 1909) which calls the region "Kashmir." I am adding the map on the right here: when you look at the map you realize (and do I too each time I look at it again) how small a part of the region "Jammu" really is, or for that matter even the "Kashmir valley" (the original Kashmir"); most of the region is Ladakh, Baltistan, and Gilgit. The UN is stuck with that name because that's what the princely state was called in 1947, when the dispute began, and the disputants, now won't allow the UN to change the name (even if it wanted to). As you guessed rightly the academic sources use "Kashmir" more for the region. When I do a Google search for "Kashmir -Jammu site:edu" I get 125,000 hits, whereas with "Jammu and Kashmir site:edu" I get only 25,000. Here are some other sources (I'll keep adding them as and when I find time). I provide in parentheses below the name each source uses:

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. You follow more the academic sources and I follow more the UN sources; the ArbCom of the world. I rest my case and I think that you should at least mention the fact that the UN calls it the "Jammu and Kashmir Area". Jeroenvrp 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many of these google hits are specifically about Kashmir (valley)? Amost all? I remember reading about demands to rename the Indian state Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, since at least half the area is actually Ladakh, which is a world apart from Jammu or Kashmir. These three disparate regions, plus the Northern Areas and NWFP, were politically united by the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. (NWFP was separated. in the 1930s). Despite "Kashmir" being arguably inaccurate in many ways, it remains the most commonly used appelation when the whole region is talked about as one. So, I suppose we should keep it. deeptrivia (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeroenvrp, Yes, that's a good idea (to mention that UN calls it J&K). Will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deeptrivia, No, most of them are actually about the whole region (at least they were on the 2 pages I checked; remember these are academic .edu sites). NWFP was never a part of the princely state, which consisted of present-day Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani Northern Areas and Pakistani Azad Kashmir. However, in 1889, as protection against a perceived Russian menace, the British got the Maharaja to lease Gilgit Agency to them and it was directly administered through a British political agent. It remained leased until early June 1947, when it was returned to the Maharaja. Jammu and Kashmir (as I say above or in the history section) is really of recent vintage in the grand scale of history. In 1820, when Gulab Singh was made Raja of Jammu by the Sikhs, Kashmir was just Kashmir valley, all the other areas, Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar etc. were independent kingdoms and were referred to by their names. But, of course, as you say now, Kashmir is used to mean the whole region. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as I said earlier, Kashmir is simpler and common name, so I recommend that it stays. However, first two .edu results are personal alumni homepages. On the first page, only two results (UT Austin maps and UFL article) clearly refer to the whole region, the rest are about movies (mission kashmir, kashmir ki kali), ghazals (A Garden of Kashmir), personal photos of kashmir valley, etc. Why would a search like "kashmir -jammu site:edu" be expected to yield results related to the whole region when the Kashmir valley is arguably the much more well known by orders of magnitude not only in politics, but in literature, cinema, trade, and so on? Over half Google scholar results on the first few pages are about patents by inventors Kashmir S. Sabota, Kashmir Singh Gill, Kashmir S. Virk, etc. Next come results that list Kashmir, Chitral, Gilgit, etc separately. I'm not making any point, but just jotting down a general observation about how one should be careful with google tests. History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict#Partition.2C_dispute_and_war says that in 1935 British rulers compelled the Dogra King of Jammu and Kashmir to lease parts of his kingdom, which were to make up the new Province of the North-West Frontier, for 60 years. Perhaps this refers to only the Gilgit agency. It's a bit confusing. Looks like you know a lot about it, so please make it clearer on these articles. Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the .edu sites are not the most relevant. Thanks for the info. Will look at the History of Kashmir conflict page. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterations...

Before I made the edit, there was only the Urdu transliteration of 'Kashmir' so I put in a Hindi transliteration as well, logically because India has claims to Kashmir and Hindi is one of India's governing languages (the other being English). I also put in the Gurmukhi transliteration, but now I think that that was unwarranted.

I am trying to be as politically and factually correct as possible here. Maybe we should put the Chinese characters in too because, according to this article, they have some claim to Kashmir as well.

Any thoughts?

--Yoshiroshin 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to El C

You need to explain what you are doing. What does it mean, "No wholesale reverts?" I have written most of this article (at least the lead, history, and demography). In two days you make some changes, some of which are inaccurate. Reverting to a previous page is hardly a wholesale revert. Please revert to a stable previous page and then explain what you propose to do; otherwise, I will get admin help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:OWN. I'm trying to avoid some of the idiosyncrasies that plague the Kashmir sets of articles. I don't see why we need to go into such detail in the lead. I am an admin, incidentally, and was requested to protect these pages. I'm editing them, instead. No text was lost, just moved around. You cannot have so much detail in the intro, esp. one that repeats what is in other sections word-for-word. El_C 12:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back in 24 hours, since I used up three reverts and, clearly, you feel you have some special entitlement to this page. You do not. El_C 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't feel I have any entitlement; just that I have written a careful and neutral account from academic sources. Agreed that there was redundancy that needs to be pruned. Demography is normally not an important part of a country or region page, but it is in Kashmir. Tell me what you want to do, and I'm happy to help you. As it stands, the script in the lead sentence has Hindi and Gurumukhi (introduced no doubt by some POV warriors) which are not even spoken in the Kashmir region; the scripts should be just Kashmiri and Urdu. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying my best to give a facelift to the Kashmir sets of articles [4][5] and this is the first resistance I encountered. And all my changes here are reverted for what, for having removed a detailed demographic account which I moved to its own section? Such an account is highly unconventional for a lead section, to go into such length (the history, too, was shortened). Maybe a sentence or two, at most. El_C 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There might be idiosyncrasies that plague other Kashmir-related articles, but this is the only one I have helped write. I can't imagine others have anything similar. (The History article might, as some of the history from here was copied there.) I am trying to keep this page as neutral as possible. That is why I removed all the dotcom external links which are mostly partisan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the overemphasis on the demography in the lead is, in itself, less than neutral. Again, I stress that, unlike for Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, I hardly did any writing here. I mostly just moved text around to make the lead more conventional and accessible to our readership. And I removed the "long been Muslim" bit, because I don't see how that helps as an introductory sentence (too vague; can be misinterpreted to be polemic). As for the Hindi, does the Indian government not use it as the official language in Indian Kashmir? Maybe that can be qualified. But I'm open to debate on that. El_C 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with removing links and what not, but this entry, too, suffered and continues to suffer from idiosyncrasies. El_C 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you are trimming the history section, but you need to end it in contemporaneous settings. So brief summary instead, sure, and definitely if anything is duplicated from eleswhere, but don't just leave the reader hanging at 1965.[6] El_C 13:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, obviously this is your field, not mine, and I am willing to go quite a long way to back you up on the content front, so long as you work with me. I just am trying to advance the point that the introduction be kept as simple as possible. El_C 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me rethink the demographic bit again. Let's talk about it in 24 hours. As for the languages, I'm pretty sure that the official languages of Indian Kashmir are Kashmiri and Urdu. The central government in India uses English to communicate with a state whose official language is not Hindi. I'm guessing too that Urdu is the official language of the Pakistani region; if any language needs to be added, it would be Chinese or Uyghur the language of Xinjiang the region of China that borders Aksai Chin (and of which Aksai Chin is presumably a part). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. I'm willing to follow your lead on the languages front. I'll remove the Hindi as well, then (also from Jammu and Kashmir —twas added today). You don't actually have to wait 24 hrs, unless of course you want to. El_C 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official language of Indian and Pakistani Kashmir is Urdu, so their is no need for Hindi and Kashmiri. Noor Aalam (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true. I just checked and the official language of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is Urdu, not Kashmiri. However, we need to consider that this article is about the region not about the administrative units (of different nation-states) that make up the region. The administrative units have there own pages (Jammu and Kashmir, Northern Areas, Aksai Chin etc.) and there the official languages (Urdu, Chinese) would be appropriate. However, for this article, the majority languages actually spoken in the region should be listed, and those would be Kashmiri (most widely spoken in Indian Kashmir), Urdu (spoken more in the Pakistani areas), Uyghur (spoken in Aksai Chin). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me; feel free to add them, then. El_C 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Dogri and Kashmiri which account for 28.5 and 7.8 percent of the population of Jammu and Kashmir respectively (source a). Speakers of both of these languages speak Hindi as a second language (source b, source c, source d). Furthermore, it is the official language of the entire Union of India (source e). However, I have not added Hindi since its addition is currently a point of contention. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should also address the question of redundancy. There are a number of Kashmir-related articles:

  1. Kashmir region
  2. History of Jammu and Kashmir
  3. Kashmir conflict (also History of the Kashmir conflict)
  4. Jammu and Kashmir
  5. Azad Kashmir
  6. Northern Areas
  7. Aksai Chin

I notice for example that some of the history of the years 1820-1947 that I wrote for this page is also there on the History of Jammu and Kashmir page and the Jammu and Kashmir page. So, definitely some pruning is in order.

First, the name "History of Jammu and Kashmir" is problematic, since the name itself is recent. "Jammu and Kashmir" is the name of the state in India. In British times, (although the Maharaja of the princely state sometimes referred to it as "Jammu and Kashmir") the British referred to as "Kashmir and Jammu" (at least my copy of the Imperial Gazetteer of India begins its article on "Kashmir and Jammu" with, "The territories of the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu may be roughly described as ..." Before British times, the region was never united, and consisted of different kingdoms. Therefore, in my opinion, the name of the history page should really be "History of the Kashmir region."

Second, what about redundancy? Well, what does another tertiary source like Britannica do? Well, they have one article "Kashmir" (which is the equivalent of the Wikipedia article "Kashmir region"). That article has a general overview section on "Land and People" (WP: Demographics, Geography), a detailed section on the pre-1947 history of the region, and another overview section on the Kashmir dispute and where things stand today.

Britannica also has articles on "Jammu and Kashmir," "Azad Kashmir," etc. (what I call the modern "administrative units" above). So, for example, the "Jammu and Kashmir" article has the following sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Land (The plains, The foothills, The Pir Panjal Range, The Vale of Kashmir, The Great Himalayas zone, The upper Indus River valley, The Karakoram Range), 3. Animal life, Settlement patterns, 4. People (The Jammu region, Kashmiris of the vale and highlands, Ladakh), 5. Economy (Resources and agriculture, Trade and industry, Transportation and tourism), 6. Government and society, 7. History (but no content, it says, "The history of Jammu and Kashmir state is given in the article "Kashmir".) 8. Additional Reading

So here is my:

Proposal

  1. Merge Kashmir region and History of Jammu and Kashmir into one article Kashmir region, which has a) detailed history until 1947, b) overview of the Kashmir dispute, and c) overview of geography and demographics for the entire region.
  2. Remove the detailed pre-1947 history from Jammu and Kashmir, Northern Areas, Azad Kashmir, and other "modern administrative units" articles. In other words, the Jammu and Kashmir article would focus only on the geography, demographics, government, society, economy of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and would refer to the Kashmir region article for its pre-1947 history. (Similarly for Northern Areas etc.)
  3. Keep the detailed history of the (post-1947) Kashmir-conflict in the History of the Kashmir conflict (or Kashmir conflict) article, but again refer there to the Kashmir region article for the pre-1947 history.

So, the list of Kashmir-related articles would become:

  1. Kashmir region (land and people overview, detailed pre-1947 history, Kashmir dispute overview)
  2. Kashmir conflict (also History of the Kashmir conflict) (Detailed article on the conflict)
  3. Jammu and Kashmir (State in India, only post-1947 details)
  4. Azad Kashmir (State in Pakistan, only post-1947)
  5. Northern Areas (State in Pakistan, post-1947)
  6. Aksai Chin (region in China)

Articles 2)- 6) refer to 1) for the pre-1947 history. Article 1) refers to the others for details of geography, conflict, economies, etc. How does that sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding repetitive: good, it sounds good. El_C 22:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those changed transliterations, El_C

Directed to El_C specifically actually:

When I came to the page I saw only the Urdu name for Kashmir so I added Hindi and Gurmukhi.

I soon realized that a Gurmukhi transliteration was really not needed so I replaced it with Chinese Simplified.

Apparently during your flurry of edits and reverts, the Chinese Simplified disappeared and the Gurmukhi returned. It was not my intention to leave the Gurmukhi on there so that's that, but as for the Hindi transliteration, I put that in there because Hindi is one of the governing official national languages of India (the other being English) and India has some official claim to Kashmir like Pakistan and the People's Republic of China. This is also why I wanted the Chinese Simplified to be on there as well.

If your reason for removing the Hindi name has something to do with Hindi not being spoken in Kashmir, then the Urdu name should be removed as well because according to Fowler&fowler, Urdu is not spoken in Kashmir either.

look here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_region#language

So either put back the Hindi and Chinese Simplified, or remove the Urdu.

--Yoshiroshin (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually forgotten what I had written myself in the link you provided! So, thanks. The lead sentence now only has the scripts of the significant native languages of the region. Urdu is not a native language (mother tongue, first language), even though it is the official language of both Indian- and Pakistani-administered Kashmirs (neither is Hindi). So the lead sentence now begins with: Kashmir (Balti: کشمیر; Dogri: कश्मीर, Kashmiri: कॅशीर, کٔشِیر; Ladakhi: ཀཤམིར; Shina: کشمیر; Uyghur: كھسىمڭر) Note that Ladakhi is written in the Tibetan script. I've tried to write "Kashmir" in Tibetan as best I could. Same in Uyghur, where I managed to find an online English-Uyghur keyboard. Please correct if I've made mistakes. And the same too with Balti and Shina, which are written in the Urdu (Perso-Arabic) script, but might have a different pronunciation for "Kashmir." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I didn't realize we were going to have six languages. Thank you both! El_C 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, I removed Urdu from (Indian-administered) Jammu and Kashmir, but I also see it in (Pakistani-administered) Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas — I mean, in one case, listed as a major language, as well as transliterations everywhere else. So where do we go with Urdu, and what are the latest pertinent figures. And also, we could use these (transliteration/s, figures) for Aksai Chin. El_C 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (Indian-administered) Jammu and Kashmir, (Pakistani-administered) Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir, and (Chinese-administered) Aksai Chin are administrative units. In other words, (even though disputed) they are provinces or states or regions in these various countries. So, for them, (I'm guessing) whatever convention is followed for states or provinces should be followed. Judging from other Indian or Pakistani or Chinese provinces, it is the official language that is mentioned. So, my take is that for Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, and Northern Areas, where the official state language is Urdu (even though it is not the native language of most people), Urdu alone should be mentioned. For Aksai Chin, I'm not sure, but the official language is likely Chinese (which too is not the native language of most people). (This, btw, is a complicated issue! For example in Jammu and Kashmir, even though the official language is Urdu, all state communication between different districts is conducted in English, since most people don't speak Urdu. Apparently even the "fluent" Urdu speakers in Kashmir speak only a broken sort of Urdu, when judged by the standards of the Urdu sophisticates of the subcontinent.) This is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. Sorry! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If, btw, you want the break-down of the native languages by region, then it would be: Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmiri, Ladakhi, Dogri), Northern Areas (Shina, Balti), and Aksai Chin (Uyghur). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also(and I don't want to be difficult or anything like that, just trying to be politically correct), for the article "Azad Kashmir", it has the Urdu name. That is good. For "Jammu and Kashmir", it itself says that is the Indian-administered Kashmir area, so why is only Urdu there? I would think that Hindi would be there, or is there something about Indian language politics that I do not know?
Also for "Aksai Chin", I think the Traditional Chinese is in the leading sentence, when it should be Simplified Chinese, because of the PRC.
Once again, I'm not trying to be picky or difficult, I'm just pointing this out while trying to be as polite as possible...and I could be wrong too.
Suggestions?
--Yoshiroshin (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you have any questions on Tibetan or Perso-Arabic script transliterations, I'm not the one to ask either. Sure, literal Tibetan would be easy to write but I don't know about the up-down rules, and my computer is ill-equipped to handle Tibetan script anyway (the Tibetan in the leading sentence to my computer looks like Tibetan symbols in random places). As for the Perso-Arabic script (specifically the adaptation for Urdu), I'm looking to understand and learn that as well, but it will take a while before I get around to it. I know more about the India scripts, than I do the others.
And as for my first comment, I'm just talking about the other separate articles, but as for this article, I don't see any problems with it now (with regards to names anyway).
--Yoshiroshin (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is true that Jammu and Kashmir is a state in India, but its official language is Urdu alone. So, that's why, IMO, Urdu is sufficient. Pages for other states in India, say, West Bengal or Karnataka, have only the official state languages, (Bengali and Kannada respectively), not Hindi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all these complexities about the languages should appear in the articles. El_C 04:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir redirect

Why does "Kashmir" redirect to this article? If the Kashmir region is the most common use of the term (and I think it is), this article should be placed at "Kashmir" since the dab "region" is implicit. If, somehow, it is decided that Kashmir is too widely used a term to allow the region to hold prime spot, then the dab page should be moved from Kashmir (disambiguation) to just Kashmir. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice game played by Pro-Pakistan element

Its seems to be a nice game played by pro-Pakistan elements on Wikipedia: I had written the para about Kashmir's accession to India with FULL web references from authentic sources, but sometime later I see that the references mysteriously disappeared. They were replaced by demand for "facts". Already Fowler&Fowler had tried to label that para as "irrelevant" despite its high relevance. Why? In order to delude and fool the world community into believing that the accession of J&K to India was never ratified by the people of Kashmir or their representatives! Of course, by slyly hiding these facts. This is very strange, deceiving, and unhealthy game. Anyways, I have added the references again. I also added Hindi/Sanskrit to Dogri list because despite all the noise, Hindi is widely spoken in the Jammu region; Urdu itself is simply a variant of Hindi with different script; and Sanskrit has been the cultural language of the Valley since time immemorial, and the very name Kashmir comes from Sanskrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalsaumy (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The languages in the lead sentences are the languages spoken natively by a plurality of people in each of the subregions of Kashmir: Gilgit, Baltistan, Ladakh, Asayquin (Aksai Chin), Jammu, Kashmir Valley, and Poonch/Azad Kashmir. We are not listing official languages here—those belong to the pages of the administrative subunits like Northern Areas, Jammu and Kashmir etc. We also can't list every dialect, otherwise the list would be prohibitively long. We also can't list second languages. Urdu is spoken natively by 12 million people in Pakistan and all of them are in Sind. (See Ethnologue:Languages of Pakistan). Similarly, Hindko (Northern or Southern) is not spoken by a plurality of people in Azad Kashmir (see above link again for both languages). The proper names for the dialects of Pahari-Pothohari spoken in Azad Kashmir are Poonchi and Chibhali. (See Ethnologue:Pahari-Potwari, See also, C. P. Masica, Indo-Aryan Languages, Cambridge University Press.) Same for Hindi, it might have syntactical similarities with Urdu or Dogri, but it is a different language. If you disagree, try pleading your case on the Urdu language and Dogri language pages. Lastly, this page is not pro-Indian, pro-Pakistani, or pro-Chinese. It is simply striving to be accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Magicalsaumy, According to Ethnologue, Dogri is a dialect of Western Pahari and not of Western Hindi. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If F&F continues to push his POV, I'd better ask him to write his own separate article called Kashmir according to F&F. This is not the personal website of him.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Fowler & Fowler likes to push an anti-Indian POV at all costs in numerous articles across the board on Wiki. He even played a hand in getting me banned for constantly stating that the events of 1857 are commonly known as the First War of Indian Independence in India. Either way, it is common knowledge across the world - even in Pakistan that Pakistan has been constantly promoting terrorism in Kashmir for several decades based on their "thousand cuts" policy after the ignominy of 1948, 65 and to a lesser extent in 1971. So what seems to be the issue here? DemolitionMan (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Peacock terms/POV

Famous sufi saint Bulbul Shah was able to persuade the king of the time Rinchan Shah who was prince of Kashgar Ladakh, through his intellectual power to adopt Islamic way of life and the foundation of Sufiana composite culture was laid when Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists were co-existing in the atmosphere of love and brotherhood.

Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) is often considered the worst of these.

"Many of the Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mohammedans."

With the help of his able officer, Zorawar Singh, Gulab Singh soon captured Ladakh and Baltistan, regions to the east and north-east of Jammu.

When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission

Meanwhile, elections were held in Indian Jammu & Kashmir, which brought up the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah, who with his party National Conference, by and large supported India.

India claims those areas, including the area "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963, are a part of its territory, while Pakistan claims the entire region, excluding Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract.

I agree. This is mostly fluff introduced by various people when the responsible editors are not paying attention. Will fix. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu (as it was then called) was constituted between 1820 and 1858 and was "somewhat artificial in composition and it did not develop a fully coherent identity, partly as a result of its disparate origins and partly as a result of the autocratic rule which it experienced on the fringes of Empire."

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab (in Pakistan) could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region.

"Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state.

These are just some examples of the issues with this article. Now, do not remove the tags unless these and other issues, not stated here, are addressed. I am not here to do a peer review so look for other problems in this article. If you repeatedly take off the tags from the article, I will have to take action. Further more, removing the tags is not going to solve the issues with the article. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear UnknownForEver (talk · contribs), Don't know what you are talking about. All the sentences listed in the "sources" sub-section are in fact sourced. There is nothing wrong in quoting Britannica; it does say that. As for the previous sub-section, yes, there is some needless vanity, which I will shortly remove. What it requires is a post here, not three banners on top of the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the claims in the article are quoted. As with quotations, they are supposed to be referenced even if it is referenced in the next sentence or at the end of the paragraph. Britannica is quoted, but it is not cited at the end of the sentence. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, quotes are cited at the end (when the quotation marks appear again), not at the end of every sentence within the quotation. The Britannica quote is cited at the end. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....those are some long quotes: "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored..." is quoted but does not state where it is being quoted from. Same with "somewhat artificial in composition and it did not develop a fully coherent identity, partly as a result of its disparate origins and partly...". I think the quotes should be removed or information on where the quote is coming from, inserted. Also its best to use a quote template for the Britannica reference since its long. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguemnts to add to the Indian point of view section

There are some arguments that can be added to the Indian point of view section. I would add them myself, but I have the feeling it will just be erased. So I will add them here, and let "the powers that be" add them. Here they are:

1 - There is no mention of the fact that many Indians feel like Paksitan already got so much land from India so its unfair to ask for Kashmir?.....

2 - There is no mention of the fact that because Pakistan invaded Kashmir & stole half the land (even though the Prince of Kashmir still hadnt decided which country to join) that it is unfair for Pakistan to ask for the rest of Kashmir.

3 - There is no mention of the fact that Indians argue it is not fair to use the argument that "the majority of people should vote on what country they want to join", becuase by that logic Pakistan should have never been created in the first place because the majority of people didnt want to break up India to create a Pakistan the country in the first place.

4 - There is no mention of the fact that Paksitan contradicts itself by claiming they want to help to "free" Kashmiris and yet they dont let the Balochis or Pashtuns that want to seperate from Paksitan & let them have there own seperate homeland. WHy wont they let the Pashtuns or Balochis be free to?

5 - There is no mention of the Sheik (last name i forgot but he was considered the voice of pakistan) who said Kashmir belongs to India

6 - There is no mention of the fact that Pakistan sends in Islamic terrorist groups to Kashmir, and these groups have systematically forced out HIndu & SIkh Kashmiris, while also scaring Muslim Kashmiris that may want to side with India, and so therefore it is unfair to ask for a vote from the Kashmiris.

7 - And there is nothing written about the fact that if Pakistan really cared about the Kashmiri people then why would they give a piece of Kashmir to China in 1965.

These are all valid arguments and I would type these in myself but I have the feeling that they might just be erased. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thumbs up. YoshiroShin (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 million people in the Aksai Chin?

Where does this number come from? The Aksai Chin is an uninhabited wasteland and clearly does not have 2 million people, Buddhists or not. The entirely of Chinese controlled Tibet has less than three million people, and they don't surely don't have 2/3 of the population crammed into the Aksai Chin. This needs to be fixed. --67.101.35.52 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The unlikely numbers were introduced in this edit. Aqsoi Qin and other regions just above and below the Kunlun Mountains in Xinjiang are some of the few areas in China where the human population might have actually decreased in the last 60 years. See for example, Karakash River, Hotan, and Hindutash Pass. Have undone edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


POV Images

There seems to be a heavy influence of images taken from Indian administered Kashmir and only one from Azad Kashmir can some one tell my why this article is so heavily Influenced by images from India it seems to undercut Pakistan Kashmir i will replace this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.182 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP from British Telecommunications: How did you arrive at that conclusion? There is one image of Nanga Parbat, which is not in Azad Kashmir, but rather in the Northern Areas, and two from Jammu and Kashmir, and one (strangely enough) from New Delhi. The rest of the pictures are all over a hundred years old, all from the princely state Kashmir and Jammu, when there was no Pakistan or Republic of India. The pictures were deliberately chosen in that manner to avoid controversy. If you feel that the Pakistani or Chinese areas of Kashmir should be better represented, the way to go about doing it is to add quality pictures from those areas, not unilaterally remove other pictures. I agree though that the New Delhi picture doesn't seem very relevant. I will move it here, pending further discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Kashmiri man sells an original pashmina shawl from Kashmir in a market in Delhi, India.

Have removed the Kashmiri merchant in Delhi picture from the main article to here. Doesn't seem very relevant. It would be better to have pictures of merchants in Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now made the contemporary images more representative of the different regions. I have also removed the instrument of accession, which doesn't belong here. It has its own page. This page is mostly about the Kashmir Region as it existed until 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cheers for that fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.209.213 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by user:Shovon76

Shovon76 (talk · contribs) has made two edits which s/he needs to discuss here first. As has been explained many times before (above), this article used to be titled Kashmir region and, consequently, is about the region, not just about the Kashmir Valley, and certainly not about political entities like Jammu and Kashmir or Azad Kashmir. The languages listed in the first sentence are listed in alphabetical order, since no one language represents the entire region. Also, Shovon76 (talk · contribs) seems to have added a reference to an article by William Dalrymple to the list of websites providing information about Kashmir. Articles are properly listed in the "Further Readings" section. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir&oldid=232943801"