Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

population of anantnag and baramullah wrong - anantnag is urban 189000 city proper 108 and baramullah is 102000 refrence below http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/2-anantnag.html Artsmood (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you provided was invalid. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

The population density is wrongly shown as 100/km2 it has to be 56/km2. Sharathgl (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Corrected Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

References

De jure and De facto

Should we add a de jure and de facto to this article? The area is currently being disputed between China, Pakistan, and India. If we are going to add it, then the area is India de jure and all three countries de facto. INeedSupport (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Heavy POV sentence in the Demographics section

It was originally added here. Somebody with an overactive imagination. Surprisingly, it has been retained ever since even though several nonsensical sources were added later on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The content appear to be well sourced and doesn't look like POV .. it is very relevant to the demographics section.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Which source says this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Collage in Infobox

I must admit I liked the infobox collage proposed by 116.72.130.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in this edit. It resembles the one in Uttarakhand. Anyone has any objections against restoring it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the first problem is the size. Infoboxes have to be short because they are sidebars and the formatting engine doesn't allow any images in the body until the infobox ends. If the infobox is overly long, it pushes down all the other images. I was just struggling with that problem at another page before I gave up and removed all images from the infobox.

Secondly, I find all the images in this collage unappealing, including the current one. The Vaishno Devi image is appalling. All the others are long distance shots, and nothing is really visible at the size we are displaying them in. We are just fooling ourselves if a collage there serves any real purpose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The locator map (File:IN-JK.svg) used for Jammu and Kashmir in this article is incorrect. It shows part of Aksai Chin (bottom right) as controlled by India and the Trans-Karakoram tract as part of Pakistan. I have already notified the uploader User:Filpro on Commons of this error so that he can upload a new version. The best locator map for JK was this File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg but it is now outdated and does not demarcate Telangana.

The error in Filpro's map for JK is replicated over other locator maps by him as well which are currently used in articles for all Indian states. We cannot keep using these maps and they should be replaced by the correct ones. It would be great if Filpro can upload correct versions shortly but the current incorrect maps shouldn't stay there for long; we can use {{mapframe}} and display OpenStreetMap in the meantime. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to notify User:Abhijitsathe if he can help, he has uploaded some excellent maps for the districts of JK (e.g. File:Jammu and Kashmir Shopian district.svg). Gotitbro (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Should also notify @TUBS: (upldr. of the de-facto file) to see if he can help with new locator maps for India. Gotitbro (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to update my locator maps for India. Can't tell when I'm in the mood to do it, but it will most probably take some time. Any volunteers, that may update the maps by incorporating Telangana based on File:India location map.svg? Go ahead! For the Jammu and Kashmir region in particular, I freely admit that I - sitting far away in Europe - don't possess much intimate knowledge about the minutia of the situation on the ground over there. As far as I understand, the situation is a mess. On the one hand de-facto borders may move over time, are obfuscated for strategic reasons or contested in a way that makes any border line hard to determine, on the other hand drawing de-jure borders is supposed to take at least two jurisdictions into account (India's view, Pakistan's view, maybe even the UN's or China's view). This may easily lead to fervid debates. In this case - from an impartial map drawer's point of view - I always recommend to draw maps that depict the situation from the different angles rather to find common ground. I tried to do this, plz check the category commons:Category:SVG_locator_maps_of_states_in_India_(red_location_map_scheme) to see what I mean. Thus the different Wikipedia language versions can chose whatever version they like best. --TUBS (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the omission of Telangana is the lesser evil. So I replaced the map by one of yours. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• @TUBS: Your locator maps scheme was the best one for Indian states (shown with surrounding countries, correct international borders, de facto/de jure etc.) the only thing they'd require is a simple boundary for the new state of Telangana. I'd be waiting for your new uploads so that we can again incorporate them on the wiki.
• @Kautilya3: I think this would be the better one to use in the article File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg (without claims). De-facto ones were the ones being used in Indian states before the creation of Telangana. Gotitbro (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you will need to worry about people claiming it is illegal in India and such like. I think hatching is a good compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @TUBS:, @Filpro: Looks like cartographers are as confused as everyone else. The bottom-right part of Kashmir is indeed controlled by India (e.g. look at this village in Ladakh which is beyond the intl. line in both Google Maps and OpenStreet) see this map on India's border disputes File:India disputed areas map.svg and this one by the CIA File:中国与印度边界地图.png (2017) both of which present the correct current status of the borders.

I was confused by the fact that Google Maps only shows claimed boundaries not de-facto ones and the incorrect boundary on OpenStreet. Further what confused me was this map File:China India western border 88.jpg which shows "claims/disputes" in red but I incorrectly assumed Chinese control (my mistake here); then there is this CIA map File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg (2004) [should be superseded by the 2017 CIA map] which, a bit unclearly, shows the bottom right as controlled by China. All this confused me to believe that the bottom right is indeed controlled by China (in fact confused TUBS as well File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg).

After looking into this, suffice to say, the bottom-right part of Kashmir isn't controlled by China and the current map by Filpro is fine (the Karakoram tract is fine as well as nothing is demarcated beyond India). Apologize for creating this confusion. Also after seeing this, the File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg CIA map should be replaced by this CIA one File:Kashmir map big.jpg (2002) in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Regions

I want to add sourced statistics in the lead to show the ethno-cultural diversity of the 3 divisions of the state & their relative geographic sizes. I think this is essential for lead as much of the attention is given to Kashmir valley region only. Furthermore my changes are not that burdensome on the lead either.Balolay (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to add the information about the various regions. Ethno-cultural diversity is also fine to cover, but it cannot be reduced to religions. Please find reliable scholarly sources and duplicate what they say. Census reports are primary sources. They are not lead material. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, ethnocultural diversity is the most appropriate way to portray a region. However in this particular case religion is very important in the context of the conflicts the region is facing. Furthermore, movements asking for separation from mainly Muslim Kashmir valley have gained momentum in Hindu majority Jammu & mainly Buddhist Ladakh.

However, the most important thing is that within an international context the entire state is often portrayed only through the prism of the events in the turbulent Kashmir valley & its Muslim majority with little emphasis on other regions within the state with their separate ethno-religious identities. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wherever those conflicts are discussed, the religious issues would be mentioned to the extent necessary. In the Demographics section, religious proportions are discussed. But we don't do it in the lead for no apparent reason. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am always immensely puzzled with statements that try to reduce culture to religion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mountbatten.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent lede edits

@Fowler&fowler: Sir, can't we just simply write Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian-administered state in the Kashmir region... instead of Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in the south- and southeast portion of Kashmir which is administered by India as a state. IMO it looks complicated and the "south- and southeast" part reminds me of the "north-central region" thing in the Uttar Pradesh article which you opposed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

True, the south- and southeast can be problematic. I am not wedded to that formulation. I was merely trying to get around the problem arising in using "state" with "administered." You see a Federated state, which is what the Republic of India claims Jammu and Kashmir is, is a territory under the sovereignty of the Federal or central government. However, that claimed sovereignty is not just not recognized by Pakistan and China, two other claimants, but is also not recognized by the UN, the US, the UK, France, Canada, Japan, and a whole host of other countries. So, saying, "Indian administered state" is a redundant term. For, by definition, if you have sovereignty you are also administering it. Probably the cleanest definition would be: "Jammu and Kashmir is the portion of the disputed territory of Kashmir administered by India. It is a state in the Indian union." One will have to make sure that the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Aksai Chin pages say something equivalent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the US never agreed to call it "disputed territory" [1].

The wording on the Azad Kashmir page, "Azad Kashmir is part of the greater Kashmir region, which is the subject of a long-running conflict between Pakistan and India" could be duplicated here without any harm. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

However both the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan article writes "Indian-administered" state of Jammu and Kashmir in the lead though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that is bad terminology, as Fowler says. But it is not the end of the world.

The statehood of Kashmir (as defined in the Constitution of India) has never been contested by the UN, as far as I know. The authority of the J&K Constituent Assembly to say anything about the accession was contested. But that is a different matter. Unless somebody can produce evidence that the UN derecognized Kashmir's accession, it is a State. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: What if we frame it as Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost territory administered by India as a state? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the geographic location of J&K is the most important thing about it. It can go in the second sentence, or even the second paragraph for that matter. Let us focus on the political status in the lead sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:So you are OK with Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian-administered state?

The problem with a snatch of conversation from the State Department's Office of Historian is that it is a primary source, which can be easily misinterpreted. The US had said many things at different times in the 1950s. However what is clear is that they sponsored the plebiscite resolution and stated clearly that the formation of the state assembly, from whose ranks the government was appointed, was not consistent with their resolution. See here. Clearly, the US did not consider J&K to be a state of India if they did not consider the government of the state to be legal. As far as I know, India has not managed to appoint or elect a government in J&K that the US has considered legal. If there was even a snowball's chance in hell of any part of Kashmir being undisputedly a part of India all the CIA maps of Kashmir would have been different. You would not have had the clear "administered by India" in File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg. India, in the US view, does not have undisputed sovereignty over this region. I can easily pull up many secondary sources which state the same. The UN itself doesn't make any pronouncements about whether a territory is disputed, but Kashmir is clearly the oldest dispute before the UN. WP is beholden only to secondary sources. These, by the many, do use "disputed territory" when speaking about Kashmir. I can easily dig up many references for that too. It is very simple. J&K is the Indian administered region of Kashmir. That is its primary definition. That it is a state, ie that India has sovereignty over this region it administers, is disputed by many countries including the US, the UK. That is why I suggested, "It is a state in the Indian union as the second sentence." I am surprised that this bit of verbal subterfuge has managed to creep in without anyone challenging it earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• The 1948 discussion says two things: (i) the British delegation wanted to call it "territory in dispute" (ii) the US didn't agree because it would imply "denying the validity of Kashmir's accession". If the UN resolution had been based on the British terminology, India would have rejected it, and there would have been a discussion about the validity of Kashmir's accession. In the event, nothing of the sort happened. The US and the UK might have had their misgivings about the validity of the accession, but they have never been brought into the open. Without them coming to the open, and without India being given an opportunity to challenge them, we can't presume that it is a settled matter. The UN resolution being what it is, there is no "disputed territory" there. India's jurisdiction over the entire state is recognized (i) in entitling India to keep its troops for its defence (which Pakistan was not entitled to), and (ii) asking India to appoint a plebiscite administrator for the entire state (which Pakistan was not asked). So, blame the British if you will, for not having the guts to put forward what they believed in.
• If asking for a plebiscite to be held is supposed to invalidate the accession (which seems to be your argument) then you have to consider the fact that India herself offered to hold a plebiscite under the UN auspices as early as 1 November 1947. Obviously, India didn't think that that invalidated the accession. Plebiscite was offered in the interest of peace and stability of the region and the well-being of Kashmiris. It is a pity that it had to hinge on the validity of accession, which could have been settled in short order had it ever been challenged.
• We all accept that a dispute exists. It is plain to the naked eye. But labeling it a "disputed territory" means considerably more than saying a dispute exists. The US State Department officials, who understand all the diplomatic niceties, have clarified it, and that understanding is the same now as it was in 1948. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Fowler&fowler:What do you think of "Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in Kashmir administered by India as its northernmost state" as the first sentence? It mentions location (northernmost state) as well as the phrase "administered by India" like your edit instead of "Indian-administered" - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Kashmir region is one of the two regions in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu region, Kashmir region are two regions of Jammu and Kashmir, with distinctive culture. I hope editors will differentiate between these regions and refrain calling whole Jammu and Kashmir as Kashmir. ML ⁹¹¹ 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: We can't do OR by interpreting primary sources ourselves. The secondary sources, however, have different interpretations. I can easily find dozens of scholarly references published by international academic publishers, which use the expression, "disputed territory" or "disputed region" in describing Kashmir.See here As for American policy, there too, the secondary sources have interpreted it differently. Robert Wirsing, for example, says,

"the Clinton White House seemed equally inclined, especially during its first term in office, to draw attention routinely to Indian human rights abuses in Kashmir, and, from time to time, to issue blunt reminders to New Delhi that Kashmir was still understood, from Washington's point of view, as a disputed territory. The most barefaced instance of this—the observation in October 1993 by the Clinton-appointed Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Lynn Raphel that "we [the U.S. government] view Kashmir as a disputed territory and that means that we do not recognise that Instrument of Accession as meaning that Kashmir is forever more an integral part of India"—detonated a nearly unprecedented explosion of hate commentary in the Indian press."

Indeed not using "dispute" is the well-known Indian government line,

"Notable were the several explicit references in these documents to the urgency of resolving the Kashmir issue. The two governments, in the first operative paragraph of the Lahore Declaration, expressed their agreement to "intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir." Carefully worded to remain consistent with India's longstanding refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a disputed territory, these references, by inscribing Kashmir indelibly—and prominently—on the official bilateral agenda, were, nevertheless, a clear concession to Pakistan." (Wirsing, page 24)

just as using it is the Pakistani line, but the scholarly sources have clearly sided with Pakistani usage. @My Lord: I think you might be conflating the Kashmir region and the Kashmir Valley. The latter is indeed a part of J&K; however, on WP, Kashmir is a much larger region. @Fylindfotberserk: Still the same problem with "state." I'm now leaning towards, "Jammu and Kashmir is the Indian administered portion of the disputed region of Kashmir. In India's administrative divisions, it is considered to be a state." (with equivalent statements in the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Aksai Chin pages). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Hi, can I frame the lead as Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in the southern portion of Kashmir which is administered by India as a state. for now. This "south- and southeast" is killing me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Jammu and Kashmir is union territory Vikashdwivedikat (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please wait for an reliable source. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

About article 370 and 35A

Both article has removed by indian government. Rakesh k swami (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Plz update page remove j k flag and make it a union territory Yashvats08 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Article 370 which gives Jammu & Kashmir autonomous status has been scrapped on 5th August 2019. KFI 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Article 370 and 35 A revoked on5 August 2019

2409:4052:2010:6DB7:0:0:2621:18AC (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

*IMPORTANT*

Remove jk flag Yashvats08 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Why? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ADD the NEW DETAILS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Please REMOVE the J&K Flag, Add as Indian 8th Territory. Removal of Article 35A and Article 370

 Not done. Legislation is still pending in the Parliament. For now, sources say that only the special status of J&K has been revoked. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It has been passed in RajyaSabha .So better to proceed. -- Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri, so why did you reinstate all these unsourced edits? Where is the source that says that J&K has become a Union Territory? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Change the flag

Change the flag of Jammu and Kashmir to Indian flag

as of removable of Article 370. Now it's a Indian state and no other Flags are allowed.. Bjelite (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes better to add that since @7.10 officially bill got passed in RajyaSabha .Now Kashmir don’t have separate flag as per constitution of India.

Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Add the Emblem of India

After the recent change and removal of Artical 370... Now add the Emblem of India ..

Bjelite (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes better to add that since @7.10 officially bill got passed in RajyaSabha .Now Kashmir don’t have separate flag as per constitution of India.

Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Language

Now, add the language Hindi and English too after the recent changes in Constitution of J&K. Bjelite (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Please change "It has special status under article 370" to "It no longer has special status due to the abrogation of article 370,which was abrogated by an ordinance that was passed by The President on 5th August 2019" 117.222.204.147 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Changed it to past tense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A union territory separate from Ladakh

Rajya Sabha today passed Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill with 125 votes dividing Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh into two separate union territories.

My stand here is that the separate map should be uploaded without ladakh.Lordofhunk (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The bill has only been passed in the Parliament. It has not yet come into force. See my comment below. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

J&K reorganisation date

Please let us keep in mind that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 has not yet come into force. Consequently, J&K still remains an undivided state of India, and will remain such until the so-called "appointed day", to be announced by the Government of India separately.[2]

Consequently, until the day comes, please do NOT replace maps, change "state" to "Union Territory", etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

But you yourself have changed "state" into "Union territory", and you haven't yet explained why you did so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No, administrative unit is not synonymous with Union Territory but can mean any unit, including a state, UT, district, tehsil, etc. See the article. The hatnote's aim anyway is to help distinguish this article from articles about, say, Kashmir Valley. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

States of India are not "administrative units". Do you have any source that calls them so? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course they are - in India, states are first-level administrative units (divisions).[3][4][5][6]

Officially according to the govt the date was Aug. 5th. Now there are only 28 states and 9 UTs. C1MM (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@C1MM: As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 (full text):

4. On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new Union territory to beknown as the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir...

2 (a) “appointed day” means the day which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint

As far as I know that notification of the "appointed day" hasn't been published yet. Newspapers etc have been pretty sloppy in their language but if there is something really "official" already, we can examine and discuss that here. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

India News - Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/article-370-to-be-scrapped-what-impact-will-it-have-on-jk/articleshow/70534157.cms 2402:8100:308E:B0E9:92F9:3A6E:7DAE:7A14 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It has not been scrapped according to other sources [7]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Manal Zehra (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I want to change that Jammu and Kashmir in India to Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan or Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan and India. Actually the ongoing matter in Kashmir is that some of it is in Pakistan and some of it is in India. Azaad Kashmir is in Pakistan and Indian-Occupied Kashmir is in India.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Jammu and Kashmir now a union territory with legislative assembly (previously included ladakh region now a separate union territory without legislative assembly as per the changes made with the assent of President Of Union of India on 5th of Aug 2019 by ebolishing Article 35a and 307) 27.7.218.246 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 19:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

J&K Reorganised into UTs

With the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, the former Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been divided and reorganised into two union territories (UTs). One is the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir comprising the Jammu and Kashmir areas of the former J&K state, and excludes the region of Ladakh. It’s a UT with an assembly and Lieutenant Governor (similar to Delhi and Puducherry UTs in India). The second part is a separate union territory of Ladakh without an Assembly. Pediasher (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pediasher It is not an Act yet. The Lok Sabha is yet to pass the Bill and the Bill will come into force after it receives the President's assent and is notified in the Gazette. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 08:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes needed on this and connected pages thereafter are : marking out on all maps, the districts of Kargil and Leh (of the Ladakh Division) as the Union Territory of Ladakh. Then marking out the area of the remaining 20 districts as UT of Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, the pictures on this page that are from Leh, Ladakh need to be moved out of this page and put into perhaps a new page for Ladakh UT.

I oppose this way. Jammu and Kashmir state and J&K union territory are different. This article should be an article about Indian administered Kashmir. We may move this article into India-administered Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir State. Then we should split a new article about J&K union territory from this article. --Sharouser (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

122.172.125.30 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Please update the information listed in the page , as Jammu and Kashmir is now not a state , but two union territories of the Republic of India , the two being Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh .Please do so at the earliest. Thank You 

Please Note -Further information is provided in several news reports around the world.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 13:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

Jammu and kashmir is no longer a state in India . It is declared as a union territory . Article 370 and 35A have been revoked. 2402:3A80:690:936C:0:56:EAD3:5001 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to change Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory

Change statehood of Kashmir to union territory as bills in lok and rajya sabha has been passed. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kashmir pages.-Nizil (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)