Jump to content

Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mhveinvp (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 11 May 2020 (latest edit is potential vandalism going against the established status quo. need inputs before going ahead with the revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconIndia: Jammu and Kashmir Start‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in August 2019.

Template:Commonwealth English

The article is missing a lot of necessary details.

The UT status has already been declared so the word proposed should be edited as the Presidential ascent has been already given to the bill. There are a lot of necessary details which have to be added to the article. The admins can give selective access if possible by way of validation and discussion on the talk page. As it would be better if someone who truly knows the facts is involved in the process. AnadiDoD (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnadiDoD: Source? The presidential order was for Article 370, which has been declared inoperative. Reorganization of the state into two union territories is a separate bill–Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, which has not yet received the President's assent. DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DeluxeVeganFor your kind information the president gave his assent to the reorganization bill today itself. That's the reason I wrote this post. Its also a reason why I want admins to consider giving access to the article to people who can provide correct and validated info as I have witnessed that admins aren't aware of the facts themselves given the fast changing situation. The article need to be updated soon and the renundant information be removed. And for source you can search it on Google it's everywhere when if required I will also upload the order. And please refrain from commenting on issue you don't have information on.AnadiDoD (talk)
@AnadiDoD: We do have more information thank you think. According to The Gazette of India (link), the union territory will come into effect on 31 October 2019. On that date, Wikipedia will be updated to reflect the official status. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Jammu and Kashmir article

Redirect to Jammu and Kashmir articles ChidanandaKampa (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the article is not a copy. Jammu and Kashmir is an article on the state, and this is an article on the proposed union territory. See this consensus which let to the article's creation and this deletion discussion. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INB discussion

Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single article for both state and union territory

The more work I do on the pages for the state and the future union territory the more I am beginning to think a single article could be appropriate for goth entities as there seems to be a lot of duplication between the two pages. I present a possible solution on my sandbox for such an article User:Cordyceps-Zombie/sandbox Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPedia Being Political with “(union territory)”

Wikipedia is taking a political partisan, factually misleading stand by qualifying this page’s title with the words (union territory) in brackets. But not qualifying the former state of Jammu & Kashmir’s wiki page with a similar addition to its title. The words “(former state)” should added to the page detailing the former state and the words “(union territory)” should be removed from the title of this page. Otherwise Wiki would be treating India and this region in a discriminatory manner. Pediasher (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change references to “state of J&K” to “former state of...”

There is mention of the “state of” Jammu and Kashmir in the introduction when the article says it was reconstituted. Please can that the

“the former state of Jammu & Kashmir..” Pediasher (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note tentative consensus wording for an RfC

Please note the tentative consensus wording for an RfC here for the phrasing of the lead sentences all sub-regions of the disputed Kashmir region. I have changed it to the consensus wording (see here and here), but I am on vacation, so I hope, others such as @Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Saqib, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: will keep and eye on these pages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Saqib, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: Please also note that what goes for Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir also goes for Jammu and Kashmir (Union Territory) and Ladakh. In particular, the infoboxes, will need to have in the Indian-administered pages the same characterization as they do in the Pakistani-administered pages. Already, I notice, that drive bys and IPs are wreaking havoc on the Indian-administered pages, attempting to promote the conceit that they are indisputably Indian pages. Please help in keeping Wikipedia NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox on this page will need to say: Region administered by India as a Union Territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I see that the lead sentence to Gilgit-Baltistan has been broken on the basis of it being too long. This is problematic since the RfC wording for other territories follows the same sentence structure and as opposed to the other territories it establishes the territory simply as Pakistan administered in the first sentence at least. If the lead sentence is too long it should be broken up in all territorial pages and not specifically here. Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here we are. Discussing the whole thing yet again. As of this edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(union_territory)&type=revision&diff=956113621&oldid=956105377&diffmode=visual the editor seems to have changed the lead "region administered by India as a union territory,union territory in the northern region of India". I happened to be involved in an edit war last year, today i am just asking the team here to deliberate on the edit and how this edit is going against the RfC. Thank you Mhveinvp (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) → Jammu and Kashmir – Current status Naveen Sankar (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - These issues have been discussed at length at WT:INDIA in August and a few weeks ago, and more recently at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state). Nobody has provided any solution for what is to become to the several thousands of links that already exist in Wikipedia to "Jammu and Kashmir". Here is an example: Article 370 of the Indian constitution gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir—a state in India... This proposal would make "Jammu and Kashmir" refer to the current union territory! Entirely inappropriate.
The people that want renaming need to first go through the thousands of links and figure out which page they should point to. Secondly, what about the petitions pending in the Supreme Court? What if the Supreme Court quashes the whole thing? Who wants to spend the effort to change all those links back? At Wikipedia, we represent the language and terminology used in the reliable sources. Those thosands or millions of sources that refer to the old state will continue to exist. This is not something we do in a hurry. The current page titles and hatnotes work. There is no ambiguity. So, what is the purpose of this proposed renaming? What is being achieved? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An generic argument that “thousands and millions” of links/sources continue to exist, cannot be made to oppose this change without stating exactly how many links and sources there are. This claim of “thousands” is wildly exaggerated and backed by Zero evidence by the person stating the argument. Such an argument cannot be the basis for making a factual correction to the most important page relating to what is simply Jammu and Kashmir today, the union territory.
Whatever a Supreme Court may or may not say in an uncertain date potentially years and decades into the future (considering how long legal procedures can be) cannot be an excuse by Wikipedia to refuse and ignore the factual and established legal position today.
All the other pages/links/references can gradually be changed over time based on feedback that will inevitably come as readers read those relevant pages. The stand of instead lazying away from this by simply saying that change has to be gradual, and actually refusing to take the first step in the direction of change - which is to rename this page - is deplorable.
Wikipedia should always stand in favour of the current factual position on this page by naming it simply Jammu and Kashmir. And continue relying on its tried and tested readers/ feedback providers to appropriately amend all connected links gradually. Not taking the first step of changing the title of this article is simply procrastinating and delaying the wheels of legitimate gradual change from turning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediasher (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How to find out what links exist to a page is something every Wikipedian should know about, at least those making move proposals or commenting on them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term "Jammu and Kashmir" thus far does not in searches of scholarly books, scholarly articles, internationally recognized third-party newspapers (i.e. not Indian, Pakistani, or Chinese, the three countries party to the Kashmir dispute) or respected web sites, brings up the union territory. As long as that is the case, the unqualified term "Jammu and Kashmir" cannot be redirected to the Union Territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move I don't know why this is a debate. Redirecting the page to a state that no longer exists in the geographic borders. The Indian govt has officially released an "updated" map. Plenty of new articles have been made on the J&K UT, during and since stating it as a UT. It's been days yet the redirect is still to a state which ceased to exist days ago, and the effective borders have been changed too. Redirect this page to the UT page and add the DAB at the top, as it is the current reality. If somebody wants to see the former state which included Ladakh and 290k more people but ceased to exist, they have the DAB on the UT page Hindian1947 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hindian1947: You bolded "support move", but you argue for repointing the redirect rather than moving the target. There are two separate questions: (1) if a reader clicks a link that hasn’t been updated where should they end up? (2) what is the best technical approach to sustainably achieve this? Do we keep the flexible indirection of a redirect, or do we move the target with the rationale that it could always be moved again later? Pelagic (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I now see that I'm not original in suggesting a DAB. Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)#Disambiguation page.
I am not in principle opposed to a DAB page. But that proposal needs to come along with a scheme for correcting all the existing wikilinks to "Jammu and Kashmir". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the simplest solution would be to have a bot convert all links pointing to "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Jammu and Kashmir (state)". I think its fairly certain that all links that intend to point to the union territory and princely state articles make use of the disambiguator "(union territory)" or "(princely state)". Perhaps a few geography articles may still link to "Jammu and Kashmir" instead of the union territory and require an update, but regardless of the change here, the links on those pages will remain outdated either way, and should be dealt with separately. Such a change would also be easily reversible in the long run, should the Supreme Court strike down the reorganization act. DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The argument that a lot of links will have to be changed if this move takes place is not a valid one. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY clearly states that long-term significance is a criterion for determining the primary topic, whereas "historical age" isn't. This implies that a topic can't be given preference just because it has been in existence for a longer period of time.
Also, this argument is a double-edged sword. Pediasher is correct in stating that it is backed by zero evidence as it will be completely wrong to assume that all internal links to J&K refer to the erstwhile state. Actually, I think that it's the opposite case: most of the links now refer to the UT. For example, Amarnath cave is a Hindu shrine located in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Such usages can be found in each article corresponding to a city/village/milestone in J&K. But since it's not possible to quantitatively measure the proportion of links that refer to the UT, I won't push this as my primary argument.
The truth is that J&K now primarily refers to the UT (feel free to do a survey of recent media articles to confirm this). Wikipedia should reflect this reality. Bharatiya29 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is only one Jammu and Kashmir in current time. Hence there is no need to add (union territory) with the name. The former one is Jammu and Kashmir (state), which looks correct.Sumit Singh T 04:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, support dab: The union territory Jammu and Kashmir is certainly not the only primary topic for the term "Jammu and Kashmir" after just five days of its inception, and probably won't be for a few years. However, a disambiguation page makes sense, given that three historical entities have shared the same name. I feel the technical concerns that would come with the creation of such a dab can be addressed as expanded above. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, support dab: Jammu and Kashmir High Court did not changed it's name --Sharouser (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharouser: How is that relevant to this discussion? Bharatiya29 20:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map

New Maps released by Indian government does not include Gilgit Baltistan in J&K UT but in Ladakh UT. So map needs change. The article should be reframed as well because Gilgit Baltistan is in Ladakh UT according to the map. -Nizil (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Survey of India seems to know its geography, but not its history. If this map is supposed to represent the pre-partition situation (which is suggested by the three districts shown for Azad Kashmir) then it needs to separate Gilgit and Baltistan. Baltistan and Ladkh were together as one wazarat (district), and Gilgit was a separate wazarat.
The Gilgit wazarat had two tehsils, viz. Gilgit and Astore. After the British leased the Gilgit tehsil, Astore was made its own wazarat as part of the Kashmir province, which would indicate that Gilgit was part of "Kashmir", not of "Ladakh". So, the colouring is all wrong.
Finally, the Gilgit Agency, set up by the British, controlled a whole bunch of autonomous subsidiary states, which were never a part of any wazarat or province. The present day map of the Gilgit area is approaching those very states, with tiny, really tiny, districts. This means that the sort-of-unification brought about by the British has now been undone. In any case, the Pakistanis were at least good enough to call the whole area "Gilgit Agency" for a long time. The irredentist India doesn't seem to have even that wisdom.
This map is way too embarrassing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
India Today claims

The Leh district of the new UT of Ladakh has been defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2019, issued by the President of India,...

Can somebody find this order? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. लेह जिले के राज्यक्षेत्र—जम्मू-कश्मीर पुनर्गठन अधिनियम, 2019 की धारा 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट लेह जिले के राज्यक्षेत्र में विद्यमान जम्मू-कश्मीर राज्य के निम्नलिखित जिले सम्मिलित होंगे, अर्थात्:-- “गिलगिट, गिलगिट वज़ारत, चिलास, जनजातीय राज्यक्षेत्र और ‘लेह और लद्दाख’ कारगिल के वर्तमान राज्यक्षेत्र के सिवाय”।

2. Territories of Leh district.—The territory of Leh district specified in section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 shall constitute the following districts of the existing State of Jammu and Kashmir, namely: – “Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilas, Tribal territory and ‘Leh and Ladakh’ except present territory of Kargil”.

From here and more specifically this document. Your commentary is not needed. 117.240.46.67 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3:, can someone work on new maps? Large number of maps will need update. -Nizil (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizil Shah: The official maps of the Government of India are not relevant to Wikipedia in all their aspects. In this instance, they are relevant for the new borders of Jammu and Kashmir within Indian administered Kashmir, but irrelevant for Pakistan- or Chinese-administered Kashmir. Gilgit, for example, has not been a part of Indian-administered Kashmir for 70 years, nor shown as a part of Indian-controlled territory in tertiary sources, such as Britannica. Again, the maps change only with regards territory within Indian-administered Kashmir. I hope this is clear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizil Shah: can you be specific about what you want updated? I hope you are not suggesting that the Wikipedia map of Ladakh should reflect the Indian government maps? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler:, I am aware of the disputed map issue. I am asking for updates in India maps in which states and UTs are marked. All maps of India need to be updated for this change (with disputed territory guidelines being followed). I am asking for changes in map as we did when Telangana was created.-Nizil (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you are talking about updating political maps of India. Then WT:INDIA would be the right place to raise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir my name is Pankaj And my point is that this map of Jammu and Kashmir is not correct.

You mean it doesn't match the Indian government's map? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three map proposal

For the past nearly 20 years people in India and Pakistan have written to Wikipedia complaining about about the maps on this page. In the WP:Volunteer Response Team there is a form template response because these requests come in several times a week just for English language. For anyone who does not know the context, here it is:

  • the government of India publishes one map showing that India controls J&K
  • the government of Pakistan publishes another map showing that Pakistan controls J&K
  • the rest of the world publishes a third map showing the Line of Control between J&K with India on one side and Pakistan on the other

The maps in India and Pakistan get shown in news, taught to kids in school, and everywhere they are normal. For some reason people in India and Pakistan are not aware that the rest of the world has another map with the LoC. India sort of imagines that Pakistan has their own map, and Pakistan sort of imagines that India has their own map, but the awareness that the rest of the world has a different map is not there.

The world map is about occupation. There is a line in J&K, with Indian soldiers on one side and Pakistani soldiers on the other side. This line of military occupation, the Line of Control, is well known to everyone in India and Pakistan, but so far as I can tell many people do not imagine that the line should show up in the map. I am in the United States and missing some cultural context here.

Would it be useful to show all three maps at the top - the India version, the Pakistan version, and the world version? If we did that then everyone could see the map they expect and also see the other versions. Has this been proposed in the past? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad idea. But it properly belongs to the Kashmir page. A section could be added there, after the one on the events of 1947–48. But it may have to wait for a few months as there are a number of other things that need to be done first. In general, whatever their motivations, the Pakistani maps place value on mentioning that Indian-controlled Kashmir is "disputed territory" (see here and here); however, the Indian maps make no such mention about Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, all of which are shown indisputably to be parts of India (see here). The dispute, from the late 1940s, the oldest before the UN, is about whether the two countries have sovereignty over the regions they control or administer.
There are some other issues as well. It is my view that pictures of geography and people belong only to the Kashmir page, and not to the major subdivisions of administration or control, which, as their name suggests, should primarily be about the administration. For example, by allowing pictures of beautiful landscapes in either Pakistan-administered Gilgit-Baltistan or Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) Wikipedia becomes complicit in the promotion of tourism in disputed regions by the powers that control the regions. I am officially on vacation, so unable to do much for a few months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS There is no reason for Ladakh, for another example, to have extensive geography and history sections. Those belong again to the Kashmir page, which can summarize content from the Geography of Ladakh and History of Ladakh pages. The Ladakh page too should primarily be about the administration. If we don't do this, all sorts of irredentistic POVs, -motivations, and goals—all ultimately unencyclopedic—will sneak in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative status aside, the Ladakh region is distinct geographically within Kashmir. From 1979 (when the Ladakh district was divided) to February 2019 (when it was declared a division), the Indian government didn't really recognize Ladakh as an administrative unit, yet the the Wikipedia page on Ladakh always existed for that period of time, with the main scope of the article defined by the people, geography, flora and fauna, and culture of the region. I am not really sure how, or convinced that including geographic images constitute POV (by the same logic, including the images at Kashmir under the caption "Region in Indian/Pakistani-administered Kashmir" should also amount to promoting tourism), but if such a proposal were to gain support, there exists a scope for two separate pages–one solely on the administrative unit that came into being in 2019, and another on the greater Ladakh region, which could possibly expand on the region historically referred to as Ladakh. It would be of encyclopedic value to atleast have all but the adminstration together in one page. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Ladakh was an administrative division of J&K, most likely from the start, that is, from the mid-1950s. Contrast its page with the other two administrative divisions Jammu Division and Kashmir Division (the latter redirected to Kashmir valley), which cede their history, geography, and biodiversity content to other pages. Those other pages already exist for Ladakh: Geography of Ladakh, History of Ladakh, Wildlife of Ladakh, but there is a kind of content fork created by duplicating the content. In terms of nesting content, there is a flagship page about the region. This is Kashmir, which is identical to Kashmir region, and which includes, Ladakh region. The highest level geography, biodiversity, pre-1947 history, and pre-1947 demographics sections belong to that page. Each of these sections will have several parent articles, such as History of Kashmir, and perhaps History of Gilgit-Baltistan, History of Ladakh, History of Jammu, etc. The post-1947 entities should ideally not have geography and biodiversity sections, only post-1947 history and demographics, etc. I'm not saying that we need to do this now, but a clean-up and reorganization is required in the coming months; otherwise, I fear content forks will sprout unchecked. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I like your Ladakh (union territory) idea. Ladakh region, I'm not so sure about, but it is worth mulling over. What then will plain old Ladakh redirect to? A dab page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. The idea behind the pages' organization makes a lot more sense now. (I am not sure if Ladakh was a division in the 1950s tho, given the information in our article, but that's beside the point). Yes, the Ladakh page could be converted into a dab. DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Kashmir is that no one really knows what the people of Kashmir wanted in 1947, and this is the heart of the matter underlying what @Bluerasberry: is alluding to at the beginning of the thread. The people of Pakistan have traditionally thought that Kashmiris, constituting a Muslim majority, would have naturally chosen a Muslim country, regardless of their political affinities; the people of India have made up their own histories and rationalizations. No one in India seemed to have worried that a new democratic nation, whose independence was won by a pioneering anti-colonial nationalist movement, was ready to drop its principles to lap up the choice of a feudal princely ruler just because he was offering real estate. (It doesn't matter that the British had given the princely rulers that pro forma choice, but feudalism pre-dates colonialism.) Predictably, on Wikipedia, you have promotion of these national POVs on Kashmir-related articles. Sometimes they are blatant and can be easily reverted; other times, they are less blatant, and spotting them takes time (see for example how Copeland, Ian (1991), "Kashmiri Muslims and the 1947 crisis", in D. A. Low (ed.), Political Inheritance of Pakistan, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 237–, ISBN 978-1-349-11556-3 has been selectively paraphrased to make a point about the secular nature of Kashmiri Muslims here). I have watched this with dismay on the Kashmir page for the last 13 years. So, yes, coming back to your initial post, user:Bluerasberry, three maps is a good idea, for it demonstrates to an average reader at a glance what the territorial dispute is about. That is not the only dispute, but it is an important one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the people of Pakistan thought the Kashmiris would choose Pakistan, they wouldn't have bothered to invade Kashmir. But, anyway, I don't think 1947 has much to do with the maps issues we face now. India is certainly at fault for not putting the LOC on its maps and that causes problems for us. Pakistan used to put it on its maps, but they seem to be following the Indian lead too now. Still, it is the Indian editors that give us the most problem now, not the Pakistanis.
We have been applauded for putting up the right maps and they practically show up everywhere on google searches. I don't see why we should dilute it by installing POV maps. They won't really make any difference. If we put the Pakistani maps on Indian territories, the Indian editors will come and repeatedly delete them. I can guarantee it. Just check how many times we had to delete the Indian flag and the Indian seal on this page itself. I think we just have to wait until the protests restart in Kashmir and the Indians get a reality check. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the Pakistanis invaded was likely not their doubts about the choice of the Kashmiris, though they may have over-estimated the latter's enthusiasm for Pakistan, but their doubts about the would-be choice of the Kashmiris' feudal ruler.
As for the maps, I said above that they should be added only to the section of the Kashmir page, in a section following the events of 1947-48, as instantly understood illustrations of the disparate geographical claims of the disputants. A Chinese map of Aksai Chin will be needed there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Districts of Ladakh
The Kashmir page is almost totally free of vandalism. We can do whatever we want. But at the same time it may not help Bluerasberry much because the pages Indians would see are Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh.
RaviC has produced a nice map for Districts of Ladakh, with a light blue colouring for unadministered areas. This kind of thing might be a good solution for avoiding objections from readers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely why the pages Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh—which must be split between Ladakh (union territory), and Jammu and Kashmir (state)—must increasingly be only about the administration. The history, except for post-October 31, 2019, the geography, demographics, etc. must be ceded to parent articles, and ultimately to the Kashmir page in the manner I have suggested above. See the changes I just made to parent history sections in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Jammu and Kashmir (state) a little while ago. The same will need to be done for Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. The Kashmir page in turn will require a Geography, Biodiversity, updated pre-1954 Demographics, Economic resources, pre-1947 Tourism, and Culture sections for the whole region. Done properly, the pages of the subdivisions administered by different countries will be further pared of duplicated content which is the main reason for their current popularity. The Pakistani editors such as Saqib are on board for such changes. I can't do much now, but will work on these issues upon my return. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS The map of user RaviC would not be needed in such a plan. For the Ladakh (union territory) page you will only need the two districts devoid of the pale blue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all maps added by RaviC. They are not NPOV. The regions administered by other countries, but claimed by India, must have the same color. The maps cannot differentially insinuate the claims of India's states, union territories, or districts on regions that India does not administer. RaviC, please fix these maps. Wikipedia requires us to be NPOV. Please see the maps in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordyceps-Zombie, Fowler is saying that all the territory controlled by a country, say Pakistan, should be coloured the same way. You may or may not agree with it, but we need to discuss it here.
For myself, I understand the principle, but I am not as particular about it as Fowler is. Further, showing the unmarked border stretching into the un-administered territory can reduce the load on Bluerasberry and colleagues on fielding complaints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(left) Location of Gilgit-Baltistan, which is displayed in crimson, in the larger disputed Kashmir region, and beyond. Regions of undisputed Pakistani sovereignty are shown in a shade of white, as is Azad Kashmir, a region administered by Pakistan but claimed by India. Indian-administered Kashmir, which is claimed by Pakistan, is shaded in parallel bands. Chinese-administered Kashmir, which is recognized by Pakistan to be under Chinese sovereignty, is displayed in the same colors as other foreign countries. (right) Azad Kashmir is shown in crimson. The regions of undisputed Pakistani sovereignty are shown in a shade of white, as is Gilgit-Baltistan, which is administered by Pakistan but claimed by India. Indian-administered Kashmir is shaded in parallel bands; Chinese-administered Kashmir, which is recognized by Pakistan to be under Chinese sovereignty, is displayed in the same colors as other foreign countries.
POV map of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)
POV map of Ladakh
The Divisions of Jammu and Kashmir: Kashmir (green), Jammu (orange) and Ladakh (blue)
Our task is not to reduce complaints, but to uphold Wikipedia policy. There are Indian-controlled regions; there are Pakistani-controlled regions; and there are Chinese-controlled regions. A map of the entire Kashmir region can show the three regions of control, and display them in different colors. However, a map of a region controlled by a disputant, for example Gilgit-Baltistan shown on the left, to the extent it shows any region controlled by others, must color the latter in the same uniform color. Such a map cannot reflect what in effect are the imaginary delineations, or divisions, of sovereignty, or control, of an individual disputant on the regions that are in reality controlled by others. See the two maps of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh shown on the right, as well as the map already added by Kautilya3 above, for examples of the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I completely disagree with your assessment on whether those maps are NPOV or not. There's quite a big difference between maps for Pakistani administered Kashmir and the ones I've produced for the new UT's, namely that Pakistan does not have a defined border for their claims in non-administered regions. To be NPOV, we should show both the de-facto and de-jure boundaries of the state (e.g. as done in Cyprus). --RaviC (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: (a) Please identify that issue precisely in the two maps of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir displayed on the left, and not point to some other map you might have in mind. Please identify precisely what you consider de facto and what de jure (b) Whether or not the Pakistani maps on the left are NPOV, please answer the question I have asked for the two Indian maps on the right? Why are Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir shades in different colors? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(a) As I already mentioned, Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir don't have any claimed boundaries in regions not administered by them. De-facto refers to the current state boundary between J&K, Ladakh as well as the LoC. De-jure refers to the official state boundaries between J&K and Ladakh that are areas not under the control of the Republic of India.
(b) These regions are shaded because they are claimed as constituent territory of the respective union territories. The lighter shade however indicates the fact that this is simply a claim, and does not infer administration. Regards. --RaviC (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: (A) So, are you saying you don't have any issues with the maps on the left? If you do, please state them precisely. (B) Why is G-B not shaded in different colors in the map of administrative divisions of Jammu and Kashmir state that has been displayed for some time and reproduced on the left here? Why this sudden change? (C) If the new maps are in response to new maps produced by the Indian government, then their inclusion by differential shading needs to be discussed here first, and consensus gained. Please remove the maps until you have clarified precisely the issues and gained consensus for your version. (D) Can you point to a neutral reference which states that in the regions claimed by Pakistan, none would come under the label of either Gilgit or Baltistan? (E) Again, please reproduce here the map of Cyprus to which you have referred. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: It has just come to my attention that you have added en masse in the pages of many jurisdictions in Ladaksh such differentially shades maps reflecting new Indian claims. Please self revert and gain consensus for them here; otherwise, I will have to raise the issue in wider forums. You cannot do this a priori when most editors pussyfoot around sensitive issues, discuss them endlessly, in order to gain consensus. Please be aware that there are ARBCOM restrictions on these pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Ladakh map, those edits were made more than a week ago, without any expressions of dissatisfaction since. I don't have the time to revert the large number of edits there but you are more than welcome to revert them if you wish to. Very simply, there was never a need to demarcate Indian claimed boundaries when the entirety of the state was claimed by India as one subdivision. Pakistan has not produced a single map delimiting the regions of Kashmir not under their control (e.g. see [1] and [2]). For an example of Cyprus maps showing de-jure boundaries, see the different district articles (e.g. Nicosia District.)

Finally, I only created these maps in response to a request at the WP Graphics Lab; had I known they would end up wasting so much time I would not have bothered. If you want to make your own maps that fulfill the criteria you personally perceive as NPOV, be my guest. --RaviC (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC: I'm sorry you consider this to be wasted time. However, our charge to follow NPOV policy is non-negotiable. It is not enough to say that Pakistan has not produced a map that shows the territorial sub-divisions of its claim on the regions of Indian-administered Kashmir. You will need to show that Pakistan has formally renounced the territorial subdivisions of Kashmir before the conflict began in 1947. Nor can you say that India has produced a new subdivision of its region of administration which now extends into Pakistani-administered Kashmir, so we must display that claim in all maps. A riposte to that would be, "What if India had announced a new subdivision which showed Ladakh extending into regions that are widely considered to be under Pakistani sovereignty, such as Swat? What would you be doing? Changing the Indian maps willy-nilly or attempting to gain consensus? Finally, a week is a minuscule amount of time, most people are unaware of these changes. There is not a Wikipedia rule that says one week of no challenge in seldom viewed pages constitutes consensus. Summing up, I will be reverting your edits until such time as you or someone else can gain consensus for their inclusion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Will you also be modifying the maps in the Cyprus article as well since they follow the same precedent? Kind regards. --RaviC (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: Despite repeated requests, you have not identified the maps of Cyprus you to which you have referred. Neither have you replied to any of my points. My charge is India-related articles. Accordingly, these articles are where my effort will be directed. I can certainly raise the issue on a Cyprus talk page if I find it counter to policy. It is for them to arrive at their consensus. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed my reference, in which I said you can find them on all of the Cypriot district articles (e.g. Nicosia District, Famagusta District etc). --RaviC (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC: Thank you. I have examined them. I am afraid none are transparent, or even written in idiomatic English. You are welcome to go to a Wikipedia forum of your choice and establish their conguence with the Kashmir conflict. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC:I have now removed the problematic maps in this page. I have, however, left the map File:Jammu & Kashmir Districts (2019).svg in, as it does not insinuate, the imaginary perceptions of one disputant, viz. India, on a region, viz. Azad Kashmir, controlled by another, viz. Pakistan. As this map too have been made, and recently updated, by you, it appears that your own maps are not consistent with respect to the principle I have explained above. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're insinuating. Both maps consistently indicate the de-facto and de-jure boundaries of the state (my district map even indicates three districts claimed but not administered by India). But nonetheless I'm glad you are content with it. --RaviC (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: I have also removed maps in more than two dozen jurisdictions in Ladakh (whose maps apparently have the bigger problem), some of them villages with populations barely pushing 300. Someone of your graphic programming abilities should easily be able to redo the module for this map. In other words, a map of Ladakh that does not color the regions of Pakistani-administered Kashmirs in different colors. And does not make an claims in words for regions of Pakistani administered Kashmir. Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir need to be in the same color. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: Also what is claimed by one disputant, to the extent is shows district-wise claims cannot be mentioned in words in the district maps; so you will need to take them out as well, though for now, I have left the J&K districts map in. They belong to only the highest level article, Kashmir, once it is reorganized. We have just had a long discussion on WT:INDIA on how to frame the language of jurisdictions of administration in NPOV language. While so much effort has been spent on that, we can't have editors bypass the spirit of that discussion in uploading maps. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS My error, I did not notice the districts of Pakistan-administered Kashmir marked A, B, C, ... in the district map. I have taken it out well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

You're welcome to join the RfC I've created to resolve this issue once and for all. PS, the district map has been like this since 2017, without a single word of complaint. --RaviC (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct history is detailed below:

(first row) The original map of Kashmir created by user:Planemad in 2007 and carried by the Jammu and Kashmir (state) page in one version or other from 2007 until 31 October 2019 (and in fact into the present). (second row left) India Jammu and Kashmir location map created by user:NordNordWest on 15 April 2010, based on (a) United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency data and (b) World Data Base II data (second row right) India Jammu and Kashmir location map UN view.svg created by user:Avoided blue on 25 February 2011. This map says specifically that it is a map of the de facto situation in Kashmir. (third row left) Jammu & Kashmir Distrikte.svg created by user:Furfur on 12 May 2015, with note: "Distrikte von Jammu und Kashmir (2015). Achtung: die Karte gibt nur eine grobe Übersicht. Die Distriktgrenzen sind leider nur ungenau, aufgrund mangelhafter zur Verfügung stehender Karten." (translate: "Districts of Jammu and Kashmir (2015). Attention: the map gives only a rough overview. The district boundaries are unfortunately only inaccurate, due to the lack of available maps.") and "hinzugefügt, nach Vorlagen verschiedener Karten, u. a" ("added according to the templates in") It was cited to a Jammu and Kashmir Police web site (now a dead link) and a private web site. It had the districts of Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir, and in the claimed regions were labeled A, B, C, ... which were explained only in the description: A. Gilgit, B. Aksai Chin/Ladakh, C. Gilgit Wazarat, D. Chilas, E. Tribal territory, F. Muzaffarabad, G. Punch (western portion), H. Mirpur. (third row right) India Ladakh location map.svg was created by In this map user:RaviC added the Indian new Indian claims announced on October 31, 2019 and has extended the claims into those of districts, not just of countries.

There is a limited amount of editor-power on India-, Pakistan- and Kashmir-related pages. Yet these editors first attempt to conclude discussions by waiting to hear from all editors involved in the discussion; if they are dissatisfied, they take the discussion to WT:INDIA. They don't start RfC's on a whim. I am on vacation by the way. Pinging: @Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Saqib, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi2: I have proposed something similar: when editors here have some breathing time, the 3-map situation can be elaborated in a section of the highest-level article on Kashmir-related topics: Kashmir. Your article can become the parent article of that section if the section begins to spill over. At least initially, I would prefer that all articles refer to this Kashmir section, rather than a new article, as Kashmir will be watched by more people. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said above, I am not too fussed about putting the "de-jure boundaries" of the states on maps, as RaviC calls them.[note 1] India had to put the un-administered territory in one state or the other. It didn't have an option, given that it claims the whole of the former princely state. I would have preferred if they left Gilgit-Baltistan in the J&K state, kind of with an imaginary title to the former princely state. Trying to divide the imagined territory between the two states was in bad taste. But it is done now. And we have the problem of Indian readers getting upset looking at truncated maps without their imagined/claimed territories. So, on pragmatic grounds, I am ok with RaviC's maps since the line of control is shown, as we are required to do for NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I understand your concern, but, again, our main charge is to be NPOV. In the past, we have invariantly relied on third-party maps such as the University of Texas-CIA map (see, for example Jammu and Kashmir (state)). Or BBC, or Britannica. It is best to wait until these sources come out with new maps for Kashmir showing the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh (union territory). There is no hurry. I am afraid if we allow these on-the-fly maps, on the excuse of not hurting sentiments, in a few months they will settle in and it will be much harder to remove them if the third party sources pronounce otherwise. Until then, it is best to only show the de facto boundaries, in other words, the boundaries of union territories and districts within Indian-administered Kashmir, not boundaries outside imagined by the government of the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact if File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg has been good enough for Jammu and Kashmir (state), the precursor state for these union territories, for over ten years, I don't see why it can't for a few months longer. Jammu, Kashmir valley, and Ladakh are clearly marked in the map. These boundaries have not changed, only the state has been split, and therefore these three regions have been recombined, into two union territories. Why should the new maps reflect the regions outside? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is already a precedent on Wikipedia of regions administered by one country splitting into different jurisdictions: Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Their maps have been displayed earlier in this discussion on the left. They don't color Indin-controlled regions in different colors. It does not make sense for user:RaviC to say that Gilgit-Baltistan have never claimed any region of Indian-controlled Ladakh, when Pakistan has never formally abdicated its claim on all of Indian-administered Kashmir. Besides, Kargil, a town now in Ladakh was very much a part of Baltistan before 1947. So, why would it not be in the Pakistani claim for Gilgit Baltistan today were they to break down their claim on Indian-administered Kashmir into claims of their two provinces? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Using "state" in a generic way, to include union territories as well.
  • Responding to ping: we've long had problems with Indian editors uploading Indian government maps, and Pakistani editors uploading Pakistani government maps, and these maps then proliferating into pages where they pass as legitimate depictions of national boundaries. Thanks to the fact that there are rather more Indian editors on Wikipedia (and not thanks to any purity of motivation on the "other side") the Indian government's fictitious map has proliferated somewhat more. Lacking the graphics skills to fix these myself, and being aware of the tendentiousness with which folks react to this dispute, I have chosen to spend my time elsewhere. Incidentally, I would suggest that the three maps go at the top of Kashmir Conflict, not at the top of Kashmir itself; on that latter article, they would belong in a section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some thoughts. I think it important that our maps are clear and accurate. Regardless of claims, the borders between India and Pakistan stops at the line of control and, therefore, our maps should separate India and Pakistan at the line of control. Any map that shows claims should clearly indicate where the claimed entity actually lies, it should not be the principle geography delineating map in the article, and should only be presented in the context of the claims. For example, the map here should not show the non-Indian districts in the infobox. Rather, we should include them in the administrative divisions section, clearly stating that India only claims control over these areas but that those areas actually lie in Pakistan. For example, in this map, I suggest shading the A, B, C districts and annotating the map with a "India claims this area but it is controlled by Pakistan". (I also like Lingzhi's idea of a "maps of India and Pakistan" article but that won't work for describing aspirational districts!) --regentspark (comment) 23:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A similar suggestion, of cross-hatching was discussed by Uanfala at the RfC as well. An option along these lines might be a good solution to the problem. --RaviC (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already precedents, such as in:

(a) Kashmir-related maps of the countries that are a party to the Kashmir dispute, and (b) neutral third-party sources whose maps on Kashmir we generally follow
(a) (i) The Indian-administered regions: On October 31, 2019, the government of India produced rudimentary, largely unlabeled, maps of the new union territories of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) or Ladakh, hereafter RUD2019. Earlier, from 1954 to 2019, Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh were divisions of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and they are now divisions of the union territory (see Kashmir Division, Jammu Division) No map was produced by India's government in the previous 45 years showing the boundaries of these divisions supplemented with a "claimed Divison boundary" which extended into Pakistani-administered Kashmir, i.e. into Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan. In other words, there is no precedent for RUD2019 in India's own official cartography.
(a) (ii) The makers of RUD2019 forgot to break down the claims of these union territories into claims of their Divisions. So, what kind of claim of administration does the map embody? It has an overall claim but no detailed breakdown. What parts of Azad Kashmir (administered by Pakistan) lie in the claim of their Kashmir Division and what in that of their Jammu Division? In other words, there is no supplement for RUD2019, identifying its details, in any official Indian map produced since October 31, 2019.
(a) (iii) The Pakistan-administered regions: The maps of Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan government maps, for example, here, do not show Kargil (which today lies in Indian-administered Kashmir) to be a part of the claimed territory of Gilgit-Baltistan. However before the Kashmir dispute began in 1947, Kargil was a part of Baltistan. (The Imperial Gazetteer of India says so. Many other sources say so: here, here, and here. Thus Pakistan's government maps do not show their claims broken down into claims of their administrative subdivisions. In other words, there is no precedent for RUD2019 in the official cartography of Pakistan.
(a)(iv) The British Raj: Before 1947, Ladakh and Gilgit were two distinct districts of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu. (See here, in the Imperial Gazetteer of India). But Gilgit has become a part of Ladakh in RUD2019? In other words, there is no precedent for RUD2019 in the cartography of the British Raj
(b) The neutral third-party sources such as the University of Texas/CIA map of Kashmir, BBC, Britannica, that we rely on have not as yet chosen to produce a map of India's new union territories.
Indeed there are several cases in India's Supreme Court, challenging the subdivision of Jammu and Kashmir. By allowing such maps on Wikipedia before the legal dust has settled, we are risking taking sides in the issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS @RaviC: Please close the RfC. You are doing nothing but duplicating discussion content. Indeed your cross-hatching remarks are produced twice, there and here, as are mine, in response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: I think that the RfC should be limited to achieving a general WP policy to handle all such cases, and once that is done, this specific discussion should be resumed. In the meanwhile, I'll suggest that the maps created by you should be included in the articles (J&K and Ladakh) as status-quo since they are quite essential. Bharatiya29 20:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: You mention a map marked A, B, C, ... in your post above. The problem for us is that the map and many of its ancestors are completely bogus, revised by graphics programmers, including user:RaviC, who typically fly under the radar of Wikipedia rules on sourcing—not by design or deliberation, of course, but because no one is holding their feet to the fire.

  • That map did have its origins in a 2015 NPOV map created by user Furfur which had no boundaries of any districts in Pakinstan-administered Kashmmir, no labels A, B, C, ..., and no description of anything aspirational, in the accompanying text. It was in turn based on:
    • on a 2010 NPOV map File:India Jammu and Kashmir location map UN view.svg (created by NordNordWest (talk · contribs) which says "Positionskarte von Jammu und Kashmir, Indien. De-facto-Situation," has only the boundaries of the districts in India-administered Kashmir (presumably based on a UN map) and no mention of the aspirational districts either in the map or in the text that accompanies it, and
  • But on 27 July 2017, RaviC (talk · contribs) replaced the 2015 map with this POV map, in which he had slapped on labels A, B, C, and boundaries on the 2015 map, with no explanation on how the aspirational districts (which happen to be in Pakistan-administered Kashmir) were drawn, whether they were based on pre-1947 district boundaries or current-say district boundaries,, with no sourcing of any kind, let alone WP:RS. The only comment added was, "Added claimed but non-administered districts"
  • On 15 October, 2017, the original creator, reverted part of this edit, and left this version of his map, with the comment, "Please don't add any English text directly in the image description – the abbreviations A,B,C, ... can be explained in the accompanying text."
  • On 2 November 2019, RaviC (talk · contribs) added a new POV map of the union territory, in which he had slapped back the names of the aspirational districts in the image in direct disregard of Furfur (talk · contribs)'s earlier revert and admonition.
  • So what we have is no precedent, but an edit made to an originally NPOV map, without any reliable sourcing, which the original editor attempted to set right with the limited knowledge about Kashmir at his command. This was again disregarded in a second POV edit, to which you refer in your post with a comment similar to Furfur's. It took me so much time to ferret this out. What are the chances that anyone would have noticed? I frankly think it is time to end this RfC, and for us to stick to the de facto maps, until such time as the NPOV maps we rely on, University of Texas/CIA, Britannica, or BBC, have added the union territories in their maps. For this has the appearance of POV-promotion, the kind that disregards the gentle NPOV voices. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed Kashmir region showing the Indian-administered union territories of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh; the Pakistani-administered regions of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, and the Chinese-administered region of Aksai Chin.

I have now altered the University of Texas-CIA map of the Kashmir region, which has stood invariantly in the Jammu and Kashmir (state) page for over 12 years, as well as the Kashmir page for longer, to show the union territories. I will be adding it to both the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh pages. I consider this discussion to be resolved for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it curious that you've decided to arbitrarily end the discussion now, when editors have suggested a simple adjustment is all that would have been required to resolve the maps. Regardless of everything, I appreciate your passion for the topic, and hope our next interaction can be more civil. Have a nice day! --RaviC (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought I was uncivil. I might have been plainspoken, but for me the Wikipedia imperative for NPOV is paramount. I have now done this uniformly for all first-order Kashmir regions and announced so on WT:INDIA. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

i think we should add the insurgency topic or at least just give a bit of description in the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCrusade1999 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the union territory which came into existence on 31 October 2019. There is precious little to report about the insurgency in the events following that date. Those occurring earlier are covered in the Jammu and Kashmir (state) page, which has a section on the insurgency. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(union_territory)&oldid=956126081"