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 Mhveinvp (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 16 May 2020 (→‎improvements to shah mir dynasty section: added changes to my sandbox page for improvements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0

"most militarized zone" ??

"Kashmir is widely regarded as the world's most militarized zone"

This seems to be a very subjective statement, and definitely not encyclopedic.

It is true because Indian occupied Kashmir is under military curfew based lock down from 14 days on this date. It is forced by Indian army to ensure reduce Muslim men and increasing Hindu to rape Muslim women for land. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to Shah Mir Dynasty and Mughal sections?

Hello Fowler&fowler, I was wondering why my expansions to the sections on the Shah Mir dynasty and Mughal history of Kashmir were reverted? These sections are currently quite ambiguous and lacking in detail, which is quite odd considering the level of detail in the rest of the article. I had also thoroughly cited all my claims. What should I do to improve those sections if I cannot expand them? Ahmadnisar1213 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Ahmadnisar1213[reply]

@Ahmadnisar1213: The article has had a long, fraught, history. Many of the edits that have survived are the result of long, fraught, discussions on the talk page. Many of the other edits that have survived have been snuck in when everyone was sleeping, and are brimming with POV. The Shah Mir section (with a popular spin on how a vast majority of Kashmiris came to become Muslim by forced conversion) is a case in point. In such a page, we simply cannot, after 14 years, have large text or data dumps, sourced adequately, or reliably, though they might be claimed to have been. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with your architecture-related edits; however, when coupled with the previous spin on Shah Mir, they begin to look random, that is, one set of "facts," sourced to publications that are being claimed to be reliable sitting atop other "facts," with similar claims, but with no thought to cohesion of the textual material, to undue weight, or synthesis. In response to your post, I will, however, remove most of the Shah-Mir section. The basic facts in that section will need to be more reliably written. But in the future, please discuss your edits on the talk page first, and in semantically digestible bits. In the next three or four days, I will post some more balanced sources here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for your Mughal rule edits, you have cited from UNESCO, suggesting thereby two things, that UNESCO is a reliable secondary sources, and that the Mughal gardens in Kashmir are a UNESCO World Heritage site. UNESCO, especially its descriptions of its listed sites, are primary sources, not peer-reviewed secondary sources. Secondly, the Mughal Gardens in Kashmir are not yet a UNESCO World Heritage Site, only nominated for inclusion by the Indian government. (Please scroll to the bottom to the tentative list here.) The text that accompanies the nomination suffers from the common optimistic tone and history of such submissions. They are even less reliable.
But you see how, a single edit that you think is reliable, and that you add in a good faith, takes a lot of time for time-strapped other editors to delve into and to correct. Imagine what happens when there a several such edits, in a larger body of text, that has been added in one single edit. It begins to strain the manpower resources that Wikipedia has. It is better therefore to first discuss the on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I have now reduced the bloated, and unreliably sourced, Hindu and Buddhist section as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler Thank you for the explanation and I understand the rationale for the reverted edits. Ahmadnisar1213 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Ahmadnisar1213[reply]

Hindus in Kashmir, needs some expansion under demographics

@Kautilya3: please include this expaison as it's not only Pandit Hindus who are native to valley but also Karkun, Vora and Trambu, Telis.

The largest caste of Kashmiri Hindus is the Kashmiri Pandits (Kashmiri Brahmins),[1][2] who are divided into several gotras,[3] such as the "priests (gor or bhasha Bhatta), astrologers (Zutshi), and workers (Karkun)".[4] The majority of Kashmiris who belong to the kshatriya varna use the surname Gourtra.[5] Kashmiri Hindus of the vaishya community are found in the Vora and Trambu regions of Sopore.[5] Under the rule of Sultan Sikander Butshikan in the 14th century A.D., many Kashmiri Hindus, including those of other religions were forcibly converted to Islam.[6][7]

Also please link this Kashmiri Hindus main article there too. 117.198.240.135 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep unbiased and neutral opinion and avoid Hindu fascism based on nazi inspired RSS extremists. Indian forces have already locked down Kashmir for killing Muslim Kashmiris. Please Ngnrpu (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The demography of this page is based on the decadal censuses conducted after 1871 CE in the British Indian Empire. The Hindus in the Kashmir Valley remained at a stable 4% to 5% of the population. The Hindus in the entire Kashmir region remained at a stable 21% to 22%. Most scholar, which include TN Madan, Mridu Rai, Chitralekha Zutshi, Barbara and Thomas Metcalf, agree broadly with these numbers. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mufti, Gulzar (24 September 2013). Kashmir in Sickness and in Health. Partridge Publishing. p. 121. ISBN 9781482809985. Hindus of the Kashmir Valley, known as Pandits, are mostly upper caste Brahmins.
  2. ^ Kachru, Onkar (1998). Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh. Atlantic Publishers. p. 75. ISBN 9788185495514. Taking into account decennial growth rates and migration patterns, the 1981 census data suggests that there would have been 161,000 Hindus, most of them Kashmiri Pandits, in the valley in 1991.
  3. ^ South Asian Language Review, Volumes 3-4. Creative Publishers. 1993. p. 64. 'Kashmiri Brahmins are said to have originally belonged to only six gotras, -By intermarriage with other Brahmins the number of gotras multiplied to 199' ( Koul 1924).
  4. ^ Nagano, Yasuhiko; Ikari, Yasuke (1993). From Vedic Altar to Village Shrine: Towards an Interface Between Indology and Anthropology. National Museum of Ethnology. p. 186. Retrieved 29 September 2017. The Hindus belong with few exceptions to the Brahman caste and are known as 'Pandits', while in other parts of India they are generally called 'Kashmiri Pandits'. These Kashmiri Brahmans are divided into three subcastes consisting, namely, of priests (gor or bhasha Bhatta), astrologers (jyotishi), and workers (karkun).
  5. ^ a b Sehgal, Narendra (2011). Jammu & Kashmir: A State in Turbulence. Suruchi Prakashan. p. 9. ISBN 9788189622831.
  6. ^ Kaw, Maharaj Krishen (2001). Kashmiri Pandits. APH Publishing. p. 25–26. ISBN 9788176482363. Then came the fanatical and tyrannical rule of Sultan Sikander, the iconoclast (1398-1420 A.D.) who let loose a sort of hell against the non-Muslims through forced conversions and widespread destruction of their religious shrines all over the Valley. Possibly, by this time, the lower Hindu castes had got converted to Islam, both by use of brute force and passionate zeal of the Islamic missionaries moving freely among the socially backward and rigid Hindu caste hierarchies already shaken by the spread of the Buddhist creed when Kashmir was form a considerable period one of the staunchest centres of the anti-caste movement of the Buddhist cult.
  7. ^ Khan, Ghulam Hassan (1973). The Kashmiri Mussulman. p. 41. This community prior to their conversion was divided amongst the Brahmin, Kshatria, Vaish, and Shudr castes.

"Azad Kashmir"

In the opening paragraph the Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir, "Azad Kashmir" should be shown in inverted commas or otherwise labelled as PK-controlled/administered to maintain a neutral POV. Only the PK government calls it "Azad". The URL links to a fuller explanation. I had recently inserted the inverted commas but somebody removed them. It is a very sensitive subject and so a neutral POV is extremely important. Dori1951 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No - as MOS:SCAREQUOTES - "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression."
Wikipedia reflects the de facto position, which is that Azad Kashmir "is a region administered by Pakistan as a nominally self-governing jurisdiction."
Your quotation marks are purely your PoV addition, NOT a "neutral PoV" at all, which is why they keep being removed, and why they will be removed in future. - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

improvements to shah mir dynasty section

I came across this journal[1] and i wish to have a discussion on it here.

1. The wikipedia page under "sikh rule" section mentions "....he conquered and subdued Rajouri (1821), Kishtwar (1821), Suru valley and Kargil (1835), Ladakh (1834–1840), and Baltistan (1840), thereby surrounding....". reading the journal, it clearly says "shahab-ud-din had inherited only the kashmir valley from his father, sultan ala-ul-din(1342-54), but he succeeded in bringing under his subjection the Hazara district, most of the northern punjab, gilgit, Baltistan, ladaskh, Kishtwar, jammu and the hill-states on the sourthern slopes of the pir panjal mountains. in fact these territories remained part of the kingdom of kashmir until the end of Hasan Shah's reign." Only wikipedia page of zain-ul-abidin mentions this but that is not correct according to this citation. For example, the page says "...With the arrival of Ali Shah on the throne, the territories had once again begun to assert their independence..." but the journal suggests that these were under the kashmiri kingdom till hasan shah's reign, which was the 9th king of shah mir dynasty, coming third after ali shah.

2. the wikipedia page mentions under "shah mir dynasty", "Hamadani's son also convinced Sikander Butshikan to enforce Islamic law" while this journal suggests otherwise to the tune of "the only notable exception was, however, sultan sikander, who influnced by the zeal of his wazir, suhabhatta, a new convert, ordered forcible conversion and temple destruction. But when sultan zain-ul-abidin ascended the throne, he completly reversed his father's policy, permitting the temples to be repaired or rebuilt and those persons who had been forcibly converted to revert to their former religion." -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhvienp (talk • contribs)

Can you update the Shah Mir dynasty page first, so that we can see what the corrections are? Then we can summarise them here as needed. (Please remember to sign your posts.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i have made changes in my sandbox page. Please confirm the edits there before making changes on the actual Shah Mir dynasty page. Sorry for forgetting to sign. Mhveinvp (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Khan, Mohibul Hasan (1953). "SOME ASPECTS OF KASHMIR HISTORY UNDER THE SHAH MIRS AND THE CHAKS". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 16: 194–200. ISSN 2249-1937.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir&oldid=957041008"