Talk:Jammu and Kashmir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The standard map[edit]

The map that Ljgua124 replaced with is hardly the 'standard'. It represents a a biased POV. Why should the part of Kashmir that India claims and controls be shown in stripes? I see none of that at the Azad Kashmir and Xinjiang article, where they're shown as integral parts. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Presumably because India objects maps that don't show the whole of the princely state as being part of itself. On the other hand, we prefer to show the de facto situation. So this is a compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced edit[edit]

Reverted this being not in the source given.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over map[edit]

Note this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Edit warring and no discussion is not acceptable. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan in 1941?[edit]

Kuatliya, Ref this, where you POVed by changing the text to "Pakistan-controlled territories" from simple NPOV text of "Pakistani territories" and also changed the generic text "it was expected" to "many people in Pakistan expected" by giving a vague edit summary: "Reverting some vandalism and some minor updates", please explain how can Pakistanis "expect (as early as) 1941 that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan" when there was no Pakistan in 1941? There was a reason that the original statement said "it was expected" instead of specifying "who". Partition of Indian was accepted by the British in 3rd June Plan (1947), not in 1941. BTW, you also pushed POV when you changed the text to "Pakistan-controlled" instead of "Pakistan-administered" against WP:NPOV. Then you again reverted to the same text despite the understanding that Pakistan came into being in 1947 and not 1941. How can Pakistanis expect something when there was no Pakistan?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

How about a compromise, and rewriting the text to "Muslims expected that.." rather than "many people in Pakistan expected that..". As it is dealing with Muslim aspirations, but prior to the partition. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
That's workable, as, ofcourse Muslims could have expected this, but saying it were Pakistanis is totally a different thing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 18:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are wrong in claiming that I changed "it was expected." My original text is here. I was merely reinstating it as I noticed that it had been vandalised. You changed it back and started chasing the red herring of 1941.

"Pakistan-controlled" and "Pakistan-administered" are both NPOV. Read the footnote 1, which was agreed between Mar4d, me and a number of other editors before you ever came on the scene.

I regard the change of this section title to be an WP:ASPERSION. Since you haven't provided any evidence of "POV", I would appreciate it if you change it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

One, just because you added a POVed content does not mean it has to be correct. Like you have been pointed out earlier many times that you does not WP:OWN WP. WP is build by collaboration, and not by forcing your view across. What you call 'was vandalized' could very well have been the opposing view which you have been negating since the start. You have to listen to the other side, whom ever they might be. So, per WP:BRD when your content was changed, it should have been discussed, which you did not, and hence the problem. Likewise, when I say you changed it to "it was expected" it is because none of the sources that you have provided agrees with your view as what you have reproduced is merely WP:SYNTHESIS.
Two, as regards "Pakistan-controlled", well Note-1 only clarifies how Pakistan, Indian and neutral sources name the area, not what WP considers to be NPOV. You very well know how naming convention have been used in ALL Kashmir related articles, but you chose not to follow it, and hence the POV.
Why POV: This was precisely a POV edit as you, in the SAME article, on the SAME day, used "Indian-administered" when refering to the Indian Kashmir, but in used "Pakistani-controlled when referring to Pakistani Kashmir. This shows nothing but a classic case of POV pushing.
Hence, please refrain from casting necessary WP:ASPERSION and warning other editors for the same without any valid reason.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

TripWire deleted content [1] with the edit summary There was no Pakistan in 1941 when census was held. The sentence is about "Partition Logic" not the people. After reinstating the content saying that it wasn't dealing with the events in "1941," deleted it again [2], claiming There was no Pakistan either in 1941. Site your source which says "Pakistanis" expected in "1941" that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan.

Dear TripWire, citing 1941 census data doesn't mean that we are stuck in 1941 forever. We are talking about events in 1947. As for sources that says "Pakistanis expected Kashmir will form part of Pakistan," here are a few:

  • Senior Pakistanis, many of whom had once naively simply expected that J&K would join Pakistan, had come to believe that India had been deliberately conniving with Hari Singh to obtain J&K's accession.[1]
  • Because of its over all Muslim majoirty, and, closer communication links with areas that were to be part of Pakistan, the Muslim League expected the State to join Pakistan and even offered some inducements to the Maharaja to influence his decision.[2]
  • Pakistan naturally expected Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, to join it. India thought that the religious factor was irrelevant, especially since the leading political party, the National Conference, was known to be non-sectarian. By early October, as Patel wrote to Nehru, there was no ‘difference between you and me on matters of policy relating to Kashmir’: both wanted accession.[3]
  • Although Jinnah (falsely) believed that J&K would fall into Pakistan's `lap like a ripe fruit' once the Maharaja realized his and the people's interests and acceded to Pakistan,[123] and although he was prepared to allow the Maharaja's `autocratic government' to continue,[124] support for independence enabled pro-Pakistan forces to woo the decision maker rather than the people.[4]
  • According to chaudhri Muhammad Ali, Jinnah used to say, "Kashmir will fall into our laps like a ripe fruit."[5]

Your edit changing the sentence to it was expected is wholly unsatisfactory. Pakistan expected. India didn't. You can't write it as if it is a universal truth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you didnt read the discussion above. Please go through Mar4d's suggestion. As he and I have pointed out, Muslims saying or expecting one thing does not automatically equate it with what Pakistanis would have expected as, per commonsense, Muslims/Indians before the partition were not referred to as Pakistanis, your source above precisely support what I have been suggesting. Nowhere does any of the source given by you say that it was the Pakistanis who were expecting Kashmir to fall into their lap, rather Muslims of India expected this. It's really not that hard to understand this, especially when no one called them Pakistanis before the partition actually took place.
BTW, I didnt "delete content", rather restored what was deleted by you.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
You are right. I didn't read the earlier section when I opened my section. The discussion above is wholly irrelevant. The text is not talking about 1941. It would be silly to do so anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Snedden, Christopher (2015), Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, Oxford University Press, p. 177, ISBN 978-1-84904-342-7 
  2. ^ Ray, Jayanta Kumar (2007), Aspects of India's International Relations, 1700 to 2000: South Asia and the World, Pearson Education India, pp. 207–, ISBN 978-81-317-0834-7 
  3. ^ Guha, Ramachandra (2008), India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, Pan Macmillian, ISBN 0330396110 
  4. ^ Snedden, Christopher (2013) [first published as The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir, 2012], Kashmir: The Unwritten History, HarperCollins India, ISBN 9350298988 
  5. ^ Gandhi, Rajmohan (1986), Eight Lives: A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter, SUNY Press, pp. 181–, ISBN 978-0-88706-196-7 

NPOV map[edit]

@Filpro: Please stop replacing the default map with the POV version. We have a policy-based reason not to use the latter map. The map should only highlight the de facto Jammu and Kashmir territory, not Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan. Those two territories can be hatched in a light shade (but not coloured) to show the territorial claim, which is already done. The maps on Azad Kashmir and GB have the same position, only the de facto territories are highlighted while Jammu and Kashmir is hatched (not coloured). Given you 'thanked' me for correcting the map, your revert makes no sense to me. Please note issues like these are covered by WP:ARBIPA; there is no compromise over it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mar4d: The maps at Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan did not have the same position (as J&K) until the most recent edit at J&K. The red should not be hatched. Please prove that these two maps looked the same. J&K and AK. Anything else to say? Filpro (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, your edit has been reverted and replaced with this map. Please tell me that's also POV-pushing. Filpro (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean in the first sentence; the maps at AJK and GB articles have been that way for quite some time. The objection was over AJK and GB's incorporation in the J&K map, not on the red hatching on J&K itself. The map you replaced now is fine and is as per my position above. However, the map you restored in the first revert did not satisfy NPOV requirements. Hope that is clear now. Mar4d (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Use of native language in infobox[edit]

Should the native language used in the infobox stay or should it be removed as per WP:INDICSCRIPTS? Thanks. - Ind akash (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)