Talk:Kashmir Valley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Jammu and Kashmir / Geography (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
Note icon
An image has been requested for this article. Please remove the image-needed and in parameters once the image is added.


The population given in this article contradicts what is found here:

File:Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated article[edit]

See this and

TripWire revert[edit]

@TripWire: I am not sure why you reverted here. All the edits appear properly sourced to me. Of course, we don't need the "saucer shape" in the lead, but that is a copy-edit that we can do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think did you a favour, as I dont see any copy-edit here. If you think I was wrong, please feel free to correct it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Religious groups in Kashmir Valley[edit]

I want to tell you all that exact percentages of religion in Kashmir valley is not available on any page. You have to calculate them by finding specific religions' populations of individual districts. Kashmir Valley has ten districts. I added the populations of each religious group for each district of Kashmir Valley and then calculated the overall percentages of different religious groups in Kashmir Valley. I found the population of each religious group in the division from the link I gave. My link or source takes you to official site of census of India (at the page: Population by Religious Community). After you click on your desired state, a Microsoft excel document get downloaded. After you open the document, the population by religious community is displayed on State, District, Sub District and municipality level and you can calculate the religious populations of a particular division of your state (here: Kashmir Valley) by adding the specific religious populations of the districts present in that division and then find the percentage. Isn't a source from the official govt. site of census is reliable enough ?

The current reference is outdated and is about census 2001. That source also involves calculations of religious populations but is outdated. Please do check this. And the source provided by me gives religious populations not only on State level but also on District and sub district level. I added my source. If anybody finds the source unreliable then please do explain the reason before removing it. I hope my explanation is just and fair. Vibhss (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kashmir Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Per source[edit]

Reverted to what the source says.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't matter. One can find enough sources for the other phraseology too. But, we are supposed to treat all areas of Kashmir the same way. You are being selective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Did I read you correct? The doesnt matter? If you can find 'enough sources' for the phraseology, please add those and change the sentence. The current source does not support the phrase you selectively are being replacing. Also, why do I need to get consensus? You and Filpro are removing long standing, the burden for its justification is on you.
@RegentsPark: didnt you impose some restriction on Kashmir related pages? How come sourced info is being changed to support one's POV and the editor has the cheeks to tell me to gain consensus?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you have read me correctly. We use sources for content, not for wording. If the wording is critical to the meaning and context, then we may use the original wording, but most of them time we don't. Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit, Baltistan, none of those pages use the wording of XYZ-administered. This page has somehow slept through the cracks. Filpro noticed it and changed it. I don't see any reason for you to edit-war over it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
None of those pages are using that wording because the sources they quote dont use them! There is no policy which says that a certain set of articles must use the same terminology all across the board. In this case, the source used here to say that Kashmir is an Indian state clearly mentions that it falls in the "Indian-administered (part of) Kashmir", and hence the same phrase is used in the article. You cannot possibly change that to your own liking and POV. There is no edit-warring, just following WP policies which you ought too. BTW, the word is critical to the meaning and context of the article, and hence the same must be used. You want to change the word (which is long standing), you need to change the source, hence the sentence, but then before doing that there is a long line of consensus that you need to built as the article is under sanctions and certain restriction imposed by RegentsPark.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I imposed restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. While this seems - at best - marginal to that restriction, I suggest sticking to the previous stable wording "Indian-administered state of Jammu & Kashmir" while you figure out what the consensus wording should be. --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
RegentsPark Do you agree that whatever wording is decided, it should be applied to all areas of the Kashmir region? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. While that does sound reasonable, I think you'll need consensus on that as well. If a case by case approach doesn't work then perhaps you should open an RfC on what to do for all Kashmir related articles. Given the general tenor of discussion on these articles, I'm not sure that will work well but it will put this on the DR road to arbcom. And that's where all this is probably headed. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, whoever wants to make a case for treating the Kashmir Valley differently from other parts of Kashmir, can make a case. Until then, Filpro's wording is in line with everything else on Wikipedia, and I support it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm pinging @Fowler&fowler: on this. I have a vague recollection that this - where to use 'administered' - was discussed somewhere. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and TripWire: The problem is that "Kashmir Valley" is not a political term; rather, it is a somewhat vague geographical term, which, historically, was more often referred to as the "Vale of Kashmir." It is being conflated, here on this page, with the "Kashmir division," of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. For example, the Kolahoi Peak (elevation 18,000 feet) certainly does not lie in the Kashmir Valley, as it is very much a part of the Greater Himalayas, on the northeast, below which the valley lies; however, it is in Kashmir division. The Kashmir division, on the other hand, is a political term, invented after India chose to create political units of whatever territory it was left with of the Kashmir region after the cease-fire of 1948. It would be hardly likely that the Indians and Pakistanis would stop fighting exactly along the borders of a valley.
As for this page—as I remember it—it was long a page redirected to the Kashmir page. Then in 2010, a user in this edit, removed the redirection, and copied and pasted some material from the Kashmir page to create a starter article. Then in fits and starts material was added to the page until on Wikipedia, Kashmir division is now identical to Kashmir valley. This has to be immediately corrected. From my perspective, both the Kashmir valley and the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) are content forks (and POV forks) of the main Kashmir page. Here is my recommendation. Create a new page on Kashmir Division, put all the political, demographic, and other stuff in it. Keep this page as a geographical page in the fashion of the Britannica page Vale of Kashmir to which, in fact, the first sentence of this Wikipedia article is cited. Note that the Britannica article is mainly geographical and historical, and does not use the word "Indian state," referring only to the Indian administration of this region of Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
PS @RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and TripWire: I have shown in three edits (all self-reverted later) what the lead and first section should look like when made NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Fowler here. Not only by changing part of the first line as per ones wishes, Kautilya3 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS but also [WP:NOV]]. As regards to Kautilya3's comments, well this is WP, not Bharatpedia. You cannot and will not convert this encyclopedia into some offshoot of Bharat-Rakshak. You are the one who is proposing the change and thus the burden of building the case to gain consensus for the change is on you. Until you do that, WP stays as it is supposed to. As can be seen by the comments by editors above including an Admin, as of now it is you who seems to be the odd one out. Please see to that.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 12:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Deciding the scope of this article is well and good, and I will be happy to discuss it in a separate section. But I think the specific problem being discussed at the moment is whether the terminology of "Indian-administered" should be used in this artcle for the portion of J&K under Indian control. I am basically ok with doing it, but only if every reference to any portion of J&K is similarly labelled as "Indian-administered" or "Pakistani-administered." We can probably do a site-wide RfC and get everybody to agree to it. Short of that, I don't want any selective labeling. Contrary to TripWire, I don't believe this is an issue of sources, rather one of common sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:@RegentsPark and TripWire: Kautilya3, I'm afraid that is how you have framed the question. This talk page is about the Kashmir valley page, which, in my view, is a POV content fork, with highly inaccurate conflation of the "Kashmir valley," with "Kashmir division." The other question is a more general question. You are free to pose it on some South Asian or Asian forum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Would it make sense to flip the redirects? Rename this Kashmir Division and let Kashmir Valley point to it? The article does seem to be more about the entire Indian administered Kashmir rather than just the valley (and has huge chunks that overlap with Kashmir). --regentspark (comment) 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Ideally, this article should be called "Kashmir" and the present Kashmir page should be called "Kashmir region". This Kashmir existed as far as back as Kalhana, who called it "Kashmir proper" according to Andre Wink [1].
We don't want a yet another page on Kashmir. There are far too many already. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, the "Kashmir Division" or "Kashmir Province" certainly existed during the colonial times [2], and perhaps even earlier. It isn't a modern creation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

No Kashmir valley certainly cannot be called "Kashmir," as references to Kashmir in the literature, Wink notwithstanding, overwhelming refer to the wider region. The "Kashmir," Wikpedia page use to be "Kashmir region," but in those days the Britannica page (on which it was modeled) was also called the "Kashmir region." Now the Britannica page is "Kashmir" (its subtitle is "Region: Indian subcontinent.") See here. As for RPs suggestion, it would be a quick solution, but the only problem is that Kashmir is a disputed region. An international encyclopedia cannot make the error of siding with national interpretation of a dispute. In my view, "Kashmir valley," and "Kashmir," which are primarily about geography and history, should maintain this objective distance. The political pages, which refer to the various provinces, created by the various parties to the dispute to aid in the administration of the regions under their control, such as Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir can use the national formulations. I don't see any problem with an independent Kashmir Division page, but Kashmir valley cannot be written up as "Kashmir division," nor have too much about the administration of this region. Note that the Britannica article has nothing. Kautilya3, As for your latest source, even though it is not exactly reliable, it makes that case that the valley is not the division (it says, division = valley + muzzaffarabad). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Kashmir straddles two countries so we can't say "Kashmir, a region in the Indian state....". My suggestion was based on the assumption that Kashmir Division is a recognizable administrative entity in India and that would make it clear that we're referring to something in India. If that's not the case then we should stick to Kashmir (the disputed region). If there is to be an article on the Kashmir Valley, it needs to be stripped of all the Kashmir related stuff that is currently padding it. For example, we have an etymology section in Kashmir, do we need to rehash it here?--regentspark (comment) 17:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and TripWire: I agree with RP, with one slight difference. If there is to be a redirect "Kashmir valley" should be redirected to Kashmir, as it originally was for its first four or five years. In fact, I wasn't aware of the existence of the independent "Kashmir valley" page until someone (and it may have been Kautilya3) who pointed it out to me not too long ago. In that case, the Kashmir page can have a separate section on the "Kashmir valley," broadly mimicking the Britannica page "Vale of Kashmir." Otherwise, as RP says, if "Kashmir valley" has to be an independent page, it has to be shorn of all administrative, demographic related stuff. And, in that case, "Kashmir division" can be an independent page as well. So, generally speaking: a) if redirection is warranted, then Kashmir valley ---> Kashmir, and "Kashmir division" ---> Jammu and Kashmir. b) if new pages are warranted, then "Kashmir valley" will need to be an independent page shorn of all references to the Indian state Jammu and Kashmir; those references can go into a new page Kashmir Division, which is being currently redirected to Kashmir valley. The other Kashmir related pages, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), I would not touch for now. The former two already have the Pakistani POV, the latter two the Indian POV. It would be a near impossible task to get their editors to write "Pakistani administered" or "Indian administered" everywhere. But, from my perspective, the Kashmir and Kashmir valley pages have to be kept free of nationalist POVs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3, commonsense (and WP policies) says that critical phrases should be in consonance with the source. If the source says 'Indian-administered-Kashmir' then that's what will be written in the article. Or else, let's change all references of genocide to let's say massacre or bloodshed or whatever in all Bangladesh Liberation/War related pages.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am quite happy with the separation you propose between political units and geographical/cultural/historial units. I wouldn't accept the latter to be merely "geographical." If I were a Kashmiri, I would be pretty upset if you start talking about the land, the valleys and mountains, while ignoring me, my culture and my history. The land and the people have to go together.
  • I think I also disagree as to what "Kashmir" means. In India, "Kashmir" means the valley of Kashmir or the Kashmir Division, the difference between them being slight. And secondly it is also used as a short form for Jammu and Kashmir. Culturally aware scholars always make this clear, for example, Sumantra Bose: "the territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), often called simply Kashmir" and "`Azad' Jammu and Kashmir, or AJK".[1]
Most of the current content of the Kashmir page belongs here, because it is all history and culture of the Kashmir proper, not of this fake entity that was hastily cobbled together by the Dogras and the East India Company. Frankly, it is a shame to waste this great name on the fake entity, but I bow to the public opinion, however ill-informed it might be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3, RegentsPark, and TripWire: Sumantra Bose's book, in fact, refers to the Wikipedia page Jammu and Kashmir as IJK (Indian-controlled J&K). By J&K it means the princely state, ie. the Kashmir page. I quote: " The confrontation focused worldwide attention on the dispute between India and Pakistan over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), often called simply Kashmir. The dispute is as old as the two states themselves, dating back to the circumstances of their independence from Britain and the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. Since the end of the first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir in January 1949. The territory has been divided into Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir (or IJK, comprising the regions of the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, and Ladakh), with aproximately up to million people and a smaller area under Pakistani control (Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or AJK, plus sparsely populated regions in the high Himalayas known as Pakistan's Northern Areas), with perhaps 3 million." See Bose, Sumantra (2009), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-674-02855-5  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I should have said a bit more to make it clearer. I am not talking about India vs Paksitan-control issue now. I was trying to say that calling the "Kashmir region" (the former princely state) as "Kashmir" is a bad idea. This page's Kashmir is the Kashmir that matters, this is where the sage Kashyapa belongs, and Rajatarangini, the Karkota empire and what not. This is the Kashmir that India and Pakistan fight over. This is the Kashmir that the world wants to talk about. The rest of it is noise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm confused. The region of the princely state, is exactly what Sumantra Bose is calling "Kashmir." Please reread. I have the book, I have read it many times and quoted it on the Kashmir page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly so. But he makes it clear that he calls the former princely state "Kashmir" just for convenience. Its real name is "Jammu and Kashmir." To be perfectly clear:
  • "Jammu and Kashmir" has two meanings: the former princely state, and the IJK.
  • "Kashmir" has two meanings: the Kashmir valley and abbreviation for the former princely state. (Oh well, it might also be an abbreviation for IJK on occassion.)
So we have a semantic minefield. But the real point for me is that the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is probably the least important of all. It is just a paper thing now. I don't think India will ever press for it (even though legally it has to). Neither does Pakistan care for it. It is the Kashmir valley that is central to the whole affair, and we shouldn't make it out as if it is just a little valley somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Sumantra Bose (p.171): That “state” existed under British imperial power for barely a century (1846–1947) and cobbled together diverse regions and ethnic and religious communities under a despotic, semi-feudal monarchy (see Chapter 1). It is not at all clear why a territory with a relatively brief and distinctly undistinguished genealogy of “statehood” should be elevated to a sacrosanct status. Such an ideological doctrine smacks of the same syndrome—fetishization of “territorial integrity” and a rigid, monolithic conception of sovereignty— characteristic of state-led nationalist stances on the Kashmir question.
It is this entity with "distinctly undistinguished genealogy" that we (and the EB) want to promote as the Kashmir! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
We have to go with the reliable sources, not just Britannica, but also Sumantra Bose, Mridu Rai, Chitralekha Zutshi, Burton Stein, Ian Copland, Stanley Wolpert and many others, which are referred to on the Kashmir page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid you have been misreading the sources based on your own pre-conditioning. As I already mentioned, "Kashmir" is ambiguous. It could mean either the Kashmir Valley or Kashmir region. Unless you are alert to the ambiguity, you are liable to substitute one for the other.
  • Mridu Rai, for example, states: At issue is the legitimacy of a political enterprise, begun by the British in 1846, that placed an 'alien' Dogra Hindu ruling house over Kashmir without consideration for the wishes or interests of the vast majority of its people. If your interpretation of "Kashmir" as Kashmir region is correct, how exactly do you suppose Dogra Hindus became 'alien'? Your attempt to treat "Kashmir" as a "landscape without people" is precisely what Mridu Rai's book is protesting.
  • Burton Stein's historical maps (2, 7, 8) show "Kashmir" as Kashmir valley, and modern maps (1, 10, 12) show "Jammu and Kashmir" or "Kashmir and Jammu". In the text however, he introduces "the princely state of Kashmir" (p. 316), which is obviously a shorthand for Kashmir and Jammu.
  • Chitralekha Zutshi says We need to trace the main themes in the political culture of the Valley from the fourteenth to the mid-nineteenth century in an attempt to disentangle representations of Kashmir in popular and scholarly discourse from historical fact. Do you not see that she is using the "Valley" and "Kashmir" synonymously? On the other hand, it is "the state of Jammu and Kashmir" that lies on the northern fringes of the Indian subcontinent and exhibits a varied geography. Why do you think she uses "Dogra state" all over the book?
I am afraid the culturally/historically aware reliable sources are against your position. It is only the political books that identify "Kashmir" and Kashmir region, because they have already dehumanized "Kashmir." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3, RegentsPark, and TripWire:. How many examples do you want me to give from these books in which the authors mean the entire Kashmir region when they use "Kashmir?" Approximately a month ago you are saying, "But, my point is that the traditional extent of "Kashmir" is not much different from that of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It has always been larger than the Kashmir valley." (See here.) First you were making the claim that the traditional early medieval- and medieval legendary Hindu "histories" were referring to the entire Kashmir region. Now you are saying that these refer to the Kashmir valley. I won't be responding to your fringe views, especially ones that flip flop all over the place. I will await others' responses. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I would say you are not setting a good example to newbies with an outburst like that. These are reliable sources that you have yourself provided. Presumably you didn't think they were WP:FRINGE when you did so?
Regarding my earlier comment that you refer to, I had put "Kashmir" in quotes precisely to indicate that it was the stylized use of "Kashmir." There is Kashmir proper and there is greater/wider Kashmir which varied through history. The edit you made in the Kashmir region article to the effect that its meaning was fixed till the mid-19th century is WP:OR and it is contradicted by historians. That is an issue we need to get back to, eventually. I have been checking the sources.
I have never denied that there were two notions of "Kashmir." Neither am I too fussed about which article gets to be called "Kashmir." What alarms me is your proposal to define the scope of the present article as being merely geographic, without its people, culture, language and history. The Kashmir region article, if it is to be true to that name, should describe the people/cultures/languages/history of the entire region, which it is not doing at present. Instead, the content that rightly belongs in this article sits there. So my problem is not merely terminology, but the lopsided content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing new here, Kautilya3 has a habit of cherry-picking polices and presenting selective info to further his POV. Like this time he is more bent towards 'common' knowledge than following the source when it comes to using a particular phrase, but then just moments after he is rejecting this very common knowledge and pushing in sources to support his point. Let's not be alarmed. Though I think this article is an overkill when it comes to encyclopedic Kashmir and is not required in its present shape, but then what I care more about is that nationalistic views should be totally rejected if it is kept or better, both side's view must be presented if no middle ground is reached.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bose, Sumantra (2003), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01173-2 

Another break[edit]

Dear Wiki Editors, it is not inappropriate to have a bias or viewpoint in life. @Kautilya3, has some very partisan and skewed views on India in general and Kashmir in specific. This person touts to be an expert on matters related to the Indian subcontinent. This is far from the truth. Please examine this person's edit/talk and block/ban history. You will see that the person uses these techiques rather freely and is very aggressive. Though this person is one of the few from that part of the world, the material that will be published is going to be colored by the person's biases. This is neither objective, fair or polite. Please look into this matter and escalate my request. If there was a place to ask for an administer review or there is a such a form, please point me to it so that I can fill one out. Thank you.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:7DB6:4D6D:8EE6:12EA (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Unless you give us something concrete, I'm afraid we can't do much with your post. As far as I can tell user:Kautilya3 does not have any block history. I on the other hand, do (see here) albeit from a long time ago. It really does not prove anything, at least in my view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


"The Kashmir Valley is a valley in the Indian-administered region of Kashmir ..." Does this introductory sentence not give the impression that Kashmir is administered by India in its entirety? And that is factually incorrect. Political systems manage geographical features, what is the problem with that? Wasiq 9320 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. "Indian-administered region of Kashmir" clearly implies that there are other regions of Kashmir not administered by India. --regentspark (comment) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wasiq 9320 and RegentsPark: Oh, I see, Wasiq 9320 is interpreting "region" to mean "the entire region." I am changing it to, "... in the portion of the Kashmir region administered by India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good F&f. Though I would have gone with 'part' rather than 'portion'. Too formal!--regentspark (comment) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out by RegentsPark, the previous version amply showed that there are regions of Kashmir not being administered by India, but the current versions will also do.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)