Jump to content

Talk:Line of Control/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

The title of this article is an example of the fanatic tendency not to use uppercase (capital) letters. The title is an official designation for a specific thing and needs to be in title case.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Also, does someone want to make a page on the popular Indian movie Line of Control?

"territories controlled by two militaries" What is that about? deeptrivia (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Kargil.jpg

Image:Kargil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg

Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Kashmir-Accession-Document-a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"India took a historical beating by the hands of the Pakistani army." Misleading and uncited information.

Under the section of "Kashmir Wars : Indo-Pakistani war of 1965", information, "India took a historical beating by the hands of the Pakistani army.", is misleading. I request any senior editor to edit the following line according to neutral views. If citation is needed you might even refer to the main page of the "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965", which claims a neutral result of war. I would suggest the immediate removal of the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursworld (talk • contribs) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is now disponible in spanish

Please, add a link to this article in spanish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article in Spanish? Elockid (Talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It's already in the article. Done by Luckas-bot Elockid (Talk) 11:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

It references the figures "50,000 to 2,50,000." The "2,50,000" should be formatted as 250,000. Oxherdn (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Probably a confusion with lakh - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2014

Line_of_Control

Mehranzaidi (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) The landmines planted by the Army alongsides of the line have killed scores of innocent people and left thousands as disabled. Without compensation, these disabled persons in the Indian Kashmir are fighting hard for their survival.[7] During 2008 Kashmir unrest, the Hindu extremist groups and the supporters of Bharatiya Janata Party blocked the Srinagar-Jammu National highway (NH 1A). The only national highway which today connects Kashmir Valley to the rest of India remained closed for several days which put essential commodities on halt and resulted in widespread protest against the Indian control.[8][9][10] In response to the blockade, on 11 August 2008, under the leadership of Sheikh Abdul Aziz, 50,000 to 250,000 Kashmiri protesters attempted to cross the Line of Control to Muzaffarabad. The protesters were stopped at Uri which resulted in killing of fifteen people and hundreds injured when police and Indian paramilitary forces fired on protesters.[11][12][13] A slogan raised by the protesters was, Khooni lakir tod do aar paar jod do (Break down the blood-soaked Line of Control let Kashmir be united again).[14] Mehranzaidi (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)mehran zaidiCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The block of text you have provided is identical to what's already in the article. What is it you would like changed? Stickee (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

Some facts on this page are wrong. Please add within a week.

On 'Positions' section, it reads, "Pakistan still claims the whole of Kashmir as its own territory, including Indian-controlled Kashmir." Not true! It disputes India's control, but acknowledges its sovereignty over Jammu-Kashmir. It does not claim the Indian-controlled portion, except for Siachen. It should say, "Pakistan disputes Indian-controlled Kashmir, saying it should be peacefully transferred to Islamabad, but recognizes India's territorial sovereignty there." You can cite «http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2002/kashmir_flashpoint/default.stm».

Also, the next paragraph states, "…it claims the whole region, including Azad Kashmir territory, as its own." It should be: "…it claims the whole region, including Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, as its territory."

Thank you for helping me add the edits. 24.246.89.125 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 00:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict

I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:

  • An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
  • A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
  • A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
  • An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Line of Control. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Muslim Rajan pur (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

LOC is a so called border between pakistan and IndiaMuslim Rajan pur (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC) LAC conflict revealed that china had been conquest 180 km Galwab valley

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh are an integral part of India and not any area that is controlled illegally. Please change the term Indian Controlled Kashmir. It rightfully belongs there. 74.15.28.197 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

UN Resolutions

Jammu and Kashmir is subject to the UN security council resolutions 91, 98, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307
As you could see from the UN security council resolution 98 http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/98
Both the government of India and Pakistan accepted that the question of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
This is not my point of view, it is what was agreed to by both the Governments of India and Pakistan with the UN.
The UN asked both of them to reduce their forces http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/98 also says:
4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the Unites Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3000 to 6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the ceasefire line and between 12,00 and 18000 armed forces remaining on the Indian side of the ceasefire line...
I did not write these; these are the official UN security council resolutions on this area. This issue has been with the united nations since 1947. China, India and Pakistan have been discussing this issue at the UN for years. And there is another party to this, the people of Jammu and Kashmir who are being killed every day on the Line of Control and the the UN security council resolutions refer to them.
There were issues that led to these UN security council resolutions that asked for a plebiscite.
The Kashmir conflict started as a campaign by the Kashmiri Hindus, Muslims and the Sikhs against being sold into slavery in 1846 by the East India company. They deeply resented this. You could see books on it from a long time ago like Cashmere Misgovernment by Robert Thorp from 1868
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dNPFmgEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-S8xyn1cgY
Article 6 of the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) provides that: Maharajah Gulab Singh engages for himself and heirs to join, with the whole of his Military Forces, the British troops when employed within the hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions. So some of these taxes were used to fund the army that was used to help the British. But the Kashmiris also fought in the First and Second World war too.
Maharaja Harri Singhs great grandfather Gulab Singh (a Dogra) betrayed the Sikhs (whom he worked for) in the Anglo-Sikh war (1845 & 1846). Therefore the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh (Sikh) was kidnapped and forced to sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave his ally Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sgi2PMGgZM . In other such cases the ICJ has stated that there "can be little doubt as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void." The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) and the treaty of Lahore also violated the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that abolished slavery in the British Empire.
By not joining the dominions of India or Pakistan by August 15 1947 Jammu and Kashmir was totally independent. While India became a dominions of the British Empire not independent on August 15th 1947 Read the Indian Independence Act 1947 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
Harri Singhs powers totally lapsed after the Treaty of Amritsar lapsed under Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 before the treaty of accession. All powers reverted to the people hence the call for the plebiscite under UN resolutions 91, 98, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307 as only they could decide.
Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 provides that with the lapse of His Majestys suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferances will lapse. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf (why keep the liabilities if you are giving away the assets). This broke the treaty of Amritsar that gave authority to Mahraja Harri Singh
In 1948 Junagadh and Hydrabad were also independent in South Asia. The ruler of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, but then the Indian Army invaded and under this formula a plebiscite was held there too for it to join India. Hydrabad was invaded by the Indian Army Sept 1948 (Operation Polo).
These are the UN maps for Jammu and Kashmir:
https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf ::::https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf Jammu and ::::Kashmir is still shown as a distinct entity on the official UN Maps --Johnleeds1 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a question or suggestion related to this article? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021: anchor the section

Anchor the "Indian line of control fencing" section by inserting the following just below the heading.

{{anchor | AIOS | Anti-Infiltration Obstacle System }}
58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Why? ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: no reasons justified Run n Fly (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many reasons why it should be anchored.

  1. . If you read the existing text in the article, it is obvious why it is justified to anchor it to AIOS. Please note that the the body of article already contains details on AIOS and there is no separate article on AIOS. AIOS is an important aspect of India's border security and anti terrorist infiltration system. AIOS is the formal term used for this. At least anchor the paragraphs, if not the whole section, which refer to AIOS.
  2. . So AIOS can be wikilined here from other articles, which enables a richer contextual click-through reading.
  3. . This proposed edit should also be seen in conjunction with the next edit proposed by me (see below).

58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

As per the Karachi Agreement signed by India and Pakistan in 1949, no new construction is permitted within 500 yards of zero line on LOC. This "no new construction zone" is considered a "no man's land" which was secured by both countries with anti-tank and anti-personnel land mine on their respective sides during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Operation Vijay of 1999 (Kargil War), and land mines still remain there since both India and Pakistan are not signatories to the anti-landmines Ottawa Treaty. In 2015, more than 30000 acres land was under active land mines in the Jammu district alone. India has constructed a "Anti-Infiltration Obstacle System" (AIOS) along the 734 km of LOC. It is a three-tiered fencing system with checkposts and wire fences where villagers are given passage based on the smart card based identity cards issued by the Indian Army. Agricultural land in over 100 villages of Jammu and Kashmir in India falls in the no man's land, hence remains uncultivated by the farmer owners. To protect the civilians from shelling and firing from Pakistan Military, in 2017 India approved the construction of 14460 bunkers in villages on LOC and International Border spread across 5 districts of Jammu and Kashmir. By September 2020 India had already built 9900 bunkers. After the terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in 2001, the LOC remains heavily militarised. Since 1986, the government of India has been running the "Border Area Development Programme" (BADP) for the social welfare of villages within 10 km of border, this program is a convergence of various schemes of central, state, union territory and local government schemes targeted at 6 goals of providing infrastructure, healthcare, education, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusion, and skill development. Since 1998 Indian Army also runs the Operation Sadbhavana which is a social outreach and welfare program for the villagers along the Indian side of LOC.[1]

Note: I request other editors to please verify my edit once again based on the source, and please feel free to "directly" rephrase my good faith edit (without consulting me) as you deem fit as I am already out of here. Thank you in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ On the wrong side of fence, The Caravan, 01 April 2021.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If no one is disputing it, then it must go in as goodfaith edit. You have not provided any specific objection, so I take it you personally do not dispute the text of my edit. If you (anyone else) have disagreement with any specific passage then please feel free to rephrase it to your satisfaction or at least list each of your objection below, otherwise please stop stone walling the goodfaith edits with over-bureaucratic vague hurdles like this. Throwing vague road blocks without "specific" "actionable" objections is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Collaborate, not stonewall/frustrate the legit goodfaith edits. IPs are deliberately IPs for they do not want to be dragged in the "avoidable" long winding discussions when shorter routes to inclusion of legit edits exists through collaboration and directly rephrasing. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I will take a look. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert, and probably best not use either Indian or Pakistani English specifically as choosing one or the other could be inflammatory. 81.2.252.231 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (Diff) TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor mistake in intro

Minor is spelt as 'mior' in the introduction of the article Centurio cohortis fulgur (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

Shifting from main here until a citation is found:
Pakistan has criticised the construction of the barrier, saying it violates both bilateral accords and relevant United Nations resolutions on the region. The European Union has supported India's stand calling the fencing as "improvement in technical means to control terrorists infiltration" and also pointing that the "Line of Control has been delineated in accordance with the 1972 Shimla agreement".[citation needed][1]
DTM (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "EU criticises Pak's stand on LoC fencing". Express India. Dec 16, 2003. Retrieved 23 June 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_Control/Archive_1&oldid=1068181525"