Jump to content

Talk:Neelum District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Neelum Valley)

Untitled

[edit]

Neelum Valley is situated at the North & North-East of Muzaffarabad, running parallel to Kaghan Valley. The two valleys are only separated by snow-covered peaks, some over 4000m above sea level. Excellent scenic beauty, panoramic views, towering hills on both sides of the noisy Neelum river, lush green forests, enchanting streams and attractive surroundings make the valley a dream come true. Athmuqam - is situated at a height of 1371m, it is the sub-divisional headquarters of the area. It is an attractive place known for its variety of fruit. All necessary facilities via bazaars, post offices, banks, hospitals, and telephone exchanges are present. Neelum - at a distance of about 9 Km from Athmuqam, Neelum is situated on the right bank of the river Neelum at 1524m above sea level with fascinating scenery. The panoramic lush green valley is profound in fruit and wildlife. Sharda - a breath-taking green spot at an altitude of 1981m. Shardi and Nardi are two mountain peaks overlooking the valley, reputedly named after legendary princess Sharda. It has a captivating landscape with numerous springs and hill-sides covered with trees. On the right bank, opposite Sharda, the Neelum is joined by the Surgan Nallah along which a track leads to Nurinar Pass and through it to the Kaghan Valley. Ruins of an old Buddhist University can also be found in Sharda. Kel - a small valley situated at a height of 2097m. This is another picturesque place in the Neelum Valley. The Shounter Nallah joins river Neelum at this place and leads to Gilgit Agency (Northern Areas) over the Shandur at 4420m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikprague (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention that Neelam Valley is within Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). Please don't mention that it is part of Pakistan; let us be correct in what we mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.87.3.33 (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Request

[edit]
Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Hi, thank you for completing the move request for the Neelum Valley article. Can you please move it to Neelum District; the current "Neelam district" is not correct, the official name of the district is "Neelum" not "Neelam" and the "D" is capitalized for districts in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro, I see, thanks for correcting me about d vs D. regarding Neelum vs Neelam, are you sure Neelum is the common name ? based on my search I found both spellings. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am moving this conversation to the talk page of Neelam district since this discussion will benefit by participation of the page watchers, please reply there. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)At the moment, the article's title is Neelam district, a result of a recent move performed by DBigXray at the request of Gotitbro. The previous name, Neelam Valley District, had been in place since Saadat Malik's move in April 2018. The name before that was Neelam Valley, and the article was a result of the merge of two separate articles, one about the valley as a geographic region, the other about the administrative unit. I don't think we want to have again two separate articles about what is essentially the same area, and I guess we can't have a title that accurately reflects the two-pronged nature of the topic. Personally. I'd prefer Neelam Valley, as that's the common name of the region, and it's going to be stable no matter what happens to the administrative unit. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the spelling: when I was looking at the literature last year, I got the impression that "Neelam" was more common. – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know the official name of a place is used if the issue is just the English transliteration of the name (so common name does not arise; for example check Tiruvannamalai). @Uanfala: Neelam Valley District is definitely not the correct title neither is it the region's nor the district's name. Since, the article covers administrative, governmental, educational etc. topics as well I think District should be preferable. Gotitbro (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the two areas are largely coterminous, it could be a bit tricky unravelling which topics belong "properly" to the district, and which to the region. Still, lookin at the article as it it at the moment, there's one section ("Location") that's evenly split between the two topics, there's one ("Administration") that is about the district, one ("Education") that's iffy but probably best be seen as related to the district, and there are two ("Tourist attractions" as the largest section "Languages") that are about the region. Most of the article's text is about the region, and it's partly on the basis of this that I prefer the title Neelam Valley (what spelling is "official" then becomes irrelevant). 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Uanfala thanks a lot for joining the discussion, I wanted your participation which is why I moved this thread from my talk page to here.
Although I have not done a deep research on Neelam vs Neelum,but from superficial search I tend to weakly support "Neelam"
Regarding the Question of move target, There has to be an article "Neelam District" as an administrative unit. Now whether Neelam Valley can simply remain a Section in Neelam District or it can have its standalone article would be based on its Geographic notability. If the geography of the valley is significantly covered outside of the coverage of the district, thenn both article (on district and valley) should stay seperate. If the geographic coverage is not significant then only the district article should stay with a section on the valley. regards.
(Note: The current location of this article after the recent move should be considered a temporary situation, pending this discussion thread consensus.)--DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see things the other way round: the valley, as a region, is the long-term stable topic here. It's a geographically and culturally well-defined region that's been around for centuries (and will continue to be around not matter what the next reshuffling of administrative boundaries is going to produce). The district, on the other hand, has been in existence for a little over a decade. I think we're lucky that the two topics have largely the same extent, so that we don't really have to treat them in separate articles. – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Uanfala you have made valid and strong arguments in support of the Valley article. What are your thoughts if we have 2 seperate articles, The valley article will be the major article, and the District article in the form of an administrative stub (since it has independent notability) with only a para about the valley in the geography section of that district stub. There will be some overlap no doubt, but this is how the district vs Geographic entity issues are largely addressed on Wikipedia, (based on my experience) this is quite a frequent dilemma and the normal solution is to have separate articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles should be the decision here, the current scenario is too muddled in a single article with title, section (like the language one) and content problems. I see no reason why we can't have a separate district article even if it is a stub. The administrative district is definitely notable enough to have a standalone article. Gotitbro (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having two articles is precisely the situation I was trying to avoid. Almost everything that can be said about one of the topics will also be applicable to the other. If sufficiently developed, the two articles will be almost identical to each other. But I guess you two might be aware of something that I don't see. Will you be able to help me understand your viewpoint? DBigXray, is there any chance you might be able to give me examples where a geographic region has a separate article from its corresponding administrative unit? Gotitbro, I'm not sure I've completely managed to grasp your point. What are the content problem you're referring to? What confusion do you believe can arise from the current "muddled" situation? – Uanfala (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, based on the discussion so far. I think all three of us agree that the VALLEY article is notable and should exist on its own. So Gotitbro, if you have no objections I will move the existing article to the title "Neelum Valley". And then we can continue our discussion, if a seperate district article needs to be forked out or not. ( Neelam has 1500 gogle book results and Neelum had 2300 google book resuts, There is a close match but I guess, title with u is more popular. )
  • User:Uanfala I did some searches on the geographical entity and found that [1] it is known as Kishanganga in India, in Bandipora district. Can you please check and confirm if a part of the Geographical Neelam valley also falls under Indian side of the LoC ? if so then it would make more sense to fork out a district article for the area under Pakistani administration. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has linksbacks mainly for the district not the valley, I don't think we should be hasty here. I still don't get the objection to a separate article for a district, firstly the valley isn't co-extensive with the district it clearly extends into other areas [AJK (Muzaffarabad) and JK] and the content of the article can definitely be split-up easily like it was before (no need for an enlarged language section in a district article, geography/location etc. can be truncated as well). Both [district and valley] are notable here and never seen a major administrative unit unnecessarily be merged into a geographic feature. Gotitbro (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the valley extends into parts of Indian Kashmir (as the article's "Location" section makes clear). Yes, the region isn't entirely coextensive with the district, but the two largely coincide. On the rare occasions (there's one in the current article) where there's content that applies exclusively to the wider area beyond the borders, this has been made clear. As for the name, interpreting google books results is tricky: the total number of hits it reports is just an estimate, and if you clik through the pages of results, you'll see that the number of results is the same (which is quite strange). Anyway, I don't insist on the spelling with "a", so I'm leaving this for you two to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Neelam River#Neelum Valley can be used for the Neelum Valley. We don't need a yet another article. Note that there is also Gurez. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you see in this map, the LoC runs along the river for a little distance, but otherwise it is mostly in AJK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps [2], on the other hand, says that Kishan Ganga becomes "Neelam river" after crossing into AJK. Things are never simple in this world. (I also noticed a similar contest on names regarding the Dras river, Shingo river and the Suru river.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your stance on the title of this article, Kautilya3? I think I can infer from your comment that you'd rather the article was explicitly about the district. But having a substantial part of it be relegated to Neelam River#Neelum Valley is a non-starter. Sure, that section could do with content about the physical geography and maybe a mention or two of the peoples that inhabit the valley, but it will be rather bizarre to have extended ethnographic content in an article about a river. And there's also the problem of scope: the river article is about the whole river, including the substantial part that is in India. The article on whose talk page we are, which was until recently called "Neelam Valley", is about the part that's in Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And we already do have precedents for separate articles for geographic regions and administrative units, among the most prominent one being Tibet and Tibet Autonomous Region. Gotitbro (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are such articles, but the only ones I remember seeing involve significant differences in territorial extent. The Tibet Autonomous Region covers only a part of the Tibet region. – Uanfala (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Uanfala's ping in a separate bullet. Some questions first:
  • Does "Neelam Valley" mean the same as the valley of the Neelam River?
  • Is the area on both the sides of LoC called "Neelam Valley"?
If the Neelam Valley means something different from the river's valley, then of course we need a separate article for it. If it means the same but extended ethnographic description is needed (which seems to be the case), then it is better to put it in its own article. Otherwise, it can go in the Neelam River article.
I think we need a separate article on the Neelam District in any case.
If the Neelam Valley spans both the sides of the LoC, then of course the "Neelam Valley" article would cover both of them. If it covers only the Pakistan-administered portion, then perhaps there is no need for a separate Neelam Valley article and it can sit inside the Neelam District article. (Note that the Neelam District is of a recent vintage. Before it was formed, sources would have talked about a "Neelam Valley", referring to the same area. So just the presence of the sources referring to "Neelam Valley" doesn't settle the issue.)
Pinging Mehrajmir13 for his input.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest to find a way to rename the article to a more commonly used phrase Neelam Valley. But the fact remains there: the valley is controlled by both sides like Keran block, administered by India. The Neelum river especially in the Neelum valley acts as Line of Control between the two sides.  MehrajMir (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, it looks like we can't get away from keeping three separate articles: Neelam District, Neelam Valley and Neelam River, with possibly considerable overlap between them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep Neelam River out of the picture: the river extends well into India beyond Neelam Valley proper, and I don't think we would ideally want to keep articles about rivers separate from the articles about the regions where the river flows. At this point all I can do is reiterate my view that separete articles about the district and the valley would almost completely overlap in scope, that such a situation is undesirable, and that it's perfectly acceptable for the district and the region to be treated in a single article (as they are now). – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That has plenty of precedents. See Hunza District and Hunza Valley for a close parallel. But the duplication problem is just the same. Note the difference between the History sections of the two articles.
We won't be able to maintain two versions of the same subject in different articles covered at different resolutions. So, maybe, we should think carefully now, about the scope of the two articles and how they will avoid overlap. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it appears to be taken for granted that there ought to be two articles here. I still don't see the point, but if anyone wants to split off a district article from here, I'm not going to get in the way (such article will have to start at Neelam District, because that's where the history before the merge is; anyone feel free to rename after creating). But unless and until this happens, the article on whose talk page we're at ought to be moved back to Neelam Valley (or the equivalent spelling with "u"): that's the background assumption in the rest of the article (particularly the Location section, which will need to be rewritten otherwise). – Uanfala (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala Lets see if User:Kashmiri has any better thoughts to add here, I have dropped him a note.
  • I think all of us prefer to use the Neelam with an a so that will continue.
  • If the final consensus is to Keep one article, we would need to decide whether to call it District or Valley.
  • If the final consensus is to keep 2 articles (Valley & District) then the course of action will be to Rename this article (whose talk page we are at) to "Valley" as a revert of this undiscussed move in April 2018. And then on the District article, the first step will be to undo this edit followed by splitting relevant subsections from Valley and moving it to District. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that sounds like a good plan. I can take care of creating an article for the district. An article is needed first of all, to serve as a target for the wikilinks that come from all over, and to document the basics such as the geography, a map, population statistics etc. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A full week on, I'm still having difficulty wrapping my head around the stated need for having two separate articles. If Hunza District and Hunza Valley are indeed precedents here (I don't well enough acquainted with that region to know whether the two entities are largely coterminous), then they appear to be an exception. Wherever else I looked, I wasn't able to find instances separate articles in comparative situations: Provence is about the region and the historical province, Epirus (region) covers both the geographic region and the administrative unit, Bali is both about the island and the province (likewise for Bohol in the Philippines), the geographic region and the current administrative unit are both treated in Normandy, the counties of England have each a single article too, even though there are sometimes major discrepancies between the tradional counties and the currently valid administrative units. I'm beginning to see separate articles only when the non-overlapping territories become substantial (like with Brittany vs. Brittany (administrative region), where the difference in extent according to the articles is about 80%). I still believe that we ought to have a single article about the valley/district, and I don't think I really care anymore whether its title contains "district" or "valley" (or both). – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

[edit]

Whatever the long-term state of affairs we would ideally like to have, the current title needs to change as its uses the incorrect capitalisation. Could we have as simple straw poll to decide on the title of this article, as it is now? Pinging participants from the previous discussion: Gotitbro, DBigXray, Mehrajmir13, Kautilya3. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which is the preferred spelling?
    • Neelam
    • Neelum
  • Which is the preferred word to use in the title for this article, as it is now? The options are:
    • District
    • Valley
    • Valley and District
It should probably be Neelum as that is the official name of the district and even the river from which the name derives is titled as such (Neelum river). For the suffix, definitely capital, District as this article is about the administrative entity not the geographical region. Gotitbro (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neelum since that is used by the local government reliable sources seems to use both, so let's go with the official spelling. (No strong feelings for either. ok for both spellings.)
  • undecided yet. I would let people familiar with the area to decide. But I do feel that a District article in some form should exist for the administrative entity.   Uanfala u should pick ur choice too. -DBigXrayᗙ 16:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neelum District is the preferred option for me. I think the need for a page on the administrative unit overrides all the other needs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is disputed area of Kashmir which is an Indian state

[edit]

you need to make changes in this Kashmir is integral part of India MahendraCosmopolitan (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's articles are written from a neutral point of view, and not from the point of view of the government of India (or of that of Pakistan for that matter). Kashmir has been discussed many times in the past, and if you would like to have a look at one recent discussion, you can go to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

[edit]

Neelum District[1] (also spelt as Neelam; Urdu: ضلع نیلم‎), is the northernmost district of JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA (CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE PAKISTAN, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS POK). Taking up the larger part of the Neelam Valley, the district has a population of 191,000 (as of 2017).[2] It was badly affected by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake 103.132.244.143 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. your version violates WP:NPOV DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned as part of Azad Kashmir, which is described as a disputed territory. For the time being, we are only marking the top-level political units of Kashmir as disputed territories. Any change to this policy needs to be raised and discussed at WT:INDIA and WT:PAKISTAN. No local changes will be made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neelum_District&oldid=1216250200"