Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir

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


"- 'made' a province-like" versus "- a province-like"[edit]

I think made is out of context here. The fact that it has been "made" a province-like entity is just like adding that it was "separated" from the whole Azad Kashmir in 70s (which has an equal weight to be added if "made" is added - but then this is not an article). See other examples of disambiguation pages (Kashmir (disambiguation)), the all just tell what something currently is. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Without "made a province-like" the reader will get confused. It is an administrative entity of the area referred to as "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". But it has been made a part of Pakistan proper. The made illustrates that for clarification purpose only. JCAla (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The whole area is a part of Pakistan as per Pakistan's claims (though Azad Kashmir does have self government), this is a separate debate for the article as covered there already. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If the "made" is to be left out, the sentence needs to be the "two administrative entities that it refers to are". Not "might refer to". JCAla (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And why would that be so? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to revise my previous statement, it needs to be "refers to" in any case. It does refer to, not might. As for the "made" it is for clarification, as I wrote above. JCAla (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The clarification is a political issue suitable for the article. Why would we need to remove "might" if we remove "made"? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "might" shouldn't be there in any case, since it does refer to not might. If you are a reader, go to the disambiguation page and read "might" refer to and "a province-like administrative entity of Pakistan" instead of "made a province-like", you might not understand the connection of Gilgit-Baltistan to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So, "made" is for clarification and might is the wrong term, since the two entities are administrative entities of Pakistan-administered Kashmir not might be. JCAla (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They're not administrative entities of P.A.K. but of Pakistan. Pak-administered Kashmir is not a unit by itself -its just a name like Indian-administered Kashmir. I've explained my views on made, maybe a third opinion would help in that. For the removal of "might" - both can be called as Pak administered Kashmir since both are parts of Kashmir administered by Pakistan otherwise there's no purpose of keeping a disambiguation as pointed out by a user above and we'll have to turn it in to a redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


WP:DABCONCEPT[edit]

This page is clearly in violation of WP:DABCONCEPT because it incorrectly frames related topics that are susceptible to being explained comprehensively as being separate and ambiguous uses of a term. Although it may at times be less taxing to avoid writing the article explaining the relationship between these terms, laziness and a cavalier attitude towards the facts of the situation provides no excuse for misleading readers into thinking that actual ambiguity exists, and can not justify violations of the policy designed to avoid this kind of misrepresentation. bd2412 T 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

These are actually ambiguous terms, an RFC was held for it to not have a separate article (like Indian-administered Kashmir redirects to the original one). There are two areas that can be referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Both are listed. Pakistan-administered Kashmir can also be referred to as their combined entity before 70s. Consensus was to have this disambiguation. I don't have any issues if it is redirected, but you'll have to change that consensus. Some parts of discussion are on Talk:Azad Kashmir. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The very fact that you are able to articulate how the name refers to the changing status of a single geographic region over time demonstrates that it is capable of being discussed as a single evolving concept. That is not ambiguity; all regions experience that kind of change over a long enough time. The distinction between Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) and Mercury (car), now that is ambiguity. Talk page consensus can not make this material appropriate for disambiguation any more than talk page consensus can make this page a featured article. bd2412 T 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What I have been saying. This should be a short article explaining basic things. JCAla (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Either that, or it must be redirected elsewhere, or deleted. bd2412 T 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to redirect it to a single article, since the term explicitly refers to two entities: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. JCAla (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there no article which discusses more generally the history of Pakistan's relationship to the region? A section redirect would suffice, perhaps to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions. bd2412 T 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact that this is a disambiguation page implies that Pakistan-administered Kashmir can mean Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan, but in actuality it means Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. TimBentley (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you give some examples where Wikipedia would need to use "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", linked here instead of to Kashmir or Kashmir dispute, instead of Pakistan's own administrative divisions? I ask because I see that many of the links here are inappropriate, such as the one from Muzaffarabad, which said that the city was the "capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir, Pakistan" when no such administrative division exists. Shrigley (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That is exactly why this should not be a disambiguation page; if "links here are appropriate" then they must reference a single encyclopedic topic to be appropriately linked to. bd2412 T 22:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo; I meant inappropriate. Shrigley (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" term is notable because to this day the area (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) is referred to as such by the international community including the United Nations. Historically the area also included a third area now ceded to China. So this should be a short article explaining what is "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", how and why was it partitioned into several parts, etc. JCAla (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No thanks. There's already consensus on how there are issues with having an article on this. By the way, whatever you mentioned above is completely covered in History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan. So no point in reviving this talk again.... Mar4d (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Issues with having an article do not excuse misuse of the disambiguation tag. There is no ambiguous term here; therefore, this page violates WP:DABCONCEPT and must be brought into conformance with policy by deletion, redirection, or construction of an article in this space. I understand that such an article would be very difficult to write in a way that satisfies diverse points of view on the subject, but Wikipedians have managed to write articles on difficult and controversial topics before, so such issues really do not present much of an excuse either. Furthermore, please note that if this page were to be brought into conformance with WP:MOSDAB, this would require removal of all links on the page which do not contain the phrase "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which would leave this as a blank page suitable for speedy deletion. bd2412 T 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've taken a thorough look at the discussion and viewpoints, and can understand that there are issues with having this as a disambig. Would it not be better to remove all the redundant links (including Chinese and Indian Kashmir) and just leave Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan? Does that fulfill the purpose of disambiguating? Or if that doesn't work out, I don't see a problem with redirecting either. But as far creating an article again is concerned, that's not the road to go. And User:Shrigley has a valid point by the way, as to why this disambig page should exist: the reason being that many links that come to this page are inappropriate and are usually referring to Azad Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan half the time (and as such, should be linked to those articles instead, not here). Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed above the option of redirecting to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, and I am coming to think that this is the best solution. Of course, the Kashmir article addresses all historical and political matters to which this title seems to be directed. The fact that a region is subdivided into smaller administrative divisions, or has evolved in its divisions over time, does not make the name of the region ambiguous; it makes it a topic. See, for example, Southeastern United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, it makes it a topic and thereby worthy of an article. As TimBentley pointed out, the term refers to Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and can even refer to the historical entity which had a third part now ceded to China. If it's not turned into an article I support the above idea by BD. JCAla (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I support redirecting to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, as proposed by BD2412. This provides the necessary explanation of the status and related disputes (although it could be improved). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that just about everyone who has weighed in on the discussion either agrees with, or does not object to, the proposed redirect. I will implement that now. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This solution having been implemented, I would like to make sure after the fact that there is no further objection to it. If not, I will remove this page from the WP:DPL list of problems to be addressed. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Azad Kashmir[edit]

Good call redirecting the page instead of keeping a disambig... that kills the debate. However, I'll suggest a better redirect than pointing it to a section of the main Kashmir article. Azad Kashmir was the whole of this are before 1970 and that article should contain pre-1970 info in a section for the full area as well as the reasons etc for splitting Gilgit-Baltistan from the entity. This redirect should point to that article since it is a better target. Further input appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at most of the links to this redirect, and usually what happens is that some editor changes "Azad Kashmir" to "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", and then another editor changes "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The result is often a construction like "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan". Most of the time, Azad Kashmir is what's meant, because if the writer meant Gilgit-Baltistan, then he would say Gilgit-Baltistan.
I wonder if calling both of these territories "Kashmir" is a concession to the Indian point of view, which doesn't respect Pakistan's administrative boundaries. The Indian embassy says, "In 1982 General Zia ul Haq proclaimed that the people of the Northern Areas [Gilgit-Baltistan] were Pakistanis and had nothing to do with the State of Jammu and Kashmir." Is Gilgit-Baltistan considered "Kashmir" in Pakistan? Because it seems awfully strange that they would give it a separate name were that so. Why was GB split out from Azad Kashmir?
Also, according to this book, "While the Northern Areas are typically left out of the general debate on the future of Kashmir (it is widely assumed that any future disposition will not involve significant transfers of territory of sovereignty in this region), the final status of Azad Kashmir is very much part of the overall equation. Most plans involving some form of mixed control, land swaps, or dual citizenship focus on the Indian-controlled territories of Kashmir Valley and Jammu, and the Pakistan-controlled territory of Azad Kashmir." It's quite like Aksai Chin, which our Kashmir article uncontroversially treats as "part of Kashmir", seemingly to justify India's territorial claims, despite the fact successive Chinese governments never accepted the princely state's claim on Aksai Chin. Shrigley (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Good one. The articles seem to have some Indian bias in them. I think if we attribute the Indian point of view to India, this can be over come instead of simply removing everything. Something like, "India considers so and so as a part of Kashmir". You are right, Pakistan separated GB from Kashmir, but due to its commitments with UN, GB is not an official province of Pakistan rather a 'province-like' entity. Whatsoever the reasons are, the point is all the countries administering parts of Kashmir are sovereign and what ever titles they have given to the administrative units in their control should be the actual names of them and the rest should be listed as claims. Azad Kashmir is the right article for this redirect even if we go by Indian point of view anyway, because that region was the whole of it before the split and should cover the information related to this term as "Indian-administered Kashmir" and "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as terms can not have separate articles per WP:UNDUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this would be a more informative redirect. As to bias, I think it is our responsibility as a neutral presenter of the facts to disclose what notably sourced claims are made by each contender. Teach the controversy without deciding who is right or wrong. bd2412 T 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Indian-administered Kashmir redirects to Jammu and Kashmir, that also sets precedent for this. I've redirected it now. Agree with the controversy part. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is the international term (also used by the United Nations) which refers to both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan split up Gilgit-Baltistan explicitly for the purpose of factoring out Gilgit-Baltistan from the Kashmir debate. As such, the redirect by TopGun is far from neutral (as required by wikipedia) but strictly follows the Pakistani narrative. The last redirect was ok. JCAla (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There's clear consensus for changing the redirect. You should self revert, atleast three editors above have agreed on this. Also, Pakistani narrative on it would term it as "Azad Kashmir", not this. The current redirect is vague.. it points to the distributions of the area. All other terms redirect to the given areas. In anycase, Azad Kashmir was always the full Pak administered Kashmir, GB was infact separated from it by Pakistani government. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You started the discussion today at 16:15 and want to proclaim "consensus" at 17:25? Yes, GB was separated from Azad Kashmir by the Pakistani government for exactly the purpose mentioned above. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is an internationally used term - not a Pakistani term (which is "Azad Kashmir" - "Free Kashmir") nor an Indian term (which is "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir"). As such we have to see what areas are the United Nations and the international community referring to when they use the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". They are referring to both the area of Azad Kashmir and the area of Gilgit-Baltistan. JCAla (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no rule that would make me wait till I have an arbitrary number of editors supporting. Your revert however was against all above. As for the term... no, we don't have to see what the international community or UN call it, we've to be neutral, with respect to all claims. Especially the sovereign country that it belongs to. Even the combined area you are referring to was in full Azad Kashmir till 1970. This redirect was appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I made my point pretty clear above. Let's wait and see what the others have to say - as they did have some questions that I now addressed. JCAla (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that United Nations usage equals "International community" usage when it comes to disputed territories. First of all, "United Nations" is vague. Which agencies use this term where? On maps or text publications? I saw some United Nations maps on Wikipedia that split Kashmir off from Pakistan and India entirely, which is definitely not the international convention. Secondly, the United Nations tries to placate its member states in territorial disputes, such as by using "Diaoyu" to China and "Senkaku" to Japan in letters about the Pinnacle Islands. International usage, as expressed in the news media, accepts the line of control as de-facto border, using datelines such as "Srinagar, India" or "Muzaffarabad, Pakistan", whereas the UN might say "Srinagar, India-administered Kashmir", or "Muzaffarabad, Pakistan-administered Kashmir". We don't use the former — "India-administered Kashmir" — for Jammu and Kashmir on Wikipedia, despite it being a simpler substitution, because it subtly devalues India's claim. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" (when it used to include Gilgit-Baltistan) is worse, because it trashes Pakistan's sovereignty by rejecting its decision to define "Kashmir" for itself.
There is a wealth of sources which use "Gilgit-Baltistan" instead of what India would only call part of "Pakistan-occupied/administered Kashmir". For example, less than a dozen websites, most of them Wikipedia mirrors, use "Gilgit, Pakistan-administered Kashmir" instead of the tens of thousands instances of "Gilgit, Gilgit-Baltistan". "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a false compromise from "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", because Indocentric terminology rejects all administrative changes to Azad Kashmir since 1970, and not only the name of "Azad Kashmir". Wikipedia follows the international convention of following the administrative divisions of the controlling states. It notes and follows Pakistan's splitting of Hattian District from Muzaffarabad District in 2009, for example, and does not ignore Muzaffarabad District by using India's administrative hierarchy. If Pakistan equates its part of Kashmir with "Azad Kashmir", then Azad Kashmir is a valid definition of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". Hence, we might say that the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is ambiguous. However, before we turn this back into a disambiguation page, I ask again for instances where a link to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" would be warranted in an article. If a redirect to "Azad Kashmir" not only discourages links here (which is the function of a disambiguation page) but also avoids loaded Indian terminology that seeks to change the status quo — than we have succeeded as encyclopedists. If we point again to the "Kashmir" article, which uses the broadest Indian-based definition of the Kashmir region, then we are encouraging the use of biased language. The only other solution I see would involve writing an article like "Terminology of the Kashmir conflict" to which this can point. Shrigley (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A very detailed analysis I'd say. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so focused on India and Indian terminology? "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is the internationally used term for the areas of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. India uses the term "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir". And no, we follow neither Pakistan's politically motivated definition nor India's politically motivated definition of Kashmir, we follow what is the majority definition of Kashmir. That definition can be found on the Encyclopædia Britannica for example which explicitly defines "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan:

"The northern and western portions [of Kashmir] are administered by Pakistan and comprise three areas: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan, the last two being part of a territory called the Northern Areas. The southern and southeastern portions constitute the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian- and Pakistani-administered portions are divided by a “line of control” agreed to in 1972 ..."[1]

JCAla (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make clear why Shrigley is focusing on terminology, there's nothing on the (NPOV) map of earth known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir any more than there's an Indian-administered Kashmir. In NPOV, those terms might have a value as terms themselves, but as neutral names of areas, no. The legitimate entity that can give administrative names to the area is Pakistan, which split the area from Azad Kashmir. As a former combined entity and the current name per analysis above, this is the right redirect. Even the definition in Britannica doesn't say that this is an official title of the combined area. You can not create a title like Pakistan-administered Kashmir just like you can not rename Peoples Liberation Army to Peoples Occupation Army on wikipedia even if you have those views, because that's not what they call themselves. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I said somewhere some time ago that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is not by any means an official term. The official names for the regions are Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is simply a term of convenience used when discussing the Kashmir debate. So I'll repeat again, the proper names for the regions are, as I said, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, not Pakistan administered Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Tag[edit]

How's this page a part of Wikiproject India? I don't see Wikiproject Pakistan tags on Jammu and Kashmir. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Pak-administered Kashmir is the term best corresponding to the term Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as per the Indian government stance. Hence the relevance. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No, this is UN's term... India uses PoK. That term might be a part of that project. Btw, there's no need to editwar it back into the page when I'm discussing it myself. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get TopGun's rationale here. If people who are members of WP-India project are interested in the article, then why won't this fall under the wikiproject? If, say, people who are members of WP-India or WP-Pakistan decide that martian aliens interest them, then there is no reason why that too will fall under that category. TopGun seems to assume that the tag is being used to mark territory, but that is not (hopefully) the case. --Ragib (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir has a shared history and therefore the tag is appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
topgun asked a reasonable question: why aren't there any wikiproject pakistan tags on the Jammu and Kashmir-page? will he get reverted if he added some?-- altetendekrabbe  22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Has that area ever been administered by Pakistan? Personally, I couldn't care less but TG has a (recent) history of POV-y edits & so if the intent is merely to stir the pot then that would be inappropriate. However, this is really a discussion to be had on that article's talk page - WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, your persistent referring to my edits in general as POV on any discussion you encounter will not help those discussions in anyway... they'll only constitute minor personal attacks, so you can start with stopping those as that is precisely what inappropriate will mean. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
India has never administered this area, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've tagged J&K for the Pakistan Wikiproject, given the level of interest demonstrated here by members towards that article. Shrigley (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting response by TG & Mustihussain considering I only tagged a redirect out of compulsion of a habit I have developed to add Project template to India articles. FYI, tags already exist on many articles of WikiProject Pakistan - things like Indus Valley Civilisation which are also of interest to WikiProject India. I'm not going to edit war/revert on this issue. TG is free to revert my edit now without my gaming him for a 1RR violation. I'm not reverting Shrigley's tag on J&K either. A tag only means that the topic is of interest and relevance to a WikiProject and that the presence of a project template on a talk page only indicates the project's commitment to improving the article. AshLin (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
My question was simply on precedent and as far as I've seen the project tags are added to the articles which have direct relevance to the country (I don't think you'll be able to WP:India tag to "martian aliens" as Ragib claims). The interesting part here was that you reverted it back in instead of discussing, that makes far from a 'compulsion of a habit' given that not even I took it as a big deal. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Great. Just great. Now that this precedent has been set, I foresee that we may as well be seeing WikiProject bots in the future going around misleadingly tagging thousands of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles, categories, templates, redirects, disambig pages and what-not under WikiProject India and then probably editors on the other side doing the same to all Jammu and Kashmir articles. Thanks a bunch for opening up this pandora box. Ridiculous, to say the least. Mar4d (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)