![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
being a neutral observer (neither indian or pakistani) Is it me or has this article been hijacked by Indian nationalist bent on distorting history and facts about the region. The UN resolution calls for the removal of all foreign troops from the state of Kashmir and the holding of a plebiscite. Pakistan is the only country that regularly brings up the issue of Kashmir at the United Nation, and all attempts to hold the plebiscite have been blocked by india. The fact that Kashmir still requires an estimated 700,000 indian occupying troops shows that there is a real problem here and that Kashmir being part of india is an unnatural arrangement. really this article needs to be improved and these indian nationalistic slants and biasis need to be removed to have a more neutral and balanced article for the wikipedia readers.
I AM KASHMIRI FORM KAHSMIR AND I AGREE WITH 100% THIS NEEDS TO EDITED BY NEUTRAL PARTY!!!! THIS BJP BS HAS TO END HERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.103.116.30 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It is evident that you are as much of a neutral outsider to Kashmir as Napoleon was to the Napoleonic Wars.
I intend to build up the page on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 using info from this page and then cut the info on that war out of this page so we don't have too many parallel versions. Any probs with this? After Indo-Oakistani War of 1947, Kashmir was divided between 2 Countries Azad Kashmir contolled by Pakistan and Indian Occupied Kashmir controlled by India.
should this still be considered a stub, I dont know how much more can be done with it unless you want to include info on the Indo-Pakistani Wars (which all have their own pages) on this page.
The previous statement was left by User:Gozar
If one compares Image:Kashmir map.jpg published by the CIA or other maps published by the UN, with ones published by governments and other organisations within India (e.g. [2]), one can see a marked difference of the boundary of Aksai Chin around its easternmost tip. Perhaps in order to really show what each country claims we've to make a map that contains all these different boundaries... -- Paddu 11:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
It should be stated in the first few sentences that Pakistan calls this area "Indian Occupied Kashmir." Just like it is done in the "Azad Kashmir" article; India's perspective is given in the first sentence. Sara Ahmed - 6 Sep 2005
This whole article is biased. It only gives the Indian perspective; India says that the Maharaja of Kashmir "acceded" to Indian, Pakistan does not agree to that. If we believe India than India also has accept the fact that the Rulers of Junagadh and Munawadar (in Indian Gujarat) acceded to Pakistan and India captured these states by force. Also Hyderabad, wanted to be an independent state, it too was forcibly occupied by India.
This article should be objective, and give both sides of the story. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 19, 2005. 10:38 (PST)
I did not agree with the line in the demographics section which blamed the demographics of the region as the problem for the Kashmir "Terrorism problem" which is highlighted as "Kashmir dispute"... I'm fairly miffed that...
b. terrorism is called "dispute" <waiting to see if original poster fixes or replies on that>
c. all violence is blamed on a community that held rock solid against all kinds of devious schemes to "divide and rule" as in 1948's war
plus the fact that a mass exodus of ~20k families took place in the '80s was missing.
sources? All major Indian papers. Try a google search for Kashmiri Pandits
I would like to dispute this article - Kashmir is disputed territory and not part of India. The matter is still resolved due to Indian refusal to honor UN Security Council resolution.
Request a discussion here first for any remaining concerns before (repeatedly) tagging this article. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The region Jammu and Kashmir is exactly same as what is called 'Indian occupied kashmir' and both the articles acknowledge that. Why have two articles then? Quiet frankly I think the later article is pure propaganda and has no information value at all. This article is in much better shape and presents both Indian and Pakistani arguments reasonably. Why not simply redirect the Indian Occupied Kashmir to this article? Anand Arvind 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Indian Occupied Kashmir does not exist for the very fact that the region is not'occupied' by India but actually belongs to India. The article Indian Occupied Kashmir should be scrapped as the term itself is incorrect.
If Indian Occupied Kashmir does not exist then the same can be said for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. That area is controlled and belongs to Pakistan. There must be at least a mention in the title that Jammu and Kashmir is Indian Occupied much like the Pakistani Kashmir article makes mention that it's half is occupied by Pakistan.
And they've actually cited a source. "Jammu and Kashmir is referred to by Pakistan as "Indian-occupied Kashmir".[1]" Where does the hyperlink take you? Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan. Wow. That's like adding 'I'm a saint' to the article on Hitler and citing Mein Kampf as the source.
I oppose this merger with this article since there is a lot of information on terrorism in Kashmir that cannot just be covered in a section of the main Jammu and Kashmir article. I will remove the tag if anybody does not tell me why and how this can be just one article. Anand Arvind 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We can discuss about the name of Terrorism in Kashmir article. But still it doesn't justify merger with the main Jammu and Kashmir article. Anand Arvind 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I am going to remove this merge tag unless somebody argues in favor of keeping it. This tag was added without leaving even an edit summary. Anand Arvind 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There are several reasons to merge this page:
1- Kashmir page and this page are supposed to be showing exactly the same subject.
2- These pages have a large overlap.
This page should be organized like Kashmir page. Furthermore, this section is clearly showing pro-Indian bias.
One line in this article is priceless:
"Since then, the region has seen a prolonged, bloody conflict between militants and the Indian Army. Both the militants and the army have been accused of widespread human rights abuses [17][18], including abductions, massacres[19][20], rape [21]and looting."
While the statement is factually true, it is disingenuous. When is the last time you ever heard of the militants using rape against the army? The 2 sides are not the same in this conflict...rapes are being committed by the army against the population of Kashmir--and not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.51.114 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Deepak please dont remove Karan Singh from Jammu & Kashmir, he is the would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir, please check history. His father was king he stepped down from throne and he acceded to India like so many Royals did from all the Princly States.
I disagree, he was made king of Kashmir for siding with the British against the Sikhs. THe Kashmiri's always considered him and his family an outsider people and never accepted his rule either in the past nor at present.
Thanks
08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Atulsnischal
Hi Deepak,
What politician are you talking about, he is the KING of all Jammu & Kashmir for gods sake. Please check the history of the state.
Atulsnischal 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So you mean to say Karan Singh is the would be Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir?! Nevermind, the very purpose of the See also section is to provide links to readers to articles on other topics related to the concerned topic. I just don't understand why would a person who would like to gain some information regarding J&K will go to an article on Karan Singh? Besides, so what if he belongs to a royal family? --Incman|वार्ता 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Deepak
Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.
Thats all, I was just thinking the best for the people of J&K, I am not here to fight with you, please rethink and revert
Best wishes
Atulsnischal 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Deepak
You seem to be obssed with the Jammu and Kashmir article on Wikipedia, anybody can make it out, you have got stuck and are going on and on about it, you dont respect other peoples viws too, as for me I think there should be a link to Dr Karan Singh's article here, which was just a stub, so I was trying to develop it, thats all, you are playing politics over the whole issue, please think with informational and historical point of view.....
I have also copyed this discussion with you in the Jammu and Kashmir as well as Dr Karan Singh's discussion page, just for the record that Dr Karan Singh article was discussed, as it is a legitimate discussion.
If you get time later please help in developing Dr Karan Singh's article on Wikipedia too.
Just for info only as you seem interested: Latest News on Kashmir topic today: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss
Thanks Cheers
Atulsnischal 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the "((prod))" template to the article List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Incman|वार्ता 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”
Atulsnischal 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the comprehensive List of topics which deal with "the People”, “the Culture & Heritage” and “the Land” of Jammu and Kashmir:
This List is a comprehensive list of articles on Wikipedia which deal with "the People”, “the Culture & Heritage” and “the land” of Jammu and Kashmir and it is definitely not like the Kashmir (disambiguation) Page. This list should remain on Wikipedia for people to be able to easily access all articles on different aspects of the people, culture and the area of Jammu and Kashmir.
Atulsnischal 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Similar to articles on Jammu and Ladakh, we need an article on the Vale of Kashmir. Any suggestions?? --Incman|वार्ता 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"Though Islam is practiced by 70% of population (and 95% of the population in the Kashmir Valley), the state has vibrant communities of Hindus (who constitute 66% of the population in Jammu), Buddhists (who constitute 50% of the population in Ladhakh), and Sikhs."
Why aren't the Muslim communities vibrant? Are they too busily engaged in terrorism and anti-Indian activities? Give me a break. Irtiqaa 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
seems like a bit of bias on the part of the person who wrote the article. I agree.. there seems to be every attempt made to shy away from the fact that the Muslims and in fact many of the other religions including Hindu, SIkh, Buddhist (Kashmiri's are united by culture) dont want to be part of india and want an end to the occupation of their lands by indian forces. They're history, culture and trade lie to the west with Pakistan and this article takes every step to try to dodge this issue... very suspicious and dilutional i think !!
I changed a few lines in first paragaraph in which it was stated and claimed that jammu kashmir is a part of india. Actually its a disputed territory between india and Pakistan. and still struggle is going on from both sides to claim that territory
There appears to have been a low-key edit war between several anonymous users over the inclusion of the phrase "Also known as Indian-occupied Kashmir" or something similar at random points in this article. The last anon left the phrase smack dab in the middle of the first sentence of the article. Without trying to silence the Pakistani viewpoint, I took the liberty of removing this phrase, just as a point of proper grammar. My question is as follows: would the inclusion of this phrase--unsourced and misspelled--at random points in the article count as vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunttthetroll (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
last time I checked, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weopons and have gone to war over the state 3 times. Also the united nations has passed a resolution in 1948 calling for a plebiscite for the people of Kashmir to decide their future. So for all intents and purpose, its a disputed region.
Image:Jammu and KashmirSeal.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 insure 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) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
User 194.215.183.65 has been removing information related to India and inserting the flag of Azad Kashmir. I believe it is being in bad taste which doesn't help improve the article in any way. I wish the user would explain the logic of his actions here. -- S3000 ☎ 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that the name of the state is written in both english and urdu and there is nothing wrong with that ,but i also believe that the name should also be written in hindi as it is india's national language and as it will help maintain neutrality
Harshabob 06 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.11.114 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed some users removing Kashmiri script from the article,claiming that only Urdu is the official language of the state. To my knowledge this, I'm afraid is incorrect, as the language recognised by the Constitution of India (in the VIII Schedule) as the language of the Jammu and Kashmir State. Urdu (being the other official language) however is the dominant language of the state, and is used in schools and institutions. One has to understand that Jammu and Kashmir comprises of other regions including Ladakh, Jammu etc. where Urdu isn't the dominant language. Please correctme if I'm incorrect. S3000 ☎ 09:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Constitution of JK declares Urdu the official language.[3], [4]. i will revert your edits per this source. Please dont add any other language unless it becomes official. Noor Aalam (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Kindly download the images and properly cite and give fair use rationale. These images are important - of the two page document which shows the accession of the state of Jammu and kashmir to India by its former Maharajah Hari Singh.
There is an image for page 1 and then there is another for page 2 of the treaty/accession document, kindly give proper fair use rationale as people seem to be attacking this image and removing it from wikipedia.
Atulsnischal (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following:
But I don't know if I should, or where it should be? Any comments, if not then I think I should put it in the Economy or Demographics section.
Please and Thank You! Note: please answer here on the talk page, but also on My talk page. --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir has experienced considerable abuses at the hands of the occupying indian army, paramilitary forces and the indian government which suppresses news emanating from the state to the outside world and turns a blind eye to the abuses. The article should include mention of the gross injustices and human rights violations committed by india in the state on the defenseless and peaceful Kashmiri people.
how come no mention of india's refusal to allow the holding of a plebiscite in indian-occupied Kashmir on wether to remain in india or join the Kashmiri's natural homeland in Pakistan whom they would most likely vote for. This is an important aspect of the Kashmir dispute that is often overlooked, for it is india that has blocked this resolution (the 2nd oldest resolution of the United Nations), and it is india's refusal that hindered any prospects of peace in the region or bringing about any kind of resolution to the Kashmir dispute.
well the kashmiris have shown in the past few days what they think of you indians look at the news fool86.153.132.156 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
the paki side is better than hindu killers who sacrifice there kids infront of a monkey god named hanuman p.s dont call me paki again dalit hindu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.154.87 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to mention the protests that are occurring in the state. Of course there is an article dedicated to that, but these events need to be mentioned in this article. I added a link to an article about - but this removed by another editor. I don't see we need a citation to link to another wiki article. Especially as the this article notes that "On 11 August 2008, 50,000 to 2,50,000 Kashmiri Muslim protesters attempted to march across the LoC to Muzaffarabad, in violation of curfew orders" Pahari Sahib 06:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
To User:Pahari Sahib: Please tell me why my edit is not neutrally written? rev diff? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
i am contributing the following table..it needs citation though it states well known facts..if this could be of use to upgrade the jand k article, use it..else ignore:
Comparison table | South Ossetia dispute | PoK / azad k dispute |
---|---|---|
independence claim by the disputed region | yes | yes |
Recognised by the international community as "part of the occupying nation"? | no | no |
Recognised by international community as an "independent nation"? | no | no |
Recognised by the occupying country as "independent nation" ? | no (russsia didnt recognise as on august 22 2008) | no (pakistan can not let go of the area as totally independent due to its vital importance to its survival[1]) |
Do the residents support the occupying nation? | yes (russian occupation welcomed by south ossetia..unofficial referendum held) | yes-i guess (assuming no major protest against pakistan occupation..no referendum though) |
Does the other side accept it? | no (georgia calls them "invaders") | no (india calls them occupiers and the area as "pok") |
Did the dispute displace original inhabitants? | yes-contentious (georgians forced to move out) | yes-contentious (hindus in PoK and kashmiri pundits forced to move out) |
Is the disputed territory truly "independent"? | no (dependent on russia) | no (dependent on pakistan) |
Was the region attacked by the country to reclaim administrative control? | yes (it led to the 2008 south ossetia war) | no (since india has so far not violated the loc to reclaim pok) |
Was the occupying nation's "full" territorial extent included in the image of the disputed territory in wikipedia? | no (in fact the nation that didnt have control is mentioned:georgia) | i hope it was "no"..but THE present REVERTED version means the answer is "yes"(HENCE MY ARGUMENTS OF WP:POINT AND WP:UNDUE in POK article) |
table created by me for clarity..Cityvalyu (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
please also make a mention of the amarnath yatra and amarnath land transfer controversyCityvalyu (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
user:92.2.116.251 added the Category:Puppet states to this article. Looking at the other states included in this category makes me think that J&K is out of place, as does looking at the Puppet states article. But at the very least it should be talked about before a label like that be applied. What do people think?--Keithonearth (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Apart from 6,00,000 Hindus, 9,000 Sikhs have also been displaced in the last 18 years. Should add that too. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080304/j&k.htm#7 --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Kashmir train.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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please add the name of chief minister Mr. Umer Abdullah. after election he became the chief minister on 5th january, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.165.137 (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Over the past week, a large amount of irrelevant information has been added to this article, which ought to have been added to the Kashmir page instead. Please, let's get this straight : as the hatnote says, this article is about Indian-administered Kashmir. By that definition, it is clear that it includes only the area administered by India at present, irrespective of the area it claims (which ought to be stated on Kashmir conflict and not here). Other editors and myself have been reverting these edits, or moving them to the appropriate pages, and will continue to do so. However, a request to evreyone editing this article : please make the job of improving this article easier by making constuctive edits, and adding only relevant information. Please pause and read the hatnote before editing the page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have moved some of the History section to the main article. Most of that section dealt with the history of Kashmir prior to the establishment of Jammu, and hence could not be construed as the history of Jammu and Kashmir as such. If anyone has objections to this, please raise them here. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The article shows a photo which purports to show armoured vehicles of Indian Army in Siachen. There can be no armoured vehicles at altitudes of 15-21,000 feet as in the area of Siachen glacier. More so wheeled vehicles which are shown in the photograph. These are probably vehicles under trials by the army somewhere in Kashmir in winters. One of the vehicles clearly displays a note on the windshield stating 'ARMY TRIALS'. Moreover one of the vehicles is from VECTRA. Since India Army does not at present have any vehicles from Vectra, these are probably vehicles on some trials.
The photograph caption is misleading and should be amended.
Harri 04 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.142.188 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The word "between" at the end of first paragraph should be changed to "among" - three countries listed, not two. Vewcaere (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) VEW Jul 22, 2009
This article is not bound by the style on the Northern Areas article, and neither should the addition of POV material on that article be any reason to add it here. I have reverted to the previous version which was arrived at by consensus long back. Also, the hatnote makes it clear that this article is about the area administered by India (emphasis supplied), and under India's administration this region is considered a state. It is the whole of the Kashmir region that is disputed territory, and issues relating to the dispute should be mentioned on the Kashmir conflict page - where there is a separate article for it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added a 'see also Kashmir Conflict' in the history section of this article and done the same in the Azad kashmir and Northern areas article as there is no need for continually adding a 'dispute' section to all three articles as a separate detailed article already exits. Khokhar (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So much that UN Security Council resolutions refer to it as the "State of Jammu and Kashmir". The title of this page is misleading since it implies that only the India-controlled part of the territory is called "Jammu and Kashmir" Ladril (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
I'm renaming this and the page for the whole Kashmir region. Ladril (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed a factual error in the demographics section: which currently reads 'In Ladakh, Buddhists constitute about 46% of the population, the remaining being Muslims.'
However the latest census data (sataed below) gives the proportions as 47.40% Muslim, 6.22% Hindu and – 45.87% Buddhist
the accuracy of this statement is important not to imply and majority (over 50%) of anyone religious group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallgareth (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to follow on from the above, most media outlets refer to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as Indian-administered Kashmir. I am not asking for this page to be moved to that title, but surely this needs to be noted in the lead section as it is a common name for the areas under Indian admin. For example looking at a UNHCR report on this region refers to it as Indian Administered Kashmir (as opposed to Jammu and Kashmir used for the entire region - see map). Also media outlet such as CNN, BBC, ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation all say this. Pahari Sahib 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and it must not be attributed as part of India. Pakistan says it as India Occupied Kashmir. So, it must be clear and verified through authentic sources that is Jammu and Kashmir and independent state, a legally owned state of India or Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrixology (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This article refers to Jammu and Kashmir being a state in India. I don't believe the UN recognizes Indian-occupied Kashmir as just another state of India. You should at least make a reference to this, or to the fact that this is disputed. The UN has never officially resolved the conflict between Pakistan and India, thus to call one side "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" and the other "Jammu and Kashmir, state in India" is definitely lopsided, and most importantly, incorrect. India maintains close to 700,000 troops, and had militarily occupied it long before the insurgency began in 1989. This article contributes to Indian political propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Mughalnz (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
and like SBC-YPR said it is best to go to Kashmir conflict page .SBC-YPR inconclusion niether part of india or pakistan and internaitonally recognised disputed territory like rest of the region.thanks Mughalnz (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Mughalnz (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The first line of the article reads "Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost state of India.". What does that suppose to mean? If it is a disputed territory then how can anyone call it a state of India or any other country. These are totally contradicting statements. Officially it is not state or part of any country. So instead of writing "northernmost state of India", it should be "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between (what ever countries involved) and located in (whatever)" 119.153.21.147 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If anybody reading this article was unaware of the fact that Jammu and Kashmir is internationally recognized as 'disputed territory' they would be forgiven for understading Jammu and Kashmir to be a northern state of India, which it is not. The article makes no real attempt to make it clear to the reader that the area is disputed territory and with regards to its politics this is the understanding that every reader should come away with. This is the first time I have seen such an inaccurate account from Wikipedia. It is not a state in India - part of Kashmir of Kashmir is ruled by Pakistan and another part by India - but it never merged with India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bp160799 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
should this be on the page
[edit] Indian position Post 1947 India's position
Maharaja Hari Singh, King of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir agreed to Governor-General Mountbatten's[5][6] suggestion to sign the Instrument of Accession India demanded accession in return for assistance. After accession, India recovered part of the territory of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir east of the present Line of Control from the tribal invaders. India claimed that the whole territory of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had become Indian territory (India's official posture) due to the accession , it claims the whole region including Pakistan controlled Kashmir territory as its own. Pakistan has a different perspective on this interpretation. [edit] Pakistan position Predominant Religions in NW British India 1909
The Pakistan Declaration of 1933 had envisioned the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as one of the "five Northern units of India" that were to form the new nation of Pakistan, on the basis of its Muslim majority. India has a different perspective on this interpretation.Mughalnz (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
i am not going to add it but want your opinionMughalnz (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In Jammu and Kashmir, India, the violent Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit minority and 400,000 have either been murdered or displaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneworld4405 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Done by a hindu governer they replace all pandits from kashmir so that they can manipulate militiry in the kashmir and allows them to keep on violence there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.184.226 (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
please link in this page Government college of engineering and technology of jammu in education para of this page as
square bracketed link as the wiki page is available...just change it as [ Government College of Engineering and Technology, Jammu]
thks
Zeeshanali092 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I can find nothing about the portions of the different Muslim denominations here. But that is an interesting matter. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a debate underway to see whether India should be included in WikiProject Central Asia. Not many people have contributed so far, and as Kashmir/Ladakh is one of the areas with Central Asian influence in question, I would like to ask all editors with a background knowledge of this region to participate in the debate here. Many Thanks. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
Jammu was founded by Raja Jambu Lochan in 14th century BC and is named after him. Your article states that it was founded by Ramchandra 1 and named after jamwa mata, which is incorrect.Please correct it as soon as possible.
171.68.46.175 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have a reliable source, please make a new edit request with that information Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Current locator map used in more than 50 pages misleads fellow Indians. It even contradicts other maps including India locator map File:India_location_map.svg. Please join discussion here Jammu and Kashmir state location map.svg No information is better than wrong information. How can Azad Jammu Kashmir and Aksai chin can have same colour as Himachal pradesh of India? Avoided blue (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
The city of jammu was founded by raja jambulochan(14th century BC) and is named after him.
Please refer to the following link http://books.google.com/books?id=OLvIvL5dcOQC&pg=PA62&dq=jambulochan+jammu&hl=en&ei=9MJfTfquB4PTrQeGyZz8AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jambulochan%20jammu&f=false
read page 62.
Moreover, refer to the article on jammu in wikipedia.
14.96.33.191 (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: That's actually not what the book says at all—in fact, it says that this is a common belief, but is most likely not correct based on other historical evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The city of jammu was founded by Raja Jambulochan and is named after him.. Please read page 521 in the following link http://books.google.com/books?id=slQE3AJ9skQC&pg=PA521&dq=jammu+history+jambu+lochan&hl=en&ei=mTisTcbUDIevrAfCkP2mCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jammu%20history%20jambu%20lochan&f=false. Or simply type jammu in books.google.com and read any book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.16.183 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
The flag is that of the National Conference political party and not of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Please remove this flag as representing the geographical region. 98.225.193.150 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: No, it's not. A search of both the political party and the region show that the description of the picture is incorrect; I'm investigating it right now, but it looks like someone recently falsely changed the description on Commons. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the sources and contents mention history of Kashmir valley. How is that irrelevant? I think this is high time people get out of mentality that history began with Alaxander and otherwise before invasions pagan lived on trees. Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's fine then, we could remove the history which is not immediately connected to the perent entity of J&K. Well I had waited 3-4 days for your reply beyond which I thought you might have agreed to the point and were no longer interested in replying. Anyways, you could remove data as already discussed. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The article incorrectly quotes the UN security Council Resolution on Kashmir. The first article of the first UN tresolution requires the Pakistan remove its regular and irregular forces which have enterd Jammu and Kashmir. The removal of Indian forces is not required by the UN resolution. Please correct this text in the main article.Chibber (talk)chibber —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC).
It exist a map in english of religions of Indian Occupied Kashmir. I've no account on en:wikipedia, so i can't modify this article. If somebody is interesting, help yourself;-).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.39.254.107 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Now why is it that "a map of religions of jammu and kashmir" only shows the geographical portion of Jammu and Kashmir which is the functional State territory of the Indian state of J&K? and why obsess about religion? An ethno-linguistic map of the entire region of J&K will be far more pertinent. That map will show, obviously, the great extent to which ethnic Punjabi Muslims have migrated into the part of AJK (Azad Kashmir) under Administrated by Pakistan. It will show that the original Kashmiri linguistic regions of Pakistani Administrated areas have seriously been altered/disturbed by the introduction of very large numbers of ethnic Punjabis and Pathans into formarly Kashmiri/Tribal dominated areas of J&K under Pakistani Administartion. Such a map will also show the consequence of blatent ethnic/religious cleansing undertaken by Kashmiri mussalmans in the Jehlum valley. The tragedy for the people of J&K is not religios demographics, but the unscrupulous use of such demographics to uspur land and resources from weaker ethnicities such as the Hindkos, the Kashmiri Pundits, the Ahmadiyas,and the muslim Kashmiris themselves by Muslim Punjabis and Pathans under State sponsered ethnic cleansing in Pakistan.Some times I wonder if there were actually a plebicite in all of J&K, and only ethnically native Kashmiri, Pundits, Hindco etc. speakers be allowed to vote in that plebicite, excluding all Punjabi and Pathan mussalmans, - I wonder how such a plebicite will turn out. Chibber (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
India is Claiming that Pakistan has occupied some Part of Jammu & Kashmir is an Indian Corrupted view and Very Funny view. Pakistan has Never Occupy But has Azad (Free) the 30% Parts of Jammu & Kashmir Known 'Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan' . Only India has illegal Occupied 60% Parts of Jammu & Kashmir Since 1947, which Pakistan refers 'Indian Occupied Kashmir' (IOK). (In Urdu: Bharati Maqbouza Kashmir) and 10% Part is Administrated by China (Aksai Chin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.116.203 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a brief mention to the Economy section of the proposed Bilaspur–Mandi–Leh line next to the Jammu-Baramulla section
--92.14.188.24 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: You need to supply the text you would like to add along with relaible sources supporting the text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the text.
--92.14.188.24 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source supports the first sentence, but not the second. Do you have something which supports the claim about highest railroad, the Chinese railroad and ending the isolation of Ladakh? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Rvd4life, the term PoK is being kept in this article and IoK being removed... please don't remove this again. See the Azad Kashmir article. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging, I brought this up because other editors might not know similarly how things are being treated in this article when they make edits to GB or AJK, so WP:AGF instead of calling it double standards. Hopefully all is settled now. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The article wrongly asserts that Pakistan claims the disputed region as its own. In fact, Pakistan only regards the area as a Disputed Territory, whose future must be determined by a UN sponsored plebiscite. Hence why Azad Kashmir is not a province of Pakistan. Only India claims the entire region of Kashmir; Pakistan does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Kashmiri name of Jammu and Kashmir is only written in Devanagri ((Kashmiri: जोम त कशीर) - it is improper to use only the Devanagri script without using the Nastaliq/Urdu script as well, since both are recognized as legitimate alphabets for the Kashmiri language. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Devanagri script is rarely used, and almost entirely confined to the exiled Pandit community, while the vast majority of Kashmiri writings are done in the Nastaliq/Urdu script.
Please add the Urdu/Nastaliq script to the Kashmiri name for the region: جوم تِ کشیر — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
'exiled Pandit community' - nice euphemism for the genocide perpetrated on the native Hindus by pakistan backed terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.114.202 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This IP address (131.183.0.122) is causing disruptive edits. Can someone stop this editor from this nationalistic POV push? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Should the section that deals with Freedom Houses' rating of Jammu and Kashmir as "partly free" really be followed by the comment that Pakistani controlled Azad Kashmir is rated "not free"? The information about Azad Kashmir is irrelevant and seems like someone is promoting a nationalist POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.94.65 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The article currently says:
″India has control of 60% of the area of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir (Jammu, Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh); Pakistan controls 30% of the region (Gilgit–Baltistan and Azad Kashmir). China occupied 10% (Aksai Chin) of the state in 1962.″
Do we have a reliable source that supports it? As fair as my knowledge goes, the percentage isn't as High given that India claims Aksai Chin (under Chinese control) as a part of Jammu and Kashmir. If there is no credible source that supports then I think it's better to remove the claim and not re-instate any such thing until we find a reliable source. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
((cite news))
: Unknown parameter |Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)89.240.237.161 would prefer to use File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto) (disputed hatched).svg instead of File:India Jammu and Kashmir locator map.svg. Even ignoring the POV issues for the moment, the latter is clearly superior: Firstly, it gives the districts within the state, and secondly, the Siachen Glacier is not part of the Indian state, for all I can tell. For these reasons I have reverted to the latter map. Huon (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted Lifelessboy's latest edits for a couple of reasons:
Thus the edit was not an improvement. Huon (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
About 0.5 million Indian army troops are located inside the Valley proper which has a population of 2 million. This ratio of 25% makes Kashmir Valley one of the world's most militarised society on earth.
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.89.247 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2013
The person who is trying to get you to indicate the number of Indian army troops inside the Kashmir Valley seems to have a nationalistic agenda. At no time has the Government of India for obvious security reasons disclosed the number of troops in the Kashmir Valley and it is only they who could ever confirm what the number is...not some people with agendas wanting to grossly exaggerate numbers. 500,000 troops out of 1.2 million would be unbelievable on its face therefore you do need a reliable source and the person who asked for this edit clear has none. It appears the edit request was made with a nationalistic agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.247.160 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence ', whereas some international agencies such as the United Nations call it Indian-administered Kashmir.[4]' as the link itself is broken and no one calls it so. It is mostly referred all over the world as Jammu and Kashmir. jinishans ([[User talk:jinishanstalk]])Jinishans (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
existing categories/sub categories of the article did not articulate Jammu and Kashmir (Indian) was related to categories of [Category:States and territories of India]], Category:India, Category:Kashmir. There appear to be no objection to the content itself, just the assignment of additional categories and not using existing category - is that correct? --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I got this reviewed by many uninvolved editors so I am going to completely disregard WP:INDICSCRIPTS consensus as this article is not only managed by a single project being a disputed territory and being related to international projects regardless of which nation is right / wrong or holds any direct influence in the actual Kashmir conflict. Being under the scope of multiple projects, it conforms to general wikipedia standards and wider norms such as those followed at other projects in addition to the fact that Urdu is not even an Indicscript, rather persio-arabic. I didn't get what you meant by the state having other scripts as well because I am not against adding the other scripts as well. Is there any argument other than indicscripts that is behind that revert? Including all scripts is a constructive move IMO, but its no big deal and silly to re-revert over it so let's discuss here. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
An IP has recently updated the population figures for the major cities [17]. Can somebody double check them please? Can we also have the source where these figures come from? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Formerly a part of the erstwhile Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu, which governed the larger historic region of Kashmir, the region is the subject of a territorial conflict...
I am not sure if it's only me but I find lede slightly confusing for an uninitiated leader. As early as in the second paragraph of the lead we get a plethora of terms containing the word "Kashmir", and as as result the reader must be getting lost as to what specifically this article is all about. (This seems to be not clear even to many editors, judging from the text!).
In my understanding, the intention is that "Jammu and Kashmir" should relate strictly to the current administrative entity in India, i.e., only to the territories under actual Indian control. A mirror article about Pakistani-controlled territories is Azad Jammu and Kashmir (and, partly, Gilgit-Baltistan) which, similarly, should deal only with the administrative entity within the Pakistani structures. So, in my view this article should only marginally touch upon the broader Kashmir conflict, and definitely it should steer clear from confusing the geographic reach of Jammu & Kashmir with the reach of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir and Jammu.
In its current form, the lead section is way too overloaded with references to the conflict and to territories outside J&K, including naming disputes for a Pakistani administrative entity.
I suggest that the second para is rewritten.
Similarly, much of the content in the History section below is overladen with references to the conflict, even though the territorial dispute does not relate specifically to J&K but to the entire Kashmir region, and the analysis unnecessarily duplicates Kashmir conflict.
I suggest this article is left to describe the land controlled by India; AJK article to talk about Pakistani-administered land; and all discussion about the conflict (except brief mentions) is relegated to Kashmir conflict. Regards, kashmiri TALK 12:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
J&k isn't an indian state! Plz don't provide wrong information and change it! For further information read! kashmir conflict Zaif1010 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
it is controversial area & writers of Wikipedia should mention it controversial not the state of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.79.1 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes! That's what I am trying to say Zaif1010 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please take it to the talk page before performing unexplained removal of sourced content. Also please stop making vandalism edits. this page is about Indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir - not the entire princely state of Kashmir which now is divided in parts controlled by India, Pakistan and China. thank you --Sdmarathe (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I have have checked all those Policies and found that scholarly sources are better for information about academic topics like specialized article on Science while Kashmir is an ongoing regional conflict between two countries so along with books, News sources will be reliable for these Articles and BBC is a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Moreover In this particlar source BBC is representing historical facts instead of Opinion. So i should restore my Sourced edits. HIAS (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello , Friends
The previous note was written about Azad kashmir and is still Present in Article Azad kashmir. Now i have created another note for Article Jammu and Kashmir and replaced it. Please reply here if have any problem with that. HIAS (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Jammu Kashmir is not just a land dispute between Indian & Pakistan but a problem of national freedom of Kashmiries. Wikipedia writers must not write Jammu Kashmir/Azad Kashmir as part of India or Pakistan. As per the ground reality and the struggle of Kashmiri people, this is obvious that kashmiries wants freedoom from both Indian and Pakistan. As UN has already described Jammu Kashmir as "disputed territory", so this must not be mentioned as India or Pakistani part.
Rizwan Ashraf 07:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwan ashraf khaksar (talk • contribs)
Happy sage made a series of edits today, all of which were apparently reverted. Having been the first to revert some of them, I am opening a discussion so that we can arrive at consensus:
On the whole, I think the edits were well-meaning and raised valid issues. I would urge all the editors to be more welcoming to newbies, and discuss the issues rather than blindly reverting edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Human3015,User:Thomas.W ,EdJohnston ,User:LjL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy sage (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Everybody should note that, when there is a main article link in a section, the section is expected to summarise the main article where more details and discussion can be found. See WP:SUMMARY. If any new content has been added to the summary that is not present in the main article, the ((Sync)) should be added. More detailed discussion of the issue along with citations must then be added to the main article. The "History" section has three main articles, Kashmir conflict being the most important one. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@IgnorantArmies: please note that while it is easy to point on me,i definitely believe you misunderstood my intentions. please scrutinize ur own reactions too,especially because edits were reverted without explainations.
.A Southern Muslim speaking a common local language will have a sense of cultural belonging to a local Hindu, Christian than an Arab Muslim. All these consistently highlight "assuming religion as the sole factor " for a nation formation which was done by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.The shortcoming of the theory is highlighted in Bangladesh Civil War.
WHAT I PROPOSE is placement of " In 1941, Kashmir's population was 77.06% Muslim, 20.46% Hindu, 1.37% Sikh, 1.01% Buddhist, and 0.10% Unspecified Others."sentence in demographics section,to avoid unnecessary confusion and it is not in chronology too, #haphazard, #wrong things implied. /what do you think User:Kautilya3 ,User:Human3015,User:Thomas.W ,EdJohnston ,User:LjL Happy sage (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that "Hari Singh had ascended the throne of Kashmir[12] in 1925 and was the reigning monarch at the conclusion of British rule in the subcontinent in 1947. One of the conditions of the partition of India imposed by Britain was that the rulers of princely states would have the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or remain independent. In 1941, Kashmir's population was 77.06% Muslim, 20.46% Hindu, 1.37% Sikh, 1.01% Buddhist, and 0.10% Unspecified Others.On 22 October 1947, locals and tribesmen backed by Pakistan invaded Kashmir." What i m proposing is the highlighted statement about religion should be placed in demographics section.I have explained the reasons above. Happy sage (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I concede that ″ religious composition matters to Pakistan, and perhaps at least to some Kashmiris ″ .My point was ,the use of one side perspective about religious composition should be avoided.That was the reason for my opposition Kautilya3
But,since many believe that Perspective of Religion is important , and not to be omitted ,i propose a comprimise.
wp:agf i call upon any responsible person to prepare a draft with these changes ,which shall be presented here and shall be discussed upon and after agreement,it shall be be placed in the page Jammu & Kashmir. Thanks... Happy sage (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Most of the contents,even the controversial ones have been placed into the page Jammu and Kashmir directly without using talk page.I ,for the same reason, call for a close scrutiny of the page and want to ask the editors who put them,without discussions here , to provide rationale for so many direct edits ,which is against the The five pillars of Wikipedia Some of the bias according to me are here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir Talk:Jammu and Kashmir/section=7 heading Today's edits as pointed by Kautilya3
Happy sage (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The centre of attention is two citations from The China Post's commentary section. The link is [1] .
citations used for
comments : 1.first citation made is used to say "according to The China Post",which is clearly false,since it is not the position of The China Post,but a commentary(which i think is used for opinions..correct if wrong). *also note that it is trying to make a very controversial remark saying "India cites the 1951 elected Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which were, according to The China Post, widely perceived as being fixed,[54".This can clearly make reputation damage in relation to The China Post by claimg "according to china post".the article was the opinion(?) of ' Sikandar Shah- a former legal adviser to Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.'(as is claimed in the site..
2.Second citation is regarding ″...internal self-determination, which the population of Kashmir has consistently been deprived of″ Which is in the ″Pakistan holds that″ subheading. It is also not the position of ″govt of pakistan″ either but instead is an opinion of the writer. 3.editor(please someone tag him here,i dont know how to find him ) who added this has clearly misrepresented the opinion(?) of someone else as that of the china post in the first case and of Pakistan in the other. This became the original research of the editor on sikander shah's opinion by misquoting 4.Citation is not reliable for contentious issue. i request senior editors such as user:kautilya3 to help in next possible actions Happy sage (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Governor-General Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession, it added the proviso that it would be submitted to a popular referendum since "only the people, not the Maharaja, could decide where Kashmiris wanted to live." It was a provisional accession.[22][23][24][note 2] Nyla Ali Khan states that the people could accept or reject the accession to India.[24][25]Once the Instrument of Accession was signed, Indian soldiers entered Kashmir with orders to evict the raiders Why has the Nyla Khan(grand daughter of Mr. Abdullah)'s opinion be used here.She was only born in the year of signing shimla agreement 1972 and that statement intrudes in the discussion of the history of the conflict as indicated above ! If that opinion is used to justify(?) things, Virtually anyone's opinion will have to come.Wikipedia and the page "jammu and kashmir″ is not for collecting opinions..If that opinion's placement is any valid ,it should have been an opinion of a figure of authority on J & K issue such as Abdullah ji himself. Simply put,the page is not for discussing opinions of different people(?)and irrelevant placement in the history section Happy sage (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not directly mentioned in the source. But ,is implied by the following lines in the source ″After Chinese authority was established in Tibet and reasserted in Xinjiang, Chinese forces penetrated into the northeastern parts of Ladakh. This was done mainly because it allowed them to build a military road through the Aksai Chin plateau area (completed in 1956–57) to provide better communication between Xinjiang and western Tibet″ Happy sage (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
References
@Randhawasingh: Your edit [24] has three problems:
So, I am reverting your edit again. You should not reinstate it until consensus is reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/censusinfodashboard/stock/profiles/en/IND001_Jammu%20&%20Kashmir.pdf
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/Religion_pca/RL-0100.xlsx
Now, area of Jammu Kashmir under Indian control(including entire Siachen Glacier) is 101,387 sq. km, although entire K&K state area claimed by India is 222,236 km2. In this Siacheen Glacier area is approx. 200 km2, where there is no civilian and only army controls thats, which in effect does not bring that area under the administration of J&K state government.
Density= Total population/Total area (Formula used)
J&K state population under Indian control(excluding Siachen glacier) approx . stands at 101,140 sq. km
The revised population of J&K state released by Govt. of India on 25 August 2015 was 12,541,302
Density of J&K therefore was 12,541,302/101,140 = 124/km2
Similar exclusion of POK and Aksai Chin area was done for Indian density which was pegged at 385.8/km2
--Randhwasingh (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC) the population of the cities of jammu and kashmir is not as per the census figures, the population of jammu city is around 5 lacs and srinagar around 11 lacs, where as the population of jammu district is 15 lacs, whereas the population of the srinagar is 12 lacs
The map that Ljgua124 replaced with is hardly the 'standard'. It represents a a biased POV. Why should the part of Kashmir that India claims and controls be shown in stripes? I see none of that at the Azad Kashmir and Xinjiang article, where they're shown as integral parts. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverted this being not in the source given.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 21:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Note this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Edit warring and no discussion is not acceptable. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Kuatliya, Ref this, where you POVed by changing the text to "Pakistan-controlled territories" from simple NPOV text of "Pakistani territories" and also changed the generic text "it was expected" to "many people in Pakistan expected" by giving a vague edit summary: "Reverting some vandalism and some minor updates", please explain how can Pakistanis "expect (as early as) 1941 that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan" when there was no Pakistan in 1941? There was a reason that the original statement said "it was expected" instead of specifying "who". Partition of Indian was accepted by the British in 3rd June Plan (1947), not in 1941. BTW, you also pushed POV when you changed the text to "Pakistan-controlled" instead of "Pakistan-administered" against WP:NPOV. Then you again reverted to the same text despite the understanding that Pakistan came into being in 1947 and not 1941. How can Pakistanis expect something when there was no Pakistan?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong in claiming that I changed "it was expected." My original text is here. I was merely reinstating it as I noticed that it had been vandalised. You changed it back and started chasing the red herring of 1941.
"Pakistan-controlled" and "Pakistan-administered" are both NPOV. Read the footnote 1, which was agreed between Mar4d, me and a number of other editors before you ever came on the scene.
I regard the change of this section title to be an WP:ASPERSION. Since you haven't provided any evidence of "POV", I would appreciate it if you change it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
TripWire deleted content [25] with the edit summary There was no Pakistan in 1941 when census was held. The sentence is about "Partition Logic" not the people.
After reinstating the content saying that it wasn't dealing with the events in "1941," deleted it again [26], claiming There was no Pakistan either in 1941. Site your source which says "Pakistanis" expected in "1941" that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan.
Dear TripWire, citing 1941 census data doesn't mean that we are stuck in 1941 forever. We are talking about events in 1947. As for sources that says "Pakistanis expected Kashmir will form part of Pakistan," here are a few:
Your edit changing the sentence to it was expected
is wholly unsatisfactory. Pakistan expected. India didn't. You can't write it as if it is a universal truth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
References
@Filpro: Please stop replacing the default map with the POV version. We have a policy-based reason not to use the latter map. The map should only highlight the de facto Jammu and Kashmir territory, not Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan. Those two territories can be hatched in a light shade (but not coloured) to show the territorial claim, which is already done. The maps on Azad Kashmir and GB have the same position, only the de facto territories are highlighted while Jammu and Kashmir is hatched (not coloured). Given you 'thanked' me for correcting the map, your revert makes no sense to me. Please note issues like these are covered by WP:ARBIPA; there is no compromise over it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Should the native language used in the infobox stay or should it be removed as per WP:INDICSCRIPTS? Thanks. - Ind akash (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jammu and Kashmir. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wobacuken (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jammu and Kashmir. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I am a Kashmiri from Indian Occupied Kashmir and I take strong objection referring to J&K as Indian State. Nowhere in UN resolutions is it allowed to call J&K as Indian State. I would like to request reply and amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashourr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
J&K is an occupied Nation by India and it should be mentioned that India is bound by UN resolution to hold the long due plebiscite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashourr (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jammu and Kashmir. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would suggest linking an Urdu Name, as Urdu is an official language of "Jammu And Kashmir". Here is the Urdu Name جمو و کشمیر Wajidmehraj (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I think history of the state is only covered since middle 20th century. That is a very tiny fraction of its rich history.It needs a good covering since ancient/prehistoric times. -- Happy sage (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jammu and Kashmir. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jammu and Kashmir is union territory Vikashdwivedikat (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article 370 which gives Jammu & Kashmir autonomous status has been scrapped on 5th August 2019. [1] KFI 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4052:2010:6DB7:0:0:2621:18AC (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Remove jk flag Yashvats08 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Please REMOVE the J&K Flag, Add as Indian 8th Territory. Removal of Article 35A and Article 370
Change the flag of Jammu and Kashmir to Indian flag
as of removable of Article 370. Now it's a Indian state and no other Flags are allowed.. Bjelite (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
After the recent change and removal of Artical 370... Now add the Emblem of India ..
Bjelite (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Now, add the language Hindi and English too after the recent changes in Constitution of J&K. Bjelite (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "It has special status under article 370" to "It no longer has special status due to the abrogation of article 370,which was abrogated by an ordinance that was passed by The President on 5th August 2019" 117.222.204.147 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
India News - Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/article-370-to-be-scrapped-what-impact-will-it-have-on-jk/articleshow/70534157.cms 2402:8100:308E:B0E9:92F9:3A6E:7DAE:7A14 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Manal Zehra (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I want to change that Jammu and Kashmir in India to Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan or Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan and India. Actually the ongoing matter in Kashmir is that some of it is in Pakistan and some of it is in India. Azaad Kashmir is in Pakistan and Indian-Occupied Kashmir is in India.[1] [2]
References
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jammu and Kashmir now a union territory with legislative assembly (previously included ladakh region now a separate union territory without legislative assembly as per the changes made with the assent of President Of Union of India on 5th of Aug 2019 by ebolishing Article 35a and 307) 27.7.218.246 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.172.125.30 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Please update the information listed in the page , as Jammu and Kashmir is now not a state , but two union territories of the Republic of India , the two being Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh .Please do so at the earliest. Thank You
Please Note -Further information is provided in several news reports around the world.
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jammu and kashmir is no longer a state in India . It is declared as a union territory . Article 370 and 35A have been revoked. 2402:3A80:690:936C:0:56:EAD3:5001 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Change statehood of Kashmir to union territory as bills in lok and rajya sabha has been passed.[1] Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is a Union Territory now. Plz update it ASAP 117.203.203.183 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
A newspaper article is not a reliable source for such changes. Journalists are not legal and constitutional experts, and often jump the gun. Wait for the Reorganisation Act and an appointed day to be published in the official gazette. Only then will it have legal effect. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we add a de jure and de facto to this article? The area is currently being disputed between China, Pakistan, and India. If we are going to add it, then the area is India de jure and all three countries de facto. INeedSupport (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It was originally added here. Somebody with an overactive imagination. Surprisingly, it has been retained ever since even though several nonsensical sources were added later on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I must admit I liked the infobox collage proposed by 116.72.130.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in this edit. It resembles the one in Uttarakhand. Anyone has any objections against restoring it? — kashmīrī TALK 17:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Its not a state of India but a state occupied by India. An occupied state where 600.000 army is deployed and today they are held as prisoner. It is requested to change these wording, so at least Wikipedia will contribute to those innocent peoples movement. Hope you will consider this in eye of humanity and facts. 92.35.95.67 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xassz (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Please this country is still in India and it doesn't direct to a page of India as India isn't highlighted. Please add flag of India India so it directs to the page of India. Thanks!
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jammu and Kashmir- Union Territory Ladakh- Union Territory 42.107.84.67 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xassz (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Please this country is still in India and it doesn't direct to a page of India as India isn't highlighted. Please add India so it can direct to the page of India
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xassz (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)can you add the flag next to country -- India by doing India. It is under the Indian control. Thanks. Please see on the news too if you don't know whose army is present.
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xassz (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Can you please add a flag next to country: India? The government has talked about the removal of Kashmir flag since they had their own flag next to the country's flag but now after the bill, everything will be under the one flag. Adding a flag would be beneficial to the readers.
The locator map (File:IN-JK.svg) used for Jammu and Kashmir in this article is incorrect. It shows part of Aksai Chin (bottom right) as controlled by India and the Trans-Karakoram tract as part of Pakistan. I have already notified the uploader User:Filpro on Commons of this error so that he can upload a new version. The best locator map for JK was this File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg but it is now outdated and does not demarcate Telangana.
The error in Filpro's map for JK is replicated over other locator maps by him as well which are currently used in articles for all Indian states. We cannot keep using these maps and they should be replaced by the correct ones. It would be great if Filpro can upload correct versions shortly but the current incorrect maps shouldn't stay there for long; we can use ((mapframe)) and display OpenStreetMap in the meantime. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The Chinese narrative mentions that on October 28: “the Chinese troops had achieved their objectives and had occupied the Kailash Range that dominated the eastern bank of the Indus Valley. All the seven Indian strongholds in this sub-sector were removed and New Demchok itself was captured.”
The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
After studying things a bit, I find that the Indian feelings of self-righteous indignation are not quite valid. The Chinese claim line is the same as the boundary published by British India in its Kashmir Atlas of 1867. This map is curiously missing from the Indian government's collection [31]. But the Qing Chinese map in the collection shows the same border. So does the high-resolution French military map of World War I times, displayed on the side here. (Use the map viewer to narrow down to the area.) The British moved the border up from Demchok to Fukche (the junction with the Koyul River). Why they did so is unclear. Alastair Lamb says it was a "balancing act". They claimed extra territory near the Spanggur Lake and gave up some territory in the Demchok sector. I can't find any discussion of this anywhere. If somebody has Parshotam Mehra's Negotiating with the Chinese, there might be some discussion there.
But these British map-making exercises don't seem to have made any difference on the ground. Both the Ladakhis and the Tibetans still regarded Demchok as the border, as pointed out by Claude Arpi's article mentioned above. The 1959 Indian government's border definition is essentially this, except that it took the liberty to move it to the watersheds (crests of the mountain ridges) surrounding the area. This is not unreasonable. But many scholars point out that it had to be negotiated with the Chinese. India couldn't just put up border posts in the territory that was clearly marked as Tibetan territory in all the maps of the time, except India's own self-declared maps.
There wasn't really much fighting in the area in the 1962 war. The border posts were manned by J&K Militia (Ladakh Scouts). India tactically withdrew them, expecting that the Chinese would attack with overwhelming force as they were doing elsewhere. The Chinese forces came up to the Indus river in their claimed area, but not beyond. Romesh Bhattacharji says that the LAC is the right bank of the Indus river and that the Chinese maps show it as the "IB" (international border). I can't verify this. All the maps I have seen show the Chinese claim line. (google.cn isn't accessible to me, if it still exists.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the CIA map that we take to be authentic, here is an interpretation of the state of affairs that is consistent with everything I know. The war histories of 1962 say that the Indian troops withdrew to Koyul and Dungti, which are outside the Chinese claim line. So, the Chinese deem themselves to have advanced to their claim line (which is now the "Line of Actual Control" in their view, as confirmed by the CIA). But withdrew to the other side of the Indus as a mark of their large-heartedness (don't laugh). So, they let the Indians use this side of the Indus, but do not allow any permanent constructions there. They also deem fit to enter it at any time they please in order to block or threaten people. Indians have been playing along with this interpretation of the LAC but explain it to their citizens as a "difference in perceptions of the LAC".
Here are some tidbits from a BJP study group headed by Nitin Gadkari in 2010:[2]
So, it seems that officially the Chinese claim line is the LAC. Indians can't object to the incursions because they know this.
You wonder why this Chinese largesse? I think the reason is that the Chinese know their claim line in Demchok is bogus. Yeah, the British drew stupid maps, but nobody ever took any account of them. All the historical documents say clearly that "Demchok Lhari Karpo" is the border. So, I think the Chinese will be quite willing to withdraw from there, but only after India settles the big ticket items, viz., Aksai Chin and Tawang. Until then, we will only have smoke and mirrors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
References
@Fowler&fowler: Sir, can't we just simply write Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian-administered state in the Kashmir region...
instead of Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in the south- and southeast portion of Kashmir which is administered by India as a state
. IMO it looks complicated and the "south- and southeast" part reminds me of the "north-central region" thing in the Uttar Pradesh article which you opposed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Azad Kashmir is part of the greater Kashmir region, which is the subject of a long-running conflict between Pakistan and India" could be duplicated here without any harm. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"Indian-administered" state of Jammu and Kashmirin the lead though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost territory administered by India as a state? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian-administered state?
The problem with a snatch of conversation from the State Department's Office of Historian is that it is a primary source, which can be easily misinterpreted. The US had said many things at different times in the 1950s. However what is clear is that they sponsored the plebiscite resolution and stated clearly that the formation of the state assembly, from whose ranks the government was appointed, was not consistent with their resolution. See here. Clearly, the US did not consider J&K to be a state of India if they did not consider the government of the state to be legal. As far as I know, India has not managed to appoint or elect a government in J&K that the US has considered legal. If there was even a snowball's chance in hell of any part of Kashmir being undisputedly a part of India all the CIA maps of Kashmir would have been different. You would not have had the clear "administered by India" in File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg. India, in the US view, does not have undisputed sovereignty over this region. I can easily pull up many secondary sources which state the same. The UN itself doesn't make any pronouncements about whether a territory is disputed, but Kashmir is clearly the oldest dispute before the UN. WP is beholden only to secondary sources. These, by the many, do use "disputed territory" when speaking about Kashmir. I can easily dig up many references for that too. It is very simple. J&K is the Indian administered region of Kashmir. That is its primary definition. That it is a state, ie that India has sovereignty over this region it administers, is disputed by many countries including the US, the UK. That is why I suggested, "It is a state in the Indian union as the second sentence." I am surprised that this bit of verbal subterfuge has managed to creep in without anyone challenging it earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in Kashmir administered by India as its northernmost state" as the first sentence? It mentions location (northernmost state) as well as the phrase "administered by India" like your edit instead of "Indian-administered" - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed not using "dispute" is the well-known Indian government line,"the Clinton White House seemed equally inclined, especially during its first term in office, to draw attention routinely to Indian human rights abuses in Kashmir, and, from time to time, to issue blunt reminders to New Delhi that Kashmir was still understood, from Washington's point of view, as a disputed territory. The most barefaced instance of this—the observation in October 1993 by the Clinton-appointed Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Lynn Raphel that "we [the U.S. government] view Kashmir as a disputed territory and that means that we do not recognise that Instrument of Accession as meaning that Kashmir is forever more an integral part of India"—detonated a nearly unprecedented explosion of hate commentary in the Indian press."
just as using it is the Pakistani line, but the scholarly sources have clearly sided with Pakistani usage. @My Lord: I think you might be conflating the Kashmir region and the Kashmir Valley. The latter is indeed a part of J&K; however, on WP, Kashmir is a much larger region. @Fylindfotberserk: Still the same problem with "state." I'm now leaning towards, "Jammu and Kashmir is the Indian administered portion of the disputed region of Kashmir. In India's administrative divisions, it is considered to be a state." (with equivalent statements in the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Aksai Chin pages). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)"Notable were the several explicit references in these documents to the urgency of resolving the Kashmir issue. The two governments, in the first operative paragraph of the Lahore Declaration, expressed their agreement to "intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir." Carefully worded to remain consistent with India's longstanding refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a disputed territory, these references, by inscribing Kashmir indelibly—and prominently—on the official bilateral agenda, were, nevertheless, a clear concession to Pakistan." (Wirsing, page 24)
Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in the southern portion of Kashmir which is administered by India as a state.for now. This "south- and southeast" is killing me.
References
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kashmir pages.-Nizil (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Please let us keep in mind that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 has not yet come into force. Consequently, J&K still remains an undivided state of India, and will remain such until the so-called "appointed day", to be announced by the Government of India separately.[33]
Consequently, until the day comes, please do NOT replace maps, change "state" to "Union Territory", etc. — kashmīrī TALK 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
4. On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new Union territory to beknown as the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir...
2 (a) “appointed day” means the day which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint
After the following paragraph "On 5 August 2019, the government of India moved to scrap the Article 370 from the Constitution of India and introduced a bill to divide the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The move was preceded by significant military build-up in the state, a curfew, a statewide cut-off of internet and mobile connectivity, and arrests of local political leaders.[31]"
Following information which is directly related to this paragraph must be included.
[As per International Commission of Justice, "The Indian Government’s revocation of the autonomy and special status of Jammu and Kashmir violates the rights of representation and participation guaranteed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Constitution and in international law and is a blow to the rule of law and human rights in the state and in India. The move was preceded by a communication blackout, arbitrary detention of political leaders, banned movement and meetings of people, and increased military presence, purportedly to quell protests. The procedure adopted to revoke the special status and autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir appears to be incompatible with judgments and observations of high courts and the Indian Supreme Court, who have clarified that the President of India would need the agreement of the government of Jammu and Kashmir to change its status. The ICJ condemns the legislative steps taken with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, and calls on the Indian Government to implement in full the UN High Commissioner’s recommendations, including respecting the right to self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of people in Jammu and Kashmir."]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidlatif85 (talk • contribs)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 has passed both Rajya Sabha (Upper House) and Lok Sabha (lower House) of the parliament. The state of Jammu and Kashmir doesn't exist any more, it has been bifurcated into the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir (With Legislative Assembly) and the Union Territory of Ladakh (without Legislative assembly). Therefore the UTs are not proposed now but it has been created. The article was updated earlier multiple times to reflect the current change but it was re changed again to the state of J&K. It is unacceptable that Wikipedia doesn't accept the current changes that took. Please take appropriate steps to update this article now. Debjyoti Gorai 15:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
With the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, the former Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been divided and reorganised into two union territories (UTs). One is the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir comprising the Jammu and Kashmir areas of the former J&K state, and excludes the region of Ladakh. It’s a UT with an assembly and Lieutenant Governor (similar to Delhi and Puducherry UTs in India). The second part is a separate union territory of Ladakh without an Assembly. Pediasher (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Changes needed on this and connected pages thereafter are : marking out on all maps, the districts of Kargil and Leh (of the Ladakh Division) as the Union Territory of Ladakh. Then marking out the area of the remaining 20 districts as UT of Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, the pictures on this page that are from Leh, Ladakh need to be moved out of this page and put into perhaps a new page for Ladakh UT.
Please change the status of Jammu and Kashmir as Union territory. And split ladahh as individual. The law has signed by President of India. Subrata8352 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The page for the state of J&K should be changed in accordance with the recent events and reorganizing exercise. Also, there are a lot of points in the article which contradict the present scenario revolving around. It would be great if the admins pay some attention to all this as it will be a long process given the amount of changes which have to be made. Or the admin access be revoked and edits which have due citations be validated so that the changes can be made faster and preferably Indian admins should be involved in the issue. If there is a provision of selective access to the article then we can decide who to give access for edits by discussing on the talk page. There is a lot of renundant information. The reorganization bill is now a Law for everybody's info as the Presidential ascent as already been received revoking clause 2 and 3 of article 370 and this the special status so please update the necessary. AnadiDoD (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "is a state" to "is a Union Territory" Change "Jammu and Kashmir consists of three regions" to "Jammu and Kashmir consists of two regions" and remove details about Ladakh. Remove Ladakh from Administrative divisions. Remove Leh, Kargil references from this article 117.215.25.123 (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: please could you explain your claim that this map is POV?
I came here to try to understand Modi’s decision to split the state in two and to allow settlement by other Indians.
I read the third paragraph of the lead (“Jammu and Kashmir consists of three regions...”) and looked for a map showing me where these regions were, but we didn’t have one. Consensus deems this explanation to be so important that it has an entire paragraph in the lead, so why we show it in map form do you consider it POV?
Onceinawhile (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I may be new to this page but that is no excuse for your behavior.
You just reverted an entirely uncontroversial illustration of the divisions of the province, together with text explaining the demographics which was taken word for word from the lead, and therefore has clear consensus.
Aggressive reverts are not called for here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Making sure that the text complies with Wikipedia guidelines is not considered ownership. I had written out the lead in careful NPOV fashion once before (see here) It was changed by someone, see here, who introduced POV information. You then made a series of edits. You (unwittingly) copied the POV edits from the lead into the demography section. I did not know that the lead had been changed. I then reverted your edits, because they had introduced POV text into an article section. Upon doing so, I realized that the lead had the same problem. I then had to fix the lead again. I have limited time. I would like to precisely explain the nature of the problem clearly to another editor each time I interact with them. However, sometime time and other constraints do not allow such precision. That is what happened. I did realize that the map was a new one, but the text was contaminated. I had no choice but to revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xassz (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)No, it doesn't make any sense. When the disputed territories that lie in Pakistan and China can offer map then why can't India? Please add map next to country India by doing India
GILGIT BALISTAN has a flag too can you please remove it? Also, I don't know why you don't keep flags. It is just a real information when there is a flag and authentic information. Why can't we have a flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xassz (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
When will the UT status be updated? 31 October, fine, but what time? 0:00 IST or is there going to be some announcement? Because last time in 2014 there was no announcement for Telangana and there was intiially some confusion whether the bill was in function and then governor confirmed it took place automatically and immediately after the date was satisfied. 2.51.190.39 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Jammu and Kashmir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the flag of jammu and kashmir and replace it to flag of india, article 370 has been abolished already. Alescocznamo (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Kindly correct Jammu map and avoid showing it Indian Territory. It is a disputed region declared by UN, OIC and all news papers. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Both article has removed by indian government. Rakesh k swami (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Plz update page remove j k flag and make it a union territory Yashvats08 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Kindly avoid Hindu extremism by Nazi inspired RSS goons. These Hindu supremacist are trying to convert Muslim majority of Kashmir to Hindu using rape if women, kidnapping if young boys and army based cerfews. https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/08/13/kashmir-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss/ Ngnrpu (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It is proposed Union Territory not state Arpitgupta2705 (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Kashmir is Muslim majority based British Raj era state. It is disputed region and was destined to decide it's future by United Nations based plebiscite. It is flash point for third world war with three nuclear states China, Pakistan and India claiming it. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)