Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:10, 6 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kashmir conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Jammu and Kashmir High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Top-importance). Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force

A lot of the discussion about disputes and problems with the article can be found at Talk:Kashmir.

This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Edit Request, 13December 2010

Concerned about the addition of this "Kashmir Watch website" which in reality is really biased in its coverage tending to a heavily pro-Pakistani establishment bias, it has no information on PoK adminstration structures but heavily denigrates that of a democratically elected government in (Indian) Kashmir E.G.:- http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines.php?subaction=showfull&id=1291869164&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&var0news=value0news http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines.php?subaction=showfull&id=1291979396&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&var0news=value0news More can be given....

Photograph of dead child

I assume every major conflict in world history has abominably led to the murder of innocent children on the part of all involved parties. However, these images are highly disturbing. Unless the focus of the conflict was murdering children or the article is specifically covering such an incident, I suggest that these images are either displayed optionally (not directly possible with the current software), removed as inflammatory, or that a warning be placed at the top of the article. If a child would like to learn about the conflict in Kashmir, must he or she be subjected to such disturbing imagery? One may say that such images realistically demonstrate the cost of war; however, they may also provoke further violence, particularly in an ongoing struggle. I view them as further victimizing the innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.40.88 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the picture because it is impossible to verify that it shows what the caption says it shows. --rgpk (comment) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture is from wandhama Massacre. Another reference - here , here.

of people who were killed at Wandhama. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. The photo is quite disturbing. For some reason, it was re-inserted again without prior discussion here. I have removed it for now. Mar4d (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edits, agian

I have again removed your edits to the article, and for exactly the same reasons as last time: you cannot say things like "the Pakistanis conveniently forget" as this type of wording does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. That type of wording takes a side in the issue, rather than supplying the information in a neutral way and letting the reader make up their own mind. The second reason for the reversion is you are saying that "the most popular, National Conference, was also in favour of acceding to India". The source you provided does not back up the claim that the National Conference was the most popular, and does not say they were in favour of acceding to India, at least not in the quotation your provided. The quotation you provided does not mention the National Conference at all. If the material appears elsewhere in the book, please provide the page number where you found it. That will allow other readers to confirm that the information is actually there, in keeping with Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability. Thank you. --Diannaa 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The former sentence may certainly be objectionable, but the latter is true and has references (please see the first sentence of the last paragraph of ref#64), which I've provided and so I request you to let it remain.-VonBismarck (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The present wording is acceptable, except the phrase "most popular". That does not appear in the quoted source. Thank you for taking the time to edit your addition to meet the needs of Misplaced Pages. --Diannaa 22:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ref 64 mentions that it was popular, please see the first sentence of the last paragraph of ref#64.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It says it was "the largest popular organization", not that it was the most popular. Why don't you put that it was "the largest political party"? That is closely supported by the ref. --Diannaa 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

JKNC was the most popular ( and largest) political party and was in favor of acceding to India at that time. With a few hiccups it maintains that position even today. For those of you who want some more info on what happened those days please read Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. any party which could win 75/75 seats in an election deserves to be called popular.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess the consensus it to include it then. --Diannaa 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

"The Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite, but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir, thus violating the conditions for holding the plebiscite. The Indian Government wanted Pakistan to remove its forces as per the resolution, before any plebiscite. Moreover the regular elections in Kashmir affirmed the state's status as part of India. " The phrase is given in the cited link. and the Phrase has been presented here after slight changes in tense and not simply copy pasted. dBigXray 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

the source also states the following: "but in the 1950s, the indian government distanced itself from its commitment to hold a plebiscite", under the section named "plebiscite abandoned", a fact you keep removing from the article along with other sourced content. i suggest you read before making ludicrous false allegations.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

user dBigXray/deepshraj deleted my comment (!) demonstrating that he's not interested in any discussion , hence confirming my suspicion that he's a pov-pushing spa.-- mustihussain (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not deleted your comments. perhaps both of us were editing at the same time this talk page hence the conflicting changes were not produced . even my comments got stuck . The meaning of the content in the unbiased version by Wikireader1 is the same as that posted in the cited link.mustihussain is presenting the Pakistani viewpoint on the issue, dBigXray 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

you're a liar. wiki records every change made to content. here, see your edit again . no-one has complained about my edits as they respect wp:npov, wp:nor. my edits actually improved the article. instead of making childish accusations i suggest you read before making false claims or go running off to others for help . my edits are "biased"? roflmao. this proves yet again that you're a (newly formed) pov-pushing spa -- mustihussain (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan administered Kashmir

I have reverted back the biased edits by Mustihussain . In the Neutral Literature the area under Pakistan is known as 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' , similar to the 'Indian administered Kashmir'. The name Azad(meaning = Free) Kashmir is a misnomer given by the Pakistan Government even though the area comes under direct control by Pakistan , and is not free under any definitions. The Area called Jammu and Kashmir which is the area under Indian Control is referred to as 'Indian administered Kashmir' in neutral literature. So lets keep the article neutral and unbiased. Further classification of 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' into various zones also presents the Pakistani View point on the issue and not the Neutral View point that is present in the Neutral literature. dBigXray 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

the so-called "azad" kashmir and gilgit-baltistan are sections under the "pakistan administrated kashmir"-chapter. it's quite obvious that they fall under "pakistan administrated kashmir". it's also obvious that "azad" kashmir is not free as noted by reliable sources in the same section. my edits have infinitely improved the "pakistan administrated kashmir"-chapter by removing brazen examples of wp:or, especially concerning gilgit-baltistan. i have brutally complied to wp:npov...but i'm wasting my time here since you're not interested in improving the article as demonstrated by your blatant deletions of sourced content, and my comments above. -- mustihussain (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes You Mustihussain think that you your editings have a wp:npov when in reality you continue removing many lines related to human rights abuses by Pakistan in Pakistan Administered Kashmir, a difference between your version and the unbiased version by Wikireader41 clearly proves this. Its evident that for a Biased wp:pov like yours they are needless. Please do not remove precious unbiased contributions by other users. dBigXray 09:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

are you blind or something? read the section and you'll see that it mentions human rights abuses in kashmir. the topic covers almost the whole section! in addition, the section now complies with wp:nor and wp:npov. the older, unimproved version was not "unbiased" at all, especially regarding gilgit-baltistan. what a joke. -- mustihussain (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

yes you have included some points, agreed but you deleted many lines that were a part of this article. Moreover you are trying defend your actions of deleting the vital lines saying they were unimportant and needless. They are very important and very much needed in order to present a wp:npov of the Article. Using the Term "AZAD KASHMIR" for a region of Pakistan Administered Kashmir is itself a BIASED wp:pov . The earlier structure having a description of both the regions is more apt and better than your Biased version. By the way do you know where Muzaffarabad is ? check it . clearly shows your knowledge . dBigXray 09:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

mother of god! "azad kashmir" is a section under "pakistan administrated kashmir"-chapter. biased my foot. what is needed however is a lead to this chapter, explaining the term. the "many" lines you are referring to: some sentences were from unreliable dead links, other where half-baked original statements. however, i left in an unsupported sentence, criticizing pakistan, even though it should have been removed. if you want to improve the section then use wp:rs. however, i doubt that you're able to be constructive. ps: i don't need to know where muzaffarabad is. i just use what is written in the sources. how dense can you get? this also shows your ignorance about wikipedia, and it displays the fact that you actually don't read the sources! it's clear that you're being disingenuous (i caught you lying red handed above), and your attempt to canvassing others have failed miserably -- mustihussain (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop this edit war. dBigXray, you just revered my edits which had nothing to do with the edits of mustihussain. The text of this article before his edits seemed to be full of point-of-view wordings. His edits have improved the text, but even now the text is not perfect in concerns of POV. Please don't revert those edits without discussing each one of the changes here. --Johanneswilm (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now gone through this particular section. It seems to me that the POV is gone, at least in relation to the works cited. Please don't revert before discussing any further, both of you. Other sections of the article would likely still need to be investigated for POV. --Johanneswilm (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Added some of the missing citations and the contents associated that were previously removed by other users as the Links of 'the Dawn' newspaper were dead.I have also removed a repeated content ", although many of the Gilgit-Baltistanis want their area to be merged into Pakistan and declared a separate province" repeated in para 1 and para 3 of this subsection.dBigXray 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i removed the statements of two miniscule groups from the section. totally undue. in addition, the section concerns human right violations and not the aspirations of fringe ten-man groups. no statements from such anti-indian groups are given in section 3.1... suggest you keep the wp:npov.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i agree that this section concerns human rights violations and not political aspirations. hence removing the lines concerning political aspirations is a better move. but the Ethnic demography of the region which leads to sectarian violence and furthur violations of human rights cannot be ignored and removed moreover the cited links provide more related info. hence allow them to be a part of the article. also the same section mentions later that "The rise of sectarian extremism is an alarming consequence of this denial of basic political rights" so a short description is relevant to the section. dBigXray 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User Deepeshraj (dBigXRay), when user Mustihussain reverted you, it meant there was no consensus, and you needed to obtain one on the talk-page. Instead, you inserted your edits again. This constitutes edit warring. You removed all sentences about the existence of the demand of Gilgit-Baltistans to join Pakistan. This is POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Please discuss here before reverting again. --Johanneswilm (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

firstly, deepeshraj or dbigxray is being, yet again, disingenuous. he first reverted a sentence about gilgit-baltistani's demand of joining pakistan under the pretext that this was already mentioned in another sentence...he then proceeds with removing the other sentence as well! inconvenient fact eh? secondly, he claimed that he would remove the political aspirations of the fringe groups he loves so much, and yet, failed to do so! what deepeshraj is fails to comprehend is that such disruptive editing will completely destroy this article. deepeshraj is a disruptive pov-pusher and is unable to understand the concept of collaboration and consensus. wp:brd requires discussion and consensus.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Plebiscite proposals accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.

{{Editsemiprotected}} The article says "To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarization of the region. All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government."

If you look at the source TIME, it quotes the Pakistani Foreign Minister Malik Firoz Khan Noon.

"Pakistan, Noon declared, was anxious to see a U.N.-organized plebiscite policed by U.N. troops, but India had repeatedly blocked plebiscite proposals "by insisting on some new condition or raising irrelevant issues." Since 1949, noted Noon, "eleven proposals for settling the differences put forward. Pakistan accepted each; India rejected every one."

The current text in the article gives the impression that India rejected the proposals without any reason. It should be mentioned that India rejected the proposals by insisting on new conditions or raising other issues. 203.99.208.4 (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't do this as a simple "Change X to Y" edit request, sorry; please understand I can only process simple requests. For issues like this, please discuss it here, show consensus to change it, and re-request when that is available - giving details of exactly what should be changed. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

1. ^ Schofield, Victoria (2002-01-17). "Kashmir's forgotten plebiscite". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-01-03.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Pakistan articles
• High-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• C-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of High-importance
• C-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Top-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• C-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors