Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 23 October 2015

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: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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 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

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

In short, Pakistan holds

@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara:, this material doesn't make sense. The bullet points begin with "In short, Pakistan holds that...". Your insertion is neither "in short" nor is it the voice of "Pakistan." It is just a private columnist who is not a reliable source any way. So this is no good. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will search for an alternate Source. HIAS (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistan war of 1947 - revert

@NA122: Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, "substantial changes" is not a reason enough to revert here . If you reinstate deleted material the WP:BURDEN to defend it transfers it to you. You need to demonstrate that my reasons for deleting viz, "Deleting rehash of accession already covered in the earlier section along with WP:OR and editorializing" are not sound. Please do it now, or self-revert. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have restored it back to the version from 10 October. . I will give you 24 hours to produce sources for the deleted material. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No response in 24 hours. So I am reinstating my deletion. Another IP edit-warred complaining about "militant Muslims". I will use a sourced term "Muslim rebels." It is not appropriate to use "Muslim Kashmiris" because the real Kashmiris, the ethnic Kashmiris, fought the rebels and raiders. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

39.47.97.40, why don't you discuss your issues on the talk page? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 24 hours to respond ? is there any such policy. I agree with you to the extent of repeat sentences but for other things let us all disscuss and conclude. NA122 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New additions

I made addition with multiple Indian and Pakistani sources for J & K high court decision . New additions by Kautilya and others have no cross verifiable nuetral sources. 39.32.191.139 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

hi IP. Where did court said "Kashmir never merged with India"? It only says "Kashmir did not merge with India the way other princely states merged", and "it has special status and limited sovereignty under article 370 of Indian constitution". Actually Misplaced Pages is not news. There is no need of inclusion of this statement because court has said nothing new. Kashmir has special status and limited sovereignty is fact since Independence of India or since Indian constitution is established which has been already mentioned in article. But still we are including it in neutral manner the way court said. Nationalistic news papers can give headlines like "Kashmir High court says Kashmir never merged with India" and we can't do anything for that if they are doing it for their satisfaction. Court said "Kashmir did not merge with India like other princely states merged but it has limited sovereignty under article 370 of Indian constitution". --Human3015  07:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"New additions by Kautilya and others have no cross-verifiable neutral sources" - Misplaced Pages sources are expected to be reliable not "neutral." See WP:BIASED. I am listing my sources here. If you want to argue about their reliability, please do so. "Cross verification" is your problem. You can bring other sources if you wish and we can cross-compare them.

You should also note that the material you reinstated is unsourced. You cannot reinstate it. This article is under discretionary sanctions. Edit-warring here can get you blocked. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Copland, Ian (Feb 1991), "The Princely States, the Muslim League, and the Partition of India in 1947", The International History Review, 13 (1): 38–69, JSTOR 40106322
2. Noorani, A. G. (2014) , The Kashmir Dispute, 1947-2012, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-940018-8
3. Panigrahi, D. N. (2009), Jammu and Kashmir, the Cold War and the West, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-136-51751-8
4. Snedden, Christopher (2013) , Kashmir: The Unwritten History, HarperCollins India, ISBN 9350298988

39.32.222.65 Your reasons for the revert ? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Human you yourself added Newspaper source. where is court order link? please add that before deleting 5 sources added by me. Limited soverignity not exactly i.e. according to instrument of accestion Para 4 and 6 says only telecommunication, defence and Forign affairs is with India. The remaining 17 ministries are with State's own government. Court clearly say JK never merged India. It is clear 17 our of 20 ministries are with state. No indian can buy land in J&K then how can you deny what court said. Kautilya3 Reliablity is only ensured via cross verfication. Your refrences are NOT reliable sources. Keeping in mind This article is under discretionary sanctions "not any ones desktop setting wishfully manipulated. 39.32.222.65 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:39.32.222.65, Reliability is based on the definition given in WP:RS. Your objections must be policy-based. "Cross verification" is your problem. I have already mentioned that above. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict my sources? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I support that IP's version. We do, however, need a reliable source for China's active military support otherwise I will remove that form the infobox. Please stick to WP:NPOV, the IP version sticks to that. How you can present one-sided view of the conflict by naming the Pakistani battles as "invasion". The same is known in Pakistan for Indian battles and the landing of Indian personnel in Srinagar. The Maharaja solely signed the instrument in return for aid, Kautilya, why you keep removing that? Faizan (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::@IP: Don't add any original research. In short, Sovereignty means nation which has its own President/Prime Minister as supreme leader without interference of any other nation. It is not case with Jammu and Kashmir. It has "limited" sovereignty. Read Preamble of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which says "Jammu & Kashmir is and shall remain integral part of Union of India". These are not my words, this is written in preamble of constitution of J & K on which High Court of JK works. And this line is un-amendable, even of state assembly of JK decides to amend its constitution still according to some other provisions in same constitution state assembly can't amend some part of JK constitution which connects JK to India. In Indian parliament there are members which represents JK and you are saying JK is sovereign? JK do has limited sovereignty as said by High court and this is not any new thing that court has said. JK has such kind of special status since 26 January 1950 when Indian constitution was established. Court accepts that JK has merged with India but it only says that it was not like other princely states because other states don't have special status like JK. --Human3015  14:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Faizan, this is not the first time you have supported IP versions. But in case you haven't noticed the IPs have been edit-warring on a page with discretionary sanctions. Ok, enough of that.

But you are mistaken. I never removed the military aid. "Invasion" is reliably sourced. You can read the source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Faizan, it is expected that you will support IPs version as usual and we all know why. But don't try to insert that version or edit war, IPs version clearly says that "Kashmir is sovereign state" which is a gross POV and OR which may lead you to topic ban. So be aware on this issue. --Human3015  15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It is also expected that you will support D4iNa4's version and we all know why. @Kautilya3, "Invasion" would still be a violation of NPOV, I do not dispute RS, as many Indian sources would call the Pakistani attack as "invasion", the same would be true for almost all Pakistani sources which would call the Indian attack as invasion. Faizan (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of giving explanation regarding why you are supporting biased version of IP regarding "sovereignty" of Kashmir you are bringing some other issue here as usual. Do not make[REDACTED] a battleground as you usually make. Regarding word "invasion", it is not NPOV word according to Pakistan view, but it is NPOV word according to international NPOV view, on quick search I found some neutral sources calling it a "invasion" , , . We write according to neutral reliable sources, not according to national agendas, either it is Pakistan or India. --Human3015  15:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: I am glad to see you that do not dispute the RS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this nonsense going on?

1) J&K constituent assembly is governed by J&K constitution whose preamble makes it clear that it gains its legitimacy from the Union of India and the Constitution of India.

"WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves-

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among us all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this seventeenth day of November, 1956, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

2) India has not only Article 370, but similar ones like Article 371A for north-eastern states. Does that mean that they do not belong to India? What rubbish!! Ghatus (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus, this "nonsense" is going on because of IP 39 and its supporters. This is very clear cut issue. IP was just misinterpreting Court's remarks to push POV. IP also added some other non-relevant things to this topic. Article was in good shape before, there was no need to change things. Still just to assume good faith I supported IP to add court's remarks but in neutral way, we should write what exactly court said, not what Pakistani news papers published regarding court's issue. I wonder how they can give headlines like "Kashmir was never merged with India, says Kashmir High Court". This only shows standard of media.--Human3015  16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

On a lighter note, the Supreme Court of India would have said in such situations- "We can't entertain each and every nonsense." ha..ha..Ghatus (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (PDF). Official website of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on National Informatics Centre, India. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
2. Article 371A in The Constitution Of India

Sincere efforts

We all can make sicere efforts to resolve content dispute. Please no one try to disturb pre dispute position. NA122 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Folks, the new content that I have been writing has been repeatedly deleted six times in the last few days without giving a single word of justification! Is anybody going to raise content issues? Otherwise, I am minded to take all of you to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No comments made in an entire day! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are saying that you will take all of us to WP:ANI then why anyone will comment? And page is protected so that maybe one of reason people lost interest as of now. Maybe they will resume after page gets unprotected. --Human3015  03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I said I would take people to WP:ANI for deleting my sourced content six times without providing justification. So, providing justification is their best bet. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Four days passed, with absolutely no discussion. I am taking it up with the administrators because editors cannot hold Misplaced Pages to ransom with the threat of repeated edit-warring. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected, one week

Those editors opposing the changes - please state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so. --] 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: despite your continious efforts to calm every user specially Kautilya3 here and Human3015 here they still persisting with blame game here

Discretionary sanctions

As no one has replied to the section above, I will be reducing the full protection to semi protection and have applied a WP:1RR editing restriction until December 31, 2015. --NeilN 13:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-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
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board