Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 10 March 2009

Template:Pbneutral

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:WP1.0

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 Top‑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 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. 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. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese / Indian / Middle East / 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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Indian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force South Asian military history task force

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kashmir. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kashmir at the Reference desk.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

cleaning up the article

I noticed that the article says that the Kashmir region is so dangerous because India and Pakistan could concievably have a nuclear war over it- but the article doesn't mention the fact that the PRC also has nuclear weapons: all three claimants to parts (or all) of Kashmir have nuclear weapons. Obviously the biggest tension is between India and Pakistan, but I'm sure that both of those governments are resentful over the fact that the PRC has control over some of it. -Random Unregistered Guy

The article leaves out tons of reasons on why India feels it deserves Kashmir. I mean when I read this it sounds like the guy favors Kashmir to Pakistan, cuz he fails to mention tons of reasons on why India deserves Kashmir. He also fails to go into details regarding how India legally got Kashmir & he doesnt go into details regarding how Pakistan invaded Kashmir first. He doesnt go into details about the water dispute & how thats the real reason Pakistan wants Kashrmi. He also does not mention how Pakistan contraditcs itself when they calim to fight for peoples freedom struggles because there are 2 groups of people, one called the Balochis that wanna seperate from Pakistan, and the pathuns that also wanna seperate from Paksitan...I mean this article is leaves out a ton of facts & is to long. ARYAN818 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The article, at its current state, is full of sentences like "India believes", which makes it look like an opinion-piece. I tried to convert those to "According to Indian views ...". The Section on Terrorism in Kashmir would probably be better off as merged with Terrorism in Kashmir, with a brief summary here. The history section is awefully long and full of meaningless details. Sometimes, being inclusive of the tiniest details defeats the purpose, and brevity is preferred. The information bloat now affecting the section can be moved to History of Kashmir. In any case, the article needs a good amount of trimming/editing, and the trolls who are quite interested into ranting (see above) can consider participating in the cleanup job. Thanks. --Ragib 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This guy is ridiculous. The new section on the Indo-Pak war of 47 is so biased against Pakistan, it sounds like the Indian Army was posting this stuff. I prefered the old section where it was much more balanced. This new section is totally biased, it makes the Indians seem heroic and the Pakistanis barbaric. This new cleanup stuff is trash! The stuff about Pakistan's self-contradiction are not relevent to the topic of this page.69.183.72.142 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Article in its current state is much better and balanced. As i said before, the original was a much better article and it was far more objective than the new version which appeared later.69.183.73.34 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The new section on Kashmir itself sounds like the history of Hindiusm. Kashmir is introduced in such a way that it appears to be more focused on the Hindiusm aspect. This needs to be changed so that Kashmir is introduced in a political and geographical context rather than a religious context. However, the religious aspect of Kashmir shouldn't be disregarded, rather, it should be placed somewhere else in the article in a seperate section for its religious importance for Hindiusm. I edited the page so that the part referring to the Hindu temples comes in the section with the tourist attractions.69.0.82.108 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

now administered by three countries: India, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China. - should be changed to now occupied by three countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.179.33 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indians plz note. Try to contribute a balanced article. There are many news regarding indian security forces firing at and killing civilians so if you want to add any comments on hindus ethinic cleansing then please make sure you add indian security forces acrocities as well, otherwise i will keep deleting your evidence less claims. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.29.200 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is not the vegetable shop on your street to bargaining, this is[REDACTED] and here truth and references are more important. And I know that U are no Admin besides who gave U this news? The guy next door??? Bsathya4 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I get the correct references for this statement in the article : "Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and started killing innocent Kashmiri People including women and children. The United Nations was then invited by Pakistan to mediate the quarrel." . From what I know, it was tribesmen armed and supported by Pakistani govt, that started the crisis ( Source: Maharaja's letter at http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/documents.html ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswinjohn (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguemnts to add to the Indian point of view section

There are some arguments that can be added to the Indian point of view section. I would add them myself, but I have the feeling it will just be erased. So I will add them here, and let "the powers that be" add them. Here they are:

1 - There is no mention of the fact that many Indians feel like Paksitan already got so much land from India so its unfair to ask for Kashmir?.....

2 - There is no mention of the fact that because Pakistan invaded Kashmir & stole half the land (even though the Prince of Kashmir still hadnt decided which country to join) that it is unfair for Pakistan to ask for the rest of Kashmir.

3 - There is no mention of the fact that Indians argue it is not fair to use the argument that "the majority of people should vote on what country they want to join", becuase by that logic Pakistan should have never been created in the first place because the majority of people didnt want to break up India to create a Pakistan the country in the first place.

4 - There is no mention of the fact that Paksitan contradicts itself by claiming they want to help to "free" Kashmiris and yet they dont let the Balochis or Pashtuns that want to seperate from Paksitan & let them have there own seperate homeland. WHy wont they let the Pashtuns or Balochis be free to?

5 - There is no mention of the Sheik (last name i forgot but he was considered the voice of pakistan) who said Kashmir belongs to India

6 - There is no mention of the fact that Pakistan sends in Islamic terrorist groups to Kashmir, and these groups have systematically forced out HIndu & SIkh Kashmiris, while also scaring Muslim Kashmiris that may want to side with India, and so therefore it is unfair to ask for a vote from the Kashmiris.

7 - And there is nothing written about the fact that if Pakistan really cared about the Kashmiri people then why would they give a piece of Kashmir to China in 1965.

These are all valid arguments and I would type these in myself but I have the feeling that they might just be erased. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Thumbs up. YoshiroShin (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2 million people in the Aksai Chin?

Where does this number come from? The Aksai Chin is an uninhabited wasteland and clearly does not have 2 million people, Buddhists or not. The entirely of Chinese controlled Tibet has less than three million people, and they don't surely don't have 2/3 of the population crammed into the Aksai Chin. This needs to be fixed. --67.101.35.52 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The unlikely numbers were introduced in this edit. Aqsoi Qin and other regions just above and below the Kunlun Mountains in Xinjiang are some of the few areas in China where the human population might have actually decreased in the last 60 years. See for example, Karakash River, Hotan, and Hindutash Pass. Have undone edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Images

There seems to be a heavy influence of images taken from Indian administered Kashmir and only one from Azad Kashmir can some one tell my why this article is so heavily Influenced by images from India it seems to undercut Pakistan Kashmir i will replace this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.182 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP from British Telecommunications: How did you arrive at that conclusion? There is one image of Nanga Parbat, which is not in Azad Kashmir, but rather in the Northern Areas, and two from Jammu and Kashmir, and one (strangely enough) from New Delhi. The rest of the pictures are all over a hundred years old, all from the princely state Kashmir and Jammu, when there was no Pakistan or Republic of India. The pictures were deliberately chosen in that manner to avoid controversy. If you feel that the Pakistani or Chinese areas of Kashmir should be better represented, the way to go about doing it is to add quality pictures from those areas, not unilaterally remove other pictures. I agree though that the New Delhi picture doesn't seem very relevant. I will move it here, pending further discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the Kashmiri merchant in Delhi picture from the main article to here. Doesn't seem very relevant. It would be better to have pictures of merchants in Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now made the contemporary images more representative of the different regions. I have also removed the instrument of accession, which doesn't belong here. It has its own page. This page is mostly about the Kashmir Region as it existed until 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.209.213 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by user:Shovon76

Shovon76 (talk · contribs) has made two edits which s/he needs to discuss here first. As has been explained many times before (above), this article used to be titled Kashmir region and, consequently, is about the region, not just about the Kashmir Valley, and certainly not about political entities like Jammu and Kashmir or Azad Kashmir. The languages listed in the first sentence are listed in alphabetical order, since no one language represents the entire region. Also, Shovon76 (talk · contribs) seems to have added a reference to an article by William Dalrymple to the list of websites providing information about Kashmir. Articles are properly listed in the "Further Readings" section. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

led zeppelin in see also????!

i feel that the led zep song is quite irreverent to thew article

led zeppelin in see also????!

i feel that the led zep song is quite irreverent to thew article 59.182.170.73 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)nish

'crossed the LOC'

I don't know what an LOC is and the link doesn't help. can someone write it out in full? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.12.36 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearer map?

It would be nice to get a much clearer map of the area; the map supplied shows some geography distorted and is very cluttered. One thing hard to discern are nearby undisputed borders, such as the northern border to China and the Durand line. --Smári McCarthy (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

vandalism after Mumbai attacks

Trafic to this article increased 3 fold after Mumbai attacks. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/kashmir I rectified a IP troll 203.122.36.6 Doorvery far (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nationalistic oneupmanship

Please no nationalistic nickel and diming, be it Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani. The regions administered by each country have their own pages. This page is mostly about the Kashmir region up to 1947. Any detailed material such as demographics of Jammu and Kashmir in 2001 or Azad Kashmir in 1998 etc all belong to their individual pages, not here. The pictures on this page are balanced with respect to the three regions, so please don't change them or add new ones before you discuss them here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First Timer - grammar correction

Hey folks, this is my first edit. Was reading about the India/Pakistan situation today and needed a Kashmir refresher. Anyhow, hope this edit (militant violent to militant violence) is appropriate and correctly submitted.

I'm still not happy with

as militant violence engulfed the state.

Might be better as:

- military violence - violence by militants - violence DaveMarkman (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is most correct, as that is exacly what the source says. I too don't much like the term "militant violence", so I've added quotation marks ("as militant violence engulfed the state"). Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Persian

Before the British invasion of Hindustan, "Persian" was the OFFICIAL language of Hindustan, including the kashmir. --Wayiran (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately whether or not it was the official language in the past - the fact is that it is not now and is not widely spoken either. Pahari Sahib11:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the language in which the term has been used in the past officially and widely for centuries, should be placed next to the term. --Wayiran (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that Nilamata Purana was written in Persian, you have to provide a reference for that. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will provide the reference before adding Persian for the next time, but may I know why for "Nilamata Purana"? --Wayiran (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the etymology section of the article.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked, but I didn't get my answer. Can you please specify which part? (Copy that part over here) --Wayiran (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

These are few examples which are shownig the use of the term "کشمیر" (Kashmir) in Persian poetry, since around 1000 AC up to now:

--Wayiran (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many other languages (want to count how many Indian languages are there?) in which the word 'Kashmir' has been and is being used. That logic does not prompt us to add Kashmir's name in all those languages here (English Misplaced Pages).--GDibyendu (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Irredentist edits on related pages

I am bringing to your attention some pages related historically to the Kashmir region that have been the focus of irredentist edits, especially by one editor, user:Hindutashravi. The pages are Hindutash, Sumgal, and Aksai Chin. The editor is claiming the region between Aksai Chin and the Kunlun Mountains for the Republic of India; this even the Government of India doesn't claim. See in particular, my post at the end here for my perspective on these edits. In addition, one image file, File:Hindutash_in_Kashmir.jpg, which Hindutashravi (talk · contribs) claims belongs to the Simla Convention of 1913, but which seems at the very least illegible and at the worst bogus, needs to be deleted. I would urge NPOV-minded editors to help out in countering such bizarre POV-pushing on Misplaced Pages. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS The editor claims that Hindutash is his page, however, this was the state of the page that was created by the user:Hindutashravi (before I made my first edit on 8 July 2007). This is what the page became as a result of my edits by July 10, 2007. All the references and maps were added by me, and some, such as the NASA map, were even labeled by me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

These are reasonable concerns to raise, especially the idea that a user has some personal relationship with any page. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits...

Would Somebody please explain to me that why some editors are vandalizing this topic with poorly sourced Unconstructive edits...for example...It is calimed by some editors without reference that Pashtun Tribals RAPED Kashmirir women....Now when in God's name did the Pashtuns came in Kashmir....It was the Local tribes of Kashmir who fought in 1947 not people from NWFP....And Weren't Kasmiri's the one who called the Pakistani Army for help....Then why the hell would Pakistani Army and tribals rape Kashmiri women....They were the one's DEFENDING them....I have given a proper reference but somebody keeps removing it....This issue is getting out of hand....We need to come to a common understanding to create Neutral topic...Adil your (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The responsibility lies with you to provide reliable sources for major edits to this page and any other page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to substantiate your edits by reliable refs instead of your "logic". Doorvery far (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Adil your you are the one vandalizing this article. it is a well established fact that Pashtuns invaded Kashmir in 1947 and ILLEGALY occupied kashmir. you might want to start reading some reputable journals like TIME, Death in the Vale maybe they dont teach these things in a Madrasah--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• High-importance Pakistan articles
• Pakistan articles needing attention
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• Start-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles