Talk:Kashmir conflict: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:57, 16 September 2011 editAltetendekrabbe (talk \| contribs)3,798 edits →Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:58, 16 September 2011 edit undoRenamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk \| contribs)68,802 edits discussion for reverting the Biased changes by MustihussainNext edit →
Line 63:		Line 63:
	dBigXray 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)		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.-- ] (]) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 20:58, 16 September 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.

Article policies

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

	China portal 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

	Pakistan portal 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

	India portal 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)

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Kashmir conflict. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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)

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

Categories: