Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 47: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:31, 17 April 2018 editGog the Mild (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Rollbackers97,662 edits WikiProject assessmentTag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:07, 4 May 2018 edit undoKautilya3 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,860 edits →Recent edits: new sectionNext edit →
Line 19:		Line 19:
	== All Indian Citation ==		== All Indian Citation ==
	Almost 90% of total citations for this article about the UN Resolution on disputed region of Jammu & Kashmir between Pakistan and India, have been taken from Indian websites. The Indian propaganda being, to show as if the UN does not consider the Kashmir worth calling it a dispute anymore or of importance. A balance needs to be drawn here. (SarfarazLarkanian 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC))		Almost 90% of total citations for this article about the UN Resolution on disputed region of Jammu & Kashmir between Pakistan and India, have been taken from Indian websites. The Indian propaganda being, to show as if the UN does not consider the Kashmir worth calling it a dispute anymore or of importance. A balance needs to be drawn here. (SarfarazLarkanian 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

			== Recent edits ==

			{{U\|Sms2816}}, You are making to skew this article and to make it appear as something it is not. There was no "line of resolutions" when this Resolution was passed. That is pure ] and factually false.

			Your ]ing for Pakistan include statements like:
			* {{tq\|which Pakistan started doing after passing of UN Resolution dated January 5, 1949}}
			* {{tq\|Pakistan wished to vest in the commission of the UN the authority to arrange for: (1) the establishment of an impartial interim administration in state; (2) the withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir; (3) the return of refugees; (4) the holding of a free, fair, and unfettered plebiscite.}}
			You have to maintain ] and give equal ] for both India and Pakistan. This is not Pakistanopedia!

			How are {{tq\|tribesmen}} separate from "nationals"? You are padding up the LEAD unnecessarily with loads of verbiage. {{tq\|minimum level required for law and order}} says the same thing {{!xt\|minimum strength required for maintenance of law and order}} and with fewer words. I don't understand the point of changing this.

			Please discuss your concerns here instead of wasting time with pointless edits. -- ] (]) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:07, 4 May 2018

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.

India: Politics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

International relations: United Nations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Cold War

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
	South Asian military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Sources

The text to the resolution of obviously key, but its more of an external links/see also issue. The analysis and other wordings in the article ought to be sourced. For example: "after hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan the Council increased the size of the Commission established by..." the after hearing parts and the increase are outside the scope of the text of resolution 47. Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that bit about hearing from both India and Pakistan is in one of the preambulatory clauses at the top. I would like to see analysis and that needs to be source but I think everything here right now can be found in the text. - Schrandit (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENIN276&=&q=unsc+resolution+47&btnG=Google+Search&meta= In a bit of rush to do analysis, but there's plenty of citable resources.

For right now I'll have to leave the analysis to someone who is better qualified that I am. But for now, should the unsourced tag come down? - Schrandit (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

UN removing Kasmir from its list

It has been mentioned in this article that: Moreover, in November 2010, United Nations excluded Jammu and Kashmir from its annual list of unresolved international disputes under the observation of the United Nations Security Council. The references cited only mention a Pakistani diplomats objection to a UK envoy not mentioning Kashmir in the list of long running disputes. As far as I have searched, the UN does not keep a "list" of disputed areas from which Kashmir has been removed; as this line seems to say in this article. If anyone can provide any official UN reference to back this up; it would be great. Otherwise, I think it should be removed or at the very least re-worded so as it doesn't give a wrong impression. Please discuss this issue here on the talk page, thanks! Sohebbasharat (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

All Indian Citation

Almost 90% of total citations for this article about the UN Resolution on disputed region of Jammu & Kashmir between Pakistan and India, have been taken from Indian websites. The Indian propaganda being, to show as if the UN does not consider the Kashmir worth calling it a dispute anymore or of importance. A balance needs to be drawn here. (SarfarazLarkanian 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

Recent edits

Sms2816, You are making repeated attempts to skew this article and to make it appear as something it is not. There was no "line of resolutions" when this Resolution was passed. That is pure WP:OR and factually false.

Your WP:SOAPBOXing for Pakistan include statements like:

which Pakistan started doing after passing of UN Resolution dated January 5, 1949
Pakistan wished to vest in the commission of the UN the authority to arrange for: (1) the establishment of an impartial interim administration in state; (2) the withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir; (3) the return of refugees; (4) the holding of a free, fair, and unfettered plebiscite.

You have to maintain WP:NPOV and give equal WP:WEIGHT for both India and Pakistan. This is not Pakistanopedia!

How are tribesmen separate from "nationals"? You are padding up the LEAD unnecessarily with loads of verbiage. minimum level required for law and order says the same thing minimum strength required for maintenance of law and order and with fewer words. I don't understand the point of changing this.

Please discuss your concerns here instead of wasting time with pointless edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories: