Talk:Kashmir/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Flora and Fauna section has a typo in the second paragraph: "There are hunderends of different species" should be changed to "There are hundreds of different species" Mikehain (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Doing... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done - Special:Diff/1013556736 ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


We need to use the official UN maps for Kashmir

We need to use the official UN maps for Kashmir which are here: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf UNMOGIP map for Kashmir is here https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf

It is not the official map of Kashmir. There is actually no official map, as Kashmir is a disputed territory. The UN map is simply one of the areas where the UN observers are/were deployed. The eastern region of Kashmir is not shown in its entirety, and what is shown is sparsely labeled (as the UN Observers were not there). Besides, it is an old map, not updated after India made changes in 2019 in the regions it administers. The map being used on WP is the updated CIA map, and is the result of a consensus that was based in this announcement as an addendum to this discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The UN maps are kept up to date because they contain the legal international borders of all the states around the world and all the disputed areas, this is the world map from the UN https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf and they do keep it up to date. The UN maps on Jammu and Kashmir go with this world map https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf and the UN map for South Asia also go with the UN map for Jammu and Kashmir https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf This is the map that shows the UN forces UNMOGIP in Jammu and Kashmir https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf These maps go with the UN security council resolutions 98, 91, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307 The LOC and the LAC are lines not International Borders. If they were agreed to international borders, then the armies of India, Pakistan and China would not be fighting and Kashmiris civilians would not be dying every day. The UN map is the legal map for Jammu and Kashmir that both India and Pakistan agreed to when they both agreed to the UN security council resolutions and the world agreed to. Because Kashmir is a disputed territory, the UN maps show the disputed lines. You need to sign international treaties to change international border. But you can't sign international treaties in Jammu and Kashmir because the plebiscite/referendum under the UN resolutions 98, 91, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307 where the people could choose their own future was not held and the legal status of Jammu and Kashmir remained frozen in time. Johnleeds1 (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, the UN map is a map of three-quarters of the Kashmir region; it doesn't show Aksai Chin, for example. The CIA map currently in place shows the region in its entirety. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is very clear that Kashmir is a disputed territory, and takes pains to use "administered." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
In the past this page used to have the CIA map and further down the page the UN map too. Just put the UN maps in the Current status and political divisions. The Topographic map of Kashmir does not go there Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It used to show this map too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un-kashmir-jammu.png for years Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is just a map illustrating the 1972 Line of Control. There is nothing "legal" or "non-legal" about it. It is used in the Line of Control page precisely for that reason. I see no reason for that map appear on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing "legal" about the map used here. It's not even the official CIA map of Jammu and Kashmir. These are the CIA maps https://www.loc.gov/maps/?fa=contributor%3Aunited+states.+central+intelligence+agency%7Clocation%3Aindia%7Clocation%3Akashmir and https://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=location:jammu+and+kashmir which are totally different. They will not use the word Union Territory as it is a disputed area. These words should be removed. If you want to use the CIA maps at least use the official CIA maps. The UN maps are recognised by more people than this altered old CIA map, as the UN maps show the claim lines and the disputed areas and the media outlets also base their maps on the UN maps. The UN maps cover the whole world. The Topographic map of Kashmir should be removed as the borders on that are not in line with the CIA map or the UN maps or any other maps. The borders on this map are not recognised by anyone. The Line of Control and the Line of Actual Control are usually dotted lines. And there is a line separating India, China and Pakistan from Jammu and Kashmir. Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
As a separate note, this map from 1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir#/media/File:Brit_IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg excludes the entire area North and West of the river Indus, including much of Ladakh and Gilgit Baltistan as these areas were not a part of Jammu and Kashmir in the treaty of Lahore. IV. The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State, as indemnification for the expenses of the war, in addition to the cession of territory described in Article 3, payment of one and half crore of Rupees, and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of this sum at this time, or to give security satisfactory to the British Government for its eventual payment, the Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one crore of Rupees, all his forts, territories, rights and interests in the hill countries, which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus, including the Provinces of Cashmere and Hazarah.
Areas north and west of the river Indus were independent and had their own rulers at the time. Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete population of jammu

Since this article is about kashmir keep it limited to kashmir population what is jammu population written here Zek445gg (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

geography section typo

could someone with sufficient edit privileges fix the next to last sentence of this section? i am unable to do so.

"Beyond this range lies a wide tract of moutaneous country from 17000 to 22000 feet. It is the north-western part of Tibet; Ladakh and Baltistan.[77]"

  • mountainous

thanks :)

Ed WoodWiki (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert, and probably best not use either Indian or Pakistani English specifically as choosing one or the other could be inflammatory. 81.2.252.231 (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (Diff) TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

Amir Khusro, one of the Greatest Poet of India said a couplet in Farsi and which was later after two centuries was repeated by Jahangir when he saw the beauty of Kashmir.

“Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast”.

It translates in English to-

“If there is a paradise on earth, It is this, it is this, it is this”.

Even after 9 centuries, the couplet is famous across the world as Kashmir is India's major tourist destination. Rajatrusty (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Morneo06 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

Kashmir[a] (Urdu: کشمیر) (IPA: [kaʃmiːr]) is the northernmost geographical region of the...

To:

Kashmir[b] (IPA: [kaʃmiːr]) is the northernmost geographical region of the...

Unnecessary repetition, also MOS:BADITALICS. INDT (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — LauritzT (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Urdu: 'کشمیر, romanized: kaśmīr, Kashmiri: کٔشیٖر, romanized: kaśīr
  2. ^ Urdu: 'کشمیر, romanized: kaśmīr, Kashmiri: کٔشیٖر, romanized: kaśīr

Proposal for a separate "Current State" section: (Currently Under History)

I'm new to this and haven't done much like this before, acting boldly and in good-faith as advised so that I can learn about determining consensus. I would appreciate patience if do anything wrong.*

Also Boldly Proposing: a Subsection for "Kashmiri Independence Movements" with these people & groups views under a "Current State" Section

So we see Pakistan's, India's, and China's stances on the Kashmir Dispute discussed but not the differing one's from within the region itself, like the people, including Kashmiri's that have fought for self-determination for one of the big examples and that part of the conflict has been referenced by people outside the disputed region like Pakistan's PM Imran Khan[1] when talking about Kashmiri identity and News-sources around the globe that have reported on the views of the issue aswell as protests on it which led to conflict. Unsure if there should be a dedicated page for this that the section would link to however. (Please see attached sources/ reference links.)

* Again this may not be the correct way to propose but have done my best, I would submit a dedicated page request on this too that such a section could link to, but not aware of the best way to go about that so currently. Also attempted to keep this neutral but feel having this section & subsection on those that call for independence & self-determination would help be more fair and balanced in how many sides are taken into account. ** Daesin (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: did you attempt to discuss this before bringing it to RfC (as per WP:RFCBEFORE)? VR talk 16:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Due to me believing a separate section on the groups views and movements that came from it possibly being more balanced & fair. I support a separate, dedicated section and/or page on the proposed topics. Either through a move request or other mechanism for review. Daesin (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@VR After topic had been touched on in previous instances (Both for this Article and other relevant ones) I felt it would be polarizing and contraversial to try bringing it up again. Also thought it would be fair due to activity here not being sufficient anymore on a proposal like this for a protected article and topic of interest, a small amount of people could skew one way or another even unintentionally through bias if they hold strong views or undeclared conflicts of interests. I do hope that is sufficient of an explanation for me starting this. Daesin (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Daseiin: I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag for several reasons. In no particular order: I can't find any evidence that the suggestions of WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted; the RfC statement doesn't get to the point - it starts off as an appeal for assistance which is against WP:RFCNOT; it is neither neutral nor brief. Some of these problems also mean that the RfC statement cannot be parsed by Legobot, and so it is not showing correctly at the RfC listings. Other problems not influencing my decision include: the statement contains some strange markup such as aterisks wrapped in <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags, and falls foul of WP:LISTGAP (which I've partially addressed). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Daseiin, the only content that can go into this article is that based on established scholarly books, e.g., Schofield, Sumantra Bose, Snedden etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Response to comment by @Kautilya3 - And usually I would agree with that guidance as a good fit, but relatively recent events or relevant modern changes in the situation wouldn't be able to be reflected in such books so would seem reasonable to get current events from newssources/third-party observers or statements from local representatives such as the neighbouring leaders of this time. Only applying this view to the proposed section. Daesin (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Pakistan to continue to raise its voice for Kashmiris till they get right of self-determination: PM". Dunya News. Retrieved 2021-10-31.

Minor change to one part of the "Demographics" section

This is in response to my earlier edit that was reverted.

This is the original sentence: According to a number of authors, approximately 100,000 of the total Kashmiri Pandit population of 140,000 left the valley during that decade.[1][2][3] Other authors have suggested a higher figure for the exodus, ranging from the entire population of over 150,[4] to 190 thousand (1.5 to 190,000) of a total Pandit population of 200 thousand (200,000),[5] to a number as high as 300 thousand (300,000).[6]

Which I changed to this: With a plethora of of scholarly and literary accounts documenting the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, there exists a substantial range in estimates regarding the total number of people who fled the valley during the 1990s, with numbers ranging from 100,000,[1][2][3] 150,000,[4] 200,000,[5] 300,000,[7][8] to a number as high as 600,000[7][9] out of the total Kashmiri Hindu population of up to 700,000.[10]

Is there something wrong with this edit? I made it easier to read (for example we don't need to repeat 150 to 190 thousand twice), and added a reference to the entire Kashmiri Hindu population rather than just the pandits, along with providing a couple scholarly sources and one media article for the edit. Don't see why we need consensus for a minor change, especially when additional sources are added. Van00220 (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the revert, but please note that we can use the following arguments to check if a figure or estimate has due weight.
(a) We can compare an estimate with what is found in widely used textbooks (see WP:TERTIARY, which states: Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.) We have cited two widely used textbooks: (i) Metcalf, Barbara; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxxiii, 372, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1 and (ii) Bose, Sumantra (2003), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-01173-1, both of which state, "in the early 1990s, approximately 100,000 of the total Kashmiri Pandit population of 140,000 moved away." Clearly, 700,000 would be beyond what would constitute due weight by Wikipedia policy.
(b) We can also use an ad hoc argument which we can't cite because it would be WP:OR, but we can use to to vet an estimate for due weight: In the Census of India, 1941, Jammu and Kashmir, Part II, the upper-caste Hindu population of Kashmir province (within Jammu and Kashmir princely state) was 53,246 (30,132 males and 23,124 females). (See Part II, Table V, p. 103, (Towns arranged territorially and population by communities) under Hindus Others (i.e. not the Scheduled Castes (the lower-castes who did not migrate out)). The scheduled caste as you will note in Kashmir province had negligible numbers. Rounding this upward to the nearest 10K by assuming that the female deficit was due to underreporting, gives the total population of upper-caste Hindus to be 60,000, In this reckoning, "upper-caste Hindus" include not just Kashmiri Pandits, but also Dogras and assorted other castes. In other words, 60K is a good overcount for the Pandits.
(b, continued) Between 1947 and 1950, 20% of the Pandits left the valley. See Chitralekha Zutshi quoted in Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. That means in the 1951 Census of India, there were 48,000 upper caste Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir province. Moreover, the population of India in 1951 was 382.37 million (see here). And the population in 1993 (the median year for "early 1990s") was 927.4 million. The population, therefore, increased by a factor of 2.42. Applying the same multiplier to the upper-caste Hindu population of Kashmir province, gives a population of 116,160. This is pretty close to what the scholars such as Sumantra Bose, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf state. (
In other words, 700,000 is an unsustainable overcount. Actually, even 300,000 is. At the very outer limit, there were no more than 150,000 Kashmiri Pandits in 1993. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. I suspect there may have been an undercount in the census figures given some academic and literary sources do mention a much higher population exodus. Regardless, thanks for the explanation! Van00220 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Bose 1997, p. 71.
  2. ^ a b Rai 2004, p. 286.
  3. ^ a b Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 274The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favourable position, first under the maharajas, and then under the successive Congress regimes, and proponents of a distinctive Kashmiri culture that linked them to India, felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Of a population of some 140,000, perhaps 100,000 Pandits fled the state after 1990; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right.
  4. ^ a b Malik 2005, p. 318.
  5. ^ a b Madan 2008, p. 25.
  6. ^ "South Asia :: India — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency". www.cia.gov.
  7. ^ a b Sarkaria, Mallika Kaur (2009). "Powerful Pawns of the Kashmir Conflict: Kashmiri Pandit Migrants". Asian and Pacific Migration Journal. 18 (2): 197–230. doi:10.1177/011719680901800202. ISSN 0117-1968. S2CID 145137184.:… of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, and member of Panun Kashmir (a Pandit … the Valley in 1990, believes "it could be anything between 300,000 to 600,000 people
  8. ^ "South Asia :: India — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency". www.cia.gov.
  9. ^ PTI. "30 years on, return to homeland eludes Kashmiri Pandits". Retrieved 19 April 2019. Sitting in his hut at Jagti camp on the outskirts of Jammu city, Lal, who is among the seven lakh-odd Kashmiri Pandits who had to flee Kashmir Valley in the wake of spread of terrorism in 1989-90...
  10. ^ Casimir, Michael J.; Lancaster, William; Rao, Aparna (1 June 1997). "Editorial". Nomadic Peoples. 1 (1): 3–4. doi:10.3167/082279497782384668. ISSN 0822-7942.:From 1947 on, Kashmir's roughly 700,000 Hindus felt increasingly uneasy and discriminated against, and youth … from a variety of sources such as Islamist organizations, Islamic countries, Kashmiri Muslim fund raisers in the West, and migrant labor from Azad Kashmir in the …

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

This sentence is very awkward:

Previously parts of the same State, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are administered by India as union territories since 5 August 2019, after the revocation of the limited autonomy and bifurcation of the State.

Could you change it to this?

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are administered by India as union territories. They formed a single State until 5 August 2019, when the state was bifurcated and its limited autonomy was revoked.

"are administered since DATE" isn't the right way to word things, and the general sentence structure is inconvenient. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Indic scripts in first note

I was able to find two discussions from 2019 (first, second) where @Fowler&fowler: advises against using Indic scripts on this page, but no discussions supporting the inclusion of Urdu (and Kashmiri). yet they're somehow present in the current version. is there any consensus on some talk or edit summary or should we remove the scripts? regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Removed. It had managed to fly under the radar. Your radar operator, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Flora and fauna images

I added three new images, two of flora and one of fauna/flora. Two different wildlife parks were chosen: one in India, two in Pakistan. Please could User:fowler&fowler (a wikifriend of User:RegentsPark?) help in sorting out a fair way of adding images which are both educational and neutral—and non-controversial. Thanks in advance, f&f. I am aware of the problems with the region, but obviously should rely on experts to avoid any imbalance. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, @Mathsci:. Yes, this has been a perenially fraught page. True your pictures were not slanted toward the Indian-administered areas. I did like the shepherding in the Deosai plains, which gives both the up-close and faraway views. Art and not a science it is, as you no doubt figured out yourself. Perhaps this is a good time to discuss what the tricky happy medium is in the other f&f. Will make another post later and ping the editor who added the text and a few others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Moxy was not keen on sandwiching. I tentatively tried right aligned images, coupled together horizontally and vertically. It's always possible to make a four-image gallery separating flora and fauna, as has happened in other parts of the article. Sorry to think aloud like this (butterflies?). Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
user:Mathsci has added some fine flora images to the two faunas in place, which are: the Zanskari horse and the Snow Leopard, the first from the highlands of upper Ladakh (Kargil district) and the second from near Sust in the northwest marches of Gilgit-Baltistan. I woke up mildly indisposed this morning, and although I am adequately drugged, the old brain is a tad foggy. Mathsci had added a fifth image, which I liked even more of the shepherd and his flock in a scraggy valley. Could the regulars here, especially @Mehrajmir13: (who added the text), @Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, RegentsPark, Saqib, and Mar4d: please weigh in. Apologies to anyone I might have left out. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
An antidote to sandwiching might be the gallery mode as in India#Visual_art, added by @Johnbod: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fowler&fowler, hope you're keeping well. I quiet like the pictures, and have no objections as such. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, @Mar4d: Unless there is any major objection we can consider the pictures in place to constitute the new consensus. Every one must have noticed that the fauna pictures are in situ, a far cry from the early days of Wikipedia when animals in faraway zoos were the best we could muster. I love the Zanskari horse, especially its extra-long tail, which I hadn't noticed earlier. I wonder if the length is some kind of adaptive response, like the snow-leopard's, to the rugged terrain. Both animals are said to be sure-footed. ... In any case, may I thank @Mathsci: for their excellent additions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

full protection

Please restore ECP when FP expires. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

User Fowler&fowler has mass deleted large text and references in a series of recent edits, mostly from the Hinduism and Buddhism subsection of History, prompted I guess by an edit of mine, which they also reverted. One of the explanations provided is: “this page's history has always been mainly about the post 1846; the previous histories lead up to it with more weight to the later“. But a large amount of the text deleted has been present in the article since as far back as 2016, six years ago. Ofcourse, this isn’t to say that the content doesn’t need to be updated according to what reliable sources say, giving due weight (for instance, the Mughals and Durranis were missing from this earlier version entirely, among other things), but to point out that the history part of the article has not been mainly about the post-1846. At least not in the form it has been reduced to now, and not since about six years. I’m fine if consensus about reducing the history section of the article to post-1846 period is reached, which would require significantly reducing the Sikh subsection and further, smaller reduction of the Shah Mir subsection, and maybe also the others. This also still doesn’t really justify not including the seven decades of Hindu dynastic rule in a subsection of its own, when the pre-1846 Shah Mir (two and a half centuries), Mughal (few decades short of two centuries), Durrani (seventy years) and Sikh (twenty five years) all have subsections. The explanation given for this revert was: “the Hindu dynsties are very dubiously sourced. Splitting will encourge expansion”. Great, then one we add/keep only content attributed to reliable sources, and two, encouragement to expansion applies to all other subsections as well (a rather random and WP:IDONTLIKEIT-esque reasoning). If we are to discourage expansion of pre-1846 history this way, then we should add the five centuries of Muslim rule under a single subsection, as opposed to current three. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

From the time I arrived on Wikipedia, the Kashmir page has been modeled on the Britannica Kashmir page, whose history also is primarily the post-1846 history. See for example the WP version of December 2007. Before 1846, there was the Kashmir Valley, but Jammu was a different kingdom; Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit, Hunza, were all different kingdoms or chieftaincies.
Another reason for this is that until the British began to show interest in the Punjab region, in ca. late 18th century, which was also the waning days of the Durrani empire and thereafter the beginnings of Sikh rule, very little reliable was known about Kashmir. You can see similar stories for example in my section Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Discovery_and_history_of_excavation.
The more you allow of the pre-1800, the more the history is legendary.
The people who keep an eye on this page, primarily monitor the post-1846 history because that is not only better known but also more disputed. When something unusual happens, though, such as you edit, they do pay attention, but they also end up cleaning house. So, my cleaning house had little do do with your edit's content, but it made me aware of the content of what was already there which is not acceptable history,
The Sikh history of Kashmir doesn't need to be removed, as it is a reliable one, mostly the result of British visitors' reports or British informants'. But the earlier histories are not, becoming vaguer and vaguer the farther back you go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
You're making it seem like no scholarship exists about Kashmir's history before the Sikhs. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Also if you look at modern sophisticated histories, such as Chitralekha Zutshi's Languages of Belonging, they begin, more or less, with Muslim rule: Chapter One: Mulk-i-Kashmir : History, Memory, and Representation; Immortalized Mystics of Kashmir: Lal Ded and Nund Rishi A threat to Kashmiriyat, Mughals in Kashmir / Bagh-i-Suleiman: Articulation of Kashmiri Regional Belonging during Afghan and Sikh Rule; Period of Transition: Religious and Regional Identities during Early Dogra Rule ....Chapter Two: Political Economy and Class Formation in Kashmir Peasants and Bureaucrats: e Rice Economy of the Kashmir Valley, 1846–1887 ... it then goes on to chapter 6 ending in 1953. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Or Mridu Rai's Hindu rulers, Muslim subjects, ..., they begin with Dogra rule: 1. Territorializing Sovereignty: Dilemmas of Control and Collaboration ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Given the title Hindu rulers, Muslim subjects, ofcourse it begins with Dogra rule, for that's when Kashmir had both: Hindu rulers and Muslim subjects. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Finally, why only the Hindu dynasties of the Kashmir valley? Why not the Buddhist dynasties of Ladakh which is several-fold bigger than the Valley, why not the Hindu dynasties of Jammu, those of Baltistan, Gilgit and Hunza? It will get too complicated if you turn this into Hindu vs Buddhist. I respectfully suggest you self-revert to Hinduism and Buddhism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Nah, Britannica mentions the Hindu dynasties in particular, this isn’t Hindu vs Buddhist, nor are the edits supposed to be that, and I highly doubt it could be interpreted as such. It’s about the dynastic rule being distinct from the earlier period. Even the Shah Miris follow directly from it. It is a general improvement to the article. I respectfully suggest you stop acting as owner of this article. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, the other point you make is acceptable. Current history section, Hindu dynasties, Shah Miri dynasty, Mughal rule, Durrani rule etc etc is all too focused on the valley. It would be a general improvement to include passing mentions about what was happening in other regions at the time. This ofcourse would mean three subsections only: Early history, medieval, and pre-modern (or something of this sort), followed by Sikh and Dogra, when the current borders of “Kashmir” started taking shape. Going to wait for more input by other editors. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, removing all history until the Sikhs, like in 2007 version and specifying at the start of the section that the history is for the post-19th century and that for the history of Kashmir people should go to the History of Kashmir pages. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, see this revision from October 2011, as edited by you. Already looks more like the article before your removals (and even its current form) than it does like the December 2007 version. That’s more than a decade (probably even longer). Also includes a lot of the text recently removed. So your assertion that pre-1846 history has always been considered outside the purview of this article is false, sorry. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Removed all history until the Sikhs per your excellent suggestion. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I take no issue with the general idea, as I say above since this is when current borders of “Kashmir” started to be defined in the way they are today (though I do remember reading a previous talk page discussion regarding this where Kautilya3 was involved), but my main concern now is that these changes disturb the article as it has existed upwards of a decade, so I hope a wider consensus than just between the two of us can be reached. Thanks, moving onto the details. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Chitralekha Zutshi's Languages of Belonging is as much as a "history of Kashmir" as any random monograph by Walter Slaje is. To evaluate the weight distribution, we need to consult texts like Oxford India Short Introduction to Kashmir by Zutshi. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

UnpetitproleX’s Edits

My recent edit was deemed ‘BOLD’ by Fowler&fowler, who has thus undone it. The edit is accompanied with an edit summary which is as detailed as can be using the permitted word count. In any case, here’s mostly a repetition in more words of that:

  • First things first, my edits do not alter the content nor do they tinker with the general idea of the paragraph at all. Simply removing what has already been said and only being expanded on. The details included are for the valley, not including so much as a mention to the other areas. The refs can be retained.
  • The image added by me is also far better, giving the reader the idea of the territory of Sikh rule and how Kashmir’s current frontiers start to take shape, under Sikh rule. Compare with the other image, taken in 2015, showing the rather empty interior of the mosque which has seen restorations multiple times in its history, most recently at the beginning of the 20th century under the Digras. The most lasting legacy of the twenty five years of Sikh rule is the former: defining the frontiers of the region more or less as seen today and not the mosque’s closing down (which btw did not last for the entirety of the rule, and one of the mosque’s many restorations also happened during this period). The subsequent sections also include only maps, which are of much more value to an article about an entity whose borders are fiercely disputed.

Further, in the above discussion, F&f asserted that the article has always been about the post-1846 (end of Sikh rule) history, something that is untrue and known to be untrue to F&f (this revision is as edited by them, and they’ve made hundreds of edits, for 11+ years since then). Though, assuming good faith and giving them the benefit of the doubt, I’m willing to consider that despite their thorough editing they simply were unaware of this. Also after deleting large amounts of text and refs from the article, mostly from the ‘Hinduism and Buddhism’ section (‘BOLD’?), they completely deleted all sections preceding the “Sikh rule” section (‘BOLD’?) per my “excellent suggestion”—for which I also suggest wider consensus (see above)—both cases of “removal of text that has been in the article for many years” (which qualified my last edit for a talk page warning and ping to eight administrators by F&f). I believe more uniformity for this article is possible, and this would be an improvement. And in that direction, I present the more detailed reasoning for my last edit above. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think your deletions were reasonably well done. That section shouldn't be as huge it was, given that it is the only history section there is, covering just a few decades. It should merely set the context for the princely state that followed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I did it, while preserving the “generally oppressive” description with only the minute details (part about Lahore, this much tax, this ban on azan, that much reduction, that ban on cow slaughter etc etc) which are all still present in both History of Kashmir and Sikh Empire articles, and also the Jamia Masjid article, where such detail is important and due. F&f is making it seem like I changed the paragraph to “The Sikhs were amazing and loved Muslims so much they never did anything bad!” UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
So had the Sikhs reached beyond the Kunlun mountains to the Yurungkash river in Xinjiang? Will you be cropping their empire too? But wait a minute I didn’t just upload the map I have 1907 copy of Joppen from which I scanned the map. The book also has accompanying text which states: Bahawalpur was independent in 1805. Kashmir was still ruled by the Afghans cited to Pope 1880 which I have also. I have either uploaded from my collection or drawn a large number of those maps. See Hindutash Pass for example for a large number of those historical maps or see the highest res Kashmir map File:Kashmir region. LOC 2003626427 - showing sub-regions administered by different countries.jpg and see where lat long 37 81 lies. I’ve drawn each of those maps, know them like the back of my hand. You have a short history now of adding little content, wasting the time of long-standing competent editors with Wikilawyering arguments 13 to a dozen. What I also see are the beginnings of Hindu-Sikh boosterism and subtle slights at islam eg in adding File:Woman at Gate of Mosque (No Ladies Allowed) - Hazratbal Shrine - Srinagar - Jammu & Kashmir - India (26770523561).jpg
Women in Islam when Kashmiri women do go to
do go to Hazaratbal. So you tell me what exactly are you trying to pull? o Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
And is
this a summary or excision of scholarly content that makes the Sikhs look bad? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, the only reason I added the picture is because it is simply a great composition presenting a nice contrast, very in-your-face, and in none of the captions do I claim anything about Islam or about Kashmiri culture, which in my opinion and experience is not particularly segregated, and definitely not any more segregated than, lets say, the Hindu and Sikh cultures of Punjab, Himachal or Haryana. I added it only to the relevant pages, namely Feminism in India, Islamic feminism, Women in India, amd Women in Islam (where I also added an image of a Rajasthani Muslim woman); on the Women in India page it says, after describing the scene, that “Gender segregation is common in India” (not Islam, India). How is that a slight at Islam, subtle or not? It’s not a controversial addition as you are claiming it to be, btw if you have a similar image on commons from Sikh or Hindu places (Sabarimala maybe?) that presents segregation in such an obvious way (the sign literally says “Ladies are not allowed”, happy to switch in the Feminism in India section (where the “Hindu community” picture definitely needs to be swapped with something more fitting, like Ghunghat). Also, if subtle slights at Islam is your concern, do make a trip to commons where I’ve successfully nominated several mosques and Muslim shrines (all after considerable editing and correction) in Kashmir to QI status, or VI status. In fact, any good quality image of a mosque there is, you can bet it has already been nominated by me. One, of Charar-i-Shareif, is currently nominated at Commons:QIC. The woman’s picture I was also planning on nominating at WP:FP because I think the contrast is that good, and one of tge prerequisites is that it adds significant encyclopaedic value to articles (for which, no surprise, the image has to be in an article to begin with). It is highly likely to be declined for not being beat in the technical aspects. But anyway, has this now become an investigation into my wikipedia editing history? Quite the place for that this is, no? Lol. I don’t mind it, you, or anyone else is free to dig through my contributions. It’s not like I possibly can hide them. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I’m wise to the conceits of POV promotion but have other things to do than read their defensive rationales. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, clearly these “other things” include a deep dive into user UnpetitproleX’s contributions. I guess you could accuse me of things and choose to exit the conversation, it’s within your rights. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, have you ever visited Hazratbal? Because that alamy picture you posted above shows the women in the outer courtyard, which my guess is the outer courtyard towards the east or west of the shrine. The inner hall, which is the main shrine, is not open to women. I understand your confusion though, the picture almost had me fooled, and I can name almost every important building (and many inconsequential ones) in this beautiful panorama of Srinagar. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
And lastly, before accusing me of “Hindu-Sikh boosterism” please do make a trip to Conversion of mosques into non-Islamic places of worship, where my most significant addition using my previous account is the Babri Masjid (which I had to routinely rescue from Hindutva defacements and “janmabhoomi” drive-bys) and a couple of Gurudwaras that used to be mosques. It would be better to actually assume good faith, rather than just claim to do so. I shouldn’t have to get every edit of mine POV-OK’ed by you. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Coming to your other, more relevant concern, in what way have I presented the Sikhs in a better light? It’s not like I subtracted the part about their rule being generally oppressive, or the part about foreigners describing their rule as such, or the part about their taxes being so high they forced (word added by me) many to migrate out of Kashmir? I’ve only trimmed the minute details, and in fact I’ve removed the part describing how in such and such year they reduced taxes due to famine. It would be better to discuss without mudslinging.
Also, since you’re continuing in accusing me of POV-promotion, which you’re oh so wise to, then why did you remove the part about Sikandar Butshikan demolishing Martand? Was that a POV promotion by you? Anyway, I’ll not be engaging with any other accusation. Thanks for your time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to understand what F&f's contention is from the edit summaries. Is it that the Sikh's never raided Aksai Chin ("how did they get to the Kunluns") or is it that they also never got to Baltistan (might I point out, one does not cross the K2 or any part of the Karakorams to get to Skardu from Leh, both of which lie on the banks of the Indus)? Whichever is the case, leaving the argument to K3, and moving onto other things. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ladakh was under Sikh suzerainty in 1823,[1] which F&f doesn't know (and most scholars don't know either). And what he doesn't know is automatically false. He only reads highest quality textbooks, published by University presses, which have hundreds of citations. So his knowledge is perfect and complete. Anybody that questions it needs to have their head examined. Whatever that may be, you can only use the sources that he approves. What he approves may change at any given moment. He reserves his right to change his mind. You better not question his knowledge of geography either. He drew loads of maps himself and knows the entire territory at the back of his hand.
Coming back, the map maker drew the territory of Ladakh as understood at the time of drawing. Nothing strange about that.
As for Baltisan having been conquered in 1840, I can produce loads of sources. Victoria Schofield may not know the territory at the back of her hand, but she never makes up stuff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Handa, Buddhist Western Himalaya (2001, p. 180): "In AD 1818, Kashmir came under the Sikh kingdom of Punjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The Sikh diwan of Kashmir, Moti Ram, forced claim on the tribute that Ladakh had been paying to the Durrani ruler of Kabul at that time. The Gyelpo agreed and the Lahore Durbar was probably satisfied with that arrangement."

Taxation

Parking here a bunch of data on taxation that I managed to collect, during the various regimes:

I wish I had corroboration for the claim that the Aghans collected 6.0 m. It seems doubtful. But during the Sikh rule, they seem to have collected about 4.0 m, but after the 1832 famine, it fell drastically. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ratan Lal Hangloo, who did a more fine-grained analysis, states the following:

* In 1586 when the valley was included in the Mughal empire, the land revenue was theoretically demanded at one third of the produce but in practice it amounted to two thirds. Emperor Akbar fixed the land revenue demand at one half.[2] Under the Afghans (1553-1819) the state demand worked out to 60 to 65 percent of the produce.[3] The Sikh rulers (1819-1846) fixed the state's share of produce generally at one half but over and above this share the state levied a number of cesses.[4]

* The state under Maharaja Gulab Singh (1846-1851) realised the land revenue in kind, theoretically at the rate of one half of the produce.[5] But the taxes and cesses actually realised were far in excess of those that finally went into the treasury. In addition to a half of the produce as land revenue the peasant had to pay 16 per cent of the produce as trakee and abwabs.[6] The total demand amounted to two-thirds of the produce and one-third was left with the peasant.[7] But then this one-third was further subjected to a whole variety of exactions.

This suggests that the Kashmiri peasants were required to pay about two-thirds of the produce, both before and after the Mughal rule. Only during the Mughal rule was it reduced to one-half, thanks to Akbar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for such fancy FootwORk
I’ve been writing standard and vital history related articles for a very long time. The governing principles are very simple. Start with the major undergraduate and beginning graduate textbooks published by major academic publishers and read around the world with high
Google scholar citation indices per
WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY.
Once the lay of the land or perspective is clear, use scholarly monographs published by academic publishers with high citation indices for providing details or examples of that perspective. Finally do the same, if needed, with a small handful of scholarly articles with high citation indices. If it is good enough for the FA India, Wikipedia’s oldest country FA, in its 18th year, which I’ve been managing for 16, or to
British Raj, Company rule in India, Partition of India, Indus Valley Civilisation, or historical or literary biographies such as
SMandell Creighton or V. S. Naipaul, or subject surveys such as Indian Mathematics which too I have largely written and shaped their NPOV perspective, it must be good enough for a backwater such as kashmir.
So please write your version on a subpage of this talk page and I will write mine and we can have an RfC whatever it takes including assessments by outside experts and let the best editor win Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
You might add to your signature about the authorship of FA on India. Just saying .... TrangaBellam (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Just saying what? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Your use of WP:TERTIARY is to cherry-pick what suits your POV and shoot down everything else as inadmissible. That is not what WP:TERTIARY says. It says use them to balance opposing perspectives, to decide WP:WEIGHT.
A couple of essays say clearly that what you are attempting to do is fundamentally flawed: WP:TERTIARYUSE, WP:TSF. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
But they also say clearly, "Reliability of a tertiary source is principally determined by four factors: whether its producers (i.e. writers and/or editors) have subject-matter expertise, whether the underlying original sources of the non-novel material are clear, whether its producers are independent of the subject, and whether the work is generally regarded as reliable by others in the field in question (primarily a matter of authorial and publisher reputability)." Please read WP:RSTERTIARY]. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Please note that [WP:RSTERTIARY] also mentions "Another factor to consider with tertiary sources is they are often more error-prone than secondary sources, especially the more comprehensive they are". Jhy.rjwk (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
That is a very different kind of tertiary source. They are talking about a Who's Who written by bored operator.
David Ludden, the author of India and South Asia, on the other hand, from whom I have quoted below, and whose Wikipedia page I am about to create (check it out tomorrow at the same time) is one of the major scholars of South Asia, especially South India, especially its agrarian history. They are two very different things.
(The example they have in RSTERTIARY to illustrate that is: A database of millions of pieces of biographical data, each often taken from a single original primary source and added by a stressed and bored data-entry operator, is less likely to have gotten a particular individual's birth date correct than a book (secondary source) written about that person, drawing on multiple sources.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Errors are a different matter. All sources have errors. Give me 20 sources and I'll find errors in 19 if not all 20. I've been reading books with the eyes of a hawk for a very long time. Not showing off. It comes with the territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography

Infobox request

The page is pretty old and isn't checked for a long time, i believe the page needs a infobox to easily engage the audience in easy learning of the article and to promote information which is rather hard to find in the articles.
It would be a good idea to add a infobox so that the page looks nicer and refurbished.
Not long ago i made a infobox on this page myself but due to controversies it got removed on the reason of Copy-Paste situation by which i believe was supposed to be a minor mistake.
Hope somebody takes a action, thank you.
NameIsShaheer 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the infobox, or rather I should say I reverted the article to the version without the infobox, because it is a substantial addition that will require, at the very least, the figures and lists it presents to be accurate. The population figure is much bigger than the 10 million that was there (plus it needs to mention which year this figure is for, and what are the sources for the figure), the ethnic groups list did not include a majority of the territory’s population (Kashmiris may be the largest group, but are overall a minority in the whole territory). The countries column also did not include China, which administers parts of the territory.
I would’ve tried to put together an infobox but I’m currently busy and already have many other, more important edits pending. I also think that an infobox is not required in this article, and we should probably not add one because it will not add to the article in any meaningful way. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Colour of Ladakh

User:Fowler&fowler, tagging you as you're the one who edits the maps.

The colour of Ladakh should be the same as Jammu and Kashmir. Otherwise, the current colouring implies Ladakh is separate from the Kashmir dispute and India somehow has "more" sovereignty over the region. It's also not neutral to have Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir in the same colour but change Ladakh's colour in favour of India. Re12345 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is not the version of the consensus. An editor keeps changing it. I have reverted the Commons file to the original version in which the two colors are the same. It will show up soon on the Wikipedia version. Please keep an eye on the Commons file and help ensure that they don't do this again (you can also see the history of reverts there). Thanks for noticing and bringing up the matter here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I left a warning on the user's talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Why does Demographics section only talks about Hindus mostly?

Why does Demographics section only talks about Hindus mostly? Please make it inclusive of all demographics. 202.47.41.26 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The map of Kashmir that is currently shown in the Wikipedia article titled "Kashmir"

The map of Kashmir that is currently shown is out of date and should be replaced by the following map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Kashmir_Region_November_2019.jpg Atelerixia (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

Rugudu (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED PART NOT THE REGION OF INFDIA

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir/Archive_8&oldid=1196119521"